I read TFA. Just re-read it looking for where they said that the copyright notice was changed.
Maybe I can't read, but I don't see where they say that.
You have a quote or an URL?
--Barry
Illegal vs. Against the terms of the license
on
DrDOS Inc Breaking GPL
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
IANAL (BIWIW)...
Illegal means that a law has been broken, and implies a violation of criminal law.
AFAIK, violating a license is not illegal. A license is essentially an agreement between two parties (a form of a contract?). Violating the terms is allowed under the law, however there may be specific consequences of violating terms.
Am I being too picky? Anybody out there that IAL want to correct my ignorance?
It sounds like DRDOS's latest version is just a bunch of software that can be downloaded free from the internet. A collection of GPL'd or other OSS licensed software. They are trying to charge $45 for what would otherwise be free.
But why would this be illegal? If they have not modified any of the software, how would this even violate the licenses?
I don't get it. Apologies in advance if I'm being dumb.
There's one major difference. That story was true.
I'm going to say it again. You can not create a dummy account and withdraw money without funding the account.
If you fund the account, the money needs to come from somewhere.
Why would you believe this story? I would link to the wikipedia story on gullible, but wikipedia (like most encyclopedias and almost all dictionaries) doesn't cover that topic.
#3 Any account that one could withdraw money from must be funded from somewhere.
It is simply not possible to create a "dummy" account that will give out money without funding it from somewhere.
Of course accounts could be created for testing purposes and funded with real money. However, accounting groups would catch on very quickly if they where being used, and the money not returned. To bypass bank accounting, there would need to be some other fraudulent scheme to steal money from somewhere. At that point, why bother with ATM cards? Why not just transfer the money to another account?
All of your 5 arguments are explaining what was in the article. What I'm saying is that the article was bullshit. I don't believe it. Its not backed up by any evidence.
How about this: why don't you explain why you believe it? Are you particularly gullible?
If you are going to arguements like that, make sure you actually present evidence to back them up.
Exactly. That's why I say the article is Bullshit.
I don't care how many clients he was representing. Trying to charge several thousand dollars per hour is clear evidence that something is wrong with his story.
And, BTW, even in the 90s, no bank was that careless about security. The article suggests that banks setup "dummy accounts", and allowed "dummy cards" to withdraw real money from those accounts. Does this sound likely to be true? Are you suggesting that we should not demand that anyone who calls themselves a journalist should have some shred of proof to backup such an unbelievable story? Oh, I forgot, the proof is that some guy said it was so.
Come on. Show a little skeptacism. Don't just believe anything you read.
Now T-Mobile, Verizon, Cingular et al, will have to pay Freedom Wireless fees that they had not expected.
Why are we supposed to be upset by this?
Every month these same phone companies stick as many regulatory or usage fees as they think they can get away with onto our bills.
Now its their turn.
Many will suggest that we will only end up paying for it in the end. However, I would say that currently the phone companies charge what the market will bear. They bleed us for whatever they can. Their costs have little to do with what we pay.
OK, I just wasted 15 minutes of time trying to figure out the point of this story.
Whitedust.net's technique of giving the wrong content type to the linked files that contain any real information about this so called exploit causing Firefox to open links in a text viewer was particularly effective.
This may be the largest human DoS attack in recent memory (and slashdot was the vector).
Did you miss the part of the article where he explains how the new JVM performs memory allocation on the stack through escape analysis?
Uh, yup. I'm sorry to say I just scanned the article at first. Re-read it later.
I still say its about using the right language for the job. Static memory is a powerful tool, useful to solve many problems.
Some problems that are best solved with static memory use will have solutions best implemented in C.
Even if the JVM optimizes variables to the stack through escape analysis, its a blind optimization. Programmers will not necessarily know if their variables will be on the stack or not. They may make coding mistakes that remove vars from the stack. They may worry too much, and spend effort to get vars on the stack that is not required.
Java is great, and the JVM has clearly been greatly improved over the years, don't get me wrong. However, its still not the best language for every memory use model, never will be, and that's the way it should be.
Everything you buy already has a UPC on it. If you pay with a credit card, all the information about all the products you buy as scanned by the cash register is already associated with you in a database.
The article's main point is that Java's memory allocation is faster than malloc, and it's garbage collection is better than cumulative free's.
However, thats not the problem. All memory in a Java program has to be allocated dynamically. Other languages offer static memory alternatives. Static memory use will be more efficient in many cases.
The my language is faster than yours argument is inherently stupid. There is no "best" language. You need to use the right tool for the right job.
From my (albeit quick) reading of the paper, it seems like they are saying that 165 messages a second could overwhelm the control channels of a Manhattan sized cell network, blocking call setup.
However, they are basing this on 1500 bytes per text message packet. That seems way too large for most SMS messages. Wouldn't the easy solution be just to block messages over a couple of hundred characters?
A) If the keycards have the room # encoded on them, they shouldn't. It is a risk.
B) However, crime = means + motive + opportunity. The value of a laptop is motive enough. A room # on a lost key would be means enough. But the likelihood of a thief, ready with a card reader, where and when you accidentally loose your card is low. Much easier for a thief to go to the front desk and say they are staying in room #3074 and need an extra key.
