Frankly he's a pompus ass who can't recognize humor even when it bites him in the ass.
Some of us did have to write with pens. Some of us are fortunate enough not to have to write much any more. I'm one of those. My writing is terrible, handwriting and spelling were horrible subject for me. No matter how I struggled, I never did well. Not having to use a pen frees me to excel in what I *do* do well.
A smirking jerk lording it over me and my limited hand-writing skills doesn't show any class or wisdom.
Pen does not equal writing. Ben Franklin would have always been wise and write good things, pen, neuton or laptop. Uneducated feeble minded dolts will not be able to use pen, pencil or any other medium to their advantage.
Leveraging monopoly power from one area into another is monopolistic activity too.
Or, do all companies just *instantly* start out as monopolies?
IE wasn't a monopoly in browsers was it early on? No, it used power and cash from another monoploy to construct and extend that monopoly to browsers.
Started with DOS - a de-facto monopoly. Extended to Windows. Moved to Office. Moved to browsers.
The legality of this, IMHO is a moot point. The moral failings of this practice and the victims it leaves behind are reprehensible.
The real problem we have now, is that the US Justice Department is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft.
Sure, the market will come to bear. I think all rapists will also reap their ultimate reward - from someone with a gun, a mob, or othewise. However, I don't believe we ought to let the rapist or the monoploist rage unchecked over the world around them.
The Market can often take much too long to correct behavior. In these cases, we step in and rescue the victims, and restrain the predators.
However, I don't think educating and teaching people critical thinking will be enough in and of itself.
A moral compass comes from more than critical thinking.
You can educate and refine people all you want, all you do is convert them from being imoral in base ways to being imoral in refined ways. Instead of being a rapist, murderer, or theif, they simply become the CEO of Enron, WorldCom or a corrupt senator.
But I appreciate your views, and respect your opinions, however much I disagree.
The real reason for this "moral decline" is becaues the people (the general population) are also morally feeble.
We tolerate and even elect scumbag politicians who fleese their electorate.
Lawyers only go where their clients allow.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
Thus, the next step in most people's mind is...how to solve this.
The religeous wing of the republican party would tell you it's because America doesn't have strong enough moral laws that will fence people in and keep them from straying into the "bad."
This is a total falsehood. I'm sure many believe this, but it's wrong.
We are who we are because of what we are inside. Making laws doesn't change who we are inside.
I'll leave it up to the reader to determine how one goes about changing the character of themselves. Note, I said themselves. You can't change *others.*
(One can however, force or intimidate a change in behavior. That is not a change in character however. The guy might not kill you while you hold a gun in your hand, but he would if you didn't. Does that make him a better moral person?)
People have to choose to take action to change *themselves.* Laws won't cajole or force or entice them to change.
The religeous right seems so incredibly lost on this issue, and are using this fallacy to hijack the rights and freedoms of their fellow citizens in the name of doing the "right and moral thing."
"I believe there's got to be something else than pure marketing/aggresive salesforce that's responsible for the fact that Microsoft grew from a small company to one that dominates a lot of IT submarkets. "
You're right, it's called Monopoly and massive market power.
Office didn't have very many users.
E.g. MS convinced all the major vendors at the time (Offiec 4.3 & Office 95) to put Full Professional copies of Office on all stations along with Windows, at very little or no additional cost. (I believe there were penalties if they didn't do so. In any case, you were foolish to ignore MS's wishes - there would be penalties in anycase, explicit or not. Just look at IBM and OS/2 with the Windows beta etc.)
Then, when market penetration went to 90+% MS simply stopped bundling Office Pro. We got small business for free. Now that's even stopped. (Heck, not even crappy Works is free anymore - not that I'd want it...)
Now Office Pro costs $500+ for full copies. Small business is $200+
I can buy OEM copies of WordPerfect Pro 2002 (Word-processor, shreadsheet, Database, and presentation package) for ~$25. And none of these products are shabby. (BTW, OEM Wordperfect suite is about equal to MS Office Pro in terms of apps/functionality.)
There's no "value add" other than the fact that MS completely dominates the market share. Thus it's just easier to buy MS Office. So the value add is it all works together. The reason for this, is MS used its dominance to decimate the market. It's no wonder they're the only player anymore.
I posted this elsewhere in this article, but I think I'll post again here.
In summary: I doubt this issue will be used to prove innocence, but rather to argue the subponea should not have been issued in the first place. In short, the plaintiff didn't have enough confidence in their assesment of infringement to legally merit the subponea.
--- I'm lame and can't remember how to code a link, so I'll cut and paste instead...
--- The issue is... what "evidence" is used to secure the subponea to get the case to court, or to obtain more evidence - i.e. the physical computer itself. I doubt this will be used as a defence in court, but as a technical attack on the legal process the plaintiff used to subponea the personal information of the defendant in the first place.
The subponea is issued simply at the "request" of the copyright holder. In basic terms, because they say in good faith, that infringement (impringlement) occured.
The ability to seriously compromise the very basis of the subponea is a very serious issue. It would be like getting a warrent to search your house based on faulty evidence. If the basis for the warrant is shoddy, then the evidence gathered by executing the warrant is generally inadmissible. This often simply taints the case so horribly, a judge will refuse to let the case go forward.
