Re:Copyrights are older than the free-market
on
Copyright!
·
· Score: 1
I've been looking for a reference that long prior to the invention of the printing press, a monk copied a manuscript and the owner of the original claimed ownership of the copy. The court ruled that, like the offspring of livestock, the copy belonged to the owner of the original. I'm thinking this was around the time of Columba of Iona (6th c.). Some of my research indicates that this story may be apocryphal.
But, on the other hand, I have found some evidence for unlimited copyright in English Common Law
Rather, the US Patent Office has recognized that, given the funding they have from the Republican controlled Congress, they don't have the staff with sufficient expertise to review prior art in this area. They have consciously decided to let the courts sort it out.
Re:Copyrights are older than the free-market
on
Copyright!
·
· Score: 1
There has been copyright in English common law since before the year 1000. The economic theories describing the free market are from the 19th century. I find it odd that you are using relatively recent theoretical construct to criticize a long standing matter of law.
Natural law arguments aside (since no one knows just what is natural law) copyright is a derived property right.
I should know better than to reply to an Anonymous Idiot.
My wife is a typical computer user of above average intelligence. Just because her interests don't run toward maintaining an OS dosn't make her stupid. Linux is more complicated to maintain; it is not more complicated to use.
I have to question this argument because our knowledge of DNA is sketchy at best. Yes, we know how it works, and what it does, but the Human Genome Project still hasn't documented *everything*. I may be talking out of my ass, (genetics isn't one of my strong suits) and I'm not saying that Grey/Human DNA mixes are posible, but I'm not willing to dismiss the posibility outright.
Species on this planet that can interbreed are very closely related. Typically, they will have diverged in the last few million years. For us to be able to interbreed with aliens means that they evolved here are aren't alien at all. Unfortunately there's no evidence of a previous technologically advanced civilization on this planet.
Regarding the possibility of chimp/human hybrids mentioned earlier. I believe that chimps and humans have different numbers of chromosomes. That would likely make it impossible for them to interbreed. It's not how similar our DNA are, it's that it's organized differently.
It's just amazing how much junk science surrounds UFOlogy.
My wife uses a Linux box that I maintain for her. She dosn't know what to do when fsck bails on a boot check or how to install software nor does she have the root password. I've had to walk her through some things over the phone. I added mount floppy/unmount floppy commands to her command menu so that she dosn't have to use a CLI. (I'm about to add a rm ~/.netscape/lock command to her menu:^P)
She does have a reliable system which she can use to do the stuff that she does: Netscape mail, Netscape for browsing, Applix for WP and a bunch of gnome card and strategy games. She can print her email and she's generally happy.
Problems are in reading MS files. Last night, Applix couldn't read a RTF file from Word 97 that she needed to print. Dust off the laptop that wins Win95, boot it up, plug in the printer (install the fscking printer driver) and print an 8 page document.
She is continually amazed when I telnet into the box and fix something broken without getting her up from her seat or even getting myself off the couch.
There are no hard and fast rules. OS-type software deals with hardware and exposes APIs for other programs. Thic includes drivers and daemons. Application programs use exposed APIs and interact with users.
Some utilities are typically delivered with operating ststems. These utilities are basic user programs that either configure the system or allow the user to manage operating system-managed objects like files and permissions.
Middleware like Java is in between these as it exposes APIs but dosn't interact with users.
You first need to identify the security risks that you are facing and what reasonable steps you can take to address the threats you face.
Risk 1: J. Random Cracker wants to look at Grandma's urine test result, so he snoops her session or tries to impersonate her. Passwords+SSL are pretty good. If he has the wherewithal to implement a man-in-the-middle attack, he could defeat this. Pretty difficult to do. Frankly, he'd be better off doing it against her banking session because he might be able to get some real cash out of it.
But, unless he can get his hands on your encrypted password file (see risk 2) he's just going to have to guess. Some passwords are guessible. User selected passwords are especially weak, but aren't any better than good passwords that Granny has to write down to remember. Locking an acount after x incorrect guesses helps. x=3 is probably too low. x=6 might not be.
Risk 2: J. Random Cracker wants to look at everyone's lab results so he can identify HIV- women to hit on. Your server needs to be secured. You don't store cleartext passwords. You don't install unnecessary software on the server. Ideally, you store everything on a seperate db server and pass messages between the two.
