Didn't know about the others really. Reagan famously wanted the "star wars" program to be a joint US/USSR one since he was certain that Earth would be invaded by aliens. Where others scorn the man, I call him a visionary.
Actually, the reason the Russians opposed Star Wars (which was underreported at the time) was that having adequate defense against nuclear attacks is an unfair advantage. (It screws up Mutually Assured Destruction if one country is not so assured to be Destroyed!) Reagan's answer was to share the technology with the Russians so it would be fair, but according to him, they did not believe him.
The Russians were also concerned that space-based weapons would be used for attack purposes. There have been several movies which played off this fear, with satellite-based lasers used for assassinations and satellite nukes for that element of surprise!
If hardly anyone reads the emails then their current business model becomes ineffective. The amount of people that respond to spams is a very small fraction of the recipients as it is now. If most were filtered automatically then it would barely achieve any effect.
Unfortunately you are wrong. The current business model is already ineffective if you are trying to sell something with spam. Fortunately most spammers are not selling products. They sell the service of sending millions of emails to suckers^wcustomers who think it might result in some sales of their product.
More and more, businesses are catching on to the fact that this might not work so well, but that is okay because the product becomes your information. Spammers make money by selling information about their victims to legitemate businesses who are then able to contact you without you knowing they are responsible for the spam, or who simply want marketing information like "how many people responded to product X."
But even if 100% of the respondants filtered out the spam, the spammers would still make money because they would continue to sell the service of sending the spam. And even if all teh spam was filtered, it woudl still result in the bandwidth suckage people are reporting. Like the recent near-outages in.au which were solely caused by spam.
Blocking traffic from spam-friendly networks at the router level is going to be the only solution. That and outlawing spamming in every country we can.
This might look horrific, until you realize this this is land that these people bought and paid for. In other words, they own their own land. Don't like it? Mind your own business.
Not always. A lot of land traded hands during the 19th century and it was not necessarily paid for. Then again, not all the land acquired in the 20th century was received honestly either.
What exactly is so hard about driving an automatic? You turn the ignition, point the car in the direction you want it to go and put your foot on the gas pedal. Whats so hard about that?
Stopping, for one thing, is harder in an automatic. You have to rely soley on the brakes, without any way of disengaging the gears (or better, safely engaging a lower gear) which comes in awful handy in slick conditions.
Then there is the simple fact that you are no longer in control of your gears, which means it is also harder to pass and such. Essentially by giving up control of the gearbox you only have the gas to speed up and slow down. That is harder IMHO.
Then there is of course personal preference. It always takes me a bit to get used to an automatic if I hop in one because I am used to shifting.
For the Record, Windows is harder to use for me than Linux and UNIX are for similar reasons. You lose control of the OS and things get set (and reset) automatically. It is harder than an automatic transmission because at least you know what is happening with a car (you can hear the RPMs, unless you have one of those "quiet" cars..) whereas Windows will change things in menus several levels deep from random control panels. With Linux and UNIX the philosophy is that the administrator is in control. With Windows, Microsoft is in control.
I use an automatic transmission, *and* I use Linux at home and at work. They didn't invent the automatic transmission because manual was "too much work," they invented it because it's annoying when you mis-time pressing the clutch and grind the gears, or cause your car to stall when you're at an intersection, etc. Yeah, automatics are more expensive, but that's the price you pay for convenience.
I suppose. But I use manual not simply because it is "harder" but also because it is easier to control. You get more precise control over what the car is doing (much like Linux gives me more control over my computer).
I recently learned that automatic transmissions increase one's towing capacity. At first I thought it was because they did not trust the human to know when to downshift, but it does appear that there are some features in some transmissions that make it less likely to slip. Or so a truck salesman says. If I switched to automatic it would be because I needed that kind of towing capacity.
Then again, it would have to be of a necessity. Automatic transmissions are actually harder for me to drive than standard, partially because I am used to standard, but partially because you have less control than with a standard transmission.
