hahahaha... you make me laugh. As if VB or Java is going to be more secure?? Ohh sure... there's the possibility that they may be less suceptible to buffer overflows.. (Maybe? who's to REALLY say until it has 20 years of history begind it like C)
It's not just the language... it's the LOGIC.
Good programmers think LOGICALLY... processes are LOGICAL. Data is build on trusted logical assumprions and sources.
Just because they create a secret forum... doesn't mean that they'll have the right to receive info first and foremost.
I cam imagine that it's quite a thrill to post on BIGTRAQ when you find a REAL BUG!!! I know I am thrilled anytime someone finds a bug in my code (really, I am).
I think that maybe Paul Vixie is growing weary of the problems in BIND.
But it is precisly the kind of cracking being done on BIND that makes it BETTER! Just because we have pain, doesn't mean that it's time to shut lips.
If we start putting GAG ORDERS on people, then what's to protect the OTHER users? Who's to say that this small band of people won't accidentally mis-classify a bug? Wheras a larger group of people you'd have alot more input on the problem.
I am firmly against this. Even if I decide not to use BIND, A class && TLD's bring us all together.
How much more angry will the response be to their group if it is found out that they withheld information that could have prevented serious exploits of many other entities.
And more importantly, what are the implications 25 years from now? What kind of role models will we have in security, and software in general?
Pan
Looking at the people that wrote this law...
on
DVD Case Follow-Up
·
· Score: 2
Well, I've been on a fishing trip... the DMCA is really flakey, more than anything. Having been born from the UN sponsered WIPO (which is mostly funded by private industry) and spawned into a monster.
Interresting comments from the Senate Discussion..
These are comments about a version of the bill that was later changed.
Can you guess which Senator said these remarks?
"It thus should be about as clear as can be to a judge or jury that, unless otherwise specified, nothing in this legislatuion should be interpreted to limit manufacturers of legitimate products with substantial noninfringing users - such as VCRs and personal computers..."
"As important, the amendment reflected the working assumption of all of my colleagues that this bill is aimed fundamentally at so-called "black boxes" and not at legitimate products that have.substantial non infringing uses"
But that's not what heppened. I think honestly that Congress was brainwashed into thinking that they were protecting an industry from Chinese pillage. I remember probably 20 stories on NPR about the poor movie industry having no protection from piracy. They had no idea that the MPAA would take it's new found freedom and create a virtual monopoly on DVD device manufacturing and distribution.
It really is a shame that nobody in our great Congress understands!! But atleast Orin Hatch (The original DMCA Sponser nonetheless) has all but said it was a mistake.. even going so far as to invite the creator of Napster to speak with him! ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/co)ntent/archive/1417 9.html
What is sad, is that I used MY tax dollars paying politicians et cetera to come up with this law (I personally paid 33 cents to each one, if my figuring is right), and I am helping pay for the legal cost of overturning it. Damn.
Pan
Ohh, and the comments were from Senator Ashcroft. He even mentions the Betamax case as a standard
for the DMCA to abide by. ( http://www.hrrc.org/html/DMCA-leg-hist.html
)
"The constitutional interest embodied in fair use, however, do not evaporate merely because a copyright owner uses technologocal wrappers to protect copies of its work. And just as Congress could not repeal the fair use provision of US copyright law without creating serious conflicts with the First Amendment, it cannoe accomplist the same result indirectly by banning all technologoes through which fair use can be made."
Ka-BOOM.
It's impressive that our Congress (Specifically) has the balls to squash the First Amendment.
Pan
It's good that the last case was lost.. really
on
DVD Case Follow-Up
·
· Score: 3
Because, by loosing the previous case, this will allow the case to possible be driven up to the supreme court. If it had been won, then there was a possibility that the MPAA would of just moved on... leaving the DMCA in place.
Bind is what takes http://slashdot.org and translates it to 64.28.67.48. The URL means nothing to your TCP stack, the router behind it, and all the networks behind that. Only the IP number matters.
WebCrawler opened to the public on April 20, 1994. It was started as a research project at the University of Washington. America Online purchased it in March 1995 and was the online service's preferred search engine until Nov. 1996. That was when Excite, a WebCrawler competitor, acquired the service. Excite continues to run WebCrawler as an independent search engine.
AltaVista opened in December 1995 as a Digital Research Project.
That's not the point. I too would pay if I needed to. The point is that blanket Digital copyright protection schemes (ala CSS) have no provisions for Fair Use.