The lack of ability to negotiate the terms of a contract do not make a contract unenforcable. There is a class of contracts in contract law called contracts of adhesion. Contracts of adhesion are contracts in which the terms are dictated by one party. Your insurance policy is a contract of adhesion.
Contracts of adhesion carry implication in law. Ambiguous terms are to be interpreted in favor of the party that did not draft the contract. Also, contract provisions which are against "public policy" are not enforcable.
The only real way to get around an EULA is to be able to demonstrate: that due to the presence of a preventable bug, you sufered some actual loss; that the claim that the software is not warranted to be suitable for any purpose whatsoever is belied by other public statments of the company; and you have to show that a disclaimer of liability is against public policy. Make sure you have a big bank account because this case will be appealed for years and the outcome is still not certain.
Make sure, also, that your state does not pass UCITA which specifically permits most EULA language, because your essential third claim goes away under it.
Correct, there would still be an "applications barrier to entry", but there wouldn't be a monopoly because there are four competing OSs. It It is the combination of overwhelming market share and the high barrier to entry that makes a monopoly.
In an ironic parallel, Microsoft is hoping to ignore this problem until after the presidential election. Hoping that Bush will make the problem go away.
You realize, of course, that Bush can't make the problem go away the way that Reagan did for IBM. The DoJ is just one of the prosecutors. What is it, 14?, states are also prosecuting under the same antitrust statutes. The DoJ can't settle unless all those states are satisfied as well.
In other words, either MS is acknowleding that worms like this are legitimate use of its mail software, or they are deliberately distributing a product that fails to comply with product liability laws.
Take a look at a Microsoft EULA and tell me if you think that you would be able to last 5 minutes in court with a liability claim.
Re:What else do you do with an insane market cap ?
on
Red Hat Buying Cygnus?
·
· Score: 1
The Market Cap is not generally available to companies unless they hold large amoints of Treasury stock which they would have to sell (causing dilution) to access.
Remember, Red Hat only got $14/share less underwriting costs from the IPO. The runup in the value of the stock since then has not helped RH but rather its owners.
I think that Kahn (copyright '72?) didn't have access to all of the declassified documents on Enigma that later researchers did. Kahn still remains a seminal work.
I think so. Look at ssh, for example. Everyone thinks that because it uses strong encryption, it is hard to break. But consider that several protocols used via ssh have predictable text, these reduce the protection that ssh provides. If you're using a 1024 bit key, but the first 10 characters of your session are known (because your prompt is 10 characters long and unvarying or because you see an/etc/issue message), you have just given away 80 bits of key.
These are exactly the types of weaknesses that Bletchley took advantage of.
I was really impressed at the attempts to build the first memory storage devices.
Mercury delay tubes where an audio pulse representing a series of 0s and 1s was sent through the machine and captured at the other end so that it could be cycled around to the beginning and retransmitted reminds me of RAM refresh circuits.
The use of CRTs where the decay time of the phosphors was used to store bits for brief periods of time until they were reread and fed back into the tube. What ingenuity!
The machine is the encryption/decryption algorithm. That was known. All good cryptography algorithms are well known. Relying on the secrecy of the algorithm is poor cryptographic practice.
What was not known was the daily machine settings that are equivalent to the crypotgraphic key. The mathematicians used various techniques to discover the daily settings. Once the day's settings had been found, that entire day's set of dispatches could be read. But there was a new problem to solve at midnight every day.
Furthermore, the Germans altered the machine by adding rotors and by building versions of the machine that had more than the usual number of rotors. The later Lorentz cipher was only partially based on Enigma. It too was broken.
It was a remarkable feat of mathematics and engineering.
Why, as a devout Randian I must protest your inaccurate statement. We believe firmly that only reason can justify belief, and reason tells us that every business in history has been nothing but good!
LOL! I love the circular logic in the second sentance.
Am I going to get fired because the filenames are publicly viewable?
If it were to happen, you might have no recourse. You should familiarize yourself with your employer's policy on acceptable use. If you yourself are in violation of that policy, you will have no recourse.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been looking for a reference that long prior to the invention of the printing press, a monk copied a manuscript and the owner of the original claimed ownership of the copy. The court ruled that, like the offspring of livestock, the copy belonged to the owner of the original. I'm thinking this was around the time of Columba of Iona (6th c.). Some of my research indicates that this story may be
apocryphal.
