They may make cracking illigal but they can't prohibit us from discussing computer security or posting exploits.
You are working off of the assumption that when it comes to computers and computer security that these people are rational and really feel that the first applies. The simple fact is that they don't and the bad laws based off of their idea that computers are "different" are being upheld or at least not shot down yet. Think DMCA. They will erode as many rights as we let them which is way we need to be aware of things like this and *not* just take the attitude that it can't be done because it is silly on the face of it. If we don't fight it it can and will be done.
Many tech people think that strong encryption is one of the best ways we have to protect freedom both now and for future generations. For example to preserve information that future not so friendly governments may think we don't need to have and to make sure that things we want to have remain private remain private. Given this what would you do to help preserve our right to privacy through the use of strong encryption? Also in a related question what are your thoughts and what do you plan to do about the fact that we can not export many forms of strong encryption?
"Have their hearts turned dark by being on the Internet" was not an attack on the Internt? Come on get real. Bush does *not* want to blame bad parents he would like to shift the blame to something else. For you see the people who are voting for Bush don't want to feel that it is the fact that they don't spend anytime wiht their kids that is the problem they want to feel that their hearts have been turned dark by the big bad internet. Not my fault now back to ignoring the kid. Don't kid yourself look at his whole history of comments on the Internet he blames it and us to make bad parents feel better.
I just claimed a k6-2 all it needs is a bit more memory and it will be perfect for my Samba server at home. Also there is a very big SGI box if you can afford to pick it up. Some very cool stuff really.
it had to be said it may as well have been me. The whole point of nanotech is that where we are now there are not alot of good uses. Take a look at the book (if you have not already) to see where stuff like this can take us. This *will* be very good.
Criticism has torn up the imaginary flowers from the chain not so that man shall wear the unadorned, bleak chain but so that he will shake off the chain and pluck the living flower."
What the hell was his point awful writer and you have just proven it. BTW the idea that Marx could not write his way out of a paper bag is held by very many very well educated people.
You are *very* lucky to work in a place where Dilbert is not the truth. Most of us are stuck in a place where Dilbert is the truth. It is not even a lack of tech knowledge by managers that is the bad thing. If they could admit that they don't know it tell us what needs to be done and then let us do it it would be good. The problem is when they try to tell us how to do it and because they are not technical they are wrong. Best boss I ever had did not know a thing about tech. But he also knew he did not know and therefore gave me the tools I need to do my job and got out of my way. The idiots are the ones who can't admit that they don't know anything and try to micromanage everything. And there are alot of those.
I can't find the link to ESR's article from Linux Journal about the fact that Microshaft makes alot of their money by playing games with their own stock this combined with Neal Stephenson's thoughts on the importance of mindshare to M$ in ITBTWTCL makes it obvious they *have* to maintain the illusion in the average Joe's mind that Winders is *the* OS. If it ever becomes clear to users that winders is not a fundamental part of the computer in the same way the mobo is there will be a mass revolt and people will start to understand that they do in fact have choices and this will be very bad for M$.
If they don't want people using it they should protect it the simple fact is they put it out there where it is pretty easy to find and use. Also as much as we like to think we are big and many in terms of the number of views they get in a day we just plain are not. Therefore it takes nothing away from them and it reduces pain for us. The real question of course is why do they leave it wide open? Simple answer their target market can and will not find it. They know they will have some people using it for whom it was not put there for but from the total lack of security on it you must come to the conclusion that they don't care. So yes this is typical/. for the most part smart people doing smart things in a way that most don't think of and that is why we are chaning the world.
this makes it *very* important that the DMCA be overturned. Since now ISPs can and (if the law is not changed) will be held responsible for content flowing over their lines and setting on their servers. This could be good but only if the DMCA is done away with.
This has to be a troll but I'll bite. I don't know what version th poster was using but I can do a network install of 2.2 on a DSL line in just over a hour and that is with alot of stuff. X, Helix Gnome all that good desktop crap. The next point is that if you work it right the 2.2 installer gives you more control over what you want than any installer I've ever seen. Just choose simple install and do not select any tasks or roles. This will drop you to a login prompt and then let you apt-get what you want and only what you want. Debian can be *very* small if you know what you are doing.
Yup my only problem with the Debian installer (2.2) is X setup. If you install X it should be easier to set up. Other than that it is pretty sweet. And if you really want to do a custom install (once again 2.2) just choose simple and then don't select anything from the lists. It will drop you to a login prompt and allow you to apt-get what you want and only what you want. With the exception of X having been a pain to get up and going it is really really sweet.
Duncan writes "Alastair Reynolds is one of the breed of science fiction writers who is also a professional scientist"
flatpack writes "This is hardly a "new breed", try for instance"
Now somebody point out to me just where is it in the first sentence that the word "new" is used?
Oh it's not ok thanks.
IMHO, Stephen Baxter is useless. Read Niven, Pournelle, or Forward all of whom rock.