If you tape movies or news shows now using your VCR, imagine when VCR's don't work anymore. Ten years from now, nobody will own a VCR... you won't be able to archive anything digital, because it will be illegal to do it.
You won't be able to clip obituaries from the digital newspaper. You won't be able to print it, because it would be illegal.
The DMCA will apply to everything you see at bookstores, video stores, on TV, on the Radio, on the Internet... anything copyrighted and protected.
The right you enjoyed as a teenager to record your favorite band interview from a radio show will soon be gone...
I didn't say that they wouldn't enforce the law, but they would be a much stricter interpretation of the law as it relates to enforcement(in other words.. if the law doesn't explicitly state an EXACT cause for enforcement, the FCC wouldn't enforce).
In fact, the FCC can choose NOT to enforce if it has worries of constitutionality. This is called blocking enforcement, and is legal. Groups often sue to block enforcement (http://www.aclu.org/news/n072198f.html) of laws. The enforcement agencies of the executive branch (of which the FCC is part of)have prudence (which is why you are seeing this public comment action) in matters of constitutionality, though IANAL as to the exact workings of this matter.
You may have the judicial branch get hung up on this one, but there are probably more laws than not that get enforced.
Mainly I was trying to illustrate (a bit colorfully I admit) how irrelevant the judicial branch is compared to the other two branches...
This may be true in terms of ENFORCEMENT... but the FINAL WORD is the supreme court. Think about it.. the FINAL WORD. Without the final word, enforcement is bologna.
Legislators can throw all the crappy laws out they want.. yet the court COULD reverse every damn one of them. STRIKE THAT.
Of course the real kicker, is that if your brother called you and said that the government was recycling dead people into cow food, you'd never believe him. Your own brother.
Until you saw it on the news.... isn't it amazing, that we BELIEVE SO STRONGLY in the press. Yet, we generally have a much lower respect for them on a whole than our own family.
And if I said, don't trust the press, you might think I was paranoid. Let me tell you, the press don't investigate anything. They are FED by our corporations and governments. Show me a TRUE investigative journalist who works on a national scale, and I'll show you a dead or out of work one.
Well until the commercialization of the internet, this was not true. It was pretty easy before 1996 to call sprint's backbone NOC center and talk directly to a real network engineer. (Which I have done a few times).
But now that 90% of the internet is for Mom & Pop users - it is a deeper hassle to actually talk to the people that work.
Pan
Re:Cool but a BFT (Big F*SCKING Target)
on
Laser-equipped 747
·
· Score: 1
As someone who knows of the original project, I can tell you a couple of problems with it.
One, do you wonder why it's in a 747 as opposed to a F117? Because it needs a megawatt power supply. It also required a MASSIVE cooling system. It uses a chemical reaction which can be used for 7 minutes.
A system like this has to get rid of a LOT LOT LOT LOT LOT of heat. The typical way is to use oil, and pump it back to a storage tank.
Guess they're gonna need alot of oil. Plus, the chemical reaction is non-reversable. H2O2, Iodine, and Chlorine sound really bad together. (there are a bunch of really nasty chemicals that come from clorine and iodine.)
People that pilot this plane are going to need an escort. If you only got seven minutes of defence, you havn't got enough.
Reagan was a felon, and so is clinton. They both killed alot of people, did alot of bad things. (Mind you I have no proof other than lots of obituaries and rumors).
Come on people, we're talking of trusting ONE PERSON with an amount of political and military power unheard of. America has a bad history of lambasting people who make mistakes.
That's why our Presidents don't make mistakes. Our military never lost any f117 planes in yugoslavia. we never shot uranium core bulletts. The CIA wasn't involed with drug trafficking.
Well.. there were a couple of mistakes in Vietnam... long time ago though.
The american blame system.. tradition at it's finest. But unfortunatly, without honesty it's going to get much worse.
Slashdot Mirror
hahahaha... you make me laugh. As if VB or Java is going to be more secure?? Ohh sure... there's the possibility that they may be less suceptible to buffer overflows.. (Maybe? who's to REALLY say until it has 20 years of history begind it like C)
It's not just the language... it's the LOGIC.
Good programmers think LOGICALLY... processes are LOGICAL. Data is build on trusted logical assumprions and sources.
Otherwise, you have poop.
Pan
I would say this is hedging your bets. Essentially, once djbdns hits some penetration like bind did, you will start to see people exploiting it.
But you are right about one thing.. diversity is good.
Pan
Just because they create a secret forum... doesn't mean that they'll have the right to receive info first and foremost.
