> I don't understand what your disagreement with the Newton librarians is.
As I explain in another post, I had read a different account passed around librarian mailing lists over the weekend. Much higher moonbat spin on the version I read. But I still question why they even brought the press in on it at all. If they hit me with a request I'll need the warrant to comply with State Law (which I do consider to be a good law btw.) but I'm more than willing to do my bit to stop some asshat that thinks it is funny to email in a bomb threat. In a nutshell, I believe I'm basically on the same side as the law. I get the feeling those librarians in MA, even after the warrant were grudgingly turning the stuff over only because they had no other option and then running to the nearest reporter to whinge about who horrible the whole ordeal was. Good grief, you would think the FBI showed up with rubber hoses or something.
Put aside your hatred of Bush and judge on the merits. No, I don't agree with the position but it is a defendable position ethically. And there is a lot there I can agree with.
A ban on the "buying, selling or patenting human embryos" should be fairly universally acceptable, especially the bit about no patenting here amongst the slashdot hordes.
A ban on "creating human-animal hybrids" is more debatable but we damn sure better get a line drawn somewhere and we better do it fast or science is going to race out ahead of ethics and make one hell of a mess for someone to clean up.
And that leaves his call for a ban on "human cloning in all its forms, creating or implanting embryos for experiments" which is where most of slashdot parts company. Fine, lets have it out in Congress, again so some boundraries can be drawn up. And you liberals had better actually pass a bill this time because if you leave it to the courts like you did with abortion you will really get burned because of the shift in the Supremes. So lets actually debate it and come to a political decision we might all be able to live with this time.
Personally I'd like to see medical science be able to use some super advanced cloning tech to make me new spare parts from my own DNA so I wouldn't take immune supression drugs for life if I ever needed a transplant. But I don't really like the thought of creating and killing millions/billions of things that are/maybe/might be/could have been/sorta/etc humans to get there. I suspect a lot of folks are caught in that halfway position.
> Librarians are not a "core moonbat constituency".
Riight. Listen buddy, I was there in Texas and saw what I saw. Think about what I said. In Texas, the very heart of Bush Country, the vast majority of librarians were to the left of the Democratic party. I was there at ALA's national convention in 2000 and saw the blatent politicization of the ALA bookstore. I know librarians. I happen to be fortunate enough to work in a library that has a diverse collection of people that also includes Republicans and Libertarians but am under no delusions as to what the average looks like.
Like leftists in general, they are no more devoted to free inquiry than the Taliban.
> If you read TFA you'd see the library staff did pretty much what you said they should.
No I didn't read That FA, and I guess I should have since it had more information than the link I'd followed over the weekend from an email passed around librarian circles. So they did pretty much DO the right thing, but afterwards they still used the opportunity (or the press used them, could be either way) to launch a standard issue moonbat 'they wanna trample our civil liberties' rant.
> NOBODY - President and FBI included - has the right to do whatever they want, whenever they want.
They don't. But hot pursuit carries a different standard. And remember they 4th doesn't say "Police, Intelligence agancies, hell NOBODY can do anything without a warrant." It says citizens are protected against "unreasonable search and seizure".
And my reaction would be different in different circumstances. For example if they FOUND a bomb and were trying to get the guy to learn how to disarm it before it went FOOM! I'd probably compromise with "Give me your word as an Agent of the FBI to have me a warrant before end of business today and I'll give up a name now; and we will all just fudge the timeline if any moonbats start poking around."
The key thing is to realize the law is intended to codify rules intended to protect us in general, it isn't a suicide pact. There are times when you have to do what is right even if it isn't, strictly speaking, perfectly legal. The agents are chasing a potential bomber, the librarians have legal obligation. But you don't have to see it as good vs. evil, the trick is in realizing that and working out a compromise where the public good is served AND the core ideals of our civilization are kept instead of seeing it as an oportunity to grandstand before the TV cameras.
Listen up folks, this hate of our own country is going to end up getting a lot of people killed just to stroke some moonbat egos.
The FBI in this case was tracking a bomb threat. Ok, THIS time it turned out to only be a crank emailing in a threat. But next time it might be for real. And although the article doesn't make it clear I suspect that the building was probably still being swept when the agents descended on that library. Meaning it was a realtime threat. And notice that they had no problem getting a warrant, they simply wanted to get on the trail of the crackpot before it got too cold.
The problem is that librarians, as a group, are a core moonbat constituitency group. I'm serious, I work in the library world. I attended the Texas Library Association's convention in 2004. Ralph Nader was their keynote speaker and gave a straight up campaign speech to standing ovations. And since this incident happened in MA they happened to have a moonbat for a mayor. So they all felt real good, sticking it to the 'man', those minions of the hated Bushitler. And nothing went boom so they think they got away with it along with almost everyone here on slashdot, DailyKos, DU, etc. But to quote Lt. Cmdr Ivanova, "No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a Boom tomorrow."
Since I work IT in a library I have given a fair amount of thought to how I'd handle a request of that sort. My current plan would be to reason with the agent in charge thus:
1. I'm bound by State Law to protect all patron records. So barring a warrant you can't have them without a fight.
2. You will not use force against a librarian so don't try to bluff.
3. This site is a proper UNIX installation. (Linux actually but hey, field agents usually aren't THAT hip.) If you know what that means you want my help because the workstation alone isn't going to be much help to you.
4. No, you may not seize our whole server rack, even WITH a warrant. We would at least force that to a hearing and you don't have time for that.
