No, it's VMS clusters that have 0 downtime. It's the only OS i'm aware of that can actually upgrade the entire OS throughout a cluster without halting services at any time! Of course, it's closed source and proprietary, but it can do it...
The book was made by some people at Slashdot; for contractual reasons, Jon Katz couldn't publish something like it. It's just his articles and Slashdot readers comments. Katz actually has nothing to do with the books creation, but his name is on it.
Hmm, I wonder why Katz isn't mad that they stole his articles? Maybe he should be just as pissed!
Oh, wait, right. They asked him. Maybe next time they'll ask the posters?
(Of course, if post anonymously, you can't expect to retain ownership of the comment!)
A lot of people who are posting the "theft are theft" comments are missing the real point of the article - not that downloading MP3s of copyrighted songs is indeed theft by current laws, but rather that sueing anything that distributes them won't help.
There are other ways for people to share MP3s, Napster and now Gnutella are just easier methods than others. Things like HTTP servers and FTP servers can be easily used, and illegal digital items have been traded on IRC for ages. The alt.binary newsgroups are another good source for illegal material.
The real point is that there is no easy way to stop the spread of MP3s. The music industry instead needs to change it's outlook on how it distributes music. Sueing the current sources of illegal MP3 distribution into the ground won't stop new sources from popping up.
Yes, downloading MP3s of copyrighted songs is theft. Most people understand that. Some argue it shouldn't be. But it's not the issue here, the issue is the fact that the music industry needs to change it's way of doing buisness, and that since the MP3 "genie" has been released, there is no real effective way to put it back in it's bottle.
Several people have said "sue the GPL violators" so far, so I'm going to respond to this one.
DON'T SUE NVIDIA! Wait until the next GPL fiasco. If it makes you look bad publishing a violation before talking with the parties in violation, imagine what it'll look like if you tell a company "You made a mistake, fix it." and then next week say "Oh, we're sueing you anyway."
Not a very good idea - NVidia being sued by a bunch of OSS advocates would more than likely get some press coverage. And if someone said that NVidia was told to correct their problem but people sued anyway then that sounds to me like it would be bad press. And OSS advocates definately don't need to shoot themselves in the foot.
Next company that does it, maybe sue them. But not NVidia, especially after they said they'll fix it.
(On the other hand, if they don't fix it after several months, sue them!!!)
Re:Where's the Russian Mirror of Ender's Game
on
New Ender Sequel
·
· Score: 1
Actually, the last two books really were an extended epilogue. According to the author's notes, Card hadn't quite finished the story in Speaker for the Dead, so he continued it in Xenocide which didn't quite end and finished it in Children of the Mind. Sorta - there's still a lose thread out there about the new species they discover at the end, so I'm waiting for that sequel...
Personally, I liked Speaker for the Dead the best of all of them, but that's just me...
(Also, my user name on Slashdot is based on "xenocide" for the Ender series - in an online game, someone changed their nick to Ender for a while so I decided to use Xenocide, and I've kept on using it.)
No, the accounts all (in theory) had legal rights to listen to the music. MP3.com did NOT have legal rights to have the music in the first place, much less allow others to listen to it. Different things.
If you had an account, you'd need to allow my.mp3.com detect your CD and verify the presence of a given song on the CD. MP3.com would then allow you to stream that song back to you from any client machine which you logged in on.
Unfortunately for MP3.com and for the consumer in general, (I think this is a nice service, maybe the record labels themselves should think of doing something like this?) MP3.com has no rights to the songs in the database which they were streaming anyway. They needed to negociate something with the individual copyright holders FIRST before putting them online. While I like THIS use, I'm sure that a different outcome could have set a dangerous precedent for copyright law.
Methinks the US gummint has more money available them Microsoft - after all, if we're capable of having a debt in the trillions of dollars and not be worried about paying it off...
I wrote: FTP and HTTP are used for the transmission of binary data, and the person with the server is responsible for the information which goes over those methods of transmission. I can use FTP to allow people to download Linux HOWTOs, mirrors of free ISO images, or the latest open source project I'm working on. All of this would be legal. If I start posting my MP3 collection up through FTP or HTTP, that would be (for most people) illegal.