The second CD is of course for all the ports. It includes more software but the defualt install is still smaller just makes it easy for those without a big pipe./me hugs his DSL router.
is how hard it is to set up X. Once you get it up it is *really* *really* sweet. Maybe someone who knows more could tell me why it can't setup X more like Mandrake or RH? Are there problems with them using the tool? (Looks like the same tool on both Mandrake and RH to me) Other than that everything about the new install is very nice. And of course apt-get makes it worth it to work through the X install. ANy good links to a *good* Debian X troubleshooting/setup page? The article was kind of lame but 2.2 does rule.
Or once you join the rest of us in the real world during those times that your boss is going on and on and on and since all s/he can think a handheld is good for is taking notes they will think you are listening. Now what I really want to see is screenshots of "the one true game" yes of course that would be Nethack!!!!!!
"On a positive side I havent heard anything from Cisco about trying to enforce this patent yet..."
That is because they have filed for it not gotten it. You can bet if it is granted that they will enforce it. But if it conflicts with iptables I think it would also conflict with netfilter in which case the BSD people have some prior art. Not having read the article I'm not sure how close it is though.
/me dons fireproof suit. The AC writes "won't use what works just because you can't look at the source" Of course I would not use it because I can not look at the source. It comes down to who controls my business my box and stuff. Me or someone else. If I have the source and I notice a bug or want a feature I can fix it or add it. If I can I can do it myself if not I can always hire someone to do it. This means I control it. This is why I will not use something that is closed source on any mission critical box. Now granted graphics don't fall into that very often but sometimes they do. And in any case I *really* don't like having to depend on a vendor for fixes. That having been said I do use a TNT2 that I bought back when it looked like nivida would open the drivers and I do like it very much. But I won't buy another one.
AFAIK, The matrox drivers have been OSS from almost the start. On the other hand the EULA from Nvidia says this. "No Reverse Engineering. Customer may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the SOFTWARE, nor attempt in any other manner to obtain the source code. No Separation of Components. The SOFTWARE is licensed as a single product. Its component parts may not be separated for use on more than one computer, nor otherwise used separately from the other parts. No Rental. Customer may not rent or lease the SOFTWARE to someone else." This is sad because I really like their chipsets and would love to use them but on those machines where video is important I don't feel I can because I simply can not think of any reasons for using closed source for mission critical applications. I *really* wish that Nvidia would open their drivers.
At some point the law did provide for paradoy. But nowadays the law is on the side of whoever has the best paid lawyers. Anyone have the link for the PETA thing. I'm too lazy to find it just now. In any case this is what we have come to now.
Slashdot Mirror
They may make cracking illigal but they can't prohibit us from discussing computer security or posting exploits. You are working off of the assumption that when it comes to computers and computer security that these people are rational and really feel that the first applies. The simple fact is that they don't and the bad laws based off of their idea that computers are "different" are being upheld or at least not shot down yet. Think DMCA. They will erode as many rights as we let them which is way we need to be aware of things like this and *not* just take the attitude that it can't be done because it is silly on the face of it. If we don't fight it it can and will be done.
Many tech people think that strong encryption is one of the best ways we have to protect freedom both now and for future generations. For example to preserve information that future not so friendly governments may think we don't need to have and to make sure that things we want to have remain private remain private. Given this what would you do to help preserve our right to privacy through the use of strong encryption? Also in a related question what are your thoughts and what do you plan to do about the fact that we can not export many forms of strong encryption?
"Have their hearts turned dark by being on the Internet" was not an attack on the Internt? Come on get real. Bush does *not* want to blame bad parents he would like to shift the blame to something else. For you see the people who are voting for Bush don't want to feel that it is the fact that they don't spend anytime wiht their kids that is the problem they want to feel that their hearts have been turned dark by the big bad internet. Not my fault now back to ignoring the kid. Don't kid yourself look at his whole history of comments on the Internet he blames it and us to make bad parents feel better.
I just claimed a k6-2 all it needs is a bit more memory and it will be perfect for my Samba server at home. Also there is a very big SGI box if you can afford to pick it up. Some very cool stuff really.
it had to be said it may as well have been me. The whole point of nanotech is that where we are now there are not alot of good uses. Take a look at the book (if you have not already) to see where stuff like this can take us. This *will* be very good.
Criticism has torn up the imaginary flowers from the chain not so that man shall wear the unadorned, bleak chain but so that he will shake off the chain and pluck the living flower." What the hell was his point awful writer and you have just proven it. BTW the idea that Marx could not write his way out of a paper bag is held by very many very well educated people.
You are *very* lucky to work in a place where Dilbert is not the truth. Most of us are stuck in a place where Dilbert is the truth. It is not even a lack of tech knowledge by managers that is the bad thing. If they could admit that they don't know it tell us what needs to be done and then let us do it it would be good. The problem is when they try to tell us how to do it and because they are not technical they are wrong. Best boss I ever had did not know a thing about tech. But he also knew he did not know and therefore gave me the tools I need to do my job and got out of my way. The idiots are the ones who can't admit that they don't know anything and try to micromanage everything. And there are alot of those.
