And you if think enough wind farms, biomass farms, and solar panels to supply our demands won't harm the environment as much as oil and coal, you are naive. We do and can, it just costs a heck of a lot more than using something like coal to have the same effect. Don't be naive:)
I find it amazing how naive some people really are. How can you be in a role like his and not grasp thje fundamentals of the internet and how things work.
Some of the comments he says are just gems: We don't want our site to be sanitized, but we have the right to create a different kind of community
Right, so you want people to not swear and not have to ask them not to swear?
I don't know whether we do it with a credit card number, a driver's license or passport, but I think making people responsible would raise the level of discourse.
Of course, because no-one knows how to enter in a fake passport or credit card number.
People clearly as uneducated and internet-NON-savvy should not be in any sort of role that contains something related to internet - like "executive editor of The Washington Post's online division" for example.
Give the bumbling fool the same job in printed media and he would probably do a better job - maybe people could send him mail via little notes with name tags stuck to them, or he could have caller ID on his desk phone so that he saw the bad people and didn't have to pick up.
Good to see that even though the country may be fumbling and lagging behind where it should be from an environmental point of view, individuals and sections of the community are taking up the slack and forging ahead.
Perhaps this data was intentionally left out in the open by whoever had it first?
If you think about it, if you just hacked into a users pc and nicked something (credit card info, passwords, whatever) and used them quietly to some degree, wouldn't you WANT someone else to use them, perhaps not so quietly? I mean, you want a fall guy right? Let the next script kiddie run through and take the fall. With a bit of luck, they will pin all the activity on the new guy rather than the guy who carefully used this once, then let the information loose on the masses.
It's not "accidentally" or "stupidly" left unprotected, it's a perfect smoke screen to cover tracks if you ask me.
I wonder if you could legitimately argue that you were verifying the data in a personal backup of media that you had?
Unless I am mistaken, it is perfectly legal to make a backup of data that you own right? So, if you already own an item, would downloading it to have a backup be a legal thing to do?
And if that's the case, I wonder what the legal implications are in cases where the RIAA comes down on people who have been "participating in file sharing" activities.
How would you feel if you bought a 2 litre bottle of milk, only to find out that the farmer actually filled it with 1.9 litres of milk becuase "he counts litres differently to the normal method". Wouldn't stand up would it?
(For any folks used to gallons, replace litres with gallons if you feel at all confused by this article)
We wrote on paper, then were able to reuse it at a later date. Sure, it wasn't as fancy as a printer, but the pencil and eraser sure worked well enough for me...
Quote:
squatting is where you are living somewhere that is vacant without the authorization of the owner
Yes, and the problem here is that when the owner comes to the squatter and says "I would like you to go somewhere else as I would like to [insert reason]." the squatter then replies with "But I have been living here for [insert length] and I ain't moving."
The IP address they have been using does not belong to them.
Rather than putting forward the plan to get them to move along (or even shock/horror) BUY a place to reside in, people here seem to think that blackholing them (simply pretending they don't exist reallistically) will fix the problem.
Quote:Otherwise all the buying up property for the purpose of speculating on an increase in the market would result in widespread homelessness.
Goodness me, I don't even want to touch that. Just how much land do you think is in the world without someone laying claim to own it at the moment, whether it is behind a "Ma and Pa" farm, a track of wilderness or acres and acres of land behind a fence somewhere? Simple answer: There isn't a square centimeter of land on the earth that doesn't have someone as an owner. It has utterly nothing to do with homelessness @_@
You are missing the fact that his so called "ownership" is in his eyes only, not that of anyone else.
Just becuase you squat doesn't mean you own.
Quote:
Remarkably, the president of Media Breakaway, who happens to be an attorney, is trying to defend his company's apparent snatching of this block based upon his own rather novel legal theory that ARIN doesn't have jurisdiction over any IP address space that was handed out before ARIN was formed, in 1997.
If the IP is simply blackholed, you are by lack of argument allowing this Spammer to put some sort of credible hold on that IP. That's like finding a squatter in a house on the street where the owners have gone on holiday - and simply putting a peice of tape across the driveway - it doesn't solve the bigger problem which is that someone walked into the house and started living there without any credible reason of doing so. It doesn't solve the problem of what's going to happen when the people return from holidays and find this squatter in their house.