Magistrates in the central Italian town of Empoli are now seeking to establish whether his self-defence constituted an excessive use of force.
...
Disappointed by their meagre booty, the attackers allegedly threatened to rape the two women unless they told them where the rest of their money was hidden.
At this point the doctor managed to free himself, seize a knife from one of the aggressors and deliver a series of lethal stab wounds.
Once again proof that the entire continent of Europe is a barbarian area. If the robbers had actually raped the hairdresser and got away I wonder what they would have faced? But if someone dares to defend themselves, even with the weapon the burglars brought in this case, they go to jail immediately! This guy should get a medal. Too bad he does not live in the US; they'd make him an air marshall or something!
Article is/. but one thing worthy of note is that the copy protection on Gamecube also involves spinning the CD the wrong way round. To make a Linux distro you are going to need a very special CD burner
How many times must this myth be dispelled? NFS is perfectly secure if you use secure transport and authentication both of which are available on NFSv3 and higher. Linux may or may not have a good implementations of them but Solaris and other Unix variants do. Using NFSv3 and yp+ we had a secure filesharing system with universal login and automouting of things like home drives and compiler paths.
That's neat and all, and sounds interesting. BUt I have never seen it done, and none of my sun books say anything about getting it done that way. All the sun boxes I have seen or heard of use the old-fashioned nfs authentication, which may as well be nonexistent.
Besides, there would be the problem of getting this NFS/yp mix to work with your desktops, which are likely Mac and Windows, perhaps Linux. There are very few people using Solaris on the desktop, and those people have a very good reason for shelling out the kind of coin they need for that.
So, again you get back to SAMBA. Essentially what you are saying is that if you go to a solaris only shop and use undocumented procedures you can get NFS to be secure. Great! Why don't you right a book about it?
Driving a car requires the use of two petals with your feet! If people can't learn how to operate a mouse with two buttons, then I serious fear these people on the road!
Sadly, most people have switched to cars for which they only need one pedal at a time. This is because handling two pedals simultaneously was too much for them. I myself drive a standard shift automobile, and use Linux at home and work.
SCO's arguments get curiouser and curiouser. And their lies get bigger. Consider, from the article:
You can't take code based on a license you signed, change it a little and then give it away for free (as in the case of XFS from SGI). If SCO allowed companies to contribute derivative UNIX code to Linux and give it away for free, it would destroy the value of all other versions of UNIX, including SCO's own, not to mention the versions of UNIX made by SUN, HP, IBM, SGI, Sequent, Hitachi, Fujitsu, Siemens, and every other one of the 6,000 other licensees. Why would SCO not have such a provision in their licenses? This line of thinking is absolutely ludicrous.
Hmmm, why would SCO give a license like the aforementioned? Well, of course they would never allow an irrevocable license! Never! And SCO's licenses would not allow you to create anything remotely related to the licensed product without giving it back to SCO along with your firstborn child! But this is all academic because it was not SCO that granted this license in the first place. It was AT&T, and even then there were addendums upon addendums over the years.
As for the thing about XFS, I think it would be wise for SCO to shut their trap on that one. They are publicly claiming XFS is ripped off from code in SysV UNIX? Really?! That would explain why XFS is standard on all SCO and other UNIX implementations, wouldn't it? Oh I forget it is not. I wonder why that is? Could it be that SGI invented XFS themselves and put it in their Irix and Linux products? Nah! All innovation begins and ends with SCO!
Man, they get more gall every time. The fact of the matter is that the current company has created no IP ever. It has built its business on IP it bought from other companies, and which it is trying to extend to include IP it could not begin to pay for. It wants to take by force what it cannot create or buy on its own. HMm.. sounds like their sole customer, Microsoft!
So I don't recommend using Samba at all unless you're looking for Windows compatibility.
There is another reason to use samba: security. NFS is notoriously insecure and uses plaintext for everything. Samba is suposed to use some encryption at least and is perceived as more secure.
