I suspect they are using the busness modle of driving UCE spammers to an opt in system.
Opt out and "No option" spammers make themselfs LOOK like opt in companys. However they don't do a very good job and so in the long run it's the con artists that use opt out and no option spam.
Opt out and no option are pritty much the same. You some how mysticly must keep up with the the shear volume of opt out requests. Every time you turn around there is annother opt out..
Also any given opt out may accually be just annother "no option" trap.. waiting for an opt out confermation so they can send you MORE spam.
Opt in spammers aren't so bad. They do lay traps to trick you into opting in when you don't realise it but this is far easyer to avoid. (Opt out = "Ohh you have a website.. we think you need laser printer toner" Thats no so bad as the repeated insults to my busness sence Opt in = "Ohh you signed in to our contest... now we'll send you tons of e-mail") Yeah I use to get Laser printer toner spam.. I called that stupid 1-800 number and told him to take me off his list.. he did.. for a week.. after that the phone number did work... I've sence changed ISPs.. I hope he is still spamming my old address...
Now I'm getting spam to MeowPawjects.com Some seem to recognise that I am a.com and thats all they know (Whoo a busness... lets send him illegal busness advice[the advice is legal doing what is advised isn't])
Anyway my mother has opted in to some of that and she gets megs of e-mail.. She reads it...all... (She dose NOT use AoL) and she dosn't have a MeowPawjects e-mail address.
She gets the good stuff... She has the time to read it... I don't...
Thies guys seem to be "opt in" and so it seems reasonable to want to get rid of the cheaper "opt out" and "no option" spam. In the long run it makes sence... Just like Apple would love to see Microsoft go away...
Slashdot is (for good reasons) the biggest and most populare forum on-line. However if Microsoft and the like think taking down Slashdot would kill the open source movement, or even drive it under ground they are sadly mistaken.
Slashdots very own Slashboxes are stuffed with content from other forums. There are sevral forum programs out, SlashcodeBladeSquishdotScoop and of course my own ZenToe
Of course there are many I missed...:( In any case... Each of thies represents a Slashdot like web forum. Slashcode itself is Slashdot, Squishdot is Technocrats, Blade is made by and for "The Stuff" and of course my own ZenToe is by me for me and my own forum.
All of thies are open source as such any given open source web forum can pick and chouse the best for his or her needs [ZenToe being easy but would crash and burn in any sort of attack]. It might be posable to develup some sort of commen post arrangment between forums and forum programs. Just a standard handoff system implented in Perl, PHP and Zobe so it could be easy to pass posts between forums. As such a distributed Slashdot. (Starts scribbling stuff down) Hay if anyone wants to work on this just drop me e-mail I'm sure at least CmdrTaco of Slashdot and Bob of TheStuff would consider this and I can say I Felinoid of Meowpawjects love the idea (of course it's mine so I have to):). Anyway however things come down... Slashdot is certenly importent and losing it would hurt the community very badly but it wouldn't have anywhere near the impact Microsoft and the like might be expecting....
An army trainned to protect freedoms dosn't function well when directed to strip same.
Also it isn't a 1 to 1 ratio... a 100 to 1 ratio is about enough to overcome tanks and planes.
The military forces would be overwhelmed vs an armmed majority.. However military wepons do give pause... After all... a tank can hit a target from a long way off. Thats hard to compete with...
> Do you really think a few people with guns would make much of a difference? I agree it was a good idea when the Constitution was written, but it doesn't really apply in a democratic superpower.
I sure as hack hope a few people with guns won't make any diffrence. A larg mob with wepons is a diffrent story...
As long as we remain a democratic government the wepons will not be needed. However if the majority is unarmed and some small fanatic group gets an itch to take power (by force) this would not be a good situation. Right now no such group would even try it. As long as there is a larg body of gun owners this won't be a problem. Even if that larg body is mostly street gangs.
As it is the only pathway to eliminate freedoms is to manipulate populare opinion. That isn't proving very difficult at the moment....
I think Microsoft wants a legal confrontation... Just as much as Microsoft is a defender of "Inovation" Slashdot is a defender of Linking.
Of all the posts Microsoft asked that Slashdot remove ONE containned the supposid violation.
