In the NYT case (read the stuff at the democrats.com link in the parent), it seems like there was a legitimate case for not publishing the original story. Here's a summary for those who don't want to follow the link: 1) NYT publishes story on bin Laden on 9/8, 2) NYT yanks the story a day or two later because it didn't make it into the print edition, 3) terrorists linked to bin Laden attack the US on 9/11, 4) NYT revises the article to account for 9/11 and run the article on 9/12 in both print and online editions. It is a policy of the NYT not to run online stories that don't get into the print edition. Nothing scary or dangerous here, just keeping the print in sync with the online editions. Note that many stories don't make it into a given edition of a print paper, they have space issues, deadlines, timeliness, etc. to contend with so not everything gets printed.
Sure, in hindsight it looks like the bin Laden story on 9/8 was EXTREMELY important. But don't forget that 9/11 hadn't happened yet! We've known about bin Laden for years, we've known that he is capable of dastardly deeds. This didn't prevent the embassy bombings, it didn't prevent the attack on the USS Cole, it didn't prevent the 9/11 hijackings, and just knowing about certain terrorists existence won't prevent future attacks. So someday something bad will happen, and you'll point back to [insert a date here] when [insert FBI memo/news story/etc here] seems extremely prescient. But in fact it wasn't because there are dozens of other dates and memos that contained similar but inaccurate warnings.
Whew. Sorry, got a little offtopic there, but recent news stories have gotten me going. I'll stop now.
I saw something like this on TLC a couple of months ago. I think they were operating in DC, Detroit, dunno, some big city. The difference there was that they didn't allow the thief to STEAL the car, they just lock the bastard in the car and radio police to come pick 'em up (or the cops are watching from across the street).
Really fun to watch those stinkers learn they've walked into a trap! Lots of different reactions -- all amusing.
Not that I know anything about the law in this area (or anywhere, really), but could it be possible that there is a specific law surrounding donated computers, or is it merely that the FUD campaign has been effective:
http://www.techsoup.org/recycle/acquire.cfm
Not that I really believe it, but I have to wonder what they're thinking. Selling/donating "naked pc"s isn't illegal, right? Or MS wouldn't have had to put up that "naked pc" memo to oem's, right?
Depends on what you'd call old... C++ has been around (in various incarnations) since 1980 or 1983, depending on what you want to look at. I'm looking at Stroustrup now:
Earlier versions of the language, collectively known as "C with Classes" have been in use since 1980.... The first use of C++ outside a research organization started in July 1983.
The name C++ was coined by Rick Mascitti in the summer of 1983.
Sometime during 1987, it became clear that formal standardization of C++ was inevitable and that we needed to start preparing the ground for a standardization effort.... An initial draft standard for public review was produced in April 1995. A formally approved international C++ standard is expected in 1998.
So it is accurate to say that C++ has only been standardized recently. But unless you're comparing C++ to Fortran/Simula/Algol, it is just wrong to call it "new".
Hey, I figured it was worth a shot... your reproductive biology sounds a little more current -- in the academic sense, at least.;)
The reason there are increasing complications with pregnancy as a woman's years advance has much more to do with the increasing likeliehood of harmful mutations in the DNA of those eggs as a result of, primarily, cosmic radiation.
Huh. Pesky radiation. Next thing you'll be telling me that a) my tinfoil hat doesn't defeat that cosmic radiation and b) the lead-lined dress I just got for my "better half" to protect her eggs is a health hazard.
how come we don't worry about older men reproducing as much as we worry about older women?
First, as women age their bodies become less adapted to bearing children. Evolutionarily speaking, prime childbearing years are 16-28 or so. After 30-32 there is a much higher rate of complication.
Second, all the male has to do is make his "contribution". His little swimmers don't degrade over time. AFAICR, they don't reproduce themselves so thus aren't subject to generational mutation/degradation. Aren't they more, uh, "manufactured".
