No, there are other better ways of doing it. For example, a session ID which becomes invalid after a period of time or if I log in to Slashdot from another system. As it stands at the moment, my password could be stored available for everyone to see at that internet cafe in Australia that I'm never going to be able to get to again to delete it (It isn't but it illustrates my point).
Either way, it's bad form to store passwords unencrypted. For example, Joe User has two accounts, one on system A, one on system B. Due to bad security on system A, Jim Cracker finds out the password for system A is "Bill". Jim knows that Joe has two sons, Bill and Ben. If Joe did in fact use the password "Ben" for system B then Jim gets a good chance at working it out rather than having to make a stab in the dark. (Yes, I know Jim has chosen bad passwords but I simplified for purposes of illustration and, having seen unencrypted password files, I can tell you that it's not that far separated from being real life)
Hey, I work for a living and *I* did/do this anyway. You can never have enough pens and there's all sorts of other cool bits and pieces to get.
What annoyed me is that I went with my wife and they wouldn't let us take out daughter (15 months) in. I can understand not letting mobile children in but a baby? My wife had to spend a couple of hours wandering around Kensington as a result (fortunately a good area). As someone who has contributed to Linux (in a small way) I find this very insulting.
Anyway, I got two bags full of stuff I now have to trawl through to get out the best bits. The show itself was OK but as with most of these events I've attended, mostly just a forum for people to attend stands covered in buzzwords. Didn't get to see the ice penguin and the only beer I got was somewhat expensive but it was interesting to see where the market stands on Linux (IMO, too many people selling distros/support/administration services and not enough developing applications) and I finally got to see a real live Beowulf cluster (The Suse stand I believe).
Oh, and I didn't think too much of the Redhat keynote speech. A bit of a jab at Microsoft, IBM and Sun then some "R3DH42 1Z K3WL" type stuff then a sort of waffly "We're concerned about DMCA and UCITA" type stuff presumably intended to pander to the mob. (I think perhaps they paid a bit too much attention to Slashdot:) )
So what are you supposed to do if you *are* in a crowded theatre and you see a fire?
The point being that context is everything. litigation against DE-CSS is like outlawing warning people against notifying audiences in crowded theatres about fires despite the fact that
a)There have never been any incidences of people maliciously shouting "fire" in theatres to cause a panic b)It will cause the death from incineration of several dozen people per year.
OK, people aren't (likely) going to die over DE-CSS ut the principle stands.
I don't know much of the details but "in" the UK, there used to be radio stations operating on ships just outside of territorial waters transmitting pop music and the like. Many mainstream DJs made their start on these ships (though somehow it didn't seem to make any difference to the crapiness that all DJs exhibit).
Funnilly enough, these were known as "Pirate radio". It seems that in modern times, the word "pirate" has transformed from its original meaning of a murderous cutthroat to someone who annoys the rich and powerful.
FWIW, while these ships were in operation, the British government engaged in a campaign of constant harassment and intimidation, arresting anyone who supplied them, watching in case the winds caused them to stray an inch into territorial waters, training (big) guns on them and feigning ramming actions. You may want to take that kind of thing into account when you set up your offshore ISP.
I see we're down to splitting hairs and games of semantics.
Actually, I would say that semantics is at the root of the whole thing. The words you use can bias the argument a certain way and if you can't agree on the terms you are using, you will be arguing at cross purposes anyway.
Too bad your definition of theft won't hold up in court
Actually, it would. Someone who copies CDs will be charged with copyright infringement, not theft.
information or "intelectual property" is *not* the same as physical property. To try and lump them together as the same thing is unsane and precludes rational discussion of the correct handling of it. Clearly, if I copy something that I wasn't going to buy anyway, the creator has lost nothing. It may not be right and it may certainly be illegal but it is definitely *not* the same as me nipping into the creator's house and pinching the sculpture he's been working on for the last three months.
Let's agree on the words and concepts and then the real discussion about "intellectual property" can begin.
I'm from Texas, and even we don't execute anyone in civil cases... yet.
It's true that it is a civil case but what Microsoft is being tried for is corporate murder and corporate attempted murder and probably corporate kidnapping and corporate assault too. It seems to me that if corporations want the same rights as human beings (ability to hold copyright etc) then they should be subject to the same general laws, transalted and adapted as necessary and in this case, in some states of the USA, that would be the death penalty.
After all, it's one thing to compete with the guy on the other desk to make the most sales this month, it's another to cut the brake lines on his car to *make sure* it's you.
I don't really follow the Mitnick stuff and from what I hear, he's a pretty dodgy character and probably pretty much deserved what happened to him, *but* the moment you start deciding who you think is more deserving of support in their attempts to protect their rights, you're no better than those who abuse those rights in the first place. The whole point of rights is that they are for *everyone*.
