A protocol that requires a firewall to be stateful just to allow it to pass, I would call broken. And yes, I have for years called FTP a broken protocol (acknowledging that this observation is hindsight). I'm not talking about statefulness for NAT purposes, but rather, statefulness to track permissions on related communications (e.g. the DATA connection in FTP). FTP was designed in the day when no one expected blocking of arbitrary ports. But this is something we will be doing apparently forever.
Let's fix the broken protocols and move forward. While we can use HTTP for many file transfer needs, a new protocol that conducts everything over a single TCP connection or a single SCTP session is where we need to go. Then a firewall can be simple in operation and probably more secure as a result.
One big advantage of an open source OS is the source. Unfortunately, not everyone has the skill to take advantage of it. I do, and I have used it to close up holes that I have found. But that required C programming skills on the part of a system administrator. That is a combination that is all too rare and unlikely to ever be corrected.
One big advantage of a portable OS (which does not require being open source, though that helps) that can run on a different architecture is that binary code incompatibilities can block a lot of exploit attempts, revealing them in logs in many cases. I remember running an IMAP server online back in the late 1990's with an unpatched exploit on a Sun Sparc machine. There were numerous attempts to break in. All failed because the exploit code was for Intel x86. If architecture diversity existed, of course, crackers would have to change their habits. But that would slow them down and eliminate some of the lesser knowledgeable (e.g. many script kiddies).
What do you think would happen if Microsoft chose to open source their entire operating system with the right for a licensed user to rebuild it entirely from source for their own use (not just an inspection source)? We might see bugs and exploits reported back to Microsoft that included tested patches. I know this is possible because I did that with IBM's mainframe operating system VM/CMS back in the late 1970's to early 1980's, with those patches coming back in later releases.
Also now, when the OS needs to page out some data to the swap partition, it will be able to use one disk sector per RAM page instead of 4. And when you write a huge file to disk, the bigger sectors will make life easier for the block I/O driver layer. So you lose some and you win some, and the win some cases look like a net benefit to me.
I agree there is a net benefit. My original post was meant to be humorous. Unfortunately a lot of people missed that because I forgot to explain to them that this was at the driver level when they were assuming it was at the user space level.
Not a sensible idea. The new drives will work with new drivers; that's all you really need. Once the block I/O drivers of the OS grok the new drives, the drives will Just Work(tm).
I'll have to disagree with this one. Adding new I/O commands wouldn't hurt. But the old ones need to continue to be supported. A request to write a group of 16 sectors of length 512 each to sector number 786 should end up being handled by the drive controller as if the request were to write a group of 2 sectors of length 4096 each to sector number 96. This is not hard to do. While the new command set might be ever so slightly more efficient, either could still write those 2 4096-byte sectors in the right place. Or they could write a single 8192-byte sector. By keeping the old command set, compatibility is maintained and new drivers are not needed. Then one can replace a drive without having to upgrade the software (which will almost certainly go through a few cycles of bugs that the mature older drivers have already gotten rid of).
I really don't want my drive controller to be second-guessing the driver! That way lies madness. You want the drive controller simple and reliable; put the complexity in the drivers, which run on a real computer.
There is not second guessing. When the I/O command is received, what the driver wanted done is clear and unambiguous. Sure, there would be more controller code nedeed to handle 2 sets of commands. But that's far far less of a burden today than the one command set was back when when this all started.
It seems people are too ready to stuff all complexity on the main CPU. They forget that making smarter devices can make this overall faster for cheaper total cost (except several video card makers who do have this figured out and call it acceleration).
I was referring to doing a 256 byte write to a device that takes I/O commands in 512 byte units. You can figure out what the driver (or some higher layer of the OS) will need to do to achieve that.
If it's already transparent, then what is the big deal? If what you say is true, they could make blocks/sectors as long as they want and we won't need to know (except the driver writers need to know what constraints exist in the interface to send the read and write commands to the drive).
Sorry to bust YOUR bubble, but I do know how the OS works, and how it's interface works. The issue depends on what blocksize the commands between driver and hardware require. If you cannot instruct the hardware at a finer resolution than 512 bytes at a time, then writing 256 bytes really does mean that the OS at some layer (maybe in the driver, maybe at a higher layer, depending on the OS) will read 512 bytes, update 256 of them, and write 512 back. If that interface is being changed to require 4096 bytes minimum per I/O operation, then it really does increase the needed transfer work going on between the driver and hardware.