In essence, this new technical analysis adds serious doubt to the initial procedure proving infringement and the request to "reveal" the true identity of the user in the first place. Thus, it could have serious impact on the validity of the subponea, and thus toss the entire case on technicalities.
Again, I don't see this as an argument that infringement didn't take place in the trial phase of a case. It would be used to quash a subponea, or additional evidence produced after its issue.
(I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps my critiquie is wrong.)
The issue is... what "evidence" is used to secure the subponea to get the case to court, or to obtain more evidence - i.e. the physical computer itself. I doubt this will be used as a defence in court, but as a technical attack on the legal process the plaintiff used to subponea the personal information of the defendant in the first place.
The subponea is issued simply at the "request" of the copyright holder. In basic terms, because they say in good faith, that infringement (impringlement) occured.
The ability to seriously compromise the very basis of the subponea is a very serious issue. It would be like getting a warrent to search your house based on faulty evidence. If the basis for the warrant is shoddy, then the evidence gathered by executing the warrant is generally inadmissible. This often simply taints the case so horribly, a judge will refuse to let the case go forward.
In essence, this new technical analysis adds serious doubt to the initial procedure proving infringement and the request to "reveal" the true identity of the user in the first place. Thus, it could have serious impact on the validity of the subponea, and thus toss the entire case on technicalities.
Again, I don't see this as an argument that infringement didn't take place in the trial phase of a case. It would be used to quash a subponea, or additional evidence produced after its issue.
(I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps my critiquie is wrong.)
"Just run Windows Update. It's easy!" "Just run apt-get It's easy!"
I'd like to quit running updates every 15 seconds or so.
I'd prefer it was right the first time. I'm getting really tired of patching machines all over the place. I'm turning into a patch money. Test, patch, test, patch, test, patch - with an occasional sleep and eat thrown in occasionally.
No matter how easy Windows update is, it still has to get done. If MS does it for you, you'll worry about them breaking stuff. If you have to do it yourself, you worry you'll miss something, or break it yourself. Frankly, that sucks.
'No software is secure. The difference is how quickly they fix it."
Perhaps no software is absolutly secure, and without bugs, but we're not anywhere close yet.
Software needs to be designed (engineered is a better word) to be secure, modular and ONLY as functional as needed.
I think in general, OSS and Linux do this better than Windows does, but it's a methodology change every OS level software writer needs to take to heart.
It's critical when Office crashes, or had bugs, but not as critical as in SSL, Apache or something similar.
In short, I think the laissez faire attitude we all have, both from accepting bugs, and about coding them ourselves is a SIGNIFICANT part of the problem. We need to raise the expectations, and hold people/companies accountable when these standards are not met.
"Hey, my name's Guido. I want $100 protection racket. I'd normally break both your legs for free, but since Bruno's competing with me now, I'll only sprain your arm and break a few windows."
"Hey, what's yous gettn so upset about? This here competition thing. It's a good thing - ya hear! I wanna hear some thanks, ya ungrateful prick!"
I think if the company is that clueless, that it has such dopes on the payroll, and that the company leaves in place, then we don't need these idiots developing software. It can't be a boon to the community.
I think this is similar to my consulting practive. I'm a consultant. Sometimes I get a client that is stupid, arrogant, cheap or otherwise less than a great client.
I can have two mindsets.
* One, I need to retain this client at all costs, so I can increase my billable hours, and thus revenue.
* Two. I'll do my best to help the client. Explain things, do it right rather than cheap etc. But if the client insists on holding to their dumb ways, let them go. If I insist on holding them as a client, the end result will be that I'm mad at them, they are mad at me, and probably they'll spread bad news/word-of-mouth about me to others. If we part ways early, and with little disagreement, then we're both better off.
So, there are some "clients" you really can do without, and frankly will be farther ahead if you do. This is just like the "this will lose jobs" argument. First question: Are the jobs worth keeping?!
I think you fail to realize that the vastly overpowered party will resort to any method to win. Give the palistinians something to LIVE for, and I think much of the suicide bombings will dissapear.
Also, the Israel does things that just cause hatred. Extra-judicial killings, esp when children and families die, and/or bystanders?
Frankly, I think the US ought to arm both sides equally and let them kick the crap out of each other for a few years. If one side obtains better weapons, the US should assist to bring arms parity back. When both parties are limbless and bloodied then perhaps enough will would exist to actually do something to bring peace.
However, the US isn't acting as an even broker. Not even close. Perhaps your point, is that the palestinians are neanderthal beasts and don't deserve such, but I disagree.
If Isreal was under threat millitarily, and it was a real threat, I expect the separation wall, and many of the settlements wouldn't exist. They would be much more motivated to find a solution, because not finding one would risk a total loss of the state. They don't have that now, and it severely lessens the drive to "make" a solution happen.
In any case, the whole thing is a real mess. Both sides have lots of blood on their hands, and far less than pure motivation. Both sides, IMHO are madly competeing for maximum burn time in hell.
"As for justifcations for the invasion - an invasion based on the fact that Saddam was a murderous thug, was certainly not adequate grounds..."
I think I *might* disagree.
However, to admit that Saddam was a terrible guy, and that this was by far the largest reason or taking action, would raise some serious issues for the USA.
Saddam has been little more than an American water boy. He, other than defying us in WMD inspections largely did anything and everything the US wanted him to do.
