Already after reading your first two words, I had a feeling that you were going to insinuate some things which I never said, but which seem to fit with your idea of a typical Slashdotter. And I have not been disappointed...
[...] Open Source zealots [...]
For the record, I support the Free Software philosophy. I am opposed to the Open Source philosophy, which, although it has a similar effect (production of software under certain licenses), is quite contrary to the Free Software philosophy.
[...] which is apparently why information "wants" to [be] free [...]
I never said such a thing.
This where analogies between software and hardware (computers, cars, chairs, whatever) breakdown.
I agree. However, once the analogy had been made by another poster, I saw no reason not to reply to it. I don't believe that the right reaction to bad analogies is to ignore them.
I find it barely interesting that OS zealots who have nothing invested in a software product, are so eager to demand it be given away.
Although this statement doesn't apply to me (as said, I'm opposed to the Open Source philosophy), I would like to point out that I agree with RMS that Free Software should be sold for as much money as possible.
Copyright law places no such "heavy restrictions" on the software. The restrictions are placed there by the software developers/publishers, using copyright law as a club to back up their demands.
I don't blame makers of proprietary software as much as the makers of the law. The software makers only apply an existing tool (copyright law) in order to maximize their advantage. An economy where entities (companies and individuals) try to maximize their advantage seems to work quite well.
IMHO, the government's role is to ensure that no group has an unfairly larger amount of power than other groups. But this is the case with copyright law: in my opinion, it does not balance the interests of creators, right owners, and user, but is heavily biased towards the second group.
Never forget - no copyright, no GPL. I'd be free to take any GPLed code I like, modify it, and release binaries without ever giving back the modifications.
Yes. I'm not opposed to the concept of copyright in general, only to a number of aspects in its current implementation.
This is like saying GM should open-source the blueprints for all their car engines.
Car engines already are "open source". Once you have bought a car, it is legal for you to take the
engine apart, modify it, use parts of it in another machine you build, study how the engine works, even use the thusly gained knowledge to build you own engine. If the enginge breaks, you can try to fix it yourself or have it fixed, and neither action will cause you to be called a pirate.
"Open source" or free software tries to alleviate the heavy restrictions that a law (copyright) puts on software. An analogous law for car engines simply doesn't exist, so you already have all the rights with respect to car engines that free software gives you with respect to software.
I for one find it admirable that he managed to trick many people (including myself) and the media. In fact, this is a better hack than it would have been if it had been real.
It's also a valuable lession: be sceptical about everything you see, especially on the internet.
What if I just told the government "fuck you, it's too much of a pain in the ass for me, if you want it done then give me money otherwise shut the fuck up"?
Here in Germany, the situation will become similar to that described by the original poster on Jan 1, 2005.
ISPs are indeed telling the government what you suggest, albeit I believe they don't use your choice of words exactly. It won't help them, since the law explicitly states that the ISPs have to bear the costs of spying on their customers on the government's behalf. Even before they start spying, they have to prove to a government agency that they have government approved spying equipment in place. The fine for non-compliance is half a million Euros.
It is indeed estimated that this will cause a large number of ISPs (more than 50%, most likely) in Germany to go bankrupt within the next year.
In The Netherlands (and also the UK), a person can be forced to assist the authorities to decrypt information (i.e. supplying them with the key). If you refuse to cooperate, you could face a hefty fine, or be put in prison (depending on whether the police, or the intelligence services give the order).
What if you suddenly forget your passphrase? This can plausibly happen in extreme stress situations, such as being arrested, interrogated, and/or threatened to be put in prison.
When Microsoft implemented J++, they touted it as Java,
[...]
... which only confirms that Java should be protected from forks in the domain of trademark law.
Additionally protecting it in the domain of copyright law seems stupid.
Nope. In reality, there are no sides; this either white or black, either good or evil view doesn't apply.
Most companies which behave friendly towards the free software community in one way, for which they should be applauded, also are hostile towards the same community in another way, for which they should be criticized. For example, the laudable fact that Sun has given us OpenOffice shouldn't stop us from criticizing the not so friendly things they also do.
Re:Bzzt. American over here!
on
Tin Foil Passports?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Is the US the only country using them?
No. The EU is also discussing this, and most likely, other countries are as well.
I don't like the idea of walking around with a US Passport emitting signals to advertise my nationality.
1.) Take all the money paid to him for spamming, 2.) Fine the companies that paid him to spam, give as much of that money back to the gullible suckers as we can,
I don't follow this logic. Shouldn't the confiscated money go to the victims, i.e. the tens of millions of users, ISPs, etc who had to spend time and money to protect themselves against unwanted spam?