(Dislcaimer: Yeah, yeah, biology was never my strong suit. I can maybe name the two dudes that are credited with DNA and what it stands for. I can tell you how to cut open a worm. And I can tell you that you need to be careful with a scalpel so you don't slice a schoolmate's hand open. It was an accident, honest.)
The market does indeed pay for value added. But it is not necessarily true that the more you outsource the less value you add. If the only thing that I can do well is taking phone orders and providing support, then it is more valuable for my customers and employees for me to outsource manufacturing, repair service, payroll, benefits administration, janitorial services, building maintenence,... everything but the call center and training for support staff.
Correction: You're looking at the "present" of manufacturing! This has been the way the tech industry has worked for (at least) several years now. I know that many other industries work in the same way. It is really just a specialization of function: design/marketing/sales vs. manufacturing. Manufacturing may sound simple, but it is actually tough to figure out and do well. Purchasing, lead times, utilization, etc; these are all tough things to do well and the companies that figure this out will continue to gain new clients and grow.
Go here and punch in "S2048" in the search box. When it has been entered into the system, you will see the text. Yes, the S is necessary.
From the Congressional Record:
By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. NELSON of Florida, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN):
S. 2048. A bill to regulate interstate commerce in certain devices by providing for private sector development of technological protection measures to be implemented and enforced by Federal regulations to protect digital content and promote broadband as well as the transition to digital television, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Committee members are the following (note that both senators from Oregon are here, your call/letter will matter!). I'd include their phone numbers but the lameness filter doesn't like that...
DEMOCRATS Ernest Hollings, SC, Chmn Daniel K. Inouye, HI John D. Rockefeller IV, WV John F. Kerry, MA John B. Breaux, LA Byron L. Dorgan, ND Ron Wyden, OR Max Cleland, GA Barbara Boxer, CA John Edwards, NC Jean Carnahan, MO Bill Nelson, FL
REPUBLICANS John McCain, AZ Ted Stevens, AK Conrad Burns, MT Trent Lott, MI Kay Bailey Hutchison, TX Olympia J. Snowe, ME Sam Brownback, KS Gordon Smith, OR Peter G. Fitzgerald, IL John Ensign, NV George Allen, VA
Exactly. And if the employer won't provide one because they think they own the copyright, that's the red flag they're looking for -- and the FSF won't touch the code.
To clarify, the FSF generally requires that you get a copyright assignment from your employers, specifically to counteract the situation you've envisioned.
They may be extreme fanatics, but they're not stupid.
Or you could get the software maker to sign into a legally binding contract which says that their software will not do anything but its primary intended use (for Morpheus, this would be stealing music).
Just a nit: if the subject matter of the agreement is illegal (ie. stealing music), there is in fact no contract. So if I sign a contract with you to whack your neighbor, I can't legally enforce the contract in the courts. (And not just because they'd arrest both of us for murder; the "contract" doesn't exist.) This is why you see "alternative" methods of enforcement for such agreements.
What about precedents like legal advice? If a lawyer gives bad/faulty legal advice, isn't he liable? Is legal advice "speech" (in the legal sense)?
On another note: Binary code isn't speech?? What is the difference between source code and binary code? I can write my source code in assembly; surely you're willing to accept that as speech.
You can try to make the case that binary code is not easily understood and thus shouldn't qualify as speech. But assembly code for some obscure processor might be just as difficult to understand as machine code for something common. I'm sure you wouldn't have to look around too hard to find some people who can understand machine code for some processor. (A couple of jobs ago I could disassemble a dozen or so of the more common MIPS instructions in my head; it only takes a little practice...)
I read the argument in your journal about financial liability for corporations and I'm not sure I buy it. You're essentially saying that purchasing a cheap product without a warranty is more expensive than purchasing an expensive product with a warranty, all other things equal.
Say you have the option to buy an Apache installation from XYZ Corp for $cost (and they will be liable for bugs), and you have the option of downloading it for free with no 3rd party liability. Assume they are packaged identically -- the only thing you're really paying for is the assumption of liability by XYZ Corp. All you've done is buy "bug insurance" from XYZ Corp for $cost.