Also, if we simply blackhole that IP, what's going to happen when a legitimate user tries to use that space. It's going to go to bollocks for them when they find that the rest of the net is ignoring them already.
Only problem with that approach is that you are therefore in fact giving them that IP space by lack of a fight.
That would then lead to another group "claiming" another spot of space, and so on and so forth - until there was no legitimate or unused space left at all - then you would have to fight the same fight with many many people rather than one spamming company as we have now.
This is the sort of thing that puts a little hope into my generally "empty glass you tard!" sort of heart. If we can get people to put this sort of thing together, and it is actually working as this seems to be then we might still have a little hope of getting through the next few generations with at least some of the animals left for our kids to see.
I think that it is trying to threaten potential hackers with what potential hackers would be scared of - having their hacks made useless. They are simply threatening to take away their work.
Spose it is in some funny 'honor amoung theives' way, cept that the honor is only extending as far as their peers, not the people they are actually letting this loose on - clearly there is no respect that extends that far.
Re:Removing malware == DMCA violation, the next st
on
EULAs For Malware
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I can't imagine anyone enforcing an agreement contract (in this case EULA) that is installed without the user actually consenting it to be installed?
I mean, if you knowingly install something that snoops on your system and agree to the EULA you need to be kicked in the proverbials, but if something sneaks onto your system without you knowing about it what chance does any user agreement have?
Personally, I would like to see someone take Zeus to court about intrusion of their system. Wonder what the outcome would be.
My guess is that the original Malware was written by some nerd who wanted to make a few bucks, but the operation was taken over by a bigger boss who saw more of the picture - and the EULA is trying ti bolster the apparent legitimacy of what they are doing - or in some way provide the weakest of weak arguments to try to sue someone later who does a better job of what they are trying to do now.
While I want to stab em with a sharp stick like the next guy, got to say that they are covering all their bases nicely.
Slashdot Mirror
What we don't have is 100's of years worth of atmosphere to pump greenhouse gases into without it making a very visible difference.
Replace Blue with Ass :)
I find it amazing how naive some people really are. How can you be in a role like his and not grasp thje fundamentals of the internet and how things work.
Some of the comments he says are just gems:
We don't want our site to be sanitized, but we have the right to create a different kind of community
Right, so you want people to not swear and not have to ask them not to swear?
I don't know whether we do it with a credit card number, a driver's license or passport, but I think making people responsible would raise the level of discourse.
Of course, because no-one knows how to enter in a fake passport or credit card number.
People clearly as uneducated and internet-NON-savvy should not be in any sort of role that contains something related to internet - like "executive editor of The Washington Post's online division" for example.
Give the bumbling fool the same job in printed media and he would probably do a better job - maybe people could send him mail via little notes with name tags stuck to them, or he could have caller ID on his desk phone so that he saw the bad people and didn't have to pick up.
Good to see that even though the country may be fumbling and lagging behind where it should be from an environmental point of view, individuals and sections of the community are taking up the slack and forging ahead.
Perhaps this data was intentionally left out in the open by whoever had it first?
If you think about it, if you just hacked into a users pc and nicked something (credit card info, passwords, whatever) and used them quietly to some degree, wouldn't you WANT someone else to use them, perhaps not so quietly? I mean, you want a fall guy right? Let the next script kiddie run through and take the fall. With a bit of luck, they will pin all the activity on the new guy rather than the guy who carefully used this once, then let the information loose on the masses.
It's not "accidentally" or "stupidly" left unprotected, it's a perfect smoke screen to cover tracks if you ask me.
I wonder if you could legitimately argue that you were verifying the data in a personal backup of media that you had?
Unless I am mistaken, it is perfectly legal to make a backup of data that you own right? So, if you already own an item, would downloading it to have a backup be a legal thing to do?
And if that's the case, I wonder what the legal implications are in cases where the RIAA comes down on people who have been "participating in file sharing" activities.
How would you feel if you bought a 2 litre bottle of milk, only to find out that the farmer actually filled it with 1.9 litres of milk becuase "he counts litres differently to the normal method". Wouldn't stand up would it?
(For any folks used to gallons, replace litres with gallons if you feel at all confused by this article)
but some IP is more equal than other IP.
Here I was without knowing all this cool stuff. Got to admit, this is damned cool - even if a bit cloak and dagger eh?
