In response to all the bitching about ACs, how about setting up two things:
1) Make it so you can post anonymously, but must be logged in. Ie, (like on half-empty) your karma is still affected and there is still an internal link to your post with your account, but nobody knows who you are.
2) Make it so there's an interface in slashcode to contact anonymous individuals (perhaps anonymously as well?:)).. slashdot would be a third party. Since they wouldn't have an email address displayed when posting anonymous, this would allow a user to send them a private message.
This way ACs who are posting crap will eventually bottom out in karma and post at -1 and have the potential to be flamed on the/. private message system (which is better than nothing, I'd guess.)
Ok, I'm tired of seeing people always throw out that since Apache has more market share than IIS there are more Apache servers sitting on the Internet. This is simply not true, IIRC, from the numbers we saw for code red.
There are thousands of people running IIS on Win2k server, many of which are 31337 warez puppies on cable modems who installed win2k server because it was the biggest Win2k download and hence had the most stuff. These people are not included in the "market share" of IIS webservers.
The exploits for IIS worked not because of the relatively small number of sysadmins who did not update their IIS servers eventually.. it worked because of the tens of thousands of IIS servers running by people who didn't know they were there.
No competent sysadmin had their system compromised by Code Red, and if they did, they had it patched quickly. The people who got Code Red 2 were not part of the "market share".. and probably never knew they had it.
Yeah, building extremely fast computers to solve new types of problems is a stupid idea. Thanks for the reality check, you probably just saved all those gullible physicists lots of money.
From reading the article, it seems the questions asked weren't "Do you support anti-crypto?" but instead "Do you think anti-crypto would help catch terrorists?"
Of COURSE anti-crypto has a chance of helping catch terrorists.. if your doctor for example has encrypted files for one of them or something random like that. That doesn't mean I support it or think it's worth it! They're extrapolating people's opinions based upon the not-so-earthshattering observation that crackable crypto has a good shot of helping catch terrorists (and this, in itself, is debatable since they already have strong-crypto for their own internal communications)
The issue in this debate moved from Skylarov to the concept of illegalizing the sale and distribution of certain software, in general. However, I will refute your point as best as I can.
Fair use is not defined by the consumer, but is defined by the creator of the work itself. If the creator of the work itself publishes their work, for example, using eBook technology, they have defined "fair use" of their book meaning "use on a single Windows machine." If they had decided that their "fair use" should be a bit more generous in its offerings, they would have used an alternative to publishing using eBook technology.
You do not have the privilege of extending the author's determination of what is "fair use" of their work; Dmitry Skylarov provided Americans a tool to do so. The only legitimate arguments in favor of Dmitry, as far as I'm concerned, is the fact that he was outside of U.S. juristiction. You cannot argue that his actions would be legal had he been doing what he did on U.S. soil, however.
It is not an inherent, universal right in this country for you to do what you want with a piece of information created by someone else for the maximum benefit of yourself, and in turn, society. If it were, we would be socialists. When you purchase the information at hand, you are also buying into the terms of the author's dictation of what constitutes "fair use" of his work. By breaching what he says is "fair use," you are illegally using his information. Ideologically you may not agree with these concepts in general, ie, the right to the information you create (see Marxism) but that is not the issue.
The right to fair use is fundamentally different than the right to free speech, since "speech" is a debatable phenomenon. "Fair use" is explicitly defined by the author, both in the fine print and inherently in the medium in which his or her information is published. As such, deciding if someone broke the clause of "fair use" is trivial in comparison to deciding if someone acted legally due to their freedom of speech. Simply ask the author, and ensure that certain "fair uses" were not implied in the medium the author used. The latter is the tricky part, but in the case of eBooks, I see no reason to speculate as to what constitutes "fair use" in that medium.
Then explain to me why it shouldn't be illegal for somebody to publish instructions for building a bomb.
I will do so.