However Microsoft made thies specs public the liccens itself MUST be bypassed by anyone wishing to view the document with out using Windows (Using unzip for Linux, Mac or Amiga as running the executable isn't an option for non-windows users).
The bulk of the posts to be removed are links to other websites. Had Microsoft contacted the websites linked they would no doupt willingly remove the pages making the Slashdot links void in the first place.
Publishing the specs in whole or in part dose not devalue Microsofts property (sence it is mearly specs for a product and of no value apart from the product) and posting it is fine under normal copyright law.
The base problem with the issue is you will find it nearly imposable to critisise Microsoft if you can never refer to Microsofts copyrights or trademarks.
Windows oh wait umm that Microsoft ohh s** umm That well known operating system sold by a larg company.... How can anyone talk about the specs for a Micosoft product if they can never refer link to or in any way acnoladge the specs? Thats pritty much what Microsoft is asking. All posts making any attempt to refer back to the specs...
That is using copyrights to silence opposition. Acceptable use prevents this... The DCMA dose not...
When this showed up on.. Technocrat I had to check it out. It also showed up on Kuro5hin.
This is a major issue... Can someone liccens your freedoms away? Microsoft is betting they can... Slashdot is betting they can't..... I'm taking the paranoid route...
Look for the new MeowPawjects liccens. You may not even THINK about our software with out agreeing to open all your standards.... This will only be attached to future projects. (It feels like a violation of trust to switch liccenses on people.... I don't want to do that)
I like the idea of being able to send and receave high quality audio over the Internet. However I use it for lissening to on-line talk shows like Geeks in space and Leet Radio.
Napster is a great tool for distributing sound. Be it talk radio, Internet artists or CDs you bought from the store.
I'd like to defend Napster but everyone else seems to defend Napster as a tool for piracy. That dosn't help the case...
The DCMA puts Napster in a bad position. Napster distributes high quality audio. It dosn't have to be made as a tool for piracy.. Under the old copyright laws Napster would have to be designed to devalue intelectual property.
Usenet can devalue IP.. Type a whole book into a computer or better yet scan it it and use an OCR program. Post it to usenet.. or on a website. You just pirated a book. Is Usenet or the web designed for this? No. It dosn't stop anyone from trying.
One usenet newsgroup was named "Gigabites of copyright violations".... But that dosn't change Usenet into a website for copyright violations.
On the other hand how can I defend Napster and Napster users? When every argument I see on Slashdot is a defence of IP theft and not of Napster for lagit uses.
> The one thing you should never say is never. There is always a way.
Yes I have to agree... It's more than just the defective software dev model.
It's the outragous arrogence Microsoft has. Even with Microsofts dev model Microsoft could have fixed this bug a long time ago. Chances are pritty good if they weren't so blind they'd have never had this bug to start with.
It's not the same as obscure defects. This one is pritty blatent. Normally this sort of bug is delt with in the idea stage.
There are more factors involved that just a larg user base.
First Linux is virus resistent. Not quite immune. There are many Linux viruses in the lab but only one in the wild. The "in the wild" virus is dead. On the other hand Windows still runs every known Dos and Windos virus.
The e-mail virus is made posable with a defect in an e-mail application preinstalled in Windows. This application hands e-mail file attachments over to productivity applications. This opens a huge security defect in Windows.
Productivity applications expect that the data originated on the same computer or at least from a trusted source. E-mail isn't a trusted source.
*nix systems exist in a paranoid world. Productivity apps don't expect the data to be from a trusted source and e-mail apps only pass data to network applications NOT productivity apps. And that is if it passes anything at all.
People have complanned about this bug for years and Microsoft (even today) holds the line and says "It's not a bug it's a feature". On the other hand *nix is very paranoid and even the most vage posability of abuse is answered with a bug fix.
Example: With 32 acts of god 64 mirricals a compleat inversion of the laws of phisics a cracker with root access to your box could place a file on your system that could cause an application to say "Hello mom"...
This is what passes for a sereous security problem on Linux...
On Windows however a person could e-mail you a virus and it's a feature....
Linux could be suseptible IF Linux had a larg user base.. and everyone went compleatly insain..