5. I will help you, provided you are willing to meet my very reasonable needs. Those are that we keep our servers so that we may remain open and that we cover our legal obligations.
6. So here is how it is going to go. One of you guys stays here to watch me, one goes and gets a warrant for "any and all information in our possession regarding the patron at X IP address at Y time" and I start pulling logs off to CD-R. The second the fax machine spits out a copy of the warrant I will not only hand over the CD, I'll hand you a printout with the guy's name and last known address already extracted out for ya along with a scan of his original application for a library card with a signature on it. That is a hell of lot more than you could get by seizing the workstation now and faster than you could have obtained it without my help.
It is possible to obey the law AND help law enforcement. But it was pretty obvious those idiots in MA were enjoying preening for the press about how they were so feeling oppressed but stood up to great evil. Bullshit.
> It can be edited by everybody. Including the "Congressional staffers". Why is it "censorship"?
Because THEY weren't supposed to edit it, it was for US to bloviate. Yea right. The typical slashdot/DailyKos types think they own the Internet and
The Internet is changing a lot but don't expect the old power structure to simply vanish overnite. If Wikipedia is going to stick to their claim of being open they have to expect people to remove the more nasty bits from their entries.
> Secure by design should be the default, and if someone fessed up and said, "Hey, we fucked up last time, but we got > it right this time", and could be trusted, then it wouldn't be extortionist of them to try this.
Except they always say that, and mean it. Six months to a year from a new release Microsoft and their media mouthpieces all admit the current version is a turd, but this upcoming version will finally be THE ONE. And everyone lets them get away with it, even when they contradict themselves.
DOS is shit, you need this new OS/2 thing we are doing with IBM.
Whups, no DOS is OK, so long as it is the base for this New & Improved Windows 3.0 we are pushing instead, because we decided IBM was a bunch of rat bastards.
Nah, we were right he first time, DOS is an old buggy mess and you should buy Windows NT.
Oh, you guys ain't going for that huh. Well then, what you need is this NEW 32bit Windows 95 that is more compatible with (hell it still squats on) DOS so your existing codebase will still work.
Ok, Windows 95 sucked pretty hard, even after several service releases. But if you will just trust us and buy this new Windows 98 it will fix all of the problems you are having.
Alright, shaddup already, 98 also was a roach motel, so here (at a very attractive upgrade price) is Second Edition to finally give you computing nirvana.
You didn't think we were going to throw away years of work on NT now did ya? So follow me on this, business should ditch that nasty old Win98 and go to this new shiny Windows 2000, which is that NT stuff you hated but now with the spiffy Windows 98 look. Everyone else should buy Windows ME, which is Windows 98SE minux some stuff to start driving developers to a win32 only world.
Well ME really blew goats didn't it, must be the worst release yet. Bleh! So everybody step right up and buy XP, it sucks far less than ME. What? You business types actually LIKE Win2K. Well that will teache us to forget to add in some fatal flaws to a release. Well here is Software Assurance to force you to upgrade. (We hope.)
And now we come to today. XP is a security nightmare, start saving up to buy a new Vista powered PC.
> It's not just DRM, think about stuff like CD keys.
Not. How 'bout I point you to the complete source tree for GPG and then invite you to use that knowledge to crack my secret key. Won't work now will it? Newsflash: Key generators exist for almost every game that uses one. All of them work great to allow single player action but don't work for network play. I'll leave why as an exercise for the student.
> How do you enforce licensing when someone has your code?
What is this fetish with DRM? We got along just fine without it. Mass unauthorized duplication has been a problem since music was stamped on vinyl yet the world didn't collapse. People duplicated VHS tapes, audio cassettes and CDs. Games have been copy protected since the 1970's and cracked as fast they shipped. Yet those industries grew and prospered. Microsoft grew and prospered for twenty years with zero copy protection on their products.
> How do you protect against cheating in real money competitions (online poker) ?
You don't be an idiot and assume you can ever trust a system outside your direct control. Period, full stop. In your example this means the client isn't told anything that it doesn't need to paint the user's screen. Then, and only then, can you KNOW the user isn't cheating. And in that scenario it matters not whether the user has the complete documented source to the client and even the server. Truly secure systems are fully documented and open, so that they can be provably secure.
Security is something designed in from the start, not bolted on after the breaches start making the newspapers. Why do you think casinos deal every video poker card and spin every slot machine wheel from a single secure location? Because even though those machines out on the floor are as secure as they can make them, have secure seals to prevent physical tampering, etc. the only way to be sure is to keep the real stuff in a place with both software and physical security on it that isn't practical on the gambling floor. And while they don't publish their source code I'd bet good money they assume the 'bad guys' have found a way to read it and taken that into account by designing a system that will remain secure if it's design is known.
> Gigabyte have had this for a few years now. They call it Dual Bios.
Yes, and they got a patent on it so don't expect anyone else to do it until long after the "PC BIOS" has gone the way of the 5 1/4" Floppy.
It is one hell of a cool feature though. A backup BIOS that can only be written to from the pre POST environment. Of course if the bad guys get the primary they can probably have their way with the backup copy. Unless of course you pick the option in the BIOS to disallow any BIOS writes after the system POSTs and do all updates from a floppy from the DualBIOS screen.
> Are you buy chance a Linux user? It sounds like you are because your response sounds > a bit biased.
Yes I am. And about 90% RMS Pure at that. I'd be 100% but I will use proprietary software if nothing else is available. However the issue I raise is unrelated to Free Software vs Proprietary Software.
