Netcraft's never recorded it running anything else.
The Yavapai-Apache site prominantly features a link to their hosting ISP, Wild Apache Internet Service, which advertised on its front page that they use apache:
Word Processors can be divided into 3 groups. Frame and style based word processors are the easiest to use, and the only acceptable methods for large documents. Some word processors include this architecture. Many fall behind, and are nothing more than a glorified typewriter with spell check and editing.
Frame and style based word processors:
Lotus Amipro (NeXT late 80s, Windows circa 1993):
Originally designed for NeXT, along with Lotus Improv as part of an office suite. This is probably the best word processor ever. It is based on frames and styles, and the user interface is esentially three parts: edit text, layout frames, edit styles. Few menus, a bunch of buttons. Surprisingly simple, easy to use, and powerful (comparable to Adobe FrameMaker). Very small, very fast. Puts everything since it to shame.
Annoyances: None
Missing features: Support for new file formats. Fancy text layouts like text on a path, dropshadows, and outlines.
Adobe FrameMaker
Professional desktop publishing program. As the name implies it is frame based. Along with AmiPro and LaTeX it is capable of really professional quality results.
KWord:
KWord lives on frames and styles. It allows text to flow between arbitrary frames. Very good for working with extremely large documents. The styles are one step removed from the user interface, if they came to the front it would be a professional contender.
Missing features: Macros
Lotus WordPro
The successor to AmiPro. Benefits include support for newer file formats, and some new features. The user interface was changed quite a bit to be more like WordPerfect or Word.
Anoyances: Somewhat sloppy UI design, merges are difficult. HTML output is not perfect.
Missing features: Fancy text layouts like text on a path, dropshadows, and outlines.
LyX / LaTeX:
LaTeX does styles extremely well. Is absolutely excellent for anything where you don't need frames (scientific papers, computer manuals, books, etc). HTML output is the absolute best.
Missing features: Frames essentially don't exist.
Word processors that can do frames and styles, but its difficult:
OpenOffice.org
The guiding design principal here seems to be "be as much like Microsoft Office as possible". In this it succeeds fairly well, with a few slight improvements. Styles and frames are far more accessible, but still hidden away a bit to far for my liking.
Anoyances: User interface is a lot like Microsoft Word
WordPerfect:
Frames and styles exist, but they are hidden out of view.
Word processors that can't do frames and styles:
AbiWord:
Last time I used it it was a glorified WordPad or RTF editor. Very simple to use for small documents. Lack of styles made it unaproachable for anything big.
Anoyances: No styles, no frames
Missing features: almost everything
Microsft Write (the dinky text editor):
Fewer features than Word. Easier to use. Results are just as good, and any other program can open it.
Missing features: spell check, almost everything
Microsoft Word:
This one wins the worst user interface award. It has support for styles and frame bassed document layout, but the user interface is designed towards formatting every gosh darn character / word / paragraph by hand. Most word documents are impossible to work with if they have any size. The user interface is so bad that these features might as well not exist
Anoyances: Almost everything. I've used a lot of word processors, from ancient WordStars and WordPerfects to AmiPro. Word has no guiding concepts to follow, either in document design or understanding the user interface. File format incompatibilities between Word versions make it miserable to deal with. Aweful HTML output.
Missing features: Acceptable user interface, functional file format
Write to your representative. Chances are they won't be hearing much from anyone on this bill, so just a few letters from constituants may be significantly pursuasive.
Here's mine:
Representative Walden,
Please oppose H.R. 3261, the "Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act". It is an unconstitutional violation of free speech. Passing this bill will only cause unnecessary litigation and expense and, in its disposal, consume the valuable resources of our high courts.
The primary purpose of this bill is laid out in Section 3, point a. It prohibits the "making available in commerce" a "substantial part" of a database made by another person. The offending section is included below for your convenience. This prohibits commercial, or profitable, speech when it contains a large portion of another person's database. This violates the freedom of speech laid out in the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law".... "abridging the freedom of speech"
It is permissible for congress to pass laws which infringe on freedom of speech only in a few very specific instance, such as against traitorous speech, and the exceptions of Article 1, Section 8, Line 1, which establish the power of congress to implement copyrights and patents.
From Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have power... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
This power is granted to congress to encourage authors and inventors, and by extension musicians, artists, and filmmakers, by granting them exclusive rights to their works for a limited time. This exclusive right to the work violates the freedom of speech of others, but is explicitly allowed to encourage art and technology. By precedent, it has two requirements, originality and creativity; the author must be the origin of the work, and it must require some step of creativity to produce it.
Individual facts, like telephone numbers, sizes of stars, or names for babies, are not original. A database, or collection, of these is original in so far as the author's chose which pieces of information to include. Historically, the US Supreme Court agrees, as shown in the case of FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC., v. RURAL TELEPHONE SERVICE CO., INC., quoted here from Syllabus, point a:
(a) Article I, 8, cl. 8, of the Constitution mandates originality as a prerequisite for copyright protection. The constitutional requirement necessitates independent creation plus a modicum of creativity. Since facts do not owe their origin to an act of authorship, they are not original and, thus, are not copyrightable. Although a compilation of facts may possess the requisite originality because the author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the data so that readers may use them effectively, copyright protection extends only to those components of the work that are original to the author, not to the facts themselves. This fact/expression dichotomy severely limits the scope of protection in fact-based works. Pp. 344-351.
Representative Walden, please help keep our already overrun legal system and high courts clear from unnecessary litigation; oppose H.R.3261. Please dispose of this ill-conceived bill now, before our it causes our nation, its corporations, and its individuals great expense of disposing of it later.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration,
Your concerned constituent,
Cedric A. Shock
H.R.3261
Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION AGAINST MISAPPROPRIATION OF DATABASES.
(a) LIABILITY- Any person who makes available in commerce to others a quantitatively substantial part of the information in a database generated, gathered, or maintained by another person, knowing t
Every time I read an article about mining space for energy it makes me sad. Some day our greed for energy will kill us all. Let's revisit the second law of thermodynamics together to find out why.
In a relaxed form, the second law of thermodynamics states that no process can remove heat from one reservoir without adding at least the same amount of heat to another reservoir. This means that in order for your refrigerator to cool itself, it must at least add the heat removed from the refrigerator to the room around it. There is no refrigerator you can make that doesn't heat up the room it is in. Similarly there is no refrigerator we can build that will cool off the earth, without heating something else up.
If we build ANY sort of extraterrestrial energy collector and transport the energy back to earth and use it, then it will generate an amount of heat equal to the energy collected. This heat will be stuck on the earth, warming it up. The more energy we pipe in fromoutside the earth, the hotter we get.
