Accept an HTML page via email, or a URL to such a page, render it with a specific browser/machine combination (say, specified in the command line), and email back the redered page as a PNG or GIF.
Send an email indicating how far back in the queue the request is, with an option of canceling jobs that haven't been run yet.
That way, I could use "render-by-email" to simulate the joy of Windws IE.
Ratboy.
Re:Harnessing the Power of Disruptive Technologies
on
RIAA PR Efforts Examined
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Fascinating. Yet so wrong...
The "traditional" model of the Internet is "peer to peer". Your mailserver talks to my mailserver. Mine talks to yours.
POP came *after* sendmail. POP would be the "client server" approach. My computer says "hey, I am only on-line a little bit, so I need a bigger computer to do my mail for me". Mail used to be transferred over UUCP, and even there it was "peer to peer".
As larger companies got into the ISP business, they tried to impose a "client server" model. More like a "push content" model. The internet was NOT compuserve. In fact, compuserve (and their ilk) JOINED the internet. So the "peer to peer" model seemingly won...
But, many ISPs (like mine, rogers.com), have user agreements that read "you won't run servers at home". They would LOVE a push content model. As supported by my bandwidth (1.5mbps TO my computer 128kbps FROM my computer). If I can't run in a peer to peer way, how am I going to run my email domain, etc.? Right, buy that service from someone else -- even though I have purchased a sufficiently fast computer and a sufficiently large pipe.
The client server approach allows for a money grab. The traditional peer to peer approach gives more power to the users. Guess I'm going to be a traditionalist.
It is NOT illegal to download. Only to "share" or "upload". The "access" clause of the KaZaa "license" is questionable. There is no way to reasonably know that what is being downloaded has any propietary rights.
So, strike 2.6, and you fall back to copyright. Go ahead, download.
Just don't upload or make accessible material that you aren't allowed to. Let someone overseas do that. The the RIAA can go after big copyright violators, or have new law passed as to the scope of the internet (not allowing connection to countries that reject berne conventions?).
Also, customs and excise can get involved in this whole i'net thing.
If some people are ignorant, and don't disable sharing... that's their problem. I say, let the copyright holder sue them. Big time. For EVERY single copy that was made. I don't care if they are 12, 21 or 71.
The paper with the holes you can read -- light source and photosensors in a grid, and a couple of guide wires on a board. Feed into an 8 bit port that can be sampled. Use the feed hole to drive the software. If its paper tape, anyway. Should be a 3 day project. [I've done this]
If its cards, you don't have a feed hole to synch with. Modify a cheap printer to give you constant drive (needs to be one that can feed card stock. Put the reader on the output side (optical). Tune up the software according to the feed speed. I would take 1 week for this job (probably use a lexmark printer as the base). May need to convert EBCDIC to make sense of the data. [Haven't done this]
8" floppies -- more of a problem. Buy an old system on ebay for the disc drive. Use a high-speed uart and attach up the seek pins to a parallel interface. Write a bit of software to recover the data (bitwise) and any sector holes.
Analysis the data (it will have some kind of file system). May take months (SYNCH character variations (FF, A5, others). hard vs soft sectors, or WANG OIS which actually used both, recording format FM MFM M2FM, and then the file system, and data encoding -- gives 50ish variations). Of course if you are familiar with the source it will be quicker. [Done this]
Now: on to the point of this:
If you are recording for archival purposes DO NOT use the file system or recording sys du jour. If on a Unix box, dump raw files; "tar" is acceptable. tar works because it is easy to strip off the "tar" bits and get at the data.
Try to use media where you COULD conceivably build a reader.
Actually, I *would* argue that. If it is a crime, it has been facilitated by the organization making available the service on the internet. If the data that is "stolen" is sensitive, it should NOT be available on the 'net.
We are talking about someone at a keyboard here, and the ONLY thing she is doing is typing.
Ok, now let *me* commit a cybercrime:
"I hate Aryan Nazis (and all other Nazis, but especially Aryan Nazis) and I actively encourage you to go and KILL them."
In my jursidiction, that statement is a crime, and I could be sent up for years. Justify THAT.
The phony notion here is that there is CRIME on a network! [The only "network crime" I could even BEGIN to justify prosecuting is kiddy-porn and trading in other restricted information -- which is a crime if done on other than a computer network as well).
He didn't assualt you with... a computer, now did he?
Llamo *did't* break into your house. Nor did he break into the NYT building(s). He didn't hit someone with a computer, or threaten to destroy it (or destroy it). He didn't STEAL a computer.
He made use of a public network that NYT participated in to use the services provided by NYT.
"BTW, I have an adult friend who insists it's perfectly legal to make copies of her CDs as long as she only gives them to friends. The only way such attitudes will change is when people are prosecuted for it."
Actually, it *is* perfectly legal. The interesting thing is that most people have been brainwashed into believing that its not.
My read of US law would indicate that a first generation personal copy is perfectly acceptable. Second+ generations not. Look into the US laws regarding DAT tape.
In Canada, it is legal without any "generation" problems. Copy, burn, and give away. The government takes a slice from the purchase cost of blank media, and feeds it back to the recording industry -- so you have ALREADY paid for it in Canada, EVEN IF YOU NEVER DO IT.
Since the "holes" existed, it can be argued that the particular usage was invited. Unless I have entered into a specific contract, the NYT or any organization making a system available on the Internet exposes it to me, and makes its services available to me. Including services opened by "holes", because these holes may be a deliberate publication of a "service". For example -- If I take a taxi, it's published service is to take me somewhere. However, there may be other services that are _not_ published that the taxi may provide. Asking where an Italian Restaurant is... asking what time it is... etc.
