Now this is what I call an "Open Document Format"!
It is Open, as in open for hackers to drop root kits on your system.
As in grab you ankles open.
It is also Accessable, as other people now have access to your system.
Why does a document need to have the ability to contain code and execute code on your system?
I'd be happy with just formatting features and losing all "fancy garbage" that allows these holes to exist.
Pong: *humor only, no content here, move along*
on
Apple Sues Creative
·
· Score: 1
This is better then Tennis;-)
Too bad no one patented the idea of suing to hurt your competition...they would have made a killing. lol
Dinasaur News: Scientists discover that Dinasaurs went extinct because they sued themselves into extinction.
Instead of evolving, the large outdated dinasaurs opted to lock themselves into ever more restrictive and limiting genetic patent wars. They could no longer make any genetic evolution, because all improvments were patented. Dinasaur News: In other news, Open Source Mamals off to a small but promising start. These crazy warm blooded creatures just spread their DNA freely. How do they ever expect to dominate the world?
"No, but in this case it soounds like Symantec are doing the right thing. They've had discussions and they've failed."
Excellent point. I wish more companies tried to resolve things through talks and less agressive channels first.
Thanks for pointing that out!
"did you just read a book on patent history, or do a statistical analysis of what comments are most likely to get modded up on/.?"
I have studied patent history and I care more about expressing my thoughts and having meaningful discussions with other/. members then I do about mod points.
"as i see it, there is a threefold choice"
There are more choices then the 3 you offer, and it is widly accepted that the patent system is "broken".
Unless there is a major patent law reform this problem will only get worse.
"i am sick of patent stories generating responses about being sick of patent lawsuits, and i am sick of being given crash courses in the history of patents"
Perhaps you could make a list of all the things you are sick of so no one accidentially posts anything you are tired of hearing?;-P
While I'm happy it is so obvious to you, it hadn't been mentioned yet in this thread and hence not "Redundant".
(Unless of course you meant reduntdant as it it has been mentioned somewhere else at some other time, in which case 99% of Slashdot is -1 Redundant, including your remark.)
The real shame is that for the past 10 years nothing has been done about this issue and things are still getting worse.:-(
I'd give it a:
+3 Necessary
-1 Obvious
But then again I'm not an Anonymous Mod. wasting my modifier points;-)
While I don't doubt that Symantec has a valid point and that MS is using some of their IP without licensing it I have to ask...
Am I the only person sick to death of all the lawsuits and patents?
It seems like the world is getting more and more "locked down".
There is less and less anyone can do without knowingly or unknowlingly trampling someone else's IP.
To make matters worse there are Patent Trolls, locking up broad patents with the hopes of suing people to make money.
Those who can't sue.
All this has lead me to question the presumptions behind both copyrights and patents.
They were originally designed to spur innovation by protecting the people who invest their time and resources to research and develop new products or create original content.
It *SEEMS* to me that both are now acheiving the oppsite goal and limiting and hurting innovation.
While I don't think we can just get rid of either overnight, I think some careful consideration needs to go into reforming the laws to make sure that they serve their original purposes.
Just some thoughts that this discussion brought up for me...Cheers.
Wireless interference could crash this plane, whether intentional or accidential.
Crap, quick reboot the wifi router we're going down!
Also, couldn't this plane be remotly hacked, say from another nearby small plane, and made to fly somewhere the pilots don't intend?
Yikes!
It seems these telco's are spreading FUD that HD TV will make the internet usless unless we get rid of Net Neutrality. These same telco's all have plans of rolling out HD IPTV to the masses. So which is it?
ghoti06 - I'd respectfully recommend reading more about it. While I appreciate your optimism, everything I've read from the telco's perspective does not support that idea. They are not simply talking QoS or a premium service, both of which are already available in the Net Neutrailty we enjoy today.
>Whatever happened to technolibertarianism?
Not having Net Neutrality is like having techno-fiefdoms.
I'm all for Internet freedom which is why Net Neutrality is so important.
Net Neutrality allows, and is essential for, Internet innovation.
Without it you'd likely still be locked into a big company like AOL.
