Metropolitan Ambulance spokeswoman Lirije Memishi said it was unclear what the teenager had ingested.
"We treated him on the scene for minor breathing difficulties but he was fine and then we scooted out and helped save the rest of Melbourne," she said.
Unfortunately you cannot negotiate a contract with someone if you post the work online for "Free". I can simply link a license to it and hope people abide by the terms of it. The original poster said:
The part I dislike the most about the Creative Commons set of licenses is the advocation of non-commercial restrictions, as if they were a good idea. This thoroughly reduces the distribution of the work. Suppose you make an icon set and place it under one of the Creative Commons licenses that has the non-commercial restriction. This means that Red Hat, Suse, Mandrake and all the other commercial Linux distributions can't put your icon set on their CD. It means that only people who contact you directly can use your icon set. That's hardly freedom.
Well, that's to bad. It the content creators work, they should be allowed to apply reasonable terms to it, I think not allowing commercial use of a work is a reasonable term. I think it's also reasonable to require people to place notices on the work of who it belongs to if they redistribute it, etc.
If the idea of something for nothing really drove a content author that crazy they would probably use a commercial license, like pretty much all the content created very recently by mankind, up untilt he advent of this crazy BSD and GPL licensing stuff =). In which case you'd get absolutely no use of the content without an onerous process of negotiating and paying for it.
Correct. The vaste majority of content, especially music is now classes as "Work for hire", that is you are paying me for the time I put in, not the content I create (in a nutshell). I as the content creator will often have no rights at all to the content, or very limited rights to the content, whereas the company paying me owns the content and the rights (and since corporations can sell those rights they can remain in active ownership pretty much forever). I looked at writing a book, saw it was complicated so I wrote it anyways and distributed it for free online. This of course generated some interest from publishers, but not a single one, including "nice" ones like Straw Press were willing to let me keep the rights to my work, i.e. I was willing to let them publish it and sell it, pretty much for free (I wasn't interested in royalties, I had a good day job). Not a single one of them would do this, they all wanted the rights to my book, and in all cases there was basically no way for me to get the rights back, even if the book went out of print and the publisher abandoned it it was difficult under the terms of the contract for me to regain the rights. In other words my work might sit in limbo for a long time, no thanks.
I figure so far the work I did on that specific project has gotten 500,000 unique visitors over the years, which is not bad. Far better then any book would have done.
Ah I think people took me to literally. I'm fortunate in that I have a day job that gives me enough time to create free content on the side, look at my website hey? However a lot of people are not so fortunate and have to combine their content creation with paying the bills somehow (you know, like a job).
I also want some degree of control over said content, i.e. I do not want people representing my work as theirs, I do not want people modifying my work unless it is clear what those modifications are (i.e. I do not want them to insert errors into my work which they then distribute, making me look bad). Hint: these are all parts of the creative commons licenses that are available. As far as people making money off my work I have mixed feelings about that and am not quite sure where I stand on it (I think it depends on motivation/method that the other people make money off my work, if I get duly credited I'm a lot happier, if they steal my work, and take my name off of it I'm not so happy).
In any event the making money thing is not the main concern, the main concern is that I, as the content creator, have rights and can exert them over my content. If you don't want to play by my rules, for someone I created and am offering to you, why should I be forced to play with you (like as in giving it away for free with no rights).
Problem is if I as a content/whatever creator have no rights regarding my work why should I distribute it at all? I'm better of getting a job at McDonalds. First off your analogy sucks, the car you purchased, the architect you hired, there is contract law at work there as well, and in some cases you would be restricted from say painting your house, if you agreed to it. However in the majority of cases with Creative Commons licensing you are getting something for nothing, in the classic sense of contract law, which is based on the parties both having negotiating and exchanging something you are actually the party consuming the content (if you will) has more power in many senses then the content creator, but this is balanced by the content creator being able to choose a license of their liking, and in theory it should be enforced by the signatories of the Bern Copyrgith Convention (basically everyone).
Replying to my own post...
