Security has two big facets: actual security and the perception of security. What we don't want to see the world continue to do is rely on security through obscurity. We do not believe that is a good approach.
Openness is a great approach to security because all systems are hackable. People have been cracking proprietary systems for years without access to source code. The theory goes that source code makes it easier to perform certain kinds of cracking.
The big difference openness gives the world is that it gives [people] the opportunity to repair the fault and to do so in a more timely fashion to prevent further exploits, and so keep the system more secure.
And the community of folks who are interested in doing that is much larger, so we firmly believe that open systems over time are more secure than closed systems, and [that] at any given point in time they're more secure as well.
That is one aspect of it. But obscurity also has its advantages.
Ideally, if there were hundreds of open source packages to choose from, using one, but not telling anyone else which it is, should be even safer, as it has all the benefits of open source, and mostly all the benefts of obscurity.
It's a fine line to tread, but one that should not be forgotten.
The status of these projects is currently being reviewed by 800 delegates from 170 Brazilian and foreign
This makes me wonder. How can 800 delefgaters agree on anything? Sure, their intentions may be right, but wouldn't a group of closer to five or may be ten people be better?
When a company isn't actively going after business, they aren't actively *keeping* business, and therefore the quality of service rapidly declines until that segment is folded. I give it two years of hell and then a skillful withdrawal from the residential market.
I'm not so sure about that. Sprint Broadband seems ot be doing a fine service of retaining current customers.
The former group i believe are sexually devient no doubt due to some psychological trauma (or potentially some genetic inability to distinguish appropriate age of female partners), and should be identified and recieve psychotherapy of some sort.
So Mark Twain had psycological trauma? He preferred girls betweent he age of 10 and 16 (note that average age of puberty was closer to 16.5 then) or "school age girls". He claims that he worshipped them (his word).
Victorian times in general saw a rise of pedophiles, including Lewis Carrol. There was no trauma then, that is known.
There are two diferent differences between pedophiles. The first is pre/post pubescent. The former wants non-women either physically or emotionally, and the latter simply rejects the arbitrary "adult/child" ridiculosity that magically happens at some legislated age. If they are post pubescent, I really don't think they are pedophiles. Perhaps "statutory pedophile" would be a better term. Interestingly enough, the post pubescent crowd would probably keep away from prepubescents, except since legally there's no difference, they end up calling themselves pedophiles too, and then cross the puberty line figuring its an exploration into what they already are.
The second difference is more prominent, and that is male/female (of the child), and some studies have shown the great disparity between the groups. Males are generally nicer but the kids give in more easily, with females it's more like an adult relationship, but they just disregard age. It's almost scary what a search will pull up on this.
Upgrade for a game? Doesn't that increase the cost of the game? Games are expensive as it is, there's no reason they can't fit it in current common cases.
Games are made for people to play, not that people were made to play games. Games should fit current specifications, rather than demand more.
And then they wonder why sales are dismal.
Game consoles usually stay the same in each model, and games *must* work on them and cannot demand more. That's a good thing. It makes the developers do more with less. On PCs, people seem to do less with more. And that is a real problem.
Not moving there? Why would the Jet Propulsion Laboratory need them? The Jet Engine is Microsoft's anyway, they need access in their office anyway. Hmm... i guess they could nibble at it bit by bit, and take a bite out of it.
Obviously, they should be completely in control. Just like the developers, who are not completely in control. But, inasfar as the developers control design, the users should control interface.
Software should be designed, not just coded. And interface must be part of the design.
Personally, i like to ask the users what they want to see. Let *them* draw the screens, then merely implement it. A three-tiered approach is best, where called for. The backend should be design and implemented according toi a decent set of guidelines and rules, and the frontend should be completely designed by the user. The middle teir is where the magic should happen, even using a nasty hack here and there.
Ultimately the disparity between those who code software, and those who use software is a big problem. Perhaps a recognition of the separate group will go a long way.
What a picture! People going about their own business, yet beeing tracked.
One thing i think about is Star Trek, where just abut anybody can say "Computer.... where is so-and-so?" Yet, strangely enough, in their utopian society there was a natural respect for everyone. I'm not sure anyone really felt that was an abuse.
Cut to the Star Trek clone Voyager, and i remember one episode where they had to "research" someone, so they went through all their private logs. *That* is an abuse.
I don't see the cameras as a problem, its the people that use them. I simply do not trust them and especially the changing government behind them. Perhaps if a private company handled it though, there would be more respect.
People are not onlive, identities are, and people can have multiple identities. Stop limiting what you cannot.