No, actually/proc/[pid]/exe is only symbolic link to the file running.
No, actually this isn't true. It looks like a symlink (or even a dangling symlink if the executable has been deleted), but it can be opened and read like a real file. If you don't believe me, I suggest that you try the following:
martin@feynman:~ > cp/bin/sleep. martin@feynman:~ >./sleep 1000 & [1] 4730 martin@feynman:~ > ls -l/proc/4730/exe lrwxrwxrwx 1 martin users 0 Nov 3 19:36/proc/4730/exe ->/home/martin/sleep martin@feynman:~ > rm sleep martin@feynman:~ > ls -l/proc/4730/exe lrwxrwxrwx 1 martin users 0 Nov 3 19:36/proc/4730/exe ->/home/martin/sleep (deleted) martin@feynman:~ > cp/proc/4730/exe sleep.recovered martin@feynman:~ > cmp sleep.recovered/bin/sleep
And it is posible to unlink the file with rm without deleting the directory, containing it.
You can't use the same technique on Windows but there is an equivalent technique: rename the running exe or dll and copy in the new one.
I don't know anything about Microsoft Windows, so I wonder: Is it possbile to do the renaming and copying atomically, so that either the old or the new executable or library exists under the original name at any given instant of time?
Which is better:
1) Quickly and silently removing the file, while leaving access hidden inside a link in the/proc filesystem
2) Failing to remove the file (because you're using it right now) and informing you
?
1) is better, and it would be better even if/proc didn't exist. There is no reason why every file must be accessible through a directory entry.
Without this mechanism, it would be impossible to replace the directory entry corresponding to an open file atomically, which is a prerequisite for updating running executables or shared libraries.
I reckon removing a file should be harder if it's currently being used.
As I explained, removing a file which currently being used is not only hard, but impossible. Only the corresponding directory entries can be removed.
It seems that the author misunderstands an important part of the Unix philosophy:
Linux, however, loads programs into memory and doesn't worry about locking them, so nearly everything was removed, even programs that were currently running when I removed them.
That's far from true. Linux locks the executable file, i.e. if you attempt to open it for writing, you get an error. You can, however, remove the directory entry, in which case the file is retained as long as the program is still running.
Under Linux, a file can have zero, one, or more directory entries (a.k.a. hard links). It's not possible to remove files, only directory entries can be removed. The kernel removes the file automatically once two conditions are fulfilled:
No directory entries point to the file.
No processes have the file opened.
In fact, under Linux the/proc filesystem allows it to get the contents of an open file back even if it has no directory entries outside of/proc.
[...] claimed using a VCR is tantamount to serial rape?
Here in Germany, the German equivalent of the MPAA shows movie ads which purport the idea that it is "just" to expose copyright infringers to rape. (For those who wonder, "hart aber gerecht" means "hard but just", and in the full ad, the guys in the poster talk about raping a copyright infringer.)
What's more concerning is that this may open the door for spammers to pull the "accident" route and bypass the law. It wouldn't be a long running business practice, but what's to stop them setting up a shell company, "accidentally" spamming a lot of people, then closing the company up so it doesn't "accidentally" do it twice?
Set up a new company, wash, rinse, repeat.
<cynicism>
Why go to the hassle of setting up a new company every time? The movie companies don't set up a new MPAA every time they repeat this "accident", after all.
</cynicism>
Other particle physicists may be able to back me up on this, but trying to explain what we do to one's relatives/friends is not the easiest thing to do.
Actually, I disagree. Explaining it in two sentences is next to impossible, but if somebody is willing to listen for ten minutes, I find it relatively easy.
I also try to be honest, i.e. I avoid the usual "CP violation is studied to understand the excess of matter over antimatter in the universe" crap.
What's even worse is when the inevitable question of "what is it good for?" comes up.
In my experience, honesty (it has no pratical applications) also pays here. There are many things without partical applications which are more expensive than particle physics, so it's not a problem.
Actually, the German government was one of the few who originally took a stance against the proposed EU patent legislation. However, after a couple of (key?) changes to the proposition, they agreed with it.
The German Department of Justice seems to be in favor of software patents, but at same time it carefully avoids admitting so publically. From the Department's point of view, the latter makes sense, since almost all (all but a small number of very large) companies are strongly opposed to software patents here in Germany.
A day before the vote in the EU Counsil (May 17th, 2004), there was a protest in Berlin, and a speaker of Department of Justice told the protesters that Germany would abstain in the vote.
