Please. You can still write checks, dipshit. I'm not saying nothing will happen, I'm saying that nobody will die or anything from "lack of internet". You'll find another job. It's only significant on an economic level.
Excellent point. If a major underpinning of the Internet like DNS were commercialized, there would be no reason to disallow it at any other level. Furthermore, a fully commercial internet wouldn't have to worry so much about those pesky laws and Bills of Rights or anything. You get what you're sold, punk. Quit crying or get the hell out. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."
The notion that Al Qaeda or some other terrorist group would launch a coordinated strike to take out DNS servers is totally absurd. Even if they had the ability to launch a co-ordinated bomb strike with this kind of sophistication and ingenuity (highly unlikely), I'm sure they'd go after targets that had a bit more of a visible impact.... for example, the power grid.
Heh, yeah. It's not only a visible impact, but come on: if the Internet went away nobody would die, no extra money would have to be spent on anything. Richard Clark was being melodramatic and this guy fell for it. "Okay, what if they got $num operatives to blow up all the Krispy Kreme franchises AT THE SAME TIME?" A closer analogy may be to (educational?) amusement parks. As cool as it is, the Internet doesn't really matter that much. It could go away and everybody would adjust and go on with their lives.
Better to keep all the "facts" in press releases rather than the courtrooms if these developments cause the labels they deal with to come after them for fraud. They would probably prefer not to have to talk to the SEC any more, either:
Since they are a pinksheet business and don't report any financials as a public company, nobody but them knows whether they'd even be able to mount a case like this.
The new E-music service agreements are for those who find mp3's "good enough."
Right, and as someone pointed out elsewhere, Emusic's strength is their catalog of lesser-known and obscure bands. Most of the cheerleading for Emusic that *I've* heard has been from people who are into (commercially) tiny electronic music artists, and would speculate that this demographic extends to other styles as well. That is, until now my sense is that Emusic is good for music nerds and people who go through the effort to track down music that isn't on the Billboard charts.
How much overlap do you think there is among these people with people who are willing to accept crappy 128kbit MP3s? I think "not much," and Emusic could better serve their existing customers by *increasing* the quality of the songfiles along with the increase in price. As it stands, they are lowering the quality of their product by increasing the price, which is not exactly the best sales strategy.
Of course, you'll go on to say that all of the things that drove the firing didn't have anything to do with it. You'll be a pussy and trot out some lines about team players or corporate vision and dissemble on the actual reasons.
Hey, if certain other companies knew the real reasons they might not choose to do business with you in the future, right? If you're a bend-over bitch for a company like Microsoft, there are companies who might want a more impartial vendor and/or researcher who may not use you if they know you're going to vet everything through a billg-filter.
They are. And the techniques they use to enforce the laws are as varied as you can imagine. This is why there is a saying, "throw the book at them." There are so many laws that each of us break everyday (probably, who can keep track?) that the punishments can always legally range from letting you off with a wrist slap to researching every applicable law to make sure you are convicted of *some*thing. This is always the case, is built into the law, and is a valuable negotiating tool. But make no mistake, they aren't required to use PATRIOT any more than meter maids are required to subpoena your driving records. But they could.
So the question to me isn't whether the PATRIOT act is a good one or not, since that hinges too much on opinion, but why Lamo is having it invoked in his case. Is it a tacit admission of domestic terrorism? Is it because manipulating the NYTimes puts egg on the faces of too many important people? Why not use PATRIOT for that SoBig chump too?
Every settlement and "executive step-down" always leaves more money in their pockets than any fines. Richard Grasso is not giving back his $140MM, The Big-4 accounting firms settled for much less than what they took from their dotcom shenanigans, and SCOX will continue to profit from their actions. Nobody will do anything about it and beyond that, I wouldn't be surprised if it was legal anyway.
Look at the big picture everybody, and take a page from the SCO playbook: keep the soap opera in the news and the issue stays in front of more eyes for a longer period of time. The real issue is that more attention needs to be paid to MS security for everyone's benefit, and this is a way of that happening.
I weary of the non-SCO side of this battle treating SCO like a bunch of idiots. Shit or get off the pot, FSF/GNU/etc., I'm sure the SCO camp is well aware of copyright laws and they probably don't need to be reminded. I've heard that they even have lawyers! It seems obvious to me that the fight is going to be on terms of interpretation rather than one side not knowing that there are 800 laws across the earth that prohibit what they're doing.