Attack Iran. (Go do some research on why we hated Iran, and exactly why they hated us. Hint: Shaw of Iran.) We gave him bio/chem weapons or technology. We gave him sat intel, and knew he would use WMD to attack the iranians.
When he massed his troops to invade Kuwait, our embassador told him we viewed his issue with them as an internal arab affair. (i.e. We don't care what you do - it's your business.)
Don Rummsfeld, Daddy Bush and many others were involved in tacitly helping him, and certainly not doing him any harm, or putting up any resistance to his tyranny.
So, for the USA to now claim we needed to rid the world of the vicious pit-bull we created seems oddly inconsistant and hypocritical, and I don't think GWB really wanted to dwell on the problem we helpted create, and ignored for so long.
Leave the palistinians adrift, turn Afganistan into a hell hole and do nothing to help after the Soviets left, leave despots in power and do nothing to hinder them in Syria, Iran, and Iraq...
Is it any wonder this part of the world doesn't find us very likeable or honorable?
(And before someone spouts off about how everyone else in the world is worse...you may very well be right. But just beacuse all your neighbors rape their own daughters doesn't make you a saint without need of change if you only rape other people's daughters...)
Just think, when we outlaw child-porn, all the lost jobs!
All those photographers first. Then all the companies that make video equipment, lighting, film, still cameras, lenses, digital cameras, routers, firewalls etc.
Man, that would be a nightmare! All those lost jobs.
Who knows, next they'll outlaw pimps too!
(I know, I'm taking your thing too far, but really...we worry so much about losing jobs. First we need to decide if the job being done is not detrimental to society.)
Telemarketers will still be able to make calls. They just can't call me if I say they can't. I don't have to opt out of 3000 different companies lists. BTW, I told *every* marketing caller for 2 years to add me to their do not call list. The result - almost nothing. I signed up for the Oregon DNC list, and what happened. The calls stopped. I've gotten a single call from a business I already do business with. I told them - I do NOT want to have you call me for marketing purposes again. They have not called again.
The DNC list will have an effect on jobs. Some will be lost. But the result is that we will have an effective way to prevent the harassment we receive from telemarketing calls. If you still want calls, or worry about their jobs, just don't sign up.
Cheers, Greg
Re:Wonder if they used this?
on
SCO's Plan Examined
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I know this if offtopic, but the war in Iraq is a perfect example of this.
GWB claims the Brits claim they have evidence of Iraq asking Niger for Uranium.
When the crap hits the fan, and the whole thing is exposed as a sham and an obvious one at that, Don Rumsfeld say, and I quote. "Technically this is correct."
The inferrence was that we KNEW Iraq had WMD, when we were not sure at all. The claim about the claims were much stronger than the claims themselves.
So, SCO is simply playing follow the leader. This, IMHO is completely dispicable, and deserves more than a simple mocking. Frankly, I think people ought to go to jail for these kinds of deceptions, esp when the public relies on them for investing, or for going to war.
If one has a case, simply be upfront and lay it out on the table. If you do have a case, then it's merit will be quickly apparent. If you don't, you can't afford to do this. You have to claim "we have to keep it secret" so that everyone will have no real basis for making an informed decision.
Secrecy, PR BS and "cloak and dagger" insinuations is at the heart of all lies and deceptions.
The moral is...When you hear someone say - "Well, we *know* it's true, but for reason X we can't tell you/show our proof, just trust us. Then run like hell. You've just been lied to in the most blatant way.
I'm sure when they come for you, you'll not only enjoy your stay in the brig in SC, you'll thank them for it too.
Any branch of government, unchecked in power and oversight will overreach it's bounds and oppress the people. Currently the executive branch is claiming that all the above mentioned activites are permissible simply under executive order. They have made the case in court, that the challenges of these executive orders is not hearable in the court system at all because the executive branch claims the courts have no jurisdiction. (How's that for circular logic for you!?)
When the King/Tyrant/President/Faciest-leader decides that HE alone can deprive you of your liberty with out charge, independant review of the evidence, without a trial of your peers, where you have the right to see the evidence against you and challange those who will testify against you, than you sir, are on your way to living in a totalitarian state.
I hope you enjoy it, I don't. I'm very sad to see our great country veer so far away from the principles we were founded on.
Hey, I'll bet your a enemy abetting scumbag that disagrees with John Ashcroft too huh!?
What are you so exercised about. That old faded document is SO 1776'ish anyway. We needed to modernize it.
So, the new system only allows for criminal trials for innocent people. Oh, holding people without charge and without judicial review for indefinite periods of time - well that's modern.
Oh, we can hold hostages too. We just stash them on this island owned by that *repressive* state Cuba and we don't need to worry about stink'n judical oversight. (Oh, yes, we can LEASE the land, and thus do business with Cuba, but that's just the government - no one else gets that priviledge.)
So, I'll just fire up the new installation of TattleSoft from Big Brother Software, and fire a message off to John Ashcroft. Just stay where you are. Herr Ashcroft and his Jack-booted thugs will soon arrive to take you to your vacation residence in the millitary brig in South Carolina. (If you weren't a citizen, you'd get the tropical island get-a-way.)
In the wednesday 2:35p build - the one that fixes all the other holes that can seriously compromise your system?
Seriously though, Office 2000 has Clippy ON be default.