The list is practicel worthless in it self, you need some one to keep it up to date.
That's alright, because it will be up to date forever. Microsoft will never fix these vulnerabilities now that it has no one to report them anymore. They have all the scurity companies in their pocket and they have all agreed to stop reporting Microsoft vulnerabilities unless there is a patch already. This means that Windows will never be secure because microsoft will go back to their old ways of patching vulnerabilities when they fell like it if ever.
The really annoying thing about the Comcast software is that it's completely unnecessary.
In my part of the country, it is apparently necessary, at least in the beginning. Around here, when you plug in a cable modem even without service you get a dhcp address but you cannot get out of comcast's network because the router stops you. here is a process of registration in which the MAC address of the cable modem (and ostensibly of the computer you are using) are registered. It is a very buggy process, and honestly should not be necessary, but they make it so.
Comcast's prescribed method for doing this is to install Windows with no patches and connect a computer directly to the cable modem (no router) and then install their software. I did try their website (a commonly prescribed circumvention method) but it was broken. They also expect this to be the way you use their service FOREVER. (In other words, if you call them because their dhcp server, dns, or routers, or anything else, is wonky they will ask you to go back to this setup even if they have scheduled maintenance on these things!)
I am, of course, using the service with a router and running Linux, but every once in awhile they break something on their end and I get to play this game with them. They don't tell their tech support they are going to break stuff, so it is not tech support's fault necessarily. Also a few times their database decided to unregister my cable modem which meant I had to go through registration again several times. Unfortunately I found out the hard way there is no dsl in my area:(.
"Online chat rooms don't have 2 talkers, but a bunch of them. Anyone in the chat room can record the chat, since they're participants. The system can log it, since that's part of their MOTD."
What the fuck does that or any of this have to do with the Message Of The Day???
It smells like you're talking out of your ass, pal.
Actually, if you are talking about logging into a unix-like system,/etc/issue and/etc/motd are good places to put legal agreements./etc/issue would be something like "By logging into this system you are consenting to x..."
However the original poster was talking about irc, in which the motd of the irc server is displayed when you log in and does indeed include legal agreement stuff (if you disagree you can disconnect, etc etc...).
Eventually, I will learn to preview. I did not think a small html error would result in a whole paragraph being missing, but there you go. Below is the comment I meant to put in. Smell that burning Karma!
IANAL, but apparently ignorance of the law is then an excuse in civil court?
IANAL, but no, ignorance of the law is not an excuse in civil court, in fact it can get you in more trouble if you don't know the pertenant laws governing your business. But that is not what they argued. (allegedly. Remember, no one knows what was argued because the case was sealed!
What they allegedly argued was that they did not know the infringement was happening. In other words, they knew copyright infringement was against the law but they did not know it was happening because they were not the ones who put the infringing code in their product. It was added by an Indian outsourcing firm. (That's what you get for outsourcing! NOW how much money did they save?:) )
So there you go, don't outsource or use Microsoft products because either one automatically opens you up to lawsuits!
IANAL, but apparently ignorance of the law is then an excuse in civil court?
What hey allegedly argued was that they did not know the infringement was happening. In other words, they knew copyright infringement was against the law but they did not know it was happening because they were not the ones who put the infringing code in their product. It was added by an Indian outsourcing firm. (That's what you get for outsourcing! NOW how much money did they save?:) )
So there you go, don't outsource or use Microsoft products because either one automatically opens you up to lawsuits!
As I recall, a user has to install it themselves, and it basically gives a remote user access to whatever BO allowed (which was pretty much anything).
According to Microsoft. However, CDC proved that they could get the software installed without the user's intervention. Besides, any of the myriad worms running about could have had BO2k or whetever else you wanted in their payload. There are probbaly 500 ways to get softwrae installed on a remote windows box without the user even knowing about it.