Yes I have had Milka, in fact I can buy it locally at a german supermarket (K&K foodliner). And no I don't much care for it. As far as common north american chocolate brands go (Hershey's, Cadbury, etc) I won't touch them with a 10 foot pole. If I'm desperate and slumming it I will have Sport Ritter or Lindt, but generally speaking I stick to the expensive stuff (since one small piece tastes infinitely better and is more satisfying then an entire slab of cheap chocolate). Quality, not Quantity (something in north american food culture we seem to be missing =(.
I call BS. Find me one Kraft "chocolate" product where Chocolate or Cocoa butter is listed first ont he ingredients (i.e. the majority ingredient), or even then second or third one....
To be perfectly honest I have never seen a Kraft "chocolate" product, but I have seen their "cheese" prducts (and as a kid I ate them, but now they make me gag).
If you want to start throwing stones regarding illegal immigrants/terrorists/etc my reply is simply: 3 to 4 million (no-one is quite sure) illegal Mexican immigrants live in the US. How many other illegal immigrants from foriegn countries are present is anyone's guess.
P.S. It was one guy, and he got caught at the border crossing, the system can work without draconian measures.
That is a false media meme that has become truth simply because it has been repeated so often.
To quote:
This is not the first time that Canada has been falsely accused of harboring terrorists and allowing its space to be used as a launching pad for a potential attack on the United States. Immediately after the September 11 attacks, media reports flashed around the world stating that several (and in some reports, all) of the 19 hijackers entered the United States from the northern border. We now know that all of the terrorists entered the United States directly from overseas with US-issued documents. None of the terrorists came from Canada.
Re:Apparently they never heard of the Cappuccino P
on
Mac mini to PC Hack
·
· Score: 1
So you piqued my interest, this Cappuccino sounds nice, physically it's a little smaller, and having a Mac mini and a mini pc might make for some good feng shui or something. But then I looked at pricing.
The Cappuccino a terrible deal compared to the Mac mini:
Mac mini basic @ $499.00: 1.25GHz PowerPC G4 256MB DDR333 SDRAM ATI Radeon 9200 with 32MB DDR video memory 40GB Ultra ATA hard drive Combo drive DVI or VGA video output
The Cappuccino EZ3 is $579 for a basic system (so we're already $80 more expensive). Upgrading it to 256 megs of ram is an extra $55. Upgrading to a 40gig HD is an extra $20 Upgrading to a CDRW/DVD ROM is an extra $60
This comes to a total of $714 (for that we can get the faster Mac mini with upgraded ram or wireless). That's also ignoring CPU upgrades to bring the Intel® Celeron® Processor @ 1.0GHz / 256K Cache Tualatin OEM up to say an Intel® Pentium® III Processor @ 1.26GHz / 512K Cache Server OEM which is ANOTHER $155.
And the graphics are an integrated Intel i180/815 meaning you don't actually have 256 megs of system ram, a chunk of it will be for the graphics. And there's no operating system (let's be charitable and throw Linux on for free, you can do the same with the Mac mini ).
So for $215 MORE you get a machine that is much less powerful. If you go with the CPU upgrade you get a machine comparable to the Mac mini for a mere $370 more then the mac mini (or about %74 more). This does not strike me as being a very good deal.
For pricing on the cappucino see http://www.cappuccinopc.com/checkout/customize-sys tem.asp#
Yes and hotwiring cars to steal them, especially high end ones is so very difficult, it almost never happens (just ignore all the stolen cars). Multiple factor authentication is good. Multiple factor authentication where a bad guy can steal the supposedly "secure" part remotely in less then a second is not such a great multiple factor authentication system.
The problem with this is that it allows a criminal to remotely "view" your key and cut an exact copy so to speak without physical contact. Walk through a crowded resteraunt, then pick a nice car outside and go for a drive. Of course a criminal would never do something illegal like.. er.. wait. Maybe they would. Guess what, the cars with this system are also the cars that tend to cost a bit more and are more desirable for theft (especially when you look at parting up a Mercedes or BMW).