I mean, I'm as interested in the details of this trial as the next man and most of the arguments for/against Microsoft *are* interesting. But this story has been on the slashdot several times and quite frankly, there's nothing new to add to the discussion, it's all rehashing over old stuff by now. I'm sure most people could just cut and post their comments from ones they've made previously.
The thing is, people are going to feel the need to have their say on the matter everytime a Microsoft/DoJ article is posted and that's understandable. But just maybe think again and hold off until there is genuinely a new angle to comment upon.
Sorry, I disagree with DMCA, UCITA, the attacks against napster, metallica and all the rest but I have to say that when you run Napster, you are implicitly inviting anyone who cares to to access your computer to find out which files are in your upload/download directories. If you invite a bunch of your friends around to your house to do a bunch of illegal activities and one of them turns out to be an undercover cop, you don't have a leg to stand on there either. Similarly if one of those friends goes and tells what you did to the cops.
Of course, I find what netPD did distasteful anyway but that doesn't mean they didn't go the right way about it.
Is a AI agent that would do all the work for my degree for me so I wouldn't have to go to the effort of asking on Slashdot for other people to do it for me.
Oh, hang on a minute, I already have my degree and I did all my own f***ing work for it (and bloody hard work it was too).
I've often wondered howmany sites aren't linked to by any other site and have never been scanned by a search engine. Chances are we'll never know.
Although almost by definition, if a site isn't linked, it isn't part of the world wide web, the same as if web pages are on private networks.
An interesting thought is that what if the world-wide web somehow ended up in two halves with no links between the two? Would there be two world wide webs or would the bigger one prevail or would we still choose to think of it all as the one world wide web?
Once, while staying with a girlfriend's relatives, we returned from a trip to find something of an ant infestation. Thing is, the little beggars were crawling in through a gap in the door, along the kitchen floor, up the side of the refidgerator and in through the ice dispensor. Upon opening the door, there was a two inch high pile of little dead ant bodies on the floor of the icebox.
Sure we want to build computer systems that emulate this kind of behaviour.
Maybe if you're Microsoft. Then again, this kind of behaviour is more reminiscent of their customers than their software (For which the analogy would be more like hearing a muffled bang as the ants' nest explodes and bursts into flames)
The major wap phone in the UK at the moment is the Nokia 7110. This has a maximum limit on the size of compressed WML pages of just under 2k. This also applies to the Nokia WAP gateway. This places a major limit on the useability of WAP for anything other than small, funky apps. Certainly a decent rendering of Slashdot is beyond it. In any case, the 7110 is crap at WML, ignoring most of the text formatting tags and is very prone to crashing (Hmm, maybe a previous poster's comparison to Microsoft stands up even more so). Unfortunately though, as I say, it's the major WAP phone in the UK so we're going to be living with its legacy for a while yet.
Rich
Read the Mortals and Angels article in new scientist? Now check out the screensaver here (It's open source too)
The major wap phone in the UK at the moment is the Nokia 7110. This has a maximum limit on the size of compressed WML pages of just under 2k. This also applies to the Nokia WAP gateway. This places a major limit on the useability of WAP for anything other than small, funky apps. Certainly a decent rendering of Slashdot is beyond it. In any case, the 7110 is crap at WML, ignoring most of the text formatting tags and is very prone to crashing (Hmm, maybe a previous poster's comparison to Microsoft stands up even more so). Unfortunately though, as I say, it's the major WAP phone in the UK so we're going to be living with its legacy for a while yet.
Rich
Read the Mortals and Angels article in new scientist? Now check out the screensaver at
Try WAPMAN. It's not free but nearly so (and it has a trial period). Works pretty well in its latest release and forms and stuff are an order of magnitude easier to use than on small-screen, numeric keypad mobile phones.
I just wait for EU to self destruct. It will take a lot of time and cost us money but can't wait:-)
My feelings are the same. While I feel that we must be in the EU at the moment and that ultimately, there will be Europe (and maybe one day global) wide unification, I think that the current administration is leading us on a road to hell, increasing hatred and mistrust between its member nations rather than promoting harmony and unity. The way I see it, there's going to be a lot of bloodshed and the administration wil collapse into the rubble and then hopefully, a truly collaborative partnership can be realised which doesn't incorporate all the corruption, backstabbing and politicking that the body which is the current EU stands for.
They were never intended to "help people locate sites". They were intended to be a convenient name for a physical machine somewhere out there.