Now, the service may be granted, EVEN IF IS NOT A PUBLISHED TAXI SERVICE. And, it is NOT illegal to ask the time from a taxi driver.
So, hacking should be considered legal. Under any sane legal system, anyway.
"downloading" is not the infringement. If I am donwloading, I don't have access to the original. Indeed, the duplication occurs when the uploaders computer writes the bits to the network. (In the same way, a copy is made when a program is loaded for execution).
So, YES, you are liable -- you made the music available. You CAN'T make music files available on an SMB share (since you are copying, or facilitating).
Email "click on me please" worms should, IMO, be legal. If it requires user action to activate, I argue the "permission" has been granted.
Viruses that exploit holes and spread by themselves should ALSO, IMO, be treated the same. The fact that the hole exists can be interpreted to mean that permission was given (after all, what other purpose does the hole serve?).
It is the users responsibility to keep on top of things. Including arranging for recourse with vendors in case holes are discovered (just read the typical EULA).
If this is NOT the case, then I would not want to even LOOK for holes. After all, looking for holes may be interpreted as meaning I was after an exploit, and thus JAIL TIME (DMCA).
Of course, users want what is easy and cheap, and vendors don't want responsibility, so all the blame gets shifted to... hackers. The "paladium" thing is supposed to shift the responsibility from the users (who don't seem to want it) to the Vendor. Except that the vendor still doesn't give any guarantees.
With most other endeavours that can greatly affect other people (driving, flying, etc.) society issues licenses to certify that the "user" has a basic level of competency, and won't jepordize others. Not with running a computer on the 'net. No license needed. If we want to keep it that way, then we need to just "suck it up" with worms and viruses, making our systems as immune as possible.
Keep the 'net free and open. If Microsoft users don't want to patch their systems, we should do it for them -- really, whether or not they want it done. The price the MS user who doesn't stay on top of her patches pays. Same for other OSs (cracking or blacklisting open mail relays running Linux whould be an example). Keep hacking legal. For those in the US, down with the DMCA.
Note that with closed source software, the vendor has the responsibility to ensure that holes are closed. The user has the responsibility to choose a vendor that demonstrates good behaviour in that regard. With open source software, the responsibility can be shifted directly to the user, to deal with as she chooses. Or the vendor can keep responsibility (Windows on one side, Solaris in the middle, Linux on the other side).
All of this is probably too much for most people to stomach. Ok, I'll compromise. Make "worms and viruses" illegal, just to discourage the writers. Set a fine of $1000 per ORIGINAL system not owned by the offender affected. No jail time. Just enough to discourage the 18 year olds. No record either.
The first assumption is that ''Open Source'' competes with Microsoft. Of all the idiotic ideas! Redhat competes with Microsoft. Mandrake competes with Microsoft (etc.) Certainly not Open Source software. That just is.
If you like it, use it. Just that simple. And leave your pre-conceptions at how the ''system'' is supposed to work at the door, please (that's *not* your computer, btw).
Next, we need a single standard GUI for Linux. What a load of crap!
Let's see -- when I installed Redhat 9, (and 8, and Mandrake), it installed a desktop for me. It works. Happens to be the one I want, too, but that doesn't matter. NEW LINUX USERS JUST USE IT. Why? Because when you install Microsoft, you get a single GUI too. There are methods for replacing the Windows GUI, but the level of user A. Russell Jones is addressing won't do it.
Next item. If using RPMs with Redhat 8 or 9, things work EXACTELY like Mr. Jones is promoting. End of story. What a load of FUD.
Most of the software is supplied (that is, on the same CD set). There are exceptions -- like how to get mp3s playing (but there is a clear link, and download of an RPM to install). And that makes setting up a system very straightforward
Setting up XINE is a bit more difficult...
However, since Linux is *not* pre-installed, and the typical user does not install (because someone in the family is the ''resident geek''), it isn't difficult. The machines just work.
And that is the most important thing. That the computer does its job; easily and conveniently.
The key points for ''casual user'' are that:
1 - Linux is just as easy as Windows
2 - It's cheaper
3 - You friendly neighbourhood support geek is happier when you use it -- make remote administration easier.
4 - No more Outlook worms, MSBlaster.
5 - If you have teenagers that just NEED the latest PC games and elite 'net experience, you go with Windows (and reload your machine every 3 to 6 months -- I just ghost 'em).
As a hacker, I am happy to see people use my software. My commercial stuff goes into embedded systems (like DVD players). So I get paid. I don't compete with Microsoft! I *like* them. I own MSOFT shares.
As an informal family IT support person, I wish that MS Windows had sensible remote management. I still have to support Windows 98, you here? Actually, I use Windows 2000 Professional as my Windows test-bed at work, but I don't know any of the remote management stuff. All I know is that 98 doesn't have it. So, I prefer my ''users'' switch to Linux. It's easier on me (in the long run). If they have DSL or Cable (broadband), I schedule backups for them. If they buy hardware, I install the drivers for them. If they need a new application, I set it up for them. Just like a company IT person.
For my own hacker needs, I can choose what GUI to use (and what filesystems, encrypting or not, and vi vs. emacs. etc. etc. etc.). Doesn't matter to others -- they are going to use OpenOffice.org, not (vi|emacs)! They are never going to touch a configuration file (they CAN'T, because they don't have the root password -- well, they do, its in an envelope with instructions to open it if I die, or in case of emergency). And when/if they learn enough, or they just want it, they can have the root password, their sysadmin badge (or tee-shirt), and get into the meat of the Open Source Movement.