Not Linux, Not Mac, not Solarus... Windows... just Windows...
I was thinking of attributing a Mac or Linux only bug to Windows but I can not think of any.
Linux isn't user friendly... Ohh but how many times have I heard a new user proclame in frustration that you need a deploma in computer science to use a computer after trying to use Windows? (Usually after 3.11 but 95 and 98 get this as well)
MacOs is known to leave old systems behind. When Apple upgrades MacOs they often build the system around newer hardware as a result older Macs can not run the new operating system. This of course expected from a company that makes money from hardware.
Windows however is also know for dumpping older computers by the roadside. Windows 3.x 286 or better, Win 95 386 or better Win 98 486 (ok so at least the 486 is obsolete when 98 came out. where as the XT was still in use when 3.x was released and 286s still in use in 95).
Linux catches it for not being user friendly MacOs catches it for dumpping old systems... I think Microsoft sould catch it for this. It is a stupid Windows bug it isn't in Linux it isn't in MacOs. It isn't in any Non-Microsoft product
As a side effect it could bring an end to Windows... "The operating system that you can infect by e-mail"....
Microsoft is trying to spin this as a NORMAL thing. But it isn't It only works on a select few e-mail programs for Windows. Use something else for e-mail.... or don't use Windows... eather way fixes the problem... Or don't open file attachments.. Stick with RFC standard text e-mail
Microsoft added the feature of e-mail file attachment handoff as a way of ferther imbeding Windows. It means that you MUST have Microsoft products to read your e-mail (when someone sends you an MsWord document). Back before Mallisa I often told people to only send me RFC text e-mail. Some were sending Netscape HTML e-mail and some were senting MsWord file attachments.
Then came the virus... now even stanch "Windows is Great" people reject file attachments and I only get RFC text. All is happy again...
The problem with Microsofts plan was multifold. The e-mail virus rummor was allready out hense the idea was allready out there. The programs the attached files would be handed off to were NOT made with a secure environent in mind. The Ms Word dev team expected that any given Ms Word document originated from within the office or from the same computer. Who shares wordprocessing files in the processors own specal format? No one. The dev teams of other office applications had simmiler ideas. Files are shared inner office not nation wide. Anyone who has access to the files are by default allready inside the security loop theres no need for an additional layer. So fire all all kinds of cool features. Gotta make a better product right?
Then comes the monster.. the feature/bug... now files are comming from OUTSIDE a security loop. Oops..
It's to late to secure the Office apps and make the network secure. So what should Microsoft do? Remove the stupid feature... It isn't doing what Microsoft wanted... It will NOT lock anyone into any specal formats...
Oops!! To late.. Now Microsoft can not even to THAT.. Why? KDE included a feature in kmail to do the same trick with a twist.. kmail passes files only to secure network applications. No passthrough to any wordprocessor.. but passthrough to RealPlayer... passthrough to PDF... passthrough to an MP3 player.. Applications expecting files from OUTSIDE a security loop so they don't have neat features that could make innocent e-mail attachments into viruses...
Also Unix apps tend to have a small note of paranoia.. Unix is a secure system and admin like to read the source code. But they don't have time to read clearly so anything that LOOKS dangerous might make an admin think twice before installing. Could start rummors... and the Internet is good for paranoid rummors..
Microsoft apps tend to have a more "feature frenzy" addatude. Don't worry about side effects just add the feature. Flood it with features. New features to the left new features to the right. Features features features. Oh and yeah and we added FEATURES...
As such most Unix apps are network secure while most Windows apps are not. There are the few.. the proud.. the odd man out... But it's rare...
And if there is a way to expolit a feature it is usually not known (In the case of e-mail viruses it was SOO known it's insain...) so it'll take a feald expert to find the bug and report it back. With closed source this isn't an option. The bug will become known by a cracker and exploted... With open source... the bug is known and fixed...
problem solved...
With e-mail viruses... First the rummors.... Then BBS e-mail ANSI Bombs.. and the bug fixes (In terminal programs, BBSes and in alternitive ANSI.SYS drivers...) It was a known issue... The first chance Microsoft gets to imbed every Windows application into e-mail they go for it.