The blame-the-victim attitude that clicking on attachments is the only way to get things installed like this is microsoft propaganda that is actually encouraging more insecurity. Because of the many holes in IE, malicious websites are another way to get infected. Because of Outlook allowing you to send a whole web page including malicious vbscript and javascript as a spam email, the preview pane is another way to get infected. Then there are the worms.
Every time slashdot has an article like this, some smartass goes off on how "well only idiots get infected because they have to install this themselves! They wanted it!" Like the woman in a short skirt argument, it just does not hold water.
Santa Clara? I can see someone hasn't been keeping up with the soap opera very well.
TSG (The SCO Group) is based in Utah. The real SCO was the Santa Cruz Organisation, but they sold the name, along with their crusty ancient Unix branch, to Caldera Linux, which then changed their name to TSG and took to referring to themselves as SCO. These are the morons we're talking about. The Santa Cruz Organisation then renamed themselves Tarantella and concentrated on the remaining parts of their business - the ones that still produce products people will actually buy without being threatened.
I think you left out the part where a bunch of lawyers from Canopy took over Caldera. Ransom Love was the last Linux-friendly CEO there, and even then he and prior management of Caldera had a very odd view of Linux. Cladera has always been the "proprietary Linux," and even under his watch the GPL was violated by trying to charge per seat connection licenses to connect to a Linux server. It was also during Love's administration that the Linux Kernel Personality came about and he publicly said they were trying to merge UNIX and Linux together.
Nevertheless, the current round of execs are all very new and by their own admission when they first took over they began looking for ways to "maximise the value of their Intellectual Property holdings" eg look for ways to sue the crap out of people. That is the sole purpose of Darl McBride and company. They have no idea about the actual technology involved, or the traditions, nor do they care. They are only interested in performing some cheap tricks so they can get a rise out of the stock, dump all they can and sail away in a golden parachute when it is all done. They are the epitomy of the evil corporate exec that is the real source of ruin in our economy.
I think saying it was given away and supplemented is more accurate, because IE for Unix was also free as far as I know. And they weren't forcing Solaris users to buy it. This whole paragraph could be wrong.
IE for Solaris did not exist before the monopoly trial, and has languished since the Bushies let MS off the hook. So, no, it is not much of an argument to support Microsoft.
There actually was a flash parody of Metallica in which they sang an anti-napster song to the tune of Master of Puppets but of course saying "Napster" instead of "Master." IT was some funny shit...
I'm sooooooooooooooooo tired of seeing that word misspelled time and time again. And here it actually is the cornerstone of the whole post, yet that freak can't get it right.
Please mod this up. And read it. Over and over again.
I have auto-run turned off. I did it with tweakui which microsoft provided. I assume this means the CD will always be easily copyable on my computer with the extra effort of holding down the shift key. It sure was nice of microsoft to provide me with this nifty circumvention.
You used to be able to just right click on the cdrom drive in My Computer and choose to turn off autoplay. I always did because autoplay is extremely annoying and breaks things a lot. BUt I seem to have forgotten it is not so easy to do so in Win2k, mainly because I primarily use Linux.
Nevertheless, regedit is your friend if in Windows, and editing a few entries will fix this problem as well.
You know, I think they are causing more damage by including malware on this cd. Many computers have been damaged by software present on these cds which the purchaser thought only contained music and which installed software on their computers without their permission or prior knowlege. These people are no better than virus writers, and it is no wonder they are such hacks. Besides, if you want the cd to be DRM'd would it not make more sense to actually encrypt the contents rather than to have a software driver encrypt them on the fly? Who thought that was a good idea?
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't know about the others really. Reagan famously wanted the "star wars" program to be a joint US/USSR one since he was certain that Earth would be invaded by aliens. Where others scorn the man, I call him a visionary.