To "execute" the plans to build a bomb, you must bring it upon yourself the laborious process of doing so. To execute the "plans" of a software crack, all that is required is the depressing of your finger twice in rapid succession. If were are arguing on principle, they are the same thing, but if we are arguing on practicality and reality then they are a world apart, and I hope you would not be foolish enough to think otherwise. Instructions for a bomb do not allow you to go to your local store and buy a magical machine in which you can insert the instructions on one end (without reading them) and get a bomb out the other in virtually zero time or effort. A crack, however, does allow this. The magical machine being, obviously, a computer. Instructions for a bomb are giving you the means to an end, whereas the "instructions" for a crack are nearly (but of course, technically not) giving you the end in itself. Instructions for a bomb is not the same thing as a bomb, but the instructions for a crack is in fact "a crack." When software is distributed, it is not distributed as "instructions for a word processor".. it is a "word processor" in and of itself. Herein lies the difference: the speed and ease at which instructions are executed by a third party, ie, the computer, make the instructions be nearly the same thing as the end which they are intended to accomplish.
The choice between, given a crack, weither to use it or not is not the eqivalent of, given plans for a bomb, weither to build and detonate it. It is the equivalent of, given a bomb, weither to pull the trigger to set it off. Perhaps on the most fundamental level, a level understood by CS majors, a crack is a list of instructions for a computer. However, a crack is hardly a "list of instructions" to the user, only to the computer is it such.
Yet another flawed analogy thrown in the fray by yourself, a common fallicy by a lot of people on this site. That's why I called you a slashbot, and I stand by it, since you are throwing cliche slashdot analogies for making your point, not arguing the point itself. My use of profanity was founded in the fact that you declared that you were scared of me, which sickens me and is actually much more a derogatory statement than "fucking idiot."
Hackers need to stop talking about computer code as a means to an end or an end in itself when either is more convenient for their personal agendas. The wonders of technology has made it so that millions of instructions of computer code can be executed quickly and hence they become an end in themselves, as far as I'm concerned, and should be treated as such. If more people would come to grips with reality (ie: computers are meant to make instructions invisible and give you the ends as fast as possible) then there would be less mundane arguments about things which have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
The Windows source code on a CD is a world of difference from the Windows source code printed out on reams of paper. The Windows code on a CD, due to modern technology and automation, might as well be "Microsoft Windows," in the eyes of the law, while the source code on paper is "The Source Code to Microsoft Windows."
The point of arguing about DeCSS is not a matter of free speech; it's a matter of how fucked up is it that I can't watch DVDs where ever I please. Someone wearing the source code on a T-shirt is an idiot in my eyes, and doesn't understand that the source code on their T-shirt has little to no relevance to the highly-automated digital non-human-readable instructions that a computer executes instantaneously to break the (fucked up) law.
_I_ submit that you try to squeeze out something to refute my statements without a silly analogy that falls like a house of cards. I also submit that you stop making yourself feel better by saying I don't think for myself. These words are a product of my own thoughts, and are far against many of the things you'd read elsewhere, so I hope I've refuted your little theory about my ability to think for myself.
Give me a break. Don't throw ridiculously flawed analogies at me, slashbot. If you want to play that game, locking up a script kiddie for selling a crack is the same as locking up a person selling a device which could be used for no other purpose than breaking the law. Fucking idiot, a car can be used for countless legitimate purposes, it's not created exclusively as a weapon for killing people while intoxicated.
In the physical world, there are few, if any, objects which can only be used illegitimately. (sp) The things which are nearly only usable illegitimately are illegal to sell. For example, automatic weapons. Sure, there are legitimate purposes for these things, but they are so stark the minority that they are basically invisible to the law.
In the digital world, we find something unique, though. A crack for Windows 2005 is something which can only be used illegitimately, and hence should be illegal to sell. There is no legal reason for you to crack a piece of software. If you've lost the ability to use the software despite the fact that you purchased it, contact the software distributor. If you want to argue this point, then that's where we differ on opinion, but I will not budge from my position. There's nothing wrong with actually creating the crack, but distribution and especially sale of it should be illegal.
