The parent I responded to was in two parts: one boring (with an interesting link) and one "funny". I didn't think any of them was particular funny, because I've seen it so many times before.
So yes, maybe I should Open Source my sense of humour. But I must be willing to change that humour also for it to have any effect on me.
Actually if you had really understood what was written in that link, you would have known that the author opinioned that access to the sourcecode is the _only way_ to be sure of the security. The flaw his examples showed was to trust a proprietary compiler, or any program for that matter. Instead of demanding the source with it. Of course the binary may still be tampered with, therefore you should compile everything yourself with a compiler you _trust_ (keyword), or perhaps audit the binary comparing it with the assembler source/output.
Now to demand this level of security of everyone is both unrealistic and cumbersome. But it's a nice theory showing the special dependent relationship between programs and their compiler.
As for putting an equal sign between Open Source and security, I agree that's a mistake. Just because something is readable to everyone doesn't mean it's suddenly secure and bug-free. However it may become more so than most proprietary commercial programs, if the software catches on.
"No. Finding any type of bug by using is a heck of a lot easier than finding bugs by examining source. Just imagine auditing 50k lines of source. Now imagine using a program, and discovering some subtle flaw in the output, like the wrong number of significant digits in some tabulated data displayed on a web page."
This is not always true. It depends on the bug and here we ain't talking about an ordinary testbed.
You are partly right and partly wrong. Some bugs are easier to find in the binary code, since then you _know_ excactly how to exploit the output. While others, more compiler/environment/library-independent and perhaps more complex or subtle, are easier found auditing code. There's even software that can audit code for you, though I wouldn't trust that entirely for security applications.
Of course, the definition of what is "easy" is relatively subjective too.
If you're so tired of reading Slashdot I'll recommend going someplace else with higher value to you. Why continue doing something you've clearly and superbly grown out of?
That link is EXCACTLY why I hate such pyramid-scemes. Bleh and bleh and bleh!;-)
Sponsor this and sponsor that. Why should I sponsor you just because you gave me the link? Such schemes are for stupid people. It encourages people to work for an organization for fictional value interest, which only those at the top of the iceberg will see the day of. If you do the math and calculate how the numbers escalate towards the top of an n-leveled pyramid, you'll see...
Why are people crying about someone trademarking a smell here, and the other bunch saying it's only connected to tennisballs or sumthin', like that really matters?
Oh yes, it's/. But have any of you wondered about that we're actually complaining/bitching about something that which we have already given up/lost in another sense?
It's ILLEGAL in most countries to use certain trademarked logos (graphical icons). So why the fucking hell do we bitch about when we're going to be deprived of certain smells (smell of fresh grass) with certain types of products? (Not like I can sell Coca Cola-shoes anyways so there goes those robo-comments down the drain too..)
You'd think we WERE alive or sumthin'...
You bright people tell me what the fucking difference is between vision and smell... Not that smell matters anymore anyways, humanity is losing it because we don't need it in cyberspace (it seems).
- Steeltoe
fucking WAKE UP people! Don't waste energy debating/fighting this BS. Just live.
(Yes, I'm drunk at this stage. If Microsoft or someone else wants to pull this article plz do so. If it stinks _that_ bad it better;-)
Firstly there's no way you can force someone into learning a programming language and make them become good at it. So, when your kids are eager to learn something else on your computer besides playing games and browsing pr0^H^H^Hkid's stuff, you should consider the fact that your kids view you as their role-model. This can be both good and bad. Don't try to enforce your views on them, but try to give _them_ the choice of what they want to do (what results they want to get etc), support their decisions even though you disagree with them.
What example do you set for your kids? I make an educated guess they have seen you programming some, either at work or at home. If not, they will have no idea what to imitate from you. Also, if they have never used or even seen a UNIX-like OS, they will have big trouble relating to- and learning that. The OS they learn to program in should be the one they usually use. I would therefore recommend installing Linux or BSD w/VmWare at home, so they have the *choice* to try it out at least. If they like it, they'll want to use it and program in it. Not before. However, they'll also have their fun to play around with these "arcane" CLI-OSes now and then (be like Dad). (Yes I know Linux/BSD is not CLI-only, but the CLI is one of the best charms/learning experiences of these OSes)
This doesn't mean they *have* to begin programming in UNIX, but it's nice to think that at least they won't learn many of the bad habits you get from programming in a Microsoft-centric world, e.g Visual Studio. Anyways, in the beginning it's best to use a CLI-only interface to learn the basic ropes without getting distracted by nifty features. People who have always used pretty GUIs/IDEs are in deep-sh*t when they come to a CLI-only interface. They also tend to miss out on alot of good programming theories and styles (since they're used to reading Microsoft-help documents and try to compile until everything "works" instead of RTFM).