IANACA (corporate accountant): does the failure to purchase insurance create a liability on the balance sheet?
Re:This is a non-problem.
on
Google Juice
·
· Score: 2
Still, Google page ranks are already being impacted by weblogs in more long-term ways - how else would blogger Dave Winer outrank humorist Dave Barry in a Google search for Dave? Or journalist Deborah Branscum outrank Debbie Gibson in a Google search for Deborah?
He's not specifically talking about googlebombing, but rather the impact of weblogs, of which googlebombing is just one aspect.
I agree with you on the last point.:) But the idea of googlebombing for profit kind of takes the fun out of it anyway...
But you don't have to "sign up" for this "service". This is a service that they are performing for the community. In return, they are requesting "donations".
Oh yeah, since you use Mandrake but don't want to give them a donation do the next best thing - BUY SOME STOCK.
What Mandrake needs right now is a CASH INFUSION. Unless you purchase stock directly from the company you are not giving your cash to the company. I don't know if it is possible to directly purchase from the company; one of the benefits of membership was direct stock purchase, so I'm assuming that you can't make a direct purchase unless you buy a membership. If you buy shares on the open market, your cash is going to the person who sold you his shares, not to the company!
They are asking people to sign up for their service. You give them $5 a month, they give you benefits. How is this a "donation/contribution?"
C'mon, their so-called "service" is lame. Chat with developers? Gimme a break. Maybe a couple of the bullet items they listed are ok (discounts on hardware). But the primary reason (they even say it is #1) is that you're supporting development -- that isn't paying for a service, that is making a donation!
It sounded more like he's asking about general classifications of software systems in terms of security. Maybe he's looking for a scale like the following. (I'm pulling this out of my ass, a real classifcation committee would have much better rules, and they would spend longer than five minutes putting such a list together.)
1 - Non Secure
This describes a public terminal (e.g. what you might see in a shopping mall or your local university computer cluster) that is running MSDOS. The keyboard and mouse aren't even locked down.
2 - Half-Assed Security
This describes a public terminal that is securely bolted to the desktop and is locked shut. A log-on prompt appears, but is easily bypassed (e.g. Windows 95, or a Linux box that is bootable via an accessible CDROM or floppy drive). [Alternative: the logon prompt appears but passwords are available by shoulder-surfing, e.g. "employee only" terminals in retail stores.]
Levels 1 and 2 are a black hat's paradise.
3 - Almost Secure(tm)
This describes probably 95% of the unwashed masses connected to the internet. This machine has a firewall and virus scanning installed, but the virus definition might not be up to date, and the firewall isn't what you'd describe as industrial strength. Some security patches may or may not have been applied, but are probably not completely up to date. This machine might present a challenge for your ordinary script kiddy, but an experienced cracker can probably find a way in. Configurations in this category would include most Windows installations, default Linux installations (older Red Hat, I don't think the newer ones start everything up) that start up every service under the sun, and a public web servers that are "sort of" secure but have holes in CGI scripts or are missing security patches. This also describes a lot of corporate wireless networks.
The black hats enjoy level 3 probably more than 1 and 2, just because of the (slight) extra challenge.
4 - Pretty Good Security(tm)
This describes a machine that is physically locked down, but still connected to the network (generally behind an external firewall). Security patches are applied within hours of announcement. Logs are human monitored, and are written either on another machine, or on permanent media (e.g. printer or CDROM). There are no more services running on this machine than absolutely necessary (in other words, a mail server ONLY has ports 25 and 110 open).
In practice, these don't generally get cracked. When it happens, it is usually physical security -- telling someone your password, sending your password via email, etc. A break-in might also be caused from a yet-unpublished remote exploit in one of the major services (sendmail, bind, apache, etc.) These machines are often susceptible to certain types of DOS attacks (when such attacks can't be stopped at the router/firewall).