The earth usually recieves X amount of energy from the Sun every day. Some of this energy is light, some is infrared, some is X and Gamma radiation, etc. If the earth isn't getting hotter or colder it loses about X heat every day, so it stays about the same temperature. The ability of the earth to exhaust heat is a function of the atmospheric conditions, the temperature of the upper atmosphere, and the volume to (atmospheric) surface area of the earth. Neither the chemical composition of our atmosphere or the surface area of the atmosphere is likely to change to allow more heat to exhaust itself from the earth (the former may be changing to allow less heat to exhaust itself). The only variable that can change is the temperature of the earth. The higher the earths temperature is (compared to space) the more heat we can exhaust every day.
Now suppose we build a huge energy collecter outside the earth that supplies Y energy every day. Now the earth's daily energy intake is X+Y, and our heat exhaustion is still X. This means Y energy is added to the heat of the earth every day. With just a small Y we would cook fairly quickly. Fortunantly nature puts a halt on anything that is going to grow out of control. The earth will change to be able to exhaust X+Y energy every day. However, the only factor in heat exhaustion that can be adjusted is the temperature of the earth, so the earth will heat up to a temperature that allows it to exhaust X+Y energy every day.
In conclusion - why don't you put your effort into some worthwhile cause, like better use of the solar energy we do get and can handle. Or changing US laws so that the government regulatory cost (capital investment*intrest rate^years waiting for approval - capital investment) of building solar power plants doesn't make it impossible.
Regular 35mm film has an optical resolution and information depth similar to about a 25 MegaPixel digital camera [1].
A more important measure of film or CCD quality are light collecting power. In photogrpahs light == information. More light collecting power leads to higher resolutions, greater depth of focus, and increased shutter speeds.
Light collecting power allows photographs to be taken at a faster speed through the same lens. To collect the most light possible into a camera, and thus the most information, we usually set the shutter speed to the slowest speed we can without blurring the scene - this is usually 1/90th of a second (Some photoraphers can hold a camera still for 1/45th of a second, normally tripods can do about 1/10th of a second). Then we adjust the other parameters of the camera to match this maximum-information shutter speed. To use up extra light and convert it into information we can increase the depth of focus of the camera (making the hole the light goes through smaller). The more light collecting power the film has, the greater depth of focus the camera can have.
Light collecting power also affects the maximum resolution of film or CCDs. For examle a slide film at ISO25 can capture about 4 times the information of a film at ISO100. The ISO25 film trades light collecting power for more pixels, which can function because there is enough light to expose them. ISO100 film can take pictures faster, because there are fewer picture elements that need the light collecting power, so more of it can be used to increase depth of focus and increase shutter speed for less blurred photographs. ISO800 or 1600 films expose very easily, but are greatly lacking in the resolution of the final image.
So, more light collecting power leads to more ability to collect information, depth of focus, and shutter speed.
How digital can beat film:
Digital cameras have some unique potential which will allow them to beat 35mm film in the near future. Medium and large-ormat digital cameras could potentially rival medium and large format film eventually. One of the potential ways to greatly increase the power of digital cameras is to increase their light collecting ability. Many scenes are relitivly motionless down to about 1/10th of a second, however our hands are not steady enough to photograph them easily. It would be a relatively simple task (simpler than correlating stereoscopic views) for a digital camera to repeatedly sample a CCD durring a long 1/10th sec. shot and remove the blurring and add the sampled frames together. This would greatly increase the light collecting power of the digital camera over film cameras in many regular types of shots, greatly increasing its information collecting ability. This increase in information collecting ability could be traded for increased resolution (if we are near the limit of having enough light to expose CCD elements), increased depth of focus, or increased shutter rates (limited by the fastest possible sampling rate of the CCD).
Knoppix is excellent for data rescue and recovery work. This data recovery howto for Knoppix has proved invaluable for many of my friends. It has also been translated into Polish
Norton Desktop for Windows 3/3.1 not only introduced the desktop and windows outside the Program Manager window to Windows, but also introduced a long file names through some sort of hack.
The log machine can very easily be perfect. There are two simple variations to this, one of you want it to work even after the box is rooted, one if you don't. The first is an inline network logger. It acts like a piece of copper wire, but records all the data going through it. The second is a serial or similar mass storage device that the computerrights its logs to. The device cannot be accessed for reading or reseting except through an interface not available to the computer.
This bill is unconstitutional, because it restricts my freedom to say something. This absolute freedom of speach (even if I got it from someone else's database fo facts) is preserved by the 1st Amendment of the US constitution:
Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Copyrights and patents also violate the first amendment to the constitution. However they are strictly allowed under Article I, Section 8, Line 8:
The Congress shall have power... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
This clearly does not include collections of facts, as ruled by the US Supreme Court in Feist v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co. From the Supreme Court Ruling:
(a) Article I, 8, cl. 8, of the Constitution mandates originality as a prerequisite for copyright protection. The constitutional requirement necessitates independent creation plus a modicum of creativity. Since facts do not owe their origin to an act of authorship, they are not original and, thus, are not copyrightable. Although a compilation of facts may possess the requisite originality because the author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the data so that readers may use them effectively, copyright protection extends only to those components of the work that are original to the author, not to the facts themselves. This fact/expression dichotomy severely limits the scope of protection in fact-based works. Pp. 344-351.
More Guns Mean Less Crime
Entirely theoretical. Little or no emperical data either way. 3 Theoretical cuckoos to more guns - less gun crime for ignoring the singularity in their argument (There will be more gun crime with 1 gun than with 0).
AIDS is Not Caused by HIV
This statement is wrong if just one instance of an HIV infection caused AIDS. The empirical data for this is extremely large. - 4 Cuckoos
Sun Exposure is Beneficial
Non excessive sun exposure is healthy. - 0 Cuckoos.
Low Doses of Nuclear Radiation Are Beneficial
With one cavaet, when it is known to benefit the condition being treated. - 0 Cuckoos.
The Solar System Has Two Suns
Look up. - 4 Cuckoos
Oil, Coal, and Gas Have Abiogenic Origins
Possibly, but I doubt it greatly. The ability of RNA as a catalyst to its own replication and that of and other biological materials makes it very likely that there were small ammounts of many organic chemicals, including some functioning RNA, and that the first time frame in which we see huge ammounts of organic chemicals should be the RNA catalysts putting the formation of organic chemicals into exponential growth (until restrained by the resources available). The largest producer of hydrocarbons is photosynthesis. So if lots of this stuff was formed before photosynthesis, we should find even more formed afterwards. 1 Theoretical Cuckoo for overcorrecting.