One more advice: Give them access to the proper documentation and tutorials (books, not online crap). They should learn the rights and wrong from a good book which clearly defines everything there is to know in the language. There's no good substitute for good documentation, and it works wonders to read them at the bedside (in terms of learning. What you read in the evening, you remember longer but it also takes longer to learn to remember at all!;-). You DON'T want the night-reading for the kids to be on the computer...
Some people suggested Mindstorms, and I must say that sounds really k3wl. This is something that a kid may REALLY relate to I think, at a very low age too. However, it has boundaries and limitations. It won't really teach a kid to Really program.
Another "programming language" with immediate results would be HTML/CGI w/Javascripts. However, this is also not a good substitute to really learn a real programming language in its right environment. A basic programming language with access to GUI libraries would satisfy the kids enough in the beginning anyways methinks. (They don't really expect to create immersive 3D-games, and making applications is B00RING!;)
I would recommend an OO-language, perhaps Java is the best/easiest one in this regard. As a starting language you learn to think in objects rather than pointers and references in C++;-) Note that I don't think Java is any prettier/more functional language though..
Remember the whole thing should be fun and social. I don't think it's cool to raise a bunch of lone geeks who wants to be like Dad. It doesn't nescessarily mean they have to sacrifice learning good programming, but there are other things in life besides computers and programming.
PS. If the kids lose interest you could always play them a tape while they're sleeping saying: You waaant to program P3rl, you waaant to bee like Daaad...
This is just the same issue. Let them prove monetary damage when/. can prove the "Slashdot"-effect has suddenly made the magazine stupid rich -- or something..
It's probably a breach of distribution of copyrighted material though. So it's illegal and immoral and/. should be shot for this!!
"Feeling guilty" is just a way for someone or something to have control over you. Right now you're trying to have control over people "pirating" (what a lame word). It's very obvious, but we're so used to it we don't think about it. We're affected though, even if it really doesn't change our habits, it changes how we feel about ourselves.
You may think that this is allright, but it's really not. So what if a company dies a horrible death? It's just a company, not living. Why should anyone of us feel guilty of their bad business decisions? It was totally out of our reach for us, and to pretend otherwise is controversial at best. Why do you want to push _bad feelings_ on thousands of people? What good do you really think that is? If you think that every means is justifiable to meet an end, well I could just kill you to make you shut up (ironic).
1) The capitalistic market we're living in doesn't permit fringe awesome quality games that Looking Glass has made (Ultima Underworld I & II, Thief I & II, etc. We shouldn't feel guilty because we're living in a world where Brittney Spears tops the rankings, and Smashing Pumpkins have to give up against the marketing machine. We should _change_ it, promote change at the very least. It doesn't help to whine.
2) Was piracy really any worse for Looking Glass' products than for any others? Would it really matter, with more money they could just as well do bigger mistakes. Who knows? Stop putting people down!
3) If all games were sold at the price they have now, and it was impossible to pirate them, I wouldn't play much. That wouldn't be a bad thing either. Not that I'm playing much now anyways, I'm thinking more of before, and hell, at that time I would perhaps afford to get ripped off buying a game every 2 months (if I used up all my allowance).
I'm sad that the people behind Looking Glass have to go through this. They surely don't deserve it, but I'm sure they'll be offered good jobs in other companies. Liff sucks and all that.
I would be happy to pay the price to play games all the time. On occations I buy games I really want or if they're huge (1 CD, most are these days). But even though I make alot of money, doesn't mean I can afford all the games I want to try. Besides, most of the times I've bought a game I've felt REALLY ripped off!
