If someone uses the exploit code to build a worm and doesn't include the full source code with the 'distribution', the originl worm writer could sue them for copyright violation.
This, of course presumes that (1) the original exploit author is a proper white-hat, and (2) we catch the person who creates the worm.
arm all the passengers so the hijackers know they're ournumbered.arm all the passengers so the hijackers know they're ournumbered.
Well they could start by stopping taking away our jewelers' screwdrivers, scissors,... If you think about it, they're just being icredibly stupid about this.. After 9/11, the best security system was the passengers, because passengers suddenly realized that you can't just sit in an airplane and wait for Bruce willis to transfer to your jet from an F-15 with an open cockpit.
Now they've completely disarmed all of the passengers, so that if someone does manage to overpower a sky-marshell and take away his gun, we'll all have to just knaw his hand off (presuming that they don't dentists pull out our teeth before they'll let us onto an airplane, next year).
Instead of enabling the people, they're going for these nice, expensive toys that just turn into a really juicy single point of failure.
Guh!
I was thinking that you could do it with ethernet. The units would take little enough power that you could run power over ethernet Ethernet already does CDMA, and that should be enough even with a few hundred students, because each student would be sending a very short packet. for any given answer. Actually, with switching 'hubs', you wouldn't even have to deal with collisions. The hubs would simply queue the packets. You could use simple Linux-on-a-chip systems to do all of the work.
Yep! I'll second that. Symantec doesn't have to worry about trashing their market here... I mean, can any of us think of anybody that would seriously argue that people who connect to the net with IE don't need an anti-virus solution?
I'm guessing that the best we could come out with would be someone who hasn't thought about it -- and most of those are the types that would probably just buy an anti-virus program 'because everybody else has one".
Selling anti-virus programs to IE users is like selling air-conditioners in arizona. The only question beyond if they already have one is whether they can afford yours -- and if the answer to the second question is 'no', you still have a chance....
1933 was probably an odd spike Statistically, you expect that from time to time in any random pattern.
2005, on the other hand is just the following a pattern of slow, continual growth. -- and it's also been the case that we've been recently pushing records for both numbers and severity. It's not just a spike we're looking at. It's a pattern of growth.
Put it another way: 1933 was a freak year. 2005 isn't.
I had to assume you were referring to Mao because the current Chinese regime has not murdered thousands of its own citizens, as the Iraqi regime did.
I've got to assume that you're talking about the current US Military regime, since you're trying to focus this on current regimes, not old regimes -- it's also accurate. Thousands of innocent civilians have died as a result of military action in Iraq since the US took over.
"For their protection".
This goes along with torture and murder in the prisons (with the government claiming irresponsibility), skirting (if not outright violation) of the Geneva convention,.... etc. etc. etc.
That's about as much energy as they can get in a day's sunlight, so there's no reason to make the engines really fast. The rest of the energy is used for things like running the instruments, transmitter, block heater, etc. Efficiency (in terms of both weight and energy use) and durability are far more important than having a hot-rod on mars.
BTW: Units gives me about 0.000224MPH. I'm using a start time of Jan 3/2004
(Yeah, and that's average time (including coffee breaks) not top speed.
Treat someone like an enemy for long enough, and they'll get the hint. If they treat you like a criminal and make you do things like sticker your cell phone, it soon starts to look like anything not explicitly prevented is fair game.
The places where I work, we tend to be more worried about outsiders coming in and messing with things. Yeah, sometimes insiders will do wierd things, but nowhere near what it would take to put together a loss prevention type program. People generally like to be trusted, and will often take action to protect that trust (if it's there).
You've been reading too many D&D manuals. (Gygax apparently determined that if you step inside from -40 weather your teeth will crack from the thermal stress.... idiot).
In the US ±40C is Mil Spec (especially in the south). In Canada, it's outdoor equipment.
The main difference, though, is that he's free in this country to be an ass, even though his nonsense is terribly damaging to international relations.
If you think he's free to call for the assassination of a foreign leader, then I suppose you also support the right of extremist Islamic Mullahs to call for suicide bombers? If not, then feel free to explain the difference.
Probably the like of Pat Robertson who referred to a democratically elected head of state who got 65% suppor in a a mid-term plebecite a "strong-arm dictator" and called for his assasination.
-- but he's not a terrorist, because he's on our side. (for some definition, or other, of 'us').