But, on the other hand, I have found some evidence for unlimited copyright in English Common Law
Rather, the US Patent Office has recognized that, given the funding they have from the Republican controlled Congress, they don't have the staff with sufficient expertise to review prior art in this area. They have consciously decided to let the courts sort it out.
There has been copyright in English common law since before the year 1000. The economic theories describing the free market are from the 19th century. I find it odd that you are using relatively recent theoretical construct to criticize a long standing matter of law.
Natural law arguments aside (since no one knows just what is natural law) copyright is a derived property right.
Is enforcing the law "violence"?
Gee, this MS case is really making the kooks come out of their cracks.
This is only a strategy in the same sense that betting pass at the craps table is an investment.
You, Anonymous Coward, have very little credibility given all the crap spouted under the name. Get a nick and we'll talk.
Which of the several anti-trust precedents are the closest to US vs. MS? What was the remedy in that case?
I should know better than to reply to an Anonymous Idiot.
My wife is a typical computer user of above average intelligence. Just because her interests don't run toward maintaining an OS dosn't make her stupid. Linux is more complicated to maintain; it is not more complicated to use.
I have to question this argument because our knowledge of DNA is sketchy at best. Yes, we know how it works, and what it does, but the Human Genome Project still hasn't documented *everything*. I may be talking out of my ass,
(genetics isn't one of my strong suits) and I'm not saying that Grey/Human DNA mixes are posible, but I'm not willing to dismiss the posibility outright.
Species on this planet that can interbreed are very closely related. Typically, they will have diverged in the last few million years. For us to be able to interbreed with aliens means that they evolved here are aren't alien at all. Unfortunately there's no evidence of a previous technologically advanced civilization on this planet.
Regarding the possibility of chimp/human hybrids mentioned earlier. I believe that chimps and humans have different numbers of chromosomes. That would likely make it impossible for them to interbreed. It's not how similar our DNA are, it's that it's organized differently.
It's just amazing how much junk science surrounds UFOlogy.
My wife uses a Linux box that I maintain for her. She dosn't know what to do when fsck bails on a boot check or how to install software nor does she have the root password. I've had to walk her through some things over the phone. I added mount floppy/unmount floppy commands to her command menu so that she dosn't have to use a CLI. (I'm about to add a rm ~/.netscape/lock command to her menu :^P)
She does have a reliable system which she can use to do the stuff that she does: Netscape mail, Netscape for browsing, Applix for WP and a bunch of gnome card and strategy games. She can print her email and she's generally happy.
Problems are in reading MS files. Last night, Applix couldn't read a RTF file from Word 97 that she needed to print. Dust off the laptop that wins Win95, boot it up, plug in the printer (install the fscking printer driver) and print an 8 page document.
She is continually amazed when I telnet into the box and fix something broken without getting her up from her seat or even getting myself off the couch.
My wife, I think I'll keep her.
There are no hard and fast rules. OS-type software deals with hardware and exposes APIs for other programs. Thic includes drivers and daemons. Application programs use exposed APIs and interact with users.
Some utilities are typically delivered with operating ststems. These utilities are basic user programs that either configure the system or allow the user to manage operating system-managed objects like files and permissions.
Middleware like Java is in between these as it exposes APIs but dosn't interact with users.
OS-like
kernel and drivers and X
Java and window managers
utilities
browsers (like IE) and games
Application-like
You first need to identify the security risks that you are facing and what reasonable steps you can take to address the threats you face.
Risk 1: J. Random Cracker wants to look at Grandma's urine test result, so he snoops her session or tries to impersonate her. Passwords+SSL are pretty good. If he has the wherewithal to implement a man-in-the-middle attack, he could defeat this. Pretty difficult to do. Frankly, he'd be better off doing it against her banking session because he might be able to get some real cash out of it.
But, unless he can get his hands on your encrypted password file (see risk 2) he's just going to have to guess. Some passwords are guessible. User selected passwords are especially weak, but aren't any better than good passwords that Granny has to write down to remember. Locking an acount after x incorrect guesses helps. x=3 is probably too low. x=6 might not be.
Risk 2: J. Random Cracker wants to look at everyone's lab results so he can identify HIV- women to hit on. Your server needs to be secured.