Yes, life is controversial and full of dilemmas. But if we stop fighting and controlling each other, instead do good, there's a much better chance for us.
That's why those pesky virii survived all the time on my friend's Amiga 500. We had some hefty discussions about how they managed to survive, too bad none of us had any clue on the Amiga-hardware.
Its popularity has nothing with "superbness" over Brave New World or 1984, but rather that it is simply a more publically known and advertised book -- it is also easier to read and relate to. Of those three books, my _personal_ favourite is Brave New World since it was so way ahead for its time (which is something I adore about SF-works of people like Jules Verne etc). I think Fahrenheit 451 is socially important but lacks the depth of the other two novels -- the invisible that you can only feel.
I visited boo.com when the over-hyped site was announced and was appalled at once of the incredibly stupid web-design -- or lack thereof. It was just a huge bloat of features and useless animations (can't remember any MIDI or sfx, but then again I only have a headset so I probably didn't notice). Even though I am on a fast line, it was slow as hell and left little power and choice to the visitor. There was no way of browsing their pages through text-only HTML and HTTP. I remember thinking that if they don't change their webpage, they'll surely go bankrupt, or at least I hoped so.
Even their marketing strategy I couldn't understand. Why would people want to buy _sportswear_ over the Internet? That's one of the last things you'll want to buy unviewed and untried. Consumers in this product-area is very selective and sensitive. You'll want the right colour, size, brand and in most cases you'll want to _try_ out to see what you like. Think of shoes for jogging for instance! This is all very individual.
All in all, I'm pretty happy my conclusions at that stage were correct. Not because it could never become a success, but because they violated so much regard for consumers that they truly deserved this!
This should be a lesson to all that simplicity, flexibility and choice are three fundamentals of success in design in _all areas_. You may add as much bloat and features you like, but regarding these fundamentals will eventually scare people away. This is just one very horrific example, more will hopefully follow in the future. People will learn to avoid bloatware, since it's a cause of stress and disharmony.
"Sign up others and start building your own branch of the ProcessTree. You'll get a percentage of the payments that go to the computers below you in your branch organization."
This sounds like a pyramid-scheme. As soon as I see something like this I stay way clear of it. Pyramid-schemes suggest that you own others that you invite to the party, benefiting (in %) from all their work. It encourages selfish and unethical behaviour, like spam and conning. It's a bad way to promote an organizations, but can sadly be very effective.
Microsoft shouldn't call this a "security fix", because it simply isn't one. A security fix is code patched on to prevent bad things from happening, but bad things can still happen using Outlook or any other email program out there. What this has done is just breaking alot of functionality when sending emails. Most emails with scripts and exe-files are perfectly legitimate emails, but will now be blocked. The file extension doesn't nescessarily have anything to do with Microsoft-based fileformats in any way either, but they will still be blocked. Also there'll still be lots of other scripts that can be "opened" (run) by the user, and its no big deal to send it in another format (inside a compressed file for instance). Most users know how to unzip a file...(if WinZip is installed)
So this hasn't "fixed" anything, and I certainly hope it won't fix Microsofts reputation either. The problem here isn't that data can be "opened" (run). Far from it. The problem is malicious code that should be prevented by layers of security inherent in the application, OS and computer-network. And if the administrator is a dummy, you could add a Virus-scanner to block known malicious code.
...which is excactly why RMS favours the term Free Software.
Heck, even I think Open Source sounds like you can get a peek at the source but not necessarily any rights along with it. After the commercial abuse of Open Source, I think it's appropriate to use the term Free Software. It won't be abused because of its obvious naming...
I think what he meant is that the _cache_ in Google is storing "full" (not quite) web-pages and redistributing it. That's how I've always seen on it though. It's probably illegal, but I still think it is morally right d;-)
"Channels buying US programs from countries outside the US would have a good reason to be pissed off at this site. In Australia, we get programs up to a couple of seasons after they air in the US."
How can a company be pissed off? I thought feelings were reserved for humans and animals.
It sounds to me like the viewers of programs in other countries should be pissed off by constantly getting ripped off. Why do they only send old reruns on the TV?