Now every KDE application will be imbeded in e-mail... Microsoft screwed themselfs roally this time...
It should be optonal..as in default OFF.. Default ON is honnestly NOT optional...
Companys are often very careful about sending you ads when your an enigma. "Ok we found out about him from ZenRope Soap corp so he probably likes exotic soap" they prefer to make educated guesses. If you come out and say "This is me" then they bomb your butt with ads targeted to your intrests.
Now if you can not afford exotic soaps very often you probably don't want ads for it. On the other hand if you buy huge boxloads of exotic soaps then maybe you want to know all the latist styles.
I like insense and computers but I so rarely buy eather I don't want ads for them. On the other hand... exotic breads.. caffine.. now those are top prioritys for me..
Think about this... Patent the busness practace of sending e-mail to people who did not ask for it.. Patent the tactic of grabbing e-mail addresses from web sites and usenet for spam lists..
Then I chould charg a liccensing fee to everyone who spams.. "Oh my the way we own the patent for your advertising tecnique..." I think it would be just ever so fun just to be able to send out legal notices... Have the RBL work with me... Let them identify people who infring on my patent and I'll do the rest.
Who wants to step up and clame prior art? Ohh I'd be ever so understanding if they did... give up my patent AND give them free advertising... Yes I'll just put them up on my website for all the world to see.. Spam Hunters.. ISPs.. etc.. everyone will know who they are...
>There is no way anyone will be able to use human genes in any practical sense before their patents expire.
In the strictest legalistic sence this is not correct. You are right now using human genes.. that is presumming your human...
Patenting the human genes is in effect patenting the source code for the human race... There is a sereous issue of prior art to consider...
Re:Competing with pretty good products
on
Why Not MySQL?
·
· Score: 1
I would like to quickly disagree...
While normally true that the cost of software ($50 to $100) is an insignificant issue (especally with free software when the burned CD is $50 to $100.. woohoo cost savings of squat) On the other hand all the costs end up being identical (excluding upgrades... free software upgrades are consistently free commertal upgrades run from free (Microsoft) to huge piles of money (Sun/SCO)) [Note: Free upgrades not talked about as it helps Microsoft and Linux so both would like to keep it quite]
However as for your example... The cost of a single w2K pacage dwarfs all other costs.. A price tag with 4 digits... That sucker is way to expensive
If I play music from my CD player..... A copy it made from the CD to the playback data buffer and then to the DA converter that becomes audio... If I play music from My.mp3.com a copy is made from my CD to MP3.com stored there for a time and then recalled later again by me... The stored copy can only be called by me (the owner of the CD) so only I can use the copy...
I would presume (I havn't read the rulling yet) that the judge is stuck on the idea that during a point in the process the music is stored. This is in effect the only diffrence between the copying from my CD to my players sound chip and copying my CD to a remote location vea MP3.com...
However the remote copy is still technicly in the hands of the owner and thus in the soul command of the only person who can by law control it. Oh and for the record that person ISN'T the artist.
Hmm intresting.... Copying is legal as long as it's to an anolog source?
Intresting... but wrong.... If you copy anything and give (or sell) the copy it is illegal. If you rent a video and copy it thats illegal.
Playing music over the radio is "fair use" but doing the identical over streaming audio is illegal. Why? Recording to anolog tape for personal use is legal but recording to a digital file for personal use is illegal?
The problem is simple... Illegally copying digital files dosn't have the same side effect that illegal copying of anolog data has... Digital copying dosn't degrade... As a result ILLEGAL copying has a greatter threat to the bottom line...
Still treating digital mediums as if they were automaticly for criminal use alone. I mean come on... what in hack is a high speed copying dual tape player for if not for illegal copying? And tapes that correct for distortion caused by those copyers?
They haven't taken action against illegal copying in years and now they know if they don't take drastic action they are toast....
No copying audio for non-personal use is not legal. Not even slightly. Copying digital for personal use should be just as legal as anolog... There should be no specal exception for digital copying
Your right about the abuse of the AC status and yes there are quite a few posts where the only object is to annoy people... Hence they must be AC so we don't know whos door to storm with pitchforks and flaming torches...