My post was meant in part to be humorous, and in part to raise an issue. The issue is the transparency of the driver to hardware interface. I do know from random encounterings that for IDE it really does require the driver do I/O operations in multiples of 512. That really does affect the 256 byte I/O request from userspace, but it's not really a serious request due to the caching nature of modern operating systems. And there is no reason in the world why they cannot have been doing 4096 byte or longer blocks for years or decades. If they have been doing it, there's no news (but that's typical Slashdot, so how would we know). Given the I/O command interface is in units of 512 bytes, it's probably convenience that whatever long block size the drive uses be an exact whole multiple of 512 bytes, even that is not essential. A couple decades ago I wrote a "driver" for a mainframe OS that handled I/O requests in units of 4096 bytes, with an on-disk blocksize of 18432 bytes. If you do your arithmetic, you can see that is 4.5x. So some I/O request blocks end up spanning physical blocks on disk. No big deal.
Now I have not been following PC hardware technology very much, so I don't know how much has been added to the I/O interface capability. If they have added a new byte-level I/O command set, then fine. Do you even know if they have?
Now when I want to update just 256 bytes, instead of reading 512 bytes, changing 256 of them, and writing 512 back, I now have to do this with 4096 bytes. So I end up transferring 3584 more bytes than I otherwise needed to.
They really could do this transparently. Let the driver write anything in any range. Then have the drive take care of reading the data for any sector partially written, update it, and write it back. With a method like that, we really won't have to know the physical sector size (which could even be allowed to vary depending on the position on the drive). It should also be made smart enough that if the driver writes a long sequence of smaller traditional 512 byte sectors, it will know which real physical sectors are totally written and won't make any effort to pre-read them.
Re:09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
on
Censoring a Number
·
· Score: 1
$TTL 7d
$ORIGIN example.com
riaasucks 604800 IN AAAA 09F9:1102:9D74:E35B:DB41:56C5:6356:88C0
This is a good thing for all of the Linux community, even those who use other distributions. Dell will now have to be sure its hardware works with the Linux kernel. Computers with components that won't work in Linux will likely not be on the select list that Linux is offered for. Hardware manufacturers will then have a tiny bit more pressure on them to make sure their chips and cards and stuff will work with at least some Linux driver, even if that happens to be a binary-only driver. And as this helps increase the percentages of people using Firefox, more web site developers will have to shift away from making Explorer-only pages and start following web standards. As more people use OpenOffice, more documents can be released in an open standards format, and those who release them in proprietary formats will face more criticism.
So even if you intend to install some other Linux distribution on your Dell computer, or even if you use a non-Dell computer, this is good for you. Even if you prefer Windows, you'll benefit by competitive pressure on Microsoft forcing them to have to do better next time.
A stock split it normally done when the share price is too high which makes it difficult to trade. This is done by issuing new shares to existing shareholders on a specifically designated date, such that if they previously held N shared, they now hold N*M shares where M is the stock split multiplier. It generally changes the stock price to about 1/M. It usually makes the stock a bit easier to trade, so price will go up a bit just because of the split all else being equal.
A reverse split can also be done with M simply being less than 1. It can be harder to carry out due to the fractional shares involved. However, I have seen cases where stock splits with M greater than 1 have had non-whole values for M, so apparently brokers understand how to handle this for fractional shares.
If SCO did a reverse split, it would raise the per-share price. But whether they have enough outstanding shares to even do this is a big question. And it won't change their total capitalization (aside from a very minor price increase from making the shares have an easier to trade price), which might be the real issue, anyway. People with 1 share might end up with 1/5 share (same value... mostly worthless).
He used the software to bypass the security check for seven months
So... he was giving it thorough testing. That is something that seems to not be done very much by the commercial software industry. If this was a genuine issue, the university would have cited specifically the theft of usage, and downplayed the existance of the program. Instead, they focused on the existance of the program, regardless of whatever it was even used.
He distributed the software to several other students and a professor
That's done all the time in academics. It's called collaboration.
He did not disclose the vulnerability to the vendor before releasing his exploit
Having a closed group of people help in testing is not a release. if he truly released it, show me the URL (if you can, I really will check to see if it is valid).
He did not ask permission
From whom? His professor? Grace Hopper will be turning over in her grave from this. You know damned well that if he asked the school administration or the IT department, they would blindly and ignorantly just give him a template "no" with absolutely no basis whatsoever for it.