And your description of Options vs. Features is plain loony! Clippy is a FEATURE, so are personalized Menu's. So are the Auto-numbering of lists and bullets. So are a whole much of other things. Sure, you can turn them off, but all the crap is in different places in each version. Trying to make sure they are all "Fixed" to your taste is a real pain.
I install apps and OS's regularly. I can't tell you how much time I waste each time, configuring things so they don't annoy the users. Frankly, you simply talk to users about how Word and Excel convert things to hyperlinks every time it thinks it should, or how it "auto-maagically" numbers your lists etc, and nearly any user who uses the program doing anything of any complexity will almost instantly say - "I hate that!"
Word does work, but barely. The only program I can think of that I hated worse, going clear back to Word Perfect 4.0 was, wait for it, Word for Dos. I even liked Word-Star better. Heck, after a few uses, I liked Vi better even it's got a kooky way of handling things - though to be fair, this isn't an apples-apples comparison.
Excel is reasonable, though again, bloated and far too feature heavy. (You do remember the flight simulator they stuck in as an easter egg a while back don't you!? http://www.eggheaven2000.com/detailed/17.html)
Oh, one other. Ever try to do relative file links in Excel? Works fine in 1-2-3 and Quattro, and has for years. Excel doesn't, at least not in OF2000 and lower. (This is a major pain in the backside.)
Frankly, 99.5% of all users could do without about 80% of the features in Word and Excel without missing them at all. What would be much better, would be quick, tight code that actually does it right. (The first time would be better too, rather than 3 service packs and 8 hot fixes later. And that's if you're lucky. If you're not, well upgrade, it's fixed in the new version - with 1 service pack and 3 hotfixes.)
Rather than making software that actually WORKS, MS just stuffs in more FEATURES. (Ones that I don't need, don't want, and usually can't stand.)
I could probably reproduce this for you, but when I select it to print the first page on Letterhead, and subsequent pages on Bond, it creates a section break. This makes all sort of things break. If you edit the document after "configuring" it for print, you'll often end up with the first page on LH, a few lines on the next page on bond, then a page break and the rest of your letter on subsequent pages.
From all my sleuthing, this has no workaround. (Most of the time, I just give up and "jigger" it the way MS wants it, to get it to work.)
Frankly, I really liked WordPerfect's "Reveal Codes." It was a bit clunky, but when you REALLY needed to know why something was acting the way it was, you could actually look, rather than wonder what mysterious codes are after that period but just before the hard page break.
Quirky and Flaky are both far too generous. Crappy would probably be the least insulting of any words I'd use to describe that hulking piece of expensive, bad, and buggy software.
Are you saying they have full data stream access anywhere without a court ordered warrent?
I'd be interested in how/what you're talking about.
But, yes, I don't care for what snooping law enorcement seems to be able to do on a whim. But I'd assume that since my machines are not tempest hardened, then they'd just watch anything they want from some place on the street outside my home/business. (Perhaps I'm of the tinfoil ilk, but I'd even casually considered a faraday cage.)
True I suppose, but that denotes a pretty massive level of control and penetration.
I think in general, spoofs are vastly over-rated in their potential for use in exploits. Short of the old time things like asking for the password file via email or something, I've not heard much in the way of spoofs. Perhaps that is because there is almost always much better low hanging fruit already available.
But thanks, hadn't really thought/didn't immediatly occur to me about controlling a router upstream.
A spoof will only work if one doesn't need returned packets.
I don't know the nature of this exploit, and perhaps it would be possible to utilize without any return packets. (Though if they are sniffing packets at the ISP, hijacking your connection is probably a possibility.)
The point you made on the origional post is valid though. (If you don't allow connections from almost anywhere, what's the point of remote admin? I almost never have real emergencies when I'm somewhere predictable.) I'm just pointing out that spoofing IP's is only useful if your attack can succeed without any return packets.
If your attacker is sniffing packets from your ISP, then you probably have bigger problems, though one shouldn't expect the ISP to be secure.
Finally, "The only way to protect yourself from unwanted outside connections is with correct crypto code." Funny, I disagree. The only really secure server is buried in concrete, unlugged and at the bottom of the deepest trench in the ocean. It's *probably* secure there, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.
What's even more discouraging is that I wrote both of my Senators (Oregon - Gordon Smith, Ron Wyden)
Smith has NEVER returned a single of my WRITTEN letters to him. The last time I called about the USA Patriot Act, his staff member engaged in a conversation with another staff member while on the phone with me. I wrote him about this terrible etiquitte situation - and what would you expect - no reply.
Ron Wyden, a wuss, it seems, still voted for the USAP Act, but now seems to regret it. His replies kept proclaiming how some provisions had suset provisions, and thus it was "OK." (My question: If it sucked in the first place, how does a sunset make you appear more intelligent?) But at least Wyden writes back occasionally. Sometimes it's "canned" but at least I hear something. I guess it makes me a more happy "serf." *laughs*
Slashdot Mirror
Frankly he's a pompus ass who can't recognize humor even when it bites him in the ass.
Some of us did have to write with pens. Some of us are fortunate enough not to have to write much any more. I'm one of those. My writing is terrible, handwriting and spelling were horrible subject for me. No matter how I struggled, I never did well. Not having to use a pen frees me to excel in what I *do* do well.
A smirking jerk lording it over me and my limited hand-writing skills doesn't show any class or wisdom.