Actually, the reason the Russians opposed Star Wars (which was underreported at the time) was that having adequate defense against nuclear attacks is an unfair advantage. (It screws up Mutually Assured Destruction if one country is not so assured to be Destroyed!) Reagan's answer was to share the technology with the Russians so it would be fair, but according to him, they did not believe him.
The Russians were also concerned that space-based weapons would be used for attack purposes. There have been several movies which played off this fear, with satellite-based lasers used for assassinations and satellite nukes for that element of surprise!
It was Reagan and he was shot in the head, but survived.
IIRC Reagan was gutshot, which is why he survived.
If hardly anyone reads the emails then their current business model becomes ineffective. The amount of people that respond to spams is a very small fraction of the recipients as it is now. If most were filtered automatically then it would barely achieve any effect.
Unfortunately you are wrong. The current business model is already ineffective if you are trying to sell something with spam. Fortunately most spammers are not selling products. They sell the service of sending millions of emails to suckers^wcustomers who think it might result in some sales of their product.
More and more, businesses are catching on to the fact that this might not work so well, but that is okay because the product becomes your information. Spammers make money by selling information about their victims to legitemate businesses who are then able to contact you without you knowing they are responsible for the spam, or who simply want marketing information like "how many people responded to product X."
But even if 100% of the respondants filtered out the spam, the spammers would still make money because they would continue to sell the service of sending the spam. And even if all teh spam was filtered, it woudl still result in the bandwidth suckage people are reporting. Like the recent near-outages in .au which were solely caused by spam.
Blocking traffic from spam-friendly networks at the router level is going to be the only solution. That and outlawing spamming in every country we can.
This might look horrific, until you realize this this is land that these people bought and paid for. In other words, they own their own land. Don't like it? Mind your own business.
Not always. A lot of land traded hands during the 19th century and it was not necessarily paid for. Then again, not all the land acquired in the 20th century was received honestly either.
What exactly is so hard about driving an automatic? You turn the ignition, point the car in the direction you want it to go and put your foot on the gas pedal. Whats so hard about that?
Stopping, for one thing, is harder in an automatic. You have to rely soley on the brakes, without any way of disengaging the gears (or better, safely engaging a lower gear) which comes in awful handy in slick conditions.
Then there is the simple fact that you are no longer in control of your gears, which means it is also harder to pass and such. Essentially by giving up control of the gearbox you only have the gas to speed up and slow down. That is harder IMHO.
Then there is of course personal preference. It always takes me a bit to get used to an automatic if I hop in one because I am used to shifting.
For the Record, Windows is harder to use for me than Linux and UNIX are for similar reasons. You lose control of the OS and things get set (and reset) automatically. It is harder than an automatic transmission because at least you know what is happening with a car (you can hear the RPMs, unless you have one of those "quiet" cars..) whereas Windows will change things in menus several levels deep from random control panels. With Linux and UNIX the philosophy is that the administrator is in control. With Windows, Microsoft is in control.
I use an automatic transmission, *and* I use Linux at home and at work. They didn't invent the automatic transmission because manual was "too much work," they invented it because it's annoying when you mis-time pressing the clutch and grind the gears, or cause your car to stall when you're at an intersection, etc. Yeah, automatics are more expensive, but that's the price you pay for convenience.
I suppose. But I use manual not simply because it is "harder" but also because it is easier to control. You get more precise control over what the car is doing (much like Linux gives me more control over my computer).
I recently learned that automatic transmissions increase one's towing capacity. At first I thought it was because they did not trust the human to know when to downshift, but it does appear that there are some features in some transmissions that make it less likely to slip. Or so a truck salesman says. If I switched to automatic it would be because I needed that kind of towing capacity.
Then again, it would have to be of a necessity. Automatic transmissions are actually harder for me to drive than standard, partially because I am used to standard, but partially because you have less control than with a standard transmission.
You're thinking of a different technical reference book.
That's the super secret MCSE networking class textbook!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/italy/story/0,12576,1061 765,00.html
Martial arts expert kills two raiders
...