Palin Majere wrote: And here you are _wrong_. Under US law, your ISP is not help responsible for your illegal content until they are notified about it. At which point, most ISPs react by removing the content, and terminating the offender's account. This is EXACTLY what Napster has been doing, even going so far as to ban the ips of offenders to insure that they don't just sign on under a new username.
How does banning IPs help? Most ISP uses dynamic IPs anyway...
Moving along, what I said wasn't very clearly worded, but what I meant is that FTP and HTTP are designed just for data. Hence, they are not designed for pirating. They can be used for pirating, but often are not. And I was talking from the perspective of running at FTP or HTTP server, since I currently have them running on my box, and have material on them. (Like the RedHat 6.2 ISOs, mirrored from ftp.redhat.com, they're legal.) I've also have some episodes of Geeks in Space online to see if I'd get in trouble for having MP3s available for download. So far, I haven't.
You can't sue Napster's users effectively. It's quite near impossible to just go after the users, even though they are in theory the ones doing the pirating. Most people I know think that MP3s are illegal right out. Trying to explain the difference between an audio format and using an audio format to spread copyrighted matterial is getting annoying...
I don't know, but couldn't Napster set up a blacklist of copyrighted songs which can't go over the service? I can't think of any way personally, but could it be done?
This actually gets into another area, where allowing people to download copyrighted material is legal. For example, video game ROMs, binary duplicates of the data on those carts for the early Nintendo, or the Sega Genisis, etc. As most people do not have the ability to dump the ROMs into their computer, it is legal to have copies of the files available for download so that users can use their licence for copyrighted material even after the original cartridge failed.
Sticky issue, as it also allows people to play games which they aren't legally allowed to. But through the usage of ROMs, I can now play the original Legend of Zelda game even though the original cartridge has died. (To Nintendo's credit, my original NES deck still works!)
Personally, I can't condone Napster in any way. I don't see it as a method for artists to spread MP3s, because as far as I know, you really need to search for specific songs - needing to know the title first. I've never used Napster though, mainly because it's been blocked at my college... (Although they claim it's due to bandwidth restriction... Of course, since the network crapped out on me while I tried to submit this comment, I find that idea highly suspect...)
I'm noticing that the web site seems to ignore anyone for it, but as for "software developers" it doesn't list ANY of the major developers, just fringe groups like the FSF, or groups of developers. There are NO software companies listed as opposing it, just computer-science people.
The consumer advocacy list is not quite as obscure, it lists several orginizations which are actually major players.
I can't speak for the group of large software customers, as I don't recognize ANY of them. But then again, this bill doesn't help consumers, so this makes sense.
Librarians are just some national associations.
"Other independent information content developers" are three groups, which are basically publishers orginizations.
Entertainment industry is basically everyone's favorite MPAA, RIAA, along with some other national associations. However, newer versions are apparently acceptable to the RIAA.
There are TWO magizine/newspaper publishers listed. One for each. But again, they're national orginizations.
"Many lawyers/law professors" seems to be a valid claim, along with the consumer unions. They list many, but they're mostly indepenedent offices.
It also lists two bar associations, one a national orginization, and the other the New York bar.
Basically, that list is misrepresentative, and makes it sound like more people are against it than there really are. Be prepared for an uphill battle against the UCITA.
So what if they win the lawsuits, you might ask? Well, for starters, they can immediately make moves on the http, ftp, and irc protocols and their authors. Why? Because their encouraging piracy by allowing for the free transmission of data. What do you think was the primary source for pirated mp3s prior to Napster? And do you honestly think that with a precedent like that that the RIAA and the MPAA would _not_ take advantage of it? This is a case with the capacity of setting a _very_ dangerous precedent, because it asks the question "Is the method of transmission responsible for what's transmitted?".
Except that Napster is designed to only allow the transmission of MP3s. And most MP3's are illegally owned. Yes, I've got some MP3's I've ripped for personal usage, I don't use Napster, but still, most MP3's are illegal. (And most people seem not to want Final Fantasy VII's OST - but anyway...)