Dmitry's software had the potential to be used legally, though a very slim one, and hence is questionable as being a cause for locking him up. If, however, his software could be used for no other purpose then breaking the law, then he should have been locked up.
I was looking to form a small group of people to create an online petition to block the banning of strong cryptography. I am not good at drafting these things up, and I feel it's importatnt that the issue and stance not just be in the petition, but also the reasoning why (such as, importantly, that banning crypto will not stop terrorists from using it, AT ALL.)
I have permission to host it on my server at half-empty, giving us access to a connection at Exodus which would hopefully handle the load.
Additionally, I am going to start working on a Java applet which will allow people to sign the petition via mouse (along with their printed name and voting district) in order to make it more official.
I will take the responsibility of printing the petition out and sending it to the necessary parties.
You may contact me at nebby@half-empty.org if you are interested in helping draft up the wording for the petition. Thanks.
What about a mix between the two: A digital signature affixed via mouse movement? You could surely write a java applet to "sign" the petition and take these images and sort them out.. it would make it a lot more official looking and legitimate.
I might work on it, anyone who wants to help, let me know @ nebby@half-empty.org. Someone needs to write the actual petition, but I could provide the tech end of the signing and scripts, etc. With permission, our pipe at Exodus for half-empty could be used temporarily with permission from the person hosting me.
Tomorrow is US pride day, everyone wear US colors (jeans are blue, everyone owns a white t-shirt, etc). try to be wearing as much red white and blue as you can. send this message to as many other people you know. Lets get the whole country into it. At least send it to 10 other people.
The thing that amazes me is the fact that Palestinians aren't scared out of their mind as they celebrate. They're acting as if they've "defated" the United States, while all it's really done is cause the entire population to turn red with rage against them. Whereas Pearl Harbor may have given the Japanese a reason to celebrate a potential victory over the U.S. power, our military is as strong tonight as it was this morning. We have the big guns, so they're basically going to be fucked in the end if the higher up's find out their country was involved.
I know that if I were in their place, even if I wanted to celebrate, I'd do it privately. Also, if I realized my country's population were celebrating in the streets and being filmed on international TV, I'd get the hell out of the country before the bombs started falling.
Honestly, I could see the issue if the lesser-quality work was causing problems with your company's business. However, you fail to present reasons why this may be the case, and hence I am unable to see any motivation for you to want to create more quality work than merely because you feel it is the "right" thing to to.
Your company's customers are ultimately paying you for your time. They get what they pay for.. if they didn't feel they were, they would go somewhere else. You don't owe them anything. There is something to be said about taking pride in your work, but, especially in this economy, you need to realize where the difference is between reducing the pride in your work and doing what is best for you and your company.
Perhaps if the shoddy work was backfiring and causing customers to leave you'd have a case, but if they keep coming, then why change what you're doing?
I suggest that you tell your boss that you realize that the work that's been getting released has not been up to par with your personal standards, and make the point clear that customers could potentially be charged more for higher quality in the cases where you feel they've been cut short. Your boss doesn't care about morals.. tell him how you can make more money by increasing quality and you get your self-satisfaction AND your paycheck.
You don't call someone "dumb as a post" in regards to a certain field of knowledge. It is an insult.. if you called me dumb as a post in person I would hit you. Even if you clarified "oh oh, I was talking about your lack of knowledge in obscure jazz music!" I would still hit you. You should have used the term "unknowledgable in X".. I don't buy your lame excuse and doubt that you call your buddies "dumb as a post" if they're not up to date on the latest baseball scores.
Nice try covering it up, but you've branded yourself as a elitist in my eyes.
Slashdot Mirror
In response to all the bitching about ACs, how about setting up two things:
:)) .. slashdot would be a third party. Since they wouldn't have an email address displayed when posting anonymous, this would allow a user to send them a private message.
/. private message system (which is better than nothing, I'd guess.)
1) Make it so you can post anonymously, but must be logged in. Ie, (like on half-empty) your karma is still affected and there is still an internal link to your post with your account, but nobody knows who you are.
2) Make it so there's an interface in slashcode to contact anonymous individuals (perhaps anonymously as well?
