Narrator: There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.(HHGTG)
Cmdr Taco hacked Slashdot long long ago. Once upon a time this was a sensible discussion board running software written in C and with a love of beautiful art discussions.
Since information sent in IPSEC is likely to include access codes to the computer I think you can go for
Knowingly and with the intent to defraud, trafficking in a password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization.
From the US "Computer Fraud and Abuse Act" of 1986.
Basic fraud laws would probably do also. They represented this as cryptography software but deliberately set out to make it fail at it's purported task. The fact that it passed review has nothing to do with it's legality.
I think the question to ask here is "What would the FBI do". I'm 100% sure they would be able to find a law if they wanted to.
Malware is just software you put on people's computers with the intention of doing them harm. Even if it's very subtle and you never get caught it's still malware. The proof would probably be in the contracts the guys signed. It may not even be them that broke the law; whoever knew what this was for and said it had to be done.
So; this is going to be interesting. Imagine there were no back doors; how would you prove it? Want to discredit OpenBSD; that's how you would do it. Assume there are backdoors; now we have the first known clear example of illegally placed malware by a US Govt. group. The FBI is not the NSA, but they definitely have access to good people. Assume this was rogue players. Warrentless wiretapping against US Govt. lawyers! In the absence of any pointer to relevant code, I would go with it being FUD, but I expect to be proved wrong..
In this case you are wrong. He's been sitting there typing at his computer for three lines of a slashdot comment. He's already come up with an idea that could be patentable. There's no way he has done this by research, the only explanation is that he's a "non practicing entity" (aka a Patent Troll) patenting hand waving and waffle. In which case he doesn't make or sell anything, so there's no point in suing him. He can only win. Flee. Run to the hills. Don't look back.
Do you deserve to go without sex for life just because you post on Slashdot and have no life? People are different and most people simply don't get and don't understand the implications of almost any of this.
Take, for example the parent^4 (JackieBrown). He thinks that the data on facebook belongs to the people that own it. However, I have never logged into facebook. Still there are almost certainly photos of me there, with my name tagged to them. That's my data and there is nothing I can do to get rid of it without giving some kind of tacit consent to their existence. On the other side, lots of companies are using cloud hosting and I have know knowledge about it even though they are doing that for processing things for me.
The problems come from vast aggregation of lots of data. It's not a problem that one person knows that I am going out tonight. What is a problem is when you can query a database to get a list of young women spending the night more than a few hundred meters from any other person at least 10 and no more than 15 km from your current location. We are really getting to that stage.
Next up, law enforcement will now start catching the kids and scaring the shit out of them while their mommies and daddies cough up their kid's college funds to keep them out of jail.
Too many people subscribing to college is a definite problem in the current environment. An inability to spoof IP packets or log into your neighbor's WiFi on a false address when planning to break the law seems to me like a perfect disqualification for a philosophy degree let alone anything technical. Let the natural selection begin. Especially because most of this is probably a false flag attack anyway. I guess the US Cyber Command just over-estimated how much Anonymous would be able to help them in their budget negotiation...
To expand on this; the job of an ad agency is to put you in touch with many groups who normally you wouldn't be in touch with. Preferably even groups who you wouldn't want to be in touch with. There's a differece between going to a place you trust which might be compromised and a bunch of such places having the chance to pay to get in touch with you.
Well, Amazon clearly isn't reliable from this incident. Rackspace is mostly famous for pulling the Indymedia servers without warning. I guess the answer is "try the others but who knows".
Either be the real provider or be held at the mercies of your suppliers. YOU should have known that. It's certainly the case in almost every business.
On the internet, everybody is at the mercy of their suppliers. Even the tier1s. The largest ISPs are all below 10% traffic. That's why Google has invested so heavily in networking and why net nutrality is such a hot topic. If everybody else cut you off at the same time you would be dead. It's clear, however, that they should have had at least three cloud suppliers. I'm guessing that SimpleCDN was simply too new to have got that properly set up (we all take big risks at the start of a business; there's no other way).
