me thinks you have spoken too soon. The right answer is "it depends". But, there are ways to get arbitrary javascript to run on web pages. cross site scripting, simple form submission of JS code, MiTM injection, malicious code on the server, etc.
OR, you know something I don't. If so, please share.
In your example the crime would be the guy actually going to that address AND committing the felony. Telling someone where they can find something *may* be aiding/abetting in very specific circumstances. However on the Internet, posting the link is nothing more than slapping up a poster with an address on it. The people that see that poster make a choice - some may decide to visit that address with criminal intent. There is nothing wrong with putting the poster up - it's called free speech. ACTING on the information the poster contains is when the crime may or may not occur. Going after the guy who created the poster is just a witch hunt. Why not go after the company that made the paper too? and the logging company that provided the wood for the paper, etc.
We live in the world where we can find instructions for making bombs on the Internet. There are links to those instructions. Are THEY aiding and abetting? Why should a corporation get more rights to protect their so called intellectual property? Why is the world so quick to punish those who may infringe on these IDEAS? And why so much more than the people who commit physical crimes? The guy in question here posted a link, a relatively harmless activity. He is facing more legal fees and punishments than a typical burgler, car thief, or rapist. And yet there are people in this thread that are screaming for his head. We, as Internet denizens, seem to have lost a balanced perspective. I think we all need to get out of our basements more often...
So, by your own logic, when you mention to your friend to "take care" around that drug den down the road, you should be put in jail for aiding and abetting the drug trade. We see links to goatse here all the time. The image itself is morally wrong, but the links are not. *IF* Real Alternative is in fact breaking the law then Real Alternative should be held accountable - Not some poor schmuck who simply says "look at this" via a link.
What you are advocating is akin to thought crime. If you don't conform and think the way "we" tell you too, you should be punished. The problem is just who gets to decide what is "right". In every single instance or situation. What happens when this so called "right" does not align with your own personal views? Do you bend over and let them spank you until you see the light? Sorry, but I'm sure glad I don't live in your world and can make up my own mind what links I'll visit, what software I'll install, or even what I'll have for lunch today.
Florian Mueller is quoted in the article. I normally stop reading when I see his name. And I do see a fair bit of articles mentioning him posted to SlashDot. Hmm, and the article was submitted by an anonymous reader... coincidence??
I've seen a number of grand statements like this from Florian Mueller. I do believe that every single one (that I've read about at least) turned out to be putting the best possible spin on something for whoever has the most to gain by such spin. I've also seen Florian's reports dissected and rejected soundly (Google Florian, SCO, and Groklaw). I don't bother reading anything he writes anymore, as it is almost always fear mongering, FUD, and spin. I believe the term that applies here is "paid shill". Of course, all that is just my own opinion - read his writings with a grain of doubt and form your own opinion.
Sorry for this post being unrelated to the article. But I've been seeing a drastic increase in the amount of trolling under the guise of anonymous coward. Being anonymous doesn't not automatically grant anyone the right to become a stupid dick. Stuff like "Google = fags" is just idiotic to post. Free speech grants one the right to say things like this, but standard respect and decency do not. Doing so only degrades the very place you obviously enjoy. If enough of this crap goes on the site and comments become meaningless. And Troll's so obviously want that, but most of us do not. Btw, posting as "anonymous coward" does not automagically make you anonymous. Server logs can be great tools in the right hands.
Posted OFF topic so as not to feed the troll.
As for Google's choice in the article, I think they made the right choice. Allowing a government the ability to shut down dissenting sites/services THAT easily is not a good thing. And we all know that putting the servers in country would lead to exactly that type of problem.
It would seem to me that Sony has had plenty of time to rebuild the servers. It would seem the problem is not with the hardware or the configuration of the servers (though I'm sure that plays a very important role!), but with the software they built. If that software is THAT buggy, the right solution should be to rebuild that software with modern security practices in mind (as opposed to NO security implementations at all).
This up then immediately cracked fiasco they are dealing with shows that they continue to use the same passwords and the same failed security routines. Maybe if they put their hand in the fire just one more time they won't get burned anymore. Seems to be a flaw in the thinking, but I just can't put my finger on it.
