Right. Obviously, ICANN doesn't *want* to be fair. Read a bit about ICANN news history (/a bit/ is enough), and you will find that entirely possible.
Unfortunately, ICANN is empowered by the US gov, which is ruled by Bush... Expect no changes on this front. Only hope are other nations complaining about the US power.
Apart from that you are wrong (terrorism is by far not the only offence qualifiying for bugging):
If all breaks, we just declare everybody being terrorists. After all, computer criminals are declared (in the U.S.) terrorists already, since sometime after Sept 11. I wonder, if they'd have the nerve to call me a terrorist for getting around some JavaScript of a webpage. I guess so, if they think they have to.
> I have no objection to meaures that prevent only illegal or immoral behaviour
I don't know such a thing, nor can I imagine one.
My conclusion: All "copy protection" is evil, only more or less so.
(BTW: My personal, *absolutely minimal* requirements for "fair use":
I own the work for my personal use and that of my household. I can do with it whatever I want as long as I don't give it to other people (or those of my household).
Most importantly:
- I can copy it, with full quality, any number of times, for backups, my car, my mp3man etc.
- I can use it fully with standard software (i.e. complying to open standards, implemented by open-source software)
- (Implied by the last requirement:) No one controls or watches the *use* (play etc.) of the work.
Any copy protection violating any of that is unproportionally deprives me of my rights and is thus IMO unconstitutional (even if written into a law).
> > No, mozilla.org won't disclose it until
> > half a year later.
Sorry, I should have said "3-9 months".
> Please try not to keep bugs in the
> security-sensitive category for an unreasonably
> long amount of time.
Yes, but the very next request is
-quote-
Please try to be understanding and accomodating if a Mozilla distributor has a legitimate need to keep a bug in the security-sensitive category for some reasonable additional time period, e.g., to get a new release distributed to users.
-/quote-
"a Mozilla distributor" reads "Netscape".:-/ Netscape releases about every 6 months.
> the original submitter's right to uncloak the
> report says to me there's no way a bug could be
> stifled for six months, and further, they're
> asking that it not be.
Unfortunately, no. Unless the reporter (discoverer) chooses to ignore mozilla.org's request (which is his right), the bugs will indeed often stay closed for 6 months.
> The principle of the "full disclosure" movement
> is that once a bug is known to attackers (black
> hats), it's best to publish it, so users can
> take countermeasures
No, full disclosure is to make *all* information about security bug available publically, even those bugs that are found by the good guys ("white hats") and reported to the vendor/project only.
Once a bug is public, there is no point not to admin it as vendor/project (unless you want to hide your errors, which I don't think is a good strategy).
> and since black hats find out about things
> quickly no matter what you do
That's wrong.
> Optimally, black hats never learn the bug, but
> that's extremely risky to rely on in practice.
Agreed.
> disclosing it once there's a way to deal with it
No, mozilla.org won't disclose it until half a year later.
> So if dozens or hundreds know about a bug, the
> black hats know it.
It will probably in the area of dozens, and handpicked.
I think, you overestimate black-hats' capabilities. They have the source. Did they ever find a bug themselves?
> someone will press the button to disclose the
> bug before it ever reaches any kind of "court"
In which case that someone will the longest time have been a member of the group, most likely.
> hell may break loose with exploits
Let's not hope that there will be so many known and unfixed vulnerabilities at any given time;-).
> The poster doesn't know that word processors are
> inappropriate for text messaging. No amount of
> legislation against Microsoft is going to educate
> these people.
It is, because this is the direct result of MS being a monopoly. If there were other popular word processors, users would be aware that not everybody can read.DOCs.
> 1. Require open standards. No more proprietary
> protocols or file formats. All have to be
> published by the time Microsoft releases a
> product to the public.
You assume that those formats are declartive (i.e. based on data). This is a sane assumption, but Microsoft is not sane.
Microsoft could create procedural data formats (i.e. program code, call APIs, e.g. 'load ActiveX with ID xyz and call its function foobar()'). Yes, if those APIs are open, too, it would be possible to create a competing implementation for them as well, but you'd end up writing another Windows, MS Office, MSIE,.NET etcetc..
In other words, to open an MS Word document, you'd not just need an RTF reader, but also WINE, Ximian's Mono and similar emulations for MS Word; MSIE etc..
Needless to say, that's ineffective.
In fact, I think that Microsoft tries to do just that with the Web using.NET - the stuff is based on SOAP, which is technically XML (oh, cool!), but really just a method to call Microsoft APIs.
Imagine webpages that don't use JavaScript, but VBScript calling Windows API functions. Good night browsing via Linux.
If I were to formulate the rules, I'd require Microsoft to support generally accepted standards (read IETF etc.) only. Or at least, let some independant and rational ("pit-bull") group ratify the standards that Microsoft wants to use. Or something like that.
