It's time to fork the tree. The Mozilla license explicitly allows this. Let's us take the latest Mozilla code, cut out all the AOL-related and other useless cruft, and start a new tree. How hard could it be to set it up on SourceForge?
First couple of goals: stability, no memory leaks, and 100% W3C standards compliance.
I know. Galeon is doing this. Partially. I say let's ignore AOL's "updates" and just write our own code.
You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.
You are 100% correct. (Technically, it was a Yahoo search, but, technically, Yahoo uses Google). Aren't those links a good starting point?
I don't really have much to say about this topic, except that I once heard that NTFS was the ideal filesystem under Linux for removable media, because it was resistant to the manglings that plague FAT and ext2fs. Is that true?
"K5 this." "K5 that." "This was already on K5" Blah blah blah. Particularly, in the discussion on the poor kid who got raided by the FBI for port scanning, it's like, hey, quit with all the handy K5 links already.
If the NSA (who will be used by the FBI, BTW) realizes that you are using the "GPS encryption program", it would be easy for the NSA to crack your key. The result would be no protection for your data. Making good keys is hard. You need a random or near-random stream of bytes.
First, let's assume that none of the members of your group actually tries to crack any box outside the group. If they did, your group could be treated as a conspiracy.
Second, for some crimes, the victim's consent is not a defense. For example, even if someone really, truly consents to murder, it's still a crime. OTOH, if you consent to me defrauding you of money, that's just a contract, and no crime has taken place. Which type of crime would computer break-ins fall under? Not sure.
As long as you do your activity offline, disconnected from the Internet, you are probably fine. If you're doing it over the net, then as long as everybody in your group owns their own boxes 100% and their net connections 100%, then you are probably fine.
One thing you might want to do. Take extensive contemporaneous notes on what you are doing and your purpose. That way, when the FBI shows up, takes your computers, and tries you, can point to your notes as additional proof that your intent was benign.
If you're a commercial security company, you need to hire a good lawyer and get a proper legal opinion. I'm a law student, not a lawyer.
This article made me laugh. But, because there are probably some people who are going to need this information, this article is total legal BS. If you destroy evidence, you have committed a crime. If a shaped charge goes off while the FBI is searching your home, you are seriously F'd in the a. Don't resist with violence. Instead, get a lawyer. And take lots of notes. Maybe you can sue them later for violating your rights.
BTW, something like a "Replacement of Property Taken As Evidence Act" is badly needed in the USA.
Since the Supreme Court decision Gideon v. Wainwright, every American has the right to a lawyer in a criminal case. For poor defendants, or those who wish to exercise this right, a court-appointed lawyer is available. In some areas, this is a "public defender." In others, it's a private lawyer who is paid by the court system for taking that particular case.
Should you always pay for your own lawyer? No. If a good public defender system is available, as it is in New Jersey, Philadelphia, and elsewhere, you'll do fine with them. But if you are in Texas, you better hire your own lawyer no matter what. It depends on how much money you have, and what you're tried for. For example, a murder case costs about $100,000 to defend. If you're charged with murder, and a lawyer offers to take your case for $500, you're better off with a public defender.
Don't hesitate to call lawyers out of the Yellow Pages. They will either take your case or refer you. They might refer you to a lawyer who is willing to take your case "pro bono" (for free). A lawyer is more prone to this if the case is interesting (like, computer-related), and where a strong moral case can be made (like, "the FBI is violating my rights").
This questionnaire is not authorized by law. (See below). Instead of asking the already angry federal agent to please fill out this stupid form (remember the agent has control over your possessions at this point because he has a warrant), silently cooperate. Say nothing, except that you didn't do it (if that's true), and that you'll be contacting an attorney. Don't give them any information except at the direction of your attorney. Get an inventory of everything they take down to the last power cord and floppy diskette. Take notes on when they came, how long they stayed, what they did and said, and what our impressions were. Those notes could turn into a goldmine in case you later sue them for violating your rights.
Here's the text of the actual law that it's based on, 5 U.S.C. 552(a). BTW, the "Federal Register" is a daily publication of the government, available at many libraries.
U.S.C. 552
(a) Each agency shall make available to the public information as follows:
(1) Each agency shall separately state and currently publish in the Federal Register for the guidance of the public--
(A) descriptions of its central and field organization and the established places at which, the employees (and in the case of a uniformed service, the members) from whom, and the methods whereby, the public may obtain information, make submittals or requests, or obtain decisions;
(B) statements of the general course and method by which its functions are channeled and determined, including the nature and requirements of all formal and informal procedures available;
(C) rules of procedure, descriptions of forms available or the places at which forms may be obtained, and instructions as to the scope and contents of all papers, reports, or examinations;
(D) substantive rules of general applicability adopted as authorized by law, and statements of general policy or interpretations of general applicability formulated and adopted by the agency; and
(E) each amendment, revision, or repeal of the foregoing.
Except to the extent that a person has actual and timely notice of the terms thereof, a person may not in any manner be required to resort to, or be adversely affected by, a matter required to be published in the Federal Register and not so published. For the purpose of this paragraph, matter reasonably available to the class of persons affected thereby is deemed published in the Federal Register when incorporated by reference therein with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register.
(2) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying--
(A) final opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions, as well as orders, made in the adjudication of cases;
(B) those statements of policy and interpretations which have been adopted by the agency and are not published in the Federal Register;
(C) administrative staff manuals and instructions to staff that affect a member of the public;
(D) copies of all records, regardless of form or format, which have been released to any person under paragraph (3) and which, because of the nature of their subject matter, the agency determines have become or are likely to become the subject of subsequent requests for substantially the same records; and
(E) a general index of the records referred to under subparagraph (D);
unless the materials are promptly published and copies offered for sale. For records created on or after November 1, 1996, within one year after such date, each agency shall make such records available, including by computer telecommunications or, if computer telecommunications means have not been established by the agency, by other electronic means. To the extent required to prevent a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, an agency may delete identifying details when it makes available or publishes an opinion, statement of policy, interpretation, staff manual, instruction, or copies of records referred to in subparagraph (D). However, in each case the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing, and the extent of such deletion shall be indicated on the portion of the record which is made available or published, unless including that indication would harm an interest protected by the exemption in subsection (b) under which the deletion is made. If technically feasible, the extent of the deletion shall be indicated at the place in the record where the deletion was made. Each agency shall also maintain and make available for public inspection and copying current indexes providing identifying information for the public as to any matter issued, adopted, or promulgated after July 4, 1967, and required by this paragraph to be made available or published. Each agency shall promptly publish, quarterly or more frequently, and distribute (by sale or otherwise) copies of each index or supplements thereto unless it determines by order published in the Federal Register that the publication would be unnecessary and impracticable, in which case the agency shall nonetheless provide copies of such index on request at a cost not to exceed the direct cost of duplication. Each agency shall make the index referred to in subparagraph (E) available by computer telecommunications by December 31, 1999. A final order, opinion, statement of policy, interpretation, or staff manual or instruction that affects a member of the public may be relied on, used, or cited as precedent by an agency against a party other than an agency only if--
(i) it has been indexed and either made available or published as provided by this paragraph; or
(ii) the party has actual and timely notice of the terms thereof.