Plenty of us will be using these stories as examples to justify having multiple cloud providers to our managers. Lots of us have some cost saving / cloud migration story that we want to slow down or make more stable. Quite a few of us are probably SoftLayer/ThePlanet customers who hate them (everybody always hates customer support) and this is probably a useful addition to our case to stick it to them. Trust me, plenty of us are interested in these stories.
That's a stellar job of making up a scenario which fits your twisted world view. A free software author producing GPL software isn't restricting anyone. You are free to use their software or not.
I don't really give a shit what your ideals are, or your religion, it's not my problem. You believing it's "unfair" for a free software author to not to allow me to link to and copy his code isn't a restriction or an impediment on any right you have (sic). You don't have a right to live in my house, and you don't have a right to anyone's source code.
There. FTFY. Of course I can go on from here and your arguments become stupider and stupider, but let's just give a bit more clarity:
When I build a house, I dont' give the logger who cut down the trees free reign of my house.
That's because you pay for the wood. You make a clear and fair exchange for that and then you own the wood. It being your wood, nobody cares what you do with it, even make a bonfire. Unless of course you stole the wood, in which case the logger may well claim the house if he finds out. Of course, if someone loans you wood or metal for example scaffolding to help you build your house, you have to give it back in the state you acquired it. Different contracts for different situations. I think almost everyone here understands that.
Now; what's how can I be for that and at the same time be anti proprietary software? Well, firstly, in my case, that's a simplification. I think that there are some places where less code access than the AGPLv3 demands might be reasonable. Secondly, for me, it's not about the exact details, more about the implied contract of copyright. Software without source code is long term pretty useless. Copyright is designed for literature which doesn't need a maintenance process. I think that there should be no copyright on works which don't have an indefinite guarantee of maintainability even if the support company disappears completely. Proprietary software is fine for me as long as it either provides that or can survive without legal protection.
As for not giving anything back, who the hell do you think employes and/or pays for the majority of the BSD coders? They aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Get a clue.
Having seen the situation where companies used BSD code and then realised that it wasn't a good idea to contribute back just because of the license; knowing about the relative contributions of RedHat to Linux and Apple to FreeBSD I'm really not sure this is the direction you want to go in in this argument.
Trying not to be contrary, but if you really want to contribute, load it into GIT; create a project on GitHub and fork it. Take the bits from Harmony needed to fill in the gaps. That's a much more valuable "contribution" than giving things to Oracle.
Also, this isn't "my" Java; I really don't much like the stuff; don't program in it and strongly recommend that anybody that does have to deal with it ports to GCJ rather than using it in a JVM.
So, back on the original topic, this discussion doesn't have much to do with criticising the freedom of GPL software. The OpenJDK binary clearly isn't GPL. Nobody should use it if they can avoid it and if they have no choice they should be thinking about how they can migrate off as quick as possible.
So, once again, we see clearly what you are talking about. First you want the corporation to have the right to restrict what other's do "A corporation should have the right to produce closed-source software" and then you talk about other people's code and don't want to give them the right to limit what happens to that.
In other words, you feel you have a god-given right to take from others but that others should not be allowed to get from you. It's precisely for people like you that things like the GPL, the police and the legal system have to exist.
I think you maybe posted a reply to the wrong comment. Otherwise, your comment is just a bit too surreal even for me.
There is nothing to make you give your rights to Oracle, however, if you do so, your software is no longer protected by the GPL. That is your fault.
The TCK trap is irrelevant also to the GPL. The TCK trap occurs precisely due to the software elements required to run the OpenJDK which are not covered by the GPL.
You are trolling right? The GPL has nothing to say about your "right to produce closed-source software and link with other closed-source software". It just isn't involved at all.
Oracle has the Midas Touch. Everything they touch turns into a profitable venture--I mean, if you don't count the ones that became completely useless as a result.
You have completely misunderstood. There is no better way to make a profitable venture than selling something that is useless. The trick how you succeed in the selling, but once you have done that, the opportunities for consulting are endless.
C'mon. The guys who wrote Stuxnet are quite likely programmers in a serious part of the "military industrial complex". Even if they didn't think of the idea of the virus coming back, this was probably the main thing making stains on the pants of their managers. It went out as a targetted specific, state of the art, anti-military weapon. It will come back as a broad attack old fashioned piece of vandalism with headlines about "nuclear weapons under threat". What could be a better way to drive up military "cyber-war" budgets? It was probably just their professional pride that stopped them releasing an SDK along with the command and control PCs.