Exactly. They're more like street addresses. True, a few companies can manage "Canda House" or even (as here in Basingstoke) "Wella Rd" but generally, most will have to settle for "29 Generic St" or suchlike. If you want to find a company, you go to a directory. Problem is, there is no standard directory on the web (Yahoo comes close) and for actually finding things, search engines are somewhat hit or miss. I don't have any answers but some kind of non-hierarchical, distributed system is needed but with the way browsers work, it would mean rewriting gethostbyname for every OS out there.
That's the fscking problem with nationalism. We should have only one domain.earth
All well and good and I believe this was recently considered at the secret illuminati meeting for which the recent WTO conference in Seattle was just a cover. It was rejected on the grounds of the confusion and cost to corporations that would ensue. However, a functionally equivalent alternative was decided on.
Setting the sticky bit on a directory in unix means that files can only be deleted by the userid who put them there. If you keep the files themselves from being writable (for example, if you just want a repository for files) then you're pretty much safe from external influences.
Of course, it all comes down to your security trust model. LAN wide security is fine but you then have to secure entry points (such as a Win machine running OE)
Remember, security is a process, not installing a virus checker.
They haven't changed since 9am when I got in to work (12:20 now). I'm in serious danger of doing some work. Maybe taking on some article approvers in other countries would help.
So for most of the ads the sites serve up, they don't get paid a thing, they just splat them out, eating up your precious (and in some cases, pricey) bandwidth. If you're not going to click on the ads anyway, where's the harm in blocking them?
Not that I think that there's anything wrong in blocking them anyway. There's noting in the HTTP protocol that says that when you retrieve a piece of HTML, you are honour bound to retrieve any in-line content contained within it.
with ads from foreign sites being blocked? The sites could easily get around it by serving the ads themselves (either directly or by proxying the ads from the foreign servers through their own sites). The upside being that if these sites had to "share the pain", we may be spared the pain of bandwidth hogging large ads/animations/shockwave et al.
Another bloody annoying of crappy advertising implementation is Altavista. It has the banner ad reload every four minutes or so. My dial-up connection times out after three minutes so if I leave Altavista open in a window, I get constant dial-up attempts. Before BT started doing free internet calls in the evening, this cost 5p per dialup and in any case, blocked the phone from incoming calls. Plus it's annoying to have the sound of the modem dialing every 4 minutes in the background when you're trying to watc TV
Slashdot Mirror
Either way, it's bad form to store passwords unencrypted. For example, Joe User has two accounts, one on system A, one on system B. Due to bad security on system A, Jim Cracker finds out the password for system A is "Bill". Jim knows that Joe has two sons, Bill and Ben. If Joe did in fact use the password "Ben" for system B then Jim gets a good chance at working it out rather than having to make a stab in the dark. (Yes, I know Jim has chosen bad passwords but I simplified for purposes of illustration and, having seen unencrypted password files, I can tell you that it's not that far separated from being real life)
Rich
Your slashdot password is stored unencrypted in your cookie file
I didn't believe it myself until I looked. It's URL encoded but it aint encrypted
Rich
What annoyed me is that I went with my wife and they wouldn't let us take out daughter (15 months) in. I can understand not letting mobile children in but a baby? My wife had to spend a couple of hours wandering around Kensington as a result (fortunately a good area). As someone who has contributed to Linux (in a small way) I find this very insulting.
Anyway, I got two bags full of stuff I now have to trawl through to get out the best bits. The show itself was OK but as with most of these events I've attended, mostly just a forum for people to attend stands covered in buzzwords. Didn't get to see the ice penguin and the only beer I got was somewhat expensive but it was interesting to see where the market stands on Linux (IMO, too many people selling distros/support/administration services and not enough developing applications) and I finally got to see a real live Beowulf cluster (The Suse stand I believe).
Oh, and I didn't think too much of the Redhat keynote speech. A bit of a jab at Microsoft, IBM and Sun then some "R3DH42 1Z K3WL" type stuff then a sort of waffly "We're concerned about DMCA and UCITA" type stuff presumably intended to pander to the mob. (I think perhaps they paid a bit too much attention to Slashdot :) )
Rich
The point being that context is everything. litigation against DE-CSS is like outlawing warning people against notifying audiences in crowded theatres about fires despite the fact that
a)There have never been any incidences of people maliciously shouting "fire" in theatres to cause a panic
b)It will cause the death from incineration of several dozen people per year.
OK, people aren't (likely) going to die over DE-CSS ut the principle stands.
Rich
Funnilly enough, these were known as "Pirate radio". It seems that in modern times, the word "pirate" has transformed from its original meaning of a murderous cutthroat to someone who annoys the rich and powerful.
FWIW, while these ships were in operation, the British government engaged in a campaign of constant harassment and intimidation, arresting anyone who supplied them, watching in case the winds caused them to stray an inch into territorial waters, training (big) guns on them and feigning ramming actions. You may want to take that kind of thing into account when you set up your offshore ISP.