Stop buying Sony products? Even if every geek who is aware of the issues did that, Sony would only loose a small percentage of their income. The consumer sheeple out there don't know any different or don't care. Extend that beyond the PS3's to other Sony products - phones, laptops, etc. and the geek boycott becomes a minor ripple.
And I'll challenge you to actually stop buying Sony products. It is harder than you think. That new game you've been eyeing that doesn't say "Sony" on it anywhere? probably made/distributed by Sony - watch the opening credits. That new electronic device you want probably has some Sony product in there.
While I don't agree with what amounts to vandalism (ddos'ing servers), sometimes a more drastic method is needed. All the people who can't access PSN today may actually find out WHY, and start learning about the greater issues. Sony actually takes a bigger financial AND social hit this way. In one single day, more damage has been done to their reputation than a week of geeks trying to boycott Sony would ever cause.
A couple years ago, I needed to decide on the framework/approach for a large scale web based app. PHP/Postgres support were required (due to the use of another tool that used these and we would need to integrate with). I looked at most of the frameworks listed in the summary. There were two that stood out (for my specific needs) - Zend Framework, and Drupal. Not Drupal as a CMS, but Drupal as a framework. We ended up opting for ZF because the others were a little too rigid in their approaches.
So, to hear years later that Drupal is *not* a framework is surprising. Especially considering how much it has advanced/stabilized/improved since my evaluation.
and who decides what names are "protected"? And when they become protected? If the name is added to the protected list AFTER documents have been published, is anyone really breaking the law? Closing the barn door after the critters escape is not doing any good.
We are arguing the same point, I think. I never claimed the patents were valid or that software patents served any purpose. Just that if invalidating them were a way for MS to avoid paying damages, they would have taken that alternative. Whether the patents are good ones or not, is irrelevant in this case. IMI got told to bend over and take it because MS is bigger. They resisted getting raped like that with the only weapon available to them - a broken patent system. The damages in the case were so high because the courts found that MS did in fact knowingly screw over IMI. "We know they have a patent, but F'em. We'll use the tech anyway and put them out of business". Is anyone suggesting that IMI should shut up and let themselves get raped like this? If so, let's go for beer and discuss your latest software ideas - I need a new product.
And how many times has it been said here that a Patent abstract is not the definition of the patent. You need to look at the actual claims of the patent to find if there is anything real about the claim.
If the patent were obvious or had prior art, don't you think MS would have brought that up in the original court case and tried to invalidate the patent? They didn't, so it might be safe to assume this patent actually is the real thing. Afterall, it has survived a not just one court appearance, but an appeal as well.
I'm sure it has been said in other comments by now, but just in case. Let us not forget that the Canadian company in question actually DID have a product related to the patent. They DID work with Microsoft. Microsoft stopped dealing with them and then continued to use the patented technology knowingly without license. THIS is why the court of appeals UPHELD the court findings. MS still doesn't want to pay, so they are taking all the legal approaches available to them to avoid paying. The Canadian company (IMI) in this particular case is NOT a patent troll. In fact they are actually using the patent system the way it was intended - to stop the big boys from destroying the business of the little players. So, you'll excuse me if I root for IMI in this case. MS is not innocent here - the courts even said so. BUT, perhaps if MS is made to play by the same rules they want competitors to play by, perhaps they'll realize the current system is borked and increase their efforts to help change the system. We'll ignore for now MS's role in creating the current cluster-f#$@ system that is in place.
Disclaimer - I'm a Canadian. But I don't care where the company came from. MS bullied the company pretty much out of business by stealing their tech, and now doesn't want to pay the piper for their actions. I don't have any respect for anybody that plays that way.
As an aside, there is a group in Calgary, Alberta, who have re-engineered the Arrow from pictures and whatever sources could be gleaned. Enough sources were found to start the A.V. Roe Canada Heritage Museum (http://www.avromuseum.ca - hmm, seems the domain name has expired or been hijacked. Some images can be seen at http://www.actionhobby.ca/index.php?q=/node/541). This group is in the process of building a 2/3rd scale piloted replica of the Arrow. The fuselage, nose, tail fin, and I think the wings are done. Work is progressing on the internal elements. The Arrow will fly again in the next few years.
