Now, if you ask for the mods and they say nay, THEN it's a violation.
Clarification: If you get the code from them, and then you ask for the modifications, and are rejected.
I haven't looked to see if they're a "Wide open FTP server" or if they're a CD only kinda thing, but they are only required to give the mods to the people they distributed it to, upon request.
e.g., if you buy the binaries from FooBarOnlineCDSales.com, and it doesn't include the source, only FooBarOnlineCDSales.com is required to give you the mods. If they don't have them, then they damn well better get them (pronto) from whoever THEY got the code from, so as to be able to meet the GPL's requirements.
Now if its an FTP server, they have a hard time proving they DIDN'T supply you, and they need to make it available to one and all who ask.
NSI Doesn't allow "Dirty Words"... go elsewhere...
on
Dirty Domains
·
· Score: 3
OK, summation: NSI now has competition. If you don't like their policies, and many don't, go elsewhere.
COREnic will happily register whatever domain-name you put in front of them.
For example: ~ > whois fuckme.com@whois.corenic.net [whois.corenic.net] berkens michael (template COCO-395) CORE-78 po box 4756 seminole, fl 33775 US
Domain Name: fuckme.com Status: production ...
The domains are in the root-servers just like any other.com/.net/.org/etc. There was an article on this several months ago, mocking how the whole NSI case was useless because the competitive registries will allowing exactly what NSI was forbidding.
Pass the crack-pipe over here, you need to share!:)
What in the world are you TALKING about? If you could just try to be a LITTLE more unrelated to the topic at hand, it would make it easier for the moderators to recognize that you're either trying to be ludicrously funny or that you're really serious about what you're saying.
This brings to mind a conversation my better-half and myself were having after this topic came up.
If natural selection were left unchecked, the Indians (US, not Asia) would have hunted the buffalo to extinction. They certainly could have found uses for the creatures, they didn't waste a single part of them.
The problem is that if they'd done that, they would have put themselves on a course for extinction by destroying their food source.
Natural selection is a very complex equation, with many variables acting upon the whole. The indians avoided extinction by adapting -- by not hunting their primary prey to extinction. They did this not through instinct, but because they KNEW they needed to let buffalo continue to breed and such. Only after "the white man" came, did the buffalo get slaughtered. We didn't need them for survival, so we weren't inclined to protect them the way the indians had. By that time, there were other food sources for the indians, so they didn't face extinction either.
How many endangered species are there that would not be endangered if not for the actions of man? Instead of trying to clone extinct species (which most likely went extinct due to natural selection)...
A couple reality checks for you...
1. The Wooly Mammoth is extinct by the hand of man. Early man hunted the mammoth to extinction in a manner almost exactly the same as what we have done to several whale species.
2. Kindly define for me - in logical terms - the difference between "natural selection" and "destroyed by man". Man (homo sapiens) is an animal just like any other, and a very vicious predatorial one at that. Just as the wolf's superiority might lead to one of its prey's extinction while another (more adaptable) prey might survive, there are no animals that have become extinct for any reason other than Natural Selection. If man (the top of the food chain) changed their environment, and they were unable to adapt to the polluted environment, that's natural selection. If man hunted the whales to the brink of extinction because the whales couldn't figure out NOT to swim near the whaling boats, that's natural selection.
I can certainly understand your point, but you also have to realize that natural selection encompasses ANY reason a species goes extinct. Whether it is a predator hunting them down or an inability to cope with a changing environment, a species will either adapt itself (as many species have) or it will become extinct. To say that one species deserves "protection" over another is simply wrong. They are all equally extinct (or endangered).
. Just cat the output of/dev/urandom to uuencode, strip off some of the header and footer info, and put "-- BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE --" at the top of yours. Looks authentic.. but it isn't crypto.
Ah, but it IS crypto, that's the problem. Cryptography is taking something that is "clear" and making it something else. UUEncoding is a form of cryptography. Scanning a piece of paper in an OCR and saving it as a password protected MS Word document is crypto. Neither of which is the "toughest" of crypto, and there are certainly pieces of software to "decode" both end-products rather easily, but they are still encrypted. To make my point, I could hand you the binary code from the word document. If you can't read it, guess what? It's a form of encryption (and encapsulation in that particular case, encapsulating it in a wrapper of word-doc crap, but that's here nor there)
It is important that we are careful with our terminology. Cryptography is NOT what the government is after. They're after "tough" encryption.
