Servers move far more frequently than people do. I've had the same phone number for 22 years now; if slashdot.org used the same IP address for 22 years, I might start to access it without using DNS.
It seems to me that the ideal application for manufactured bones would be dentistry. After all, teeth are by far the most commonly damaged or destroyed bones. Of course,there are artificial implants right now, but I'm sure many people would prefer to have "real" teeth instead.
My only question: Is this technique applicable to teeth, or is the mouth too hostile an environment?
Well, if it constituted distribution, then the US military would have to get export permits before firing missiles into foreign countries. Since they don't do this, I think it's reasonable to conclude that they don't consider launching a missile to constitute distribution.
True. On the other hand, the word "port" has gone from verb to noun, and is now being verbified again. That is to say, "to port" means to fix operating system-specific code; "a port" is either the result of porting something, or anything in the ports tree; and "to portify" means to add the necessary wrappers to make some code fit into the ports tree.
No. While a zero length file might be a functioning/bin/true, that isn't how it is implemented in SCO.
At risk of provoking another lawsuit:
# @(#) true.sh 1.4 88/11/11 # # # UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T # Portions Copyright 1976-1989 AT&T # Portions Copyright 1980-1989 Microsoft Corporation # Portions Copyright 1983-1989 The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc # All Rights Reserved
# Copyright (c) 1984 AT&T # All Rights Reserved
# THIS IS UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODE OF AT&T # The copyright notice above does not evidence any # actual or intended publication of such source code.
SCO may be alleging that IBM made simple modifications to SysV code and put it into linux, but they're also alleging that there are *identical* comments. A massive grepping party should certainly be able to find those.
In order to do B), IBM would have to have a copy of what SCO thinks is the offending code...
IBM *has* a copy of the offending code. IBM has had a copy of the System V source code for years now. Anyone with a copy of both Linux and System V can easily find which lines they have in common.
I'm a bit confused here... do we want SCO to win, or do we want SCO to lose?
Ok, SCO is a bunch of scumbags, so obviously we don't want them to win.
On the other hand, if SCO loses, it will send a strong message to the world: "Stay away from anything GPL, or you'll find your proprietary code taken away from you."
i'll hopefully be able to get a static IP thru my service provider
No, probably not. IPv6 encourages dynamic addresses, and has several mechanisms in place to aid in their use. This is a managability issue more than anything else -- one of the reasons IPv4 is running out of space is that the existing allocations are inefficient and renumbering would be too expensive. By using more dynamic addresses, the address space wastage can be significantly reduced.
For instance the 20% leakage they've been using is a worldwide amount
Also, the 20% quoted isn't really leakage. It's "spillage", aka bribes and extortion. I think it's safe to assume that the people taking these bribes aren't going to just release them into the atmosphere.
Thanksgiving 2002 saw the 2.4.20 data corruption on umount kernel released; thanksgiving 2001 saw the famous 2.4.15 "greased turkey" data corruption on umount kernel released.
There have been other kernels with problems, but it seems that the data corruption bugs tend to arrive with thanksgiving.
If the law is drafted in a manner which allows authorities to go after the people benefiting from spam, rather than just the people actually sending it, then they could make substantial progress. Most of the spam I receive is for US-based companies, even if it was actually sent from China.
Every major corporation should remember this: Data is more important than lives. Even if 3000 people die in a terrorist attack, you'd better have backups of your data so that you can open for business the next morning.
No, the concern is that the spammers will relocate and continue spamming under a new name. As long as the FTC serves notice before investigating, they'll never catch up with the spammers.
If the police are investigating you for fraud, they're not required to write to you in advance to let you know. As the law stands right now, the FTC *is* required to give notification to anyone they're considering investigating. This proprosed change would simply put the FTC more in line with law enforcement agencies.
That said, I don't think this should be handled by the FTC at all. Rather than having the FTC go after spammers for "misleading advertising", we should have the police go after spammers for fraud and theft of services. Still, given the current regulatory situation, where the FTC seems to have the best chance to shut down spammers, I see nothing wrong with changing the rules which govern the FTC to help them.
Slashdot Mirror
But do you really? You don't have a pager, cell phone, fax, work phone number, etc.?
As it happens, no, I don't have any of the above.
Servers move far more frequently than people do. I've had the same phone number for 22 years now; if slashdot.org used the same IP address for 22 years, I might start to access it without using DNS.
It seems to me that the ideal application for manufactured bones would be dentistry. After all, teeth are by far the most commonly damaged or destroyed bones. Of course,there are artificial implants right now, but I'm sure many people would prefer to have "real" teeth instead.
My only question: Is this technique applicable to teeth, or is the mouth too hostile an environment?
Sell it on EBay. I'm sure there's someone out there who wants it.