FTP and HTTP are used for the transmission of binary data, and the person with the server is responsible for the information which goes over those methods of transmission. I can use FTP to allow people to download Linux HOWTOs, mirrors of free ISO images, or the latest open source project I'm working on. All of this would be legal. If I start posting my MP3 collection up through FTP or HTTP, that would be (for most people) illegal.
Napster on the other hand is designed for transmitting MP3s and nothing else. (And I know about wrapster, it's a cheap ploy to try and expand the usefullness of Napster.)
Just because you WANT to pirate the latest tracks from your favorite band doesn't mean that you SHOULD do it, it's still illegal, and morally objectionable.
Either that, or you wouldn't mind if I decide to modify some GPL'ed project, and then release the changes under a restrictive licence. Then I'd be violating a copyright again. Would you mind?
Actually, the fact that voice-activated technology right now is really not very good on natural speach would be an asset in this respect. More than likely, you would need to speak slower and more clearly than normal for the device to properly determine what you are saying. I'd bet you'd also need to speak louder than normal to make your voice heard over road noise/the player itself. As for it needing to be programmed, yeah, probably, but depending on the interface, really might not be more than an inconvience.
Since the sight with the software version is currently suffering from the/. effect, I can't actually see how the software version works, so I can't really say with any certainty how the interface works.
Sounds like what he really should do is produce a low-end, "simple" version with a decent DSP and RCA output, and then a high-end version with the best DSP available, and using digital optical outputs. Either that, or try and meet middle ground somewhere.
I don't think so, I think $600 is actually fairly reasonable for a first-generation voice-activated MP3 car stereo with 140 hours worth of space.
Of course, if the interface stinks, then the device might not be desirable anyway. All in all, a free or demo software version need to be made for people to try out on their home computers before buying them for their cars.
'Course, as I don't have a car, I'm not terribly interested right now. But in the future, it could be a really neat thing to have.
Are SATs really that bad? Yeah, there are socioeconomic issues there, where people with more money/time might score slightly higher. However, the SATs are continuously designed so as to not be as biased. They are carefully regulated to get an idea of how well the students actually do. As pointed out, most colleges do use SATs. Of course, most colleges require tuition, so those higher up on the socioeconomic ladder are more valuable to most colleges. (Can you say "alumni donors?")
Then again, high school scores might not be that good, especially in the crowd Ars is going after, where the scores would have been from many years ago. As I'm a freshman in college, my high school grades are probably representative; in five to ten years, they will no longer be quite as useful. Interviews would probably be a better method of choice, but in this case, there are problems with that too.
Besides, the real reason to go to college is to make use of all those T1 lines that most technical colleges have:)
Keep the UI simple - make it easy to understand what something is. If it's a button, make it look like it can be pressed. Make sure that the UI looks standard across the entire platform. There is nothing more annoying that having to learn a new look and feel while using the same platform.
As for elements of a UI, you need to use what has become the defacto standard UI elements:
Buttons - pushable elements that take immediate action
Scrollbars - scroll other elements
Windows - things which hold content
Checkboxes - boolean indicators
Radiobuttons - multiple selection
Text boxes - places to input text
There are many other possible too - but these I think are the basic core - they also happen to be the elements included in the HTML form layout. Look at other UI kits, pick and choose the elements they present based on usefulness. Remember what you do like, what you don't.
Also, be wary of skinning - skinning things may make something look distinct, but it just confuses the end user. Be careful about confusing the user - you want as low a learning curve as possible. You want the UI elements to look as much like UI elements that the user has seen elsewhere as possible. That way the user needn't learn a new system.
I'd have to say that for the most part, Slashdot is a fairly liberal site. I wonder if children can view Slashdot or other Linux related sights? (Or for that matter, can they visit non-mainstream sites? Such as maybe be.com? Or any other alternative-OS?)
There's so much available on the Web, just restricting it to whatever sites are currently white-listed seems foolish. There are many good ways to protect what your children see when browsing that don't involve filters - the best method it to be with them and watch what they're looking for. Few children would look for pr0n while Mommy | Daddy where in the room, watching what they were doing. I know that's how my parents look at letting my little brother surf on the web - they watch him, and he has to tell them what he's looking for online.