Rich
Actually, I would say that semantics is at the root of the whole thing. The words you use can bias the argument a certain way and if you can't agree on the terms you are using, you will be arguing at cross purposes anyway.
Too bad your definition of theft won't hold up in court
Actually, it would. Someone who copies CDs will be charged with copyright infringement, not theft.
information or "intelectual property" is *not* the same as physical property. To try and lump them together as the same thing is unsane and precludes rational discussion of the correct handling of it. Clearly, if I copy something that I wasn't going to buy anyway, the creator has lost nothing. It may not be right and it may certainly be illegal but it is definitely *not* the same as me nipping into the creator's house and pinching the sculpture he's been working on for the last three months.
Let's agree on the words and concepts and then the real discussion about "intellectual property" can begin.
Rich
It's true that it is a civil case but what Microsoft is being tried for is corporate murder and corporate attempted murder and probably corporate kidnapping and corporate assault too. It seems to me that if corporations want the same rights as human beings (ability to hold copyright etc) then they should be subject to the same general laws, transalted and adapted as necessary and in this case, in some states of the USA, that would be the death penalty.
After all, it's one thing to compete with the guy on the other desk to make the most sales this month, it's another to cut the brake lines on his car to *make sure* it's you.
Rich
Rich
I mean, I'm as interested in the details of this trial as the next man and most of the arguments for/against Microsoft *are* interesting. But this story has been on the slashdot several times and quite frankly, there's nothing new to add to the discussion, it's all rehashing over old stuff by now. I'm sure most people could just cut and post their comments from ones they've made previously.
The thing is, people are going to feel the need to have their say on the matter everytime a Microsoft/DoJ article is posted and that's understandable. But just maybe think again and hold off until there is genuinely a new angle to comment upon.
Rich
Of course, I find what netPD did distasteful anyway but that doesn't mean they didn't go the right way about it.
Rich
Can we get some kind of IQ test going before allowing people to meta-moderate? Something along the line of:
Q. You have five apples and you eat one, do you have
1.More
2.Less
3.My butt itches
Rich
Oh, hang on a minute, I already have my degree and I did all my own f***ing work for it (and bloody hard work it was too).
Clear off, slacker.
Rich
Although almost by definition, if a site isn't linked, it isn't part of the world wide web, the same as if web pages are on private networks.
An interesting thought is that what if the world-wide web somehow ended up in two halves with no links between the two? Would there be two world wide webs or would the bigger one prevail or would we still choose to think of it all as the one world wide web?
Rich
Sure we want to build computer systems that emulate this kind of behaviour.
Maybe if you're Microsoft. Then again, this kind of behaviour is more reminiscent of their customers than their software (For which the analogy would be more like hearing a muffled bang as the ants' nest explodes and bursts into flames)
Rich
Rich
Read the Mortals and Angels article in new scientist? Now check out the screensaver here (It's open source too)
Rich
Read the Mortals and Angels article in new scientist? Now check out the screensaver at
Rich
My feelings are the same. While I feel that we must be in the EU at the moment and that ultimately, there will be Europe (and maybe one day global) wide unification, I think that the current administration is leading us on a road to hell, increasing hatred and mistrust between its member nations rather than promoting harmony and unity. The way I see it, there's going to be a lot of bloodshed and the administration wil collapse into the rubble and then hopefully, a truly collaborative partnership can be realised which doesn't incorporate all the corruption, backstabbing and politicking that the body which is the current EU stands for.
Rich
Exactly. They're more like street addresses. True, a few companies can manage "Canda House" or even (as here in Basingstoke) "Wella Rd" but generally, most will have to settle for "29 Generic St" or suchlike. If you want to find a company, you go to a directory. Problem is, there is no standard directory on the web (Yahoo comes close) and for actually finding things, search engines are somewhat hit or miss. I don't have any answers but some kind of non-hierarchical, distributed system is needed but with the way browsers work, it would mean rewriting gethostbyname for every OS out there.
Rich
All well and good and I believe this was recently considered at the secret illuminati meeting for which the recent WTO conference in Seattle was just a cover. It was rejected on the grounds of the confusion and cost to corporations that would ensue. However, a functionally equivalent alternative was decided on.
Welcome to the planet "com"
Rich
Of course, it all comes down to your security trust model. LAN wide security is fine but you then have to secure entry points (such as a Win machine running OE)
Remember, security is a process, not installing a virus checker.
Rich
Rich
Not that I think that there's anything wrong in blocking them anyway. There's noting in the HTTP protocol that says that when you retrieve a piece of HTML, you are honour bound to retrieve any in-line content contained within it.
Rich
Rich
Rich