This way ACs who are posting crap will eventually bottom out in karma and post at -1 and have the potential to be flamed on the
has a budget box building guide. You should check out their general buyer's guide as well.
Ok Mr. Smarty man, I am telling the stick to remove itself from within the ass.
:)
And I believe your code should have been:
ass.remove(ass.getStick());
But then again, I don't pick nits
Ok, I'm tired of seeing people always throw out that since Apache has more market share than IIS there are more Apache servers sitting on the Internet. This is simply not true, IIRC, from the numbers we saw for code red.
.. it worked because of the tens of thousands of IIS servers running by people who didn't know they were there.
.. and probably never knew they had it.
There are thousands of people running IIS on Win2k server, many of which are 31337 warez puppies on cable modems who installed win2k server because it was the biggest Win2k download and hence had the most stuff. These people are not included in the "market share" of IIS webservers.
The exploits for IIS worked not because of the relatively small number of sysadmins who did not update their IIS servers eventually
No competent sysadmin had their system compromised by Code Red, and if they did, they had it patched quickly. The people who got Code Red 2 were not part of the "market share"
ass.getStick().remove();
Yeah, building extremely fast computers to solve new types of problems is a stupid idea. Thanks for the reality check, you probably just saved all those gullible physicists lots of money.
Doesn't the CIA employ many, many crackers to bust into their stuff?
Victimless? Are you kidding? If someone cracks into a big ass server and steals credit cards, I think I know who the victims are.
Just because they're geeks doesn't make them any less criminal.
From reading the article, it seems the questions asked weren't "Do you support anti-crypto?" but instead "Do you think anti-crypto would help catch terrorists?"
Of COURSE anti-crypto has a chance of helping catch terrorists.. if your doctor for example has encrypted files for one of them or something random like that. That doesn't mean I support it or think it's worth it! They're extrapolating people's opinions based upon the not-so-earthshattering observation that crackable crypto has a good shot of helping catch terrorists (and this, in itself, is debatable since they already have strong-crypto for their own internal communications)
When I wasn't logged in, for this article I got "Nothing for you to see here, please move along." Is this normal?
Heh I stand corrected. Foot in mouth, etc.
I hope that my other comment doesn't fall flat on its face like that one did.
The issue in this debate moved from Skylarov to the concept of illegalizing the sale and distribution of certain software, in general. However, I will refute your point as best as I can.
Fair use is not defined by the consumer, but is defined by the creator of the work itself. If the creator of the work itself publishes their work, for example, using eBook technology, they have defined "fair use" of their book meaning "use on a single Windows machine." If they had decided that their "fair use" should be a bit more generous in its offerings, they would have used an alternative to publishing using eBook technology.
You do not have the privilege of extending the author's determination of what is "fair use" of their work; Dmitry Skylarov provided Americans a tool to do so. The only legitimate arguments in favor of Dmitry, as far as I'm concerned, is the fact that he was outside of U.S. juristiction. You cannot argue that his actions would be legal had he been doing what he did on U.S. soil, however.
It is not an inherent, universal right in this country for you to do what you want with a piece of information created by someone else for the maximum benefit of yourself, and in turn, society. If it were, we would be socialists. When you purchase the information at hand, you are also buying into the terms of the author's dictation of what constitutes "fair use" of his work. By breaching what he says is "fair use," you are illegally using his information. Ideologically you may not agree with these concepts in general, ie, the right to the information you create (see Marxism) but that is not the issue.
The right to fair use is fundamentally different than the right to free speech, since "speech" is a debatable phenomenon. "Fair use" is explicitly defined by the author, both in the fine print and inherently in the medium in which his or her information is published. As such, deciding if someone broke the clause of "fair use" is trivial in comparison to deciding if someone acted legally due to their freedom of speech. Simply ask the author, and ensure that certain "fair uses" were not implied in the medium the author used. The latter is the tricky part, but in the case of eBooks, I see no reason to speculate as to what constitutes "fair use" in that medium.
