The advice "never write down a password" dates from back when a secure-enough password could be remembered reliably.
This simply isn't true anymore. Any password that is easily remembered is likely to be easily crackable, because computer power is so cheap these days.
Even Bruce Schneier has reversed himself and now recommends that you write your passwords down on a piece of paper, and then treat that paper like it was a significant amount of cash or a credit card; keep it in your wallet, or locked in a safe, and be aware of it's location at all times.
Of course, people who write down their password on a sticky note and place it on their monitor are still idiots.
Yeah, and because folks with root can bypass this, every single time I survey a new system I find at least one account with "Senior" in the GECOS field and the password set to the userid...
This could work out to the favor of the original authors if the on-line versions of papers, magazines, etc were actually making substantial profits.
It could, in the cases where that's true.
But the next time you find yourself wanting to buy a CD of old issues of your favorite computer magazines, and they're no longer available because of this ruling, ask yourself how much you're willing to for them to go back and pay all those freelancers a second time for work they'd already paid for.
As a community, we really need to make up our minds; how come we want music to have to be able to be distributed free once the artist has been paid for his work, but we don't want the New York Times to put it's entire back issue archive into digital form?
And why shouldn't it be? Microsoft isn't preventing anybody from writing software, they're just saying "if you don't agree with me, you can't use my stuff to do it".
IDC IS doing an analysis based on actual usage surveys, not just market sales, so they should be (assuming their methodology is sound) producing numbers that reflect how Linux is actually used.
Er, I should have said "doing both an analysis based on actual usage surveys, and one on market sales, so they should be (assuming their methodology is sound) producing numbers that reflect how Linux is actually used, as well as how it's being sold, assuming you look at the right sets of their numbers."
IDC IS doing an analysis based on actual usage surveys, not just market sales, so they should be (assuming their methodology is sound) producing numbers that reflect how Linux is actually used.
Dan knows his mouse from a hole in the ground.
Dan knows the difference between Linux, BSD, and Unix.
IDC seperates Linux from Unix and BSD because they think that division matters to their customers. They don't seperate BSD from Unix because they think that division doesn't matter to their customers.
IDC gives a shit whether it's predictions turn out correct, and tries to improve their accuracy by examining their results.
In all, it sounds like Dan's a geek, knows what Linux is, and is concerned first and foremost with producing accurate, truthful, scientifically-gathered information.
Now watch me get modded down for not following the party line.
There have been consumer satisfaction surveys that show that consumer satisfaction with fast-food restaurants goes down during low-unemployment periods, and goes up during high-unemployment periods.
I maintain that the reason for this is that during low unemployment, the better workers have all got jobs, and the job pool has fewer good workers left in it. Therefore the fast food places have to hire the best people they can get, but those aren't as good as the best people available at 5% unemployment.
Further, you can't fire them, because they'll not only be hard to replace, but the pool of replacements mostly consists of people who couldn't get a job.
I'm not the only person who has reached this conclusion:
Here's a link to an audio recording of a National Public Radio "All Things Considered" segment on the subject.
You'll find that below 3%, it's hard to put ANY warm body into a job, much less find a good employee. Somewhere close to that percentage, you find the people who are pretending to look for a job, so they can collect unemployment assistance, but deliberately sabotaging their interviews or even outright defrauding the system so that they'll never be employed.
Personally, I think they should subtract another 3% from the figures and report 3% unemployment or less as 0% unemployment. They already don't count people who are unemployed and not filing unemployment claims or applying for jobs.
c'mmon, 4.2% unemployment is not that bad. In my country, unemployment is around 10%.
4.2% is bad, but not for the reason most people think; with only 4.2% unemployment, it's hard for the economy to grow, because most of that 4.2% are the hard-core untrainable.
Go into any American fast-food restaurant or convenience store right now, and it's quite likely that you'll be dealing with idiots who can't even work the cash register without their manager present. If they treat you like crap, they won't get in trouble, because the manager knows he'll have trouble replacing them.
It's a little better at 4.2% than it was at 3.3%, but the principle still holds.
I'm no economist, but I bet the "ideal" unemployment rate is somewhere between 5% and 7%. Remember, 5% unemployment doesn't mean 5% starvation due to months of being out of work; it means 5% are out of a job some time during a given time period. That includes anybody who leaves one job before they find another, and then finds a new job two weeks later that pays more.