Net Neutrality isn't something new, it's the freedom we've been enjoying this entire time.
Passive degrading will ultimatly have the same effect as active degrading it will just take longer for the impact to be noticed.
Granted China is an extreme example. By censoring certain information from reaching its subscribers it is an example of non net neutrality. Instead of money being the motivation, control and cohesion are.
Perhaps instead you could offer an example you feel is "classic"?
The Economics:
Myth: Companies should have to pay for the bandwidth they use.
Facts:
All companies already pay for the bandwidth they use.
All consumers pay again for the bandwidth on the consuming end.
Since consumers are paying for the bandwidth they use, they should be able to use it how they want.
The telcos are charging at both ends of the same pipe, now they want to be able to charge a third time at an unlimited number of points in the middle.
Bandwidth is already paid for on both the outgoing and consuming ends, and there are contractual agreements for each network segment the packets pass through on their way from point A to point B. All bandwidth is already paid for. The telcos are proposing to add a THIRD layer of charges onto the Internet, one they can control and manipulate at will and can charge whatever they want for. Even worse, if a packet crosses through 3 networks on its way from from Point A to Point B that would be 3 additional charges. As everyone knows, these charges will be passed directly onto the consumers in one form or another.
Imagine the packet passes through 12 networks to reach you, if any one isn't being paid and blocks or degrades the packet YOU the consumer lose. There is no way to ensure that a packet gets priority unless the company is paying every single possible network that packet might pass through.
Freedom and Censorship:
Since companies would be controlling the flow of information through their networks based on how much they are being paid or any other uncontrolled criteria, they have great incentive to limit, or stop certain bits of information that is in conflict with their new data "Sponsors". Maybe you couldn't read a blog about lawysuits against the telco. Maybe you couldn't reach a news site that contained a story that exposed problems with a company that is paying the telco a lot of money. That is just the tip of the iceberg.
China is a perfect example of a country that does not allow Net Neutrality.
Net Neutrality is not only fair, and a key component in net freedom, it is the only model that will support innovation in a balanced way.
Don't give the Telcos a license to rob us all blind and restrict our freedoms.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet another thing to do in the car while driving "safely"!
The phone companies will love it too as users minutes skyrocket.
Now if only they could teach my sister to lock her keypad so she doesn't call me or podcast from her purse.
Maybe they should consider renaming MS Word to MS Access?
Now this is what I call an "Open Document Format"!
It is Open, as in open for hackers to drop root kits on your system.
As in grab you ankles open.
It is also Accessable, as other people now have access to your system.
Why does a document need to have the ability to contain code and execute code on your system?
I'd be happy with just formatting features and losing all "fancy garbage" that allows these holes to exist.
This is better then Tennis ;-)
Too bad no one patented the idea of suing to hurt your competition...they would have made a killing. lol
Dinasaur News: Scientists discover that Dinasaurs went extinct because they sued themselves into extinction.
Instead of evolving, the large outdated dinasaurs opted to lock themselves into ever more restrictive and limiting genetic patent wars. They could no longer make any genetic evolution, because all improvments were patented.
Dinasaur News: In other news, Open Source Mamals off to a small but promising start. These crazy warm blooded creatures just spread their DNA freely. How do they ever expect to dominate the world?
"No, but in this case it soounds like Symantec are doing the right thing. They've had discussions and they've failed."
Excellent point. I wish more companies tried to resolve things through talks and less agressive channels first.
Thanks for pointing that out!
"did you just read a book on patent history, or do a statistical analysis of what comments are most likely to get modded up on /.?" /. members then I do about mod points.
;-P
I have studied patent history and I care more about expressing my thoughts and having meaningful discussions with other
"as i see it, there is a threefold choice"
There are more choices then the 3 you offer, and it is widly accepted that the patent system is "broken".
Unless there is a major patent law reform this problem will only get worse.
"i am sick of patent stories generating responses about being sick of patent lawsuits, and i am sick of being given crash courses in the history of patents"
Perhaps you could make a list of all the things you are sick of so no one accidentially posts anything you are tired of hearing?
While I'm happy it is so obvious to you, it hadn't been mentioned yet in this thread and hence not "Redundant".