The JPEG parsing engine included in GDIPlus.dll contains an
exploitable buffer overflow. When a specially crafted JPEG image is
accessed through the Windows XP shell, a buffer overflow occurs
potentially allowing an attacker to run arbitrary code on the
affected system. Due to the pervasiveness of the affected dll there
may be other vulnerable attack vectors.
That makes more sense, as far as packaging goes (I had this horrible mental image of equipment covered in carbon toner after removing the pellets). One trick to use on your sewer U-bend pipe problem, pour some oil in, just enough so that the water is covered with a layer of oil, this will prevent a lot of the evaporation, thus you won't have to pour water in as often. You can also use glycerine I believe (at least I think that's what they used in the rain gauges to prevent the water evaporating, it might have by glycol or something else, it's been a few years).
It was "Myth Busters", and the myth they were busting was "can we stink up a car so bad no-one will buy it?". Short answer: kind of. They put 2 pig carcasses in a car, and tried to seal it up with packing tape, this didn't work so good so they put it into a shipping container. They left it there for two months. They consulted with a crime scene cleaning company, and did a coroners van (best quote ever: "that stuff ain't popsicle drippings, clean it up good"). So anyways they tried to clean the car, ended up ripping all the fabric/seats/etc out, using special enzyme cleaners to break down the animal matter, but it still stunk. They eventually sold it for a few hundred bucks to a guy who was going to part it out. Reason I know this in detail: it was on tv last night.
Carbon is a conductor of electricity, I'd be a bit worried about carbon pellets, or at the very least dust being left in the case and possible shorting something out. Plus it's messy as hell.
The site primarily deals with UNIX and Linux issues, you think UNIX and Linux users/admins would be predisposed to a UNIX or Linux browser such as Mozilla/Netscape/Firefox but nope.
Uhh no. I used to restrict some search bots by user agent, but after seeing how little (relatively speaking) bandwidth they use (and upgrading the server hardware) I don't even bother to do that. My website has very simple pages, barely any graphics, let alone flash or javascript or whatever.
I'm looking at btowser stats for seifried.org, averaging 70,000 visits a month in the security area and I'm not seeing even a hint of firefox in the top 15 browsers for any month, "MSIE 6.0; Windows X" and googlebot are the clear winners. You think people interested in computer security and UNIX would have a tendancy to use FireFox or Mozilla but IE is still kicking their butts.
I had my surgery going on 3 years ago. I was 20/400, with some astigmatism, am now 20/20 in the right eye and actually 20/15-3 in the left (meaning halfway between 20/20 and 20/15, slightly "better" then 20/20). In winter I don't have glasses that fog up, in summer I can wear sunglasses, when I snowboard I can wear regular goggles instead of prescription (expensive!) goggles. My sister went from 20/600 to 20/20, about four years ago, she'd get hit by a car if she walked down the street without her glasses. Both of us spend a lot of time in fron of the computer (she's a programmer, I'm an analyst), no problems at all. HIGHLY reccomend the surgery, but find a REPUTABLE place. Locally the Gimbel eye clinic, my doctor had done over 3000 surgeries when I had it done. I asked him how much medical malpractice insurance he carries, the answer was "unlimited", in fact about half the cost of the surgery was his insurance. This is not something to go cheap on.
Continue using Red Hat Linux 7.x and 8.0
Continue using Red Hat Linux 9
Red Hat Advanced Workstation
Red Hat Advanced Server and Enterprise Server
Red Hat Fedora Linux
WhiteBox Linux
SuSE Linux
SuSE Linux Enterprise
Mandrake Linux
Mandrake Linux Enterprise
OpenBSD
FreeBSD
Solaris for Intel and Sparc
Windows 2003
Mac OS X Server
Slashdot Mirror
You can exclude them from your website using the robots.txt:
User-agent: ia_archiver /
Disallow:
For example if you go to archive.org and plug my site into the wayback machine:
We're sorry, access to http://www.seifried.org/ has been blocked by the site owner via robots.txt.
and you can also request them to expunge your site from the archive.
They go out of their way to make it easy to prevent your site being copied (more so then most search engines).