I'd further be willing to bet that 3% of the potential job pool are people who couldn't hold a job as a greeter at Wal-mart if it paid $50,000 a year, and that if any one of 'em were taking your order at McDonald's you'd consider physical violence.
The GPL seems to have as much controvery as any other license, whether or not it is even enforceable hasn't been proven yet in court. I hear all the time that using Linux "avoids all the licensing crap of MS".
Neither has the mortgage agreement you signed when you bought your house, or the leasing agreement you signed to rent your apartment.
Like those documents, however, it was based on sound legal principles, and contains verbiage that is taken from documents that HAVE held up in court.
The GPL seems just as complex and irritating, if not more, than any of those lame EULA I click "agreeing" to.
It's complex, there's no getting around that. It has to be, to work in the United States, which has so many laws that a man can't carry them unaided, much less understand them.
I think the banana republic is the US government which cares more about kiddie porn than about kids going hungry. Lets get the priorities straight!
If you have the courage to post what country you're in, I'd love to pull up some stats about percentage of your country that goes hungry vs. the US.
No-one goes hungry in the US unless he wants to or is mentally defective. The US additionally produces much of the food that's imported into impoverished countries to feed their people.
In fact, the US government spends far more money seeing to it that children don't go hungry than it does pursuing child pornography.
We don't talk about the problem that much here not because we don't care, but because we solved the problem decades ago for OUR kids. Look to yours, troll.
Imagine some banana republic sets up a data haven and says, kiddie porn isn't illegal in Gamboonia.
Kiddie porn only became illegal in Japan two years ago. I don't recall any court cases in the US successfully forcing them to shut it down; it took diplomatic pressure to convince them to voluntarily pass a law.
There are other countries where the definition of "kiddie porn" doesn't equal the same thing as it does in the US.
This isn't a problem just in how we deal with podunk banana republics, this figures into how we deal with every nation in the world, because there isn't a single one of them whose laws coincide completely with ours on every subject that touches the internet.
Ok, academic status may not matter (although I think that's debatable), but criminal charges for 'computer crimes'? That's like charging a mechanical engineer with murder because he designed a car that someone else drove improperly, while drunk, and killed someone with!
Are you surprised? We're in a country where gun manufacturers are being sued for "wrongful death" when their products are used illegally, and where cigarette manufacturers are sued despite the clear warnings on their products.
You can TRY to get a TV network to play what you pay them for...I bet you'll be unsuccessful.
Why would I be unsuccessful, when thousands of other advertisers succeed daily? Or did you think those ads ran for free?
TV frequencies ARE regulated. It is required that certain bands be set aside for things like PBS. You're arguing that radio should not be regulated, by saying it's like TV, which is easily as regulated as radio. This doesn't make sense.
I agree, if that was what I was saying, it wouldn't make sense. But you set that straw man up just so you could say "this doesn't make sense".
What I am arguing is that ONE SPECIFIC LAW makes no sense. That law happens to only apply to radio, BTW, not TV.
Oh; and humans only occupy a tiny portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.
I think the best thing to do is just sign (not encrypt) all your email to your non-crypto using friends. That way they can still read your email, but they'll have to use a pgp aware mua to verify your sig.
I do this, and to date not a single person has switched email clients in order to be able to process my signatures.
The only responses I get that acknowledge it at all are:
1) Emails warning me my attachment was "corrupt" because they couldn't read it. I get these often.
2) Emails demanding I stop sending them "useless attachments". These are less frequent, but usually devolve into profanity when I say "no".
3) Bounce messages from AOL subscribers who are set to not accept messages with attachments. I get these every time I post to certain mailing lists.
4) One person who continually bitches that he won't read my emails because he fucked up notepad, and his MIME types are set to use notepad for text/plain attachments that Outlook deliberately mis-presents, and he's too lazy to fix notepad or change his MIME settings, so therefore I should be banned from all his favorite mailing lists until I stop persecuting him.
5) Another idiot who has Eudora automatically saving attachments, and refuses to install an automatic cleaner or turn off that setting, so therefore I should be banned from all his favorite mailing lists until I stop persecuting him.