On May 18th, the following "compromise" was reached. The original text of article 2b
A technical contribution means a contribution to the state of the art in a field of technology which is not obvious to a person skilled in the art.
was changed to
A technical contribution means a contribution to the state of the art in a field of technology which is new and not obvious to a person skilled in the art.
(emphasis mine). That's right, the "couple of key changes" was to insert the words "new and"!
Of course, the law already states that a patent cannot be granted if there is prior art, so the effect of the change is exactly zero. How the change is supposed to prevent software patents is honestly beyond me, but nevertheless it caused Germany to vote in favor instead of abstaining.
The recipe you linked to still loads the ads, it just doesn't display them. Therefore, instead of having to wait for a DNS timeout to see a broken image icon in place of the ad, you have to wait for a DNS timeout to see nothing in place of the ad, but you still have to wait.
When planning a security system (not restricted to computers, I'm talking about security in general), it's usually a good idea to take into account what an insider can do. Most often, what an insider can do is a strict superset of what an outsider can do, so if your system is secure against attacks from insiders, it's automatically also secure against attacks from outsiders.
In the case at hand, it might be possible to use separate cryptograhic keys for separate groups of insiders, just like not every employee in a large company has a door key for every single door in the building. Restricting the signal by means of a wallpaper could be harder.
Slashdot Mirror
Already after reading your first two words, I had a feeling that you were going to insinuate some things which I never said, but which seem to fit with your idea of a typical Slashdotter. And I have not been disappointed...
For the record, I support the Free Software philosophy. I am opposed to the Open Source philosophy, which, although it has a similar effect (production of software under certain licenses), is quite contrary to the Free Software philosophy.
I never said such a thing.
I agree. However, once the analogy had been made by another poster, I saw no reason not to reply to it. I don't believe that the right reaction to bad analogies is to ignore them.
Although this statement doesn't apply to me (as said, I'm opposed to the Open Source philosophy), I would like to point out that I agree with RMS that Free Software should be sold for as much money as possible.
I don't blame makers of proprietary software as much as the makers of the law. The software makers only apply an existing tool (copyright law) in order to maximize their advantage. An economy where entities (companies and individuals) try to maximize their advantage seems to work quite well.
IMHO, the government's role is to ensure that no group has an unfairly larger amount of power than other groups. But this is the case with copyright law: in my opinion, it does not balance the interests of creators, right owners, and user, but is heavily biased towards the second group.
Yes. I'm not opposed to the concept of copyright in general, only to a number of aspects in its current implementation.
Car engines already are "open source". Once you have bought a car, it is legal for you to take the engine apart, modify it, use parts of it in another machine you build, study how the engine works, even use the thusly gained knowledge to build you own engine. If the enginge breaks, you can try to fix it yourself or have it fixed, and neither action will cause you to be called a pirate.
"Open source" or free software tries to alleviate the heavy restrictions that a law (copyright) puts on software. An analogous law for car engines simply doesn't exist, so you already have all the rights with respect to car engines that free software gives you with respect to software.
Why? Is it so hard to admit you've been tricked?
I for one find it admirable that he managed to trick many people (including myself) and the media. In fact, this is a better hack than it would have been if it had been real.
It's also a valuable lession: be sceptical about everything you see, especially on the internet.
Here in Germany, the situation will become similar to that described by the original poster on Jan 1, 2005.
ISPs are indeed telling the government what you suggest, albeit I believe they don't use your choice of words exactly. It won't help them, since the law explicitly states that the ISPs have to bear the costs of spying on their customers on the government's behalf. Even before they start spying, they have to prove to a government agency that they have government approved spying equipment in place. The fine for non-compliance is half a million Euros.
It is indeed estimated that this will cause a large number of ISPs (more than 50%, most likely) in Germany to go bankrupt within the next year.
What if you suddenly forget your passphrase? This can plausibly happen in extreme stress situations, such as being arrested, interrogated, and/or threatened to be put in prison.
Indeed. According to the CIA World Factbook, 4 people are born every second.
I don't think the hair of Georg Greve, president of the FSFE, is too long or dirty. Judge for yourself, he has some pictures on his homepage.
... which only confirms that Java should be protected from forks in the domain of trademark law. Additionally protecting it in the domain of copyright law seems stupid.
Nope. In reality, there are no sides; this either white or black, either good or evil view doesn't apply.
Most companies which behave friendly towards the free software community in one way, for which they should be applauded, also are hostile towards the same community in another way, for which they should be criticized. For example, the laudable fact that Sun has given us OpenOffice shouldn't stop us from criticizing the not so friendly things they also do.