(3)(A) Except with respect to the records made available under paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, each agency, upon any request for records which (i) reasonably describes such records and (ii) is made in accordance with published rules stating the time, place, fees (if any), and procedures to be followed, shall make the records promptly available to any person.
(B) In making any record available to a person under this paragraph, an agency shall provide the record in any form or format requested by the person if the record is readily reproducible by the agency in that form or format. Each agency shall make reasonable efforts to maintain its records in forms or formats that are reproducible for purposes of this section.
(C) In responding under this paragraph to a request for records, an agency shall make reasonable efforts to search for the records in electronic form or format, except when such efforts would significantly interfere with the operation of the agency's automated information system.
(D) For purposes of this paragraph, the term "search" means to review, manually or by automated means, agency records for the purpose of locating those records which are responsive to a request.
(4)(A)(i) In order to carry out the provisions of this section, each agency shall promulgate regulations, pursuant to notice and receipt of public comment, specifying the schedule of fees applicable to the processing of requests under this section and establishing procedures and guidelines for determining when such fees should be waived or reduced. Such schedule shall conform to the guidelines which shall be promulgated, pursuant to notice and receipt of public comment, by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and which shall provide for a uniform schedule of fees for all agencies.
(ii) Such agency regulations shall provide that--
(I) fees shall be limited to reasonable standard charges for document search, duplication, and review, when records are requested for commercial use;
(II) fees shall be limited to reasonable standard charges for document duplication when records are not sought for commercial use and the request is made by an educational or noncommercial scientific institution, whose purpose is scholarly or scientific research; or a representative of the news media; and
(III) for any request not described in (I) or (II), fees shall be limited to reasonable standard charges for document search and duplication.
(iii) Documents shall be furnished without any charge or at a charge reduced below the fees established under clause (ii) if disclosure of the information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.
(iv) Fee schedules shall provide for the recovery of only the direct costs of search, duplication, or review. Review costs shall include only the direct costs incurred during the initial examination of a document for the purposes of determining whether the documents must be disclosed under this section and for the purposes of withholding any portions exempt from disclosure under this section. Review costs may not include any costs incurred in resolving issues of law or policy that may be raised in the course of processing a request under this section. No fee may be charged by any agency under this section--
(I) if the costs of routine collection and processing of the fee are likely to equal or exceed the amount of the fee; or
(II) for any request described in clause (ii)(II) or (III) of this subparagraph for the first two hours of search time or for the first one hundred pages of duplication.
(v) No agency may require advance payment of any fee unless the requester has previously failed to pay fees in a timely fashion, or the agency has determined that the fee will exceed $250.
(vi) Nothing in this subparagraph shall supersede fees chargeable under a statute specifically providing for setting the level of fees for particular types of records.
(vii) In any action by a requester regarding the waiver of fees under this section, the court shall determine the matter de novo: Provided, That the court's review of the matter shall be limited to the record before the agency.
(B) On complaint, the district court of the United States in the district in which the complainant resides, or has his principal place of business, or in which the agency records are situated, or in the District of Columbia, has jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant. In such a case the court shall determine the matter de novo, and may examine the contents of such agency records in camera to determine whether such records or any part thereof shall be withheld under any of the exemptions set forth in subsection (b) of this section, and the burden is on the agency to sustain its action. In addition to any other matters to which a court accords substantial weight, a court shall accord substantial weight to an affidavit of an agency concerning the agency's determination as to technical feasibility under paragraph (2)(C) and subsection (b) and reproducibility under paragraph (3)(B).
(C) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the defendant shall serve an answer or otherwise plead to any complaint made under this subsection within thirty days after service upon the defendant of the pleading in which such complaint is made, unless the court otherwise directs for good cause shown.
[(D) Repealed. Pub.L. 98-620, Title IV, 402(2), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3357]
(E) The court may assess against the United States reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in any case under this section in which the complainant has substantially prevailed.
(F) Whenever the court orders the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant and assesses against the United States reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs, and the court additionally issues a written finding that the circumstances surrounding the withholding raise questions whether agency personnel acted arbitrarily or capriciously with respect to the withholding, the Special Counsel shall promptly initiate a proceeding to determine whether disciplinary action is warranted against the officer or employee who was primarily responsible for the withholding. The Special Counsel, after investigation and consideration of the evidence submitted, shall submit his findings and recommendations to the administrative authority of the agency concerned and shall send copies of the findings and recommendations to the officer or employee or his representative. The administrative authority shall take the corrective action that the Special Counsel recommends.
(G) In the event of noncompliance with the order of the court, the district court may punish for contempt the responsible employee, and in the case of a uniformed service, the responsible member.
(5) Each agency having more than one member shall maintain and make available for public inspection a record of the final votes of each member in every agency proceeding.
(6)(A) Each agency, upon any request for records made under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection, shall--
(i) determine within 20 days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after the receipt of any such request whether to comply with such request and shall immediately notify the person making such request of such determination and the reasons therefor, and of the right of such person to appeal to the head of the agency any adverse determination; and
(ii) make a determination with respect to any appeal within twenty days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after the receipt of such appeal. If on appeal the denial of the request for records is in whole or in part upheld, the agency shall notify the person making such request of the provisions for judicial review of that determination under paragraph (4) of this subsection.
(B)(i) In unusual circumstances as specified in this subparagraph, the time limits prescribed in either clause (i) or clause (ii) of subparagraph (A) may be extended by written notice to the person making such request setting forth the unusual circumstances for such extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched. No such notice shall specify a date that would result in an extension for more than ten working days, except as provided in clause (ii) of this subparagraph.
(ii) With respect to a request for which a written notice under clause (i) extends the time limits prescribed under clause (i) of subparagraph (A), the agency shall notify the person making the request if the request cannot be processed within the time limit specified in that clause and shall provide the person an opportunity to limit the scope of the request so that it may be processed within that time limit or an opportunity to arrange with the agency an alternative time frame for processing the request or a modified request. Refusal by the person to reasonably modify the request or arrange such an alternative time frame shall be considered as a factor in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist for purposes of subparagraph (C).