Then explain to me why it shouldn't be illegal for somebody to publish instructions for building a bomb.
I will do so.
To "execute" the plans to build a bomb, you must bring it upon yourself the laborious process of doing so. To execute the "plans" of a software crack, all that is required is the depressing of your finger twice in rapid succession. If were are arguing on principle, they are the same thing, but if we are arguing on practicality and reality then they are a world apart, and I hope you would not be foolish enough to think otherwise. Instructions for a bomb do not allow you to go to your local store and buy a magical machine in which you can insert the instructions on one end (without reading them) and get a bomb out the other in virtually zero time or effort. A crack, however, does allow this. The magical machine being, obviously, a computer. Instructions for a bomb are giving you the means to an end, whereas the "instructions" for a crack are nearly (but of course, technically not) giving you the end in itself. Instructions for a bomb is not the same thing as a bomb, but the instructions for a crack is in fact "a crack." When software is distributed, it is not distributed as "instructions for a word processor"
The choice between, given a crack, weither to use it or not is not the eqivalent of, given plans for a bomb, weither to build and detonate it. It is the equivalent of, given a bomb, weither to pull the trigger to set it off. Perhaps on the most fundamental level, a level understood by CS majors, a crack is a list of instructions for a computer. However, a crack is hardly a "list of instructions" to the user, only to the computer is it such.
Yet another flawed analogy thrown in the fray by yourself, a common fallicy by a lot of people on this site. That's why I called you a slashbot, and I stand by it, since you are throwing cliche slashdot analogies for making your point, not arguing the point itself. My use of profanity was founded in the fact that you declared that you were scared of me, which sickens me and is actually much more a derogatory statement than "fucking idiot."
Hackers need to stop talking about computer code as a means to an end or an end in itself when either is more convenient for their personal agendas. The wonders of technology has made it so that millions of instructions of computer code can be executed quickly and hence they become an end in themselves, as far as I'm concerned, and should be treated as such. If more people would come to grips with reality (ie: computers are meant to make instructions invisible and give you the ends as fast as possible) then there would be less mundane arguments about things which have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
The Windows source code on a CD is a world of difference from the Windows source code printed out on reams of paper. The Windows code on a CD, due to modern technology and automation, might as well be "Microsoft Windows," in the eyes of the law, while the source code on paper is "The Source Code to Microsoft Windows."
The point of arguing about DeCSS is not a matter of free speech; it's a matter of how fucked up is it that I can't watch DVDs where ever I please. Someone wearing the source code on a T-shirt is an idiot in my eyes, and doesn't understand that the source code on their T-shirt has little to no relevance to the highly-automated digital non-human-readable instructions that a computer executes instantaneously to break the (fucked up) law.
_I_ submit that you try to squeeze out something to refute my statements without a silly analogy that falls like a house of cards. I also submit that you stop making yourself feel better by saying I don't think for myself. These words are a product of my own thoughts, and are far against many of the things you'd read elsewhere, so I hope I've refuted your little theory about my ability to think for myself.
Give me a break. Don't throw ridiculously flawed analogies at me, slashbot. If you want to play that game, locking up a script kiddie for selling a crack is the same as locking up a person selling a device which could be used for no other purpose than breaking the law. Fucking idiot, a car can be used for countless legitimate purposes, it's not created exclusively as a weapon for killing people while intoxicated.
In the physical world, there are few, if any, objects which can only be used illegitimately. (sp) The things which are nearly only usable illegitimately are illegal to sell. For example, automatic weapons. Sure, there are legitimate purposes for these things, but they are so stark the minority that they are basically invisible to the law.
In the digital world, we find something unique, though. A crack for Windows 2005 is something which can only be used illegitimately, and hence should be illegal to sell. There is no legal reason for you to crack a piece of software. If you've lost the ability to use the software despite the fact that you purchased it, contact the software distributor. If you want to argue this point, then that's where we differ on opinion, but I will not budge from my position. There's nothing wrong with actually creating the crack, but distribution and especially sale of it should be illegal.