Even experienced programmers do not write low level hardware control code without access to a lab and facilities where they can test the effect of that code. That means a model centrifuge of some kind connected with all the needed industrial controllers. That means access to more resources than just 1-3 programmers. Sure; there will certainly be a small core of experts doing most of the coding.
You may well be right about the aim of breaking the machines. Someone needs to get one of these and see what happens. I don't advise loading it with uranium whilst testing though:-)
You are wrong about needing a "precise" speed. This you can work out from simple engineering. a) We know that enrichment requires a very high speed (that's why there are embargos on high speed centrifuges). b) we know that building such centrifuges is very difficult (one of the articles even mentioned that they have to run at super critical speed) c) we know you don't then (can't afford to) build a machine which is able to run much faster than the speed you require. This taken together means that you run the machines as close to their maximum speed as you can "safely" sustain. Any imprecision in the control system means you have to reduce the maximum speed by that much.
You are probably also wrong about messing with the product. What the virus does is to at, one point almost stop the centrifuge, then accelerate it again. It then continues for a long time and then goes through a speed up slow down cycle three weeks later. That will not only be bad for the centrifuge, it will shake the product and cause the Uranium to mix pretty well. Iff this happens more often than the minimum time for Uranium separation this will mean that essentially the production of properly separated uranium will halt.
If you managed to just read to the end of the article; and I'm really surprised you didn't before posting; or followed the asterisk like I did; you would find that they have rot-1 encryption that in no way changes the size of the links. It's straight forward ofuscation. In fact since they have to load the obfuscation code it takes more space.
Slashdot Mirror
Narrator: There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.(HHGTG)
Cmdr Taco hacked Slashdot long long ago. Once upon a time this was a sensible discussion board running software written in C and with a love of beautiful art discussions.
a) depends on jurisdiction. In many places use of a photo for commercial reasons requires a permit
b) it's not the photo as such that I object to; it's the tagging of the photo.
c) privacy laws give me rights over things that I don't own.
Since information sent in IPSEC is likely to include access codes to the computer I think you can go for
Knowingly and with the intent to defraud, trafficking in a password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization.
From the US "Computer Fraud and Abuse Act" of 1986.
Basic fraud laws would probably do also. They represented this as cryptography software but deliberately set out to make it fail at it's purported task. The fact that it passed review has nothing to do with it's legality.
I think the question to ask here is "What would the FBI do". I'm 100% sure they would be able to find a law if they wanted to.
Malware is just software you put on people's computers with the intention of doing them harm. Even if it's very subtle and you never get caught it's still malware. The proof would probably be in the contracts the guys signed. It may not even be them that broke the law; whoever knew what this was for and said it had to be done.
So; this is going to be interesting. Imagine there were no back doors; how would you prove it? Want to discredit OpenBSD; that's how you would do it. Assume there are backdoors; now we have the first known clear example of illegally placed malware by a US Govt. group. The FBI is not the NSA, but they definitely have access to good people. Assume this was rogue players. Warrentless wiretapping against US Govt. lawyers! In the absence of any pointer to relevant code, I would go with it being FUD, but I expect to be proved wrong..
You need to go watch fight club.
In this case you are wrong. He's been sitting there typing at his computer for three lines of a slashdot comment. He's already come up with an idea that could be patentable. There's no way he has done this by research, the only explanation is that he's a "non practicing entity" (aka a Patent Troll) patenting hand waving and waffle. In which case he doesn't make or sell anything, so there's no point in suing him. He can only win. Flee. Run to the hills. Don't look back.
Do you deserve to go without sex for life just because you post on Slashdot and have no life? People are different and most people simply don't get and don't understand the implications of almost any of this.
Take, for example the parent^4 (JackieBrown). He thinks that the data on facebook belongs to the people that own it. However, I have never logged into facebook. Still there are almost certainly photos of me there, with my name tagged to them. That's my data and there is nothing I can do to get rid of it without giving some kind of tacit consent to their existence. On the other side, lots of companies are using cloud hosting and I have know knowledge about it even though they are doing that for processing things for me.