I don't see how this story could be BS. It posted on the internet. Thats gotta make it true.
Stop using common sense. Use your imagination a bit more. I heard that in addition to CC numbers, some hotels added SSNs and full credit reports to the mag strips. Some chains where even taking customers pictures from cameras behind the mirrors in the guest's bathrooms, and adding those to their cards.
Seems like Iraq is now, and has been for some time, a De jure sovereign nation.
However its not quite a de facto sovereign nation.
Note: I'm not commenting on the legitimacy of the merging of the three provinces of Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra to form modern Iraq by the British in 1918. That is a thread of its own, and not a subject I'm too familiar with.
Their website also says: "Section 104 of the ART Act directs that preregistration procedures must be in place by October 24, 2005".
They don't have too much time to develop a system. It seems that they are designing the system to work with all browsers, but only testing on IE.
This being the case, I'm surprised they bother to open this issue up for public comment at all.
I have a problem with making a system payed for by taxpayers like me, that I am required to use to protect my legal rights, tied to a specific company's technology. of course I don't publish material protected by this system, and so would never have to use it personally, but that's beside the point.
However, I have no problem with an agency up against a tight deadline, giving it their best try, and ending up with some bugs that need to be worked out later. If they are focusing their testing on IE, as that's still the most popular browser (by far), that seems OK to me.
Slashdot Mirror
But, is anyone saying that they didn't include the original copyright info?
I didn't see that in the f article.
--Barry
Thanks for that explanation. That makes it a lot clearer.
NIKB,
--Barry
I read TFA. Just re-read it looking for where they said that the copyright notice was changed.
Maybe I can't read, but I don't see where they say that.
You have a quote or an URL?
--Barry
IANAL (BIWIW)...
Illegal means that a law has been broken, and implies a violation of criminal law.
AFAIK, violating a license is not illegal. A license is essentially an agreement between two parties (a form of a contract?). Violating the terms is allowed under the law, however there may be specific consequences of violating terms.
Am I being too picky? Anybody out there that IAL want to correct my ignorance?
--Barry
I'm not sure if I understand correctly.
It sounds like DRDOS's latest version is just a bunch of software that can be downloaded free from the internet. A collection of GPL'd or other OSS licensed software. They are trying to charge $45 for what would otherwise be free.
But why would this be illegal? If they have not modified any of the software, how would this even violate the licenses?
I don't get it. Apologies in advance if I'm being dumb.
--Barry
Yup. Heard of Nick Leeson and Barings.
There's one major difference. That story was true.
I'm going to say it again. You can not create a dummy account and withdraw money without funding the account.
If you fund the account, the money needs to come from somewhere.
Why would you believe this story? I would link to the wikipedia story on gullible, but wikipedia (like most encyclopedias and almost all dictionaries) doesn't cover that topic.
--Barry
I think we need to go over some banking basics.
#1 Banks don't print money.
#2 They need to have mone to give out money.
#3 Any account that one could withdraw money from must be funded from somewhere.
It is simply not possible to create a "dummy" account that will give out money without funding it from somewhere.
Of course accounts could be created for testing purposes and funded with real money. However, accounting groups would catch on very quickly if they where being used, and the money not returned. To bypass bank accounting, there would need to be some other fraudulent scheme to steal money from somewhere. At that point, why bother with ATM cards? Why not just transfer the money to another account?
All of your 5 arguments are explaining what was in the article. What I'm saying is that the article was bullshit. I don't believe it. Its not backed up by any evidence.
How about this: why don't you explain why you believe it? Are you particularly gullible?
--Barry
If you are going to arguements like that, make sure you actually present evidence to back them up.
Exactly. That's why I say the article is Bullshit.
I don't care how many clients he was representing. Trying to charge several thousand dollars per hour is clear evidence that something is wrong with his story.
And, BTW, even in the 90s, no bank was that careless about security. The article suggests that banks setup "dummy accounts", and allowed "dummy cards" to withdraw real money from those accounts. Does this sound likely to be true? Are you suggesting that we should not demand that anyone who calls themselves a journalist should have some shred of proof to backup such an unbelievable story? Oh, I forgot, the proof is that some guy said it was so.
Come on. Show a little skeptacism. Don't just believe anything you read.
--Barry
TFA is absurd on its face. Who would believe this story? There are no facts, just faulty logic.
Whats the name of the "rogue bank"?
He was trying to charge £1,750 per hour? Now he's going to court to try to collect fees that where not paid?
Nice try, but advice to the authors of the register dot com: if you are going to make up a story, try to make it sound believable.
--Barry
Now T-Mobile, Verizon, Cingular et al, will have to pay Freedom Wireless fees that they had not expected.
Why are we supposed to be upset by this?
Every month these same phone companies stick as many regulatory or usage fees as they think they can get away with onto our bills.
Now its their turn.
Many will suggest that we will only end up paying for it in the end. However, I would say that currently the phone companies charge what the market will bear. They bleed us for whatever they can. Their costs have little to do with what we pay.
