I took a look at this LittleBlackBox tarball. It contains a lot of source code (sqlite, openssl, libpcap plus the the LittleBlackBox program itself which uses these libraries). I wouldn't trust any of the source code or the precompiled binaries. So that leaves you with a file called "lbb.db", which is an sqlite database. Get at that data in some other way (surely there are some sqlite tools for browsing databases or dumping them to text?)
I don't see the WRT54GL listed in there, nor Tomato firmware. Of course. The stock firmware generates the key every time you boot the thing! (Well-known, major nuisance.) Tomato generates one once which is then persisted.
For years now we have had full length films and animated series done with rendering, so of course some 30 second special effect scene doesn't impress anyone.
A special effect is superficial; it is shallow in both the intellectual and emotional sense.
It isn't drama, it isn't comedy, it isn't suspense, it isn't mystery.
It doesn't advance any character development. It may be part of the plot, but a poor special effect will substitute for a great one without damaging the plot.
Your argument is based on an incorrect analogy. No property is being damaged here. Space (bandwidth space) is being taken up by protesters in order to prevent other legitimate activity. This is how protests have functioned for decades. Perhaps you believe that people in the civil-rights movement should have taken less aggressive tactics so that we wouldn't have had to end segregation so quickly, eh?
Why don't we cut off your Internet for a month?
The ability to do business is damaged by these attacks.
That can be translated to a dollar figure which corresponds to the actual damages caused.
Sun was successful because in the 80's they beat the mainframe. Instead of some monstrous IBM or DEC thing, you could get Unix workstations for your CS department.
Then the 90's came, and Sun became the mainframe which was eaten by cheap commodity hardware and better operating systems.
Mistake #1 was taking System VR4 and turning out the pile of crap known as Slowlaris.
In civilized countries there are rules to govern trade and business. In the US and the EU, businesses fortunately have to follow rules set forth by society - rules designed to ensure and enforce out liberal freedoms, free trade, fair markets.
Most of these rules are not civilized at all. They are various ways by which the collectivist mob steals from the producing strong to coddle the nonproducing weak. No intereference in the market makes it fair, because it involves taking from someone who is successful in the market to help someone who is losing. Discrimination against minorities is wrong, but it's equally wrong to dictate to someone not to do it. Legislation against discrimination invariably leads to reverse discrimination (e.g. a job goes to a less qualified canditate from an identified minority, just to fill a racial quota) or extortion (someone justly refused resorts to racial accusations).
If someone doesn't want to have customers or employees from a certain country or race, that is his right. And anyway it happens, because you can disguise race as other attributes such as knowledge of culture or language. If the job application says "fluent Mandarin speaker required", that is practically as good as "Chinese applicants only, please".
Here, Apple is wrong simply because it steals. Once it sells you a phone or tablet, that tablet is yours. They behave as if its is not yours. They are engaging in extortion.
One man has the skills to develop a program which another wants to put on a device that he owns. But, no the thieving extortionist puts himself in the middle. The device is locked; you must go through me to approve the program, and have me sell it through my store.
Apple should do the honest thing and proclaim that the devices are not sold, but only leased. When you buy an iPhone or iPad, you are borrowing it indefinitely, and the price is a rental fee amortized over the life of the product, and not a purchase price which secures ownership of the device.
The device, being leased, comes with restrictions as to what the lessee can put on it and from where such materials can be obtained.
They might also offer the device unlocked, for the full price.
And support both with a warranty.
It's unethical to void the warranty which protects the hardware just because someone wanted to run a program which is not approved. ``Oh, your display stopped working after six months? Sorry, can't help you; your phone is jailbroken. That means a big bad program mighta come and ate your LCD.''
The correct ethic is that I own that licensed copy of iOS, and can do whatever I want with it that doesn't involve copyright infringment.
Although it is true that Apple is also under no obligation to help me to use their product outside of its intended use, it is not correct to void the warranty for the device a whole because I wanted to install non-approved software.
If, say, the LCD dies on your device, and you bring that device in for repair in a jailbroken state, they will refuse to fix it, right?
It's unlikely that they are just going to burn the house with all the explosives and other materials in it! Probably, they will remove as much as they can, or so you would think. The burning is to eliminate any remaining contamination. If you simply demolish the contaminated building, it will send the contaminants into the air and soil.
It's obvious that what Avast has here is basically a subscription model. What they are selling is continuing protection against new, emerging threats.
The Windows program is just the mode of delivery for this subscription model. The program isn't really what you're paying for when you buy a license.
The license is effectively a user ID representing an account on the Avast site, and so this license sharing amounts to a large number of people trying to share a single data subscription, which could obviously and easily be terminated at any time by Avast.
What are they thinking? Probably not much. Most people who download these kinds of programs are driven by fear and ignorance.
we may want to change the rules in ways we have changed them for other businesses in the past: banks and telecom companies cannot arbitrarily refuse service because of the personal political views of their management, and we should probably have similar rules for Paypal and Amazon. That's not to protect Wikileaks, it's to protect our political process and liberties.