The problems come from vast aggregation of lots of data. It's not a problem that one person knows that I am going out tonight. What is a problem is when you can query a database to get a list of young women spending the night more than a few hundred meters from any other person at least 10 and no more than 15 km from your current location. We are really getting to that stage.
Next up, law enforcement will now start catching the kids and scaring the shit out of them while their mommies and daddies cough up their kid's college funds to keep them out of jail.
Too many people subscribing to college is a definite problem in the current environment. An inability to spoof IP packets or log into your neighbor's WiFi on a false address when planning to break the law seems to me like a perfect disqualification for a philosophy degree let alone anything technical. Let the natural selection begin. Especially because most of this is probably a false flag attack anyway. I guess the US Cyber Command just over-estimated how much Anonymous would be able to help them in their budget negotiation...
To expand on this; the job of an ad agency is to put you in touch with many groups who normally you wouldn't be in touch with. Preferably even groups who you wouldn't want to be in touch with. There's a differece between going to a place you trust which might be compromised and a bunch of such places having the chance to pay to get in touch with you.
Well, Amazon clearly isn't reliable from this incident. Rackspace is mostly famous for pulling the Indymedia servers without warning. I guess the answer is "try the others but who knows".
Either be the real provider or be held at the mercies of your suppliers. YOU should have known that. It's certainly the case in almost every business.
On the internet, everybody is at the mercy of their suppliers. Even the tier1s. The largest ISPs are all below 10% traffic. That's why Google has invested so heavily in networking and why net nutrality is such a hot topic. If everybody else cut you off at the same time you would be dead. It's clear, however, that they should have had at least three cloud suppliers. I'm guessing that SimpleCDN was simply too new to have got that properly set up (we all take big risks at the start of a business; there's no other way).
Plenty of us will be using these stories as examples to justify having multiple cloud providers to our managers. Lots of us have some cost saving / cloud migration story that we want to slow down or make more stable. Quite a few of us are probably SoftLayer/ThePlanet customers who hate them (everybody always hates customer support) and this is probably a useful addition to our case to stick it to them. Trust me, plenty of us are interested in these stories.
The interesting thing is that it seems that this was actually originally posted on slashdot before the first related blog posting. It's even been noted before that this comment keeps repeating
That's a stellar job of making up a scenario which fits your twisted world view. A free software author producing GPL software isn't restricting anyone. You are free to use their software or not.
I don't really give a shit what your ideals are, or your religion, it's not my problem. You believing it's "unfair" for a free software author to not to allow me to link to and copy his code isn't a restriction or an impediment on any right you have (sic). You don't have a right to live in my house, and you don't have a right to anyone's source code.
There. FTFY. Of course I can go on from here and your arguments become stupider and stupider, but let's just give a bit more clarity:
When I build a house, I dont' give the logger who cut down the trees free reign of my house.
That's because you pay for the wood. You make a clear and fair exchange for that and then you own the wood. It being your wood, nobody cares what you do with it, even make a bonfire. Unless of course you stole the wood, in which case the logger may well claim the house if he finds out. Of course, if someone loans you wood or metal for example scaffolding to help you build your house, you have to give it back in the state you acquired it. Different contracts for different situations. I think almost everyone here understands that.
Now; what's how can I be for that and at the same time be anti proprietary software? Well, firstly, in my case, that's a simplification. I think that there are some places where less code access than the AGPLv3 demands might be reasonable. Secondly, for me, it's not about the exact details, more about the implied contract of copyright. Software without source code is long term pretty useless. Copyright is designed for literature which doesn't need a maintenance process. I think that there should be no copyright on works which don't have an indefinite guarantee of maintainability even if the support company disappears completely. Proprietary software is fine for me as long as it either provides that or can survive without legal protection.
As for not giving anything back, who the hell do you think employes and/or pays for the majority of the BSD coders? They aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Get a clue.