Time Travel is Possible
According to quantum mechanics, to a limited degree, yes. However to move a person back in time about one second you need a negative energy of about the mass of jupiter. We havn't found any negative energy, so don't hold your breath. - 3 Thoeretical Cuckoos.
Faster-than-Light Particles Exist
Not enough research - As an idea 0 Theoretical Cuckoos, be creative. As a statement of fact - 2 Cuckoos - do more research first.
There Was No Big Bang
Lots of theory here - As an idea 0 Theoretical Cuckoos, be creative. As a statement of fact - 2 Cuckoos - do more research first. (There was a big bang has the same ratings.)
A verifier outside the polling place...can immediately check... 2. was it made by an authorized voting station
You are absolutely right - it cannot be done within the bounds of their assumptions (or at all in my view). They assume that the voting machine is compromisable, and must contain naught but information that, were it available to the public, would not be usable in performing election fraud. However if you posessed a voting machine (which they assume is possible - as their security system is not allowed to depend on the security of the voting machine) you could produce a receipt for an unposted ballot.
Of course the officials won't post the ballot unless it was made by an authorized voting station. But how do the officials know, and more importantly, how does the public know that you didn't forge the receipt?
The only way I can think of to do this is through the system of issuing ballots - a ballot is issued to the voter, and its number is recorded on the receipt and on the list of issued ballots, and with the ballot image at the beginning of the tally process (not at any other step - as it would invalidate secrecy against coersion). Point 2 could then be validated based on weather or not that ballot number was issued. We then place the responsability of overseeing the voting system back in the hands of the voter - They validate that their vote was included correctly, and that the ballot they were issued worked, by having it counted correctly. Of course, this only displaces the problem one step further - to the issuing of ballots. However at this step the issues and "paperwork" involved are much more closely related to the individual voters and making these problems, hopefully, easier to rectify. See sibling to your post for more ramblings on ballots.
They shouldn't have claimed Point 2. It belongs in a discussion of excluding invalid voting, which their system (and any technical system) cannot rectify. A very large claim which I will support shortly.
Cedric's Theorem of Election Fraud Or of the necesity for notaries
Let c (a constituent) and e (an election system) be parties to a dispute arbitrated by a (an arbitrator). a cannot decide the truth of statements made by either c or e without choosing to trust one part over the other.
Proof: This problem is so small we can discuss all possible cases.
c claims x, e claims !x. This cannot be done because of symmetry. Let y=!x, now c claims !y, e claims y. Their roles are reversed and we cannot pick one over the other.
c claims z on the authority of e. e claims !on the authority of e. The claim of x is now irrelavent, and c's claim pends on the authority of e. Removing claim z and Letting x=on the authority of e, we now have c claims x, e claims !x.
And symmetries of the above, for the same reasons.
If any party makes any non-unanimous claim, it cannot be trusted because it cannot be trusted over the counter claim of the opposing party. If any party makes a claim claiming the non-unanimous authority of the other party, it cannot be trusted because it cannot be trusted over the counter claim of the other party against the authority.
Problem: In a low speed (under 15 mph) failure of the equipment, the passenger will continue to move forward after the vehicle has stopped. The safest and most reasonable thing for the passener to do when the vehicle halts is to step off the front. However the front handlebar of these scooters eliminate that option, and as noted by the first reference, and more publicly by Mr. Bush, you will be thrown down on your face.
Solution: Remove the front handlebar. You could implement the controls on a rear handlebar that wraps arround the sides of the rider. It would make the vehicle less natural to mount (you step into it backwards) but much safer to bail off of at speed. If this is unacceptable, (or if passangers need to be able to bail off of an out of control scooter without being run over by it), provide the controls above one or two handlebars on the sides of the vehicle.
Better Idea Forget the whole self balancing nonsense as proposed by the third reference. Tricycles, however, are very unstable when turning. Make a quadricycle with no stearing column or handlebars. Put a pressure sensing pad on the top - transfer of pressure in any direction indicates a desire to exprerience acceleration in the opposite direction. The rider only fails to communicate with the platform if she has lost her balance and her center of mass is no longer "over" the platform (with respect to gravity and any pseudo forces she is experiencing), i.e. when she has already comitted herself to falling off. The vehicle automatically stops when the platform is vacated.
The problem of exclusion in an electonic election is significant, as it is in a paper election. The exclusion problem is assuring that only individuals with the right to vote vote, and that they do so only once. In paper elections this is typically implemented through a roster and ballot system.
In a roster and ballot system a precinct or polling place keeps a roster either of the individuals who have the priveledge of voting there, or of the ones who did. In the first case it works like this:
Voter arives at polling place
Voter signs in showing indentification - she is given a ballot and her name is crossed off the list.
Voter votes using her ballot.
Voter submits her ballot.
When the voter entered the polling place, her right to vote was represented by her name appearing on the roster. She then traded her right to vote for a ballot, which now represnts her right to vote. When she submits the ballot she relinqueshes her right to vote in exchange for the act of voting. Since her ballot, while she possesses it, is the representation of her right to vote it is absolutely essential that it be replacable in case of deffect or error - a huge problem with every voting machine I've read descriptions of.
In the second case like this:
Voter arrives at polling place
He signs in using a voter registration card or other identification which purports his right to vote.
His name is added to the roster in exchange for the ballot.
Voter votes using his ballot.
Voter submits her ballot.
He relenquished his right to vote by having his name added to the roster. The ballot then represented his right to vote. It is therefore important that the ballot be exchangable. In this case he can even exchange it for his original voting right, by surrendering it to election officials in exchange for removal of his name from the roster; he could then go to another polling place and vote there.
This presents the first oportunity for fraud. A voter could visit multipl polling places, or even the same polling place multiple times, and vote multiple times- each time having his identification added to the roster. This is discouraged using criminal law - the rosters are checked for duplicates and the offender is investigated / prosecuted. It is impossible to remove the offendors vote from an election with secret ballots because there is no way to know how he voted. The smart ballot stuffer would lie to the authorities when caught, doubling his impact on the election by voting x times for proposition a and -x times for proposition b.
The best way to address this problem is through a computerized analogy of the roster and ballot system.
Voter arrives at the polling place.
Voter presents her identification and voter registration
Computer provides a unique ballot in exchange for adding her to the list of already-voted-voters. This ballot could be a smart card, a bar code, etc.
Voter votes using the voting machine.