Of course, Mr. Maass could have, and should have, been wiser about how to handle this. The lesson to learn here, though, is just how utterly stupid the people are who do make it to administrative levels in school environmnets. And it's not just college level. Our high schools have even worse problems with so many of its administrators and even teachers being absolute idiots, especially with technology.
Most politicians are fundamentally corrupt and/or evil people that want to prey on and/or control others. But when you mix that type of personality with low intelligence and stupidity, you get a person who is unable to gain that control over adults. So they are unable to be successful as politicians and have to find easier people to prey on. They end up being school administrators. And to that I add that not all school administrators are bad. I've met 2 in my life that were good people. But based on the random samplings I've seen overall, I'd say the percentage of bad ones is definitely over 50%. Right on the heels of lawyers.
If the Air Force is wise (and I sure as hell hope they are), they will consider this matter based on its merits and offer Mr. Maass the opportunity to delay his ROTC scholarship based education in some meaningful way that works, to the extent he is forced to delay it. It should help him with positive references to get into another school with an Air Force ROTC program. Should it turn out not possible for him to continue with school for a while, it should offer him the opportunity to serve in the Air Force for that interim period, with work in some communications security or low grade intelligence assistance position (e.g. where he provides technology to intelligence staff, without being in the loop of the intelligence information itself). Our country needs people like Mr. Maass working on our side!
... that Sony is researching as a means to ensure the destruction of your device if there is any detected violation of DRM or attempts to remove the rootkit.
What the students will do next is rent (or maybe buy) some big gigabit switches (with a lot of cat5/6), rent space (with power) for a day at Baker or the Convo center, and setup a "networking party". Will the administration claim that is taking the bandwidth?
What's really relevant to me is the performance per dollar... not just dollar of CPU cost, but also dollar of whole system cost (including software, if that goes above zero), and dollar of energy cost (including the cost of shoving waste energy out the back door in seasons I does me no good to keep it indoors).
A subpoena is supposed to not cause undue harm or burden. Since due process has not actually taken place (e.g. argue against it in court), the harm and burden is supposed to be limited. Preventing someone from using their computer is, IMHO, an undue harm and burden. This is the principle our laws came from (not that the laws actually implement it very well).
In the "old days" (when such principles were established), evidence was generally written on paper. An order to preserve evidence would mean not destroying those papers. That would not have been an undue burden in most cases. Someone doing more stuff with papers is generally going to be buying more paper, or at the very least doing more writing in the remaining blank spaces of paper.
The computer of today does not fit an analogy of paper. Perhaps the CDROM backups might. Using a computer typically does involve deleting old data and using the space for new data.
But there is an even more extreme situation here. Microsoft Windows is so vulnerable to exploits that several things can end up destroying evidence, or exacerbating the burden. Infectious programs may cause damage or filesystem corruption. Spamware and spyware may be so pervasive that the only option is to wipe the disk and re-install the OS. It has happened to several of my friends and family (in many cases I've been the one to diagnose the problem and carry out the cure which first involved booting Linux to run "dd" to be damned sure the drive was wiped clean, before booting the Windows install disk to start all over). I actually recommend to people that they re-install Windows every 3 months if there are no visible signs of infection (or immediately if there are).
Is it really the intent of the court to tell someone they must not clean out the infections in their computer, and must let the spamware keep popping up various ad windows, and must let their computer keep emailing spam to others on the internet? Will the court also extend that order to the ISP to prevent the user's account from being shut off due to all the spam coming through?
Courts do need to learn a whole lot more about technology. And they sure aren't going to get it in an ex-parte hearing, especially with RIAA lawyers.
IMHO, when a court has issued a subpoena that does cause harm and burden by preventing someone from using their computer, at least for more than a day or two, that court has overstepped its authority. Note that this is an opinion, not a description of how lawyers and judges have currently structured things (which is really wrong because of their lack of knowledge about technology). Fixing it, though, is going to be a tough issue for the future.
But do keep in mind that lost evidence can be very easily the result not of the user, but of things beyond the user's control, at least if they keep using their computer. Tell me what you would think if a subpoena ordered you to shut your computer off, and not run it or use it at all, for 30 days, until they can get a bit image of the drive made (whether you did anything suspect or not)?
I was trying to think of something clever I could call you. But nothing came to mind. So it seems you are simply one of those liberals that wants to use government power to run everyone's lives and use tragedies to justify the laws that enable it.