I cam imagine that it's quite a thrill to post on BIGTRAQ when you find a REAL BUG!!! I know I am thrilled anytime someone finds a bug in my code (really, I am).
I think that maybe Paul Vixie is growing weary of the problems in BIND.
But it is precisly the kind of cracking being done on BIND that makes it BETTER! Just because we have pain, doesn't mean that it's time to shut lips.
If we start putting GAG ORDERS on people, then what's to protect the OTHER users? Who's to say that this small band of people won't accidentally mis-classify a bug? Wheras a larger group of people you'd have alot more input on the problem.
I am firmly against this. Even if I decide not to use BIND, A class && TLD's bring us all together.
How much more angry will the response be to their group if it is found out that they withheld information that could have prevented serious exploits of many other entities.
And more importantly, what are the implications 25 years from now? What kind of role models will we have in security, and software in general?
Pan
Well, I've been on a fishing trip... the DMCA is really flakey, more than anything. Having been born from the UN sponsered WIPO (which is mostly funded by private industry) and spawned into a monster.
..."
.substantial non infringing uses"
7 9.html
Interresting comments from the Senate Discussion..
These are comments about a version of the bill that was later changed.
Can you guess which Senator said these remarks?
"It thus should be about as clear as can be to a judge or jury that, unless otherwise specified, nothing in this legislatuion should be interpreted to limit manufacturers of legitimate products with substantial noninfringing users - such as VCRs and personal computers
"As important, the amendment reflected the working assumption of all of my colleagues that this bill is aimed fundamentally at so-called "black boxes" and not at legitimate products that have
But that's not what heppened. I think honestly that Congress was brainwashed into thinking that they were protecting an industry from Chinese pillage. I remember probably 20 stories on NPR about the poor movie industry having no protection from piracy. They had no idea that the MPAA would take it's new found freedom and create a virtual monopoly on DVD device manufacturing and distribution.
It really is a shame that nobody in our great Congress understands!! But atleast Orin Hatch (The original DMCA Sponser nonetheless) has all but said it was a mistake.. even going so far as to invite the creator of Napster to speak with him! ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/co)ntent/archive/141
What is sad, is that I used MY tax dollars paying politicians et cetera to come up with this law (I personally paid 33 cents to each one, if my figuring is right), and I am helping pay for the legal cost of overturning it. Damn.
Pan
Ohh, and the comments were from Senator Ashcroft. He even mentions the Betamax case as a standard
for the DMCA to abide by. ( http://www.hrrc.org/html/DMCA-leg-hist.html
)
Read page 13 of the ACLU amici... it states..
"The constitutional interest embodied in fair use, however, do not evaporate merely because a copyright owner uses technologocal wrappers to protect copies of its work. And just as Congress could not repeal the fair use provision of US copyright law without creating serious conflicts with the First Amendment, it cannoe accomplist the same result indirectly by banning all technologoes through which fair use can be made."
Ka-BOOM.
It's impressive that our Congress (Specifically) has the balls to squash the First Amendment.
Pan
Because, by loosing the previous case, this will allow the case to possible be driven up to the supreme court. If it had been won, then there was a possibility that the MPAA would of just moved on... leaving the DMCA in place.
Pan
Or better yet...
telnet 127.0.0.1 domain
if your machine responds, then you're running a DNS server.
(use CTRL + ] to get out)
Pan
I guarantee you that Akamai will patch far faster than microsoft did their own DNS servers.
Bind is what takes http://slashdot.org and translates it to 64.28.67.48. The URL means nothing to your TCP stack, the router behind it, and all the networks behind that. Only the IP number matters.
Pan
Sorry to be in bad form.. Here's some anti-troll for you.
>nslookup www.microsoft.com
Server: trusty
Address: 172.16.20.16
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: www.microsoft.akadns.net
Addresses: 207.46.230.219, 207.46.230.229, 207.46.230.218
Aliases: www.microsoft.com
Like Windows? Even microsoft is now using Linux based DNS servers (Akamai).
Enjoy
Panaflex
WebCrawler opened to the public on April 20, 1994. It was started as a research project at the University of Washington. America Online purchased it in March 1995 and was the online service's preferred search engine until Nov. 1996. That was when Excite, a WebCrawler competitor, acquired the service. Excite continues to run WebCrawler as an independent search engine.
AltaVista opened in December 1995 as a Digital Research Project.
Pan
Could you please explain the inefficiency of the Linux VM? Would you be willing to fix it? Come on, dude. Put your patches where you mouth is.