If she doesn't like what happens, she tries again. The final election system will remove all overlapping ballots cast before the final one. If she gets fed up with the machine or polling place she can leave and go elsewhere to vote, taking her ballot with her, or she can surrender her ballot, canceling all her attempts to vote, in exchange for removal from the already-voted-voters list.
Voter destroys her ballot so no one else can use it - perhaps she puts it in the tranparent shredder.
Every piece of equipment produces a paper trail. No piece of ewuipment makes any record that could be used to corelate the signed in voter with the ballot.
Problems with exclusion
"Vote Early - Vote Often" Voters can be discouraged from voting multiple times through a criminal legal system preventing voting multiple times with the same voter registration.
I read the whole paper, but I didn't entirely follow it. How does the voter verify that their votes were counted correctly? That seems to be what the convoluted nested Russian doll spiel was about.
The russian doll spiel was about each of the trustees using their private key to decrypt all of the ballots, shuffling them, and disclosing half of what was done to each ballot.
I also don't see how you can prevent someone from making a phoney ballot. Can't someone just take the public keys and generate a thousand phoney ballots? If the election doesn't turn out the way they would like, they can contest it (look, my ballot wasn't counted). If that's the case, the whole system is useless.
Obviously, the machine has all it needs to generate a ballot, so security of the machine is still critical.
You are very clever! This has been a problem in elections before. This system does not address ballot stuffing, dead dudes voting, or the other simple methods of fixing an election that require social engineering instead of the technical kind.
This system solves the following problems:
Inclusion - Includes all the votes cast - Anyone can check to see if their vote was included in the tally.
Accuracy - All votes cast correctly - Anyone can check to see if their vote was recorded as intended. Each ballot has only a 50% chance of slipping through undetected. 32 forged ballots have a combined chance of slipping through only 1 in 4 billion chance of slipping through.
However it does not address any of the social engineering or other problems you mentioned such as:
Exclusion - Only real balots were cast - It does not prevent a tampered with voting machine from casting thousands of eronius balots, or any of the above social situations.
The problem is that if laymen can check that their votes were counted after the fact, it is possible to sell your vote and let a 3rd party check on this as well. Any design where you keep the recipet is flawed.
Laymen can check that their votes were counted correctly after the fact. However they can not check what their vote actually was, so a third party can't verify that the layman voted the way they wished.
This is accomplished by printing two receipts which combined form an image of the voters vote, but seperated are random as in a one time pad encryption scheme. The voter is required to surrender one of these reciepts for destruction, retaining an almost random sheet, which is uninterperatable without the posession of a large number of private keys.
The voting machine can only forge one of the sheets (either internally or externally) and still record a recordable vote. The chance of it being detected is 50% either way, so to forge a mere 32 votes, the machine would have a 1 in 2^32, or one in 4 billion chance of going undetected.
Similarly every trustee who holds private keys for the interperatation of votes has only a 50% chance of tampering with one vote, and having it be undetected by the other trustees, and has only a one in 4 billion chance of getting away with tampering with 32 votes. Similarly a collusion of all but one of the trustees has only a 50% chance of being undetected tampering with one vote, and has only a one in 4 billion chance of being undetected in tampering with 32 votes.
Slashdot also parsed the URL, and removed the username and password, so it broke the intended nature of the link too. So you'll just have to read it and remove the space.
Will look like a citibank URL in you browser, could present a fake veridy page with citibank logos, and redirect the victim to the real citibank page using an HTTP moved response after the submission.
The source of the confusion and success of the scam is the username field of the URL spec.
If your victim is using intenet explorer (deosn't work in Mozilla) you could further confuse someone by URL escaping most of the actual server:
I would like to draw to your attention the hypocrisy and incompetence of your software columnist, Daniel Lyons.
He has recently written two articles on intelectual property in computing: "What SCO Wants, SCO Gets" (6/18/2003) and "Linux's Hit Men" (10/14/2003).
In the article "What SCO Wants, SCO Gets", Lyons discusses SCO's legal persuit of a source code licensing agreement with IBM. SCO aledges that it licensed the "UNIX" code to IBM for use in IBM's operating systems, and that under the terms of that agreement, SCO also owns any rights to modified versions of that code. Lyons applauds SCO for their legal pursuit of IBM.
In the article "Linux's Hit Men", Lyons discusses the Free Software Foundation (FSF)'s legal persuit of a source code licensing agreement with Cisco. The FSF aledges that it licensed source code to Cisco under the GNU Public License (GPL), and that under the terms of that agreement, the FSF also owns any rights to modified versions of that code. Lyons criticizes the FSF for their legal pursuit of Cisco.
The hypocrisy of these two articles is astounding. It is acceptable for SCO to attempt to enforce the terms of its consensual licencing agreement with IBM, but it is unacceptable for the FSF to attempt to enforce the terms of its consensual licencing agreement with Cisco.
I am greatly disapointed with the editorship of this magazine. The combination of these two articles indicates a lack of research, consideration and consistency typical of opinion and editorial pieces. Your publication is degraded in my eyes.
This worm looks like a clever attempt at developing a new spam system.
It asks for the infected users name and email address. Great information for sending spam to.
It also asks for the users SMTP server, login name, and password. The spammer who developed this worm is looking for a way to used closed relays.
This worm is missing only 3 features, currently unreported, to be perfect. First, it should log this information and forward it in some anonymous manner (such as sending it to a few thousand people, one of whom is the desired recipient), second, second it should develop not only a list of email addresses, but also a map of who opens email sent to them by whom (so you can be sure the spam gets through), and third it should turn the comprimised computer into a distributed SPAM network relay.
The dude who splashed paint on canvas spread on the groud. Jackson Pollock The dude who cut off his ear and painted sunflowers. Vincent VanGogh The dude who started off those dotty paintings.
The dude who made that picture of a pipe that says it isn't a pipe.
The dude who wrote Romeo & Juliet. Shakespeare The dude who wrote those books where he was going on and on about all the stuff he was thinking and doing and you couldn't figure out what was fact and what was fiction the grammar didn't work out anyway pretty damn boring book that was. Faulkner The dude who cuts animals in half and suspends them in formaldehyde. Did Leonardo DaVinci have formaldahyde. I don't think he's right... The gal who made an exposition out of her own dirty bed.
The dude who painted a can of soup. Andy Worhall The dude who composed the Ring.
No, not that other dude who wrote about the Ring. Tolkein The dude who wrote that book and then all those Arabs went medieval on him, only he hid.
The dude who wraps buildings up like a parcel (and his wife, too).
The dude who directed E.T. Steven Speilberg The gal who made those nazi films that died the other day.