> If you want something as complex and necessary as an OS to be freely available...
See, here is where you make clear you are misunderstanding my point. A change to copyright law as I suggest would in no way change the Free/Closed status of a single program. Requiring Microsoft to publish their source code as a condition of granting a Copyright would still leave every one of their products proprietary software requiring per processor or per user licensing. The difference is that they could no longer hide interfaces to obstruct interoperability. They could no longer withdraw support for older versions secure in the knowledge that nobody else could pick up where they left off.
> They created it, they spent their money developing it. If you don't like that a company > doesn't release their source code, well then don't use their product.
Reread what I wrote. "if not by law then by custom" is the part where people who agree with me vote with their wallet. But Copyright is NOT a property right but an artificial scarcity created by the government with certain ends in mind. So proposing a change in copyright law to more closely achieve those intended ends and balance the legitimate needs of the public at large to be protected against orphaned software is totally legit.
What I meant with my exception for games is that for me personally, it isn't an issue with games. If I can't play a game in ten years I am bummed but not screwed.
> You're right in that this should include game software too. I mean, the code is already > copyrighted, yes?
In a perfect world you are probably correct. This is reality. Take for example Id Software, for most of the 1990's they were innovating constantly. They licensed their engines for more money than their own actual multi platinum games brought in. Mostly because other developers could not, at least in a competitive timeframe, understand Carmack's wizard level tricks. So I can see why they might want to keep it secret awhile. Of course, Id Software being the totally hoopy froods they are, also understood the value in releasing their source when the next game engine obsoleted it.
But in the end, game software is different. If I couldn't play Doom I anymore it would be a major bummer and a loss to history. If I can't access documents, financial records, photos, etc. from a decade ago it is a totally different order of problem. And in the end, only posession of the Source safeguards against that sort of problem.
Yes it does, and would make them exactly as much if published, and would make them more published except for the side effect of weakening their illegally abused monopoly.
I firmly believe ALL non-game software should be required if not by law then by custom to include the complete source code. Even if not released under a Free/Open License the source should still be required. I'd go so far as to say Copyright law needs to be amended to only allow a Copyright on the Source code and the binaries to be protected only as a derived work. Software gets abandoned by the vendor far too often for any sane person to trust a binary only product for anything important.
> In comparison, todays "malware" seems rather tame or even benign.
No, today's malware got serious. Used to be it was kids proving how 133t they were, now it is professionals implanting spyware and rootkits to make spam zombies, both of which are highly profitable. Destroying a machine earns you zero dollars, owning it makes the cash register go DING!
What scares the shit outta me, and should scare everyone else with a clue, is the thought of terrorism via the Internet. Imagine the damage a well heeled outfit could inflict.
Follow me here for a minute. Source code for Windows is out there. Obviously source for Linux, BSD and now Solaris is out there. It isn't just motherboards that have a flash chip. Almost every DVD/CD drive has one and many hard drives even load firmware from flash. Now lets imagine a well funded effort to locate a day zero exploit in two or more popular platforms. And remember, Windows and PC Linux aren't the only ones. Add in Linksys access points, Cisco IOS, etc. While one team works the exploit problem others work on a propagation engine that won't suffer from the crippling flaws seen in previous attempts and a deadly payload. Plant a kaboom in the BIOS instantly, so if the machine is rebooted it, along with the drives, goes bye bye. Then attempt to infect other hosts for 24-48 hours before triggering a reboot into death.
If done correctly it could destroy outright 10-25% (or even more) of the client's on the Internet and a good percentage of the servers, access points and other infrastructure. This alone would probably be enough to tank the world economy, but the real effect would be a widespread FEAR of reconnecting to the Internet. Kiss Google, Amazon, Dell, etc goodbye if that happened.
> So, basically you're saying you prefer to be around people more ignorant than yourself so > you can feel superior, rather than having to deal with people who are educationally and > intellectually your equal or superior.
Another 'enlightened tolerant progressive' opens his piehole and confirms everything I got modded flamebait for saying. You assume anyone who doesn't believe in the Theory of Evolution has to be an ignorant savage. Guess you don't get out of your ivory tower much, otherwise you would know better. A lot of intelligent, educated people also happen to be religious. I wonder sometimes how they reconcile the two sometimes, but they do. The world is a lot more interesting when everyone you know doesn't march in lockstep philosophicaly, politically, etc. I even got along fairly well for a few years with what I'd have to classify as a 'leftwing moonbat.'
Diversity; you might try it yourself sometime instead of just telling other people to do it. Or are you a typical leftie who defines "Compromise" as agreeing with you, "Tolerance" as approving of any and every moral perversion, with the exception of Evil Christians, "Inclusive" as every race, gender and political philosophy is equally great with the exception of white males and capitalism, etc.
> The entire reason that the whole ID movement exists is so the fundies can shove Genesis > into science classrooms.
Agreed. But the point was, sure the fundies in Kansas want to teach their kids that way but they aren't hellbent on forcing it on everyone in the rest of the country. The heathen left on the other hand love to impose their most crackpot ideas as 'revealed truth' nationwide. And anyone who disagrees with them is unworthy to debate, instantly dismissed as an ignorant savage, bigot or some other convienent label.
Also arrogant, bigoted, intolerant and a host of other similar words. The submitter exemplifies everything wrong with the godless left in exactly the same way Pat Robertson represents the worst aspects of the religious right.