:-(
;-)
(Unless of course you meant reduntdant as it it has been mentioned somewhere else at some other time, in which case 99% of Slashdot is -1 Redundant, including your remark.)
The real shame is that for the past 10 years nothing has been done about this issue and things are still getting worse.
I'd give it a:
+3 Necessary
-1 Obvious
But then again I'm not an Anonymous Mod. wasting my modifier points
While I don't doubt that Symantec has a valid point and that MS is using some of their IP without licensing it I have to ask...
Am I the only person sick to death of all the lawsuits and patents?
It seems like the world is getting more and more "locked down".
There is less and less anyone can do without knowingly or unknowlingly trampling someone else's IP.
To make matters worse there are Patent Trolls, locking up broad patents with the hopes of suing people to make money.
Those who can't sue.
All this has lead me to question the presumptions behind both copyrights and patents.
They were originally designed to spur innovation by protecting the people who invest their time and resources to research and develop new products or create original content.
It *SEEMS* to me that both are now acheiving the oppsite goal and limiting and hurting innovation.
While I don't think we can just get rid of either overnight, I think some careful consideration needs to go into reforming the laws to make sure that they serve their original purposes.
Just some thoughts that this discussion brought up for me...Cheers.
Wireless interference could crash this plane, whether intentional or accidential. Crap, quick reboot the wifi router we're going down! Also, couldn't this plane be remotly hacked, say from another nearby small plane, and made to fly somewhere the pilots don't intend? Yikes!
They are not simply talking QoS or a premium service, both of which are already available in the Net Neutrailty we enjoy today.
It seems these telco's are spreading FUD that HD TV will make the internet usless unless we get rid of Net Neutrality. These same telco's all have plans of rolling out HD IPTV to the masses. So which is it?
ghoti06 - I'd respectfully recommend reading more about it. While I appreciate your optimism, everything I've read from the telco's perspective does not support that idea. They are not simply talking QoS or a premium service, both of which are already available in the Net Neutrailty we enjoy today.
>Whatever happened to technolibertarianism?
Not having Net Neutrality is like having techno-fiefdoms.
I'm all for Internet freedom which is why Net Neutrality is so important.
Net Neutrality allows, and is essential for, Internet innovation.
Without it you'd likely still be locked into a big company like AOL.
Net Neutrality isn't something new, it's the freedom we've been enjoying this entire time.
Passive degrading will ultimatly have the same effect as active degrading it will just take longer for the impact to be noticed.
Granted China is an extreme example. By censoring certain information from reaching its subscribers it is an example of non net neutrality. Instead of money being the motivation, control and cohesion are.
Perhaps instead you could offer an example you feel is "classic"?
The Economics:
Myth: Companies should have to pay for the bandwidth they use.
Facts:
Bandwidth is already paid for on both the outgoing and consuming ends, and there are contractual agreements for each network segment the packets pass through on their way from point A to point B. All bandwidth is already paid for. The telcos are proposing to add a THIRD layer of charges onto the Internet, one they can control and manipulate at will and can charge whatever they want for. Even worse, if a packet crosses through 3 networks on its way from from Point A to Point B that would be 3 additional charges. As everyone knows, these charges will be passed directly onto the consumers in one form or another.
Imagine the packet passes through 12 networks to reach you, if any one isn't being paid and blocks or degrades the packet YOU the consumer lose. There is no way to ensure that a packet gets priority unless the company is paying every single possible network that packet might pass through.
Freedom and Censorship:
Since companies would be controlling the flow of information through their networks based on how much they are being paid or any other uncontrolled criteria, they have great incentive to limit, or stop certain bits of information that is in conflict with their new data "Sponsors". Maybe you couldn't read a blog about lawysuits against the telco. Maybe you couldn't reach a news site that contained a story that exposed problems with a company that is paying the telco a lot of money. That is just the tip of the iceberg.
China is a perfect example of a country that does not allow Net Neutrality.
Net Neutrality is not only fair, and a key component in net freedom, it is the only model that will support innovation in a balanced way.
Don't give the Telcos a license to rob us all blind and restrict our freedoms.