Ratboy.
- Family IT Admin since '95. - 3 Linux, 6 Windows 98 boxes - 1 server - 5 locations (Sault Ste. Marie to Detroit)
Actually, it IS legal to download an mp3 for a song -- whether or not you own the CD. Or a movies, or (with certain limitations) anything else you want.
What is illegal is COPYING the material. In other words, you may not upload. Or (seemingly, by current RIAA interpretations) facilitate uploading.
Downloaders are not breaking ANY laws. What I find interesting is the spin that the RIAA has put on this ("downloading" is somehow wrong).
To put this into perspective. If I copied an entire book to give to my students, stripping out the copyright, and we are discovered, *I* am liable for the copyright infringement. The students (who used the copied material) are not at all liable. To be liable, the student must also violate copyright (by further copying the material). Of course, there is now no indication of copyright -- indeed I may have falsly claimed copyright, and assigned that copyright. In which case the students violation is even less severe. (should be limited to a warning to not continue). On the other hand, in this scenario I should be hit REALLY hard.
Easy enough. A button or switch. Also, which activated, initiates a sequence that records when the action was taken, and forces a report as to why (same as accident reporting here).
The Zilog Z80 had "add double" (Intel 8080 also had it, called DAD D, Zilog ADD HL,DE). The Zilog Z80 also had ADC HL,DE (and yes, I know that BC, HL, SP could be used). The ADC added in the carry, which reduces the cycles needed but is Z80 specific.
So, 67 + 71*3 for a 64 bit add = 280 cycles (or 70 microseconds at 4Mhz). Which makes the Opteron, what?, ~70,000 times faster with 64 bit arithmetic (its such a large factor, its hard to figure). In other words (easier to visualize), a single Opteron has comparable compute power to ALL personal computers sold in 1977.
The speed limit here (in Toronto, Canada) is 100 KPH.
All cars have speedometers that go to 180 KPH and higher.
People actually drive 120 KPH on the highway
-and-
The speed limit is an "absolute". If you're over, you are breaking the law.
Not only should there be sensors, but cars should have governors. The law *is* the law. If you don't like the law, vote and have your representative *change* the law.
However, if I get pulled over for driving 120 KPH, and all other highway traffic was doing the same speed, I feel that I should be able to forward the ticket to the automobile manufacturer for criminal facilitation. Because I can't, I feel that there is a de-facto conspiracy for raising taxes. (Note: In my entire driving "career" I have had only one speeding ticking, and no other infractions. I was not paying close attention to my speed, the highway was empty, and I was ticketed for 120KPH. No, the car did not have a cruise control, or I would have used it).
So, I not only want *detectors*, I want *governors*. Since we have the means, why should I pay tickets? The stated reason is safety (or gridlock prevention, or somesuch public good), and I presume that government officials aren't lying.
Microsoft trys to achieve "platforms". A platform is achieved when people don't even THINK of another way. Anything that COULD be another way is bad.
Netscape wanted to deliver via Web. This was a platform threat and Microsoft HAD to eliminate it. "Let's deploy... over the Web with Netscape" is not something that Microsoft could tolerate.
Java -- just as bad. So, Microsoft has.NET as a platform.
The amount of money is (kind of) irrelevant. $100M+ is a drop in the bucket where a platform is concerned.
IM may be considered another platform? If it is, then Microsoft will be all over it. I don't know, I just code and try to keep out of the way of the big stuff...
Microsoft has a monopoly in Operating Systems. According to US law, they are not allowed to exploit this monopoly to gain advantage in other areas. Directly, they are NOT allowed to use the Windows OS monopoly to create an "IM" monopoly. Locking out IM clients running on other OSs is perilously close to that behaviour.
Not that Microsoft has done this, but I just wanted to clarify your comment. Its right and wrong at the same time -- for example, Microsoft could "lock out" third-party Linux clients, but they would have to provide Linux access -- say via a Web page, or their own client.
If Microsoft supplied the Microsoft IM client with Windows (they have), and locked out all other clients... this could easily be judged as an illegal exploitation of their monopoly (they've done this sort of thing before, without much happening -- but its still wrong).
I had one of these units in 1976. Best I could determine, the thing hadn't been powered on in 10 years (at that time). The unit was built in the late '40s. It had a large condenser which was used as a spark suppressor (for trans-atlantic cable runs, as best as I knew). I removed it, and wired it to a KIM-1 as a terminal.
Problem was that the motor coils had grease or oil in them, and would start smoking if the unit was on too long. I junked the unit after a few years (wish that I had held on to it now).
Everything was mechanical (a series of combs activated by 60hz from the line to decode the baudot code. 2 stop bits needed to allow time for the combs to reset after a character had been printed).
Now, its 2003 and these things are STILL operational. Wow. That's 50 years after they should have been retired. These days, printer mechanisms seem to wear out in a couple of years.
Note to all the young 'uns. These '15 teletypes used a typewriter-like mechanism, with a comb to allow only one type bar to impact. Speed was 5 characters per second. At 5 bits per character, no lower case characters. There was a figures/letters shift (two reserved characters - no more state than that - remember the decoder is mechanical). '33 mechanism used a type-ball. 10 characters per second, and used ASCII. The '33 also didn't support lower case.