IBM has their own problems, so if Linux stakeholders CAN do something about it, then do it. Quit engaging in these mental masturbation and Dr. Phil melodramatics. I'm sure we can get a PayPal jar sufficiently filled just by the people who are sick of watching the minutiae played out on the pages of Slashdot, the most ineffectual political machine evar.
Interesting, but incomplete.:) Why are marketing and the courtroom incompatible? Said another way, under what circumstances could SCO expect to profit from failure in this arena?
Ironically, Roper is not a very good Christian when he says that he would tear down all man's law in order to get to the Devil.
Because it says so right here. In this book. That we wrote. -David Cross
Does "man's law" include Islamic law?
NOTE: The above Bible passage is often misinterpreted to suggest that it empowers tyrants, etc.
Anything as popular as the Bible that can be misinterpreted like this should be scrapped and started over. It's obviously badly written and the only attachment people have to it is that it's old and their parents were into it. Much like Neil Diamond. The world wouldn't end if there was no Neil Diamond, right?
Or maybe Roper could misinterpret enough to justify tearing down "man's law" and still be a Christian.
Uh, yeah...I think you skipped a few steps in your tautology there. For instance, you might want to include some awareness that "power to the people" includes corporations which have citizen rights. Furthermore, aside from your unspoken rationale, is it really necessary to have quick counts? I don't think so. Makes for good TV though, I guess.
you have to respect the confidence they have to send out invoices. it is sort of like those poor flys and insects who are attracted to the bright lights of a bug zapper - as many times as they've seen their comrades electrocuted, they still have the wherewithal to fly directly to their deaths
I'm sorry, I missed the part where you described why we "have to respect their confidence". I still don't get it, are you saying that SCO is respectable like those guys in the bugzapper beer commercial here in the US? In other words, we have to respect them because they are so pathetic? Does that make the moth that flies into the fire godlike? Your powers of anthropomorphic schadenfreude must be chemically enhanced.
Next week we will be bringing an automated system online that will do the following:
- snort portscan preprocessor will look for port scanning (with a list of exceptions for data center servers)
- a perl script will have the alerts piped to it and know when a new scan has started
- the perl expect mod will be used to put a null route in the network (on a cisco device) for the host that is doing the scanning. No return packets will make it back to the infected box.
Portsentry on FreeBSD (or BSD in general, I guess) will do all of this for about 10 minutes of work. With Snort you'll be able to collate seemingly random portscans into patterns (sometimes a determined cracker will try to lurk in the background scanning only one port per minute/hour/day/etc), but portsentry will do all the "nullroute anybody who touches a magic port" stuff easily.
This is perhaps a problem for the Dell legal department phone number. What are the repercussions of the EULA not being enforceable, that the end-user wouldn't actually have any right to use the software that they just agreed to?
Here in the 21st century, where most of us live, press releases are commonly faxed around as a matter of course. Sometimes they are faxed to PR agencies who distribute them electronically. Do you really think that www.sco.com is the first place *anybody* finds out about their developments?
They could turn it into a publicity coup and end up paying out less in the long run (and screw the lawyers too).
Nevermind the fact that it casts this egregious case as a bonus for all involved, completely mitigating any deterrent effect. Just settle out of court and maintain an environment where it can happen again.
Yes, yes they can. However, them taking their ball and going home if you don't want to adopt their perspective on "interoperability" still makes them look like they're in elementary school. It's not that they "can"...people and companies "can" do a lot of things, it's what they choose to do that makes them lame. Or not, as the case may be.
Of course, your little "fuck 'em" comment is exactly like what they're saying to third-parties, so it looks like you don't really have a problem with them.
You are betraying your lack of article-reading fu. Making a patch available to people who are installing it via WindowsUpdate is a problem only because WindowsUpdate could falsely report that it installed the patch when it really only added the registry key that says it's installed. Without downloading the files at all.
If they can't be found online, then chances are the Technician won't be able to help you anyway.
In which case the company you work for, or even more specifically the company you are representing, has failed at giving good tech support. Calling a techsupport line is the only viable option if the information can't be found online. Not everybody on the web and Usenet writes about every problem they come across, and are you really trying to say that every company's support website and knowledge base is 100% comprehensive? Not in my experience, and it won't be in yours once you get some. Saying that nobody who calls tech support knows how to search for information betrays your contempt for the people you were hired to help, but that contempt is tempered by your admission that you couldn't help with anything that can't be easily found in a websearch anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
You had parallel ports, "but the IRQ was tied up in the network".
Yes, you really must have "had a couple hackers".
Please. You can still write checks, dipshit. I'm not saying nothing will happen, I'm saying that nobody will die or anything from "lack of internet". You'll find another job. It's only significant on an economic level.