Personally I'm an agnostic, but if I were going to be marooned on a desert island with a dozen of either faction I'd probably take the fundies. Equally misguided views on philosophy but generally better people to be around since the leftists are generally nasty and rather unstable, having been educated beyond their native intelligence.
One of the biggest problems with the heathen left being they tend to be more likely to violate what I call Freedom 0: The Right to be Wrong. Sure the fundies are probably wrong on Evolution. But I'm willing to let them BE wrong until such a time as they can be convinced otherwise. The average leftie wants nothing to do with that notion, they are the Chosen, the Elite; Thus they are Right and hellbent on imposing their Correct views on the "ignorant" by force. The fundies in Kansas don't want their kids taught Evolution, but they aren't campaigning to force Boston's public schools to teach from the Book of Genesis.
> Actually, unless they recently changed it - California property taxes are based on the purchase price of the house.
Don't know about CA, they are the crazy ones after all, but most places tend to behave as you describe in the typical case, only changing a property value when it changes hands. But you can challenge and get a new apraisal if the value has changed greatly. And of course the opposite is also true, the government can also come and reappraise your property if they think the value has gone up enough to justify the bother.
> The lesson I learned in 1999/2000 is that EVERYONE knew that the market could not sustain those levels. But people put > their money in anyway, because they thought it would go up for a while longer, and they wanted to gamble on getting > out on time.
And this is exactly why Google is dipping now. Nothing at all to do with the Justice Dept. The moron writing that Reuters story was looking for something to sex up the story a bit and Slashdot bit hook line and sinker. Bottom line, the stock markets in general did a major dip and Google felt it harder than most because it is such a spectulative stock. It's current market value is so imaginary it recalls the heady days of 2000 right before the bubble burst. Since most investors remember losing an assload when that bubble burst they are a little more jittery this time. But not enough since they are still in Google so heavily.
Look, I like Google. If I could have gotten in on the IPO I'd have been there. But by the time mortals were allowed in the price was insane and heading higher. It is priced like it was already as big as Microsoft and poised to grow. Sorry, Microsoft isn't even growing anymore. No company the size of Micorosoft can, not even Google.
> Most bottomed out at about 1/10th their peak value. Most have not gone back up - most have been absolutely flat > under George W Bush's "growth and jobs inspiring tax cuts" - for 5 years.
Bush has little to do with it. At 1/10 their peak value they are pretty much priced fairly, which is why they aren't going back up all that fast, in fact they now rise based on expected growth. Imagine that. Sorry, Amazon's couple of warehouses just doesn't represent a greater capitalization than Boeing. And even if Amazon sold every book printed neither their revenue stream or likely profits would approach Boeing's. The market finally came to its senses and revalued those Internet stocks that had truly silly valuations.
But since you bring up Shrubbie, I'll just note that normally when the stock market tanks like it did in 2000 the economy does a much bigger nosedive than it did this time, even without an added blow to investor and consumer confidence such as 9/11. So I'd say the prompt application of tax cuts probably saved the day.
> I'm expecting huge drops. Like most Americans who are making payments on a single home, I'll be fucked. 11% drop > in November. 9% drop in December.
Again, if you bought in one of the insane housing markets (So Cal for instance) you are probably going to get what you deserve. After all, you KNEW it was insane and you bought anyway. But then on the other hand, if you actually plan to live there it really doesn't matter what the paper value is now does it? Heck, it will at least lower your property taxes. And in ten or so years when you are ready to sell the value will probably have recovered a bit.
> Am I wrong in thinking that the RIAA and MPAA are breaking the GPLv3 by supplying object code without complete > corresponding source code? Thus they can be legally coerced into supplying those keys. The FSF is trying to write the > GPLv3 so that the software declared Free by the GPLv3 will remain Free, and that people won't be able to co-opt it for > non-Free uses.
No, the MPAA wouldn't be supplying the software. Follow the pea closely. Sony/Phillips/Apex/etc sell you a player without any keys. Now if you want to play MPAA controlled content you pay a mimimal licensing fee (to confirm you are actually in the US or at least have a US credit card) and they issue a key locking their precious, the TCPM in your player and a build of a player on their approved list of audited software. If the MPAA can't issue a key usable with a Free program without revealing the secret key then Free Software wouldn't be usable for GPG or OpenSSL just for starters.
The advantage of this scheme is it would permit totally Free players, allowing peer review and detailed auditing. For them it means real security without depending on government to attempt to keep broken crypto saleable. For us it means we can know exactly what the player is doing, does it phone home, log what parts we rewind and rewatch a dozen times, etc. For them it also means a decentralized control. The MPAA could control US players and a European agency can wield their iron fist over consumers of their content, even imposing totally different schemes, like pay per play, etc. where they can get away with it. All while using totally commoditized hardware and software, thus keeping the hardware makers on low margins and unable to lobby.
Slashdot Mirror
> I don't understand what your disagreement with the Newton librarians is.
As I explain in another post, I had read a different account passed around librarian mailing lists over the weekend. Much higher moonbat spin on the version I read. But I still question why they even brought the press in on it at all. If they hit me with a request I'll need the warrant to comply with State Law (which I do consider to be a good law btw.) but I'm more than willing to do my bit to stop some asshat that thinks it is funny to email in a bomb threat. In a nutshell, I believe I'm basically on the same side as the law. I get the feeling those librarians in MA, even after the warrant were grudgingly turning the stuff over only because they had no other option and then running to the nearest reporter to whinge about who horrible the whole ordeal was. Good grief, you would think the FBI showed up with rubber hoses or something.