(iii) As used in this subparagraph, "unusual circumstances" means, but only to the extent reasonably necessary to the proper processing of the particular requests--
(I) the need to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request;
(II) the need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records which are demanded in a single request; or
(III) the need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency having a substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more components of the agency having substantial subject-matter interest therein.
(iv) Each agency may promulgate regulations, pursuant to notice and receipt of public comment, providing for the aggregation of certain requests by the same requestor, or by a group of requestors acting in concert, if the agency reasonably believes that such requests actually constitute a single request, which would otherwise satisfy the unusual circumstances specified in this subparagraph, and the requests involve clearly related matters. Multiple requests involving unrelated matters shall not be aggregated.
(C)(i) Any person making a request to any agency for records under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection shall be deemed to have exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to such request if the agency fails to comply with the applicable time limit provisions of this paragraph. If the Government can show exceptional circumstances exist and that the agency is exercising due diligence in responding to the request, the court may retain jurisdiction and allow the agency additional time to complete its review of the records. Upon any determination by an agency to comply with a request for records, the records shall be made promptly available to such person making such request. Any notification of denial of any request for records under this subsection shall set forth the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial of such request.
(ii) For purposes of this subparagraph, the term "exceptional circumstances" does not include a delay that results from a predictable agency workload of requests under this section, unless the agency demonstrates reasonable progress in reducing its backlog of pending requests.
(iii) Refusal by a person to reasonably modify the scope of a request or arrange an alternative time frame for processing a request (or a modified request) under clause (ii) after being given an opportunity to do so by the agency to whom the person made the request shall be considered as a factor in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist for purposes of this subparagraph.
(D)(i) Each agency may promulgate regulations, pursuant to notice and receipt of public comment, providing for multitrack processing of requests for records based on the amount of work or time (or both) involved in processing requests.
(ii) Regulations under this subparagraph may provide a person making a request that does not qualify for the fastest multitrack processing an opportunity to limit the scope of the request in order to qualify for faster processing.
(iii) This subparagraph shall not be considered to affect the requirement under subparagraph (C) to exercise due diligence.
(E)(i) Each agency shall promulgate regulations, pursuant to notice and receipt of public comment, providing for expedited processing of requests for records--
(I) in cases in which the person requesting the records demonstrates a compelling need; and
(II) in other cases determined by the agency.
(ii) Notwithstanding clause (i), regulations under this subparagraph must ensure--
(I) that a determination of whether to provide expedited processing shall be made, and notice of the determination shall be provided to the person making the request, within 10 days after the date of the request; and
(II) expeditious consideration of administrative appeals of such determinations of whether to provide expedited processing.
(iii) An agency shall process as soon as practicable any request for records to which the agency has granted expedited processing under this subparagraph. Agency action to deny or affirm denial of a request for expedited processing pursuant to this subparagraph, and failure by an agency to respond in a timely manner to such a request shall be subject to judicial review under paragraph (4), except that the judicial review shall be based on the record before the agency at the time of the determination.
(iv) A district court of the United States shall not have jurisdiction to review an agency denial of expedited processing of a request for records after the agency has provided a complete response to the request.
(v) For purposes of this subparagraph, the term "compelling need" means--
(I) that a failure to obtain requested records on an expedited basis under this paragraph could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual; or
(II) with respect to a request made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information, urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity.
(vi) A demonstration of a compelling need by a person making a request for expedited processing shall be made by a statement certified by such person to be true and correct to the best of such person's knowledge and belief.
(F) In denying a request for records, in whole or in part, an agency shall make a reasonable effort to estimate the volume of any requested matter the provision of which is denied, and shall provide any such estimate to the person making the request, unless providing such estimate would harm an interest protected by the exemption in subsection (b) pursuant to which the denial is made.
(b) This section does not apply to matters that are--
(1) (A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;
(2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;
(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;
(4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;
(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency;
(6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;
(8) contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or
(9) geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.
Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt under this subsection. The amount of information deleted shall be indicated on the released portion of the record, unless including that indication would harm an interest protected by the exemption in this subsection under which the deletion is made. If technically feasible, the amount of the information shall be indicated at the place in the record where such deletion is made.
(c)(1) Whenever a request is made which involves access to records described in subsection (b)(7)(A) and--
(A) the investigation or proceeding involves a possible violation of criminal law; and
(B) there is reason to believe that (i) the subject of the investigation or proceeding is not aware of its pendency, and (ii) disclosure of the existence of the records could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings,
the agency may, during only such time as that circumstance continues, treat the records as not subject to the requirements of this section.
(2) Whenever informant records maintained by a criminal law enforcement agency under an informant's name or personal identifier are requested by a third party according to the informant's name or personal identifier, the agency may treat the records as not subject to the requirements of this section unless the informant's status as an informant has been officially confirmed.
(3) Whenever a request is made which involves access to records maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation pertaining to foreign intelligence or counterintelligence, or international terrorism, and the existence of the records is classified information as provided in subsection (b)(1), the Bureau may, as long as the existence of the records remains classified information, treat the records as not subject to the requirements of this section.
(d) This section does not authorize withholding of information or limit the availability of records to the public, except as specifically stated in this section. This section is not authority to withhold information from Congress.
(e)(1) On or before February 1 of each year, each agency shall submit to the Attorney General of the United States a report which shall cover the preceding fiscal year and which shall include--
(A) the number of determinations made by the agency not to comply with requests for records made to such agency under subsection (a) and the reasons for each such determination;
(B)(i) the number of appeals made by persons under subsection (a)(6), the result of such appeals, and the reason for the action upon each appeal that results in a denial of information; and
(ii) a complete list of all statutes that the agency relies upon to authorize the agency to withhold information under subsection (b)(3), a description of whether a court has upheld the decision of the agency to withhold information under each such statute, and a concise description of the scope of any information withheld;
(C) the number of requests for records pending before the agency as of September 30 of the preceding year, and the median number of days that such requests had been pending before the agency as of that date;
(D) the number of requests for records received by the agency and the number of requests which the agency processed;
(E) the median number of days taken by the agency to process different types of requests;
(F) the total amount of fees collected by the agency for processing requests; and
(G) the number of full-time staff of the agency devoted to processing requests for records under this section, and the total amount expended by the agency for processing such requests.