Re:Rather than whine about Mozilla...
on
Netscape 6.2
·
· Score: 1
> yes, I use Win2k at work, so sue me
I can't. but I demand that Slashdot deliberately blocks all Windows browsers.
So, Troll me.
Change in the way they work with Unix vendors
on
Netscape 6.2
·
· Score: 1
Today, most vendors of small OSes are themselves involved in (or lead) porting Mozilla to their platform. Consequently, they make their own releases. E.g. OpenVMS, OS/2 and Sun all have their own "branded" Mozilla release. No need for another "Netscape" release.
In the old, proprietary Netscape world, I think those vendors haven't been let near the source code and had to pay license costs to include Navigator in their OS releases.
So, the change is more a direct consequence of Mozilla being Open-Source now than of Linux replacing commercial Unix.
Better yet use I'm Felling Lucky
on
Netscape 6.2
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
> A sixth-grader could design a more fair system.
Right. Obviously, ICANN doesn't *want* to be fair. Read a bit about ICANN news history (/a bit/ is enough), and you will find that entirely possible.
Unfortunately, ICANN is empowered by the US gov, which is ruled by Bush... Expect no changes on this front. Only hope are other nations complaining about the US power.
> In this case, the thug committed a crime by
> threatening physical harm
And going to jail is no physical harm?
> But when scientific researchers and the EFF ask
> the courts for the right never to be seued by the
> RIAA
I think that Felton (or anybody else comparable) has the right to do his scientific research without the fear of being jailed for it.
> After all, we are fighting terroists here
Suuure.
Apart from that you are wrong (terrorism is by far not the only offence qualifiying for bugging):
If all breaks, we just declare everybody being terrorists. After all, computer criminals are declared (in the U.S.) terrorists already, since sometime after Sept 11. I wonder, if they'd have the nerve to call me a terrorist for getting around some JavaScript of a webpage. I guess so, if they think they have to.
Are you all brainwashed now?
> No crime = No FBI spy software on your machine.
What a bullshit. If you understood anything what he wrote above, or had a tiny bit of common sense, you'd know that you are dead wrong.
Probably, you're just a troll.
> Fifth Amendment protection does NOT extend to things you have already uttered.
uh. how scary.
Where is the difference between "Give me the passphrase" and "Lead us to the gun with which you murdered your brother."?
What you say might be the current interpretation in the US, but I certainly can't understand it, and I guess Joe Random can't either.
> I'll put dollars to donuts that no major company
.)
> that is pricing their toys at this stratosphere
> will EVER consider anything but BSD.
Netscape. Quicknet. Countless others.
Where are my dollars? (No, you can't pay in stock options >:->
> I have no objection to meaures that prevent only illegal or immoral behaviour
I don't know such a thing, nor can I imagine one.
My conclusion: All "copy protection" is evil, only more or less so.
(BTW: My personal, *absolutely minimal* requirements for "fair use":
I own the work for my personal use and that of my household. I can do with it whatever I want as long as I don't give it to other people (or those of my household).
Most importantly:
- I can copy it, with full quality, any number of times, for backups, my car, my mp3man etc.
- I can use it fully with standard software (i.e. complying to open standards, implemented by open-source software)
- (Implied by the last requirement:) No one controls or watches the *use* (play etc.) of the work.
Any copy protection violating any of that is unproportionally deprives me of my rights and is thus IMO unconstitutional (even if written into a law).
> > No, mozilla.org won't disclose it until
:-/ Netscape releases about every 6 months.
> > half a year later.
Sorry, I should have said "3-9 months".
> Please try not to keep bugs in the
> security-sensitive category for an unreasonably
> long amount of time.
Yes, but the very next request is
-quote-
Please try to be understanding and accomodating if a Mozilla distributor has a legitimate need to keep a bug in the security-sensitive category for some reasonable additional time period, e.g., to get a new release distributed to users.
-/quote-
"a Mozilla distributor" reads "Netscape".
> the original submitter's right to uncloak the
> report says to me there's no way a bug could be
> stifled for six months, and further, they're
> asking that it not be.
Unfortunately, no. Unless the reporter (discoverer) chooses to ignore mozilla.org's request (which is his right), the bugs will indeed often stay closed for 6 months.
> The principle of the "full disclosure" movement
;-).
> is that once a bug is known to attackers (black
> hats), it's best to publish it, so users can
> take countermeasures
No, full disclosure is to make *all* information about security bug available publically, even those bugs that are found by the good guys ("white hats") and reported to the vendor/project only.
Once a bug is public, there is no point not to admin it as vendor/project (unless you want to hide your errors, which I don't think is a good strategy).
> and since black hats find out about things
> quickly no matter what you do
That's wrong.