Pen does not equal writing. Ben Franklin would have always been wise and write good things, pen, neuton or laptop. Uneducated feeble minded dolts will not be able to use pen, pencil or any other medium to their advantage.
Cheers,
Greg
Leveraging monopoly power from one area into another is monopolistic activity too.
Or, do all companies just *instantly* start out as monopolies?
IE wasn't a monopoly in browsers was it early on? No, it used power and cash from another monoploy to construct and extend that monopoly to browsers.
Started with DOS - a de-facto monopoly. Extended to Windows. Moved to Office. Moved to browsers.
The legality of this, IMHO is a moot point. The moral failings of this practice and the victims it leaves behind are reprehensible.
The real problem we have now, is that the US Justice Department is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft.
Sure, the market will come to bear. I think all rapists will also reap their ultimate reward - from someone with a gun, a mob, or othewise. However, I don't believe we ought to let the rapist or the monoploist rage unchecked over the world around them.
The Market can often take much too long to correct behavior. In these cases, we step in and rescue the victims, and restrain the predators.
Cheers,
Greg
Better yet, make people slaves to material goods, and dependant on the "crumbs" handed down by the all power "job creationinsts."
Make all the masses addicted consumptionists - then you are dependant on those who supply the cash, jobs and goods.
Cheers,
Greg
Well, I agree with critial thinking. It's vital.
However, I don't think educating and teaching people critical thinking will be enough in and of itself.
A moral compass comes from more than critical thinking.
You can educate and refine people all you want, all you do is convert them from being imoral in base ways to being imoral in refined ways. Instead of being a rapist, murderer, or theif, they simply become the CEO of Enron, WorldCom or a corrupt senator.
But I appreciate your views, and respect your opinions, however much I disagree.
Cheers,
Greg
As if this thread wasn't deep enough...
I want to take what you say one step further.
The real reason for this "moral decline" is becaues the people (the general population) are also morally feeble.
We tolerate and even elect scumbag politicians who fleese their electorate.
Lawyers only go where their clients allow.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
Thus, the next step in most people's mind is...how to solve this.
The religeous wing of the republican party would tell you it's because America doesn't have strong enough moral laws that will fence people in and keep them from straying into the "bad."
This is a total falsehood. I'm sure many believe this, but it's wrong.
We are who we are because of what we are inside. Making laws doesn't change who we are inside.
I'll leave it up to the reader to determine how one goes about changing the character of themselves. Note, I said themselves. You can't change *others.*
(One can however, force or intimidate a change in behavior. That is not a change in character however. The guy might not kill you while you hold a gun in your hand, but he would if you didn't. Does that make him a better moral person?)
People have to choose to take action to change *themselves.* Laws won't cajole or force or entice them to change.
The religeous right seems so incredibly lost on this issue, and are using this fallacy to hijack the rights and freedoms of their fellow citizens in the name of doing the "right and moral thing."
It's sad.
Cheers,
Greg
"I believe there's got to be something else than pure marketing/aggresive salesforce that's responsible for the fact that Microsoft grew from a small company to one that dominates a lot of IT submarkets. "
You're right, it's called Monopoly and massive market power.
Office didn't have very many users.
E.g.
MS convinced all the major vendors at the time (Offiec 4.3 & Office 95) to put Full Professional copies of Office on all stations along with Windows, at very little or no additional cost. (I believe there were penalties if they didn't do so. In any case, you were foolish to ignore MS's wishes - there would be penalties in anycase, explicit or not. Just look at IBM and OS/2 with the Windows beta etc.)
Then, when market penetration went to 90+% MS simply stopped bundling Office Pro. We got small business for free. Now that's even stopped. (Heck, not even crappy Works is free anymore - not that I'd want it...)
Now Office Pro costs $500+ for full copies. Small business is $200+
I can buy OEM copies of WordPerfect Pro 2002 (Word-processor, shreadsheet, Database, and presentation package) for ~$25. And none of these products are shabby. (BTW, OEM Wordperfect suite is about equal to MS Office Pro in terms of apps/functionality.)
There's no "value add" other than the fact that MS completely dominates the market share. Thus it's just easier to buy MS Office. So the value add is it all works together. The reason for this, is MS used its dominance to decimate the market. It's no wonder they're the only player anymore.
Cheers,
Greg
I posted this elsewhere in this article, but I think I'll post again here.
In summary: I doubt this issue will be used to prove innocence, but rather to argue the subponea should not have been issued in the first place. In short, the plaintiff didn't have enough confidence in their assesment of infringement to legally merit the subponea.
---
I'm lame and can't remember how to code a link, so I'll cut and paste instead...
---
The issue is... what "evidence" is used to secure the subponea to get the case to court, or to obtain more evidence - i.e. the physical computer itself. I doubt this will be used as a defence in court, but as a technical attack on the legal process the plaintiff used to subponea the personal information of the defendant in the first place.
The subponea is issued simply at the "request" of the copyright holder. In basic terms, because they say in good faith, that infringement (impringlement) occured.
The ability to seriously compromise the very basis of the subponea is a very serious issue. It would be like getting a warrent to search your house based on faulty evidence. If the basis for the warrant is shoddy, then the evidence gathered by executing the warrant is generally inadmissible. This often simply taints the case so horribly, a judge will refuse to let the case go forward.
In essence, this new technical analysis adds serious doubt to the initial procedure proving infringement and the request to "reveal" the true identity of the user in the first place. Thus, it could have serious impact on the validity of the subponea, and thus toss the entire case on technicalities.