Magistrates in the central Italian town of Empoli are now seeking to establish whether his self-defence constituted an excessive use of force.
...
Disappointed by their meagre booty, the attackers allegedly threatened to rape the two women unless they told them where the rest of their money was hidden.
At this point the doctor managed to free himself, seize a knife from one of the aggressors and deliver a series of lethal stab wounds.
Once again proof that the entire continent of Europe is a barbarian area. If the robbers had actually raped the hairdresser and got away I wonder what they would have faced? But if someone dares to defend themselves, even with the weapon the burglars brought in this case, they go to jail immediately! This guy should get a medal. Too bad he does not live in the US; they'd make him an air marshall or something!
Article is /. but one thing worthy of note is that the copy protection on Gamecube also involves spinning the CD the wrong way round. To make a Linux distro you are going to need a very special CD burner
Rus
Or you could take your Gamecube to Australia! :)
Google hit # 2 for PHB: Pointy-Haired Boss
Now it's number 1! But there are some odd ones in there.. get a load of number two!
How many times must this myth be dispelled? NFS is perfectly secure if you use secure transport and authentication both of which are available on NFSv3 and higher. Linux may or may not have a good implementations of them but Solaris and other Unix variants do. Using NFSv3 and yp+ we had a secure filesharing system with universal login and automouting of things like home drives and compiler paths.
That's neat and all, and sounds interesting. BUt I have never seen it done, and none of my sun books say anything about getting it done that way. All the sun boxes I have seen or heard of use the old-fashioned nfs authentication, which may as well be nonexistent.
Besides, there would be the problem of getting this NFS/yp mix to work with your desktops, which are likely Mac and Windows, perhaps Linux. There are very few people using Solaris on the desktop, and those people have a very good reason for shelling out the kind of coin they need for that.
So, again you get back to SAMBA. Essentially what you are saying is that if you go to a solaris only shop and use undocumented procedures you can get NFS to be secure. Great! Why don't you right a book about it?
Driving a car requires the use of two petals with your feet! If people can't learn how to operate a mouse with two buttons, then I serious fear these people on the road!
Sadly, most people have switched to cars for which they only need one pedal at a time. This is because handling two pedals simultaneously was too much for them. I myself drive a standard shift automobile, and use Linux at home and work.
SCO's arguments get curiouser and curiouser. And their lies get bigger. Consider, from the article:
You can't take code based on a license you signed, change it a little and then give it away for free (as in the case of XFS from SGI). If SCO allowed companies to contribute derivative UNIX code to Linux and give it away for free, it would destroy the value of all other versions of UNIX, including SCO's own, not to mention the versions of UNIX made by SUN, HP, IBM, SGI, Sequent, Hitachi, Fujitsu, Siemens, and every other one of the 6,000 other licensees. Why would SCO not have such a provision in their licenses? This line of thinking is absolutely ludicrous.
Hmmm, why would SCO give a license like the aforementioned? Well, of course they would never allow an irrevocable license! Never! And SCO's licenses would not allow you to create anything remotely related to the licensed product without giving it back to SCO along with your firstborn child! But this is all academic because it was not SCO that granted this license in the first place. It was AT&T, and even then there were addendums upon addendums over the years.
As for the thing about XFS, I think it would be wise for SCO to shut their trap on that one. They are publicly claiming XFS is ripped off from code in SysV UNIX? Really?! That would explain why XFS is standard on all SCO and other UNIX implementations, wouldn't it? Oh I forget it is not. I wonder why that is? Could it be that SGI invented XFS themselves and put it in their Irix and Linux products? Nah! All innovation begins and ends with SCO!
Man, they get more gall every time. The fact of the matter is that the current company has created no IP ever. It has built its business on IP it bought from other companies, and which it is trying to extend to include IP it could not begin to pay for. It wants to take by force what it cannot create or buy on its own. HMm.. sounds like their sole customer, Microsoft!