You are kidding, are you not? Apple ][ used software instead of an FDC chip, and needed speed-matched floppy drives. Tradition of quality...
The video for the Apple ][ was so cheap that hi-res was, well..., special. Certain colour sequences just could not be produced.
Then, (years later), I purchased a Mac CX. Turns out that the power supply wasn't shielded, and external drives kept getting their contents corrupted and erased... Of course the SCSI cables weren't sheilded either, giving rise to MORE data corruption. And, I saw my first virus -- on a disk supplied by Apple.
And, ethernet was $1000 per station. Whilst I could purchase $100 cards for my PC. But that shouldn't matter -- the Apple rep had ASSURED me that the built-in "Appletalk" networking would meet my needs perfectly. Bulk image scanning and tagging. Sure.
Now, this WAS in 1990, and the company may have changed. One of my co-workers is using an Apple laptop (and aside from premature wear on the cover it seems ok). But this is a recent thing.
Apple Computers and Quality have NOT been synonymous in the first 15 to 20 years of operation of the company. It may be now, but I am being very careful.
Ratboy666
And yes, I worked at one of the first commercial Apple ][ software companies.
Re:The main difference between Linux and Windows
on
Worst Linux Annoyances?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
That's just wrong. I use three "platforms". Windows 2000 Professional, Linux (Redhat 9), and Palm. The Palm has been the easiest as far as drivers are concerned.
Next is Linux. I use it on an HP laptop, and a "generic" desktop machine. No problems with any of the hardware, everything just works.
Windows 2000 Professional was the MOST problematic. First, I had to get drivers for the NVidia card. The "latest and greatest" drivers caused the machine to not boot up (and, yes, I had the version that corresponded to the chip on the card). I then had to backtrack to a driver from last year; the older driver did work. The sound on the motherbaord was AC97 compatible, but Windows didn't recognize it. Downloaded specific chipset driver, and that didn't work either. Had to take the case off the computer, and check the motherboard manufacturer, and download drivers from their website. These drivers worked.
Yes, if the computer is pre-installed with Windows, you are in luck. But if you EVER upgrade Windows, or have to re-install from scratch -- good luck.
The biggest annoyances *I* have with Linux is:
1 - missing certain Sys/V features (message queues). Makes portable code between Solaris and Linux a pain.
2 - Redhat 8 and 9 don't allow (easy) configuration of the "Start" menu.
3 - OpenOffice under Redhat 9 allows installation of fonts, but there is not system-wide font installer.
4 - 802.11a support. I have the Intel 802.11a and need to use a binary broadcom driver for Linux. It works, but I can't seem to get more than 6mbits with it.
There are more; but these are the ones that I have come across in that last few days. Item (1) is the only pure Linux issue -- the others are comments about a specific distribution (so don't tell me to use another distribution; I have other reasons to standardize on Redhat). If they bug me enough, I may actually fix (2) and (3) myself.
As to the "driver" issue, only (4) stands out. And I can only pray that will be resolved quickly (either with new hardware, or a better driver). But I blame broadcom/intel for this, not Linux.
PS. As to the vaunted "Windows support" -- try using stuff like a DLink DMP-90 under Windows. I dare you. When closed source software and hardware becomes "uninteresting" and is abandoned, you get stuck. With using much older systems. Netgear 900Mhz wireless Aviator would be another example. If the drivers for these items were open-source, then you could use these devices under Linux or another F/OSS system. As it is, these items become junk when/if you upgrade your computer.
Level your driver complaint at the manufacturers, not at Linux.
If you couldn't own a computer if you had to buy all the software for it... then you shouldn't own a computer.
End of story.
You are further compounding the problem by benefiting a company ("useful to my boss"). Your company should be supplying you with software and training,/not/ the other way around.
I too am a Canadian, and I am ashamed of your attitude.
You mention that you are "running MS stuff for gaming". Gaming is/not/ a necessary computer function. No matter how you much you like it.
Run Free Software if you can't afford the other stuff. Its the ONLY moral and ethical thing to do.
Ratboy
-- and I have written both commercial software and freeware. I/don't/ use software I have no right to. I/don't/ infringe copyright. And that's all there is to it. We are talking about YOUR ethics, and not anyone elses.
Come on, what content? If a content provider *doesn't* want to supply content, they aren't a content provider.
So, no DRM, then they aren't a provider. Sucks to be them. Kind of reminds me of the Steam Locamotive vendors...Baldwin Locamotive works (1831-1915).
Content on the 'net is NOT the same as content on Radio or TV. The whole POINT of on-line content is that it is manipulable (sp?). What is "value proposition" of DRM? It makes it harder to supply and use content.
The Content Provider is dead! Long live the the Content Provider!
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe someone can supply the service --
Accept an HTML page via email, or a URL to such a page, render it with a specific browser/machine combination (say, specified in the command line), and email back the redered page as a PNG or GIF.
Send an email indicating how far back in the queue the request is, with an option of canceling jobs that haven't been run yet.
That way, I could use "render-by-email" to simulate the joy of Windws IE.
Ratboy.
Fascinating. Yet so wrong...
The "traditional" model of the Internet is "peer to peer". Your mailserver talks to my mailserver. Mine talks to yours.
POP came *after* sendmail. POP would be the "client server" approach. My computer says "hey, I am only on-line a little bit, so I need a bigger computer to do my mail for me". Mail used to be transferred over UUCP, and even there it was "peer to peer".
As larger companies got into the ISP business, they tried to impose a "client server" model. More like a "push content" model. The internet was NOT compuserve. In fact, compuserve (and their ilk) JOINED the internet. So the "peer to peer" model seemingly won...
But, many ISPs (like mine, rogers.com), have user agreements that read "you won't run servers at home". They would LOVE a push content model. As supported by my bandwidth (1.5mbps TO my computer 128kbps FROM my computer). If I can't run in a peer to peer way, how am I going to run my email domain, etc.? Right, buy that service from someone else -- even though I have purchased a sufficiently fast computer and a sufficiently large pipe.
The client server approach allows for a money grab. The traditional peer to peer approach gives more power to the users. Guess I'm going to be a traditionalist.
Ratboy.
It is NOT illegal to download. Only to "share" or "upload". The "access" clause of the KaZaa "license" is questionable. There is no way to reasonably know that what is being downloaded has any propietary rights.
So, strike 2.6, and you fall back to copyright. Go ahead, download.
Just don't upload or make accessible material that you aren't allowed to. Let someone overseas do that. The the RIAA can go after big copyright violators, or have new law passed as to the scope of the internet (not allowing connection to countries that reject berne conventions?).
Also, customs and excise can get involved in this whole i'net thing.
If some people are ignorant, and don't disable sharing... that's their problem. I say, let the copyright holder sue them. Big time. For EVERY single copy that was made. I don't care if they are 12, 21 or 71.
Ratboy.
How To for old media:
The paper with the holes you can read -- light source and photosensors in a grid, and a couple of guide wires on a board. Feed into an 8 bit port that can be sampled. Use the feed hole to drive the software. If its paper tape, anyway. Should be a 3 day project. [I've done this]
If its cards, you don't have a feed hole to synch with. Modify a cheap printer to give you constant drive (needs to be one that can feed card stock. Put the reader on the output side (optical). Tune up the software according to the feed speed. I would take 1 week for this job (probably use a lexmark printer as the base). May need to convert EBCDIC to make sense of the data. [Haven't done this]
8" floppies -- more of a problem. Buy an old system on ebay for the disc drive. Use a high-speed uart and attach up the seek pins to a parallel interface. Write a bit of software to recover the data (bitwise) and any sector holes.
Analysis the data (it will have some kind of file system). May take months (SYNCH character variations (FF, A5, others). hard vs soft sectors, or WANG OIS which actually used both, recording format FM MFM M2FM, and then the file system, and data encoding -- gives 50ish variations). Of course if you are familiar with the source it will be quicker. [Done this]
Now: on to the point of this:
If you are recording for archival purposes DO NOT use the file system or recording sys du jour. If on a Unix box, dump raw files; "tar" is acceptable. tar works because it is easy to strip off the "tar" bits and get at the data.
Try to use media where you COULD conceivably build a reader.
Ratboy
Actually, I *would* argue that. If it is a crime, it has been facilitated by the organization making available the service on the internet. If the data that is "stolen" is sensitive, it should NOT be available on the 'net.
We are talking about someone at a keyboard here, and the ONLY thing she is doing is typing.
Ok, now let *me* commit a cybercrime:
"I hate Aryan Nazis (and all other Nazis, but especially Aryan Nazis) and I actively encourage you to go and KILL them."
In my jursidiction, that statement is a crime, and I could be sent up for years. Justify THAT.
"Cybercrime" -- what a f'in hoot.
Ratboy
The phony notion here is that there is CRIME on a network! [The only "network crime" I could even BEGIN to justify prosecuting is kiddy-porn and trading in other restricted information -- which is a crime if done on other than a computer network as well).
He didn't assualt you with... a computer, now did he?
Llamo *did't* break into your house. Nor did he break into the NYT building(s). He didn't hit someone with a computer, or threaten to destroy it (or destroy it). He didn't STEAL a computer.
He made use of a public network that NYT participated in to use the services provided by NYT.
Ratboy.
"BTW, I have an adult friend who insists it's perfectly legal to make copies of her CDs as long as she only gives them to friends. The only way such attitudes will change is when people are prosecuted for it."
Actually, it *is* perfectly legal. The interesting thing is that most people have been brainwashed into believing that its not.
My read of US law would indicate that a first generation personal copy is perfectly acceptable. Second+ generations not. Look into the US laws regarding DAT tape.
In Canada, it is legal without any "generation" problems. Copy, burn, and give away. The government takes a slice from the purchase cost of blank media, and feeds it back to the recording industry -- so you have ALREADY paid for it in Canada, EVEN IF YOU NEVER DO IT.
Ratboy666
Since the "holes" existed, it can be argued that the particular usage was invited. Unless I have entered into a specific contract, the NYT or any organization making a system available on the Internet exposes it to me, and makes its services available to me. Including services opened by "holes", because these holes may be a deliberate publication of a "service". For example -- If I take a taxi, it's published service is to take me somewhere. However, there may be other services that are _not_ published that the taxi may provide. Asking where an Italian Restaurant is... asking what time it is... etc.
Now, the service may be granted, EVEN IF IS NOT A PUBLISHED TAXI SERVICE. And, it is NOT illegal to ask the time from a taxi driver.
So, hacking should be considered legal. Under any sane legal system, anyway.
Ratboy.
Sure -- but the fact is that DirecTV is sending their signal to me. And I didn't ask for it. Nope...
And I don't like it one bit... no sir... I need to know what is encoded in that signal, you know, the one that they are beaming into my head.
Time to add another layer of tinfoil.
Ratboy.
I am sure that this has been covered to death, but let's go through the argument:
It is LEGAL to measure the signal strength of all signals coming through my property.
It is legal to 'scope these signals, and even to record that. After all, EM evironmental analysis is reasonable.
But, it's illegal to INTERPRET that data? How about a _little_ change: make it illegal to send the EM through my property if I don't want it.
"downloading" is not the infringement. If I am donwloading, I don't have access to the original. Indeed, the duplication occurs when the uploaders computer writes the bits to the network. (In the same way, a copy is made when a program is loaded for execution).
So, YES, you are liable -- you made the music available. You CAN'T make music files available on an SMB share (since you are copying, or facilitating).
Ratboy.
The "NAT" feature can't give you more than ports number of machines. So, 64K machines is maximum for NAT.
I have karma to burn. So lets dive in...
Email "click on me please" worms should, IMO, be legal. If it requires user action to activate, I argue the "permission" has been granted.
Viruses that exploit holes and spread by themselves should ALSO, IMO, be treated the same.
The fact that the hole exists can be interpreted to mean that permission was given (after all, what other purpose does the hole serve?).
It is the users responsibility to keep on top of things. Including arranging for recourse with vendors in case holes are discovered (just read the typical EULA).
If this is NOT the case, then I would not want to even LOOK for holes. After all, looking for holes may be interpreted as meaning I was after an exploit, and thus JAIL TIME (DMCA).
Of course, users want what is easy and cheap, and vendors don't want responsibility, so all the blame gets shifted to... hackers. The "paladium" thing is supposed to shift the responsibility from the users (who don't seem to want it) to the Vendor. Except that the vendor still doesn't give any guarantees.
With most other endeavours that can greatly affect other people (driving, flying, etc.) society issues licenses to certify that the "user" has a basic level of competency, and won't jepordize others. Not with running a computer on the 'net. No license needed. If we want to keep it that way, then we need to just "suck it up" with worms and viruses, making our systems as immune as possible.
Keep the 'net free and open. If Microsoft users don't want to patch their systems, we should do it for them -- really, whether or not they want it done. The price the MS user who doesn't stay on top of her patches pays. Same for other OSs (cracking or blacklisting open mail relays running Linux whould be an example). Keep hacking legal. For those in the US, down with the DMCA.
Note that with closed source software, the vendor has the responsibility to ensure that holes are closed. The user has the responsibility to choose a vendor that demonstrates good behaviour in that regard. With open source software, the responsibility can be shifted directly to the user, to deal with as she chooses. Or the vendor can keep responsibility (Windows on one side, Solaris in the middle, Linux on the other side).
All of this is probably too much for most people to stomach. Ok, I'll compromise. Make "worms and viruses" illegal, just to discourage the writers. Set a fine of $1000 per ORIGINAL system not owned by the offender affected. No jail time. Just enough to discourage the 18 year olds. No record either.
Ratboy.
Reading articles like this boils my blood:
The first assumption is that ''Open Source'' competes with Microsoft. Of all the idiotic ideas! Redhat competes with Microsoft. Mandrake competes with Microsoft (etc.) Certainly not Open Source software. That just is.
If you like it, use it. Just that simple. And leave your pre-conceptions at how the ''system'' is supposed to work at the door, please (that's *not* your computer, btw).
Next, we need a single standard GUI for Linux. What a load of crap!
Let's see -- when I installed Redhat 9, (and 8, and Mandrake), it installed a desktop for me. It works. Happens to be the one I want, too, but that doesn't matter. NEW LINUX USERS JUST USE IT. Why? Because when you install Microsoft, you get a single GUI too. There are methods for replacing the Windows GUI, but the level of user A. Russell Jones is addressing won't do it.
Next item. If using RPMs with Redhat 8 or 9, things work EXACTELY like Mr. Jones is promoting. End of story. What a load of FUD.
Most of the software is supplied (that is, on the same CD set). There are exceptions -- like how to get mp3s playing (but there is a clear link, and download of an RPM to install). And that makes setting up a system very straightforward
Setting up XINE is a bit more difficult...
However, since Linux is *not* pre-installed, and the typical user does not install (because someone in the family is the ''resident geek''), it isn't difficult. The machines just work.
And that is the most important thing. That the computer does its job; easily and conveniently.
The key points for ''casual user'' are that:
1 - Linux is just as easy as Windows
2 - It's cheaper
3 - You friendly neighbourhood support geek is happier when you use it -- make remote administration easier.
4 - No more Outlook worms, MSBlaster.
5 - If you have teenagers that just NEED the latest PC games and elite 'net experience, you go with Windows (and reload your machine every 3 to 6 months -- I just ghost 'em).
As a hacker, I am happy to see people use my software. My commercial stuff goes into embedded systems (like DVD players). So I get paid. I don't compete with Microsoft! I *like* them. I own MSOFT shares.
As an informal family IT support person, I wish that MS Windows had sensible remote management. I still have to support Windows 98, you here? Actually, I use Windows 2000 Professional as my Windows test-bed at work, but I don't know any of the remote management stuff. All I know is that 98 doesn't have it. So, I prefer my ''users'' switch to Linux. It's easier on me (in the long run). If they have DSL or Cable (broadband), I schedule backups for them. If they buy hardware, I install the drivers for them. If they need a new application, I set it up for them. Just like a company IT person.