Slashdot Mirror
My sig can beat up your sig.
A protocol that requires a firewall to be stateful just to allow it to pass, I would call broken. And yes, I have for years called FTP a broken protocol (acknowledging that this observation is hindsight). I'm not talking about statefulness for NAT purposes, but rather, statefulness to track permissions on related communications (e.g. the DATA connection in FTP). FTP was designed in the day when no one expected blocking of arbitrary ports. But this is something we will be doing apparently forever.
Let's fix the broken protocols and move forward. While we can use HTTP for many file transfer needs, a new protocol that conducts everything over a single TCP connection or a single SCTP session is where we need to go. Then a firewall can be simple in operation and probably more secure as a result.
One big advantage of an open source OS is the source. Unfortunately, not everyone has the skill to take advantage of it. I do, and I have used it to close up holes that I have found. But that required C programming skills on the part of a system administrator. That is a combination that is all too rare and unlikely to ever be corrected.
One big advantage of a portable OS (which does not require being open source, though that helps) that can run on a different architecture is that binary code incompatibilities can block a lot of exploit attempts, revealing them in logs in many cases. I remember running an IMAP server online back in the late 1990's with an unpatched exploit on a Sun Sparc machine. There were numerous attempts to break in. All failed because the exploit code was for Intel x86. If architecture diversity existed, of course, crackers would have to change their habits. But that would slow them down and eliminate some of the lesser knowledgeable (e.g. many script kiddies).
What do you think would happen if Microsoft chose to open source their entire operating system with the right for a licensed user to rebuild it entirely from source for their own use (not just an inspection source)? We might see bugs and exploits reported back to Microsoft that included tested patches. I know this is possible because I did that with IBM's mainframe operating system VM/CMS back in the late 1970's to early 1980's, with those patches coming back in later releases.
Will they be able to ban a circle with a circumference of 41645828368445153753206778332530197557 ?
I agree there is a net benefit. My original post was meant to be humorous. Unfortunately a lot of people missed that because I forgot to explain to them that this was at the driver level when they were assuming it was at the user space level.
I'll have to disagree with this one. Adding new I/O commands wouldn't hurt. But the old ones need to continue to be supported. A request to write a group of 16 sectors of length 512 each to sector number 786 should end up being handled by the drive controller as if the request were to write a group of 2 sectors of length 4096 each to sector number 96. This is not hard to do. While the new command set might be ever so slightly more efficient, either could still write those 2 4096-byte sectors in the right place. Or they could write a single 8192-byte sector. By keeping the old command set, compatibility is maintained and new drivers are not needed. Then one can replace a drive without having to upgrade the software (which will almost certainly go through a few cycles of bugs that the mature older drivers have already gotten rid of).
There is not second guessing. When the I/O command is received, what the driver wanted done is clear and unambiguous. Sure, there would be more controller code nedeed to handle 2 sets of commands. But that's far far less of a burden today than the one command set was back when when this all started.
It seems people are too ready to stuff all complexity on the main CPU. They forget that making smarter devices can make this overall faster for cheaper total cost (except several video card makers who do have this figured out and call it acceleration).
I was referring to doing a 256 byte write to a device that takes I/O commands in 512 byte units. You can figure out what the driver (or some higher layer of the OS) will need to do to achieve that.
If it's already transparent, then what is the big deal? If what you say is true, they could make blocks/sectors as long as they want and we won't need to know (except the driver writers need to know what constraints exist in the interface to send the read and write commands to the drive).
Sorry to bust YOUR bubble, but I do know how the OS works, and how it's interface works. The issue depends on what blocksize the commands between driver and hardware require. If you cannot instruct the hardware at a finer resolution than 512 bytes at a time, then writing 256 bytes really does mean that the OS at some layer (maybe in the driver, maybe at a higher layer, depending on the OS) will read 512 bytes, update 256 of them, and write 512 back. If that interface is being changed to require 4096 bytes minimum per I/O operation, then it really does increase the needed transfer work going on between the driver and hardware.