Keep in mind that Microsoft's email products all deliberately mis-present a properly-signed PGP email (I.E., MIME-attached signature, as opposed to the inline kludge) as being a blank email with a notepad document attached, and be prepared to deal with this when you begin signing all your messages.
Interestingly, the folks using Hotmail, Yahoo, Excite, MailandNews.com, etc., don't bitch at all. Those services handle things properly (albeit not checking the signature), and their users thus don't have a problem. Of course, they don't have the option of verifying my signatures in any rational manner, either.
The ONLY problem with your argument is the fact that the radio spectrum is a limited resource, owned by the public and placed under the stewardship of the FCC (that is, the government).
Water is a limited resource, but it's perfectly legal for Evian to give a restaurant a discount (essentially the same as paying them to serve the product) in return for only serving their water.
Land is a limited resource, but it's perfectly legal for Disney to charge you $35 to walk through the front door.
People are a limited resource (at any given moment) but it's perfectly legal for FedEx to pay me $x to administrate only their Unix systems.
TV uses the SAME limited resource as radio, but it's perfectly legal to pay a network to let you air your program. Happens all the time.
In fact, it's perfectly legal to pay a radio station to play your music, as long as it contains an advertisement. It could be a 3-minute piece of music with 5 seconds of ad, but that's legal; it's only illegal if you take the advertisement out.
The government stepped in because the Network was not only an illegal monopoly (cartel would be the correct term, I think), it's "business practices" (extortion, threats of violence, and other criminal behavior) made it more or less just a profitable subset of organized crime.
I'm aware of that, I used to be in the radio biz.
The problem, however, is that those things were already illegal. Making a perfectly legitimate activity illegal on the theory that it will discourage an illegitimate activity is contrary to our entire system of government, or at least the one we profess to have.
This is exactly the sort of power that we let the government have that makes them think they can also do things like outlaw internet porn (because kids could conceivably access it) or outlaw guns (because criminals could conceivably get them) or restrict free speech (because you could conceivably pirate a DVD.)
We can't be against it in one instance and gung-ho for it in another, just because the latter has been around for a long time. Every time you don't oppose your government grabbing more power, you lose more freedom. We've already got measurably less freedom than we had right before we kicked the British out.
Instead of everybody jumping on the "it's illegal so it must be bad" bandwagon, how about we take a step back and ask:
WHY is it illegal?
Is there really a compelling government interest in making sure that one company doesn't pay another company to perform a service? I mean, if the radio station is playing music people don't want to hear, we'll stop listening, right?
Does it really matter so much that it ought to be enforced at gunpoint?
You could download all the code and make your own ISO's, which you could post on the internet. But that would undermine the project's support.
It's already being done. Does OpenBSD feel undermined?
In any event, Linux manages to thrive despite it. RedHat manages to make money despite it. Perhaps it's time for Theo to quit saying "it would kill the project" in light of the body of evidence that it'd do the exact opposite.
I talked to a NASA scientist who does planning for Mars missions, and she (don't recall her name, it's been nearly a decade) said that we DON'T need to build the damn things in orbit.
The decreased costs of building them on the moon (because some of the materials are there already and can be mined instead of shipped, and because people can work longer and harder with gravity and a flat surface under their feet) more than offsets the increased costs of pulling out of the moon's meager gravity well, so an orbiting space station makes no sense at all until we have a functioning moonbase.
And no, the space station doesn't help us get to the moon. It's a complete waste of taxpayer's money, and will probably set us BACK on a Mars mission, not help us.
"software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia."
Unless, of course, the method they choose to use for redistributing it is dd-ing the OpenBSD CD into a file, then making the file available for download.
Slashdot Mirror
The advice "never write down a password" dates from back when a secure-enough password could be remembered reliably.
This simply isn't true anymore. Any password that is easily remembered is likely to be easily crackable, because computer power is so cheap these days.
Even Bruce Schneier has reversed himself and now recommends that you write your passwords down on a piece of paper, and then treat that paper like it was a significant amount of cash or a credit card; keep it in your wallet, or locked in a safe, and be aware of it's location at all times.
Of course, people who write down their password on a sticky note and place it on their monitor are still idiots.
-
Making them a standard requirement rules out more lightweight implementations, such as the ash shell and the busybox or the BSD tools.
Lightweight isn't standard, and shouldn't be.