5 - Unbreakable security
This descrbes a machine that is physically secure (i.e. the hdd is locked down inside a secure chassis), and has no external network connections. It is also shielded from van Eck and other eavesdropping.
You won't get into this machine without weapons, "truth serum", or monetary inducements to certain priveleged individuals. Also worth noting is that this machine isn't really practical for everyday use...
Slashdot Mirror
In the NYT case (read the stuff at the democrats.com link in the parent), it seems like there was a legitimate case for not publishing the original story. Here's a summary for those who don't want to follow the link: 1) NYT publishes story on bin Laden on 9/8, 2) NYT yanks the story a day or two later because it didn't make it into the print edition, 3) terrorists linked to bin Laden attack the US on 9/11, 4) NYT revises the article to account for 9/11 and run the article on 9/12 in both print and online editions. It is a policy of the NYT not to run online stories that don't get into the print edition. Nothing scary or dangerous here, just keeping the print in sync with the online editions. Note that many stories don't make it into a given edition of a print paper, they have space issues, deadlines, timeliness, etc. to contend with so not everything gets printed.
Sure, in hindsight it looks like the bin Laden story on 9/8 was EXTREMELY important. But don't forget that 9/11 hadn't happened yet! We've known about bin Laden for years, we've known that he is capable of dastardly deeds. This didn't prevent the embassy bombings, it didn't prevent the attack on the USS Cole, it didn't prevent the 9/11 hijackings, and just knowing about certain terrorists existence won't prevent future attacks. So someday something bad will happen, and you'll point back to [insert a date here] when [insert FBI memo/news story/etc here] seems extremely prescient. But in fact it wasn't because there are dozens of other dates and memos that contained similar but inaccurate warnings.
Whew. Sorry, got a little offtopic there, but recent news stories have gotten me going. I'll stop now.
There's a name for this and it's called extortion.
What did you think "shakedown" means?
Heh. Look under:
http://www.techsoup.org/global_partspon.cfm
and especially
http://www.techsoup.org/global_launch.cfm
Maybe they're getting "advice" from their sugar-daddy?
I think they should put these in lots and lots of places. It might actually put a dent in the car theft business.
:)
Yeah! And put hidden cameras in the dash, so we can record the panic level hitting maximum. Ooh, and maybe webcast directly from the cameras...
I saw something like this on TLC a couple of months ago. I think they were operating in DC, Detroit, dunno, some big city. The difference there was that they didn't allow the thief to STEAL the car, they just lock the bastard in the car and radio police to come pick 'em up (or the cops are watching from across the street).
Really fun to watch those stinkers learn they've walked into a trap! Lots of different reactions -- all amusing.
This was also the plot of a Knight Rider episode.
Not that I know anything about the law in this area (or anywhere, really), but could it be possible that there is a specific law surrounding donated computers, or is it merely that the FUD campaign has been effective:
http://www.techsoup.org/recycle/acquire.cfm
Not that I really believe it, but I have to wonder what they're thinking. Selling/donating "naked pc"s isn't illegal, right? Or MS wouldn't have had to put up that "naked pc" memo to oem's, right?
1. Reformat the hard drive.
2. Install your "alternative" OS of choice.
So it is accurate to say that C++ has only been standardized recently. But unless you're comparing C++ to Fortran/Simula/Algol, it is just wrong to call it "new".
Hey, I figured it was worth a shot... your reproductive biology sounds a little more current -- in the academic sense, at least. ;)
The reason there are increasing complications with pregnancy as a woman's years advance has much more to do with the increasing likeliehood of harmful mutations in the DNA of those eggs as a result of, primarily, cosmic radiation.
Huh. Pesky radiation. Next thing you'll be telling me that a) my tinfoil hat doesn't defeat that cosmic radiation and b) the lead-lined dress I just got for my "better half" to protect her eggs is a health hazard.
how come we don't worry about older men reproducing as much as we worry about older women?