To quote the article:
Unfortunately you cannot negotiate a contract with someone if you post the work online for "Free". I can simply link a license to it and hope people abide by the terms of it. The original poster said: The part I dislike the most about the Creative Commons set of licenses is the advocation of non-commercial restrictions, as if they were a good idea. This thoroughly reduces the distribution of the work. Suppose you make an icon set and place it under one of the Creative Commons licenses that has the non-commercial restriction. This means that Red Hat, Suse, Mandrake and all the other commercial Linux distributions can't put your icon set on their CD. It means that only people who contact you directly can use your icon set. That's hardly freedom. Well, that's to bad. It the content creators work, they should be allowed to apply reasonable terms to it, I think not allowing commercial use of a work is a reasonable term. I think it's also reasonable to require people to place notices on the work of who it belongs to if they redistribute it, etc. If the idea of something for nothing really drove a content author that crazy they would probably use a commercial license, like pretty much all the content created very recently by mankind, up untilt he advent of this crazy BSD and GPL licensing stuff =). In which case you'd get absolutely no use of the content without an onerous process of negotiating and paying for it.
Correct. The vaste majority of content, especially music is now classes as "Work for hire", that is you are paying me for the time I put in, not the content I create (in a nutshell). I as the content creator will often have no rights at all to the content, or very limited rights to the content, whereas the company paying me owns the content and the rights (and since corporations can sell those rights they can remain in active ownership pretty much forever). I looked at writing a book, saw it was complicated so I wrote it anyways and distributed it for free online. This of course generated some interest from publishers, but not a single one, including "nice" ones like Straw Press were willing to let me keep the rights to my work, i.e. I was willing to let them publish it and sell it, pretty much for free (I wasn't interested in royalties, I had a good day job). Not a single one of them would do this, they all wanted the rights to my book, and in all cases there was basically no way for me to get the rights back, even if the book went out of print and the publisher abandoned it it was difficult under the terms of the contract for me to regain the rights. In other words my work might sit in limbo for a long time, no thanks. I figure so far the work I did on that specific project has gotten 500,000 unique visitors over the years, which is not bad. Far better then any book would have done.
Ah I think people took me to literally. I'm fortunate in that I have a day job that gives me enough time to create free content on the side, look at my website hey? However a lot of people are not so fortunate and have to combine their content creation with paying the bills somehow (you know, like a job). I also want some degree of control over said content, i.e. I do not want people representing my work as theirs, I do not want people modifying my work unless it is clear what those modifications are (i.e. I do not want them to insert errors into my work which they then distribute, making me look bad). Hint: these are all parts of the creative commons licenses that are available. As far as people making money off my work I have mixed feelings about that and am not quite sure where I stand on it (I think it depends on motivation/method that the other people make money off my work, if I get duly credited I'm a lot happier, if they steal my work, and take my name off of it I'm not so happy). In any event the making money thing is not the main concern, the main concern is that I, as the content creator, have rights and can exert them over my content. If you don't want to play by my rules, for someone I created and am offering to you, why should I be forced to play with you (like as in giving it away for free with no rights).
Problem is if I as a content/whatever creator have no rights regarding my work why should I distribute it at all? I'm better of getting a job at McDonalds. First off your analogy sucks, the car you purchased, the architect you hired, there is contract law at work there as well, and in some cases you would be restricted from say painting your house, if you agreed to it. However in the majority of cases with Creative Commons licensing you are getting something for nothing, in the classic sense of contract law, which is based on the parties both having negotiating and exchanging something you are actually the party consuming the content (if you will) has more power in many senses then the content creator, but this is balanced by the content creator being able to choose a license of their liking, and in theory it should be enforced by the signatories of the Bern Copyrgith Convention (basically everyone).
Replying to my own post... Yes I have had Milka, in fact I can buy it locally at a german supermarket (K&K foodliner). And no I don't much care for it. As far as common north american chocolate brands go (Hershey's, Cadbury, etc) I won't touch them with a 10 foot pole. If I'm desperate and slumming it I will have Sport Ritter or Lindt, but generally speaking I stick to the expensive stuff (since one small piece tastes infinitely better and is more satisfying then an entire slab of cheap chocolate). Quality, not Quantity (something in north american food culture we seem to be missing =(.