Playing devils adovcate here... Your argument contradicts itslef. "Software patents stifle innovation", followed shortly later by "so we have to find innovative ways to avoid them". Which is it?
I agree with your sentiment that software patents do not work. But we need to be clear and concise in our arguments against it. Unless you are a lawyer, I guess.
I've yet to find a decent tool for data modelling. Something akin to CA's ERWin. The best I've fond thus far is pgDesigner, but even that is a kludgy GTK interface and only works with PostgreSQL. I find using DIA for pretty much anything is an exercise in self inflicted torture.
To be able to build a database design visually, see the relationships at a glance, automate the generation of the create/alter scripts, etc. This would make business coding SOOO much easier and faster. And it even helps to communicate the application design to new coders to the project who do not understand where data is and why. (Good documentation is one thing, but a picture speaks a thousand words....)
When more people start to realize that it's a good idea to force their opponents into doing expensive and risky things, then they will choose to do that and start to use (poorly-authenticated) key exchange. Once encryption with poorly-authenticated key exchange becomes more common, people will start to see a benefit to improving their authentication, so they'll attend more key-signing parties, or exert market forces within crippled single-signer systems to have cheaper CAs, or whatever
You must live in an ideal world. Very few people I know even think at this level. The only way "people" will change is if the tool they use changes. This IT thing is not so simple that just anybody can understand all aspects of it, and frankly I prefer it that way. I'd rather a nurse know how to fix ME, than how to fix a computer. But if you want that nurse to use encryption to make the world more "secure", then you need to make sure the tools do it for them without them needing to know the details.
Now tie in that idea with the concept of lazy programmers. Until the programming eco system changes so that encryption is the ONLY way to communicate, then the lazy programmers will hold back everyone else. (I'm not talking about Lazy as in worthless, I'm talking about the concept of achieving a required task with the minimum of effort or costs). Have you tried to program an encrypted system lately? It isn't "simple" yet, and probably never will be. Same as achieving "security" is a nebulous but desirable goal.
I find it a little presumptuous for any of us to know, with certainty, exactly why the tree evolved the barbed leaves in the first place. The moa bird *may* have been one of many different factors, and I doubt there is any way we could ever know what those other factors may have been. Applying relatively modern conditions to evolutions in the distant past, amounts to just a random guess doesn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
me thinks you have spoken too soon. The right answer is "it depends". But, there are ways to get arbitrary javascript to run on web pages. cross site scripting, simple form submission of JS code, MiTM injection, malicious code on the server, etc.
OR, you know something I don't. If so, please share.
In your example the crime would be the guy actually going to that address AND committing the felony. Telling someone where they can find something *may* be aiding/abetting in very specific circumstances. However on the Internet, posting the link is nothing more than slapping up a poster with an address on it. The people that see that poster make a choice - some may decide to visit that address with criminal intent. There is nothing wrong with putting the poster up - it's called free speech. ACTING on the information the poster contains is when the crime may or may not occur. Going after the guy who created the poster is just a witch hunt. Why not go after the company that made the paper too? and the logging company that provided the wood for the paper, etc.
We live in the world where we can find instructions for making bombs on the Internet. There are links to those instructions. Are THEY aiding and abetting? Why should a corporation get more rights to protect their so called intellectual property? Why is the world so quick to punish those who may infringe on these IDEAS? And why so much more than the people who commit physical crimes? The guy in question here posted a link, a relatively harmless activity. He is facing more legal fees and punishments than a typical burgler, car thief, or rapist. And yet there are people in this thread that are screaming for his head. We, as Internet denizens, seem to have lost a balanced perspective. I think we all need to get out of our basements more often...
So, by your own logic, when you mention to your friend to "take care" around that drug den down the road, you should be put in jail for aiding and abetting the drug trade. We see links to goatse here all the time. The image itself is morally wrong, but the links are not. *IF* Real Alternative is in fact breaking the law then Real Alternative should be held accountable - Not some poor schmuck who simply says "look at this" via a link.