My post was meant in part to be humorous, and in part to raise an issue. The issue is the transparency of the driver to hardware interface. I do know from random encounterings that for IDE it really does require the driver do I/O operations in multiples of 512. That really does affect the 256 byte I/O request from userspace, but it's not really a serious request due to the caching nature of modern operating systems. And there is no reason in the world why they cannot have been doing 4096 byte or longer blocks for years or decades. If they have been doing it, there's no news (but that's typical Slashdot, so how would we know). Given the I/O command interface is in units of 512 bytes, it's probably convenience that whatever long block size the drive uses be an exact whole multiple of 512 bytes, even that is not essential. A couple decades ago I wrote a "driver" for a mainframe OS that handled I/O requests in units of 4096 bytes, with an on-disk blocksize of 18432 bytes. If you do your arithmetic, you can see that is 4.5x. So some I/O request blocks end up spanning physical blocks on disk. No big deal.
Now I have not been following PC hardware technology very much, so I don't know how much has been added to the I/O interface capability. If they have added a new byte-level I/O command set, then fine. Do you even know if they have?
Now when I want to update just 256 bytes, instead of reading 512 bytes, changing 256 of them, and writing 512 back, I now have to do this with 4096 bytes. So I end up transferring 3584 more bytes than I otherwise needed to.
They really could do this transparently. Let the driver write anything in any range. Then have the drive take care of reading the data for any sector partially written, update it, and write it back. With a method like that, we really won't have to know the physical sector size (which could even be allowed to vary depending on the position on the drive). It should also be made smart enough that if the driver writes a long sequence of smaller traditional 512 byte sectors, it will know which real physical sectors are totally written and won't make any effort to pre-read them.
$TTL 7d
$ORIGIN example.com
riaasucks 604800 IN AAAA 09F9:1102:9D74:E35B:DB41:56C5:6356:88C0
This is a good thing for all of the Linux community, even those who use other distributions. Dell will now have to be sure its hardware works with the Linux kernel. Computers with components that won't work in Linux will likely not be on the select list that Linux is offered for. Hardware manufacturers will then have a tiny bit more pressure on them to make sure their chips and cards and stuff will work with at least some Linux driver, even if that happens to be a binary-only driver. And as this helps increase the percentages of people using Firefox, more web site developers will have to shift away from making Explorer-only pages and start following web standards. As more people use OpenOffice, more documents can be released in an open standards format, and those who release them in proprietary formats will face more criticism.
So even if you intend to install some other Linux distribution on your Dell computer, or even if you use a non-Dell computer, this is good for you. Even if you prefer Windows, you'll benefit by competitive pressure on Microsoft forcing them to have to do better next time.
A stock split it normally done when the share price is too high which makes it difficult to trade. This is done by issuing new shares to existing shareholders on a specifically designated date, such that if they previously held N shared, they now hold N*M shares where M is the stock split multiplier. It generally changes the stock price to about 1/M. It usually makes the stock a bit easier to trade, so price will go up a bit just because of the split all else being equal.
A reverse split can also be done with M simply being less than 1. It can be harder to carry out due to the fractional shares involved. However, I have seen cases where stock splits with M greater than 1 have had non-whole values for M, so apparently brokers understand how to handle this for fractional shares.
If SCO did a reverse split, it would raise the per-share price. But whether they have enough outstanding shares to even do this is a big question. And it won't change their total capitalization (aside from a very minor price increase from making the shares have an easier to trade price), which might be the real issue, anyway. People with 1 share might end up with 1/5 share (same value ... mostly worthless).
So ... he was giving it thorough testing. That is something that seems to not be done very much by the commercial software industry. If this was a genuine issue, the university would have cited specifically the theft of usage, and downplayed the existance of the program. Instead, they focused on the existance of the program, regardless of whatever it was even used.
That's done all the time in academics. It's called collaboration.
Having a closed group of people help in testing is not a release. if he truly released it, show me the URL (if you can, I really will check to see if it is valid).
From whom? His professor? Grace Hopper will be turning over in her grave from this. You know damned well that if he asked the school administration or the IT department, they would blindly and ignorantly just give him a template "no" with absolutely no basis whatsoever for it.
Of course, Mr. Maass could have, and should have, been wiser about how to handle this. The lesson to learn here, though, is just how utterly stupid the people are who do make it to administrative levels in school environmnets. And it's not just college level. Our high schools have even worse problems with so many of its administrators and even teachers being absolute idiots, especially with technology.
Most politicians are fundamentally corrupt and/or evil people that want to prey on and/or control others. But when you mix that type of personality with low intelligence and stupidity, you get a person who is unable to gain that control over adults. So they are unable to be successful as politicians and have to find easier people to prey on. They end up being school administrators. And to that I add that not all school administrators are bad. I've met 2 in my life that were good people. But based on the random samplings I've seen overall, I'd say the percentage of bad ones is definitely over 50%. Right on the heels of lawyers.