Again, I don't see this as an argument that infringement didn't take place in the trial phase of a case. It would be used to quash a subponea, or additional evidence produced after its issue.
(I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps my critiquie is wrong.)
The issue is... what "evidence" is used to secure the subponea to get the case to court, or to obtain more evidence - i.e. the physical computer itself. I doubt this will be used as a defence in court, but as a technical attack on the legal process the plaintiff used to subponea the personal information of the defendant in the first place.
The subponea is issued simply at the "request" of the copyright holder. In basic terms, because they say in good faith, that infringement (impringlement) occured.
The ability to seriously compromise the very basis of the subponea is a very serious issue. It would be like getting a warrent to search your house based on faulty evidence. If the basis for the warrant is shoddy, then the evidence gathered by executing the warrant is generally inadmissible. This often simply taints the case so horribly, a judge will refuse to let the case go forward.
In essence, this new technical analysis adds serious doubt to the initial procedure proving infringement and the request to "reveal" the true identity of the user in the first place. Thus, it could have serious impact on the validity of the subponea, and thus toss the entire case on technicalities.
Again, I don't see this as an argument that infringement didn't take place in the trial phase of a case. It would be used to quash a subponea, or additional evidence produced after its issue.
(I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps my critiquie is wrong.)
Cheers,
Greg
I'm getting really sick of hearing...
"Just run Windows Update. It's easy!"
"Just run apt-get It's easy!"
I'd like to quit running updates every 15 seconds or so.
I'd prefer it was right the first time. I'm getting really tired of patching machines all over the place. I'm turning into a patch money. Test, patch, test, patch, test, patch - with an occasional sleep and eat thrown in occasionally.
No matter how easy Windows update is, it still has to get done. If MS does it for you, you'll worry about them breaking stuff. If you have to do it yourself, you worry you'll miss something, or break it yourself. Frankly, that sucks.
Cheers,
Greg
'No software is secure. The difference is how quickly they fix it."
Perhaps no software is absolutly secure, and without bugs, but we're not anywhere close yet.
Software needs to be designed (engineered is a better word) to be secure, modular and ONLY as functional as needed.
I think in general, OSS and Linux do this better than Windows does, but it's a methodology change every OS level software writer needs to take to heart.
It's critical when Office crashes, or had bugs, but not as critical as in SSL, Apache or something similar.
In short, I think the laissez faire attitude we all have, both from accepting bugs, and about coding them ourselves is a SIGNIFICANT part of the problem. We need to raise the expectations, and hold people/companies accountable when these standards are not met.
Cheers,
Greg
"Hey, my name's Guido. I want $100 protection racket. I'd normally break both your legs for free, but since Bruno's competing with me now, I'll only sprain your arm and break a few windows."
"Hey, what's yous gettn so upset about? This here competition thing. It's a good thing - ya hear! I wanna hear some thanks, ya ungrateful prick!"
*grin*
Cheers,
Greg
No, I'll disagree.
IMHO
I think if the company is that clueless, that it has such dopes on the payroll, and that the company leaves in place, then we don't need these idiots developing software. It can't be a boon to the community.
I think this is similar to my consulting practive. I'm a consultant. Sometimes I get a client that is stupid, arrogant, cheap or otherwise less than a great client.
I can have two mindsets.
* One, I need to retain this client at all costs, so I can increase my billable hours, and thus revenue.
* Two. I'll do my best to help the client. Explain things, do it right rather than cheap etc. But if the client insists on holding to their dumb ways, let them go. If I insist on holding them as a client, the end result will be that I'm mad at them, they are mad at me, and probably they'll spread bad news/word-of-mouth about me to others. If we part ways early, and with little disagreement, then we're both better off.
So, there are some "clients" you really can do without, and frankly will be farther ahead if you do. This is just like the "this will lose jobs" argument. First question: Are the jobs worth keeping?!
Cheers,
Greg
I'm not defending the millitants...but...
I think you fail to realize that the vastly overpowered party will resort to any method to win. Give the palistinians something to LIVE for, and I think much of the suicide bombings will dissapear.
Also, the Israel does things that just cause hatred. Extra-judicial killings, esp when children and families die, and/or bystanders?
Frankly, I think the US ought to arm both sides equally and let them kick the crap out of each other for a few years. If one side obtains better weapons, the US should assist to bring arms parity back. When both parties are limbless and bloodied then perhaps enough will would exist to actually do something to bring peace.
However, the US isn't acting as an even broker. Not even close. Perhaps your point, is that the palestinians are neanderthal beasts and don't deserve such, but I disagree.
If Isreal was under threat millitarily, and it was a real threat, I expect the separation wall, and many of the settlements wouldn't exist. They would be much more motivated to find a solution, because not finding one would risk a total loss of the state. They don't have that now, and it severely lessens the drive to "make" a solution happen.
In any case, the whole thing is a real mess. Both sides have lots of blood on their hands, and far less than pure motivation. Both sides, IMHO are madly competeing for maximum burn time in hell.
Cheers,
Greg
"As for justifcations for the invasion - an invasion based on the fact that Saddam was a murderous thug, was certainly not adequate grounds..."
I think I *might* disagree.
However, to admit that Saddam was a terrible guy, and that this was by far the largest reason or taking action, would raise some serious issues for the USA.