I remember someone using this as an argument why Open Source wasn't any more secure than closed sorce, but the point applies to this situation as well. (And I'm not arguing closed is better than open, or vice versa - this was originally used as an argument as to why Open Source isn't necessarily any more secure than closed source.)
Basically, it comes down to the idea of hiding a back door in the compiler. Since most people use one compiler for a platform (most people coding for Windows use VC++, most people for Linux use GCC, etc.), one needs only to attack the compiler. Add code to the compiler to make it add backdoors to certain types of code.
Ah, but this code would be in the compiler code, right? Well, why not just add code to add this code to the compiler whenever anyone compiles the compiler! Now you have a compiler whose source code looks identical to any other, but which adds backdoors. It'll add the code to add back doors whenever it compiles itself. And without being able to know for certain whether a given compiler is tainted or not, can you ever really be secure?
Given this scenario, and pre-compiled software with back doors in it, the compiler would always generate (in theory) the same binary, and the back doors would remain.
There's another problem with recompiling and comparing: I compile with optimization. You don't. The binaries are different. Back door? Optimization? Who knows?
NOT running as root. I was NOT running as root. Both times, i was NOT running as root. I hardly ever do anything as root. I'm not that dumb. The NOT is there.
As another poster already mentioned, the people who most need to see these messages are not online. Recognize that there are people who are not like you.
Yeah, I brought up the point too in my comment:
Obviously you don't really intend this to be for/. readers only, you want this to be for those who don't read Slashdot and for those who aren't Internet savvy. Don't just publize this on Slashdot if you want to get the word out, get it in the public eye.
Don't forget, if people don't KNOW about the book, they won't BUY it. The Slashdot "community" knows about the book now, but what about non-Slashdoters? I could tell my parents (but my Dad reads/. so he probably already knows) but what good would that do?
And there are many people who surf the web who would never find Slashdot. I never found it on my own, when I went to college, I was introduced to it quite quickly. However, I do surf the web. A website like that might get mentioned on MSNBC or some other online service. Get the word out.
If you searched for "columbine" on-line, you wouldn't find/. (actually, you might, as the default page has the word in it, but it would be WAY down the list). You wouldn't find the articles more than likely. And even if you did, it would be there in the Slashdot style. Not very visually attractive.
A webpage devoted to it could gain interest in the book. Plus, there are people who might not be interested in the book, start browsing it online, and decide to buy it.
The point of my post was NOT just creating a webpage. It was about getting the word out to the larger audience which is what CmdrTaco and Katz want to do. They won't do it by announcing it on Slashdot. If they want to get the word out, they need to do it through some non-Slashdot way.
One way for Slashdot readers to get this out might be to buy and donate a copy to their library. Get a copy in the school library, so that maybe someone might read what it's like to be an outcast. Or maybe it will instead support an outcast. But it'll be out there for others to see. And that needs to be done.
It locks SOLID. Can't telnet, can't switch to a different terminal, numlock, capslock stop working. And both times I was not running as root, (except for maybe the font server?), so it shouldn't be access errors. I dunno, it doesn't happen to anyone else in my local LUG... Plus I've got these cool mouse errors when I switch to another virtual terminal and then switch back to my X server...
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's VMS clusters that have 0 downtime. It's the only OS i'm aware of that can actually upgrade the entire OS throughout a cluster without halting services at any time! Of course, it's closed source and proprietary, but it can do it...
Hmm, I wonder why Katz isn't mad that they stole his articles? Maybe he should be just as pissed!
Oh, wait, right. They asked him. Maybe next time they'll ask the posters?
(Of course, if post anonymously, you can't expect to retain ownership of the comment!)
There are other ways for people to share MP3s, Napster and now Gnutella are just easier methods than others. Things like HTTP servers and FTP servers can be easily used, and illegal digital items have been traded on IRC for ages. The alt.binary newsgroups are another good source for illegal material.
The real point is that there is no easy way to stop the spread of MP3s. The music industry instead needs to change it's outlook on how it distributes music. Sueing the current sources of illegal MP3 distribution into the ground won't stop new sources from popping up.