No. The EU is also discussing this, and most likely, other countries are as well.
This is also the reason why Bruce Schneier thinks terrorists will love this technology: if they want to specifically target a certain nationality (e.g. US), they can easily find people of this nationality in a crowd.
I don't follow this logic. Shouldn't the confiscated money go to the victims, i.e. the tens of millions of users, ISPs, etc who had to spend time and money to protect themselves against unwanted spam?
No, actually this isn't true. It looks like a symlink (or even a dangling symlink if the executable has been deleted), but it can be opened and read like a real file. If you don't believe me, I suggest that you try the following:
Of course. Has anybody claimed anything else?
I don't know anything about Microsoft Windows, so I wonder: Is it possbile to do the renaming and copying atomically, so that either the old or the new executable or library exists under the original name at any given instant of time?
1) is better, and it would be better even if /proc didn't exist. There is no reason why every file must be accessible through a directory entry.
Without this mechanism, it would be impossible to replace the directory entry corresponding to an open file atomically, which is a prerequisite for updating running executables or shared libraries.
As I explained, removing a file which currently being used is not only hard, but impossible. Only the corresponding directory entries can be removed.
It seems that the author misunderstands an important part of the Unix philosophy:
That's far from true. Linux locks the executable file, i.e. if you attempt to open it for writing, you get an error. You can, however, remove the directory entry, in which case the file is retained as long as the program is still running.
Under Linux, a file can have zero, one, or more directory entries (a.k.a. hard links). It's not possible to remove files, only directory entries can be removed. The kernel removes the file automatically once two conditions are fulfilled:
In fact, under Linux the /proc filesystem allows it to get the contents of an open file back even if it has no directory entries outside of /proc.
Here in Germany, the German equivalent of the MPAA shows movie ads which purport the idea that it is "just" to expose copyright infringers to rape. (For those who wonder, "hart aber gerecht" means "hard but just", and in the full ad, the guys in the poster talk about raping a copyright infringer.)
Once upon a time, judging if somebody broke the law was not based on betting...
You seem to have missed the point of the article. It's about a case where finding copyright infringers was not what they've been doing,
So you're saying that Linux Australia is a bunch of teenagers who broke the law?
Which law is it that gives the MPAA the right to harass innocent people?
<cynicism>
Why go to the hassle of setting up a new company every time? The movie companies don't set up a new MPAA every time they repeat this "accident", after all.
</cynicism>
Actually, I disagree. Explaining it in two sentences is next to impossible, but if somebody is willing to listen for ten minutes, I find it relatively easy.
I also try to be honest, i.e. I avoid the usual "CP violation is studied to understand the excess of matter over antimatter in the universe" crap.
In my experience, honesty (it has no pratical applications) also pays here. There are many things without partical applications which are more expensive than particle physics, so it's not a problem.
The German Department of Justice seems to be in favor of software patents, but at same time it carefully avoids admitting so publically. From the Department's point of view, the latter makes sense, since almost all (all but a small number of very large) companies are strongly opposed to software patents here in Germany.
A day before the vote in the EU Counsil (May 17th, 2004), there was a protest in Berlin, and a speaker of Department of Justice told the protesters that Germany would abstain in the vote.
On May 18th, the following "compromise" was reached. The original text of article 2b
was changed to
(emphasis mine). That's right, the "couple of key changes" was to insert the words "new and"!
Of course, the law already states that a patent cannot be granted if there is prior art, so the effect of the change is exactly zero. How the change is supposed to prevent software patents is honestly beyond me, but nevertheless it caused Germany to vote in favor instead of abstaining.
What preferences window? You did follow the original poster's link and are aware that we're not talking about Adblock here, right?
The recipe you linked to still loads the ads, it just doesn't display them. Therefore, instead of having to wait for a DNS timeout to see a broken image icon in place of the ad, you have to wait for a DNS timeout to see nothing in place of the ad, but you still have to wait.
Actually, you cannot (legally) use a patented technology without permission from the patent holder, even if you don't make money from it.
When planning a security system (not restricted to computers, I'm talking about security in general), it's usually a good idea to take into account what an insider can do. Most often, what an insider can do is a strict superset of what an outsider can do, so if your system is secure against attacks from insiders, it's automatically also secure against attacks from outsiders.
In the case at hand, it might be possible to use separate cryptograhic keys for separate groups of insiders, just like not every employee in a large company has a door key for every single door in the building. Restricting the signal by means of a wallpaper could be harder.