Now, if you'd like to propose an LLSB, go right ahead; sounds like a dandy idea.
-
Yeah, and because folks with root can bypass this, every single time I survey a new system I find at least one account with "Senior" in the GECOS field and the password set to the userid...
-
This could work out to the favor of the original authors if the on-line versions of papers, magazines, etc were actually making substantial profits.
It could, in the cases where that's true.
But the next time you find yourself wanting to buy a CD of old issues of your favorite computer magazines, and they're no longer available because of this ruling, ask yourself how much you're willing to for them to go back and pay all those freelancers a second time for work they'd already paid for.
As a community, we really need to make up our minds; how come we want music to have to be able to be distributed free once the artist has been paid for his work, but we don't want the New York Times to put it's entire back issue archive into digital form?
-
And why shouldn't it be? Microsoft isn't preventing anybody from writing software, they're just saying "if you don't agree with me, you can't use my stuff to do it".
So don't use their crappy stuff.
The coding world gets along quite happily without it.
-
IDC IS doing an analysis based on actual usage surveys, not just market sales, so they should be (assuming their methodology is sound) producing numbers that reflect how Linux is actually used.
Er, I should have said "doing both an analysis based on actual usage surveys, and one on market sales, so they should be (assuming their methodology is sound) producing numbers that reflect how Linux is actually used, as well as how it's being sold, assuming you look at the right sets of their numbers."
-
The important bits that I get from this are:
IDC IS doing an analysis based on actual usage surveys, not just market sales, so they should be (assuming their methodology is sound) producing numbers that reflect how Linux is actually used.
Dan knows his mouse from a hole in the ground.
Dan knows the difference between Linux, BSD, and Unix.
IDC seperates Linux from Unix and BSD because they think that division matters to their customers. They don't seperate BSD from Unix because they think that division doesn't matter to their customers.
IDC gives a shit whether it's predictions turn out correct, and tries to improve their accuracy by examining their results.
In all, it sounds like Dan's a geek, knows what Linux is, and is concerned first and foremost with producing accurate, truthful, scientifically-gathered information.
Now watch me get modded down for not following the party line.
-
There have been consumer satisfaction surveys that show that consumer satisfaction with fast-food restaurants goes down during low-unemployment periods, and goes up during high-unemployment periods.
I maintain that the reason for this is that during low unemployment, the better workers have all got jobs, and the job pool has fewer good workers left in it. Therefore the fast food places have to hire the best people they can get, but those aren't as good as the best people available at 5% unemployment.
Further, you can't fire them, because they'll not only be hard to replace, but the pool of replacements mostly consists of people who couldn't get a job.
I'm not the only person who has reached this conclusion:
Here's a link to an audio recording of a National Public Radio "All Things Considered" segment on the subject.
Here's Cnet's Mike Yamamoto talking about it.
Here's ADT Mag's Charles Trepper on the subject.
You'll find that below 3%, it's hard to put ANY warm body into a job, much less find a good employee. Somewhere close to that percentage, you find the people who are pretending to look for a job, so they can collect unemployment assistance, but deliberately sabotaging their interviews or even outright defrauding the system so that they'll never be employed.
Personally, I think they should subtract another 3% from the figures and report 3% unemployment or less as 0% unemployment. They already don't count people who are unemployed and not filing unemployment claims or applying for jobs.
-
c'mmon, 4.2% unemployment is not that bad. In my country, unemployment is around 10%.
4.2% is bad, but not for the reason most people think; with only 4.2% unemployment, it's hard for the economy to grow, because most of that 4.2% are the hard-core untrainable.
Go into any American fast-food restaurant or convenience store right now, and it's quite likely that you'll be dealing with idiots who can't even work the cash register without their manager present. If they treat you like crap, they won't get in trouble, because the manager knows he'll have trouble replacing them.
It's a little better at 4.2% than it was at 3.3%, but the principle still holds.
I'm no economist, but I bet the "ideal" unemployment rate is somewhere between 5% and 7%. Remember, 5% unemployment doesn't mean 5% starvation due to months of being out of work; it means 5% are out of a job some time during a given time period. That includes anybody who leaves one job before they find another, and then finds a new job two weeks later that pays more.
I'd further be willing to bet that 3% of the potential job pool are people who couldn't hold a job as a greeter at Wal-mart if it paid $50,000 a year, and that if any one of 'em were taking your order at McDonald's you'd consider physical violence.