As soon as we start just throwing the "crypto" word around, we run the risk of confusing the issue because there are many things that are crypto that are also perfectly legal to import and export.
What it is is typical that the US believes its the only source of cryptography algorithms in the world.
The problem with these laws is that they assume that nobody else in the whole world could create good crypto stuff. I could almost understand a law that said "if its not available anywhere else in the world at this bit-level (or something like that), then you can't export it", but that's not the case these days.
Instead we're forced to use older (easily crackable) algorithms in software distributions because we don't want to offend Big Brother^W^Wthe NSA.
Have you ever tried to get Linux working nicely on a laptop? Even if you get it working, it's a very hedgy thing at best.
Second, the average joe-schmoe on the street isn't comfortable with X. Everybody knows windows, so they'll feel warm and fuzzy using it, and using it is what they want. They don't want people going "Wow, that LOOKS like netscape, but I don't get any of how the rest of this stuff works..."
Plus I've yet to see a good collection of browser plug-ins for linux, which can really ruin the surfing experience for someone.
Nope, this is one of those "Linux not for the desktop yet" issues. For the average user of this service, windows is still the way to go. Don't like it? Fix the problems.:)
Didn't you have to take a road-test over and over again? That would suck. I couldn't parallel park when I got my license and I sure as hell can't do it now.:)
I feel like whatshername from Clueless... "Everywhere worth going has valet!":)
I've had my SSN as my ID all through public school and college (Purdue University) and of course on my Indiana driver's license.
Dunno why... Purdue will assign you a "non-SSN ID number" if you ask. (It's 999-xx-xxxx). To get it off your drivers license, simply tell the BMV clerk "I don't want that on my license" and it won't be there.
Not that hard to prevent the abuses if you at least try.
I would definately pull my kids from such a school.
I wouldn't personally, and NOT because I agree with the policy (I don't). I wouldn't pull them out because if you do that, then they've won. They get to keep doing what they're doing, and that's wrong.
Like the terrorist who convinces you to change your travel plans because of bomb threats, if you cave in, then they win. You have to stand firm, NOT remove your kid from the school, and let the kid kick the administration's ass.
Heck, maybe the kid can make enough on litigation against the school that he can pay for college... or better yet, won't NEED to go to college.
They aren't putting together a distro for hackers - so by definition if you can fix one of their bugs they aren't really interested in you as a beta tester
Sorry... not the way it works. As someone who has participated in formal beta tests for large products, as well as having selected people for beta-tests, that's not the way you pick beta-testers (unless you're a complete idiot).
Yes, you may have "windows newbies" beat on your application, but that's not part of the beta test period, that's part of the Usability Study period (for a company like Corel anyway). That's when you get "people who meet certain criteria" (that criteria being the same as your target audience) and have them try the product out, and find out what they like/dislike and what works/doesn't-work for their skill level, perceptions, etc.
The point of beta-testing is to find bugs and problems that the alpha-testers (usually in-house) couldn't find. The reason you have a beta period is simply to increase the "number of monkees beating randomly on the keyboards". You are increasing the number of people with odd hardware/software/installation/whatever combinations that may (and invariably WILL) find problems in your code that you didn't know about, simply because you can't - in-house - test every combination.
Bugs are best found by hacker-types who will also tend to correct the bugs if they can. As soon as Corel realizes that, they'll have a clue about the Open Source community.
You would think, if you were going to be beta-testing the code (and let's face it, what you're beta-testing is Corel's code, by and large, the rest of it has been out and gotten the stuffing beaten out of it for some time now), wouldn't you rather have people able to send you up source code patches as opposed to often "cryptic" bug reports?
Which would you prefer as a company? Something which says "when I click this button, I get a crash!", or something which says "Hey, I found a bug in this button, the problem is that you're doing a divide by zero on line 51, and, oh, here's the patch to fix it and make it work..."
The former is "business as usual" for big companies, and explains a great deal of why closed source products generally suck. The latter is an example of how Open Source(tm) software works...
Notice that Corel really doesn't "get it" yet, or they'd be saving themselves energy and taking true advantage of the beta test by doing the latter.
My only beef is that they'll probably just lock him up for a few years and then release him without trying to give him the help he obviously needs.
Actually, all it will take is a few words from someone telling his prison neighbors what he did, and you'll be lucky if he comes out alive. Child porn/molesters/etc. have a VERY short life expectancy in prison.