Excellent point. If a major underpinning of the Internet like DNS were commercialized, there would be no reason to disallow it at any other level. Furthermore, a fully commercial internet wouldn't have to worry so much about those pesky laws and Bills of Rights or anything. You get what you're sold, punk. Quit crying or get the hell out. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."
The notion that Al Qaeda or some other terrorist group would launch a coordinated strike to take out DNS servers is totally absurd. Even if they had the ability to launch a co-ordinated bomb strike with this kind of sophistication and ingenuity (highly unlikely), I'm sure they'd go after targets that had a bit more of a visible impact.... for example, the power grid.
Heh, yeah. It's not only a visible impact, but come on: if the Internet went away nobody would die, no extra money would have to be spent on anything. Richard Clark was being melodramatic and this guy fell for it. "Okay, what if they got $num operatives to blow up all the Krispy Kreme franchises AT THE SAME TIME?" A closer analogy may be to (educational?) amusement parks. As cool as it is, the Internet doesn't really matter that much. It could go away and everybody would adjust and go on with their lives.
Fixed URL
Better to keep all the "facts" in press releases rather than the courtrooms if these developments cause the labels they deal with to come after them for fraud. They would probably prefer not to have to talk to the SEC any more, either:
1 74 62.htm
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/complr
Since they are a pinksheet business and don't report any financials as a public company, nobody but them knows whether they'd even be able to mount a case like this.
The new E-music service agreements are for those who find mp3's "good enough."
Right, and as someone pointed out elsewhere, Emusic's strength is their catalog of lesser-known and obscure bands. Most of the cheerleading for Emusic that *I've* heard has been from people who are into (commercially) tiny electronic music artists, and would speculate that this demographic extends to other styles as well. That is, until now my sense is that Emusic is good for music nerds and people who go through the effort to track down music that isn't on the Billboard charts.
How much overlap do you think there is among these people with people who are willing to accept crappy 128kbit MP3s? I think "not much," and Emusic could better serve their existing customers by *increasing* the quality of the songfiles along with the increase in price. As it stands, they are lowering the quality of their product by increasing the price, which is not exactly the best sales strategy.
We'll see how strong SGI is in this one, but it would be an easy shuck 'n jive to have this in place to use against IBM once THAT trial gets underway.
Of course, you'll go on to say that all of the things that drove the firing didn't have anything to do with it. You'll be a pussy and trot out some lines about team players or corporate vision and dissemble on the actual reasons.
Hey, if certain other companies knew the real reasons they might not choose to do business with you in the future, right? If you're a bend-over bitch for a company like Microsoft, there are companies who might want a more impartial vendor and/or researcher who may not use you if they know you're going to vet everything through a billg-filter.
They are. And the techniques they use to enforce the laws are as varied as you can imagine. This is why there is a saying, "throw the book at them." There are so many laws that each of us break everyday (probably, who can keep track?) that the punishments can always legally range from letting you off with a wrist slap to researching every applicable law to make sure you are convicted of *some*thing. This is always the case, is built into the law, and is a valuable negotiating tool. But make no mistake, they aren't required to use PATRIOT any more than meter maids are required to subpoena your driving records. But they could.
So the question to me isn't whether the PATRIOT act is a good one or not, since that hinges too much on opinion, but why Lamo is having it invoked in his case. Is it a tacit admission of domestic terrorism? Is it because manipulating the NYTimes puts egg on the faces of too many important people? Why not use PATRIOT for that SoBig chump too?
Every settlement and "executive step-down" always leaves more money in their pockets than any fines. Richard Grasso is not giving back his $140MM, The Big-4 accounting firms settled for much less than what they took from their dotcom shenanigans, and SCOX will continue to profit from their actions. Nobody will do anything about it and beyond that, I wouldn't be surprised if it was legal anyway.
Look at the big picture everybody, and take a page from the SCO playbook: keep the soap opera in the news and the issue stays in front of more eyes for a longer period of time. The real issue is that more attention needs to be paid to MS security for everyone's benefit, and this is a way of that happening.
I weary of the non-SCO side of this battle treating SCO like a bunch of idiots. Shit or get off the pot, FSF/GNU/etc., I'm sure the SCO camp is well aware of copyright laws and they probably don't need to be reminded. I've heard that they even have lawyers! It seems obvious to me that the fight is going to be on terms of interpretation rather than one side not knowing that there are 800 laws across the earth that prohibit what they're doing.