Keep in mind the music industry sees MP3s as the big boogyman. Now heres MP3.com letting people upload CDs to MP3 for playback anywhere anyplace. Technicly it's still a personal player service... However in order to work that copy must be made and held by someone who dose not have a liccens from the artist.
A dangerous ground to start with.. a legally questionable delivery system.. and a target...
Now I'm starting to hear people say "Illegal MP3s" when they mean "MP3s" the whole notion is that ALL MP3s are illegal by default.... Thats the only use for a sound netcaster... I mean no one netcasts radio talk shows like Geeks in Space, or Leet radio or Rush Limbaugh. [Geeks in Space radio netcast in MP3 format by the people who bring you Slashdot... Leet Radio was exclusively MP3 format... and now Rush Limbaugh is netcasting however not in Napster or other MP3 based format]
Why could you posably want high quality audio if not to steal our music? Thies people have such egos as to believe all MP3s must automaticly be illegal...
And of course MP3.com puts themselfs PERFICTLY in the way of a lawsute... not very bright...
This was a good idea but it's the WRONG TIME.. First let's establish that files stored in a remote location are still legally in the hands of the person who leases the space. Like rental storage.
What the wall of shame seems to forget is that teen is 13 to 19 not 13 to 17...
Usually "teen porn" is 18 and 19 year olds...
Other vage terminology "Young" by whos standard? I'm 30 years old and to my 90 year old grandmother I am young. Usually with porn it means under 21.
"My little sister" and "insest" are usually fantacys involving (yet again) adults...
In my view only the term "PreTeen" indicates only childporn and not fantacy or other adult (just turnned 18) porn.. However you'll find porn sites will freqently throw out pedophile catch terms like "Teen" and "PreTeen" to trick them to a paid adult website. I can see the logic of this.. Would a person so sick and twiested as to desire images of nude children be able to resist high quality porn (admittedly images of adults). Not sure myself not being a mental health profesional. But I'd guess it's a good bet.
Add to that human curreosity and you have a whole lot of explainning to do when an innocent finds himself tagged... Oh and then there is law enforcment... whops.. Can you say "Interfearing with an investigation of child pron?"
There is a whole can of worms here you do not wish to open...
> Personally, I think this smacks of hyprocrasy, but I'm sure many people will blindly disagree and flame me for holding this opinion.
I hope not... I strongly disagree with you but this is posably the most rational and well thought out commintary of what a lot of people have thought of RMS for a very long time.
What RMS dosen't get is the image he has cast off. To those unfamilure with open source (managers, politicians, quite a few ITs etc) and even a few who are the first thing they'll notice is how RMS carrys himself. He comes off one part religous zellot and one part communist. I've taken strong exeption to some of his rants.
On the other hand he is up againts some of the most thickheaded arrogent pinheads. It's probably not an easy thing for him to see when he crosses the line as one needs a telescope to see the opponents while standing on that line.
Today people are foolling themselfs by living on simple notions. Market droids have been aware of this mindset for years and have exploited it every chance they got.
"You get what you pay for" How often have you looked at price alone as a mesure of quality? Far to many people do. The greatest marketting trick is to rise a price a little just to give the illusion of quality. (Note to Microsoft this only works when the product is allready high in quality)
The truth? There are people looking for "the deal" such people shall allways exist. Some people ignore quality issues or don't look at the quality of the discount item. That dose not produce a cost savings as often the item will not do the job.
Here is the battle ground.... On the open source side people instinctively looking for "The deal", people wanting to "give back" and some who see busness opratunitys.
On the closed source side. People reactivly looking for "Quality" in a price tag. People wanting the shiny things and some who want to sell software.
RMS has a lot to contend with... So he often blows his top and says something he shouldn't have. Not that he is wrong but that he isn't very diplomatic about it.
ESR and others take more time out to give a reply. They are however standing side by side with RMS.
Think about this. HAMs, BBSes, and public domain software. Free services have existed for a very long time.
To spite what people have said many times over and over again the idea of free software was not new in the 1980s. What RMS preposed was protecting the rights of existing free software develupers. No grandbreaking ideas or socal re-engenearing. Just an effort to protect the socal climate that allready existed.