What you are advocating is akin to thought crime. If you don't conform and think the way "we" tell you too, you should be punished. The problem is just who gets to decide what is "right". In every single instance or situation. What happens when this so called "right" does not align with your own personal views? Do you bend over and let them spank you until you see the light? Sorry, but I'm sure glad I don't live in your world and can make up my own mind what links I'll visit, what software I'll install, or even what I'll have for lunch today.
to a galaxy, far far away... ???
Florian Mueller is quoted in the article. I normally stop reading when I see his name. And I do see a fair bit of articles mentioning him posted to SlashDot. Hmm, and the article was submitted by an anonymous reader... coincidence??
Or that people who do know about computers *have* to use to support their customers/friends/family.
I've seen a number of grand statements like this from Florian Mueller. I do believe that every single one (that I've read about at least) turned out to be putting the best possible spin on something for whoever has the most to gain by such spin. I've also seen Florian's reports dissected and rejected soundly (Google Florian, SCO, and Groklaw). I don't bother reading anything he writes anymore, as it is almost always fear mongering, FUD, and spin. I believe the term that applies here is "paid shill". Of course, all that is just my own opinion - read his writings with a grain of doubt and form your own opinion.
Sorry for this post being unrelated to the article. But I've been seeing a drastic increase in the amount of trolling under the guise of anonymous coward. Being anonymous doesn't not automatically grant anyone the right to become a stupid dick. Stuff like "Google = fags" is just idiotic to post. Free speech grants one the right to say things like this, but standard respect and decency do not. Doing so only degrades the very place you obviously enjoy. If enough of this crap goes on the site and comments become meaningless. And Troll's so obviously want that, but most of us do not. Btw, posting as "anonymous coward" does not automagically make you anonymous. Server logs can be great tools in the right hands.
Posted OFF topic so as not to feed the troll.
As for Google's choice in the article, I think they made the right choice. Allowing a government the ability to shut down dissenting sites/services THAT easily is not a good thing. And we all know that putting the servers in country would lead to exactly that type of problem.
It would seem to me that Sony has had plenty of time to rebuild the servers. It would seem the problem is not with the hardware or the configuration of the servers (though I'm sure that plays a very important role!), but with the software they built. If that software is THAT buggy, the right solution should be to rebuild that software with modern security practices in mind (as opposed to NO security implementations at all).
This up then immediately cracked fiasco they are dealing with shows that they continue to use the same passwords and the same failed security routines. Maybe if they put their hand in the fire just one more time they won't get burned anymore. Seems to be a flaw in the thinking, but I just can't put my finger on it.
Stop buying Sony products? Even if every geek who is aware of the issues did that, Sony would only loose a small percentage of their income. The consumer sheeple out there don't know any different or don't care. Extend that beyond the PS3's to other Sony products - phones, laptops, etc. and the geek boycott becomes a minor ripple.
And I'll challenge you to actually stop buying Sony products. It is harder than you think. That new game you've been eyeing that doesn't say "Sony" on it anywhere? probably made/distributed by Sony - watch the opening credits. That new electronic device you want probably has some Sony product in there.
While I don't agree with what amounts to vandalism (ddos'ing servers), sometimes a more drastic method is needed. All the people who can't access PSN today may actually find out WHY, and start learning about the greater issues. Sony actually takes a bigger financial AND social hit this way. In one single day, more damage has been done to their reputation than a week of geeks trying to boycott Sony would ever cause.
A couple years ago, I needed to decide on the framework/approach for a large scale web based app. PHP/Postgres support were required (due to the use of another tool that used these and we would need to integrate with). I looked at most of the frameworks listed in the summary. There were two that stood out (for my specific needs) - Zend Framework, and Drupal. Not Drupal as a CMS, but Drupal as a framework. We ended up opting for ZF because the others were a little too rigid in their approaches.
So, to hear years later that Drupal is *not* a framework is surprising. Especially considering how much it has advanced/stabilized/improved since my evaluation.
and who decides what names are "protected"? And when they become protected? If the name is added to the protected list AFTER documents have been published, is anyone really breaking the law? Closing the barn door after the critters escape is not doing any good.
Pulled from the market, but nothing saying it can't be installed manually... Or am I wrong?