I remember an episode of Law and Order where the DA was like "You let that child molester off with only 15-20, what's up with that?" and the response was "I told a couple people inside what he did. Do you really think he'll live more than a year in there?". From friends who have been correctional officers, I can attest that this is most assuredly the case.
They can't prevent him from investing in the "baby bills". Bill Gates is not on trial, so he cannot be personally punished. You can do whatever you want to Microsoft, Inc., but you can't punish the investors directly.
What scares me even more would be if existing Sony contracts have a clause in them that allows Sony to change the terms of the contract at any time. Such a clause might read as follows: "Sony reserves the right to alter the terms and conditions of the contract at any time..." (despite the fact that amending the contract after it is signed is clearly a privilege and not a right) thus allowing Sony to retroactively amend all contracts to contain this contentious URL clause
Any agent/manager who allowed this into his/her client's contract would be shot on sight, I think. That's why bands have management.:) The agent and/or manager's job is to be "savvy" and to negotiate the best deal they can with the label. They, or the artists' lawyers, should have spotted that a mile away.:)
Splitting up Microsoft seems to be the most favoured option, but while that'll stick it to Bill, I can't see it doing anything to encourage MS to move towards the light side.
How will that stick it to Bill? Bill is all about the almighty dollar. He could give a shit about technology, or about market trends, all he cares about is increasing his holdings.
That said, if he's, say, 10% holder (I honestly don't remember his percentage, so it's just a number for discussion purposes) of MSFT, then if MSFT gets split up, he's a 10% holder of ALL the babies. He may not be permitted by the agreement to hold positions of power, titles, executive offices, etc. in those new companies, but the stock he holds will get split as well.
Splitting them up is a great idea, but let's not wax philosophic about what it will do for Bill. Bill will make out like a bandit because that'll give him large holdings in SEVERAL companies instead of just one.:)
So when is there going to be a contest to win every O'Reilly book ever published?
It's called "become an author". Part of the contract with ORA when they publish your work is that you get to "Audit" any ORA book, which essentially means you're on the free-book train for quite a while.
The guy next to me has a library of books... once or twice a week, the UPS package shows up with all the newest and latest.:)
You are aware that the "lie-flat" binding will appear to the untrained eye to have pulled back from the book when that's actually the way its designed to function so you can lie it down flat without problems, right?
I wonder if "Company X", who gets listed there, could actually complain that the words "Company X" are a trademark and may not be used on Amazon's site?
Under what category of "Fair Use" would their site fall? I can't think of any...
I think I'll start working on a whois binary that DOESN'T display the ads. Realistically, all the traffic in question (or a good chunk of it) is admins doing "whois" on the command line. All you need to do is create a version that "detects" the ad and obliterates it. Even better, one that ALSO detects their silly "license" and optionally (default to ON) removes that as well.:) D
I would have to agree with you on this. FM is for software releases,/. is for news.
Now, in some rare cases, a software release may be news (Linux releases a NEW major-rev, not just another patch-level for 2.2.x, etc.), but by and large, these announcements aren't news, they're FM material...
Actually, if you read the "response" on dmusic's site, you'll see that this is NOT how the crack is performed. That's what MS is claiming, but that isn't the case.
Slashdot Mirror
Clarification: If you get the code from them, and then you ask for the modifications, and are rejected.
I haven't looked to see if they're a "Wide open FTP server" or if they're a CD only kinda thing, but they are only required to give the mods to the people they distributed it to, upon request.
e.g., if you buy the binaries from FooBarOnlineCDSales.com, and it doesn't include the source, only FooBarOnlineCDSales.com is required to give you the mods. If they don't have them, then they damn well better get them (pronto) from whoever THEY got the code from, so as to be able to meet the GPL's requirements.
Now if its an FTP server, they have a hard time proving they DIDN'T supply you, and they need to make it available to one and all who ask.
COREnic will happily register whatever domain-name you put in front of them.
For example:
...
~ > whois fuckme.com@whois.corenic.net
[whois.corenic.net]
berkens michael (template COCO-395) CORE-78
po box 4756
seminole, fl 33775 US
Domain Name: fuckme.com
Status: production
The domains are in the root-servers just like any other .com/.net/.org/etc. There was an article on this several months ago, mocking how the whole NSI case was useless because the competitive registries will allowing exactly what NSI was forbidding.