Dmitry's software had the potential to be used legally, though a very slim one, and hence is questionable as being a cause for locking him up. If, however, his software could be used for no other purpose then breaking the law, then he should have been locked up.
I was looking to form a small group of people to create an online petition to block the banning of strong cryptography. I am not good at drafting these things up, and I feel it's importatnt that the issue and stance not just be in the petition, but also the reasoning why (such as, importantly, that banning crypto will not stop terrorists from using it, AT ALL.)
I have permission to host it on my server at half-empty, giving us access to a connection at Exodus which would hopefully handle the load.
Additionally, I am going to start working on a Java applet which will allow people to sign the petition via mouse (along with their printed name and voting district) in order to make it more official.
I will take the responsibility of printing the petition out and sending it to the necessary parties.
You may contact me at nebby@half-empty.org if you are interested in helping draft up the wording for the petition. Thanks.
What about a mix between the two: A digital signature affixed via mouse movement? You could surely write a java applet to "sign" the petition and take these images and sort them out.. it would make it a lot more official looking and legitimate.
I might work on it, anyone who wants to help, let me know @ nebby@half-empty.org. Someone needs to write the actual petition, but I could provide the tech end of the signing and scripts, etc. With permission, our pipe at Exodus for half-empty could be used temporarily with permission from the person hosting me.
He wasn't locked up for presenting the information, he was locked up for selling it to people.
The day a skript kidding charges $10 for his leet crack to Windows 2005 is the day I tell the government to lock his ass up.
Mod parent up plz.
Nice job speculating based on nothing, you uninformed self-righteous slashdot loser.
Tomorrow is US pride day, everyone wear US colors (jeans are blue, everyone owns a white t-shirt, etc). try to be wearing as much red white and blue as you can. send this message to as many other people you know. Lets get the whole country into it. At least send it to 10 other people.
Yeah a lame mass mail, but I want it to be seen.
But their sons are, like me.
The thing that amazes me is the fact that Palestinians aren't scared out of their mind as they celebrate. They're acting as if they've "defated" the United States, while all it's really done is cause the entire population to turn red with rage against them. Whereas Pearl Harbor may have given the Japanese a reason to celebrate a potential victory over the U.S. power, our military is as strong tonight as it was this morning. We have the big guns, so they're basically going to be fucked in the end if the higher up's find out their country was involved.
I know that if I were in their place, even if I wanted to celebrate, I'd do it privately. Also, if I realized my country's population were celebrating in the streets and being filmed on international TV, I'd get the hell out of the country before the bombs started falling.
Honestly, I could see the issue if the lesser-quality work was causing problems with your company's business. However, you fail to present reasons why this may be the case, and hence I am unable to see any motivation for you to want to create more quality work than merely because you feel it is the "right" thing to to.
Your company's customers are ultimately paying you for your time. They get what they pay for.. if they didn't feel they were, they would go somewhere else. You don't owe them anything. There is something to be said about taking pride in your work, but, especially in this economy, you need to realize where the difference is between reducing the pride in your work and doing what is best for you and your company.
Perhaps if the shoddy work was backfiring and causing customers to leave you'd have a case, but if they keep coming, then why change what you're doing?
I suggest that you tell your boss that you realize that the work that's been getting released has not been up to par with your personal standards, and make the point clear that customers could potentially be charged more for higher quality in the cases where you feel they've been cut short. Your boss doesn't care about morals.. tell him how you can make more money by increasing quality and you get your self-satisfaction AND your paycheck.
Um.
.. I don't buy your lame excuse and doubt that you call your buddies "dumb as a post" if they're not up to date on the latest baseball scores.
You don't call someone "dumb as a post" in regards to a certain field of knowledge. It is an insult.. if you called me dumb as a post in person I would hit you. Even if you clarified "oh oh, I was talking about your lack of knowledge in obscure jazz music!" I would still hit you. You should have used the term "unknowledgable in X"
Nice try covering it up, but you've branded yourself as a elitist in my eyes.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=01/08/05/16202 20&cid=65