(2) Each agency shall make each such report available to the public including by computer telecommunications, or if computer telecommunications means have not been established by the agency, by other electronic means.
(3) The Attorney General of the United States shall make each report which has been made available by electronic means available at a single electronic access point. The Attorney General of the United States shall notify the Chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the House of Representatives and the Chairman and ranking minority member of the Committees on Governmental Affairs and the Judiciary of the Senate, no later than April 1 of the year in which each such report is issued, that such reports are available by electronic means.
(4) The Attorney General of the United States, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, shall develop reporting and performance guidelines in connection with reports required by this subsection by October 1, 1997, and may establish additional requirements for such reports as the Attorney General determines may be useful.
(5) The Attorney General of the United States shall submit an annual report on or before April 1 of each calendar year which shall include for the prior calendar year a listing of the number of cases arising under this section, the exemption involved in each case, the disposition of such case, and the cost, fees, and penalties assessed under subparagraphs (E), (F), and (G) of subsection (a)(4). Such report shall also include a description of the efforts undertaken by the Department of Justice to encourage agency compliance with this section.
(f) For purposes of this section, the term--
(1) "agency" as defined in section 551(1) of this title includes any executive department, military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of the Government (including the Executive Office of the President), or any independent regulatory agency; and
(2) "record" and any other term used in this section in reference to information includes any information that would be an agency record subject to the requirements of this section when maintained by an agency in any format, including an electronic format.
(g) The head of each agency shall prepare and make publicly available upon request, reference material or a guide for requesting records or information from the agency, subject to the exemptions in subsection (b), including--
(1) an index of all major information systems of the agency;
(2) a description of major information and record locator systems maintained by the agency; and
(3) a handbook for obtaining various types and categories of public information from the agency pursuant to chapter 35 of title 44, and under this section.
A quibble. It's 5.25" and 3.5", respectively. Your point is a good one. Let's face it, the tracks on the old 5.25" diskettes were wider than those on the 3.5" diskettes. After all, bigger media size, less data, and same basic material. It just makes sense that the 5.25" diskettes were more reliable.
It's such a shame that the best technology hasn't won the removable media wars. Instead, we have the Zip drive pretender (based on Winchester technology, these drives are nice little toys but are inherently unreliable), and the CDRW hackjob (limited number of rewrites per CDRW disc, and succeptability to scratches). If you want something that will last years and years, you need either Bernoulli (now a long-dead technology), or magneto-optical. (WORM is another option, but only for organizations who can spend large amounts of money.)
The MO media is a strong point. A hard plastic shell with a metal door protects the media from scratches, just like 3.5" floppies and Zip disks. But the media itself is relatively resistant to heat, humidity, impact, and magnetism.
In magneto-optical, data is read with a laser. It's simple, and works like a CD. Data is written, however, by first heating the media with a different laser to a near melting point, and then altering the 1's and 0's with a magnetic head. When the material cools, the bits aren't easily altered by magnetic force. (It would take so much magnetic force that the whole media would be severely bent anyway.) This results in extremely good reliability, but not so good write speeds. Nevertheless, writing is faster than a floppy, and many people put up with that. Notably, reading is very quick.
As for the economics, both ATAPI and SCSI drives are available. The least expensive models these days are the Fujitsu DynaMO's. Media is not very cheap, but would get much cheaper if more people used the technology and economies of scale kicked in.
Additionally, the drives are all backwardly compatible, from 640MB to 230MB to 128MB.
In short, if you are planning a solution for an entire campus of people, MO might not be the best solution, just because ZIP and CDRW are so cheap. But, if you're looking for a personal data solution, or need proven reliability, MO is the way to go.
We've all been heroes for a day when someone lost their important files because of a bad floppy, and we saved them. I remember one time, there was this really cute girl who called the system administrator, me, because her diskette failed. Knowing who she was, I raced to the student computer lab (I was a student myself and lived on campus), and proceeded to extract her WordPerfect document from temporary files that were left on the network. She was so surprised and happy that she gave me a big bearhug. Unfortunately, the documents turned out to be a love letter to her boyfriend, so I was out of luck again. But this whole thing brings up the important point that bad floppies give us geek-types a chance to impress other people with our skills.
I remember back in 1992, I was the local Novell administrator for my small college while still a student. Every few days, another student would come to us computing center guys and show us a floppy diskette that looked like a it had been dragged through the mud. Of course, it had the only copy of their term paper. Eventually, I made a proposal: buy a new hard drive for the Novell server -- enough for 1 megabyte for every student, and get students to use that for their primary storage. (Novell has the ability to enforce strict user disc quotas.) The response was intense skepticism. Why would that work? It was seen as too expensive, even though the alternative was much pricier. And unfortunately, people just don't understand network storage, even today. People do learn how to create complex tables in Microsoft Word, for example, but never learn the basics of how to be an efficient LAN user. So I think the solution is two pronged: network storage and user education.
It is possible that you'd be sued. In fact, if this turns out to be half the brouhaha I think it will be, then the FBI and MS are going to come down hard on anyone they can get their mitts on.
Not only could you get sued, you could potentially go to jail. Aiding and abetting the theft of intellectual property.
Some advice. Play it safe. Don't post links. Don't even ask for links to be posted.
Nope. Not anymore at least. There's no telling that if there was a hack of ftp.microsoft.com that the attack was by the same Russian hackers, anyway.
My question is, why didn't they ace the filesystems on everything they had access to? Do they still have access? How did Microsoft just suddenly say, boom, no more hackers? Okay, maybe they just unplugged the code server....for now.
Do not post to this thread. Asking for that source is like asking for stolen goods. Under American law, that is a crime. You might not be prosecuted, but why take the chance? This is probably going to end up being the highest profile security crack for many years. The FBI is probably already swarming through slashdot and other hacker hangouts. I repeat. Do *not* ask for the source code. Also, do *not* encourage copycat hacks. That could also be a crime under American law.
Just for the record, although I hate Microsoft Corporation and I support open source, a crime like this is still wrong. Crime does not pay.
When are we going to learn? Sysadmins are treated like peasants in any organization, corporate, educational, or other. As the net increases in importance, the more it looks to me like the most despised members of society (geeks) are responsible for keeping everything working. Can you say exploitation? I speak as a former sysadmin who is now in law school.
Galileo carries 49.7 pounds of plutonium as fuel. As it enters Jupiter's atmosphere, Galileo will encounter high levels of pressure and gravitational pull. Is it possible that the plutonium would have a fission reaction, resulting in a small nuclear explosion? If an explosion did occur, a lot of infrared energy would be released. Would that infrared energy be enough to start Jupiter's atmosphere on fire? Would such a fire eventually put itself out? Or would Jupiter's atmosphere fail to combust?