--Barry
OK, I just wasted 15 minutes of time trying to figure out the point of this story.
Whitedust.net's technique of giving the wrong content type to the linked files that contain any real information about this so called exploit causing Firefox to open links in a text viewer was particularly effective.
This may be the largest human DoS attack in recent memory (and slashdot was the vector).
--Barry
OK, I'll take you up on that offer.
If, in the unlikely event that they don't patch this very scary DoS exploit within a week, you can send me $10.
Thanks,
--Barry
Uh, yup. I'm sorry to say I just scanned the article at first. Re-read it later.
I still say its about using the right language for the job. Static memory is a powerful tool, useful to solve many problems.
Some problems that are best solved with static memory use will have solutions best implemented in C.
Even if the JVM optimizes variables to the stack through escape analysis, its a blind optimization. Programmers will not necessarily know if their variables will be on the stack or not. They may make coding mistakes that remove vars from the stack. They may worry too much, and spend effort to get vars on the stack that is not required.
Java is great, and the JVM has clearly been greatly improved over the years, don't get me wrong. However, its still not the best language for every memory use model, never will be, and that's the way it should be.
--Barry
The injunction is just a way to get more money out of RIM.
The only thing NTP wants is money. They don't want market share. They don't market anything.
If RIM fails in all its appeals, they will make some deal to keep selling devices and providing service.
--Barry
Everything you buy already has a UPC on it. If you pay with a credit card, all the information about all the products you buy as scanned by the cash register is already associated with you in a database.
--Barry
The article's main point is that Java's memory allocation is faster than malloc, and it's garbage collection is better than cumulative free's.
However, thats not the problem. All memory in a Java program has to be allocated dynamically. Other languages offer static memory alternatives. Static memory use will be more efficient in many cases.
The my language is faster than yours argument is inherently stupid. There is no "best" language. You need to use the right tool for the right job.
--Barry
OK, I'm a little late in reading this story...
From my (albeit quick) reading of the paper, it seems like they are saying that 165 messages a second could overwhelm the control channels of a Manhattan sized cell network, blocking call setup.
However, they are basing this on 1500 bytes per text message packet. That seems way too large for most SMS messages. Wouldn't the easy solution be just to block messages over a couple of hundred characters?
--Barry
Thats a lot of ifs.
A) If the keycards have the room # encoded on them, they shouldn't. It is a risk.
B) However, crime = means + motive + opportunity. The value of a laptop is motive enough. A room # on a lost key would be means enough. But the likelihood of a thief, ready with a card reader, where and when you accidentally loose your card is low. Much easier for a thief to go to the front desk and say they are staying in room #3074 and need an extra key.
--Barry
I don't see how this story could be BS. It posted on the internet. Thats gotta make it true.
Stop using common sense. Use your imagination a bit more. I heard that in addition to CC numbers, some hotels added SSNs and full credit reports to the mag strips. Some chains where even taking customers pictures from cameras behind the mirrors in the guest's bathrooms, and adding those to their cards.
--Barry
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_nation
Seems like Iraq is now, and has been for some time, a De jure sovereign nation.
However its not quite a de facto sovereign nation.
Note: I'm not commenting on the legitimacy of the merging of the three provinces of Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra to form modern Iraq by the British in 1918. That is a thread of its own, and not a subject I'm too familiar with.
--Barry
Who owns the trademark on GNU OS?
Poker's a great analogy.
The whole point of many online games is fighting other characters and stealing their stuff (I've never played Lineage, I'm just guessing).
Just like the whole point of Poker is lying. Sure, its unethical to lie, but not when your playing Poker, that's what makes it fun.
Sure its unethical to steal someone's stuff, but not when your playing a game where that's the understood point. Even if you use a bot to do it, IMHO.
--Barry
Their website also says: "Section 104 of the ART Act directs that preregistration procedures must be in place by October 24, 2005".
They don't have too much time to develop a system. It seems that they are designing the system to work with all browsers, but only testing on IE.
This being the case, I'm surprised they bother to open this issue up for public comment at all.
I have a problem with making a system payed for by taxpayers like me, that I am required to use to protect my legal rights, tied to a specific company's technology. of course I don't publish material protected by this system, and so would never have to use it personally, but that's beside the point.
However, I have no problem with an agency up against a tight deadline, giving it their best try, and ending up with some bugs that need to be worked out later. If they are focusing their testing on IE, as that's still the most popular browser (by far), that seems OK to me.
Am I wrong?
--Barry
You can buy a prepaid cell phone at your local drug store for $29.99. AFAIK there's no obligation.
It could be a loss leader to sell minutes later, but even so, the phone company isn't taking that big of a loss.
COGS must already be less than $20, so is this really news, or is it TI PR hype?
Its better if home workers send through their companies email servers. Both to allow SPF, and for companies to secure their email.
They can use the standard "submission" port 587 so that ISPs can block port 25.
Their company's email server should support authentication to avoid relaying spam, and it should support TLS to protect company IP.
All very easy to impliment.