What statist twaddle. What is the meaning of one person's liberties when they are secured by trampling on another's?
If you don't like PayPal or Amazon, don't be a customer.
Collecting donations through PayPal, or hosting on an Amazon server, are not examples of political rights.
I do not agree. A successful business with a large market share is not a government.
You're trying to make the Marxist sounding argument that a successful business with a majority market share is a de facto form of government, from which the next "logical" step would be that it's owned by everyone and so the collective mob can interfere with that business by force (or seize it entirely) so that this "government" serves the people.
The only problem with this that the business is in fact private, and funded from the proceeds of its operations, and not from taxes.
That's kind of the point. Whistleblowing is always against some regulation, be it corporate or governmental. Whistleblowing to expose corrupt, unethical or simply improper practices nonetheless remains important, and should be supported.
That is your opinion, which does not translate into anyone else's obligation to support such activity.
PayPal is a free enterprise which can choose not to support anyone whose activities it perceives to be harmful to its interests, let alone those which involve it in criminal activity.
There is a reason they have that wording in their service agreement, and it would be meaningless if they didn't stand behind it.
Slashdot Mirror
I took a look at this LittleBlackBox tarball. It contains a lot of source code (sqlite, openssl, libpcap plus the the LittleBlackBox program itself which uses these libraries). I wouldn't trust any of the source code or the precompiled binaries. So that leaves you with a file called "lbb.db", which is an sqlite database. Get at that data in some other way (surely there are some sqlite tools for browsing databases or dumping them to text?)
I don't see the WRT54GL listed in there, nor Tomato firmware. Of course. The stock firmware generates the key every time you boot the thing! (Well-known, major nuisance.) Tomato generates one once which is then persisted.
Our code is produced by nerds who have access to open pasture and are fed nothing but organic sushi.
Dilbert strips on shrinking cubicle topic:
http://www.dilbert.com/fast/1991-06-17/
http://www.dilbert.com/fast/1995-04-08/
For years now we have had full length films and animated series done with rendering, so of course some 30 second special effect scene doesn't impress anyone.
A special effect is superficial; it is shallow in both the intellectual and emotional sense.
It isn't drama, it isn't comedy, it isn't suspense, it isn't mystery.
It doesn't advance any character development. It may be part of the plot, but a poor special effect will substitute for a great one without damaging the plot.
If you show someone else's page in an iframe or frameset, it's copying, even if the user has to click on something to make it appear.
The ethics must be based on the plain appearance of what is going on, not the implementation.
... and I'm chugging along. Bad program, off to the synthetic CPU with you.
webserver:~# ps aux | grep exim
101 25977 0.0 0.6 157564 27388 ? Ss 09:58 0:00
root 32215 0.0 0.0 5160 776 pts/1 R+ 21:54 0:00 grep exim
I need a patch for Valgrind to bail on the first error.
Welcome to the early 1990's of memory debugging.
That string_format problem is incredibly shameful this day and age, too.
You know what? I think I'm going to run my exim4 installation under Valgrind, set to terminate at the first memory error.
(Will I still get any e-mail?)
Fighting communists didn't become old. They merely won: their enemies assimilated their core values.
Preventing earnings is the same thing as destruction of property.
If I lock you in your house so that you can't go out and earn a living, it is the same thing as if I took your stuff and burned it.
Your argument is based on an incorrect analogy. No property is being damaged here. Space (bandwidth space) is being taken up by protesters in order to prevent other legitimate activity. This is how protests have functioned for decades. Perhaps you believe that people in the civil-rights movement should have taken less aggressive tactics so that we wouldn't have had to end segregation so quickly, eh?
Why don't we cut off your Internet for a month?
The ability to do business is damaged by these attacks.
That can be translated to a dollar figure which corresponds to the actual damages caused.
Sit ins on private property are attacks.
Furthermore, using the word "attack" does not fuel a belief that the actions are not justified.
Except maybe in those whose mode of reasoning consists of the rearrangement of word spellings.
Furthermore, the actions are not justified. They are criminal, and these kiddies should go to jail, and also pay restitution.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/civil_disobedience.html :)
man 3 XInternAtom
Sun was successful because in the 80's they beat the mainframe. Instead of some monstrous IBM or DEC thing, you could get Unix workstations for your CS department.
Then the 90's came, and Sun became the mainframe which was eaten by cheap commodity hardware and better operating systems.
Mistake #1 was taking System VR4 and turning out the pile of crap known as Slowlaris.
Down hill from there.
In civilized countries there are rules to govern trade and business. In the US and the EU, businesses fortunately have to follow rules set forth by society - rules designed to ensure and enforce out liberal freedoms, free trade, fair markets.