Isn't Jupiter too small in mass to become a star, even a small star, under any circumstances?
Thanks to any science types who answer. Even if you aren't sure, please speculate. It will be interesting to see if anyone predicts it correctly.
Let me add PMMail and Pegasus Mail to the list of solid Windows e-mail clients (excepting Outlook) for which the free unices do not yet have an answer.
While it would be nice to have Wine run these apps, the best long-term solutions are Evolution and other homegrown MUA's/e-mail clients. There are two reasons. First, a native app will be superior. Second, there is no truly great all-purpose e-mail app on any platform. Maybe Evolution or some other Linux-bred app will claim the prize.
I see that everyone is hailing this as the next glorious step of the revolution. Well, that's all great and fine. But let me play the devil's advocate for a moment.
This is terrible! Wine must never be allowed to reach 1.0 status. The success of the revolution is hinged on a windows emulator that really works for applets and some other things, but can't get any real work done. This attracts software developers and users with its promise, but then when they figure out that it doesn't work perfectly yet, they move on to *real* Linux apps. This keeps Linux healthy. If Wine does truly succeed, developers and users will still come to Linux, but they'll never migrate from the Windows model. Microsoft (or just the "Soft," if it's broken up) then will change the API, and Wine will be broken again. Everyone will move back to Windows.
Come on people. We don't want another OS/2 on our hands.
Remember, just playing the devil's advocate. Go Wine.
This is a legal question. The answer is we don't know yet. First, the judge must come to a decision on the remedy -- the outcome of the trial. If the remedy does open up the Windows API, it still isn't settled. The appeals process kicks in at that point. At the very earliest, the case will be be over in a year.
Slashdot Mirror
DVD-RW: the "floppy diskette" of Generation Z. Har har har.
First couple of goals: stability, no memory leaks, and 100% W3C standards compliance.
I know. Galeon is doing this. Partially. I say let's ignore AOL's "updates" and just write our own code.
You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.
There is no way to do it. The general theory of relativity will prevent any attempted proof of location.
I don't really have much to say about this topic, except that I once heard that NTFS was the ideal filesystem under Linux for removable media, because it was resistant to the manglings that plague FAT and ext2fs. Is that true?
http://slashdot.org/articles /00 /09/25/2314215.shtml
"K5 this." "K5 that." "This was already on K5" Blah blah blah. Particularly, in the discussion on the poor kid who got raided by the FBI for port scanning, it's like, hey, quit with all the handy K5 links already.
If the NSA (who will be used by the FBI, BTW) realizes that you are using the "GPS encryption program", it would be easy for the NSA to crack your key. The result would be no protection for your data. Making good keys is hard. You need a random or near-random stream of bytes.
Second, for some crimes, the victim's consent is not a defense. For example, even if someone really, truly consents to murder, it's still a crime. OTOH, if you consent to me defrauding you of money, that's just a contract, and no crime has taken place. Which type of crime would computer break-ins fall under? Not sure.
As long as you do your activity offline, disconnected from the Internet, you are probably fine. If you're doing it over the net, then as long as everybody in your group owns their own boxes 100% and their net connections 100%, then you are probably fine.
One thing you might want to do. Take extensive contemporaneous notes on what you are doing and your purpose. That way, when the FBI shows up, takes your computers, and tries you, can point to your notes as additional proof that your intent was benign.
If you're a commercial security company, you need to hire a good lawyer and get a proper legal opinion. I'm a law student, not a lawyer.
BTW, something like a "Replacement of Property Taken As Evidence Act" is badly needed in the USA.
Should you always pay for your own lawyer? No. If a good public defender system is available, as it is in New Jersey, Philadelphia, and elsewhere, you'll do fine with them. But if you are in Texas, you better hire your own lawyer no matter what. It depends on how much money you have, and what you're tried for. For example, a murder case costs about $100,000 to defend. If you're charged with murder, and a lawyer offers to take your case for $500, you're better off with a public defender.
Don't hesitate to call lawyers out of the Yellow Pages. They will either take your case or refer you. They might refer you to a lawyer who is willing to take your case "pro bono" (for free). A lawyer is more prone to this if the case is interesting (like, computer-related), and where a strong moral case can be made (like, "the FBI is violating my rights").
Good luck.
Here's the text of the actual law that it's based on, 5 U.S.C. 552(a). BTW, the "Federal Register" is a daily publication of the government, available at many libraries.
U.S.C. 552
(a) Each agency shall make available to the public information as follows: (1) Each agency shall separately state and currently publish in the Federal Register for the guidance of the public-- (A) descriptions of its central and field organization and the established places at which, the employees (and in the case of a uniformed service, the members) from whom, and the methods whereby, the public may obtain information, make submittals or requests, or obtain decisions; (B) statements of the general course and method by which its functions are channeled and determined, including the nature and requirements of all formal and informal procedures available; (C) rules of procedure, descriptions of forms available or the places at which forms may be obtained, and instructions as to the scope and contents of all papers, reports, or examinations; (D) substantive rules of general applicability adopted as authorized by law, and statements of general policy or interpretations of general applicability formulated and adopted by the agency; and (E) each amendment, revision, or repeal of the foregoing. Except to the extent that a person has actual and timely notice of the terms thereof, a person may not in any manner be required to resort to, or be adversely affected by, a matter required to be published in the Federal Register and not so published. For the purpose of this paragraph, matter reasonably available to the class of persons affected thereby is deemed published in the Federal Register when incorporated by reference therein with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register. (2) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying-- (A) final opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions, as well as orders, made in the adjudication of cases; (B) those statements of policy and interpretations which have been adopted by the agency and are not published in the Federal Register; (C) administrative staff manuals and instructions to staff that affect a member of the public; (D) copies of all records, regardless of form or format, which have been released to any person under paragraph (3) and which, because of the nature of their subject matter, the agency determines have become or are likely to become the subject of subsequent requests for substantially the same records; and (E) a general index of the records referred to under subparagraph (D); unless the materials are promptly published and copies offered for sale. For records created on or after November 1, 1996, within one year after such date, each agency shall make such records available, including by computer telecommunications or, if computer telecommunications means have not been established by the agency, by other electronic means. To the extent required to prevent a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, an agency may delete identifying details when it makes available or publishes an opinion, statement of policy, interpretation, staff manual, instruction, or copies of records referred to in subparagraph (D). However, in each case the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing, and the extent of such deletion shall be indicated on the portion of the record which is made available or published, unless including that indication would harm an interest protected by the exemption in subsection (b) under which the deletion is made. If technically feasible, the extent of the deletion shall be indicated at the place in the record where the deletion was made. Each agency shall also maintain and make available for public inspection and copying current indexes providing identifying information for the public as to any matter issued, adopted, or promulgated after July 4, 1967, and required by this paragraph to be made available or published. Each agency shall promptly publish, quarterly or more frequently, and distribute (by sale or otherwise) copies of each index or supplements thereto unless it determines by order published in the Federal Register that the publication would be unnecessary and