To steal a line the authorities like to throw at us... "if they have nothing to hide..."
That would be trademark infringement, not copyright infringement.
We are arguing the same point, I think. I never claimed the patents were valid or that software patents served any purpose. Just that if invalidating them were a way for MS to avoid paying damages, they would have taken that alternative. Whether the patents are good ones or not, is irrelevant in this case. IMI got told to bend over and take it because MS is bigger. They resisted getting raped like that with the only weapon available to them - a broken patent system. The damages in the case were so high because the courts found that MS did in fact knowingly screw over IMI. "We know they have a patent, but F'em. We'll use the tech anyway and put them out of business". Is anyone suggesting that IMI should shut up and let themselves get raped like this? If so, let's go for beer and discuss your latest software ideas - I need a new product.
And how many times has it been said here that a Patent abstract is not the definition of the patent. You need to look at the actual claims of the patent to find if there is anything real about the claim. If the patent were obvious or had prior art, don't you think MS would have brought that up in the original court case and tried to invalidate the patent? They didn't, so it might be safe to assume this patent actually is the real thing. Afterall, it has survived a not just one court appearance, but an appeal as well.
I'm sure it has been said in other comments by now, but just in case. Let us not forget that the Canadian company in question actually DID have a product related to the patent. They DID work with Microsoft. Microsoft stopped dealing with them and then continued to use the patented technology knowingly without license. THIS is why the court of appeals UPHELD the court findings. MS still doesn't want to pay, so they are taking all the legal approaches available to them to avoid paying. The Canadian company (IMI) in this particular case is NOT a patent troll. In fact they are actually using the patent system the way it was intended - to stop the big boys from destroying the business of the little players. So, you'll excuse me if I root for IMI in this case. MS is not innocent here - the courts even said so. BUT, perhaps if MS is made to play by the same rules they want competitors to play by, perhaps they'll realize the current system is borked and increase their efforts to help change the system. We'll ignore for now MS's role in creating the current cluster-f#$@ system that is in place. Disclaimer - I'm a Canadian. But I don't care where the company came from. MS bullied the company pretty much out of business by stealing their tech, and now doesn't want to pay the piper for their actions. I don't have any respect for anybody that plays that way.
Deposits work for bottles and cans, why not satellites? The homeless can then make some spending cash while cleaning up the area.
As an aside, there is a group in Calgary, Alberta, who have re-engineered the Arrow from pictures and whatever sources could be gleaned. Enough sources were found to start the A.V. Roe Canada Heritage Museum (http://www.avromuseum.ca - hmm, seems the domain name has expired or been hijacked. Some images can be seen at http://www.actionhobby.ca/index.php?q=/node/541). This group is in the process of building a 2/3rd scale piloted replica of the Arrow. The fuselage, nose, tail fin, and I think the wings are done. Work is progressing on the internal elements. The Arrow will fly again in the next few years.
Playing devils adovcate here... Your argument contradicts itslef. "Software patents stifle innovation", followed shortly later by "so we have to find innovative ways to avoid them". Which is it? I agree with your sentiment that software patents do not work. But we need to be clear and concise in our arguments against it. Unless you are a lawyer, I guess.
I've yet to find a decent tool for data modelling. Something akin to CA's ERWin. The best I've fond thus far is pgDesigner, but even that is a kludgy GTK interface and only works with PostgreSQL. I find using DIA for pretty much anything is an exercise in self inflicted torture. To be able to build a database design visually, see the relationships at a glance, automate the generation of the create/alter scripts, etc. This would make business coding SOOO much easier and faster. And it even helps to communicate the application design to new coders to the project who do not understand where data is and why. (Good documentation is one thing, but a picture speaks a thousand words....)
Check out this video. It is closer than you think, and using off the shelf products. http://www.ted.com/talks/pattie_maes_demos_the_sixth_sense.html
I find it a little presumptuous for any of us to know, with certainty, exactly why the tree evolved the barbed leaves in the first place. The moa bird *may* have been one of many different factors, and I doubt there is any way we could ever know what those other factors may have been. Applying relatively modern conditions to evolutions in the distant past, amounts to just a random guess doesn't it?