(( In my world, he's not far from a christian version of the mullahs who warp islam to the point of condoning suicide bombers. If the Bush administration insists on classifying his comments as harmless, then the US might as well replace it's stars with swastikas ))
It seems pretty a fairly legit description of what the money is being used for.
The New York Metropolitan area has
a population of about 22M. so $212M is just short of $10 for every man woman and child in the metropolitan area. At that price, I could probably make a bulk purchase of a wifi (or bluetooth) webcam for each and every New Yorker, and still have millions left for the infrastructure and servers.
One thing that I'll point out is that this is probably an example of corporate welfare in that they're probably going to put in rhe infrastructure for subway access to cell phones (at government expense) and then basically hand over that infrastructure to a couple of cell companies at pennies on the dollar.
Equally intersting is that this infrastructure is going to be something of an achilles heel. Just as it's going to be available to people to call out of the subway, it's going to be equivalently useful to a terrorist group to call in to the subway (say, to a bomb package).
Now, we've got a bigger security problem -- but that's OK. Well just solve it by making it legal to listen in on all cell phone calls without a warrant (or supply a blanket warrent. which is essentially the same thing)
Big Brother is alive and well, and living in New York -- but that's OK... This one's benevolant.
:-(.... (( patent pending Microsoft ))
The images captured in the London attacks meant the police could find out who they were, where they lived, who they had contact with, where they had travelled, etc etc etc.
Yep... They picked up the pieces and gave them a life sentence.... Or is that a death sentence?
I'm guessing that there are already cameras in the NYC underground, so it wouldn't be that hard to figure out who blew themselves up there, today.
Thing to note here is that they're going far beyond that. Most of the city is going to end up wired for sound. 1984 was dated 20 years too early.
....
how'd you manage to post a score 0 comment without either being AC or getting modded down?
(s)he had very few posts. The first (and only) mod recieved was -1 overrated. This resulted in a net negative karma which fetched a karma penalty rather than bonus. Haven gotten 2 'informative' mods for the above post, karma is now back positive, and so future posts wil now start at 0 (barring more negative moderation)
I would say that there is a big difference between forcing a dictatorship to go away, and having the dictatorship peacefully disolve itself. In fact, I'd say that it might be much more difficult to keep a reluctant dictatorship than to kick out a dictatorship that wants to say in place..
I mean, what would you say? I wouldn't expect a threat like "El Presidente, the people love you so much that, if you try to leave, they will kill you" to go much further than my teeth.
Great... More fodder for the Microsoft FUD machine..
First, "they hate copyright", now "they want to destroy the world". What next? "They're trying to put an entire industry (anti-virus) out of business!"?
but it would leave open the possibility that it could scan a library's books on the library's behalf.
That's precisely what Google is doing... Furthermore, it's consistent with what the Library of Congress (and, I presume, it's British equivalents) was intended for
As for Copyright infringement, it gets a bit more interesting. If Google manages to make it really difficult for anybody to bulk-grab entire books (or large proportions of them), and it turns out that being in the database increases sales of the associated books, then Google should have a pretty good shot at a 'fair use' defense precedent.
IANAL, but I can fool sherrif's deputies on a good day.
Methinks he's talking about a splintering of proprietary OS versions. It's generally believed that the bulk of SCO's beloved Unix came from the (original) BSD code base -- which they then modified and redistributed under a proprietary license. Subsequent manufacturers then created their own proprietary versions, and never the twain shall meet.
With a GPL license, Linus et. al. will always have the right to 'fold in' any interesting changes created by IBM, Red Hat, or whomever. This is a structural feature which helps to prevent destructive splintering and ensures a rapid growth of the product.
The grandparent's point is that this is as much an issue with Proprietary code as it is with Open source. It's actually worse with closed source because you have any number of the following problems (in no specific order):
Licenses which purport to take away your right to freely review the product
Sales people who only get paid {,decently} if they sell as many copies of the software as possible,
an inability to try the 'live' software without having to fork out the full price.
developers who may have no freedom to talk openly about the bugs they know about
no opportunity to see/change the underlying source code
These questions are pretty much unique to closed source. The real wierdity is that the licenses that some propreitary software has might make this sort of list (at least purportedly) illegal for them.
You might be able to get away with a rider saying that, given SCO's claims that the GPL is invalid, inapplicable and unconstitutional, their acceptance of the GPL will not be valid until (and unless) they explicitly, openly and bindingly accept the GPL as relevant and applicable to all of their activites -- or in a letter to you (the copyright holder) directly.