The dude who poured lighter fluid over his guitar and burnt it on stage. Jimi Hendrix The dude who wrote the book about killing lots of people while using lots of snobby eighties brands. Book is American Psycho, author is _________. The dude who was in that black&white film where the front of a house falls over, but he's standing where the window comes down and there's no glass in it. Buster Keaton The gal who sings about wanting a Mercedes Benz. Janis Joplin
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks. I've been wondering that for a while.
From Netcraft survey for The Yavapai-Apache Nation website:
Netcraft's never recorded it running anything else.
The Yavapai-Apache site prominantly features a link to their hosting ISP, Wild Apache Internet Service, which advertised on its front page that they use apache:
Word Processor comparison:
Word Processors can be divided into 3 groups. Frame and style based word processors are the easiest to use, and the only acceptable methods for large documents. Some word processors include this architecture. Many fall behind, and are nothing more than a glorified typewriter with spell check and editing.
Frame and style based word processors:
Lotus Amipro (NeXT late 80s, Windows circa 1993):
Originally designed for NeXT, along with Lotus Improv as part of an office suite. This is probably the best word processor ever. It is based on frames and styles, and the user interface is esentially three parts: edit text, layout frames, edit styles. Few menus, a bunch of buttons. Surprisingly simple, easy to use, and powerful (comparable to Adobe FrameMaker). Very small, very fast. Puts everything since it to shame.
Annoyances: None
Missing features: Support for new file formats. Fancy text layouts like text on a path, dropshadows, and outlines.
Adobe FrameMaker
Professional desktop publishing program. As the name implies it is frame based. Along with AmiPro and LaTeX it is capable of really professional quality results.
KWord:
KWord lives on frames and styles. It allows text to flow between arbitrary frames. Very good for working with extremely large documents. The styles are one step removed from the user interface, if they came to the front it would be a professional contender.
Missing features: Macros
Lotus WordPro
The successor to AmiPro. Benefits include support for newer file formats, and some new features. The user interface was changed quite a bit to be more like WordPerfect or Word.
Anoyances: Somewhat sloppy UI design, merges are difficult. HTML output is not perfect.
Missing features: Fancy text layouts like text on a path, dropshadows, and outlines.
LyX / LaTeX:
LaTeX does styles extremely well. Is absolutely excellent for anything where you don't need frames (scientific papers, computer manuals, books, etc). HTML output is the absolute best.
Missing features: Frames essentially don't exist.
Word processors that can do frames and styles, but its difficult:
OpenOffice.org
The guiding design principal here seems to be "be as much like Microsoft Office as possible". In this it succeeds fairly well, with a few slight improvements. Styles and frames are far more accessible, but still hidden away a bit to far for my liking.
Anoyances: User interface is a lot like Microsoft Word
WordPerfect:
Frames and styles exist, but they are hidden out of view.
Word processors that can't do frames and styles:
AbiWord:
Last time I used it it was a glorified WordPad or RTF editor. Very simple to use for small documents. Lack of styles made it unaproachable for anything big.
Anoyances: No styles, no frames
Missing features: almost everything
Microsft Write (the dinky text editor):
Fewer features than Word. Easier to use. Results are just as good, and any other program can open it.
Missing features: spell check, almost everything
Microsoft Word:
This one wins the worst user interface award. It has support for styles and frame bassed document layout, but the user interface is designed towards formatting every gosh darn character / word / paragraph by hand. Most word documents are impossible to work with if they have any size. The user interface is so bad that these features might as well not exist
Anoyances: Almost everything. I've used a lot of word processors, from ancient WordStars and WordPerfects to AmiPro. Word has no guiding concepts to follow, either in document design or understanding the user interface. File format incompatibilities between Word versions make it miserable to deal with. Aweful HTML output.
Missing features: Acceptable user interface, functional file format
Write to your representative. Chances are they won't be hearing much from anyone on this bill, so just a few letters from constituants may be significantly pursuasive.
.... "abridging the freedom of speech"
... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Here's mine:
Representative Walden,
Please oppose H.R. 3261, the "Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act". It is an unconstitutional violation of free speech. Passing this bill will only cause unnecessary litigation and expense and, in its disposal, consume the valuable resources of our high courts.
The primary purpose of this bill is laid out in Section 3, point a. It prohibits the "making available in commerce" a "substantial part" of a database made by another person. The offending section is included below for your convenience. This prohibits commercial, or profitable, speech when it contains a large portion of another person's database. This violates the freedom of speech laid out in the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law"
It is permissible for congress to pass laws which infringe on freedom of speech only in a few very specific instance, such as against traitorous speech, and the exceptions of Article 1, Section 8, Line 1, which establish the power of congress to implement copyrights and patents.
From Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have power
This power is granted to congress to encourage authors and inventors, and by extension musicians, artists, and filmmakers, by granting them exclusive rights to their works for a limited time. This exclusive right to the work violates the freedom of speech of others, but is explicitly allowed to encourage art and technology. By precedent, it has two requirements, originality and creativity; the author must be the origin of the work, and it must require some step of creativity to produce it.
Individual facts, like telephone numbers, sizes of stars, or names for babies, are not original. A database, or collection, of these is original in so far as the author's chose which pieces of information to include. Historically, the US Supreme Court agrees, as shown in the case of FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC., v. RURAL TELEPHONE SERVICE CO., INC., quoted here from Syllabus, point a:
(a) Article I, 8, cl. 8, of the Constitution mandates originality as a prerequisite for copyright protection. The constitutional requirement necessitates independent creation plus a modicum of creativity. Since facts do not owe their origin to an act of authorship, they are not original and, thus, are not copyrightable. Although a compilation of facts may possess the requisite originality because the author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the data so that readers may use them effectively, copyright protection extends only to those components of the work that are original to the author, not to the facts themselves. This fact/expression dichotomy severely limits the scope of protection in fact-based works. Pp. 344-351.
Representative Walden, please help keep our already overrun legal system and high courts clear from unnecessary litigation; oppose H.R.3261. Please dispose of this ill-conceived bill now, before our it causes our nation, its corporations, and its individuals great expense of disposing of it later.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration,
Your concerned constituent,
Cedric A. Shock
H.R.3261
Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION AGAINST MISAPPROPRIATION OF DATABASES.
(a) LIABILITY- Any person who makes available in commerce to others a quantitatively substantial part of the information in a database generated, gathered, or maintained by another person, knowing t
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/newsroom/pressrelea ses/20040123b.html
Every time I read an article about mining space for energy it makes me sad. Some day our greed for energy will kill us all. Let's revisit the second law of thermodynamics together to find out why.