"Given this, TV companies over here are going to feel their product is being diluted by the availability of these shows to Australian viewers well before their air on TV. "
The selection is already diluted and limited, by the very same companies that export from the US and those that import. Removing a limitation might feel like you are losing something when its the reason you make alot of money. However, all power-structures have to come down sometime (ie, "what goes up, must come down"). Companies has an opportunity to make money, but it's not a right. If they fail to follow the dynamics of the market and development, they will fall down eventually.
I might as well ask you, what's wrong with breaking silly and outdated laws? Haven't commercialism reached its peak yet? -- And don't we want REAL content instead of that plastic make-believe world that is the media today (owned by RIAA, Time-Warner and AOL)?
However, I have to agree with you that this is illegal. Perhaps both on redistribution of cable service and copyrighted content. Alas, I disagree it's morally wrong to do what is most efficient and convinient.
- Steeltoe
Re:Napster using DMCA to evade Metallica
on
An MP3 Update
·
· Score: 1
So this is where Law is going:
"Do you swear to tell the Truth and nothing but the Truth?"
How about reporting on this to the developers instead of whining about it here? Not to put you down or anything, but there are so many complaining, whining and doing _nothing_ about it. Do you really expect anybody to do anything about _your_ problems if you don't come with constructive ideas? This is Open Source, you can rewrite the code/interface or come up with usable suggestions yourself. Even Microsoft have done research among their customers to get their UI done "right" (questionable in various areas).
How about drawing some simple sketches and mailing them to the developers? I'm sure they'll be happy for such input, for they surely can't "innovate" every application out there. They're making the tools highly open and modular (bonobo), just don't excpect one company/one group of people to deliver the best all-round solution.
This whole mess is also about freedom, in a few years there'll probably be several interfaces to the various Gnome-apps, maybe even some text-based ones? Then the whiners will whine about something else... *sigh*
Slashdot Mirror
The parent I responded to was in two parts: one boring (with an interesting link) and one "funny". I didn't think any of them was particular funny, because I've seen it so many times before.
So yes, maybe I should Open Source my sense of humour. But I must be willing to change that humour also for it to have any effect on me.
- Steeltoe
Actually if you had really understood what was written in that link, you would have known that the author opinioned that access to the sourcecode is the _only way_ to be sure of the security. The flaw his examples showed was to trust a proprietary compiler, or any program for that matter. Instead of demanding the source with it. Of course the binary may still be tampered with, therefore you should compile everything yourself with a compiler you _trust_ (keyword), or perhaps audit the binary comparing it with the assembler source/output.
Now to demand this level of security of everyone is both unrealistic and cumbersome. But it's a nice theory showing the special dependent relationship between programs and their compiler.
As for putting an equal sign between Open Source and security, I agree that's a mistake. Just because something is readable to everyone doesn't mean it's suddenly secure and bug-free. However it may become more so than most proprietary commercial programs, if the software catches on.
- Steeltoe
"No. Finding any type of bug by using is a heck of a lot easier than finding bugs by examining source. Just imagine auditing 50k lines of source. Now imagine using a program, and discovering some subtle flaw in the output, like the wrong number of significant digits in some tabulated data displayed on a web page."
This is not always true. It depends on the bug and here we ain't talking about an ordinary testbed.
You are partly right and partly wrong. Some bugs are easier to find in the binary code, since then you _know_ excactly how to exploit the output. While others, more compiler/environment/library-independent and perhaps more complex or subtle, are easier found auditing code. There's even software that can audit code for you, though I wouldn't trust that entirely for security applications.
Of course, the definition of what is "easy" is relatively subjective too.
- Steeltoe
If you're so tired of reading Slashdot I'll recommend going someplace else with higher value to you. Why continue doing something you've clearly and superbly grown out of?
- Steeltoe
That link is EXCACTLY why I hate such pyramid-scemes. Bleh and bleh and bleh! ;-)
Sponsor this and sponsor that. Why should I sponsor you just because you gave me the link? Such schemes are for stupid people. It encourages people to work for an organization for fictional value interest, which only those at the top of the iceberg will see the day of. If you do the math and calculate how the numbers escalate towards the top of an n-leveled pyramid, you'll see...
- Steeltoe
Why are people crying about someone trademarking a smell here, and the other bunch saying it's only connected to tennisballs or sumthin', like that really matters?
/. But have any of you wondered about that we're actually complaining/bitching about something that which we have already given up/lost in another sense?
;-)
Oh yes, it's
It's ILLEGAL in most countries to use certain trademarked logos (graphical icons). So why the fucking hell do we bitch about when we're going to be deprived of certain smells (smell of fresh grass) with certain types of products? (Not like I can sell Coca Cola-shoes anyways so there goes those robo-comments down the drain too..)
You'd think we WERE alive or sumthin'...
You bright people tell me what the fucking difference is between vision and smell... Not that smell matters anymore anyways, humanity is losing it because we don't need it in cyberspace (it seems).
- Steeltoe
fucking WAKE UP people! Don't waste energy debating/fighting this BS. Just live.
(Yes, I'm drunk at this stage. If Microsoft or someone else wants to pull this article plz do so. If it stinks _that_ bad it better
Firstly there's no way you can force someone into learning a programming language and make them become good at it. So, when your kids are eager to learn something else on your computer besides playing games and browsing pr0^H^H^Hkid's stuff, you should consider the fact that your kids view you as their role-model. This can be both good and bad. Don't try to enforce your views on them, but try to give _them_ the choice of what they want to do (what results they want to get etc), support their decisions even though you disagree with them.
;-). You DON'T want the night-reading for the kids to be on the computer...
;)
;-) Note that I don't think Java is any prettier/more functional language though..
What example do you set for your kids? I make an educated guess they have seen you programming some, either at work or at home. If not, they will have no idea what to imitate from you. Also, if they have never used or even seen a UNIX-like OS, they will have big trouble relating to- and learning that. The OS they learn to program in should be the one they usually use. I would therefore recommend installing Linux or BSD w/VmWare at home, so they have the *choice* to try it out at least. If they like it, they'll want to use it and program in it. Not before. However, they'll also have their fun to play around with these "arcane" CLI-OSes now and then (be like Dad). (Yes I know Linux/BSD is not CLI-only, but the CLI is one of the best charms/learning experiences of these OSes)
This doesn't mean they *have* to begin programming in UNIX, but it's nice to think that at least they won't learn many of the bad habits you get from programming in a Microsoft-centric world, e.g Visual Studio. Anyways, in the beginning it's best to use a CLI-only interface to learn the basic ropes without getting distracted by nifty features. People who have always used pretty GUIs/IDEs are in deep-sh*t when they come to a CLI-only interface. They also tend to miss out on alot of good programming theories and styles (since they're used to reading Microsoft-help documents and try to compile until everything "works" instead of RTFM).
One more advice: Give them access to the proper documentation and tutorials (books, not online crap). They should learn the rights and wrong from a good book which clearly defines everything there is to know in the language. There's no good substitute for good documentation, and it works wonders to read them at the bedside (in terms of learning. What you read in the evening, you remember longer but it also takes longer to learn to remember at all!
Some people suggested Mindstorms, and I must say that sounds really k3wl. This is something that a kid may REALLY relate to I think, at a very low age too. However, it has boundaries and limitations. It won't really teach a kid to Really program.
Another "programming language" with immediate results would be HTML/CGI w/Javascripts. However, this is also not a good substitute to really learn a real programming language in its right environment. A basic programming language with access to GUI libraries would satisfy the kids enough in the beginning anyways methinks. (They don't really expect to create immersive 3D-games, and making applications is B00RING!
I would recommend an OO-language, perhaps Java is the best/easiest one in this regard. As a starting language you learn to think in objects rather than pointers and references in C++
Remember the whole thing should be fun and social. I don't think it's cool to raise a bunch of lone geeks who wants to be like Dad. It doesn't nescessarily mean they have to sacrifice learning good programming, but there are other things in life besides computers and programming.
PS. If the kids lose interest you could always play them a tape while they're sleeping saying: You waaant to program P3rl, you waaant to bee like Daaad...
- Steeltoe
This is just the same issue. Let them prove monetary damage when /. can prove the "Slashdot"-effect has suddenly made the magazine stupid rich -- or something..
/. should be shot for this!!
It's probably a breach of distribution of copyrighted material though. So it's illegal and immoral and
- Steeltoe
"Feeling guilty" is just a way for someone or something to have control over you. Right now you're trying to have control over people "pirating" (what a lame word). It's very obvious, but we're so used to it we don't think about it. We're affected though, even if it really doesn't change our habits, it changes how we feel about ourselves.
;-)
You may think that this is allright, but it's really not. So what if a company dies a horrible death? It's just a company, not living. Why should anyone of us feel guilty of their bad business decisions? It was totally out of our reach for us, and to pretend otherwise is controversial at best. Why do you want to push _bad feelings_ on thousands of people? What good do you really think that is? If you think that every means is justifiable to meet an end, well I could just kill you to make you shut up (ironic).
1) The capitalistic market we're living in doesn't permit fringe awesome quality games that Looking Glass has made (Ultima Underworld I & II, Thief I & II, etc. We shouldn't feel guilty because we're living in a world where Brittney Spears tops the rankings, and Smashing Pumpkins have to give up against the marketing machine. We should _change_ it, promote change at the very least. It doesn't help to whine.
2) Was piracy really any worse for Looking Glass' products than for any others? Would it really matter, with more money they could just as well do bigger mistakes. Who knows? Stop putting people down!
3) If all games were sold at the price they have now, and it was impossible to pirate them, I wouldn't play much. That wouldn't be a bad thing either. Not that I'm playing much now anyways, I'm thinking more of before, and hell, at that time I would perhaps afford to get ripped off buying a game every 2 months (if I used up all my allowance).
I'm sad that the people behind Looking Glass have to go through this. They surely don't deserve it, but I'm sure they'll be offered good jobs in other companies. Liff sucks and all that.
I would be happy to pay the price to play games all the time. On occations I buy games I really want or if they're huge (1 CD, most are these days). But even though I make alot of money, doesn't mean I can afford all the games I want to try. Besides, most of the times I've bought a game I've felt REALLY ripped off!
Yes, life is controversial and full of dilemmas. But if we stop fighting and controlling each other, instead do good, there's a much better chance for us.
- Steeltoe
Yes, I know my opinions suck
"(but my AOL should back up important things, right? It said that it would make sure that I had an excellent browsing experiance!)."
If AOL didn't back it up, it wasn't important d:-)
- Steeltoe
That's why those pesky virii survived all the time on my friend's Amiga 500. We had some hefty discussions about how they managed to survive, too bad none of us had any clue on the Amiga-hardware.
- Steeltoe
In time, everything will be revealed.
Here's a link to a site about Aldous Huxley.
- Steeltoe
I visited boo.com when the over-hyped site was announced and was appalled at once of the incredibly stupid web-design -- or lack thereof. It was just a huge bloat of features and useless animations (can't remember any MIDI or sfx, but then again I only have a headset so I probably didn't notice). Even though I am on a fast line, it was slow as hell and left little power and choice to the visitor. There was no way of browsing their pages through text-only HTML and HTTP. I remember thinking that if they don't change their webpage, they'll surely go bankrupt, or at least I hoped so.
Even their marketing strategy I couldn't understand. Why would people want to buy _sportswear_ over the Internet? That's one of the last things you'll want to buy unviewed and untried. Consumers in this product-area is very selective and sensitive. You'll want the right colour, size, brand and in most cases you'll want to _try_ out to see what you like. Think of shoes for jogging for instance! This is all very individual.
All in all, I'm pretty happy my conclusions at that stage were correct. Not because it could never become a success, but because they violated so much regard for consumers that they truly deserved this!
This should be a lesson to all that simplicity, flexibility and choice are three fundamentals of success in design in _all areas_. You may add as much bloat and features you like, but regarding these fundamentals will eventually scare people away. This is just one very horrific example, more will hopefully follow in the future. People will learn to avoid bloatware, since it's a cause of stress and disharmony.
- Steeltoe
"Sign up others and start building your own branch of the ProcessTree. You'll get a percentage of the payments that go to the computers below you in your branch organization."
This sounds like a pyramid-scheme. As soon as I see something like this I stay way clear of it. Pyramid-schemes suggest that you own others that you invite to the party, benefiting (in %) from all their work. It encourages selfish and unethical behaviour, like spam and conning. It's a bad way to promote an organizations, but can sadly be very effective.
- Steeltoe
Microsoft shouldn't call this a "security fix", because it simply isn't one. A security fix is code patched on to prevent bad things from happening, but bad things can still happen using Outlook or any other email program out there. What this has done is just breaking alot of functionality when sending emails. Most emails with scripts and exe-files are perfectly legitimate emails, but will now be blocked. The file extension doesn't nescessarily have anything to do with Microsoft-based fileformats in any way either, but they will still be blocked. Also there'll still be lots of other scripts that can be "opened" (run) by the user, and its no big deal to send it in another format (inside a compressed file for instance). Most users know how to unzip a file...(if WinZip is installed)
So this hasn't "fixed" anything, and I certainly hope it won't fix Microsofts reputation either. The problem here isn't that data can be "opened" (run). Far from it. The problem is malicious code that should be prevented by layers of security inherent in the application, OS and computer-network. And if the administrator is a dummy, you could add a Virus-scanner to block known malicious code.
- Steeltoe
...which is excactly why RMS favours the term Free Software.
Heck, even I think Open Source sounds like you can get a peek at the source but not necessarily any rights along with it. After the commercial abuse of Open Source, I think it's appropriate to use the term Free Software. It won't be abused because of its obvious naming...
- Steeltoe
In most countries you don't have to prove your innocence... THEY must have legal evidences/witnesses against you.
- Steeltoe
I think what he meant is that the _cache_ in Google is storing "full" (not quite) web-pages and redistributing it. That's how I've always seen on it though. It's probably illegal, but I still think it is morally right d;-)
- Steeltoe
"Channels buying US programs from countries outside the US would have a good reason to be pissed off at this site. In Australia, we get programs up to a couple of seasons after they air in the US."
How can a company be pissed off? I thought feelings were reserved for humans and animals.
It sounds to me like the viewers of programs in other countries should be pissed off by constantly getting ripped off. Why do they only send old reruns on the TV?
"Given this, TV companies over here are going to feel their product is being diluted by the availability of these shows to Australian viewers well before their air on TV. "
The selection is already diluted and limited, by the very same companies that export from the US and those that import. Removing a limitation might feel like you are losing something when its the reason you make alot of money. However, all power-structures have to come down sometime (ie, "what goes up, must come down"). Companies has an opportunity to make money, but it's not a right. If they fail to follow the dynamics of the market and development, they will fall down eventually.
- Steeltoe
I might as well ask you, what's wrong with breaking silly and outdated laws? Haven't commercialism reached its peak yet? -- And don't we want REAL content instead of that plastic make-believe world that is the media today (owned by RIAA, Time-Warner and AOL)?
However, I have to agree with you that this is illegal. Perhaps both on redistribution of cable service and copyrighted content. Alas, I disagree it's morally wrong to do what is most efficient and convinient.
- Steeltoe
So this is where Law is going:
"Do you swear to tell the Truth and nothing but the Truth?"
I DO (SUBMIT-button)
- Steeltoe
"MS is far from perfect, but failure to automagically patch exploits that don't yet exist is not a valid line of attack against anyone."
I'm glad those people making UNIX didn't say the same.. Take care!
- Steeltoe
How about reporting on this to the developers instead of whining about it here? Not to put you down or anything, but there are so many complaining, whining and doing _nothing_ about it. Do you really expect anybody to do anything about _your_ problems if you don't come with constructive ideas? This is Open Source, you can rewrite the code/interface or come up with usable suggestions yourself. Even Microsoft have done research among their customers to get their UI done "right" (questionable in various areas).
How about drawing some simple sketches and mailing them to the developers? I'm sure they'll be happy for such input, for they surely can't "innovate" every application out there. They're making the tools highly open and modular (bonobo), just don't excpect one company/one group of people to deliver the best all-round solution.
This whole mess is also about freedom, in a few years there'll probably be several interfaces to the various Gnome-apps, maybe even some text-based ones? Then the whiners will whine about something else... *sigh*
- Steeltoe
Where do every idea on this planet originate?
From someone else of course..
None of us live in a sandbox, no matter how much you try to believe so.
- Steeltoe
Can you say DUF backwards?
- Steeltoe