This would be borderline -- not a part of the license, itself, just putting SCO on notice that you no longer implicitly trust them, given their previous actions. It doesn't require them to notify yuu, it just requires them to repudiate their repudiation of the GPL.
From TFA: These improvements, along with a set of new and updated open-source software components, make OpenServer 6 a compelling upgrade for sites already running this venerable operating system.
I'd only be staying with OpenServer if I really, really, really had to. The current talk on
Groklaw is that, with the new charges from Novell, Half-life to SCO's bankruptcy is now measured in months (with weeks an outside possibility).
Once SCO is bankurpt, you can expect their trustee to settle pretty quidkly with IBM (only Darl and his buddies wouold be stupid enough to keep going on their lawsuit, and Novell may force a withdrawal of most of their original case).
For me, it's more like saying that Billy Grahm is getting anonymous money from Hustler (because he keeps talking about the magazine).
Not that big of a surprise. SCO has shown that they are all for snarfing quick money by using other people's code and hard work. It's not a question for me whether or not they're using Open Source. My question is whether or not they're abiding by the licenses.
(last time I looked, you could still get copies of the Linux kernel from their websites. They'll tell you it's just updates for their current customers, but it's still a violation of their (lack of ) GPL rights.
Slashdot Mirror
This, of course presumes that (1) the original exploit author is a proper white-hat, and (2) we catch the person who creates the worm.
Well they could start by stopping taking away our jewelers' screwdrivers, scissors, ... If you think about it, they're just being icredibly stupid about this.. After 9/11, the best security system was the passengers, because passengers suddenly realized that you can't just sit in an airplane and wait for Bruce willis to transfer to your jet from an F-15 with an open cockpit.
Now they've completely disarmed all of the passengers, so that if someone does manage to overpower a sky-marshell and take away his gun, we'll all have to just knaw his hand off (presuming that they don't dentists pull out our teeth before they'll let us onto an airplane, next year).
Instead of enabling the people, they're going for these nice, expensive toys that just turn into a really juicy single point of failure.
Guh!
I was thinking that you could do it with ethernet. The units would take little enough power that you could run power over ethernet Ethernet already does CDMA, and that should be enough even with a few hundred students, because each student would be sending a very short packet. for any given answer. Actually, with switching 'hubs', you wouldn't even have to deal with collisions. The hubs would simply queue the packets. You could use simple Linux-on-a-chip systems to do all of the work.
I'm guessing that the best we could come out with would be someone who hasn't thought about it -- and most of those are the types that would probably just buy an anti-virus program 'because everybody else has one".
Selling anti-virus programs to IE users is like selling air-conditioners in arizona. The only question beyond if they already have one is whether they can afford yours -- and if the answer to the second question is 'no', you still have a chance....
2005, on the other hand is just the following a pattern of slow, continual growth. -- and it's also been the case that we've been recently pushing records for both numbers and severity. It's not just a spike we're looking at. It's a pattern of growth.
Put it another way: 1933 was a freak year. 2005 isn't.
Oh, my, GOD! We've slassdoted the universe!
You'd think that a software engineer who works for astronomers would know better.....
I've got to assume that you're talking about the current US Military regime, since you're trying to focus this on current regimes, not old regimes -- it's also accurate. Thousands of innocent civilians have died as a result of military action in Iraq since the US took over. "For their protection".
This goes along with torture and murder in the prisons (with the government claiming irresponsibility), skirting (if not outright violation) of the Geneva convention, .... etc. etc. etc.
Hold on, I think I need to put that differently...
BTW: Units gives me about 0.000224MPH. I'm using a start time of Jan 3/2004 (Yeah, and that's average time (including coffee breaks) not top speed.
The places where I work, we tend to be more worried about outsiders coming in and messing with things. Yeah, sometimes insiders will do wierd things, but nowhere near what it would take to put together a loss prevention type program. People generally like to be trusted, and will often take action to protect that trust (if it's there).
In the US ±40C is Mil Spec (especially in the south). In Canada, it's outdoor equipment.
If you think he's free to call for the assassination of a foreign leader, then I suppose you also support the right of extremist Islamic Mullahs to call for suicide bombers? If not, then feel free to explain the difference.
Probably the like of Pat Robertson who referred to a democratically elected head of state who got 65% suppor in a a mid-term plebecite a "strong-arm dictator" and called for his assasination.