If the Air Force is wise (and I sure as hell hope they are), they will consider this matter based on its merits and offer Mr. Maass the opportunity to delay his ROTC scholarship based education in some meaningful way that works, to the extent he is forced to delay it. It should help him with positive references to get into another school with an Air Force ROTC program. Should it turn out not possible for him to continue with school for a while, it should offer him the opportunity to serve in the Air Force for that interim period, with work in some communications security or low grade intelligence assistance position (e.g. where he provides technology to intelligence staff, without being in the loop of the intelligence information itself). Our country needs people like Mr. Maass working on our side!
Subject says it all
Please don't given them any ideas.
The MPAA is fine with fair use as long as they get to define what the fair use is, when and where it can be used, and how much it costs.
... that Sony is researching as a means to ensure the destruction of your device if there is any detected violation of DRM or attempts to remove the rootkit.
Hey, can I have /.'ers look for free software for me, for free, so I don't have to do my own googling?
What the students will do next is rent (or maybe buy) some big gigabit switches (with a lot of cat5/6), rent space (with power) for a day at Baker or the Convo center, and setup a "networking party". Will the administration claim that is taking the bandwidth?
So, more orbital debris. But at least this will be smaller stuff.
What's really relevant to me is the performance per dollar ... not just dollar of CPU cost, but also dollar of whole system cost (including software, if that goes above zero), and dollar of energy cost (including the cost of shoving waste energy out the back door in seasons I does me no good to keep it indoors).
A subpoena is supposed to not cause undue harm or burden. Since due process has not actually taken place (e.g. argue against it in court), the harm and burden is supposed to be limited. Preventing someone from using their computer is, IMHO, an undue harm and burden. This is the principle our laws came from (not that the laws actually implement it very well).
In the "old days" (when such principles were established), evidence was generally written on paper. An order to preserve evidence would mean not destroying those papers. That would not have been an undue burden in most cases. Someone doing more stuff with papers is generally going to be buying more paper, or at the very least doing more writing in the remaining blank spaces of paper.
The computer of today does not fit an analogy of paper. Perhaps the CDROM backups might. Using a computer typically does involve deleting old data and using the space for new data.
But there is an even more extreme situation here. Microsoft Windows is so vulnerable to exploits that several things can end up destroying evidence, or exacerbating the burden. Infectious programs may cause damage or filesystem corruption. Spamware and spyware may be so pervasive that the only option is to wipe the disk and re-install the OS. It has happened to several of my friends and family (in many cases I've been the one to diagnose the problem and carry out the cure which first involved booting Linux to run "dd" to be damned sure the drive was wiped clean, before booting the Windows install disk to start all over). I actually recommend to people that they re-install Windows every 3 months if there are no visible signs of infection (or immediately if there are).
Is it really the intent of the court to tell someone they must not clean out the infections in their computer, and must let the spamware keep popping up various ad windows, and must let their computer keep emailing spam to others on the internet? Will the court also extend that order to the ISP to prevent the user's account from being shut off due to all the spam coming through?
Courts do need to learn a whole lot more about technology. And they sure aren't going to get it in an ex-parte hearing, especially with RIAA lawyers.
IMHO, when a court has issued a subpoena that does cause harm and burden by preventing someone from using their computer, at least for more than a day or two, that court has overstepped its authority. Note that this is an opinion, not a description of how lawyers and judges have currently structured things (which is really wrong because of their lack of knowledge about technology). Fixing it, though, is going to be a tough issue for the future.
But do keep in mind that lost evidence can be very easily the result not of the user, but of things beyond the user's control, at least if they keep using their computer. Tell me what you would think if a subpoena ordered you to shut your computer off, and not run it or use it at all, for 30 days, until they can get a bit image of the drive made (whether you did anything suspect or not)?
I was trying to think of something clever I could call you. But nothing came to mind. So it seems you are simply one of those liberals that wants to use government power to run everyone's lives and use tragedies to justify the laws that enable it.
Lawyers do it. RIAA does it. Nothing new here. Move along.
I've been using it for decades, and my grandfather used it for decades before that. So I don't see how they can possibly get a valid ink patent.
Then ban mercury from power plants. Oh wait, it's the sulfer in the coal that captures the mercury.