> Optimally, black hats never learn the bug, but
> that's extremely risky to rely on in practice.
Agreed.
> disclosing it once there's a way to deal with it
No, mozilla.org won't disclose it until half a year later.
> So if dozens or hundreds know about a bug, the
> black hats know it.
It will probably in the area of dozens, and handpicked.
I think, you overestimate black-hats' capabilities. They have the source. Did they ever find a bug themselves?
> someone will press the button to disclose the
> bug before it ever reaches any kind of "court"
In which case that someone will the longest time have been a member of the group, most likely.
> hell may break loose with exploits
Let's not hope that there will be so many known and unfixed vulnerabilities at any given time
Kawa was a nice IDE a few years ago. (But not open-source.)
I didn't track it, but it seems like it got pushed around between several companies and has finally been dumped by Macromedia. Morons.
> The customers were pissed royal that they had to
> switch trains every ten miles because the rail
> gauges changed.
When does a user have to leave Microsoft's trails?
> The poster doesn't know that word processors are
.DOCs.
> inappropriate for text messaging. No amount of
> legislation against Microsoft is going to educate
> these people.
It is, because this is the direct result of MS being a monopoly. If there were other popular word processors, users would be aware that not everybody can read
> disclaimer: I run FreeBSD on all of my machines
;-P.
I smell a Hotmail employee
> Don't blame Microsoft, the fact that they know
> how to play the game better than everyone else
> should not be frowned upon.
You know that Microsoft has been found guilty of massive abuse of power by the courts, incl. the appeals one.
> Blame Joe User for not looking for another product
He did, but misspelled it. And ended up at msn.com.
> 1. Require open standards. No more proprietary
.NET etcetc..
.NET - the stuff is based on SOAP, which is technically XML (oh, cool!), but really just a method to call Microsoft APIs.
> protocols or file formats. All have to be
> published by the time Microsoft releases a
> product to the public.
You assume that those formats are declartive (i.e. based on data). This is a sane assumption, but Microsoft is not sane.
Microsoft could create procedural data formats (i.e. program code, call APIs, e.g. 'load ActiveX with ID xyz and call its function foobar()'). Yes, if those APIs are open, too, it would be possible to create a competing implementation for them as well, but you'd end up writing another Windows, MS Office, MSIE,
In other words, to open an MS Word document, you'd not just need an RTF reader, but also WINE, Ximian's Mono and similar emulations for MS Word; MSIE etc..
Needless to say, that's ineffective.
In fact, I think that Microsoft tries to do just that with the Web using
Imagine webpages that don't use JavaScript, but VBScript calling Windows API functions. Good night browsing via Linux.
If I were to formulate the rules, I'd require Microsoft to support generally accepted standards (read IETF etc.) only. Or at least, let some independant and rational ("pit-bull") group ratify the standards that Microsoft wants to use. Or something like that.
> Porche
It's "Porsche", not "Porche".
> Civilian casualties are an unavoidable and truly
> regrettable outcome of nearly any military
> operation
I believe that this whole military operation, esp. the bombing, was avoidable.
> I'm more proud
Proud that innocent (!) Afgans are killed by US military? Or proud that civil rights are revoked to "strengthen the nation"?
*disgust*
> Mozilla is not an end-user browser.
Exactly. That's what Beonex Communicator is for.
> yes, I use Win2k at work, so sue me
I can't. but I demand that Slashdot deliberately blocks all Windows browsers.
So, Troll me.
Today, most vendors of small OSes are themselves involved in (or lead) porting Mozilla to their platform. Consequently, they make their own releases. E.g. OpenVMS, OS/2 and Sun all have their own "branded" Mozilla release. No need for another "Netscape" release.
In the old, proprietary Netscape world, I think those vendors haven't been let near the source code and had to pay license costs to include Navigator in their OS releases.
So, the change is more a direct consequence of Mozilla being Open-Source now than of Linux replacing commercial Unix.
user_pref("keyword.URL", "http://www.google.com/search?btnI=I%27m+Feeling+L ucky&q=");
This uses Google's I'm Feeling Lucky for Internet Keywords.
BTW: This is the default in Beonex Communicator.
> If you want a .com then you must provide a +800
.com domain?
> number.
Why should I have an internationally tollfree number to register a
> Problem is that this won't work for the
> US/Canada/etc because they don't have a proper
> country code.)
They have : Both +1.
E.g. from Germany, you dial 001-976-555-4678, just like you would dial 0033-1-12345678 for a phone in Paris (IIRC).
Yes, please fix the site, if you want geeks and nerds on board :).
> Thawte is not Microsoft. [...] There's no chance
> for Thawte to rule the world.
Thawte is part of Verisign, which also owns Network Solutions. In a certain way, they do rule the (.com) world.