First, as women age their bodies become less adapted to bearing children. Evolutionarily speaking, prime childbearing years are 16-28 or so. After 30-32 there is a much higher rate of complication.
Second, all the male has to do is make his "contribution". His little swimmers don't degrade over time. AFAICR, they don't reproduce themselves so thus aren't subject to generational mutation/degradation. Aren't they more, uh, "manufactured".
(Dislcaimer: Yeah, yeah, biology was never my strong suit. I can maybe name the two dudes that are credited with DNA and what it stands for. I can tell you how to cut open a worm. And I can tell you that you need to be careful with a scalpel so you don't slice a schoolmate's hand open. It was an accident, honest.)
delete your account
The market does indeed pay for value added. But it is not necessarily true that the more you outsource the less value you add. If the only thing that I can do well is taking phone orders and providing support, then it is more valuable for my customers and employees for me to outsource manufacturing, repair service, payroll, benefits administration, janitorial services, building maintenence, ... everything but the call center and training for support staff.
Correction: You're looking at the "present" of manufacturing! This has been the way the tech industry has worked for (at least) several years now. I know that many other industries work in the same way. It is really just a specialization of function: design/marketing/sales vs. manufacturing. Manufacturing may sound simple, but it is actually tough to figure out and do well. Purchasing, lead times, utilization, etc; these are all tough things to do well and the companies that figure this out will continue to gain new clients and grow.
From the Congressional Record:
Committee members are the following (note that both senators from Oregon are here, your call/letter will matter!). I'd include their phone numbers but the lameness filter doesn't like that...
DEMOCRATS
Ernest Hollings, SC, Chmn
Daniel K. Inouye, HI
John D. Rockefeller IV, WV
John F. Kerry, MA
John B. Breaux, LA
Byron L. Dorgan, ND
Ron Wyden, OR
Max Cleland, GA
Barbara Boxer, CA
John Edwards, NC
Jean Carnahan, MO
Bill Nelson, FL
REPUBLICANS
John McCain, AZ
Ted Stevens, AK
Conrad Burns, MT
Trent Lott, MI
Kay Bailey Hutchison, TX
Olympia J. Snowe, ME
Sam Brownback, KS
Gordon Smith, OR
Peter G. Fitzgerald, IL
John Ensign, NV
George Allen, VA
Exactly. And if the employer won't provide one because they think they own the copyright, that's the red flag they're looking for -- and the FSF won't touch the code.
To clarify, the FSF generally requires that you get a copyright assignment from your employers, specifically to counteract the situation you've envisioned.
They may be extreme fanatics, but they're not stupid.
Didn't some of the xman versions provide links from page to page?
Or you could get the software maker to sign into a legally binding contract which says that their software will not do anything but its primary intended use (for Morpheus, this would be stealing music).
Just a nit: if the subject matter of the agreement is illegal (ie. stealing music), there is in fact no contract. So if I sign a contract with you to whack your neighbor, I can't legally enforce the contract in the courts. (And not just because they'd arrest both of us for murder; the "contract" doesn't exist.) This is why you see "alternative" methods of enforcement for such agreements.
But end users always sue the guy with the deepest pockets.
The rule is: sue everyone and see where the money is.
What about precedents like legal advice? If a lawyer gives bad/faulty legal advice, isn't he liable? Is legal advice "speech" (in the legal sense)?
On another note: Binary code isn't speech?? What is the difference between source code and binary code? I can write my source code in assembly; surely you're willing to accept that as speech.
You can try to make the case that binary code is not easily understood and thus shouldn't qualify as speech. But assembly code for some obscure processor might be just as difficult to understand as machine code for something common. I'm sure you wouldn't have to look around too hard to find some people who can understand machine code for some processor. (A couple of jobs ago I could disassemble a dozen or so of the more common MIPS instructions in my head; it only takes a little practice...)
I read the argument in your journal about financial liability for corporations and I'm not sure I buy it. You're essentially saying that purchasing a cheap product without a warranty is more expensive than purchasing an expensive product with a warranty, all other things equal.