I call BS. Find me one Kraft "chocolate" product where Chocolate or Cocoa butter is listed first ont he ingredients (i.e. the majority ingredient), or even then second or third one.... To be perfectly honest I have never seen a Kraft "chocolate" product, but I have seen their "cheese" prducts (and as a kid I ate them, but now they make me gag).
If you want to start throwing stones regarding illegal immigrants/terrorists/etc my reply is simply: 3 to 4 million (no-one is quite sure) illegal Mexican immigrants live in the US. How many other illegal immigrants from foriegn countries are present is anyone's guess.
P.S. It was one guy, and he got caught at the border crossing, the system can work without draconian measures.
That is a false media meme that has become truth simply because it has been repeated so often.
6 -e n.asp?format=print
To quote:
This is not the first time that Canada has been falsely accused of harboring terrorists and allowing its space to be used as a launching pad for a potential attack on the United States. Immediately after the September 11 attacks, media reports flashed around the world stating that several (and in some reports, all) of the 19 hijackers entered the United States from the northern border. We now know that all of the terrorists entered the United States directly from overseas with US-issued documents. None of the terrorists came from Canada.
http://www.canadianembassy.org/ambassador/03011
So you piqued my interest, this Cappuccino sounds nice, physically it's a little smaller, and having a Mac mini and a mini pc might make for some good feng shui or something. But then I looked at pricing.
s tem.asp#
The Cappuccino a terrible deal compared to the Mac mini:
Mac mini basic @ $499.00:
1.25GHz PowerPC G4
256MB DDR333 SDRAM
ATI Radeon 9200 with 32MB DDR video memory
40GB Ultra ATA hard drive
Combo drive
DVI or VGA video output
The Cappuccino EZ3 is $579 for a basic system (so we're already $80 more expensive).
Upgrading it to 256 megs of ram is an extra $55.
Upgrading to a 40gig HD is an extra $20
Upgrading to a CDRW/DVD ROM is an extra $60
This comes to a total of $714 (for that we can get the faster Mac mini with upgraded ram or wireless). That's also ignoring CPU upgrades to bring the Intel® Celeron® Processor @ 1.0GHz / 256K Cache Tualatin OEM up to say an Intel® Pentium® III Processor @ 1.26GHz / 512K Cache Server OEM which is ANOTHER $155.
And the graphics are an integrated Intel i180/815 meaning you don't actually have 256 megs of system ram, a chunk of it will be for the graphics. And there's no operating system (let's be charitable and throw Linux on for free, you can do the same with the Mac mini ).
So for $215 MORE you get a machine that is much less powerful. If you go with the CPU upgrade you get a machine comparable to the Mac mini for a mere $370 more then the mac mini (or about %74 more). This does not strike me as being a very good deal.
For pricing on the cappucino see http://www.cappuccinopc.com/checkout/customize-sy
Yes and hotwiring cars to steal them, especially high end ones is so very difficult, it almost never happens (just ignore all the stolen cars). Multiple factor authentication is good. Multiple factor authentication where a bad guy can steal the supposedly "secure" part remotely in less then a second is not such a great multiple factor authentication system.
The problem with this is that it allows a criminal to remotely "view" your key and cut an exact copy so to speak without physical contact. Walk through a crowded resteraunt, then pick a nice car outside and go for a drive. Of course a criminal would never do something illegal like.. er.. wait. Maybe they would. Guess what, the cars with this system are also the cars that tend to cost a bit more and are more desirable for theft (especially when you look at parting up a Mercedes or BMW).
Zebra died and begat Quagga which many vendors ship:
http://www.quagga.net/.
From the advisory:
The JPEG parsing engine included in GDIPlus.dll contains an exploitable buffer overflow. When a specially crafted JPEG image is accessed through the Windows XP shell, a buffer overflow occurs potentially allowing an attacker to run arbitrary code on the affected system. Due to the pervasiveness of the affected dll there may be other vulnerable attack vectors.
