jackb_guppy writes: SLASHDOT today started to push users from the old interface to the ugly, slow, new interface. Any guess on the number of users that will be leaving SLASHDOT. So much for market share.
sconeu writes: My wife uses an assistive communciation device. She wants to use it for SMS texting... We currently have Verizon, so we don't have a SIM. The computer will take a SIM. I'm looking for a pay-as-you-go plan where I can take the SIM from a cheap phone and put it in her computer. Any suggestions?
kgagne writes: "Ben Heck, who previously created an Xbox 360 laptop, recently turned his sights on performing a similar update on an older machine. The result: a laptop model of an Apple IIGS, a 16-bit, 22-year-old machine. His working prototype has a 15" screen, CompactFlash support, ports for additional input devices, and a custom glowing logo. Ben has demonstrated the computer playing Arkanoid II — but gimmicks aside, why bother using such an outmoded operating system in the face of modern options like Linux, Leopard, Vista, and XP? Computerworld offers five reasons for GS/OS's superiority."
greenrom writes: I work for a small company as a software developer. While investigating a bug in one of our products, I found source code on a website that was nearly identical to code used in our product. Even the comments were the same. It's obvious that a developer at our company found some useful code on the web and copied it. The original author didn't attach any particular license to the code. It's just 200 lines of code the author posted in a forum.
Is it legitimate to use source code that's publicly available but doesn't fall under any particular license? If not, what's the best way to deal with this kind of situation? Since I'm now the only person working on this code, there's no practical way to report the situation confidentially. I'm new to the company, and the developer who copied the code is the project lead. Reporting him to management doesn't seem like a good career move. I could rewrite the copied code without reporting him, but since the product is very close to release it would be difficult to make a significant change without providing some justification.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "The Court has ordered UMG Recordings, Warner Bros. Records, Interscope Records, Motown, and SONY BMG to disclose their expenses-per-download to the defendant's lawyers, in UMG v. Lindor, a case pending in Brooklyn. The Court held that the expense figures are relevant to the issue of whether the RIAA's attempt to recover damages of $750 or more per 99-cent song file, is an unconstitutional violation of due process."
Some small but significant details of the next major release of Windows have emerged via a presentation at the University of Illinois by Microsoft engineer Eric Traut. His presentation focuses on an internal project called "MinWin"; designed to optimise the Windows kernel to a minimum footprint, and for which will be the basis for the Windows 7 kernel.
Seth Morabito writes: "Ever wanted to run the classic original AT&T UNIX V7, but just couldn't bring yourself to fire up that PDP-11 you have in your garage? Robert Nordier has recently announced a port of the V7 source to Intel. It supports ATA disks, ATAPI CD drives, 1.44M floppy disks, and standard PC serial ports. Robert describes the port as “stable and quite generally usable”. Fun for anyone wanting to play with a piece of UNIX history."
mrcgran writes: "An interesting argument from freecode.no: "Last wednesday, there was a new meeting in Standard Norge Committee 185, the ISO/IEC JTC1 SC34 mirror committee (the sub committee where OOXML resorts). Interesting data emerged. Few [countries] had registered that it wasn't necessary to participate in SC34 in order to vote on the fate of OOXML as an ISO standard. The voting countries where the P-Members of its mother, the JTC1. Countries flooded the SC34 to no avail. Actually, it may prove to be a curse to SC34. You see, in order to get much done in the sub committee, at least 50% of its P-Members needs to participate in a voting. The first example already proves my point; The SC34's letter ballot of 2007-09-03 failed as only 24% cared to vote. The voting countries were the P-members from back then — the 9 pre-OOXML member countries. Not one of the newcomers responded. This will slow the the work to a grinding halt. SC34 will be left dead in the waters.""
EnimyMyne writes: The University of Minnesota security group has declared that vmware and other server virtualization tools not be used to host sensitive data:
"As a general rule, using Virtual Machines (VMWare, Virtual PC, etc) for
servers that hold protected or private data is not acceptable.
Protected and private data include grades, credit card numbers, social
security numbers, Private Health Information (PHI), HIPAA and FERPA data,
The following rationale was given:
"The main concern is the risk of a low-security VM being compromised, and
the hackers breaking out of the VM into the host OS. If the same physical
hardware also is running high security VMs holding protected data, it
could be compromised. And given the consequences of breaches these days
(massive fines, losing grants, legal action, etc.) we need to be
particularly careful about this.
There are an infinite number of scenerios here, with VMs of the same
security level on the same hardware, or different security levels."
How valid is this claim given the great advantages of virtualization and the fact that large enterprises are increasing their use of products such as vmware? I haven't seen any articles on slashdot discussing particular vulnerabilities of vmware over standard server hardware.