In a relaxed form, the second law of thermodynamics states that no process can remove heat from one reservoir without adding at least the same amount of heat to another reservoir. This means that in order for your refrigerator to cool itself, it must at least add the heat removed from the refrigerator to the room around it. There is no refrigerator you can make that doesn't heat up the room it is in. Similarly there is no refrigerator we can build that will cool off the earth, without heating something else up.
If we build ANY sort of extraterrestrial energy collector and transport the energy back to earth and use it, then it will generate an amount of heat equal to the energy collected. This heat will be stuck on the earth, warming it up. The more energy we pipe in fromoutside the earth, the hotter we get.
The earth usually recieves X amount of energy from the Sun every day. Some of this energy is light, some is infrared, some is X and Gamma radiation, etc. If the earth isn't getting hotter or colder it loses about X heat every day, so it stays about the same temperature. The ability of the earth to exhaust heat is a function of the atmospheric conditions, the temperature of the upper atmosphere, and the volume to (atmospheric) surface area of the earth. Neither the chemical composition of our atmosphere or the surface area of the atmosphere is likely to change to allow more heat to exhaust itself from the earth (the former may be changing to allow less heat to exhaust itself). The only variable that can change is the temperature of the earth. The higher the earths temperature is (compared to space) the more heat we can exhaust every day.
Now suppose we build a huge energy collecter outside the earth that supplies Y energy every day. Now the earth's daily energy intake is X+Y, and our heat exhaustion is still X. This means Y energy is added to the heat of the earth every day. With just a small Y we would cook fairly quickly. Fortunantly nature puts a halt on anything that is going to grow out of control. The earth will change to be able to exhaust X+Y energy every day. However, the only factor in heat exhaustion that can be adjusted is the temperature of the earth, so the earth will heat up to a temperature that allows it to exhaust X+Y energy every day.
In conclusion - why don't you put your effort into some worthwhile cause, like better use of the solar energy we do get and can handle. Or changing US laws so that the government regulatory cost (capital investment*intrest rate^years waiting for approval - capital investment) of building solar power plants doesn't make it impossible.
Why film beats digital
Regular 35mm film has an optical resolution and information depth similar to about a 25 MegaPixel digital camera [1].
A more important measure of film or CCD quality are light collecting power. In photogrpahs light == information. More light collecting power leads to higher resolutions, greater depth of focus, and increased shutter speeds.
Light collecting power allows photographs to be taken at a faster speed through the same lens. To collect the most light possible into a camera, and thus the most information, we usually set the shutter speed to the slowest speed we can without blurring the scene - this is usually 1/90th of a second (Some photoraphers can hold a camera still for 1/45th of a second, normally tripods can do about 1/10th of a second). Then we adjust the other parameters of the camera to match this maximum-information shutter speed. To use up extra light and convert it into information we can increase the depth of focus of the camera (making the hole the light goes through smaller). The more light collecting power the film has, the greater depth of focus the camera can have.
Light collecting power also affects the maximum resolution of film or CCDs. For examle a slide film at ISO25 can capture about 4 times the information of a film at ISO100. The ISO25 film trades light collecting power for more pixels, which can function because there is enough light to expose them. ISO100 film can take pictures faster, because there are fewer picture elements that need the light collecting power, so more of it can be used to increase depth of focus and increase shutter speed for less blurred photographs. ISO800 or 1600 films expose very easily, but are greatly lacking in the resolution of the final image.
So, more light collecting power leads to more ability to collect information, depth of focus, and shutter speed.
How digital can beat film:
Digital cameras have some unique potential which will allow them to beat 35mm film in the near future. Medium and large-ormat digital cameras could potentially rival medium and large format film eventually. One of the potential ways to greatly increase the power of digital cameras is to increase their light collecting ability. Many scenes are relitivly motionless down to about 1/10th of a second, however our hands are not steady enough to photograph them easily. It would be a relatively simple task (simpler than correlating stereoscopic views) for a digital camera to repeatedly sample a CCD durring a long 1/10th sec. shot and remove the blurring and add the sampled frames together. This would greatly increase the light collecting power of the digital camera over film cameras in many regular types of shots, greatly increasing its information collecting ability. This increase in information collecting ability could be traded for increased resolution (if we are near the limit of having enough light to expose CCD elements), increased depth of focus, or increased shutter rates (limited by the fastest possible sampling rate of the CCD).
Knoppix is excellent for data rescue and recovery work. This data recovery howto for Knoppix has proved invaluable for many of my friends. It has also been translated into Polish
... does the slashdot linux pinguin icon have a bag over its head (it's face is blacked out)?
Norton Desktop for Windows 3/3.1 not only introduced the desktop and windows outside the Program Manager window to Windows, but also introduced a long file names through some sort of hack.
The log machine can very easily be perfect. There are two simple variations to this, one of you want it to work even after the box is rooted, one if you don't. The first is an inline network logger. It acts like a piece of copper wire, but records all the data going through it. The second is a serial or similar mass storage device that the computerrights its logs to. The device cannot be accessed for reading or reseting except through an interface not available to the computer.
This bill is unconstitutional, because it restricts my freedom to say something. This absolute freedom of speach (even if I got it from someone else's database fo facts) is preserved by the 1st Amendment of the US constitution:
Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Copyrights and patents also violate the first amendment to the constitution. However they are strictly allowed under Article I, Section 8, Line 8:
The Congress shall have power ... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
This clearly does not include collections of facts, as ruled by the US Supreme Court in Feist v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co. From the Supreme Court Ruling:
(a) Article I, 8, cl. 8, of the Constitution mandates originality as a prerequisite for copyright protection. The constitutional requirement necessitates independent creation plus a modicum of creativity. Since facts do not owe their origin to an act of authorship, they are not original and, thus, are not copyrightable. Although a compilation of facts may possess the requisite originality because the author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the data so that readers may use them effectively, copyright protection extends only to those components of the work that are original to the author, not to the facts themselves. This fact/expression dichotomy severely limits the scope of protection in fact-based works. Pp. 344-351.
Entirely theoretical. Little or no emperical data either way. 3 Theoretical cuckoos to more guns - less gun crime for ignoring the singularity in their argument (There will be more gun crime with 1 gun than with 0).
This statement is wrong if just one instance of an HIV infection caused AIDS. The empirical data for this is extremely large. - 4 Cuckoos
Non excessive sun exposure is healthy. - 0 Cuckoos.
With one cavaet, when it is known to benefit the condition being treated. - 0 Cuckoos.
