licensing the commerce software that manages the game's download and purchase process to other developers, publishers and Internet service providers in exchange for 5 percent of their gross sales
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Good luck selling a glorified web shopping cart and FTP client for 5% of gross; especially one that has been demonstrated to not be able to stand up under load.
You have freedom of speech when using the telephone. You can say pretty much what you want, though you can't force anyone to listen (let's leave out the interpretation by telemarketing scum, please). How is the internet different?
The telephone is recognized as a vital public service and is, as such, regulated by the government, assuring universal access. The Internet is not to that point (yet), and as such ISPs have full right to hold their users to a higher standard.
Also note that even though the telephone service is a universal utility and as such is as close to Constitutionally protected as any offering by private companies can be, there are still limits to acceptable usage of your telephone. You can be thrown in jail for obscene and/or harassing phone calls. The phone company can disconnect you from their switch for hooking something up that's damaging to the phone network. Hell, they can even cut you off for simply not paying your bill.
Similarly, ISPs can (and should) cut you off if you don't excercise due diligence and as a result, become detrimental to the health of the network as a whole. There's nothing in the Constitution that says that the tragedy of the commons has to be allowed to happen.
am I correct to interpret your response as meaning that you would gladly continue working for a company that you knew to be producing chemical weapons, selling them to terrorists, and not disposing of the byproducts properly, provided that you knew that none of these chemicals would be used to harm you or your family? After all, quitting in this job market would be "self-destructive"...
You're partially correct. I wouldn't "gladly" continue working for them, but I'd have a responsibility to my family to continue working despite my moral objections over it, until I was able to find a new job -- however long that takes.
I'm assuming you don't, so if you were to have a wife and children that depend on your income for food and survival, you'd think twice about making a stand based on ethics -- especially when those ethics are as trivial as "someone wants to charge money for an OS I use as a hobby".
I think someone should have to take a course in the Constitution before making stupid fucking statements that would limit people's rights.
That's right because connecting to a privately owned ISP to send data packets over a network operated mainly by privately owned providers is a Constitutionally protected "right".
I think someone should have to take a course in the Constitution, but I'm probably not thinking of the same person you're thinking of.
In my view, anyone who decides to spend money on a PC running Windows deserves what they get. It's not like it's some big secret that Windows is full of bugs, hard to use and unreliable--just read any PC magazine, or look at the shelves full of books like "1001 Windows Annoyances" and "How To Get Out Of DLL Hell".
It's not like it's some big secret that the shelves full of books about problems with Windows are because most people use Windows. Linux wouldn't fare any better as the mass market operating system (in fact, have you ever had to deal with conflicts between versions of libraries on Linux? Welcome back to DLL hell!). I use Windows exclusively as my main desktop OS, I have for years. I've never been infected by a worm or virus.
The problem is not [insert your favorite OS to demonize here]; it's the stupid users.
let alone getting fined for deficiencies in software/you/ didn't write
You're not getting fined for the deficiencies in the software you didn't write. You're getting fined for the negligence in ensuring that software is up to date, and for the costs of colateral damage as a result of your negligence.
Now, if you can show due diligence in trying to prevent it, such as if a worm spread before a patch was available, and/or before your virus scanner had protection against it, then perhaps the fine would be best waived.
But think of how many more linux servers are out there than windows servers.......
The ratio of Windows workstations to Linux workstations has never stopped us from divining that the reason there are more viruses for Windows because of its ubiquity, not necessarily its security record.
Is anybody else reminded of the way Microsoft "outcompeted" Netscape's much better browser software? First it started giving away its browser for free, and when that wasn't enough to switch people away from Netscape's (then better) browser, it went on from there.
No, see, we like Google, so we turn a blind eye to their anti-competitive practices.
Today is a bad day to be a competitior in the blog software arena.
Ethics that only come into play when it's convenient to use them aren't really ethics.
We're not talking about convenience here, we're talking about a situation where invoking your ethics in such a way is utterly self-destructive. The IT job market is absolute shit right now, and I don't see any companies out there who are offering to take in any and all SCO refugees. (Speaking of which, what of their ethics? -- How can you work for a company that's not doing everything it can to help destroy SCO? You should quit immediately and take a stand!)
Besides, you could do much more damage to SCO by staying on their payroll and simply underperforming. Poor employees are worse than no employees.
Want to be informative CK? I am genuinely interested : what is the penalty for violating the GPL agreement? I'm just asking because I am curious.
Legally? Since the GPL agreement is backed by copyright, willful violations of it can be brought under the DMCA. Under section 1323 of Chapter 13, Title V of US Code, "not exceeding $50,000 or $1 per copy, whichever is greater".