Yes, downloading MP3s of copyrighted songs is theft. Most people understand that. Some argue it shouldn't be. But it's not the issue here, the issue is the fact that the music industry needs to change it's way of doing buisness, and that since the MP3 "genie" has been released, there is no real effective way to put it back in it's bottle.
Anyway, there were THREE things said:
While the THIRD event is likely to happen sometime in the future, the SECOND event is impossible.
DON'T SUE NVIDIA! Wait until the next GPL fiasco. If it makes you look bad publishing a violation before talking with the parties in violation, imagine what it'll look like if you tell a company "You made a mistake, fix it." and then next week say "Oh, we're sueing you anyway."
Not a very good idea - NVidia being sued by a bunch of OSS advocates would more than likely get some press coverage. And if someone said that NVidia was told to correct their problem but people sued anyway then that sounds to me like it would be bad press. And OSS advocates definately don't need to shoot themselves in the foot.
Next company that does it, maybe sue them. But not NVidia, especially after they said they'll fix it.
(On the other hand, if they don't fix it after several months, sue them!!! )
Personally, I liked Speaker for the Dead the best of all of them, but that's just me...
(Also, my user name on Slashdot is based on "xenocide" for the Ender series - in an online game, someone changed their nick to Ender for a while so I decided to use Xenocide, and I've kept on using it.)
If you had an account, you'd need to allow my.mp3.com detect your CD and verify the presence of a given song on the CD. MP3.com would then allow you to stream that song back to you from any client machine which you logged in on.
Unfortunately for MP3.com and for the consumer in general, (I think this is a nice service, maybe the record labels themselves should think of doing something like this?) MP3.com has no rights to the songs in the database which they were streaming anyway. They needed to negociate something with the individual copyright holders FIRST before putting them online. While I like THIS use, I'm sure that a different outcome could have set a dangerous precedent for copyright law.
Methinks the US gummint has more money available them Microsoft - after all, if we're capable of having a debt in the trillions of dollars and not be worried about paying it off...
FTP and HTTP are used for the transmission of binary data, and the person with the server is responsible for the information which goes over those methods of transmission. I can use FTP to allow people to download Linux HOWTOs, mirrors of free ISO images, or the latest open source project I'm working on. All of this would be legal. If I start posting my MP3 collection up through FTP or HTTP, that would be (for most people) illegal.
Palin Majere wrote:
And here you are _wrong_. Under US law, your ISP is not help responsible for your illegal content until they are notified about it. At which point, most ISPs react by removing the content, and terminating the offender's account. This is EXACTLY what Napster has been doing, even going so far as to ban the ips of offenders to insure that they don't just sign on under a new username.
How does banning IPs help? Most ISP uses dynamic IPs anyway...
Moving along, what I said wasn't very clearly worded, but what I meant is that FTP and HTTP are designed just for data. Hence, they are not designed for pirating. They can be used for pirating, but often are not. And I was talking from the perspective of running at FTP or HTTP server, since I currently have them running on my box, and have material on them. (Like the RedHat 6.2 ISOs, mirrored from ftp.redhat.com, they're legal.) I've also have some episodes of Geeks in Space online to see if I'd get in trouble for having MP3s available for download. So far, I haven't.
You can't sue Napster's users effectively. It's quite near impossible to just go after the users, even though they are in theory the ones doing the pirating. Most people I know think that MP3s are illegal right out. Trying to explain the difference between an audio format and using an audio format to spread copyrighted matterial is getting annoying...
I don't know, but couldn't Napster set up a blacklist of copyrighted songs which can't go over the service? I can't think of any way personally, but could it be done?
This actually gets into another area, where allowing people to download copyrighted material is legal. For example, video game ROMs, binary duplicates of the data on those carts for the early Nintendo, or the Sega Genisis, etc. As most people do not have the ability to dump the ROMs into their computer, it is legal to have copies of the files available for download so that users can use their licence for copyrighted material even after the original cartridge failed.