For my own hacker needs, I can choose what GUI to use (and what filesystems, encrypting or not, and vi vs. emacs. etc. etc. etc.). Doesn't matter to others -- they are going to use OpenOffice.org, not (vi|emacs)! They are never going to touch a configuration file (they CAN'T, because they don't have the root password -- well, they do, its in an envelope with instructions to open it if I die, or in case of emergency). And when/if they learn enough, or they just want it, they can have the root password, their sysadmin badge (or tee-shirt), and get into the meat of the Open Source Movement.
Ratboy.
- Family IT Admin since '95.
- 3 Linux, 6 Windows 98 boxes
- 1 server
- 5 locations (Sault Ste. Marie to Detroit)
Actually, it IS legal to download an mp3 for a song -- whether or not you own the CD. Or a movies, or (with certain limitations) anything else you want.
What is illegal is COPYING the material. In other words, you may not upload. Or (seemingly, by current RIAA interpretations) facilitate uploading.
Downloaders are not breaking ANY laws. What I find interesting is the spin that the RIAA has put on this ("downloading" is somehow wrong).
To put this into perspective. If I copied an entire book to give to my students, stripping out the copyright, and we are discovered, *I* am liable for the copyright infringement. The students (who used the copied material) are not at all liable. To be liable, the student must also violate copyright (by further copying the material). Of course, there is now no indication of copyright -- indeed I may have falsly claimed copyright, and assigned that copyright. In which case the students violation is even less severe.
(should be limited to a warning to not continue).
On the other hand, in this scenario I should be hit REALLY hard.
Ratboy.
How to override a governor.
Easy enough. A button or switch. Also, which activated, initiates a sequence that records when the action was taken, and forces a report as to why (same as accident reporting here).
Ratboy.
The Zilog Z80 had "add double" (Intel 8080 also had it, called DAD D, Zilog ADD HL,DE). The Zilog Z80 also had ADC HL,DE (and yes, I know that BC, HL, SP could be used). The ADC added in the carry, which reduces the cycles needed but is Z80 specific.
LD HL,(X+0) ; 20
LD DE,(Y+0) ; 20
ADD HL,DE ; 11, 15 w/ carry
LD (A+0,HL) ; 16
; - repeat three with ADC
So, 67 + 71*3 for a 64 bit add = 280 cycles (or 70 microseconds at 4Mhz). Which makes the Opteron, what?, ~70,000 times faster with 64 bit arithmetic (its such a large factor, its hard to figure). In other words (easier to visualize), a single Opteron has comparable compute power to ALL personal computers sold in 1977.
Ratboy
It has always struck me as strange that:
The speed limit here (in Toronto, Canada) is 100 KPH.
All cars have speedometers that go to 180 KPH and higher.
People actually drive 120 KPH on the highway
-and-
The speed limit is an "absolute". If you're over, you are breaking the law.
Not only should there be sensors, but cars should have governors. The law *is* the law. If you don't like the law, vote and have your representative *change* the law.
However, if I get pulled over for driving 120 KPH, and all other highway traffic was doing the same speed, I feel that I should be able to forward the ticket to the automobile manufacturer for criminal facilitation. Because I can't, I feel that there is a de-facto conspiracy for raising taxes. (Note: In my entire driving "career" I have had only one speeding ticking, and no other infractions. I was not paying close attention to my speed, the highway was empty, and I was ticketed for 120KPH. No, the car did not have a cruise control, or I would have used it).
So, I not only want *detectors*, I want *governors*. Since we have the means, why should I pay tickets? The stated reason is safety (or gridlock prevention, or somesuch public good), and I presume that government officials aren't lying.
Ratboy
So here's the problem...
The CURRENT crop of readers has these limitations, but maybe not the NEXT crop.
A SINGLE RFID tag may not carry signficant personal information, but 3 to 6 would be enough to track you individually.
Reading in bulk is "is a tenuous affair at best and certainly expensive"? As compared to (say) training dogs to sniff for drugs?
Doesn't seem you are paranoid enough, my friend.
Ratboy.
Microsoft trys to achieve "platforms". A platform is achieved when people don't even THINK of another way. Anything that COULD be another way is bad.
... over the Web with Netscape" is not something that Microsoft could tolerate.
.NET as a platform.
Netscape wanted to deliver via Web. This was a platform threat and Microsoft HAD to eliminate it. "Let's deploy
Java -- just as bad. So, Microsoft has
The amount of money is (kind of) irrelevant. $100M+ is a drop in the bucket where a platform is concerned.
IM may be considered another platform? If it is, then Microsoft will be all over it. I don't know, I just code and try to keep out of the way of the big stuff...
Ratboy.
Microsoft has a monopoly in Operating Systems. According to US law, they are not allowed to exploit this monopoly to gain advantage in other areas. Directly, they are NOT allowed to use the Windows OS monopoly to create an "IM" monopoly. Locking out IM clients running on other OSs is perilously close to that behaviour.
Not that Microsoft has done this, but I just wanted to clarify your comment. Its right and wrong at the same time -- for example, Microsoft could "lock out" third-party Linux clients, but they would have to provide Linux access -- say via a Web page, or their own client.
If Microsoft supplied the Microsoft IM client with Windows (they have), and locked out all other clients... this could easily be judged as an illegal exploitation of their monopoly (they've done this sort of thing before, without much happening -- but its still wrong).
Ratboy.
I had one of these units in 1976. Best I could determine, the thing hadn't been powered on in 10 years (at that time). The unit was built in the late '40s. It had a large condenser which was used as a spark suppressor (for trans-atlantic cable runs, as best as I knew). I removed it, and wired it to a KIM-1 as a terminal.