-
The GPL seems to have as much controvery as any other license, whether or not it is even enforceable hasn't been proven yet in court. I hear all the time that using Linux "avoids all the licensing crap of MS".
Neither has the mortgage agreement you signed when you bought your house, or the leasing agreement you signed to rent your apartment.
Like those documents, however, it was based on sound legal principles, and contains verbiage that is taken from documents that HAVE held up in court.
The GPL seems just as complex and irritating, if not more, than any of those lame EULA I click "agreeing" to.
It's complex, there's no getting around that. It has to be, to work in the United States, which has so many laws that a man can't carry them unaided, much less understand them.
-
I think the banana republic is the US government which cares more about kiddie porn than about kids going hungry. Lets get the priorities straight!
If you have the courage to post what country you're in, I'd love to pull up some stats about percentage of your country that goes hungry vs. the US.
No-one goes hungry in the US unless he wants to or is mentally defective. The US additionally produces much of the food that's imported into impoverished countries to feed their people.
In fact, the US government spends far more money seeing to it that children don't go hungry than it does pursuing child pornography.
We don't talk about the problem that much here not because we don't care, but because we solved the problem decades ago for OUR kids. Look to yours, troll.
-
Imagine some banana republic sets up a data haven and says, kiddie porn isn't illegal in Gamboonia.
Kiddie porn only became illegal in Japan two years ago. I don't recall any court cases in the US successfully forcing them to shut it down; it took diplomatic pressure to convince them to voluntarily pass a law.
There are other countries where the definition of "kiddie porn" doesn't equal the same thing as it does in the US.
This isn't a problem just in how we deal with podunk banana republics, this figures into how we deal with every nation in the world, because there isn't a single one of them whose laws coincide completely with ours on every subject that touches the internet.
-
Exactly. Would you allow your 11-year-old daughter to speak to random adult strangers privately, for hours at a time?
If not, why would you let her do so with a PC?
As usual, no technical solution necessary for what is a social issue.
-
Let's combine 'em and call it OS/2K.
Or would that be too warped?
-
Ok, academic status may not matter (although I think that's debatable), but criminal charges for 'computer crimes'? That's like charging a mechanical engineer with murder because he designed a car that someone else drove improperly, while drunk, and killed someone with!
Are you surprised? We're in a country where gun manufacturers are being sued for "wrongful death" when their products are used illegally, and where cigarette manufacturers are sued despite the clear warnings on their products.
-
Are you clearsigning your emails, or are you making a separate signature file? If you just clearsign, it shouldn't come through as an attachement.
And I've explicitly stated that it's an attachment, so you've answered your own question, haven't you?
-
You can TRY to get a TV network to play what you pay them for...I bet you'll be unsuccessful.
Why would I be unsuccessful, when thousands of other advertisers succeed daily? Or did you think those ads ran for free?
TV frequencies ARE regulated. It is required that certain bands be set aside for things like PBS. You're arguing that radio should not be regulated, by saying it's like TV, which is easily as regulated as radio. This doesn't make sense.
I agree, if that was what I was saying, it wouldn't make sense. But you set that straw man up just so you could say "this doesn't make sense".
What I am arguing is that ONE SPECIFIC LAW makes no sense. That law happens to only apply to radio, BTW, not TV.
Oh; and humans only occupy a tiny portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.
-
I think the best thing to do is just sign (not encrypt) all your email to your non-crypto using friends. That way they can still read your email, but they'll have to use a pgp aware mua to verify your sig.
I do this, and to date not a single person has switched email clients in order to be able to process my signatures.
The only responses I get that acknowledge it at all are:
1) Emails warning me my attachment was "corrupt" because they couldn't read it. I get these often.
2) Emails demanding I stop sending them "useless attachments". These are less frequent, but usually devolve into profanity when I say "no".
3) Bounce messages from AOL subscribers who are set to not accept messages with attachments. I get these every time I post to certain mailing lists.
4) One person who continually bitches that he won't read my emails because he fucked up notepad, and his MIME types are set to use notepad for text/plain attachments that Outlook deliberately mis-presents, and he's too lazy to fix notepad or change his MIME settings, so therefore I should be banned from all his favorite mailing lists until I stop persecuting him.