Look up. - 4 Cuckoos
Possibly, but I doubt it greatly. The ability of RNA as a catalyst to its own replication and that of and other biological materials makes it very likely that there were small ammounts of many organic chemicals, including some functioning RNA, and that the first time frame in which we see huge ammounts of organic chemicals should be the RNA catalysts putting the formation of organic chemicals into exponential growth (until restrained by the resources available). The largest producer of hydrocarbons is photosynthesis. So if lots of this stuff was formed before photosynthesis, we should find even more formed afterwards. 1 Theoretical Cuckoo for overcorrecting.
According to quantum mechanics, to a limited degree, yes. However to move a person back in time about one second you need a negative energy of about the mass of jupiter. We havn't found any negative energy, so don't hold your breath. - 3 Thoeretical Cuckoos.
Not enough research - As an idea 0 Theoretical Cuckoos, be creative. As a statement of fact - 2 Cuckoos - do more research first.
Lots of theory here - As an idea 0 Theoretical Cuckoos, be creative. As a statement of fact - 2 Cuckoos - do more research first. (There was a big bang has the same ratings.)
A verifier outside the polling place...can immediately check...
2. was it made by an authorized voting station
You are absolutely right - it cannot be done within the bounds of their assumptions (or at all in my view). They assume that the voting machine is compromisable, and must contain naught but information that, were it available to the public, would not be usable in performing election fraud. However if you posessed a voting machine (which they assume is possible - as their security system is not allowed to depend on the security of the voting machine) you could produce a receipt for an unposted ballot.
Of course the officials won't post the ballot unless it was made by an authorized voting station. But how do the officials know, and more importantly, how does the public know that you didn't forge the receipt?
The only way I can think of to do this is through the system of issuing ballots - a ballot is issued to the voter, and its number is recorded on the receipt and on the list of issued ballots, and with the ballot image at the beginning of the tally process (not at any other step - as it would invalidate secrecy against coersion). Point 2 could then be validated based on weather or not that ballot number was issued. We then place the responsability of overseeing the voting system back in the hands of the voter - They validate that their vote was included correctly, and that the ballot they were issued worked, by having it counted correctly. Of course, this only displaces the problem one step further - to the issuing of ballots. However at this step the issues and "paperwork" involved are much more closely related to the individual voters and making these problems, hopefully, easier to rectify. See sibling to your post for more ramblings on ballots.
They shouldn't have claimed Point 2. It belongs in a discussion of excluding invalid voting, which their system (and any technical system) cannot rectify. A very large claim which I will support shortly.
Cedric's Theorem of Election Fraud
Or of the necesity for notaries
Let c (a constituent) and e (an election system) be parties to a dispute arbitrated by a (an arbitrator). a cannot decide the truth of statements made by either c or e without choosing to trust one part over the other.
Proof: This problem is so small we can discuss all possible cases.
If any party makes any non-unanimous claim, it cannot be trusted because it cannot be trusted over the counter claim of the opposing party. If any party makes a claim claiming the non-unanimous authority of the other party, it cannot be trusted because it cannot be trusted over the counter claim of the other party against the authority.
Here is a monumental safety imporvement to any low speed scooter, like a balancing scooter, a segway, or something else:
Problem: In a low speed (under 15 mph) failure of the equipment, the passenger will continue to move forward after the vehicle has stopped. The safest and most reasonable thing for the passener to do when the vehicle halts is to step off the front. However the front handlebar of these scooters eliminate that option, and as noted by the first reference, and more publicly by Mr. Bush, you will be thrown down on your face.
Solution: Remove the front handlebar. You could implement the controls on a rear handlebar that wraps arround the sides of the rider. It would make the vehicle less natural to mount (you step into it backwards) but much safer to bail off of at speed. If this is unacceptable, (or if passangers need to be able to bail off of an out of control scooter without being run over by it), provide the controls above one or two handlebars on the sides of the vehicle.
Better Idea Forget the whole self balancing nonsense as proposed by the third reference. Tricycles, however, are very unstable when turning. Make a quadricycle with no stearing column or handlebars. Put a pressure sensing pad on the top - transfer of pressure in any direction indicates a desire to exprerience acceleration in the opposite direction. The rider only fails to communicate with the platform if she has lost her balance and her center of mass is no longer "over" the platform (with respect to gravity and any pseudo forces she is experiencing), i.e. when she has already comitted herself to falling off. The vehicle automatically stops when the platform is vacated.
The problem of exclusion
The problem of exclusion in an electonic election is significant, as it is in a paper election. The exclusion problem is assuring that only individuals with the right to vote vote, and that they do so only once. In paper elections this is typically implemented through a roster and ballot system.
In a roster and ballot system a precinct or polling place keeps a roster either of the individuals who have the priveledge of voting there, or of the ones who did. In the first case it works like this:
When the voter entered the polling place, her right to vote was represented by her name appearing on the roster. She then traded her right to vote for a ballot, which now represnts her right to vote. When she submits the ballot she relinqueshes her right to vote in exchange for the act of voting. Since her ballot, while she possesses it, is the representation of her right to vote it is absolutely essential that it be replacable in case of deffect or error - a huge problem with every voting machine I've read descriptions of.
In the second case like this:
He relenquished his right to vote by having his name added to the roster. The ballot then represented his right to vote. It is therefore important that the ballot be exchangable. In this case he can even exchange it for his original voting right, by surrendering it to election officials in exchange for removal of his name from the roster; he could then go to another polling place and vote there.
This presents the first oportunity for fraud. A voter could visit multipl polling places, or even the same polling place multiple times, and vote multiple times- each time having his identification added to the roster. This is discouraged using criminal law - the rosters are checked for duplicates and the offender is investigated / prosecuted. It is impossible to remove the offendors vote from an election with secret ballots because there is no way to know how he voted. The smart ballot stuffer would lie to the authorities when caught, doubling his impact on the election by voting x times for proposition a and -x times for proposition b.
The best way to address this problem is through a computerized analogy of the roster and ballot system.
If she doesn't like what happens, she tries again. The final election system will remove all overlapping ballots cast before the final one. If she gets fed up with the machine or polling place she can leave and go elsewhere to vote, taking her ballot with her, or she can surrender her ballot, canceling all her attempts to vote, in exchange for removal from the already-voted-voters list.
Every piece of equipment produces a paper trail. No piece of ewuipment makes any record that could be used to corelate the signed in voter with the ballot.
Problems with exclusion
I read the whole paper, but I didn't entirely follow it. How does the voter verify that their votes were counted correctly? That seems to be what the convoluted nested Russian doll spiel was about.