You don't store cleartext passwords. You don't install unnecessary software on the server. Ideally, you store everything on a seperate db server and pass messages between the two.
The lack of ability to negotiate the terms of a contract do not make a contract unenforcable. There is a class of contracts in contract law called contracts of adhesion. Contracts of adhesion are contracts in which the terms are dictated by one party. Your insurance policy is a contract of adhesion.
Contracts of adhesion carry implication in law. Ambiguous terms are to be interpreted in favor of the party that did not draft the contract. Also, contract provisions which are against "public policy" are not enforcable.
The only real way to get around an EULA is to be able to demonstrate: that due to the presence of a preventable bug, you sufered some actual loss; that the claim that the software is not warranted to be suitable for any purpose whatsoever is belied by other public statments of the company; and you have to show that a disclaimer of liability is against public policy. Make sure you have a big bank account because this case will be appealed for years and the outcome is still not certain.
Make sure, also, that your state does not pass UCITA which specifically permits most EULA language, because your essential third claim goes away under it.
Correct, there would still be an "applications barrier to entry", but there wouldn't be a monopoly because there are four competing OSs. It It is the combination of overwhelming market share and the high barrier to entry that makes a monopoly.
Read the FoF. Concentrate when you see the phrase "applications barrier to entry". Once you understand that, come back, get an ID and we can talk.
In an ironic parallel, Microsoft is hoping to ignore this problem until after the presidential election. Hoping that Bush will make the problem go away.
You realize, of course, that Bush can't make the problem go away the way that Reagan did for IBM. The DoJ is just one of the prosecutors. What is it, 14?, states are also prosecuting under the same antitrust statutes. The DoJ can't settle unless all those states are satisfied as well.
In other words, either MS is acknowleding that worms like this are legitimate use of its mail software, or they are deliberately distributing a product that fails to comply with product liability laws.
Take a look at a Microsoft EULA and tell me if you think that you would be able to last 5 minutes in court with a liability claim.
The Market Cap is not generally available to companies unless they hold large amoints of Treasury stock which they would have to sell (causing dilution) to access.
Remember, Red Hat only got $14/share less underwriting costs from the IPO. The runup in the value of the stock since then has not helped RH but rather its owners.
I think that Kahn (copyright '72?) didn't have access to all of the declassified documents on Enigma that later researchers did. Kahn still remains a seminal work.
Agreed! It's a marvelous presentation.
I think so. Look at ssh, for example. Everyone thinks that because it uses strong encryption, it is hard to break. But consider that several protocols used via ssh have predictable text, these reduce the protection that ssh provides. If you're using a 1024 bit key, but the first 10 characters of your session are known (because your prompt is 10 characters long and unvarying or because you see an /etc/issue message), you have just given away 80 bits of key.
These are exactly the types of weaknesses that Bletchley took advantage of.
I was really impressed at the attempts to build the first memory storage devices.
Mercury delay tubes where an audio pulse representing a series of 0s and 1s was sent through the machine and captured at the other end so that it could be cycled around to the beginning and retransmitted reminds me of RAM refresh circuits.
The use of CRTs where the decay time of the phosphors was used to store bits for brief periods of time until they were reread and fed back into the tube. What ingenuity!
I guess you didn't watch the show.
The machine is the encryption/decryption algorithm. That was known. All good cryptography algorithms are well known. Relying on the secrecy of the algorithm is poor cryptographic practice.
What was not known was the daily machine settings that are equivalent to the crypotgraphic key. The mathematicians used various techniques to discover the daily settings. Once the day's settings had been found, that entire day's set of dispatches could be read. But there was a new problem to solve at midnight every day.
Furthermore, the Germans altered the machine by adding rotors and by building versions of the machine that had more than the usual number of rotors. The later Lorentz cipher was only partially based on Enigma. It too was broken.
It was a remarkable feat of mathematics and engineering.
Why, as a devout Randian I must protest your inaccurate statement. We believe firmly that only
reason can justify belief, and reason tells us that every business in history has been nothing but good!
LOL! I love the circular logic in the second sentance.
Am I going to get fired because the filenames are publicly viewable?
If it were to happen, you might have no recourse. You should familiarize yourself with your employer's policy on acceptable use. If you yourself are in violation of that policy, you will have no recourse.