No, actually they are not the same. If someone stands outside your window and takes a picture of the painting you have in your living room they have not stolen from you.
So if Linksys takes the Linux kernel, makes modifications, uses it as firmware in their routers and doesn't provide the source..... then it's ok!
Hell, in that case they're not even depriving the authors of potential income!
Repeat after me: Copyright infringment != Stealing
Repeat after me: They are the same.
In both cases you're taking something from someone without paying for it. It doesn't matter that in the case of copyright infringment you're not depriving them of the ability to give it to other people; the fact remains that you're not supposed to have it without having paid for it.
Besides, the hairsplitting fact that "Copyright infringement != Stealing" doesn't make me any more likely to send the EFF money to support it. A crime is a crime. If you don't like it, change the law.
I would suggest making the motive of the hacker one of the main considerations of law.
Someone compromised your system containing sensitive data that you are possibly under contracts to which you could end up paying thousands or millions of dollars if the data is illicitly modified, or distributed; and you're going to just trust that the guy who shows up and says that he was in there has sterling ethics?
An intrusion is an intrusion, plain and system. Compromised systems need to be taken offline, thoroughly examined, rebuilt, and retested. The cost to a company to do all this does not lessen based on the motive of the hacker; and it's easy to feign good intentions in order to lessen your sentence when you've already been in the system, and got a copy of the data you wanted.
The only one that *truely* affects Debian here is the kernel bugs. Everything else is software and shouldn't be considered that.
The MS bugs pertain to the MS release software that directly affect the OS and the Office suite. And I would only really consider the VBA and the OS security bulletins here as being that important as that is what affects Windows. So that's 2.
Wait, so it's fair to count a bug in a seperately installed, non-required application (Office) as a bug in Windows, but it's not fair to count a bug in a utility packaged with the distribution, and even some that are damn near required to have a functional system (perl), as a bug in Debian?
Would you like some tea with your double standards?
How do you go 20 years typing without ever learning anything more than two finger typing?! I've never had any formal typing classes, training, or anything of the sort and I type over 100 WPM. My fingers know the keyboard so well I don't even need to have a keyboard UNDER my fingers to know where they should be moving to type out things.
This is double-speak. He is trying to imply that people's failure to auto-update is somehow related to Windows' risk of virus/worm attack. But they are in no way related. System architecture that fails to maintain security is a design flaw, not a maintenance problem. Gates and Microsoft are attempting to blame shift their responsibilities to their product's users. Pretty much anyone would recognize this in a tort law suit, although I expect very few to make this claim in court simply because of Microsoft's size and reputation.
So... how many Linux distributions come with auto-updating without a chance for a user to deny it enabled by default?
Then you are dickheads, plain and simple. The HTTP 1.1 RFC explicitly states that users should be able to turn off the Referer header. There are plenty of reasons for doing so.
It's not as if he's taking that ability away from users, so why's he the dickhead?
They also said they wouldn't sue Linux end users, then changed their tune later.
See, if you say one thing then say the other instead of just saying what you mean first, that means you get to release two press releases and boost your stock twice!
Perhaps this has been done before, and I'm sure there are flaws, but I am tierd of hearing about how big a problem this is, without hearing any good ideas about fixing it. Any other thoughts?
There are plenty of good ideas -- the problem is that you need a massive amount of support to get something off the ground because the whole concept revolves around the mail servers cooperating on a new method.
The IETF is probably the only group with enough ears listening to them to be able to pull it off.
My Linux/Solaris machines still get hit daily with code red, a 2 year old exploit.
That's not a Windows problem, that's a user problem. My Windows box gets hit daily with Code Red attempts and none of them get through.
Windows is just as good a solution as Linux, as long as it's properly set up and administered. Linux is just as vulnerable as Windows given an incompetent administrator and "set-it-and-forget-it" policies.
As Linux picks up more mainstream acceptance every day, it's only a matter of time before the next security hole with one of its popular software packages turns into the next Code Red.
Like most users of Linux, we are at the point where we are not going to stand still while SCO trashes the entire Free Software movement. I have already authorized a payment of $10,000 to the FSF, and a payment of $5,000 to the Red Hat Open Source Now fund.
When is someone in the states with a business interest in Linux going to file a lawsuit asking for a preliminary injunction preventing SCO from making claims that defame Linux and Linux vendors without proof? IBM's not going to be in court with SCO for a few years, but a preliminary injunction could be achieved in a much shorter period and would stop SCO's pump-and-dump scam.
Slashdot Mirror
licensing the commerce software that manages the game's download and purchase process to other developers, publishers and Internet service providers in exchange for 5 percent of their gross sales
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Good luck selling a glorified web shopping cart and FTP client for 5% of gross; especially one that has been demonstrated to not be able to stand up under load.