Free trials should either be limiting, or hard to sign up for, so the person doesn't do it without really wanting to. Besides, all you want to do is deter people. That'll keep the legitimate people from doing it, but won't stop the crackers who'll find a way anyway.
Good deterences are easy to find. Even ip address helps there.
Star Trek is already messed up, with official knock-offs such as Voyager and Enterprise, that may be mistaken for real Star Trek. And now they want to make a movie? When will it be released? April 1st?
They need to go and make a DS-9 movie to end off the story there, and then continue with trek forward. This backwards trek stuff is just that.
If you means "database" as in the compound word, than you are correct, though it then is no different than a "knowledge base". However, the word "database" is generally taken to mean a specific application. And that includes transactions.
To be accurate, it will undo any changes since the last SAVEPOINT. A COMMIT includes an implicit SAVEPOINT.
It is important to note that a ROLLBACK restores nothing, it actually undoes work. This helps explain the hideous ORACLE error of a non-consistent page, on a SELECT!
Anyway, if it actually restored it, all transactions would be undone, and that would be a serious problem.
Most self-professed liberals simply were self-absorbed, and only allow others to do if it didn't encumber their own hedonistic or self-agrandizing roles.
The self self-professed conservatives, however, actually cared about society and the other people, and would try to help them, or at least keep them from falling down further.
---
As for liberals allowing for other view points, that is because they have none of their own. Thus, they are only in agreement when it conflicts. Since most cases do not conflict, there isn't an issue. Conservatives do see more things as black-and-white. That simply means that they actually have a well thought-out opinion.
---
On top of that, it is my contention that Replublicans/Conservatives are simply logical, whereas Democratrs/Liberals are not. But that is actually perfectly fine. Dicusssed that in a JE
Slashdot Mirror
Congressional Record
:)
But C-SPAN is so much more *fun*.
What about security?
Security has two big facets: actual security and the perception of security. What we don't want to see the world continue to do is rely on security through obscurity. We do not believe that is a good approach.
Openness is a great approach to security because all systems are hackable. People have been cracking proprietary systems for years without access to source code. The theory goes that source code makes it easier to perform certain kinds of cracking.
The big difference openness gives the world is that it gives [people] the opportunity to repair the fault and to do so in a more timely fashion to prevent further exploits, and so keep the system more secure.
And the community of folks who are interested in doing that is much larger, so we firmly believe that open systems over time are more secure than closed systems, and [that] at any given point in time they're more secure as well.
That is one aspect of it. But obscurity also has its advantages.
Ideally, if there were hundreds of open source packages to choose from, using one, but not telling anyone else which it is, should be even safer, as it has all the benefits of open source, and mostly all the benefts of obscurity.
It's a fine line to tread, but one that should not be forgotten.
The status of these projects is currently being reviewed by 800 delegates from 170 Brazilian and foreign
This makes me wonder. How can 800 delefgaters agree on anything? Sure, their intentions may be right, but wouldn't a group of closer to five or may be ten people be better?
Perhaps, this ought to be interesting.
It's not how much they can send, it's how quickly it can be sent.
When a company isn't actively going after business, they aren't actively *keeping* business, and therefore the quality of service rapidly declines until that segment is folded. I give it two years of hell and then a skillful withdrawal from the residential market.
I'm not so sure about that. Sprint Broadband seems ot be doing a fine service of retaining current customers.
The former group i believe are sexually devient no doubt due to some psychological trauma (or potentially some genetic inability to distinguish appropriate age of female partners), and should be identified and recieve psychotherapy of some sort.
So Mark Twain had psycological trauma? He preferred girls betweent he age of 10 and 16 (note that average age of puberty was closer to 16.5 then) or "school age girls". He claims that he worshipped them (his word).
Victorian times in general saw a rise of pedophiles, including Lewis Carrol. There was no trauma then, that is known.
There are two diferent differences between pedophiles. The first is pre/post pubescent. The former wants non-women either physically or emotionally, and the latter simply rejects the arbitrary "adult/child" ridiculosity that magically happens at some legislated age. If they are post pubescent, I really don't think they are pedophiles. Perhaps "statutory pedophile" would be a better term. Interestingly enough, the post pubescent crowd would probably keep away from prepubescents, except since legally there's no difference, they end up calling themselves pedophiles too, and then cross the puberty line figuring its an exploration into what they already are.
The second difference is more prominent, and that is male/female (of the child), and some studies have shown the great disparity between the groups. Males are generally nicer but the kids give in more easily, with females it's more like an adult relationship, but they just disregard age. It's almost scary what a search will pull up on this.
