Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Last Chance - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment I'd be weary of the source, it is the Apple Daily (Score 4, Interesting) 171

I'd be weary of the source as it is the Apple Daily. They are known for not being that reliable. I was on the cover a number of years ago, and they photoshopped my hair blond to make me look more white and miss quoted me. I was pissed but then everybody told me that everybody knows that's what they do. C'est la vie. I'll wait till I hear it from a different paper.

Submission + - SELinux vs. Solaris Trusted Extensions

An anonymous reader writes: Comparison between the two only Multi-level-security Operating Systems available. xtensions-vs-selinux/
Overview of the Trusted Extensions and RHEL5 LSPP Systems

The Solaris 10 Operating System provides new frameworks for containment (zones), user rights management (roles and authorizations), and process rights management (privileges). The Trusted Extensions software, introduced in the Solaris 10 11/06 OS, extends these frameworks by adding sensitivity labels to provide a mandatory access control (MAC) policy base that implements multilevel security. Since the Trusted Extensions software preserves all the basic Solaris OS functionality, new features added to the Solaris OS are, by definition, compatible with Trusted Extensions.

The Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 OS includes SELinux, which is a framework for describing a security policy based on security contexts. A security context consists of a user identity, a role, a type, and an optional MLS level or range. The user identity attribute in the security context is independent of the ordinary Linux user identity attributes. The SELinux mandatory access controls remain completely orthogonal to the existing Linux access controls. As a result, a process must pass standard policy controls before anything from the SELinux module applies.

Neither RHEL5 LSPP nor the Solaris 10 11/06 OS enables the use of sensitivity labels by default.

Submission + - A 50-terabyte database of brain maps

Roland Piquepaille writes: "If you want to compare images from human brains with the ones of monkeys, dogs, cats, mice or birds, you should visit the website at UC Davis. It contains over 50 terabytes of brain image data directly available online. The researchers have found a way to transform sections of brain mounted on microscope slides into brain maps with a resolution of half a micrometer per pixel, or 55,000 dots per inch. With such a resolution, all the images are fully zoomable. You start with a single section of a brain and you explore it like if you had a virtual microscope. And the site also provides free downloadable tools to see the images in 3-D. Be warned: you might spend lots of time exploring this site. Here are more details about this project and pictures showing how the brain navigating process works and what a barn owl's brain looks like."

Submission + - CafePress using scare tactics and bullying...

Mike Sobczyk writes: "... to remove competition on the internet (Google AdWords). They are sending out frivolous cease and desist orders to those who try to advertise in their market(s) to scare competition away. is a newly founded local Austin company that has started advertising through Google's AdWords to gain awareness for its site ( sells custom t-shirts, with a different design everyday. They have employed an innovative pricing twist in that the more shirts that are sold, the more that everyone saves. A refund is issued at the end of the day to all those who have purchased a shirt. As more shirts are purchased, the refund amount grows, and the price in the end to the customer decreases. Additionally, welcomes individuals to submit their designs for use on t-shirts. If an individual's design is chosen, they receive 1/3 of the profits from that day's sales. Lastly, is also setup for easy and effective fundraisers for organizations of all types. As part of's advertising campaign they have chosen the keywords "cafepress", "cafe press", and "" as target words. When a user types in these words, amopng many others,'s ad will be displayed (assuming their bid amount is sufficient, budget is adequate, etc.)'s ads make no reference to being, affiliated with, or even similar to is not mentioned anywhere on the site or within the ads. Such advertising is perfectly legal and acceptable. Companies are allowed to target any such keywords they choose, as long as they are not infringing on trademarks by representing to be another company.'s website is not similar to, the concept is not the same, the layout is not resembling to, and it makes no attempt to be like For example, search for Microsoft, or Oracle. Many ads pop up which are not in fact Microsoft, or Microsoft authorized. There are many such instances. If Microsoft could sue these companies they most likely would, but there are no grounds for such suits, as they are not breaking any laws.'s cease and desist, which was sent to us, was merely a scare tactic. There is also legal precedent to support this in the following two cases: J.G. Wentworth S.S.C. Ltd. v. Settlement Funding LLC d/b/a Peachtree Settlement Funding, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 06-0597, January 4, 2007. Wells Fargo & Co. v., Inc., 293 F. Supp. 2d 734, 757 (E.D. Mich. 2003). In both cases the court dismissed the suits, pointing out, among other things, that: "At no point are potential consumers `taken by a search engine' to defendant's website due to defendant's use of plaintiff's marks in meta tags. Rather, as in the present case, a link to defendant's website appears on the search results page as one of many choices for the potential consumer to investigate. As stated above, the links to defendant's website always appear as independent and distinct links on the search result pages regardless of whether they are generated through Google's AdWords program or search of the keyword meta tags of defendant's website. Further, plaintiff does not allege that defendant's advertisements and links incorporate plaintiff's marks in any way discernible to Internet users and potential customers." and furthermore: "Due to the separate and distinct nature of the links created on any of the search results pages in question, potential consumers have no opportunity to confuse defendant's services, goods, advertisements, links or websites for those of plaintiff." The court added that: "Likelihood of confusion exists where `consumers viewing the mark would probably assume that the product or service it represents is associated with the course of a different product or service identified by a similar mark." This is not the case with as we use no simliar marks in our ads. In conclusion, in the case referenced, the court "granted defendant's motion to dismiss since defendant carried the burden of establishing that "no reasonable factfinder could find a likelihood of confusion on any set of facts that plaintiff could prove." The Court reasoned that even if "defendant did in fact use plaintiff's marks through Google's AdWords program or in the keyword meta tags for its website-as a matter of law defendant's actions do not result in any actionable likelihood of confusion under the Lanham Act." Please help us raise awareness of this issue and of the tactics of the larger online websites. Their actions are almost monopolistic and violate freedoms of speech. If this has happened to us, we can only assume it has happened to many others. Thank You, Mike Sobczyk, Founder This is also in our blog, at"

Submission + - What Microsoft thinks of it's partners.

Mark Weale writes: "The company I work for are part of the Microsoft Partnership scheme. My colleague was about to login to the partnership area of Microsofts website but was greeted with and amused by the login area ( Clicky Link! ). In case you do not spot it, take a look at the 'match the characters in the picture' image."

Submission + - Is your website banned in China?

tcd004 writes: "Is your site banned in China? FP Passport recently profiled a new online service,, which tests any website from a server based inside the Middle Kingdom, and reports back whether or not the page is available. Passport also notes that the Great Firewall reveals Chinese censorship whittles down websites to block out individual pages, instead of always applying a site-wide block. The site keeps a running log of each test so Censorship trends over time can be easily tracked."

"Consider a spherical bear, in simple harmonic motion..." -- Professor in the UCB physics department