You have freedom of speech when using the telephone. You can say pretty much what you want, though you can't force anyone to listen (let's leave out the interpretation by telemarketing scum, please). How is the internet different?
The telephone is recognized as a vital public service and is, as such, regulated by the government, assuring universal access. The Internet is not to that point (yet), and as such ISPs have full right to hold their users to a higher standard.
Also note that even though the telephone service is a universal utility and as such is as close to Constitutionally protected as any offering by private companies can be, there are still limits to acceptable usage of your telephone. You can be thrown in jail for obscene and/or harassing phone calls. The phone company can disconnect you from their switch for hooking something up that's damaging to the phone network. Hell, they can even cut you off for simply not paying your bill.
Similarly, ISPs can (and should) cut you off if you don't excercise due diligence and as a result, become detrimental to the health of the network as a whole. There's nothing in the Constitution that says that the tragedy of the commons has to be allowed to happen.
am I correct to interpret your response as meaning that you would gladly continue working for a company that you knew to be producing chemical weapons, selling them to terrorists, and not disposing of the byproducts properly, provided that you knew that none of these chemicals would be used to harm you or your family? After all, quitting in this job market would be "self-destructive"...
You're partially correct. I wouldn't "gladly" continue working for them, but I'd have a responsibility to my family to continue working despite my moral objections over it, until I was able to find a new job -- however long that takes.
I'm assuming you don't, so if you were to have a wife and children that depend on your income for food and survival, you'd think twice about making a stand based on ethics -- especially when those ethics are as trivial as "someone wants to charge money for an OS I use as a hobby".
I think someone should have to take a course in the Constitution before making stupid fucking statements that would limit people's rights.
That's right because connecting to a privately owned ISP to send data packets over a network operated mainly by privately owned providers is a Constitutionally protected "right".
I think someone should have to take a course in the Constitution, but I'm probably not thinking of the same person you're thinking of.
In my view, anyone who decides to spend money on a PC running Windows deserves what they get. It's not like it's some big secret that Windows is full of bugs, hard to use and unreliable--just read any PC magazine, or look at the shelves full of books like "1001 Windows Annoyances" and "How To Get Out Of DLL Hell".
It's not like it's some big secret that the shelves full of books about problems with Windows are because most people use Windows. Linux wouldn't fare any better as the mass market operating system (in fact, have you ever had to deal with conflicts between versions of libraries on Linux? Welcome back to DLL hell!). I use Windows exclusively as my main desktop OS, I have for years. I've never been infected by a worm or virus.
The problem is not [insert your favorite OS to demonize here]; it's the stupid users.
let alone getting fined for deficiencies in software /you/ didn't write
You're not getting fined for the deficiencies in the software you didn't write. You're getting fined for the negligence in ensuring that software is up to date, and for the costs of colateral damage as a result of your negligence.
Now, if you can show due diligence in trying to prevent it, such as if a worm spread before a patch was available, and/or before your virus scanner had protection against it, then perhaps the fine would be best waived.
But think of how many more linux servers are out there than windows servers.......
The ratio of Windows workstations to Linux workstations has never stopped us from divining that the reason there are more viruses for Windows because of its ubiquity, not necessarily its security record.
Why should this be any different?
Is anybody else reminded of the way Microsoft "outcompeted" Netscape's much better browser software? First it started giving away its browser for free, and when that wasn't enough to switch people away from Netscape's (then better) browser, it went on from there.
No, see, we like Google, so we turn a blind eye to their anti-competitive practices.
Today is a bad day to be a competitior in the blog software arena.
Ethics that only come into play when it's convenient to use them aren't really ethics.
We're not talking about convenience here, we're talking about a situation where invoking your ethics in such a way is utterly self-destructive. The IT job market is absolute shit right now, and I don't see any companies out there who are offering to take in any and all SCO refugees. (Speaking of which, what of their ethics? -- How can you work for a company that's not doing everything it can to help destroy SCO? You should quit immediately and take a stand!)
Besides, you could do much more damage to SCO by staying on their payroll and simply underperforming. Poor employees are worse than no employees.
Want to be informative CK? I am genuinely interested : what is the penalty for violating the GPL agreement? I'm just asking because I am curious.
Legally? Since the GPL agreement is backed by copyright, willful violations of it can be brought under the DMCA. Under section 1323 of Chapter 13, Title V of US Code, "not exceeding $50,000 or $1 per copy, whichever is greater".
No, actually they are not the same. If someone stands outside your window and takes a picture of the painting you have in your living room they have not stolen from you.
..... then it's ok!