I can't find the link to ESR's article from Linux Journal about the fact that Microshaft makes alot of their money by playing games with their own stock this combined with Neal Stephenson's thoughts on the importance of mindshare to M$ in ITBTWTCL makes it obvious they *have* to maintain the illusion in the average Joe's mind that Winders is *the* OS. If it ever becomes clear to users that winders is not a fundamental part of the computer in the same way the mobo is there will be a mass revolt and people will start to understand that they do in fact have choices and this will be very bad for M$.
My bad careful reading is a good thing. I don't know much about his views on music on the internet but I do *really* like his music.
He linked to Everything2 to explain Brian Eno who is a *very* good person come on reading is fundamental people.
If they don't want people using it they should protect it the simple fact is they put it out there where it is pretty easy to find and use. Also as much as we like to think we are big and many in terms of the number of views they get in a day we just plain are not. Therefore it takes nothing away from them and it reduces pain for us. The real question of course is why do they leave it wide open? Simple answer their target market can and will not find it. They know they will have some people using it for whom it was not put there for but from the total lack of security on it you must come to the conclusion that they don't care. So yes this is typical /. for the most part smart people doing smart things in a way that most don't think of and that is why we are chaning the world.
this makes it *very* important that the DMCA be overturned. Since now ISPs can and (if the law is not changed) will be held responsible for content flowing over their lines and setting on their servers. This could be good but only if the DMCA is done away with.
or am I the only one who thinks this is clearly a hoax?
This has to be a troll but I'll bite. I don't know what version th poster was using but I can do a network install of 2.2 on a DSL line in just over a hour and that is with alot of stuff. X, Helix Gnome all that good desktop crap. The next point is that if you work it right the 2.2 installer gives you more control over what you want than any installer I've ever seen. Just choose simple install and do not select any tasks or roles. This will drop you to a login prompt and then let you apt-get what you want and only what you want. Debian can be *very* small if you know what you are doing.
Yup my only problem with the Debian installer (2.2) is X setup. If you install X it should be easier to set up. Other than that it is pretty sweet. And if you really want to do a custom install (once again 2.2) just choose simple and then don't select anything from the lists. It will drop you to a login prompt and allow you to apt-get what you want and only what you want. With the exception of X having been a pain to get up and going it is really really sweet.
there is someplace else just as bad as Utah. This is just the same here in SLC
Duncan writes "Alastair Reynolds is one of the breed of science fiction writers who is also a professional scientist" flatpack writes "This is hardly a "new breed", try for instance" Now somebody point out to me just where is it in the first sentence that the word "new" is used? Oh it's not ok thanks. IMHO, Stephen Baxter is useless. Read Niven, Pournelle, or Forward all of whom rock.
The second CD is of course for all the ports. It includes more software but the defualt install is still smaller just makes it easy for those without a big pipe. /me hugs his DSL router.
is how hard it is to set up X. Once you get it up it is *really* *really* sweet. Maybe someone who knows more could tell me why it can't setup X more like Mandrake or RH? Are there problems with them using the tool? (Looks like the same tool on both Mandrake and RH to me) Other than that everything about the new install is very nice. And of course apt-get makes it worth it to work through the X install. ANy good links to a *good* Debian X troubleshooting/setup page? The article was kind of lame but 2.2 does rule.
Or once you join the rest of us in the real world during those times that your boss is going on and on and on and since all s/he can think a handheld is good for is taking notes they will think you are listening. Now what I really want to see is screenshots of "the one true game" yes of course that would be Nethack!!!!!!
"On a positive side I havent heard anything from Cisco about trying to enforce this patent yet..." That is because they have filed for it not gotten it. You can bet if it is granted that they will enforce it. But if it conflicts with iptables I think it would also conflict with netfilter in which case the BSD people have some prior art. Not having read the article I'm not sure how close it is though.
/me dons fireproof suit. The AC writes "won't use what works just because you can't look at the source" Of course I would not use it because I can not look at the source. It comes down to who controls my business my box and stuff. Me or someone else. If I have the source and I notice a bug or want a feature I can fix it or add it. If I can I can do it myself if not I can always hire someone to do it. This means I control it. This is why I will not use something that is closed source on any mission critical box. Now granted graphics don't fall into that very often but sometimes they do. And in any case I *really* don't like having to depend on a vendor for fixes. That having been said I do use a TNT2 that I bought back when it looked like nivida would open the drivers and I do like it very much. But I won't buy another one.
AFAIK, The matrox drivers have been OSS from almost the start. On the other hand the EULA from Nvidia says this. "No Reverse Engineering. Customer may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the SOFTWARE, nor attempt in any other manner to obtain the source code. No Separation of Components. The SOFTWARE is licensed as a single product. Its component parts may not be separated for use on more than one computer, nor otherwise used separately from the other parts. No Rental. Customer may not rent or lease the SOFTWARE to someone else." This is sad because I really like their chipsets and would love to use them but on those machines where video is important I don't feel I can because I simply can not think of any reasons for using closed source for mission critical applications. I *really* wish that Nvidia would open their drivers.
the partners site also works.
At some point the law did provide for paradoy. But nowadays the law is on the side of whoever has the best paid lawyers. Anyone have the link for the PETA thing. I'm too lazy to find it just now. In any case this is what we have come to now.