Sticky issue, as it also allows people to play games which they aren't legally allowed to. But through the usage of ROMs, I can now play the original Legend of Zelda game even though the original cartridge has died. (To Nintendo's credit, my original NES deck still works!)
Personally, I can't condone Napster in any way. I don't see it as a method for artists to spread MP3s, because as far as I know, you really need to search for specific songs - needing to know the title first. I've never used Napster though, mainly because it's been blocked at my college... (Although they claim it's due to bandwidth restriction... Of course, since the network crapped out on me while I tried to submit this comment, I find that idea highly suspect...)
The consumer advocacy list is not quite as obscure, it lists several orginizations which are actually major players.
I can't speak for the group of large software customers, as I don't recognize ANY of them. But then again, this bill doesn't help consumers, so this makes sense.
Librarians are just some national associations.
"Other independent information content developers" are three groups, which are basically publishers orginizations.
Entertainment industry is basically everyone's favorite MPAA, RIAA, along with some other national associations. However, newer versions are apparently acceptable to the RIAA.
There are TWO magizine/newspaper publishers listed. One for each. But again, they're national orginizations.
"Many lawyers/law professors" seems to be a valid claim, along with the consumer unions. They list many, but they're mostly indepenedent offices.
It also lists two bar associations, one a national orginization, and the other the New York bar.
Basically, that list is misrepresentative, and makes it sound like more people are against it than there really are. Be prepared for an uphill battle against the UCITA.
Well, for starters, they can immediately make moves on the http, ftp, and irc protocols and their authors. Why? Because their encouraging piracy by allowing for the free transmission of data. What do you think was the primary source for pirated mp3s prior to Napster? And do you honestly think that with a precedent like that that the RIAA and the MPAA would _not_ take advantage of it? This is a case with the capacity of setting a _very_ dangerous precedent, because it asks the question "Is the method of transmission responsible for what's transmitted?".
Except that Napster is designed to only allow the transmission of MP3s. And most MP3's are illegally owned. Yes, I've got some MP3's I've ripped for personal usage, I don't use Napster, but still, most MP3's are illegal. (And most people seem not to want Final Fantasy VII's OST - but anyway...)
FTP and HTTP are used for the transmission of binary data, and the person with the server is responsible for the information which goes over those methods of transmission. I can use FTP to allow people to download Linux HOWTOs, mirrors of free ISO images, or the latest open source project I'm working on. All of this would be legal. If I start posting my MP3 collection up through FTP or HTTP, that would be (for most people) illegal.
Napster on the other hand is designed for transmitting MP3s and nothing else. (And I know about wrapster, it's a cheap ploy to try and expand the usefullness of Napster.)
Just because you WANT to pirate the latest tracks from your favorite band doesn't mean that you SHOULD do it, it's still illegal, and morally objectionable.
Either that, or you wouldn't mind if I decide to modify some GPL'ed project, and then release the changes under a restrictive licence. Then I'd be violating a copyright again. Would you mind?
Since the sight with the software version is currently suffering from the /. effect, I can't actually see how the software version works, so I can't really say with any certainty how the interface works.
Sounds like what he really should do is produce a low-end, "simple" version with a decent DSP and RCA output, and then a high-end version with the best DSP available, and using digital optical outputs. Either that, or try and meet middle ground somewhere.
Of course, if the interface stinks, then the device might not be desirable anyway. All in all, a free or demo software version need to be made for people to try out on their home computers before buying them for their cars.
'Course, as I don't have a car, I'm not terribly interested right now. But in the future, it could be a really neat thing to have.
He's not JonKatz, so it's OK. I'll just ignore it :)
Then again, high school scores might not be that good, especially in the crowd Ars is going after, where the scores would have been from many years ago. As I'm a freshman in college, my high school grades are probably representative; in five to ten years, they will no longer be quite as useful. Interviews would probably be a better method of choice, but in this case, there are problems with that too.
Besides, the real reason to go to college is to make use of all those T1 lines that most technical colleges have :)
I Like Judge Dredd in Spanish. I am the law!
Too bad I failed high school Spanish.