Put aside your hatred of Bush and judge on the merits. No, I don't agree with the position but it is a defendable position ethically. And there is a lot there I can agree with.
A ban on the "buying, selling or patenting human embryos" should be fairly universally acceptable, especially the bit about no patenting here amongst the slashdot hordes.
A ban on "creating human-animal hybrids" is more debatable but we damn sure better get a line drawn somewhere and we better do it fast or science is going to race out ahead of ethics and make one hell of a mess for someone to clean up.
And that leaves his call for a ban on "human cloning in all its forms, creating or implanting embryos for experiments" which is where most of slashdot parts company. Fine, lets have it out in Congress, again so some boundraries can be drawn up. And you liberals had better actually pass a bill this time because if you leave it to the courts like you did with abortion you will really get burned because of the shift in the Supremes. So lets actually debate it and come to a political decision we might all be able to live with this time.
Personally I'd like to see medical science be able to use some super advanced cloning tech to make me new spare parts from my own DNA so I wouldn't take immune supression drugs for life if I ever needed a transplant. But I don't really like the thought of creating and killing millions/billions of things that are/maybe/might be/could have been/sorta/etc humans to get there. I suspect a lot of folks are caught in that halfway position.
> Librarians are not a "core moonbat constituency".
Riight. Listen buddy, I was there in Texas and saw what I saw. Think about what I said. In Texas, the very heart of Bush Country, the vast majority of librarians were to the left of the Democratic party. I was there at ALA's national convention in 2000 and saw the blatent politicization of the ALA bookstore. I know librarians. I happen to be fortunate enough to work in a library that has a diverse collection of people that also includes Republicans and Libertarians but am under no delusions as to what the average looks like.
Like leftists in general, they are no more devoted to free inquiry than the Taliban.
> If you read TFA you'd see the library staff did pretty much what you said they should.
No I didn't read That FA, and I guess I should have since it had more information than the link I'd followed over the weekend from an email passed around librarian circles. So they did pretty much DO the right thing, but afterwards they still used the opportunity (or the press used them, could be either way) to launch a standard issue moonbat 'they wanna trample our civil liberties' rant.
> NOBODY - President and FBI included - has the right to do whatever they want, whenever they want.
They don't. But hot pursuit carries a different standard. And remember they 4th doesn't say "Police, Intelligence agancies, hell NOBODY can do anything without a warrant." It says citizens are protected against "unreasonable search and seizure".
And my reaction would be different in different circumstances. For example if they FOUND a bomb and were trying to get the guy to learn how to disarm it before it went FOOM! I'd probably compromise with "Give me your word as an Agent of the FBI to have me a warrant before end of business today and I'll give up a name now; and we will all just fudge the timeline if any moonbats start poking around."
The key thing is to realize the law is intended to codify rules intended to protect us in general, it isn't a suicide pact. There are times when you have to do what is right even if it isn't, strictly speaking, perfectly legal. The agents are chasing a potential bomber, the librarians have legal obligation. But you don't have to see it as good vs. evil, the trick is in realizing that and working out a compromise where the public good is served AND the core ideals of our civilization are kept instead of seeing it as an oportunity to grandstand before the TV cameras.
Listen up folks, this hate of our own country is going to end up getting a lot of people killed just to stroke some moonbat egos.
The FBI in this case was tracking a bomb threat. Ok, THIS time it turned out to only be a crank emailing in a threat. But next time it might be for real. And although the article doesn't make it clear I suspect that the building was probably still being swept when the agents descended on that library. Meaning it was a realtime threat. And notice that they had no problem getting a warrant, they simply wanted to get on the trail of the crackpot before it got too cold.
The problem is that librarians, as a group, are a core moonbat constituitency group. I'm serious, I work in the library world. I attended the Texas Library Association's convention in 2004. Ralph Nader was their keynote speaker and gave a straight up campaign speech to standing ovations. And since this incident happened in MA they happened to have a moonbat for a mayor. So they all felt real good, sticking it to the 'man', those minions of the hated Bushitler. And nothing went boom so they think they got away with it along with almost everyone here on slashdot, DailyKos, DU, etc. But to quote Lt. Cmdr Ivanova, "No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a Boom tomorrow."
Since I work IT in a library I have given a fair amount of thought to how I'd handle a request of that sort. My current plan would be to reason with the agent in charge thus:
1. I'm bound by State Law to protect all patron records. So barring a warrant you can't have them without a fight.
2. You will not use force against a librarian so don't try to bluff.
3. This site is a proper UNIX installation. (Linux actually but hey, field agents usually aren't THAT hip.) If you know what that means you want my help because the workstation alone isn't going to be much help to you.
4. No, you may not seize our whole server rack, even WITH a warrant. We would at least force that to a hearing and you don't have time for that.
5. I will help you, provided you are willing to meet my very reasonable needs. Those are that we keep our servers so that we may remain open and that we cover our legal obligations.
6. So here is how it is going to go. One of you guys stays here to watch me, one goes and gets a warrant for "any and all information in our possession regarding the patron at X IP address at Y time" and I start pulling logs off to CD-R. The second the fax machine spits out a copy of the warrant I will not only hand over the CD, I'll hand you a printout with the guy's name and last known address already extracted out for ya along with a scan of his original application for a library card with a signature on it. That is a hell of lot more than you could get by seizing the workstation now and faster than you could have obtained it without my help.
It is possible to obey the law AND help law enforcement. But it was pretty obvious those idiots in MA were enjoying preening for the press about how they were so feeling oppressed but stood up to great evil. Bullshit.