Saddam has been little more than an American water boy. He, other than defying us in WMD inspections largely did anything and everything the US wanted him to do.
Attack Iran. (Go do some research on why we hated Iran, and exactly why they hated us. Hint: Shaw of Iran.) We gave him bio/chem weapons or technology. We gave him sat intel, and knew he would use WMD to attack the iranians.
When he massed his troops to invade Kuwait, our embassador told him we viewed his issue with them as an internal arab affair. (i.e. We don't care what you do - it's your business.)
Don Rummsfeld, Daddy Bush and many others were involved in tacitly helping him, and certainly not doing him any harm, or putting up any resistance to his tyranny.
So, for the USA to now claim we needed to rid the world of the vicious pit-bull we created seems oddly inconsistant and hypocritical, and I don't think GWB really wanted to dwell on the problem we helpted create, and ignored for so long.
Leave the palistinians adrift, turn Afganistan into a hell hole and do nothing to help after the Soviets left, leave despots in power and do nothing to hinder them in Syria, Iran, and Iraq...
Is it any wonder this part of the world doesn't find us very likeable or honorable?
(And before someone spouts off about how everyone else in the world is worse...you may very well be right. But just beacuse all your neighbors rape their own daughters doesn't make you a saint without need of change if you only rape other people's daughters...)
Cheers,
Greg
Just think, when we outlaw child-porn, all the lost jobs!
All those photographers first.
Then all the companies that make video equipment, lighting, film, still cameras, lenses, digital cameras, routers, firewalls etc.
Man, that would be a nightmare! All those lost jobs.
Who knows, next they'll outlaw pimps too!
(I know, I'm taking your thing too far, but really...we worry so much about losing jobs. First we need to decide if the job being done is not detrimental to society.)
Telemarketers will still be able to make calls. They just can't call me if I say they can't. I don't have to opt out of 3000 different companies lists. BTW, I told *every* marketing caller for 2 years to add me to their do not call list. The result - almost nothing. I signed up for the Oregon DNC list, and what happened. The calls stopped. I've gotten a single call from a business I already do business with. I told them - I do NOT want to have you call me for marketing purposes again. They have not called again.
The DNC list will have an effect on jobs. Some will be lost. But the result is that we will have an effective way to prevent the harassment we receive from telemarketing calls. If you still want calls, or worry about their jobs, just don't sign up.
Cheers,
Greg
I know this if offtopic, but the war in Iraq is a perfect example of this.
GWB claims the Brits claim they have evidence of Iraq asking Niger for Uranium.
When the crap hits the fan, and the whole thing is exposed as a sham and an obvious one at that, Don Rumsfeld say, and I quote. "Technically this is correct."
The inferrence was that we KNEW Iraq had WMD, when we were not sure at all. The claim about the claims were much stronger than the claims themselves.
So, SCO is simply playing follow the leader. This, IMHO is completely dispicable, and deserves more than a simple mocking. Frankly, I think people ought to go to jail for these kinds of deceptions, esp when the public relies on them for investing, or for going to war.
If one has a case, simply be upfront and lay it out on the table. If you do have a case, then it's merit will be quickly apparent. If you don't, you can't afford to do this. You have to claim "we have to keep it secret" so that everyone will have no real basis for making an informed decision.
Secrecy, PR BS and "cloak and dagger" insinuations is at the heart of all lies and deceptions.
The moral is...When you hear someone say - "Well, we *know* it's true, but for reason X we can't tell you/show our proof, just trust us. Then run like hell. You've just been lied to in the most blatant way.
Cheers,
Greg
I'm sure when they come for you, you'll not only enjoy your stay in the brig in SC, you'll thank them for it too.
Any branch of government, unchecked in power and oversight will overreach it's bounds and oppress the people. Currently the executive branch is claiming that all the above mentioned activites are permissible simply under executive order. They have made the case in court, that the challenges of these executive orders is not hearable in the court system at all because the executive branch claims the courts have no jurisdiction. (How's that for circular logic for you!?)
When the King/Tyrant/President/Faciest-leader decides that HE alone can deprive you of your liberty with out charge, independant review of the evidence, without a trial of your peers, where you have the right to see the evidence against you and challange those who will testify against you, than you sir, are on your way to living in a totalitarian state.
I hope you enjoy it, I don't. I'm very sad to see our great country veer so far away from the principles we were founded on.
Cheers,
Greg
Hey, I'll bet your a enemy abetting scumbag that disagrees with John Ashcroft too huh!?
What are you so exercised about. That old faded document is SO 1776'ish anyway. We needed to modernize it.
So, the new system only allows for criminal trials for innocent people. Oh, holding people without charge and without judicial review for indefinite periods of time - well that's modern.
Oh, we can hold hostages too. We just stash them on this island owned by that *repressive* state Cuba and we don't need to worry about stink'n judical oversight. (Oh, yes, we can LEASE the land, and thus do business with Cuba, but that's just the government - no one else gets that priviledge.)
So, I'll just fire up the new installation of TattleSoft from Big Brother Software, and fire a message off to John Ashcroft. Just stay where you are. Herr Ashcroft and his Jack-booted thugs will soon arrive to take you to your vacation residence in the millitary brig in South Carolina. (If you weren't a citizen, you'd get the tropical island get-a-way.)