As for elements of a UI, you need to use what has become the defacto standard UI elements:
- Buttons - pushable elements that take immediate action
- Scrollbars - scroll other elements
- Windows - things which hold content
- Checkboxes - boolean indicators
- Radiobuttons - multiple selection
- Text boxes - places to input text
There are many other possible too - but these I think are the basic core - they also happen to be the elements included in the HTML form layout. Look at other UI kits, pick and choose the elements they present based on usefulness. Remember what you do like, what you don't.Also, be wary of skinning - skinning things may make something look distinct, but it just confuses the end user. Be careful about confusing the user - you want as low a learning curve as possible. You want the UI elements to look as much like UI elements that the user has seen elsewhere as possible. That way the user needn't learn a new system.
It looks a lot like him. I think that's the point. Not quite exactly like him but there is a resemblence.
There's so much available on the Web, just restricting it to whatever sites are currently white-listed seems foolish. There are many good ways to protect what your children see when browsing that don't involve filters - the best method it to be with them and watch what they're looking for. Few children would look for pr0n while Mommy | Daddy where in the room, watching what they were doing. I know that's how my parents look at letting my little brother surf on the web - they watch him, and he has to tell them what he's looking for online.
So does it block Slashdot?
Basically, it comes down to the idea of hiding a back door in the compiler. Since most people use one compiler for a platform (most people coding for Windows use VC++, most people for Linux use GCC, etc.), one needs only to attack the compiler. Add code to the compiler to make it add backdoors to certain types of code.
Ah, but this code would be in the compiler code, right? Well, why not just add code to add this code to the compiler whenever anyone compiles the compiler! Now you have a compiler whose source code looks identical to any other, but which adds backdoors. It'll add the code to add back doors whenever it compiles itself. And without being able to know for certain whether a given compiler is tainted or not, can you ever really be secure?
Given this scenario, and pre-compiled software with back doors in it, the compiler would always generate (in theory) the same binary, and the back doors would remain.
There's another problem with recompiling and comparing: I compile with optimization. You don't. The binaries are different. Back door? Optimization? Who knows?
NOT running as root. I was NOT running as root. Both times, i was NOT running as root. I hardly ever do anything as root. I'm not that dumb. The NOT is there.
Yeah, I brought up the point too in my comment:
Obviously you don't really intend this to be for /. readers only, you want this to be for those who don't read Slashdot and for those who aren't Internet savvy. Don't just publize this on Slashdot if you want to get the word out, get it in the public eye.
Don't forget, if people don't KNOW about the book, they won't BUY it. The Slashdot "community" knows about the book now, but what about non-Slashdoters? I could tell my parents (but my Dad reads /. so he probably already knows) but what good would that do?
And there are many people who surf the web who would never find Slashdot. I never found it on my own, when I went to college, I was introduced to it quite quickly. However, I do surf the web. A website like that might get mentioned on MSNBC or some other online service. Get the word out.
If you searched for "columbine" on-line, you wouldn't find /. (actually, you might, as the default page has the word in it, but it would be WAY down the list). You wouldn't find the articles more than likely. And even if you did, it would be there in the Slashdot style. Not very visually attractive.
A webpage devoted to it could gain interest in the book. Plus, there are people who might not be interested in the book, start browsing it online, and decide to buy it.
The point of my post was NOT just creating a webpage. It was about getting the word out to the larger audience which is what CmdrTaco and Katz want to do. They won't do it by announcing it on Slashdot. If they want to get the word out, they need to do it through some non-Slashdot way.
One way for Slashdot readers to get this out might be to buy and donate a copy to their library. Get a copy in the school library, so that maybe someone might read what it's like to be an outcast. Or maybe it will instead support an outcast. But it'll be out there for others to see. And that needs to be done.
I'd swear that was added after I posted the comment. Too bad my cache got overwritten why I refreshed the page... now I'll never know.
It locks SOLID. Can't telnet, can't switch to a different terminal, numlock, capslock stop working. And both times I was not running as root, (except for maybe the font server?), so it shouldn't be access errors. I dunno, it doesn't happen to anyone else in my local LUG... Plus I've got these cool mouse errors when I switch to another virtual terminal and then switch back to my X server...