Say you have the option to buy an Apache installation from XYZ Corp for $cost (and they will be liable for bugs), and you have the option of downloading it for free with no 3rd party liability. Assume they are packaged identically -- the only thing you're really paying for is the assumption of liability by XYZ Corp. All you've done is buy "bug insurance" from XYZ Corp for $cost.
IANACA (corporate accountant): does the failure to purchase insurance create a liability on the balance sheet?
He's not specifically talking about googlebombing, but rather the impact of weblogs, of which googlebombing is just one aspect.
I agree with you on the last point.
But you don't have to "sign up" for this "service". This is a service that they are performing for the community. In return, they are requesting "donations".
Oh yeah, since you use Mandrake but don't want to give them a donation do the next best thing - BUY SOME STOCK.
What Mandrake needs right now is a CASH INFUSION. Unless you purchase stock directly from the company you are not giving your cash to the company. I don't know if it is possible to directly purchase from the company; one of the benefits of membership was direct stock purchase, so I'm assuming that you can't make a direct purchase unless you buy a membership. If you buy shares on the open market, your cash is going to the person who sold you his shares, not to the company!
They are asking people to sign up for their service. You give them $5 a month, they give you benefits. How is this a "donation/contribution?"
C'mon, their so-called "service" is lame. Chat with developers? Gimme a break. Maybe a couple of the bullet items they listed are ok (discounts on hardware). But the primary reason (they even say it is #1) is that you're supporting development -- that isn't paying for a service, that is making a donation!
1 - Non Secure
This describes a public terminal (e.g. what you might see in a shopping mall or your local university computer cluster) that is running MSDOS. The keyboard and mouse aren't even locked down.
2 - Half-Assed Security
This describes a public terminal that is securely bolted to the desktop and is locked shut. A log-on prompt appears, but is easily bypassed (e.g. Windows 95, or a Linux box that is bootable via an accessible CDROM or floppy drive). [Alternative: the logon prompt appears but passwords are available by shoulder-surfing, e.g. "employee only" terminals in retail stores.]
Levels 1 and 2 are a black hat's paradise.
3 - Almost Secure(tm)
This describes probably 95% of the unwashed masses connected to the internet. This machine has a firewall and virus scanning installed, but the virus definition might not be up to date, and the firewall isn't what you'd describe as industrial strength. Some security patches may or may not have been applied, but are probably not completely up to date. This machine might present a challenge for your ordinary script kiddy, but an experienced cracker can probably find a way in. Configurations in this category would include most Windows installations, default Linux installations (older Red Hat, I don't think the newer ones start everything up) that start up every service under the sun, and a public web servers that are "sort of" secure but have holes in CGI scripts or are missing security patches. This also describes a lot of corporate wireless networks.
The black hats enjoy level 3 probably more than 1 and 2, just because of the (slight) extra challenge.
4 - Pretty Good Security(tm)
This describes a machine that is physically locked down, but still connected to the network (generally behind an external firewall). Security patches are applied within hours of announcement. Logs are human monitored, and are written either on another machine, or on permanent media (e.g. printer or CDROM). There are no more services running on this machine than absolutely necessary (in other words, a mail server ONLY has ports 25 and 110 open).
In practice, these don't generally get cracked. When it happens, it is usually physical security -- telling someone your password, sending your password via email, etc. A break-in might also be caused from a yet-unpublished remote exploit in one of the major services (sendmail, bind, apache, etc.) These machines are often susceptible to certain types of DOS attacks (when such attacks can't be stopped at the router/firewall).
5 - Unbreakable security
This descrbes a machine that is physically secure (i.e. the hdd is locked down inside a secure chassis), and has no external network connections. It is also shielded from van Eck and other eavesdropping.
You won't get into this machine without weapons, "truth serum", or monetary inducements to certain priveleged individuals. Also worth noting is that this machine isn't really practical for everyday use...