impracticable, in which case the agency shall nonetheless provide copies of such index on request at a cost not to exceed the direct cost of duplication. Each agency shall make the index referred to in subparagraph (E) available by computer telecommunications by December 31, 1999. A final order, opinion, statement of policy, interpretation, or staff manual or instruction that affects a member of the public may be relied on, used, or cited as precedent by an agency against a party other than an agency only if-- (i) it has been indexed and either made available or published as provided by this paragraph; or (ii) the party has actual and timely notice of the terms thereof. (3)(A) Except with respect to the records made available under paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, each agency, upon any request for records which (i) reasonably describes such records and (ii) is made in accordance with published rules stating the time, place, fees (if any), and procedures to be followed, shall make the records promptly available to any person. (B) In making any record available to a person under this paragraph, an agency shall provide the record in any form or format requested by the person if the record is readily reproducible by the agency in that form or format. Each agency shall make reasonable efforts to maintain its records in forms or formats that are reproducible for purposes of this section. (C) In responding under this paragraph to a request for records, an agency shall make reasonable efforts to search for the records in electronic form or format, except when such efforts would significantly interfere with the operation of the agency's automated information system. (D) For purposes of this paragraph, the term "search" means to review, manually or by automated means, agency records for the purpose of locating those records which are responsive to a request. (4)(A)(i) In order to carry out the provisions of this section, each agency shall promulgate regulations, pursuant to notice and receipt of public comment, specifying the schedule of fees applicable to the processing of requests under this section and establishing procedures and guidelines for determining when such fees should be waived or reduced. Such schedule shall conform to the guidelines which shall be promulgated, pursuant to notice and receipt of public comment, by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and which shall provide for a uniform schedule of fees for all agencies. (ii) Such agency regulations shall provide that-- (I) fees shall be limited to reasonable standard charges for document search, duplication, and review, when records are requested for commercial use; (II) fees shall be limited to reasonable standard charges for document duplication when records are not sought for commercial use and the request is made by an educational or noncommercial scientific institution, whose purpose is scholarly or scientific research; or a representative of the news media; and (III) for any request not described in (I) or (II), fees shall be limited to reasonable standard charges for document search and duplication. (iii) Documents shall be furnished without any charge or at a charge reduced below the fees established under clause (ii) if disclosure of the information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester. (iv) Fee schedules shall provide for the recovery of only the direct costs of search, duplication, or review. Review costs shall include only the direct costs incurred during the initial examination of a document for the purposes of determining whether the documents must be disclosed under this section and for the purposes of withholding any portions exempt from disclosure under this section. Review costs may not include any costs incurred in resolving issues of law or policy that may be raised in the course of processing a request under this section. No fee may be charged by any agency under this section-- (I) if the costs of routine collection and processing of the fee are likely to equal or exceed the amount of the fee; or (II) for any request described in clause (ii)(II) or (III) of this subparagraph for the first two hours of search time or for the first one hundred pages of duplication. (v) No agency may require advance payment of any fee unless the requester has previously failed to pay fees in a timely fashion, or the agency has determined that the fee will exceed $250. (vi) Nothing in this subparagraph shall supersede fees chargeable under a statute specifically providing for setting the level of fees for particular types of records. (vii) In any action by a requester regarding the waiver of fees under this section, the court shall determine the matter de novo: Provided, That the court's review of the matter shall be limited to the record before the agency. (B) On complaint, the district court of the United States in the district in which the complainant resides, or has his principal place of business, or in which the agency records are situated, or in the District of Columbia, has jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant. In such a case the court shall determine the matter de novo, and may examine the contents of such agency records in camera to determine whether such records or any part thereof shall be withheld under any of the exemptions set forth in subsection (b) of this section, and the burden is on the agency to sustain its action. In addition to any other matters to which a court accords substantial weight, a court shall accord substantial weight to an affidavit of an agency concerning the agency's determination as to technical feasibility under paragraph (2)(C) and subsection (b) and reproducibility under paragraph (3)(B). (C) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the defendant shall serve an answer or otherwise plead to any complaint made under this subsection within thirty days after service upon the defendant of the pleading in which such complaint is made, unless the court otherwise directs for good cause shown. [(D) Repealed. Pub.L. 98-620, Title IV, 402(2), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3357] (E) The court may assess against the United States reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in any case under this section in which the complainant has substantially prevailed. (F) Whenever the court orders the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant and assesses against the United States reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs, and the court additionally issues a written finding that the circumstances surrounding the withholding raise questions whether agency personnel acted arbitrarily or capriciously with respect to the withholding, the Special Counsel shall promptly initiate a proceeding to determine whether disciplinary action is warranted against the officer or employee who was primarily responsible for the withholding. The Special Counsel, after investigation and consideration of the evidence submitted, shall submit his findings and recommendations to the administrative authority of the agency concerned and shall send copies of the findings and recommendations to the officer or employee or his representative. The administrative authority shall take the corrective action that the Special Counsel recommends. (G) In the event of noncompliance with the order of the court, the district court may punish for contempt the responsible employee, and in the case of a uniformed service, the responsible member. (5) Each agency having more than one member shall maintain and make available for public inspection a record of the final votes of each member in every agency proceeding. (6)(A) Each agency, upon any request for records made under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection, shall-- (i) determine within 20 days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after the receipt of any such request whether to comply with such request and shall immediately notify the person making such request of such determination and the reasons therefor, and of the right of such person to appeal to the head of the agency any adverse determination; and (ii) make a determination with respect to any appeal within twenty days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after the receipt of such appeal. If on appeal the denial of the request for records is in whole or in part upheld, the agency shall notify the person making such request of the provisions for judicial review of that determination under paragraph (4) of this subsection. (B)(i) In unusual circumstances as specified in this subparagraph, the time limits prescribed in either clause (i) or clause (ii) of subparagraph (A) may be extended by written notice to the person making such request setting forth the unusual circumstances for such extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched. No such notice shall specify a date that would result in an extension for more than ten working days, except as provided in clause (ii) of this subparagraph. (ii) With respect to a request for which a written notice under clause (i) extends the time limits prescribed under clause (i) of subparagraph (A), the agency shall notify the person making the request if the request cannot be processed within the time limit specified