So if Linksys takes the Linux kernel, makes modifications, uses it as firmware in their routers and doesn't provide the source
Hell, in that case they're not even depriving the authors of potential income!
Repeat after me: Copyright infringment != Stealing
Repeat after me: They are the same.
In both cases you're taking something from someone without paying for it. It doesn't matter that in the case of copyright infringment you're not depriving them of the ability to give it to other people; the fact remains that you're not supposed to have it without having paid for it.
Besides, the hairsplitting fact that "Copyright infringement != Stealing" doesn't make me any more likely to send the EFF money to support it. A crime is a crime. If you don't like it, change the law.
I would suggest making the motive of the hacker one of the main considerations of law.
Someone compromised your system containing sensitive data that you are possibly under contracts to which you could end up paying thousands or millions of dollars if the data is illicitly modified, or distributed; and you're going to just trust that the guy who shows up and says that he was in there has sterling ethics?
An intrusion is an intrusion, plain and system. Compromised systems need to be taken offline, thoroughly examined, rebuilt, and retested. The cost to a company to do all this does not lessen based on the motive of the hacker; and it's easy to feign good intentions in order to lessen your sentence when you've already been in the system, and got a copy of the data you wanted.
No. I don't. I block bounces.
Ah, the communications equivalent of Plug-and-Pray.
1. Port and compile a version of your program for every cell phone in existence (quite a few platforms).
2. Write a Java MIDP application that works on all MIDP enabled phones.
3. Profit!
They were probably upset that, indeed, sorry Mario, the savior was in another castle.
The only one that *truely* affects Debian here is the kernel bugs. Everything else is software and shouldn't be considered that.
The MS bugs pertain to the MS release software that directly affect the OS and the Office suite. And I would only really consider the VBA and the OS security bulletins here as being that important as that is what affects Windows. So that's 2.
Wait, so it's fair to count a bug in a seperately installed, non-required application (Office) as a bug in Windows, but it's not fair to count a bug in a utility packaged with the distribution, and even some that are damn near required to have a functional system (perl), as a bug in Debian?
Would you like some tea with your double standards?
How do you go 20 years typing without ever learning anything more than two finger typing?! I've never had any formal typing classes, training, or anything of the sort and I type over 100 WPM. My fingers know the keyboard so well I don't even need to have a keyboard UNDER my fingers to know where they should be moving to type out things.
Some people would not know real IP art if it hit them in the face.
I may not know art, but I know what I like!
This is double-speak. He is trying to imply that people's failure to auto-update is somehow related to Windows' risk of virus/worm attack. But they are in no way related. System architecture that fails to maintain security is a design flaw, not a maintenance problem. Gates and Microsoft are attempting to blame shift their responsibilities to their product's users. Pretty much anyone would recognize this in a tort law suit, although I expect very few to make this claim in court simply because of Microsoft's size and reputation.
So... how many Linux distributions come with auto-updating without a chance for a user to deny it enabled by default?
Then you are dickheads, plain and simple. The HTTP 1.1 RFC explicitly states that users should be able to turn off the Referer header. There are plenty of reasons for doing so.
It's not as if he's taking that ability away from users, so why's he the dickhead?
They also said they wouldn't sue Linux end users, then changed their tune later.
See, if you say one thing then say the other instead of just saying what you mean first, that means you get to release two press releases and boost your stock twice!
Perhaps this has been done before, and I'm sure there are flaws, but I am tierd of hearing about how big a problem this is, without hearing any good ideas about fixing it. Any other thoughts?
There are plenty of good ideas -- the problem is that you need a massive amount of support to get something off the ground because the whole concept revolves around the mail servers cooperating on a new method.
The IETF is probably the only group with enough ears listening to them to be able to pull it off.
My Linux/Solaris machines still get hit daily with code red, a 2 year old exploit.
That's not a Windows problem, that's a user problem. My Windows box gets hit daily with Code Red attempts and none of them get through.
Windows is just as good a solution as Linux, as long as it's properly set up and administered. Linux is just as vulnerable as Windows given an incompetent administrator and "set-it-and-forget-it" policies.
As Linux picks up more mainstream acceptance every day, it's only a matter of time before the next security hole with one of its popular software packages turns into the next Code Red.
Like most users of Linux, we are at the point where we are not going to stand still while SCO trashes the entire Free Software movement. I have already authorized a payment of $10,000 to the FSF, and a payment of $5,000 to the Red Hat Open Source Now fund.
When is someone in the states with a business interest in Linux going to file a lawsuit asking for a preliminary injunction preventing SCO from making claims that defame Linux and Linux vendors without proof? IBM's not going to be in court with SCO for a few years, but a preliminary injunction could be achieved in a much shorter period and would stop SCO's pump-and-dump scam.