Well, if it constituted distribution, then the US military would have to get export permits before firing missiles into foreign countries. Since they don't do this, I think it's reasonable to conclude that they don't consider launching a missile to constitute distribution.
True. On the other hand, the word "port" has gone from verb to noun, and is now being verbified again. That is to say, "to port" means to fix operating system-specific code; "a port" is either the result of porting something, or anything in the ports tree; and "to portify" means to add the necessary wrappers to make some code fit into the ports tree.
Isn't the English language great?
BSD puts sh (and various other statically linked tools) in /bin. Of course, that only works if /bin is not a symlink to /usr/bin.
The contract mentioned was between Sequent and SCO.
No. While a zero length file might be a functioning /bin/true, that isn't how it is implemented in SCO.
At risk of provoking another lawsuit:
# @(#) true.sh 1.4 88/11/11
#
#
# UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T
# Portions Copyright 1976-1989 AT&T
# Portions Copyright 1980-1989 Microsoft Corporation
# Portions Copyright 1983-1989 The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc
# All Rights Reserved
# Copyright (c) 1984 AT&T
# All Rights Reserved
# THIS IS UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODE OF AT&T
# The copyright notice above does not evidence any
# actual or intended publication of such source code.
That means that most programmers are using OS specific syscalls in their programs.
Not necessarily. I count 8817 ports in the tree right now, of which only 4663 have local patches.
In many cases, the "port" is used as nothing more than a convenient front-end to the package system.
SCO may be alleging that IBM made simple modifications to SysV code and put it into linux, but they're also alleging that there are *identical* comments. A massive grepping party should certainly be able to find those.
In order to do B), IBM would have to have a copy of what SCO thinks is the offending code...
IBM *has* a copy of the offending code. IBM has had a copy of the System V source code for years now. Anyone with a copy of both Linux and System V can easily find which lines they have in common.
I'm a bit confused here... do we want SCO to win, or do we want SCO to lose?
Ok, SCO is a bunch of scumbags, so obviously we don't want them to win.
On the other hand, if SCO loses, it will send a strong message to the world: "Stay away from anything GPL, or you'll find your proprietary code taken away from you."
I'm really not sure which outcome would be worse.
I disagree. Closing the gate is just as easy after a wild horse has escaped as it is before the horse has escaped.
Of course, closing the gate after the horse has escaped doesn't accomplish very much, but it's still an easy thing to do.
I wonder if the release of these documents will deter the conspiracy theorists?
Don't be rediculous. Compared to everything else conspiracy theorists come up with, "sanitized" documents is completely believable.
i'll hopefully be able to get a static IP thru my service provider
No, probably not. IPv6 encourages dynamic addresses, and has several mechanisms in place to aid in their use. This is a managability issue more than anything else -- one of the reasons IPv4 is running out of space is that the existing allocations are inefficient and renumbering would be too expensive. By using more dynamic addresses, the address space wastage can be significantly reduced.
Can't we have a radiation shield for the Earth which is a little more reliable?
Err... no, not really. Ozone is a good UV filter precisely because it is unstable.
For instance the 20% leakage they've been using is a worldwide amount
Also, the 20% quoted isn't really leakage. It's "spillage", aka bribes and extortion. I think it's safe to assume that the people taking these bribes aren't going to just release them into the atmosphere.
The past two thanksgivings have seen kernels released (2.4.15 and 2.4.20) with serious data-corruption-on-umount bugs.
What happened on thanksgiving?
Thanksgiving 2002 saw the 2.4.20 data corruption on umount kernel released; thanksgiving 2001 saw the famous 2.4.15 "greased turkey" data corruption on umount kernel released.
There have been other kernels with problems, but it seems that the data corruption bugs tend to arrive with thanksgiving.
Friday the 13th means nothing to Linux. The day you want to avoid upgrading to a new kernel is thanksgiving.
If the law is drafted in a manner which allows authorities to go after the people benefiting from spam, rather than just the people actually sending it, then they could make substantial progress. Most of the spam I receive is for US-based companies, even if it was actually sent from China.
Every major corporation should remember this: Data is more important than lives. Even if 3000 people die in a terrorist attack, you'd better have backups of your data so that you can open for business the next morning.
No, the concern is that the spammers will relocate and continue spamming under a new name. As long as the FTC serves notice before investigating, they'll never catch up with the spammers.
If the police are investigating you for fraud, they're not required to write to you in advance to let you know. As the law stands right now, the FTC *is* required to give notification to anyone they're considering investigating. This proprosed change would simply put the FTC more in line with law enforcement agencies.
That said, I don't think this should be handled by the FTC at all. Rather than having the FTC go after spammers for "misleading advertising", we should have the police go after spammers for fraud and theft of services. Still, given the current regulatory situation, where the FTC seems to have the best chance to shut down spammers, I see nothing wrong with changing the rules which govern the FTC to help them.