> It can be edited by everybody. Including the "Congressional staffers". Why is it "censorship"?
Because THEY weren't supposed to edit it, it was for US to bloviate. Yea right. The typical slashdot/DailyKos types think they own the Internet and
The Internet is changing a lot but don't expect the old power structure to simply vanish overnite. If Wikipedia is going to stick to their claim of being open they have to expect people to remove the more nasty bits from their entries.
> Secure by design should be the default, and if someone fessed up and said, "Hey, we fucked up last time, but we got
> it right this time", and could be trusted, then it wouldn't be extortionist of them to try this.
Except they always say that, and mean it. Six months to a year from a new release Microsoft and their media mouthpieces all admit the current version is a turd, but this upcoming version will finally be THE ONE. And everyone lets them get away with it, even when they contradict themselves.
DOS is shit, you need this new OS/2 thing we are doing with IBM.
Whups, no DOS is OK, so long as it is the base for this New & Improved Windows 3.0 we are pushing instead, because we decided IBM was a bunch of rat bastards.
Nah, we were right he first time, DOS is an old buggy mess and you should buy Windows NT.
Oh, you guys ain't going for that huh. Well then, what you need is this NEW 32bit Windows 95 that is more compatible with (hell it still squats on) DOS so your existing codebase will still work.
Ok, Windows 95 sucked pretty hard, even after several service releases. But if you will just trust us and buy this new Windows 98 it will fix all of the problems you are having.
Alright, shaddup already, 98 also was a roach motel, so here (at a very attractive upgrade price) is Second Edition to finally give you computing nirvana.
You didn't think we were going to throw away years of work on NT now did ya? So follow me on this, business should ditch that nasty old Win98 and go to this new shiny Windows 2000, which is that NT stuff you hated but now with the spiffy Windows 98 look. Everyone else should buy Windows ME, which is Windows 98SE minux some stuff to start driving developers to a win32 only world.
Well ME really blew goats didn't it, must be the worst release yet. Bleh! So everybody step right up and buy XP, it sucks far less than ME. What? You business types actually LIKE Win2K. Well that will teache us to forget to add in some fatal flaws to a release. Well here is Software Assurance to force you to upgrade. (We hope.)
And now we come to today. XP is a security nightmare, start saving up to buy a new Vista powered PC.
> It's not just DRM, think about stuff like CD keys.
Not. How 'bout I point you to the complete source tree for GPG and then invite you to use that knowledge to crack my secret key. Won't work now will it? Newsflash: Key generators exist for almost every game that uses one. All of them work great to allow single player action but don't work for network play. I'll leave why as an exercise for the student.
> How do you enforce licensing when someone has your code?
What is this fetish with DRM? We got along just fine without it. Mass unauthorized duplication has been a problem since music was stamped on vinyl yet the world didn't collapse. People duplicated VHS tapes, audio cassettes and CDs. Games have been copy protected since the 1970's and cracked as fast they shipped. Yet those industries grew and prospered. Microsoft grew and prospered for twenty years with zero copy protection on their products.
> How do you protect against cheating in real money competitions (online poker) ?
You don't be an idiot and assume you can ever trust a system outside your direct control. Period, full stop. In your example this means the client isn't told anything that it doesn't need to paint the user's screen. Then, and only then, can you KNOW the user isn't cheating. And in that scenario it matters not whether the user has the complete documented source to the client and even the server. Truly secure systems are fully documented and open, so that they can be provably secure.
Security is something designed in from the start, not bolted on after the breaches start making the newspapers. Why do you think casinos deal every video poker card and spin every slot machine wheel from a single secure location? Because even though those machines out on the floor are as secure as they can make them, have secure seals to prevent physical tampering, etc. the only way to be sure is to keep the real stuff in a place with both software and physical security on it that isn't practical on the gambling floor. And while they don't publish their source code I'd bet good money they assume the 'bad guys' have found a way to read it and taken that into account by designing a system that will remain secure if it's design is known.
> Unfortunately, the "pick up where they left off" bit requires more than just a copy
> of the code, under an arbitary licence.
For major changes yes. To patch a buffer overrun a binary patch utility could accomplish the job while still requiring a licensed copy be present.
> Gigabyte have had this for a few years now. They call it Dual Bios.
Yes, and they got a patent on it so don't expect anyone else to do it until long after the "PC BIOS" has gone the way of the 5 1/4" Floppy.
It is one hell of a cool feature though. A backup BIOS that can only be written to from the pre POST environment. Of course if the bad guys get the primary they can probably have their way with the backup copy. Unless of course you pick the option in the BIOS to disallow any BIOS writes after the system POSTs and do all updates from a floppy from the DualBIOS screen.
> Are you buy chance a Linux user? It sounds like you are because your response sounds
> a bit biased.
Yes I am. And about 90% RMS Pure at that. I'd be 100% but I will use proprietary software if nothing else is available. However the issue I raise is unrelated to Free Software vs Proprietary Software.
> If you want something as complex and necessary as an OS to be freely available...
See, here is where you make clear you are misunderstanding my point. A change to copyright law as I suggest would in no way change the Free/Closed status of a single program. Requiring Microsoft to publish their source code as a condition of granting a Copyright would still leave every one of their products proprietary software requiring per processor or per user licensing. The difference is that they could no longer hide interfaces to obstruct interoperability. They could no longer withdraw support for older versions secure in the knowledge that nobody else could pick up where they left off.