So I don't recommend using Samba at all unless you're looking for Windows compatibility.
There is another reason to use samba: security. NFS is notoriously insecure and uses plaintext for everything. Samba is suposed to use some encryption at least and is perceived as more secure.
The list is practicel worthless in it self, you need some one to keep it up to date.
That's alright, because it will be up to date forever. Microsoft will never fix these vulnerabilities now that it has no one to report them anymore. They have all the scurity companies in their pocket and they have all agreed to stop reporting Microsoft vulnerabilities unless there is a patch already. This means that Windows will never be secure because microsoft will go back to their old ways of patching vulnerabilities when they fell like it if ever.
The really annoying thing about the Comcast software is that it's completely unnecessary.
In my part of the country, it is apparently necessary, at least in the beginning. Around here, when you plug in a cable modem even without service you get a dhcp address but you cannot get out of comcast's network because the router stops you. here is a process of registration in which the MAC address of the cable modem (and ostensibly of the computer you are using) are registered. It is a very buggy process, and honestly should not be necessary, but they make it so.
Comcast's prescribed method for doing this is to install Windows with no patches and connect a computer directly to the cable modem (no router) and then install their software. I did try their website (a commonly prescribed circumvention method) but it was broken. They also expect this to be the way you use their service FOREVER. (In other words, if you call them because their dhcp server, dns, or routers, or anything else, is wonky they will ask you to go back to this setup even if they have scheduled maintenance on these things!)
I am, of course, using the service with a router and running Linux, but every once in awhile they break something on their end and I get to play this game with them. They don't tell their tech support they are going to break stuff, so it is not tech support's fault necessarily. Also a few times their database decided to unregister my cable modem which meant I had to go through registration again several times. Unfortunately I found out the hard way there is no dsl in my area :(.
"Online chat rooms don't have 2 talkers, but a bunch of them. Anyone in the chat room can record the chat, since they're participants. The system can log it, since that's part of their MOTD."
What the fuck does that or any of this have to do with the Message Of The Day???
It smells like you're talking out of your ass, pal.
Actually, if you are talking about logging into a unix-like system, /etc/issue and /etc/motd are good places to put legal agreements. /etc/issue would be something like "By logging into this system you are consenting to x..."
However the original poster was talking about irc, in which the motd of the irc server is displayed when you log in and does indeed include legal agreement stuff (if you disagree you can disconnect, etc etc...).
Eventually, I will learn to preview. I did not think a small html error would result in a whole paragraph being missing, but there you go. Below is the comment I meant to put in. Smell that burning Karma!
IANAL, but apparently ignorance of the law is then an excuse in civil court?
IANAL, but no, ignorance of the law is not an excuse in civil court, in fact it can get you in more trouble if you don't know the pertenant laws governing your business. But that is not what they argued. (allegedly. Remember, no one knows what was argued because the case was sealed!
What they allegedly argued was that they did not know the infringement was happening. In other words, they knew copyright infringement was against the law but they did not know it was happening because they were not the ones who put the infringing code in their product. It was added by an Indian outsourcing firm. (That's what you get for outsourcing! NOW how much money did they save? :) )
So there you go, don't outsource or use Microsoft products because either one automatically opens you up to lawsuits!
IANAL, but apparently ignorance of the law is then an excuse in civil court?
What hey allegedly argued was that they did not know the infringement was happening. In other words, they knew copyright infringement was against the law but they did not know it was happening because they were not the ones who put the infringing code in their product. It was added by an Indian outsourcing firm. (That's what you get for outsourcing! NOW how much money did they save? :) )
So there you go, don't outsource or use Microsoft products because either one automatically opens you up to lawsuits!
As I recall, a user has to install it themselves, and it basically gives a remote user access to whatever BO allowed (which was pretty much anything).
According to Microsoft. However, CDC proved that they could get the software installed without the user's intervention. Besides, any of the myriad worms running about could have had BO2k or whetever else you wanted in their payload. There are probbaly 500 ways to get softwrae installed on a remote windows box without the user even knowing about it.