Cheers,
Greg
In the wednesday 2:35p build - the one that fixes all the other holes that can seriously compromise your system?
Seriously though, Office 2000 has Clippy ON be default.
And your description of Options vs. Features is plain loony! Clippy is a FEATURE, so are personalized Menu's. So are the Auto-numbering of lists and bullets. So are a whole much of other things. Sure, you can turn them off, but all the crap is in different places in each version. Trying to make sure they are all "Fixed" to your taste is a real pain.
I install apps and OS's regularly. I can't tell you how much time I waste each time, configuring things so they don't annoy the users. Frankly, you simply talk to users about how Word and Excel convert things to hyperlinks every time it thinks it should, or how it "auto-maagically" numbers your lists etc, and nearly any user who uses the program doing anything of any complexity will almost instantly say - "I hate that!"
Word does work, but barely. The only program I can think of that I hated worse, going clear back to Word Perfect 4.0 was, wait for it, Word for Dos. I even liked Word-Star better. Heck, after a few uses, I liked Vi better even it's got a kooky way of handling things - though to be fair, this isn't an apples-apples comparison.
Excel is reasonable, though again, bloated and far too feature heavy. (You do remember the flight simulator they stuck in as an easter egg a while back don't you!? http://www.eggheaven2000.com/detailed/17.html)
Oh, one other. Ever try to do relative file links in Excel? Works fine in 1-2-3 and Quattro, and has for years. Excel doesn't, at least not in OF2000 and lower. (This is a major pain in the backside.)
Frankly, 99.5% of all users could do without about 80% of the features in Word and Excel without missing them at all. What would be much better, would be quick, tight code that actually does it right. (The first time would be better too, rather than 3 service packs and 8 hot fixes later. And that's if you're lucky. If you're not, well upgrade, it's fixed in the new version - with 1 service pack and 3 hotfixes.)
Sheesh,
Greg
Perhaps that is part of the problem.
Rather than making software that actually WORKS, MS just stuffs in more FEATURES. (Ones that I don't need, don't want, and usually can't stand.)
I could probably reproduce this for you, but when I select it to print the first page on Letterhead, and subsequent pages on Bond, it creates a section break. This makes all sort of things break. If you edit the document after "configuring" it for print, you'll often end up with the first page on LH, a few lines on the next page on bond, then a page break and the rest of your letter on subsequent pages.
From all my sleuthing, this has no workaround. (Most of the time, I just give up and "jigger" it the way MS wants it, to get it to work.)
Frankly, I really liked WordPerfect's "Reveal Codes." It was a bit clunky, but when you REALLY needed to know why something was acting the way it was, you could actually look, rather than wonder what mysterious codes are after that period but just before the hard page break.
Cheers,
Greg
Quirky and Flaky are both far too generous. Crappy would probably be the least insulting of any words I'd use to describe that hulking piece of expensive, bad, and buggy software.
Cheers,
Greg
"They have physical access anywhere they want..."
Are you saying they have full data stream access anywhere without a court ordered warrent?
I'd be interested in how/what you're talking about.
But, yes, I don't care for what snooping law enorcement seems to be able to do on a whim. But I'd assume that since my machines are not tempest hardened, then they'd just watch anything they want from some place on the street outside my home/business. (Perhaps I'm of the tinfoil ilk, but I'd even casually considered a faraday cage.)
Cheers,
Greg
True I suppose, but that denotes a pretty massive level of control and penetration.
I think in general, spoofs are vastly over-rated in their potential for use in exploits. Short of the old time things like asking for the password file via email or something, I've not heard much in the way of spoofs. Perhaps that is because there is almost always much better low hanging fruit already available.
But thanks, hadn't really thought/didn't immediatly occur to me about controlling a router upstream.
Cheers,
Greg
A spoof will only work if one doesn't need returned packets.
I don't know the nature of this exploit, and perhaps it would be possible to utilize without any return packets. (Though if they are sniffing packets at the ISP, hijacking your connection is probably a possibility.)
The point you made on the origional post is valid though. (If you don't allow connections from almost anywhere, what's the point of remote admin? I almost never have real emergencies when I'm somewhere predictable.) I'm just pointing out that spoofing IP's is only useful if your attack can succeed without any return packets.
If your attacker is sniffing packets from your ISP, then you probably have bigger problems, though one shouldn't expect the ISP to be secure.
Finally, "The only way to protect yourself from unwanted outside connections is with correct crypto code." Funny, I disagree.
The only really secure server is buried in concrete, unlugged and at the bottom of the deepest trench in the ocean. It's *probably* secure there, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.
Cheers,
Greg
What's even more discouraging is that I wrote both of my Senators (Oregon - Gordon Smith, Ron Wyden)
Smith has NEVER returned a single of my WRITTEN letters to him. The last time I called about the USA Patriot Act, his staff member engaged in a conversation with another staff member while on the phone with me. I wrote him about this terrible etiquitte situation - and what would you expect - no reply.
Ron Wyden, a wuss, it seems, still voted for the USAP Act, but now seems to regret it. His replies kept proclaiming how some provisions had suset provisions, and thus it was "OK." (My question: If it sucked in the first place, how does a sunset make you appear more intelligent?) But at least Wyden writes back occasionally. Sometimes it's "canned" but at least I hear something. I guess it makes me a more happy "serf." *laughs*
Cheers,
Greg