> They created it, they spent their money developing it. If you don't like that a company
> doesn't release their source code, well then don't use their product.
Reread what I wrote. "if not by law then by custom" is the part where people who agree with me vote with their wallet. But Copyright is NOT a property right but an artificial scarcity created by the government with certain ends in mind. So proposing a change in copyright law to more closely achieve those intended ends and balance the legitimate needs of the public at large to be protected against orphaned software is totally legit.
What I meant with my exception for games is that for me personally, it isn't an issue with games. If I can't play a game in ten years I am bummed but not screwed.
> You're right in that this should include game software too. I mean, the code is already
> copyrighted, yes?
In a perfect world you are probably correct. This is reality. Take for example Id Software, for most of the 1990's they were innovating constantly. They licensed their engines for more money than their own actual multi platinum games brought in. Mostly because other developers could not, at least in a competitive timeframe, understand Carmack's wizard level tricks. So I can see why they might want to keep it secret awhile. Of course, Id Software being the totally hoopy froods they are, also understood the value in releasing their source when the next game engine obsoleted it.
But in the end, game software is different. If I couldn't play Doom I anymore it would be a major bummer and a loss to history. If I can't access documents, financial records, photos, etc. from a decade ago it is a totally different order of problem. And in the end, only posession of the Source safeguards against that sort of problem.
> That code is what makes them money.
Yes it does, and would make them exactly as much if published, and would make them more published except for the side effect of weakening their illegally abused monopoly.
I firmly believe ALL non-game software should be required if not by law then by custom to include the complete source code. Even if not released under a Free/Open License the source should still be required. I'd go so far as to say Copyright law needs to be amended to only allow a Copyright on the Source code and the binaries to be protected only as a derived work. Software gets abandoned by the vendor far too often for any sane person to trust a binary only product for anything important.
> In comparison, todays "malware" seems rather tame or even benign.
No, today's malware got serious. Used to be it was kids proving how 133t they were, now it is professionals implanting spyware and rootkits to make spam zombies, both of which are highly profitable. Destroying a machine earns you zero dollars, owning it makes the cash register go DING!
What scares the shit outta me, and should scare everyone else with a clue, is the thought of terrorism via the Internet. Imagine the damage a well heeled outfit could inflict.
Follow me here for a minute. Source code for Windows is out there. Obviously source for Linux, BSD and now Solaris is out there. It isn't just motherboards that have a flash chip. Almost every DVD/CD drive has one and many hard drives even load firmware from flash. Now lets imagine a well funded effort to locate a day zero exploit in two or more popular platforms. And remember, Windows and PC Linux aren't the only ones. Add in Linksys access points, Cisco IOS, etc. While one team works the exploit problem others work on a propagation engine that won't suffer from the crippling flaws seen in previous attempts and a deadly payload. Plant a kaboom in the BIOS instantly, so if the machine is rebooted it, along with the drives, goes bye bye. Then attempt to infect other hosts for 24-48 hours before triggering a reboot into death.
If done correctly it could destroy outright 10-25% (or even more) of the client's on the Internet and a good percentage of the servers, access points and other infrastructure. This alone would probably be enough to tank the world economy, but the real effect would be a widespread FEAR of reconnecting to the Internet. Kiss Google, Amazon, Dell, etc goodbye if that happened.
> So, basically you're saying you prefer to be around people more ignorant than yourself so
> you can feel superior, rather than having to deal with people who are educationally and
> intellectually your equal or superior.
Another 'enlightened tolerant progressive' opens his piehole and confirms everything I got modded flamebait for saying. You assume anyone who doesn't believe in the Theory of Evolution has to be an ignorant savage. Guess you don't get out of your ivory tower much, otherwise you would know better. A lot of intelligent, educated people also happen to be religious. I wonder sometimes how they reconcile the two sometimes, but they do. The world is a lot more interesting when everyone you know doesn't march in lockstep philosophicaly, politically, etc. I even got along fairly well for a few years with what I'd have to classify as a 'leftwing moonbat.'
Diversity; you might try it yourself sometime instead of just telling other people to do it. Or are you a typical leftie who defines "Compromise" as agreeing with you, "Tolerance" as approving of any and every moral perversion, with the exception of Evil Christians, "Inclusive" as every race, gender and political philosophy is equally great with the exception of white males and capitalism, etc.
> The entire reason that the whole ID movement exists is so the fundies can shove Genesis
> into science classrooms.
Agreed. But the point was, sure the fundies in Kansas want to teach their kids that way but they aren't hellbent on forcing it on everyone in the rest of the country. The heathen left on the other hand love to impose their most crackpot ideas as 'revealed truth' nationwide. And anyone who disagrees with them is unworthy to debate, instantly dismissed as an ignorant savage, bigot or some other convienent label.
> I think you forgot the first adjective: "smug".
Also arrogant, bigoted, intolerant and a host of other similar words. The submitter exemplifies everything wrong with the godless left in exactly the same way Pat Robertson represents the worst aspects of the religious right.
Personally I'm an agnostic, but if I were going to be marooned on a desert island with a dozen of either faction I'd probably take the fundies. Equally misguided views on philosophy but generally better people to be around since the leftists are generally nasty and rather unstable, having been educated beyond their native intelligence.