Most of these rules are not civilized at all. They are various ways by which the collectivist mob steals from the producing strong to coddle the nonproducing weak. No intereference in the market makes it fair, because it involves taking from someone who is successful in the market to help someone who is losing. Discrimination against minorities is wrong, but it's equally wrong to dictate to someone not to do it. Legislation against discrimination invariably leads to reverse discrimination (e.g. a job goes to a less qualified canditate from an identified minority, just to fill a racial quota) or extortion (someone justly refused resorts to racial accusations).
If someone doesn't want to have customers or employees from a certain country or race, that is his right. And anyway it happens, because you can disguise race as other attributes such as knowledge of culture or language. If the job application says "fluent Mandarin speaker required", that is practically as good as "Chinese applicants only, please".
Here, Apple is wrong simply because it steals. Once it sells you a phone or tablet, that tablet is yours. They behave as if its is not yours. They are engaging in extortion.
One man has the skills to develop a program which another wants to put on a device that he owns. But, no the thieving extortionist puts himself in the middle. The device is locked; you must go through me to approve the program, and have me sell it through my store.
Apple should do the honest thing and proclaim that the devices are not sold, but only leased. When you buy an iPhone or iPad, you are borrowing it indefinitely, and the price is a rental fee amortized over the life of the product, and not a purchase price which secures ownership of the device.
The device, being leased, comes with restrictions as to what the lessee can put on it and from where such materials can be obtained.
They might also offer the device unlocked, for the full price.
And support both with a warranty.
It's unethical to void the warranty which protects the hardware just because someone wanted to run a program which is not approved. ``Oh, your display stopped working after six months? Sorry, can't help you; your phone is jailbroken. That means a big bad program mighta come and ate your LCD.''
The correct ethic is that I own that licensed copy of iOS, and can do whatever I want with it that doesn't involve copyright infringment.
Although it is true that Apple is also under no obligation to help me to use their product outside of its intended use, it is not correct to void the warranty for the device a whole because I wanted to install non-approved software.
If, say, the LCD dies on your device, and you bring that device in for repair in a jailbroken state, they will refuse to fix it, right?
Dirty.
It's unlikely that they are just going to burn the house with all the explosives and other materials in it! Probably, they will remove as much as they can, or so you would think. The burning is to eliminate any remaining contamination. If you simply demolish the contaminated building, it will send the contaminants into the air and soil.
It's obvious that what Avast has here is basically a subscription model. What they are selling is continuing protection against new, emerging threats.
The Windows program is just the mode of delivery for this subscription model. The program isn't really what you're paying for when you buy a license.
The license is effectively a user ID representing an account on the Avast site, and so this license sharing amounts to a large number of people trying to share a single data subscription, which could obviously and easily be terminated at any time by Avast.
What are they thinking? Probably not much. Most people who download these kinds of programs are driven by fear and ignorance.
That's what you get for caving in to some "official store associated with device" extortion.
we may want to change the rules in ways we have changed them for other businesses in the past: banks and telecom companies cannot arbitrarily refuse service because of the personal political views of their management, and we should probably have similar rules for Paypal and Amazon. That's not to protect Wikileaks, it's to protect our political process and liberties.
What statist twaddle. What is the meaning of one person's liberties when they are secured by trampling on another's?
If you don't like PayPal or Amazon, don't be a customer.
Collecting donations through PayPal, or hosting on an Amazon server, are not examples of political rights.
I do not agree. A successful business with a large market share is not a government.
You're trying to make the Marxist sounding argument that a successful business with a majority market share is a de facto form of government, from which the next "logical" step would be that it's owned by everyone and so the collective mob can interfere with that business by force (or seize it entirely) so that this "government" serves the people.
The only problem with this that the business is in fact private, and funded from the proceeds of its operations, and not from taxes.
That's kind of the point. Whistleblowing is always against some regulation, be it corporate or governmental. Whistleblowing to expose corrupt, unethical or simply improper practices nonetheless remains important, and should be supported.
That is your opinion, which does not translate into anyone else's obligation to support such activity.
PayPal is a free enterprise which can choose not to support anyone whose activities it perceives to be harmful to its interests, let alone those which involve it in criminal activity.
There is a reason they have that wording in their service agreement, and it would be meaningless if they didn't stand behind it.
What leftist/collectivist twaddle.
In a free society, there necessarily has to be the threat of these "intentional outages".
It's a basic right not to help someone whose interests somehow conflict with yours, or for any other reason.
For instance, a magazine has as right not to publish letters, or refuse advertizers.
I find it hard to imagine how we could fix this "problem" of intentional outages without stepping on freedom.
If you don't like PayPal, you can open an actual credit card merchant account.
This is likely going to be a pain in the butt compared to just opening a PayPal account, generating a button, and pasting the HTML into your web page.
paypalsucks.com promotes payment methods which compete with PayPal, while putting on the air of impartial judgment.