What in the world are you TALKING about? If you could just try to be a LITTLE more unrelated to the topic at hand, it would make it easier for the moderators to recognize that you're either trying to be ludicrously funny or that you're really serious about what you're saying.
If natural selection were left unchecked, the Indians (US, not Asia) would have hunted the buffalo to extinction. They certainly could have found uses for the creatures, they didn't waste a single part of them.
The problem is that if they'd done that, they would have put themselves on a course for extinction by destroying their food source.
Natural selection is a very complex equation, with many variables acting upon the whole. The indians avoided extinction by adapting -- by not hunting their primary prey to extinction. They did this not through instinct, but because they KNEW they needed to let buffalo continue to breed and such. Only after "the white man" came, did the buffalo get slaughtered. We didn't need them for survival, so we weren't inclined to protect them the way the indians had. By that time, there were other food sources for the indians, so they didn't face extinction either.
A couple reality checks for you...
1. The Wooly Mammoth is extinct by the hand of man. Early man hunted the mammoth to extinction in a manner almost exactly the same as what we have done to several whale species.
2. Kindly define for me - in logical terms - the difference between "natural selection" and "destroyed by man". Man (homo sapiens) is an animal just like any other, and a very vicious predatorial one at that. Just as the wolf's superiority might lead to one of its prey's extinction while another (more adaptable) prey might survive, there are no animals that have become extinct for any reason other than Natural Selection. If man (the top of the food chain) changed their environment, and they were unable to adapt to the polluted environment, that's natural selection. If man hunted the whales to the brink of extinction because the whales couldn't figure out NOT to swim near the whaling boats, that's natural selection.
I can certainly understand your point, but you also have to realize that natural selection encompasses ANY reason a species goes extinct. Whether it is a predator hunting them down or an inability to cope with a changing environment, a species will either adapt itself (as many species have) or it will become extinct. To say that one species deserves "protection" over another is simply wrong. They are all equally extinct (or endangered).
I'm not a god, I just play one in the lab.
Ah, but it IS crypto, that's the problem. Cryptography is taking something that is "clear" and making it something else. UUEncoding is a form of cryptography. Scanning a piece of paper in an OCR and saving it as a password protected MS Word document is crypto. Neither of which is the "toughest" of crypto, and there are certainly pieces of software to "decode" both end-products rather easily, but they are still encrypted. To make my point, I could hand you the binary code from the word document. If you can't read it, guess what? It's a form of encryption (and encapsulation in that particular case, encapsulating it in a wrapper of word-doc crap, but that's here nor there)
It is important that we are careful with our terminology. Cryptography is NOT what the government is after. They're after "tough" encryption.
As soon as we start just throwing the "crypto" word around, we run the risk of confusing the issue because there are many things that are crypto that are also perfectly legal to import and export.
The problem with these laws is that they assume that nobody else in the whole world could create good crypto stuff. I could almost understand a law that said "if its not available anywhere else in the world at this bit-level (or something like that), then you can't export it", but that's not the case these days.
Instead we're forced to use older (easily crackable) algorithms in software distributions because we don't want to offend Big Brother^W^Wthe NSA.
Second, the average joe-schmoe on the street isn't comfortable with X. Everybody knows windows, so they'll feel warm and fuzzy using it, and using it is what they want. They don't want people going "Wow, that LOOKS like netscape, but I don't get any of how the rest of this stuff works..."
Plus I've yet to see a good collection of browser plug-ins for linux, which can really ruin the surfing experience for someone.
Nope, this is one of those "Linux not for the desktop yet" issues. For the average user of this service, windows is still the way to go. Don't like it? Fix the problems. :)
I feel like whatshername from Clueless... "Everywhere worth going has valet!" :)
Dunno why... Purdue will assign you a "non-SSN ID number" if you ask. (It's 999-xx-xxxx). To get it off your drivers license, simply tell the BMV clerk "I don't want that on my license" and it won't be there.
Not that hard to prevent the abuses if you at least try.
I wouldn't personally, and NOT because I agree with the policy (I don't). I wouldn't pull them out because if you do that, then they've won. They get to keep doing what they're doing, and that's wrong.
Like the terrorist who convinces you to change your travel plans because of bomb threats, if you cave in, then they win. You have to stand firm, NOT remove your kid from the school, and let the kid kick the administration's ass.