in that clause and shall provide the person an opportunity to limit the scope of the request so that it may be processed within that time limit or an opportunity to arrange with the agency an alternative time frame for processing the request or a modified request. Refusal by the person to reasonably modify the request or arrange such an alternative time frame shall be considered as a factor in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist for purposes of subparagraph (C). (iii) As used in this subparagraph, "unusual circumstances" means, but only to the extent reasonably necessary to the proper processing of the particular requests-- (I) the need to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request; (II) the need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records which are demanded in a single request; or (III) the need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency having a substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more components of the agency having substantial subject-matter interest therein. (iv) Each agency may promulgate regulations, pursuant to notice and receipt of public comment, providing for the aggregation of certain requests by the same requestor, or by a group of requestors acting in concert, if the agency reasonably believes that such requests actually constitute a single request, which would otherwise satisfy the unusual circumstances specified in this subparagraph, and the requests involve clearly related matters. Multiple requests involving unrelated matters shall not be aggregated. (C)(i) Any person making a request to any agency for records under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection shall be deemed to have exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to such request if the agency fails to comply with the applicable time limit provisions of this paragraph. If the Government can show exceptional circumstances exist and that the agency is exercising due diligence in responding to the request, the court may retain jurisdiction and allow the agency additional time to complete its review of the records. Upon any determination by an agency to comply with a request for records, the records shall be made promptly available to such person making such request. Any notification of denial of any request for records under this subsection shall set forth the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial of such request. (ii) For purposes of this subparagraph, the term "exceptional circumstances" does not include a delay that results from a predictable agency workload of requests under this section, unless the agency demonstrates reasonable progress in reducing its backlog of pending requests. (iii) Refusal by a person to reasonably modify the scope of a request or arrange an alternative time frame for processing a request (or a modified request) under clause (ii) after being given an opportunity to do so by the agency to whom the person made the request shall be considered as a factor in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist for purposes of this subparagraph. (D)(i) Each agency may promulgate regulations, pursuant to notice and receipt of public comment, providing for multitrack processing of requests for records based on the amount of work or time (or both) involved in processing requests. (ii) Regulations under this subparagraph may provide a person making a request that does not qualify for the fastest multitrack processing an opportunity to limit the scope of the request in order to qualify for faster processing. (iii) This subparagraph shall not be considered to affect the requirement under subparagraph (C) to exercise due diligence. (E)(i) Each agency shall promulgate regulations, pursuant to notice and receipt of public comment, providing for expedited processing of requests for records-- (I) in cases in which the person requesting the records demonstrates a compelling need; and (II) in other cases determined by the agency. (ii) Notwithstanding clause (i), regulations under this subparagraph must ensure-- (I) that a determination of whether to provide expedited processing shall be made, and notice of the determination shall be provided to the person making the request, within 10 days after the date of the request; and (II) expeditious consideration of administrative appeals of such determinations of whether to provide expedited processing. (iii) An agency shall process as soon as practicable any request for records to which the agency has granted expedited processing under this subparagraph. Agency action to deny or affirm denial of a request for expedited processing pursuant to this subparagraph, and failure by an agency to respond in a timely manner to such a request shall be subject to judicial review under paragraph (4), except that the judicial review shall be based on the record before the agency at the time of the determination. (iv) A district court of the United States shall not have jurisdiction to review an agency denial of expedited processing of a request for records after the agency has provided a complete response to the request. (v) For purposes of this subparagraph, the term "compelling need" means-- (I) that a failure to obtain requested records on an expedited basis under this paragraph could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual; or (II) with respect to a request made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information, urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity. (vi) A demonstration of a compelling need by a person making a request for expedited processing shall be made by a statement certified by such person to be true and correct to the best of such person's knowledge and belief. (F) In denying a request for records, in whole or in part, an agency shall make a reasonable effort to estimate the volume of any requested matter the provision of which is denied, and shall provide any such estimate to the person making the request, unless providing such estimate would harm an interest protected by the exemption in subsection (b) pursuant to which the denial is made. (b) This section does not apply to matters that are-- (1) (A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order; (2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency; (3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld; (4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential; (5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency; (6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; (7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual; (8) contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or (9) geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells. Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt under this subsection. The amount of information deleted shall be indicated on the released portion of the record, unless including that indication would harm an interest protected by the exemption in this subsection under which the deletion is made. If technically feasible, the amount of the information shall be indicated at the place in the record where such deletion is made. (c)(1) Whenever a request is made which involves access to records described in subsection (b)(7)(A) and-- (A) the investigation or proceeding involves a possible violation of criminal law; and (B) there is reason to believe that (i) the subject of the investigation or proceeding is not aware of its pendency, and (ii) disclosure of the existence of the records could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, the agency may, during only such time as that circumstance continues, treat the records as not subject to the requirements of this section. (2) Whenever informant records maintained by a criminal law enforcement agency under an informant's name or personal identifier are requested by a third party according to the informant's name or personal identifier, the agency may treat the records as not subject to the requirements of this section unless the informant's status as an informant has been officially confirmed. (3) Whenever a request is made which involves access to records maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation pertaining to foreign intelligence or counterintelligence, or international terrorism, and the existence of the records is classified information as provided in subsection (b)(1), the Bureau may, as long as the existence of the records remains classified information, treat the records as not subject to the requirements of this section. (d) This section does not authorize withholding of information or limit the availability of records to the public, except as specifically stated in this section. This section is not authority to withhold information from Congress. (e)(1) On or before February 1 of each year, each agency shall submit to the Attorney General of the United States a report which shall cover the preceding fiscal year and which shall include-- (A) the number of determinations made by the agency not to comply with requests for records made to such agency under subsection (a) and the reasons for each such determination; (B)(i) the number of appeals made by persons under subsection (a)(6), the result of such appeals, and the reason for the action upon each appeal that