-- but he's not a terrorist, because he's on our side. (for some definition, or other, of 'us').
(( In my world, he's not far from a christian version of the mullahs who warp islam to the point of condoning suicide bombers. If the Bush administration insists on classifying his comments as harmless, then the US might as well replace it's stars with swastikas ))
The New York Metropolitan area has a population of about 22M. so $212M is just short of $10 for every man woman and child in the metropolitan area. At that price, I could probably make a bulk purchase of a wifi (or bluetooth) webcam for each and every New Yorker, and still have millions left for the infrastructure and servers.
One thing that I'll point out is that this is probably an example of corporate welfare in that they're probably going to put in rhe infrastructure for subway access to cell phones (at government expense) and then basically hand over that infrastructure to a couple of cell companies at pennies on the dollar.
Equally intersting is that this infrastructure is going to be something of an achilles heel. Just as it's going to be available to people to call out of the subway, it's going to be equivalently useful to a terrorist group to call in to the subway (say, to a bomb package).
Now, we've got a bigger security problem -- but that's OK. Well just solve it by making it legal to listen in on all cell phone calls without a warrant (or supply a blanket warrent. which is essentially the same thing)
Big Brother is alive and well, and living in New York -- but that's OK... This one's benevolant.
:-( .... (( patent pending Microsoft ))
Yep... They picked up the pieces and gave them a life sentence.... Or is that a death sentence?
I'm guessing that there are already cameras in the NYC underground, so it wouldn't be that hard to figure out who blew themselves up there, today.
Thing to note here is that they're going far beyond that. Most of the city is going to end up wired for sound. 1984 was dated 20 years too early.
(s)he had very few posts. The first (and only) mod recieved was -1 overrated. This resulted in a net negative karma which fetched a karma penalty rather than bonus. Haven gotten 2 'informative' mods for the above post, karma is now back positive, and so future posts wil now start at 0 (barring more negative moderation)
I mean, what would you say? I wouldn't expect a threat like "El Presidente, the people love you so much that, if you try to leave, they will kill you" to go much further than my teeth.
First, "they hate copyright", now "they want to destroy the world". What next? "They're trying to put an entire industry (anti-virus) out of business!"?
That's precisely what Google is doing... Furthermore, it's consistent with what the Library of Congress (and, I presume, it's British equivalents) was intended for
As for Copyright infringement, it gets a bit more interesting. If Google manages to make it really difficult for anybody to bulk-grab entire books (or large proportions of them), and it turns out that being in the database increases sales of the associated books, then Google should have a pretty good shot at a 'fair use' defense precedent.
IANAL, but I can fool sherrif's deputies on a good day.
With a GPL license, Linus et. al. will always have the right to 'fold in' any interesting changes created by IBM, Red Hat, or whomever. This is a structural feature which helps to prevent destructive splintering and ensures a rapid growth of the product.
- Licenses which purport to take away your right to freely review the product
- Sales people who only get paid {,decently} if they sell as many copies of the software as possible,
- an inability to try the 'live' software without having to fork out the full price.
- developers who may have no freedom to talk openly about the bugs they know about
- no opportunity to see/change the underlying source code
These questions are pretty much unique to closed source. The real wierdity is that the licenses that some propreitary software has might make this sort of list (at least purportedly) illegal for them.This would be borderline -- not a part of the license, itself, just putting SCO on notice that you no longer implicitly trust them, given their previous actions. It doesn't require them to notify yuu, it just requires them to repudiate their repudiation of the GPL.
These improvements, along with a set of new and updated open-source software components, make OpenServer 6 a compelling upgrade for sites already running this venerable operating system.
I'd only be staying with OpenServer if I really, really, really had to. The current talk on Groklaw is that, with the new charges from Novell, Half-life to SCO's bankruptcy is now measured in months (with weeks an outside possibility).
Once SCO is bankurpt, you can expect their trustee to settle pretty quidkly with IBM (only Darl and his buddies wouold be stupid enough to keep going on their lawsuit, and Novell may force a withdrawal of most of their original case).
I expect their future to be 'Brutish and short".
Not that big of a surprise. SCO has shown that they are all for snarfing quick money by using other people's code and hard work. It's not a question for me whether or not they're using Open Source. My question is whether or not they're abiding by the licenses.
(last time I looked, you could still get copies of the Linux kernel from their websites. They'll tell you it's just updates for their current customers, but it's still a violation of their (lack of ) GPL rights.