Upgrade for a game? Doesn't that increase the cost of the game? Games are expensive as it is, there's no reason they can't fit it in current common cases.
Games are made for people to play, not that people were made to play games. Games should fit current specifications, rather than demand more.
And then they wonder why sales are dismal.
Game consoles usually stay the same in each model, and games *must* work on them and cannot demand more. That's a good thing. It makes the developers do more with less. On PCs, people seem to do less with more. And that is a real problem.
You are correct. Pointing blame does not help. However, accepting responsibility does.
Does lower sales mean a bad market or lower quality?
Not moving there? Why would the Jet Propulsion Laboratory need them? The Jet Engine is Microsoft's anyway, they need access in their office anyway. Hmm... i guess they could nibble at it bit by bit, and take a bite out of it.
"Lindows" was to match "Windows", so i am happy with the decision. And that Microsoft is *helping* them is even nicer. Good things do happen...
Obviously, they should be completely in control. Just like the developers, who are not completely in control. But, inasfar as the developers control design, the users should control interface.
Wow, a little hard, but pretty amazing,
Wowe, that's pretty amazing.
The developers should make some rules, bur, as you said, ultimately it's for the users.
Software should be designed, not just coded. And interface must be part of the design.
Personally, i like to ask the users what they want to see. Let *them* draw the screens, then merely implement it. A three-tiered approach is best, where called for. The backend should be design and implemented according toi a decent set of guidelines and rules, and the frontend should be completely designed by the user. The middle teir is where the magic should happen, even using a nasty hack here and there.
Ultimately the disparity between those who code software, and those who use software is a big problem. Perhaps a recognition of the separate group will go a long way.
What a picture! People going about their own business, yet beeing tracked.
One thing i think about is Star Trek, where just abut anybody can say "Computer.... where is so-and-so?" Yet, strangely enough, in their utopian society there was a natural respect for everyone. I'm not sure anyone really felt that was an abuse.
Cut to the Star Trek clone Voyager, and i remember one episode where they had to "research" someone, so they went through all their private logs. *That* is an abuse.
I don't see the cameras as a problem, its the people that use them. I simply do not trust them and especially the changing government behind them. Perhaps if a private company handled it though, there would be more respect.
Impossible.
People are not onlive, identities are, and people can have multiple identities. Stop limiting what you cannot.
Free trials should either be limiting, or hard to sign up for, so the person doesn't do it without really wanting to. Besides, all you want to do is deter people. That'll keep the legitimate people from doing it, but won't stop the crackers who'll find a way anyway.
Good deterences are easy to find. Even ip address helps there.
500,000?? That's longer than the world existed. Sheesh wake up and smell the cofee dudes.
Who cares?
Star Trek is already messed up, with official knock-offs such as Voyager and Enterprise, that may be mistaken for real Star Trek. And now they want to make a movie? When will it be released? April 1st?
They need to go and make a DS-9 movie to end off the story there, and then continue with trek forward. This backwards trek stuff is just that.
If you means "database" as in the compound word, than you are correct, though it then is no different than a "knowledge base". However, the word "database" is generally taken to mean a specific application. And that includes transactions.
will restore everything since the last "COMMIT"
To be accurate, it will undo any changes since the last SAVEPOINT. A COMMIT includes an implicit SAVEPOINT.
It is important to note that a ROLLBACK restores nothing, it actually undoes work. This helps explain the hideous ORACLE error of a non-consistent page, on a SELECT!
Anyway, if it actually restored it, all transactions would be undone, and that would be a serious problem.
There are also lots of databases that do not have transactions,
Well, if it has no transactions, it isn't really a database.
Pretty neat actually. Basically, this is a hard lock, or at least close to it.
It's probably only a matter of time before the DVD players themselves becomes disposable, with the DVD or equivalent locked inside.
*music plays*
"KITT, go park."
"Michael!?!"
"KITT, did you want that oil change i promised you?"
Actually, i have found the exact opposite.
Most self-professed liberals simply were self-absorbed, and only allow others to do if it didn't encumber their own hedonistic or self-agrandizing roles.
The self self-professed conservatives, however, actually cared about society and the other people, and would try to help them, or at least keep them from falling down further.
---
As for liberals allowing for other view points, that is because they have none of their own. Thus, they are only in agreement when it conflicts. Since most cases do not conflict, there isn't an issue. Conservatives do see more things as black-and-white. That simply means that they actually have a well thought-out opinion.
---
On top of that, it is my contention that Replublicans/Conservatives are simply logical, whereas Democratrs/Liberals are not. But that is actually perfectly fine. Dicusssed that in a JE