We wrote on paper, then were able to reuse it at a later date. Sure, it wasn't as fancy as a printer, but the pencil and eraser sure worked well enough for me...
Goodness me, that's so utterly way off the mark :)
Quote:
squatting is where you are living somewhere that is vacant without the authorization of the owner
Yes, and the problem here is that when the owner comes to the squatter and says "I would like you to go somewhere else as I would like to [insert reason]." the squatter then replies with "But I have been living here for [insert length] and I ain't moving."
The IP address they have been using does not belong to them.
Rather than putting forward the plan to get them to move along (or even shock/horror) BUY a place to reside in, people here seem to think that blackholing them (simply pretending they don't exist reallistically) will fix the problem.
Quote:Otherwise all the buying up property for the purpose of speculating on an increase in the market would result in widespread homelessness.
Goodness me, I don't even want to touch that. Just how much land do you think is in the world without someone laying claim to own it at the moment, whether it is behind a "Ma and Pa" farm, a track of wilderness or acres and acres of land behind a fence somewhere? Simple answer: There isn't a square centimeter of land on the earth that doesn't have someone as an owner. It has utterly nothing to do with homelessness @_@
You are missing the fact that his so called "ownership" is in his eyes only, not that of anyone else.
Just becuase you squat doesn't mean you own.
Quote:
Remarkably, the president of Media Breakaway, who happens to be an attorney, is trying to defend his company's apparent snatching of this block based upon his own rather novel legal theory that ARIN doesn't have jurisdiction over any IP address space that was handed out before ARIN was formed, in 1997.
Hey! It's pitchforks and flaming brands, not torches...
See here!
If the IP is simply blackholed, you are by lack of argument allowing this Spammer to put some sort of credible hold on that IP. That's like finding a squatter in a house on the street where the owners have gone on holiday - and simply putting a peice of tape across the driveway - it doesn't solve the bigger problem which is that someone walked into the house and started living there without any credible reason of doing so. It doesn't solve the problem of what's going to happen when the people return from holidays and find this squatter in their house.
Also, if we simply blackhole that IP, what's going to happen when a legitimate user tries to use that space. It's going to go to bollocks for them when they find that the rest of the net is ignoring them already.
Only problem with that approach is that you are therefore in fact giving them that IP space by lack of a fight.
That would then lead to another group "claiming" another spot of space, and so on and so forth - until there was no legitimate or unused space left at all - then you would have to fight the same fight with many many people rather than one spamming company as we have now.
Form an agry mob, arm ourselves with pitchforks and flaming brands, and the chase those rascals way out to the outskirts of town.
Hell, if there was any trouble, we could even transform into an angry lynch mob - THEN lets see who owns that space eh? EH? Whaddya say?
This is the sort of thing that puts a little hope into my generally "empty glass you tard!" sort of heart. If we can get people to put this sort of thing together, and it is actually working as this seems to be then we might still have a little hope of getting through the next few generations with at least some of the animals left for our kids to see.
Gold, someone mod this up.
I think that it is trying to threaten potential hackers with what potential hackers would be scared of - having their hacks made useless. They are simply threatening to take away their work.
Spose it is in some funny 'honor amoung theives' way, cept that the honor is only extending as far as their peers, not the people they are actually letting this loose on - clearly there is no respect that extends that far.
I can't imagine anyone enforcing an agreement contract (in this case EULA) that is installed without the user actually consenting it to be installed?
I mean, if you knowingly install something that snoops on your system and agree to the EULA you need to be kicked in the proverbials, but if something sneaks onto your system without you knowing about it what chance does any user agreement have?
Personally, I would like to see someone take Zeus to court about intrusion of their system. Wonder what the outcome would be.
My guess is that the original Malware was written by some nerd who wanted to make a few bucks, but the operation was taken over by a bigger boss who saw more of the picture - and the EULA is trying ti bolster the apparent legitimacy of what they are doing - or in some way provide the weakest of weak arguments to try to sue someone later who does a better job of what they are trying to do now.
While I want to stab em with a sharp stick like the next guy, got to say that they are covering all their bases nicely.
A swing and a miss! Seems pretty fitting in my eyes.
You can get a person to say a lot of thing face to face that they will never say over an impersonal email - no matter how encrypted.
I don't have experience with this, but from my point of view, any extra options are a good thing to have whether you take advantage of them or not.