One of the biggest problems with the heathen left being they tend to be more likely to violate what I call Freedom 0: The Right to be Wrong. Sure the fundies are probably wrong on Evolution. But I'm willing to let them BE wrong until such a time as they can be convinced otherwise. The average leftie wants nothing to do with that notion, they are the Chosen, the Elite; Thus they are Right and hellbent on imposing their Correct views on the "ignorant" by force. The fundies in Kansas don't want their kids taught Evolution, but they aren't campaigning to force Boston's public schools to teach from the Book of Genesis.
> Actually, unless they recently changed it - California property taxes are based on the purchase price of the house.
Don't know about CA, they are the crazy ones after all, but most places tend to behave as you describe in the typical case, only changing a property value when it changes hands. But you can challenge and get a new apraisal if the value has changed greatly. And of course the opposite is also true, the government can also come and reappraise your property if they think the value has gone up enough to justify the bother.
> The lesson I learned in 1999/2000 is that EVERYONE knew that the market could not sustain those levels. But people put
> their money in anyway, because they thought it would go up for a while longer, and they wanted to gamble on getting
> out on time.
And this is exactly why Google is dipping now. Nothing at all to do with the Justice Dept. The moron writing that Reuters story was looking for something to sex up the story a bit and Slashdot bit hook line and sinker. Bottom line, the stock markets in general did a major dip and Google felt it harder than most because it is such a spectulative stock. It's current market value is so imaginary it recalls the heady days of 2000 right before the bubble burst. Since most investors remember losing an assload when that bubble burst they are a little more jittery this time. But not enough since they are still in Google so heavily.
Look, I like Google. If I could have gotten in on the IPO I'd have been there. But by the time mortals were allowed in the price was insane and heading higher. It is priced like it was already as big as Microsoft and poised to grow. Sorry, Microsoft isn't even growing anymore. No company the size of Micorosoft can, not even Google.
> Most bottomed out at about 1/10th their peak value. Most have not gone back up - most have been absolutely flat
> under George W Bush's "growth and jobs inspiring tax cuts" - for 5 years.
Bush has little to do with it. At 1/10 their peak value they are pretty much priced fairly, which is why they aren't going back up all that fast, in fact they now rise based on expected growth. Imagine that. Sorry, Amazon's couple of warehouses just doesn't represent a greater capitalization than Boeing. And even if Amazon sold every book printed neither their revenue stream or likely profits would approach Boeing's. The market finally came to its senses and revalued those Internet stocks that had truly silly valuations.
But since you bring up Shrubbie, I'll just note that normally when the stock market tanks like it did in 2000 the economy does a much bigger nosedive than it did this time, even without an added blow to investor and consumer confidence such as 9/11. So I'd say the prompt application of tax cuts probably saved the day.
> I'm expecting huge drops. Like most Americans who are making payments on a single home, I'll be fucked. 11% drop
> in November. 9% drop in December.
Again, if you bought in one of the insane housing markets (So Cal for instance) you are probably going to get what you deserve. After all, you KNEW it was insane and you bought anyway. But then on the other hand, if you actually plan to live there it really doesn't matter what the paper value is now does it? Heck, it will at least lower your property taxes. And in ten or so years when you are ready to sell the value will probably have recovered a bit.
> Am I wrong in thinking that the RIAA and MPAA are breaking the GPLv3 by supplying object code without complete
> corresponding source code? Thus they can be legally coerced into supplying those keys. The FSF is trying to write the
> GPLv3 so that the software declared Free by the GPLv3 will remain Free, and that people won't be able to co-opt it for
> non-Free uses.
No, the MPAA wouldn't be supplying the software. Follow the pea closely. Sony/Phillips/Apex/etc sell you a player without any keys. Now if you want to play MPAA controlled content you pay a mimimal licensing fee (to confirm you are actually in the US or at least have a US credit card) and they issue a key locking their precious, the TCPM in your player and a build of a player on their approved list of audited software. If the MPAA can't issue a key usable with a Free program without revealing the secret key then Free Software wouldn't be usable for GPG or OpenSSL just for starters.
The advantage of this scheme is it would permit totally Free players, allowing peer review and detailed auditing. For them it means real security without depending on government to attempt to keep broken crypto saleable. For us it means we can know exactly what the player is doing, does it phone home, log what parts we rewind and rewatch a dozen times, etc. For them it also means a decentralized control. The MPAA could control US players and a European agency can wield their iron fist over consumers of their content, even imposing totally different schemes, like pay per play, etc. where they can get away with it. All while using totally commoditized hardware and software, thus keeping the hardware makers on low margins and unable to lobby.
> Suuuurrre they did. Why don't you submit a link from a credible source, numbnuts.
a gename=article&articleid=A61251-2001Oct2&node=nati on/specials/attacked/archive
y /0,6903,560624,00.html
a sp?ID=9721
Sorry, I forgot my opponents are all idiots and can't handle high tech like Google. But I'm here trying to help ya out so..
Credible.. How about the WaPo?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac3/ContentServer?p
Headline: U.S. Was Foiled Multiple Times in Efforts To Capture Bin Laden or Have Him Killed
Slight;y less cannonical for you lefties, but mainstream media nonetheless, I give you The Guardian:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/stor
Headline: Resentful west spurned Sudan's key terror files
A little more bloggish, but Horowitz runs a fairly reputable operation, he ain't some idiot in his pajamas
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.
Headline: How Clinton Kept Bin Laden Free
> Well, for one thing, the Clinton Administration shut down two attempts by Arab terrorists to launch an attack on US soil.
And we can assume a few have been thwarted since 9/11. But we do know Sudan offered Clinton Bin Laden's head on a platter and he said "No thanks."