5) Another idiot who has Eudora automatically saving attachments, and refuses to install an automatic cleaner or turn off that setting, so therefore I should be banned from all his favorite mailing lists until I stop persecuting him.
Keep in mind that Microsoft's email products all deliberately mis-present a properly-signed PGP email (I.E., MIME-attached signature, as opposed to the inline kludge) as being a blank email with a notepad document attached, and be prepared to deal with this when you begin signing all your messages.
Interestingly, the folks using Hotmail, Yahoo, Excite, MailandNews.com, etc., don't bitch at all. Those services handle things properly (albeit not checking the signature), and their users thus don't have a problem. Of course, they don't have the option of verifying my signatures in any rational manner, either.
-
The ONLY problem with your argument is the fact that the radio spectrum is a limited resource, owned by the public and placed under the stewardship of the FCC (that is, the government).
Water is a limited resource, but it's perfectly legal for Evian to give a restaurant a discount (essentially the same as paying them to serve the product) in return for only serving their water.
Land is a limited resource, but it's perfectly legal for Disney to charge you $35 to walk through the front door.
People are a limited resource (at any given moment) but it's perfectly legal for FedEx to pay me $x to administrate only their Unix systems.
TV uses the SAME limited resource as radio, but it's perfectly legal to pay a network to let you air your program. Happens all the time.
In fact, it's perfectly legal to pay a radio station to play your music, as long as it contains an advertisement. It could be a 3-minute piece of music with 5 seconds of ad, but that's legal; it's only illegal if you take the advertisement out.
Does that strike you as logical?
-
The government stepped in because the Network was not only an illegal monopoly (cartel would be the correct term, I think), it's "business practices" (extortion, threats of violence, and other criminal behavior) made it more or less just a profitable subset of organized crime.
I'm aware of that, I used to be in the radio biz.
The problem, however, is that those things were already illegal. Making a perfectly legitimate activity illegal on the theory that it will discourage an illegitimate activity is contrary to our entire system of government, or at least the one we profess to have.
This is exactly the sort of power that we let the government have that makes them think they can also do things like outlaw internet porn (because kids could conceivably access it) or outlaw guns (because criminals could conceivably get them) or restrict free speech (because you could conceivably pirate a DVD.)
We can't be against it in one instance and gung-ho for it in another, just because the latter has been around for a long time. Every time you don't oppose your government grabbing more power, you lose more freedom. We've already got measurably less freedom than we had right before we kicked the British out.
-
Airwaves are a limited resource, that's true; but so is land. We don't have a problem with people owning land.
And technology can allow sharing of airwaves far more readily than sharing of land.
The REAL reason the government interferes in this is because we've let them, and we've bought their bullshit excuse for maintaining the power.
-
Instead of everybody jumping on the "it's illegal so it must be bad" bandwagon, how about we take a step back and ask:
WHY is it illegal?
Is there really a compelling government interest in making sure that one company doesn't pay another company to perform a service? I mean, if the radio station is playing music people don't want to hear, we'll stop listening, right?
Does it really matter so much that it ought to be enforced at gunpoint?
-
You could download all the code and make your own ISO's, which you could post on the internet. But that would undermine the project's support.
It's already being done. Does OpenBSD feel undermined?
In any event, Linux manages to thrive despite it. RedHat manages to make money despite it. Perhaps it's time for Theo to quit saying "it would kill the project" in light of the body of evidence that it'd do the exact opposite.
ftp://ftp.zedz.net/pub/varia/OpenBSD.iso/
-
I talked to a NASA scientist who does planning for Mars missions, and she (don't recall her name, it's been nearly a decade) said that we DON'T need to build the damn things in orbit.
The decreased costs of building them on the moon (because some of the materials are there already and can be mined instead of shipped, and because people can work longer and harder with gravity and a flat surface under their feet) more than offsets the increased costs of pulling out of the moon's meager gravity well, so an orbiting space station makes no sense at all until we have a functioning moonbase.
And no, the space station doesn't help us get to the moon. It's a complete waste of taxpayer's money, and will probably set us BACK on a Mars mission, not help us.
-
"software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia."
Unless, of course, the method they choose to use for redistributing it is dd-ing the OpenBSD CD into a file, then making the file available for download.
-