IBM has their own problems, so if Linux stakeholders CAN do something about it, then do it. Quit engaging in these mental masturbation and Dr. Phil melodramatics. I'm sure we can get a PayPal jar sufficiently filled just by the people who are sick of watching the minutiae played out on the pages of Slashdot, the most ineffectual political machine evar.
Interesting, but incomplete. :) Why are marketing and the courtroom incompatible? Said another way, under what circumstances could SCO expect to profit from failure in this arena?
Ironically, Roper is not a very good Christian when he says that he would tear down all man's law in order to get to the Devil.
Because it says so right here. In this book. That we wrote.
-David Cross
Does "man's law" include Islamic law?
NOTE: The above Bible passage is often misinterpreted to suggest that it empowers tyrants, etc.
Anything as popular as the Bible that can be misinterpreted like this should be scrapped and started over. It's obviously badly written and the only attachment people have to it is that it's old and their parents were into it. Much like Neil Diamond. The world wouldn't end if there was no Neil Diamond, right?
Or maybe Roper could misinterpret enough to justify tearing down "man's law" and still be a Christian.
Uh, yeah...I think you skipped a few steps in your tautology there. For instance, you might want to include some awareness that "power to the people" includes corporations which have citizen rights. Furthermore, aside from your unspoken rationale, is it really necessary to have quick counts? I don't think so. Makes for good TV though, I guess.
you have to respect the confidence they have to send out invoices. it is sort of like those poor flys and insects who are attracted to the bright lights of a bug zapper - as many times as they've seen their comrades electrocuted, they still have the wherewithal to fly directly to their deaths
I'm sorry, I missed the part where you described why we "have to respect their confidence". I still don't get it, are you saying that SCO is respectable like those guys in the bugzapper beer commercial here in the US? In other words, we have to respect them because they are so pathetic? Does that make the moth that flies into the fire godlike? Your powers of anthropomorphic schadenfreude must be chemically enhanced.
Next week we will be bringing an automated system online that will do the following:
- snort portscan preprocessor will look for port scanning (with a list of exceptions for data center servers)
- a perl script will have the alerts piped to it and know when a new scan has started
- the perl expect mod will be used to put a null route in the network (on a cisco device) for the host that is doing the scanning. No return packets will make it back to the infected box.
Portsentry on FreeBSD (or BSD in general, I guess) will do all of this for about 10 minutes of work. With Snort you'll be able to collate seemingly random portscans into patterns (sometimes a determined cracker will try to lurk in the background scanning only one port per minute/hour/day/etc), but portsentry will do all the "nullroute anybody who touches a magic port" stuff easily.
This is perhaps a problem for the Dell legal department phone number. What are the repercussions of the EULA not being enforceable, that the end-user wouldn't actually have any right to use the software that they just agreed to?
Here in the 21st century, where most of us live, press releases are commonly faxed around as a matter of course. Sometimes they are faxed to PR agencies who distribute them electronically. Do you really think that www.sco.com is the first place *anybody* finds out about their developments?
They could turn it into a publicity coup and end up paying out less in the long run (and screw the lawyers too).
Nevermind the fact that it casts this egregious case as a bonus for all involved, completely mitigating any deterrent effect. Just settle out of court and maintain an environment where it can happen again.
"Liability, schmiability. Nobody admits wrongdoing!"
Yes, yes they can. However, them taking their ball and going home if you don't want to adopt their perspective on "interoperability" still makes them look like they're in elementary school. It's not that they "can"...people and companies "can" do a lot of things, it's what they choose to do that makes them lame. Or not, as the case may be.
Of course, your little "fuck 'em" comment is exactly like what they're saying to third-parties, so it looks like you don't really have a problem with them.
You are betraying your lack of article-reading fu. Making a patch available to people who are installing it via WindowsUpdate is a problem only because WindowsUpdate could falsely report that it installed the patch when it really only added the registry key that says it's installed. Without downloading the files at all.
If they can't be found online, then chances are the Technician won't be able to help you anyway.
In which case the company you work for, or even more specifically the company you are representing, has failed at giving good tech support. Calling a techsupport line is the only viable option if the information can't be found online. Not everybody on the web and Usenet writes about every problem they come across, and are you really trying to say that every company's support website and knowledge base is 100% comprehensive? Not in my experience, and it won't be in yours once you get some. Saying that nobody who calls tech support knows how to search for information betrays your contempt for the people you were hired to help, but that contempt is tempered by your admission that you couldn't help with anything that can't be easily found in a websearch anyway.
The Seinfeld bit is actually just Bizarro-Jerry, isn't it?
There was also a few "Bizarro World" skits on early Saturday Night Live episodes.