The blame-the-victim attitude that clicking on attachments is the only way to get things installed like this is microsoft propaganda that is actually encouraging more insecurity. Because of the many holes in IE, malicious websites are another way to get infected. Because of Outlook allowing you to send a whole web page including malicious vbscript and javascript as a spam email, the preview pane is another way to get infected. Then there are the worms.
Every time slashdot has an article like this, some smartass goes off on how "well only idiots get infected because they have to install this themselves! They wanted it!" Like the woman in a short skirt argument, it just does not hold water.
Santa Clara? I can see someone hasn't been keeping up with the soap opera very well.
TSG (The SCO Group) is based in Utah. The real SCO was the Santa Cruz Organisation, but they sold the name, along with their crusty ancient Unix branch, to Caldera Linux, which then changed their name to TSG and took to referring to themselves as SCO. These are the morons we're talking about. The Santa Cruz Organisation then renamed themselves Tarantella and concentrated on the remaining parts of their business - the ones that still produce products people will actually buy without being threatened.
I think you left out the part where a bunch of lawyers from Canopy took over Caldera. Ransom Love was the last Linux-friendly CEO there, and even then he and prior management of Caldera had a very odd view of Linux. Cladera has always been the "proprietary Linux," and even under his watch the GPL was violated by trying to charge per seat connection licenses to connect to a Linux server. It was also during Love's administration that the Linux Kernel Personality came about and he publicly said they were trying to merge UNIX and Linux together.
Nevertheless, the current round of execs are all very new and by their own admission when they first took over they began looking for ways to "maximise the value of their Intellectual Property holdings" eg look for ways to sue the crap out of people. That is the sole purpose of Darl McBride and company. They have no idea about the actual technology involved, or the traditions, nor do they care. They are only interested in performing some cheap tricks so they can get a rise out of the stock, dump all they can and sail away in a golden parachute when it is all done. They are the epitomy of the evil corporate exec that is the real source of ruin in our economy.
I think saying it was given away and supplemented is more accurate, because IE for Unix was also free as far as I know. And they weren't forcing Solaris users to buy it. This whole paragraph could be wrong.
IE for Solaris did not exist before the monopoly trial, and has languished since the Bushies let MS off the hook. So, no, it is not much of an argument to support Microsoft.
for old times sake, maybe a nice Metallica ditty:
MASTER! MASTER!
Master of "puppets" pulling strings..
I think you know where I'm going with this.
There actually was a flash parody of Metallica in which they sang an anti-napster song to the tune of Master of Puppets but of course saying "Napster" instead of "Master." IT was some funny shit...
I'm sooooooooooooooooo tired of seeing that word misspelled time and time again. And here it actually is the cornerstone of the whole post, yet that freak can't get it right.
Please mod this up. And read it. Over and over again.
Yes, he should of spelled it right, damnit! :)
I have auto-run turned off. I did it with tweakui which microsoft provided. I assume this means the CD will always be easily copyable on my computer with the extra effort of holding down the shift key. It sure was nice of microsoft to provide me with this nifty circumvention.
You used to be able to just right click on the cdrom drive in My Computer and choose to turn off autoplay. I always did because autoplay is extremely annoying and breaks things a lot. BUt I seem to have forgotten it is not so easy to do so in Win2k, mainly because I primarily use Linux.
Nevertheless, regedit is your friend if in Windows, and editing a few entries will fix this problem as well.
You know, I think they are causing more damage by including malware on this cd. Many computers have been damaged by software present on these cds which the purchaser thought only contained music and which installed software on their computers without their permission or prior knowlege. These people are no better than virus writers, and it is no wonder they are such hacks. Besides, if you want the cd to be DRM'd would it not make more sense to actually encrypt the contents rather than to have a software driver encrypt them on the fly? Who thought that was a good idea?