results in a denial of information; and (ii) a complete list of all statutes that the agency relies upon to authorize the agency to withhold information under subsection (b)(3), a description of whether a court has upheld the decision of the agency to withhold information under each such statute, and a concise description of the scope of any information withheld; (C) the number of requests for records pending before the agency as of September 30 of the preceding year, and the median number of days that such requests had been pending before the agency as of that date; (D) the number of requests for records received by the agency and the number of requests which the agency processed; (E) the median number of days taken by the agency to process different types of requests; (F) the total amount of fees collected by the agency for processing requests; and (G) the number of full-time staff of the agency devoted to processing requests for records under this section, and the total amount expended by the agency for processing such requests. (2) Each agency shall make each such report available to the public including by computer telecommunications, or if computer telecommunications means have not been established by the agency, by other electronic means. (3) The Attorney General of the United States shall make each report which has been made available by electronic means available at a single electronic access point. The Attorney General of the United States shall notify the Chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the House of Representatives and the Chairman and ranking minority member of the Committees on Governmental Affairs and the Judiciary of the Senate, no later than April 1 of the year in which each such report is issued, that such reports are available by electronic means. (4) The Attorney General of the United States, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, shall develop reporting and performance guidelines in connection with reports required by this subsection by October 1, 1997, and may establish additional requirements for such reports as the Attorney General determines may be useful. (5) The Attorney General of the United States shall submit an annual report on or before April 1 of each calendar year which shall include for the prior calendar year a listing of the number of cases arising under this section, the exemption involved in each case, the disposition of such case, and the cost, fees, and penalties assessed under subparagraphs (E), (F), and (G) of subsection (a)(4). Such report shall also include a description of the efforts undertaken by the Department of Justice to encourage agency compliance with this section. (f) For purposes of this section, the term-- (1) "agency" as defined in section 551(1) of this title includes any executive department, military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of the Government (including the Executive Office of the President), or any independent regulatory agency; and (2) "record" and any other term used in this section in reference to information includes any information that would be an agency record subject to the requirements of this section when maintained by an agency in any format, including an electronic format. (g) The head of each agency shall prepare and make publicly available upon request, reference material or a guide for requesting records or information from the agency, subject to the exemptions in subsection (b), including-- (1) an index of all major information systems of the agency; (2) a description of major information and record locator systems maintained by the agency; and (3) a handbook for obtaining various types and categories of public information from the agency pursuant to chapter 35 of title 44, and under this section.
A quibble. It's 5.25" and 3.5", respectively. Your point is a good one. Let's face it, the tracks on the old 5.25" diskettes were wider than those on the 3.5" diskettes. After all, bigger media size, less data, and same basic material. It just makes sense that the 5.25" diskettes were more reliable.
Not sure, but I think Iomega gets royalty money for every ZIP drive sold by other manufacturers.
The MO media is a strong point. A hard plastic shell with a metal door protects the media from scratches, just like 3.5" floppies and Zip disks. But the media itself is relatively resistant to heat, humidity, impact, and magnetism.
In magneto-optical, data is read with a laser. It's simple, and works like a CD. Data is written, however, by first heating the media with a different laser to a near melting point, and then altering the 1's and 0's with a magnetic head. When the material cools, the bits aren't easily altered by magnetic force. (It would take so much magnetic force that the whole media would be severely bent anyway.) This results in extremely good reliability, but not so good write speeds. Nevertheless, writing is faster than a floppy, and many people put up with that. Notably, reading is very quick.
As for the economics, both ATAPI and SCSI drives are available. The least expensive models these days are the Fujitsu DynaMO's. Media is not very cheap, but would get much cheaper if more people used the technology and economies of scale kicked in.
Additionally, the drives are all backwardly compatible, from 640MB to 230MB to 128MB.
In short, if you are planning a solution for an entire campus of people, MO might not be the best solution, just because ZIP and CDRW are so cheap. But, if you're looking for a personal data solution, or need proven reliability, MO is the way to go.
We've all been heroes for a day when someone lost their important files because of a bad floppy, and we saved them. I remember one time, there was this really cute girl who called the system administrator, me, because her diskette failed. Knowing who she was, I raced to the student computer lab (I was a student myself and lived on campus), and proceeded to extract her WordPerfect document from temporary files that were left on the network. She was so surprised and happy that she gave me a big bearhug. Unfortunately, the documents turned out to be a love letter to her boyfriend, so I was out of luck again. But this whole thing brings up the important point that bad floppies give us geek-types a chance to impress other people with our skills.
I remember back in 1992, I was the local Novell administrator for my small college while still a student. Every few days, another student would come to us computing center guys and show us a floppy diskette that looked like a it had been dragged through the mud. Of course, it had the only copy of their term paper. Eventually, I made a proposal: buy a new hard drive for the Novell server -- enough for 1 megabyte for every student, and get students to use that for their primary storage. (Novell has the ability to enforce strict user disc quotas.) The response was intense skepticism. Why would that work? It was seen as too expensive, even though the alternative was much pricier. And unfortunately, people just don't understand network storage, even today. People do learn how to create complex tables in Microsoft Word, for example, but never learn the basics of how to be an efficient LAN user. So I think the solution is two pronged: network storage and user education.
Not only could you get sued, you could potentially go to jail. Aiding and abetting the theft of intellectual property.
Some advice. Play it safe. Don't post links. Don't even ask for links to be posted.
My question is, why didn't they ace the filesystems on everything they had access to? Do they still have access? How did Microsoft just suddenly say, boom, no more hackers? Okay, maybe they just unplugged the code server....for now.
Just for the record, although I hate Microsoft Corporation and I support open source, a crime like this is still wrong. Crime does not pay.
Onward, revolution.
Isn't Jupiter too small in mass to become a star, even a small star, under any circumstances?
Thanks to any science types who answer. Even if you aren't sure, please speculate. It will be interesting to see if anyone predicts it correctly.
While it would be nice to have Wine run these apps, the best long-term solutions are Evolution and other homegrown MUA's/e-mail clients. There are two reasons. First, a native app will be superior. Second, there is no truly great all-purpose e-mail app on any platform. Maybe Evolution or some other Linux-bred app will claim the prize.
This is terrible! Wine must never be allowed to reach 1.0 status. The success of the revolution is hinged on a windows emulator that really works for applets and some other things, but can't get any real work done. This attracts software developers and users with its promise, but then when they figure out that it doesn't work perfectly yet, they move on to *real* Linux apps. This keeps Linux healthy. If Wine does truly succeed, developers and users will still come to Linux, but they'll never migrate from the Windows model. Microsoft (or just the "Soft," if it's broken up) then will change the API, and Wine will be broken again. Everyone will move back to Windows.
Come on people. We don't want another OS/2 on our hands.
Remember, just playing the devil's advocate. Go Wine.
Disclaimer: I am a law student.
Otherwise we'd never have such features.