Problem was that the motor coils had grease or oil in them, and would start smoking if the unit was on too long. I junked the unit after a few years (wish that I had held on to it now).
Everything was mechanical (a series of combs activated by 60hz from the line to decode the baudot code. 2 stop bits needed to allow time for the combs to reset after a character had been printed).
Now, its 2003 and these things are STILL operational. Wow. That's 50 years after they should have been retired. These days, printer mechanisms seem to wear out in a couple of years.
Note to all the young 'uns. These '15 teletypes used a typewriter-like mechanism, with a comb to allow only one type bar to impact. Speed was 5 characters per second. At 5 bits per character, no lower case characters. There was a figures/letters shift (two reserved characters - no more state than that - remember the decoder is mechanical). '33 mechanism used a type-ball. 10 characters per second, and used ASCII. The '33 also didn't support lower case.
Ratboy
"A tradition of quality"
You are kidding, are you not? Apple ][ used software instead of an FDC chip, and needed speed-matched floppy drives. Tradition of quality...
The video for the Apple ][ was so cheap that hi-res was, well..., special. Certain colour sequences just could not be produced.
Then, (years later), I purchased a Mac CX. Turns out that the power supply wasn't shielded, and external drives kept getting their contents corrupted and erased... Of course the SCSI cables weren't sheilded either, giving rise to MORE data corruption. And, I saw my first virus -- on a disk supplied by Apple.
And, ethernet was $1000 per station. Whilst I could purchase $100 cards for my PC. But that shouldn't matter -- the Apple rep had ASSURED me that the built-in "Appletalk" networking would meet my needs perfectly. Bulk image scanning and tagging. Sure.
Now, this WAS in 1990, and the company may have changed. One of my co-workers is using an Apple laptop (and aside from premature wear on the cover it seems ok). But this is a recent thing.
Apple Computers and Quality have NOT been synonymous in the first 15 to 20 years of operation of the company. It may be now, but I am being very careful.
Ratboy666
And yes, I worked at one of the first commercial Apple ][ software companies.
That's just wrong. I use three "platforms". Windows 2000 Professional, Linux (Redhat 9), and Palm. The Palm has been the easiest as far as drivers are concerned.
Next is Linux. I use it on an HP laptop, and a "generic" desktop machine. No problems with any of the hardware, everything just works.
Windows 2000 Professional was the MOST problematic. First, I had to get drivers for the NVidia card. The "latest and greatest" drivers caused the machine to not boot up (and, yes, I had the version that corresponded to the chip on the card). I then had to backtrack to a driver from last year; the older driver did work. The sound on the motherbaord was AC97 compatible, but Windows didn't recognize it. Downloaded specific chipset driver, and that didn't work either. Had to take the case off the computer, and check the motherboard manufacturer, and download drivers from their website. These drivers worked.
Yes, if the computer is pre-installed with Windows, you are in luck. But if you EVER upgrade Windows, or have to re-install from scratch -- good luck.
The biggest annoyances *I* have with Linux is:
1 - missing certain Sys/V features (message queues). Makes portable code between Solaris and Linux a pain.
2 - Redhat 8 and 9 don't allow (easy) configuration of the "Start" menu.
3 - OpenOffice under Redhat 9 allows installation of fonts, but there is not system-wide font installer.
4 - 802.11a support. I have the Intel 802.11a and need to use a binary broadcom driver for Linux. It works, but I can't seem to get more than 6mbits with it.
There are more; but these are the ones that I have come across in that last few days. Item (1) is the only pure Linux issue -- the others are comments about a specific distribution (so don't tell me to use another distribution; I have other reasons to standardize on Redhat). If they bug me enough, I may actually fix (2) and (3) myself.
As to the "driver" issue, only (4) stands out. And I can only pray that will be resolved quickly (either with new hardware, or a better driver). But I blame broadcom/intel for this, not Linux.
PS. As to the vaunted "Windows support" -- try using stuff like a DLink DMP-90 under Windows. I dare you. When closed source software and hardware becomes "uninteresting" and is abandoned, you get stuck. With using much older systems. Netgear 900Mhz wireless Aviator would be another example. If the drivers for these items were open-source, then you could use these devices under Linux or another F/OSS system. As it is, these items become junk when/if you upgrade your computer.
Level your driver complaint at the manufacturers, not at Linux.
Ratboy.
If you couldn't own a computer if you had to buy all the software for it... then you shouldn't own a computer.
/not/ the other way around.
/not/ a necessary computer function. No matter how you much you like it.
/don't/ use software I have no right to. I /don't/ infringe copyright. And that's all there is to it. We are talking about YOUR ethics, and not anyone elses.
End of story.
You are further compounding the problem by benefiting a company ("useful to my boss"). Your company should be supplying you with software and training,
I too am a Canadian, and I am ashamed of your attitude.
You mention that you are "running MS stuff for gaming". Gaming is
Run Free Software if you can't afford the other stuff. Its the ONLY moral and ethical thing to do.
Ratboy
-- and I have written both commercial software and freeware. I
Come on, what content? If a content provider *doesn't* want to supply content, they aren't a content provider.
So, no DRM, then they aren't a provider. Sucks to be them. Kind of reminds me of the Steam Locamotive vendors...Baldwin Locamotive works (1831-1915).
Content on the 'net is NOT the same as content on Radio or TV. The whole POINT of on-line content is that it is manipulable (sp?). What is "value proposition" of DRM? It makes it harder to supply and use content.
The Content Provider is dead! Long live the the Content Provider!
Ratboy.