Pan
That's not the point. I too would pay if I needed to. The point is that blanket Digital copyright protection schemes (ala CSS) have no provisions for Fair Use.
Pan
If you tape movies or news shows now using your VCR, imagine when VCR's don't work anymore. Ten years from now, nobody will own a VCR... you won't be able to archive anything digital, because it will be illegal to do it.
You won't be able to clip obituaries from the digital newspaper. You won't be able to print it, because it would be illegal.
The DMCA will apply to everything you see at bookstores, video stores, on TV, on the Radio, on the Internet... anything copyrighted and protected.
The right you enjoyed as a teenager to record your favorite band interview from a radio show will soon be gone...
Pan
I didn't say that they wouldn't enforce the law, but they would be a much stricter interpretation of the law as it relates to enforcement(in other words.. if the law doesn't explicitly state an EXACT cause for enforcement, the FCC wouldn't enforce).
In fact, the FCC can choose NOT to enforce if it has worries of constitutionality. This is called blocking enforcement, and is legal. Groups often sue to block enforcement (http://www.aclu.org/news/n072198f.html) of laws. The enforcement agencies of the executive branch (of which the FCC is part of)have prudence (which is why you are seeing this public comment action) in matters of constitutionality, though IANAL as to the exact workings of this matter.
You may have the judicial branch get hung up on this one, but there are probably more laws than not that get enforced.
pan
Mainly I was trying to illustrate (a bit colorfully I admit) how irrelevant the judicial branch is compared to the other two branches...
This may be true in terms of ENFORCEMENT... but the FINAL WORD is the supreme court. Think about it.. the FINAL WORD. Without the final word, enforcement is bologna.
Legislators can throw all the crappy laws out they want.. yet the court COULD reverse every damn one of them. STRIKE THAT.
Pan
Don't take this wrong, but even though you have a good point, please don't tell people how to voice their oppinion....
If the FCC got 5,000,000 letters saying this law is WRONG, I'd think that would have an impact on the enforcement of the law. Wouldn't you agree?
pan
Of course the real kicker, is that if your brother called you and said that the government was recycling dead people into cow food, you'd never believe him. Your own brother.
Until you saw it on the news.... isn't it amazing, that we BELIEVE SO STRONGLY in the press. Yet, we generally have a much lower respect for them on a whole than our own family.
And if I said, don't trust the press, you might think I was paranoid. Let me tell you, the press don't investigate anything. They are FED by our corporations and governments. Show me a TRUE investigative journalist who works on a national scale, and I'll show you a dead or out of work one.
The conflict of interest is ashtonishing.
Amazing,
Pan
Well until the commercialization of the internet, this was not true. It was pretty easy before 1996 to call sprint's backbone NOC center and talk directly to a real network engineer. (Which I have done a few times).
But now that 90% of the internet is for Mom & Pop users - it is a deeper hassle to actually talk to the people that work.
Pan
As someone who knows of the original project, I can tell you a couple of problems with it.
One, do you wonder why it's in a 747 as opposed to a F117? Because it needs a megawatt power supply. It also required a MASSIVE cooling system. It uses a chemical reaction which can be used for 7 minutes.
A system like this has to get rid of a LOT LOT LOT LOT LOT of heat. The typical way is to use oil, and pump it back to a storage tank.
Guess they're gonna need alot of oil. Plus, the chemical reaction is non-reversable. H2O2, Iodine, and Chlorine sound really bad together. (there are a bunch of really nasty chemicals that come from clorine and iodine.)
People that pilot this plane are going to need an escort. If you only got seven minutes of defence, you havn't got enough.
Pan
Reagan was a felon, and so is clinton. They both killed alot of people, did alot of bad things. (Mind you I have no proof other than lots of obituaries and rumors).
Come on people, we're talking of trusting ONE PERSON with an amount of political and military power unheard of. America has a bad history of lambasting people who make mistakes.
That's why our Presidents don't make mistakes. Our military never lost any f117 planes in yugoslavia. we never shot uranium core bulletts. The CIA wasn't involed with drug trafficking.
Well.. there were a couple of mistakes in Vietnam... long time ago though.
The american blame system.. tradition at it's finest. But unfortunatly, without honesty it's going to get much worse.
pan
The birthplace of M$?
Albuquerque, NM.
Pan
3 ads to the spammers...
9 ads to the pornos
and one pop up ad to rule them all!!!
Pan
And they never really stated WHO and where this IP entanglement exists(if it does).
;-)
SGI... Now isn't that funny.