Having seen the situation where companies used BSD code and then realised that it wasn't a good idea to contribute back just because of the license; knowing about the relative contributions of RedHat to Linux and Apple to FreeBSD I'm really not sure this is the direction you want to go in in this argument.
If you wish to contribute to OpenJDK, you'll need to execute http://oss.oracle.com/oca.pdf.
Trying not to be contrary, but if you really want to contribute, load it into GIT; create a project on GitHub and fork it. Take the bits from Harmony needed to fill in the gaps. That's a much more valuable "contribution" than giving things to Oracle.
Also, this isn't "my" Java; I really don't much like the stuff; don't program in it and strongly recommend that anybody that does have to deal with it ports to GCJ rather than using it in a JVM.
So, back on the original topic, this discussion doesn't have much to do with criticising the freedom of GPL software. The OpenJDK binary clearly isn't GPL. Nobody should use it if they can avoid it and if they have no choice they should be thinking about how they can migrate off as quick as possible.
So, once again, we see clearly what you are talking about. First you want the corporation to have the right to restrict what other's do "A corporation should have the right to produce closed-source software" and then you talk about other people's code and don't want to give them the right to limit what happens to that.
In other words, you feel you have a god-given right to take from others but that others should not be allowed to get from you. It's precisely for people like you that things like the GPL, the police and the legal system have to exist.
I think you maybe posted a reply to the wrong comment. Otherwise, your comment is just a bit too surreal even for me.
There is nothing to make you give your rights to Oracle, however, if you do so, your software is no longer protected by the GPL. That is your fault.
The TCK trap is irrelevant also to the GPL. The TCK trap occurs precisely due to the software elements required to run the OpenJDK which are not covered by the GPL.
So, what are you trying to say?
You are trolling right? The GPL has nothing to say about your "right to produce closed-source software and link with other closed-source software". It just isn't involved at all.
tomcat?
Oracle has the Midas Touch. Everything they touch turns into a profitable venture--I mean, if you don't count the ones that became completely useless as a result.
You have completely misunderstood. There is no better way to make a profitable venture than selling something that is useless. The trick how you succeed in the selling, but once you have done that, the opportunities for consulting are endless.
C'mon. The guys who wrote Stuxnet are quite likely programmers in a serious part of the "military industrial complex". Even if they didn't think of the idea of the virus coming back, this was probably the main thing making stains on the pants of their managers. It went out as a targetted specific, state of the art, anti-military weapon. It will come back as a broad attack old fashioned piece of vandalism with headlines about "nuclear weapons under threat". What could be a better way to drive up military "cyber-war" budgets? It was probably just their professional pride that stopped them releasing an SDK along with the command and control PCs.
Even experienced programmers do not write low level hardware control code without access to a lab and facilities where they can test the effect of that code. That means a model centrifuge of some kind connected with all the needed industrial controllers. That means access to more resources than just 1-3 programmers. Sure; there will certainly be a small core of experts doing most of the coding.
You may well be right about the aim of breaking the machines. Someone needs to get one of these and see what happens. I don't advise loading it with uranium whilst testing though :-)
You are wrong about needing a "precise" speed. This you can work out from simple engineering. a) We know that enrichment requires a very high speed (that's why there are embargos on high speed centrifuges). b) we know that building such centrifuges is very difficult (one of the articles even mentioned that they have to run at super critical speed) c) we know you don't then (can't afford to) build a machine which is able to run much faster than the speed you require. This taken together means that you run the machines as close to their maximum speed as you can "safely" sustain. Any imprecision in the control system means you have to reduce the maximum speed by that much.
You are probably also wrong about messing with the product. What the virus does is to at, one point almost stop the centrifuge, then accelerate it again. It then continues for a long time and then goes through a speed up slow down cycle three weeks later. That will not only be bad for the centrifuge, it will shake the product and cause the Uranium to mix pretty well. Iff this happens more often than the minimum time for Uranium separation this will mean that essentially the production of properly separated uranium will halt.
If you managed to just read to the end of the article; and I'm really surprised you didn't before posting; or followed the asterisk like I did; you would find that they have rot-1 encryption that in no way changes the size of the links. It's straight forward ofuscation. In fact since they have to load the obfuscation code it takes more space.