For the full advisory please see: http://lists.seifried.org/pipermail/security/2004- September/004765.html
That makes more sense, as far as packaging goes (I had this horrible mental image of equipment covered in carbon toner after removing the pellets). One trick to use on your sewer U-bend pipe problem, pour some oil in, just enough so that the water is covered with a layer of oil, this will prevent a lot of the evaporation, thus you won't have to pour water in as often. You can also use glycerine I believe (at least I think that's what they used in the rain gauges to prevent the water evaporating, it might have by glycol or something else, it's been a few years).
It was "Myth Busters", and the myth they were busting was "can we stink up a car so bad no-one will buy it?". Short answer: kind of. They put 2 pig carcasses in a car, and tried to seal it up with packing tape, this didn't work so good so they put it into a shipping container. They left it there for two months. They consulted with a crime scene cleaning company, and did a coroners van (best quote ever: "that stuff ain't popsicle drippings, clean it up good"). So anyways they tried to clean the car, ended up ripping all the fabric/seats/etc out, using special enzyme cleaners to break down the animal matter, but it still stunk. They eventually sold it for a few hundred bucks to a guy who was going to part it out. Reason I know this in detail: it was on tv last night.
Carbon is a conductor of electricity, I'd be a bit worried about carbon pellets, or at the very least dust being left in the case and possible shorting something out. Plus it's messy as hell.
The site primarily deals with UNIX and Linux issues, you think UNIX and Linux users/admins would be predisposed to a UNIX or Linux browser such as Mozilla/Netscape/Firefox but nope.
Uhh no. I used to restrict some search bots by user agent, but after seeing how little (relatively speaking) bandwidth they use (and upgrading the server hardware) I don't even bother to do that. My website has very simple pages, barely any graphics, let alone flash or javascript or whatever.
I'm looking at btowser stats for seifried.org, averaging 70,000 visits a month in the security area and I'm not seeing even a hint of firefox in the top 15 browsers for any month, "MSIE 6.0; Windows X" and googlebot are the clear winners. You think people interested in computer security and UNIX would have a tendancy to use FireFox or Mozilla but IE is still kicking their butts.
I had my surgery going on 3 years ago. I was 20/400, with some astigmatism, am now 20/20 in the right eye and actually 20/15-3 in the left (meaning halfway between 20/20 and 20/15, slightly "better" then 20/20). In winter I don't have glasses that fog up, in summer I can wear sunglasses, when I snowboard I can wear regular goggles instead of prescription (expensive!) goggles. My sister went from 20/600 to 20/20, about four years ago, she'd get hit by a car if she walked down the street without her glasses. Both of us spend a lot of time in fron of the computer (she's a programmer, I'm an analyst), no problems at all. HIGHLY reccomend the surgery, but find a REPUTABLE place. Locally the Gimbel eye clinic, my doctor had done over 3000 surgeries when I had it done. I asked him how much medical malpractice insurance he carries, the answer was "unlimited", in fact about half the cost of the surgery was his insurance. This is not something to go cheap on.
If you went to a university based on the IP network available then you can't have been to bright.
I've written an article on this topic covering about a dozen alternatives, it's available at:r edhat-support.html.
http://www.seifried.org/security/redhat/20031230-
Your basic options are:
Continue using Red Hat Linux 7.x and 8.0
Continue using Red Hat Linux 9
Red Hat Advanced Workstation
Red Hat Advanced Server and Enterprise Server
Red Hat Fedora Linux
WhiteBox Linux
SuSE Linux
SuSE Linux Enterprise
Mandrake Linux
Mandrake Linux Enterprise
OpenBSD
FreeBSD
Solaris for Intel and Sparc
Windows 2003
Mac OS X Server
I've covered a much larger set of options including Debian, SuSE, Mandrake, Red Hat Enterprise, the Progeny transition service, etc, etc. The article is available at: http://seifried.org/security/redhat/20031230-redha t-support.html.
It's also available on a rented slashsite, which I doubt can take a slashdot style beating, but if you want to post comments feel free: http://security-site.seifried.org/article.pl?sid=0 3/12/31/067227.
The solutions I cover include: