Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Hmm, a parody of tyrannical IP enforcement involving Hitler.. wherever will we find source material for that one?
What you describe is a satire of the current state of IP enforcement and while the satirical elements (subtitles) would be original, that would not be the case for the Hitler video/audio.
That would only apply if you are recording on film, in motion JPEG, or another 'one full photo per frame' format. The now-common H.264 and MPEG-2 both are temporal, so you don't actually get one full "photo" per claimed frame.
Actually... it's more like saying that the person who built your house (that YOU own) says that he doesn't want OJ Simpson in the house that YOU own. And actively stops you from having him as a guest.
No, it would be like the person who built your house not offering to call OJ for you to come over. You are still free to invite OJ over yourself.
Except OJ demands a fee for his appearances - and the person who built your house is doing everything they can to stop OJ from offering you the chance to pay his appearance fee and have him come over... Because OJ doesn't know you personally and knows you only want him over because he's famous...
And then the person who built your house has a deal going with Dennis Rodman and tries to encourage you to have him come over instead.
You mean the 'wow signal'?
And I for one am tired of hysterically anti-Microsoft bigots. Microsoft USED to play the games you indicated around security issues and it got them smacked by security researchers and the public at large. Since then they have been remarkably forthright about security issues, and probably have one of the most open and transparent security disclosure policies of any browser company. Not as open as an OSS browser, sure, but LOT better than Apple as an example.
- Claim: MS is leaving major vulnerabilities unpatched.
Reality: No evidence to back up your assertion. All major vulnerabilities discovered by the "outside" world are patched swiftly, and there appears to be no good motive to support such behaviour on the part of MS
- Claim: MS are fudging the patch notes.
Reality: No evidence to back up your assertion. Do you think that if notes were being "gamed" in this way it would have remained unnoticed for so long? Conspiracy theory logic.
- Claim: A single recent vulnerability, swiftly patched proves that IE is overall more insecure than Firefox.
Reality: Anecdotal evidence is not significant over large data sets. Do you also use magnets to remove pain? Cast horoscopes?
- Claim: Cenzic is being paid by Microsoft.
Reality: No evidence to back up your assertion. Requires a reputable security company to put its reputation on the line for a potential tiny uptick in IE acceptance. Conspiracy theory logic.
The reality is that the "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" law is not totally true for security. Dedicated and trained people doing comprehensive end to end security analysis is required to make a truly secure product. This is tricky to arrange in OSS development, since security work is boring grunt work, developers do not relish it and rarely volunteer for it. Admittedly, such work is also normally not done in proprietary companies either, due to the cost implications. When it IS done however, we should expect that the proprietary product will be tend to be more secure than the OSS one, simply because of the dedicated focus that can be applied.
Microsoft has a lot of backlog to overcome in terms of security, so given that we should expect to see it's products become more and more secure until they begin to overtake the OSS competition. Assuming their focus remains, of course. This is precisely what we are seeing for browsers, and seeing the beginnings of with operating systems as well.
Do I use IE? Nope, hate it with a passion. I find it buggy, it renders poorly, and it's slow. But it appears I can no longer call it insecure, because the evidence suggests that it's not anymore.
Then that's why I haven't get my ass kicked from Live. I knew it had something to do with MW2. My Xbox is modded (it's legal over here) but I only have been playing original games. What kind of idiot it takes to play a pirated game the day/week before release? It's like wetting yourself with blood in the middle of a forest when a bunch of wolves are looking for you
That said, it still was a beast compared to UNIX. UNIX was sly and sleek, and thus supported lower-end hardware better than Multics could. And UNIX was more portable, which eventually made it more widely available.
That's an understatement. In the early 70's I was running Unix on a PDP-11/34 with 28K of ram and a 5MB hard disk, eventually using it to run an Evans & Sutherland PS1.
Hint: Statistics will backup my assertion, especially with regards to women.
Noone was questioning your assertion, but rather it's significance, especially once you include the somewhat nebulous "someone you know" catagory. Using your link, the order of most likely relationships between the offender and victim are:
Unknown > Acquaintance > Stranger > Family
What does that prove exactly, especially when the largest category (by a lot) is "Unknown"? Does being prepared for an (admittedly unlikely) mall or school shooting somehow make you less prepaired for an attack by an acquaintance?
this could be deliberate, but it's hard to see how a publicly traded company wouldn't pursue other forms of revenue if they could.
the major thing google has in their favour, is that MS has no legal way to block people out of using google, and google has the legal might to defend themselfs against any attack MS might think of launching. So MS is on the unfamilar territory of having to innovate their way out of a corner, just don't make the mistake of thinking MS can't do it...