Heck, maybe the kid can make enough on litigation against the school that he can pay for college... or better yet, won't NEED to go to college.
Sorry... not the way it works. As someone who has participated in formal beta tests for large products, as well as having selected people for beta-tests, that's not the way you pick beta-testers (unless you're a complete idiot).
Yes, you may have "windows newbies" beat on your application, but that's not part of the beta test period, that's part of the Usability Study period (for a company like Corel anyway). That's when you get "people who meet certain criteria" (that criteria being the same as your target audience) and have them try the product out, and find out what they like/dislike and what works/doesn't-work for their skill level, perceptions, etc.
The point of beta-testing is to find bugs and problems that the alpha-testers (usually in-house) couldn't find. The reason you have a beta period is simply to increase the "number of monkees beating randomly on the keyboards". You are increasing the number of people with odd hardware/software/installation/whatever combinations that may (and invariably WILL) find problems in your code that you didn't know about, simply because you can't - in-house - test every combination.
Bugs are best found by hacker-types who will also tend to correct the bugs if they can. As soon as Corel realizes that, they'll have a clue about the Open Source community.
Which would you prefer as a company? Something which says "when I click this button, I get a crash!", or something which says "Hey, I found a bug in this button, the problem is that you're doing a divide by zero on line 51, and, oh, here's the patch to fix it and make it work..."
The former is "business as usual" for big companies, and explains a great deal of why closed source products generally suck. The latter is an example of how Open Source(tm) software works...
Notice that Corel really doesn't "get it" yet, or they'd be saving themselves energy and taking true advantage of the beta test by doing the latter.
Actually, all it will take is a few words from someone telling his prison neighbors what he did, and you'll be lucky if he comes out alive. Child porn/molesters/etc. have a VERY short life expectancy in prison.
I remember an episode of Law and Order where the DA was like "You let that child molester off with only 15-20, what's up with that?" and the response was "I told a couple people inside what he did. Do you really think he'll live more than a year in there?". From friends who have been correctional officers, I can attest that this is most assuredly the case.
As long as he sees prison time, he's screwed.
They can't prevent him from investing in the "baby bills". Bill Gates is not on trial, so he cannot be personally punished. You can do whatever you want to Microsoft, Inc., but you can't punish the investors directly.
Any agent/manager who allowed this into his/her client's contract would be shot on sight, I think. That's why bands have management.
How will that stick it to Bill? Bill is all about the almighty dollar. He could give a shit about technology, or about market trends, all he cares about is increasing his holdings.
That said, if he's, say, 10% holder (I honestly don't remember his percentage, so it's just a number for discussion purposes) of MSFT, then if MSFT gets split up, he's a 10% holder of ALL the babies. He may not be permitted by the agreement to hold positions of power, titles, executive offices, etc. in those new companies, but the stock he holds will get split as well.
Splitting them up is a great idea, but let's not wax philosophic about what it will do for Bill. Bill will make out like a bandit because that'll give him large holdings in SEVERAL companies instead of just one.
It's called "become an author". Part of the contract with ORA when they publish your work is that you get to "Audit" any ORA book, which essentially means you're on the free-book train for quite a while.
The guy next to me has a library of books... once or twice a week, the UPS package shows up with all the newest and latest.
You are aware that the "lie-flat" binding will appear to the untrained eye to have pulled back from the book when that's actually the way its designed to function so you can lie it down flat without problems, right?
D
I wonder if "Company X", who gets listed there, could actually complain that the words "Company X" are a trademark and may not be used on Amazon's site?
Under what category of "Fair Use" would their site fall? I can't think of any...
D
I think I'll start working on a whois binary that DOESN'T display the ads. Realistically, all the traffic in question (or a good chunk of it) is admins doing "whois" on the command line. All you need to do is create a version that "detects" the ad and obliterates it. Even better, one that ALSO detects their silly "license" and optionally (default to ON) removes that as well. :) D
I would have to agree with you on this. FM is for software releases, /. is for news.
Now, in some rare cases, a software release may be news (Linux releases a NEW major-rev, not just another patch-level for 2.2.x, etc.), but by and large, these announcements aren't news, they're FM material...
Actually, if you read the "response" on dmusic's site, you'll see that this is NOT how the crack is performed. That's what MS is claiming, but that isn't the case.
We watch the history of abuses. We are already at near the bottom of the proverbial "Slippery slope".
Those who forsake freedom for security deserve neither.