The russian doll spiel was about each of the trustees using their private key to decrypt all of the ballots, shuffling them, and disclosing half of what was done to each ballot.
I also don't see how you can prevent someone from making a phoney ballot. Can't someone just take the public keys and generate a thousand phoney ballots? If the election doesn't turn out the way they would like, they can contest it (look, my ballot wasn't counted). If that's the case, the whole system is useless. Obviously, the machine has all it needs to generate a ballot, so security of the machine is still critical.
You are very clever! This has been a problem in elections before. This system does not address ballot stuffing, dead dudes voting, or the other simple methods of fixing an election that require social engineering instead of the technical kind.
This system solves the following problems:
However it does not address any of the social engineering or other problems you mentioned such as:
The problem is that if laymen can check that their votes were counted after the fact, it is possible to sell your vote and let a 3rd party check on this as well. Any design where you keep the recipet is flawed.
Laymen can check that their votes were counted correctly after the fact. However they can not check what their vote actually was, so a third party can't verify that the layman voted the way they wished.
This is accomplished by printing two receipts which combined form an image of the voters vote, but seperated are random as in a one time pad encryption scheme. The voter is required to surrender one of these reciepts for destruction, retaining an almost random sheet, which is uninterperatable without the posession of a large number of private keys.
The voting machine can only forge one of the sheets (either internally or externally) and still record a recordable vote. The chance of it being detected is 50% either way, so to forge a mere 32 votes, the machine would have a 1 in 2^32, or one in 4 billion chance of going undetected.
Similarly every trustee who holds private keys for the interperatation of votes has only a 50% chance of tampering with one vote, and having it be undetected by the other trustees, and has only a one in 4 billion chance of getting away with tampering with 32 votes. Similarly a collusion of all but one of the trustees has only a 50% chance of being undetected tampering with one vote, and has only a one in 4 billion chance of being undetected in tampering with 32 votes.
Slashdot also parsed the URL, and removed the username and password, so it broke the intended nature of the link too. So you'll just have to read it and remove the space.
Changes everything (adds spaces) so it isn;t the same when submitted. Sorry the second link is broken. Remove the space between % and 6f
2 E% 6f%72g
http://www.citibank.com:verify=@%73la%73hd%6ft%
It doesn't matter if it shows the URL or not. You could make the same scam using a fake login page. For example the URL:
http://www.citibank.com:verify=SomeBigNumber@slash dot.org
Will look like a citibank URL in you browser, could present a fake veridy page with citibank logos, and redirect the victim to the real citibank page using an HTTP moved response after the submission.
The source of the confusion and success of the scam is the username field of the URL spec.
If your victim is using intenet explorer (deosn't work in Mozilla) you could further confuse someone by URL escaping most of the actual server:
http://www.citibank.com:verify=@%73la%73hd%6ft%2E% 6f%72g
Some browsers don't display the username field. ONly then would you see that the page you are accessing isn't really from citibank.
To the editors,
I would like to draw to your attention the hypocrisy and incompetence of your software columnist, Daniel Lyons.
He has recently written two articles on intelectual property in computing: "What SCO Wants, SCO Gets" (6/18/2003) and "Linux's Hit Men" (10/14/2003).
In the article "What SCO Wants, SCO Gets", Lyons discusses SCO's legal persuit of a source code licensing agreement with IBM. SCO aledges that it licensed the "UNIX" code to IBM for use in IBM's operating systems, and that under the terms of that agreement, SCO also owns any rights to modified versions of that code. Lyons applauds SCO for their legal pursuit of IBM.
In the article "Linux's Hit Men", Lyons discusses the Free Software Foundation (FSF)'s legal persuit of a source code licensing agreement with Cisco. The FSF aledges that it licensed source code to Cisco under the GNU Public License (GPL), and that under the terms of that agreement, the FSF also owns any rights to modified versions of that code. Lyons criticizes the FSF for their legal pursuit of Cisco.
The hypocrisy of these two articles is astounding. It is acceptable for SCO to attempt to enforce the terms of its consensual licencing agreement with IBM, but it is unacceptable for the FSF to attempt to enforce the terms of its consensual licencing agreement with Cisco.
I am greatly disapointed with the editorship of this magazine. The combination of these two articles indicates a lack of research, consideration and consistency typical of opinion and editorial pieces. Your publication is degraded in my eyes.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Cedric A. Shock
This worm looks like a clever attempt at developing a new spam system.
It asks for the infected users name and email address. Great information for sending spam to.
It also asks for the users SMTP server, login name, and password. The spammer who developed this worm is looking for a way to used closed relays.
This worm is missing only 3 features, currently unreported, to be perfect. First, it should log this information and forward it in some anonymous manner (such as sending it to a few thousand people, one of whom is the desired recipient), second, second it should develop not only a list of email addresses, but also a map of who opens email sent to them by whom (so you can be sure the spam gets through), and third it should turn the comprimised computer into a distributed SPAM network relay.
Even easier:
First ask:
What is the length of that knifty file you've got there?
Second ask:
For each bit in the file, is it a 1?
The dude who splashed paint on canvas spread on the groud.
Jackson Pollock
The dude who cut off his ear and painted sunflowers.
Vincent VanGogh
The dude who started off those dotty paintings.
The dude who made that picture of a pipe that says it isn't a pipe.
The dude who wrote Romeo & Juliet.
Shakespeare
The dude who wrote those books where he was going on and on about all the stuff he was thinking and doing and you couldn't figure out what was fact and what was fiction the grammar didn't work out anyway pretty damn boring book that was.
Faulkner
The dude who cuts animals in half and suspends them in formaldehyde.
Did Leonardo DaVinci have formaldahyde. I don't think he's right...
The gal who made an exposition out of her own dirty bed.
The dude who painted a can of soup.
Andy Worhall
The dude who composed the Ring.
No, not that other dude who wrote about the Ring.
Tolkein
The dude who wrote that book and then all those Arabs went medieval on him, only he hid.
The dude who wraps buildings up like a parcel (and his wife, too).
The dude who directed E.T.
Steven Speilberg
The gal who made those nazi films that died the other day.
The dude who poured lighter fluid over his guitar and burnt it on stage.
Jimi Hendrix
The dude who wrote the book about killing lots of people while using lots of snobby eighties brands.
Book is American Psycho, author is _________.
The dude who was in that black&white film where the front of a house falls over, but he's standing where the window comes down and there's no glass in it.
Buster Keaton
The gal who sings about wanting a Mercedes Benz.
Janis Joplin