The real groundbreaking ideas came from ESR who preposed ways of making a proffit from open source. That changed everything....
Make no mistake... busnesses have used public domain software as a means of cutting costs for a very long time. Some have used FidoNet software as a means of delivering e-mail (Not Internet e-mail.. just office to office e-mail... internal memos that sort of thing). On occasion public domain has been pacaged with commertal software pacages and no credit given to the public domain softwares author. Such confusion is generated when this happends that the real author gets accused of stealing.
One of RMSes rants that I object to is a good example of how extream RMS can come off and the reason I object to it is a good example of what RMS is up against.
In that rant he complainns that software theft should be called "illegal copying" and not "piracy" becouse piracy gives the image of blood thirsty pirats. The sillyness of the imagry aside companys do not use the term piracy prefering instead RMSes suggested term "Illegal copying" ohh but they use the short hand "Copying"... Rather than trying to paint anyone who steals software as an evil blood thursty crimminal (as they do but in other ways) they would have you believe copying ANY software is illegal. That it is ALL commertal and public domain is a myth.
As for painting software theafs as blood thirsty crimminals. Being fair any company paints criminal acts against itself as evil and blood thirsty.
The same issue in a slightly diffrent form exists with Napster.... The music industry proclames the only function of Napster is to volate copyrights. A very easy argument to make. I mean all artists are signned up with recording contracts right? There arn't any bands playing for beers right? No hobby bands exist right? Hmm?
And when can I get a Hemos or Potter CD? Where do I go for "All over my chin" albems? ("All over my chin" is a hobby band that records in a hotell room using a tape deck)
There will allways be the executive who refuses to believe there is someone out there making intelectual property for fun. Programmers who make software for free, music artists who do it for fun, techs who build WHOLE COMPUTER SYSTEMS and give away the design for the fun of it. Who dose that? Hobbyists.. hackers.. ammature music artists.. People who make good money doing something they also enjoy doing. People who don't want the hassles that come with going pro.
Yes RMS comes off extream. Believe me thats nothing compaired to the lunacy of the philosophy of "Proffit is the only motivation"...
Yes it's true... some people do not have a price...
> I suggest someone take that code and undermine/. with it. Competition There are allready a few websites compeating with Slashdot... and allready Slashdot like forum software. Technocrat runs on SquishDot... MeowBBS runs on ZenToe...
All are available for download... You don't need to use SlashCode if you want to compeate with Slashdot...
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect they are using the busness modle of driving UCE spammers to an opt in system.
.com and thats all they know (Whoo a busness... lets send him illegal busness advice[the advice is legal doing what is advised isn't])
Opt out and "No option" spammers make themselfs LOOK like opt in companys.
However they don't do a very good job and so in the long run it's the con artists that use opt out and no option spam.
Opt out and no option are pritty much the same. You some how mysticly must keep up with the the shear volume of opt out requests. Every time you turn around there is annother opt out..
Also any given opt out may accually be just annother "no option" trap.. waiting for an opt out confermation so they can send you MORE spam.
Opt in spammers aren't so bad. They do lay traps to trick you into opting in when you don't realise it but this is far easyer to avoid.
(Opt out = "Ohh you have a website.. we think you need laser printer toner" Thats no so bad as the repeated insults to my busness sence
Opt in = "Ohh you signed in to our contest... now we'll send you tons of e-mail")
Yeah I use to get Laser printer toner spam.. I called that stupid 1-800 number and told him to take me off his list.. he did.. for a week.. after that the phone number did work...
I've sence changed ISPs.. I hope he is still spamming my old address...
Now I'm getting spam to MeowPawjects.com Some seem to recognise that I am a
Anyway my mother has opted in to some of that and she gets megs of e-mail.. She reads it...all...
(She dose NOT use AoL)
and she dosn't have a MeowPawjects e-mail address.
She gets the good stuff...
She has the time to read it... I don't...
Thies guys seem to be "opt in" and so it seems reasonable to want to get rid of the cheaper "opt out" and "no option" spam.
In the long run it makes sence...
Just like Apple would love to see Microsoft go away...
Slashdot is (for good reasons) the biggest and most populare forum on-line.
:(
:).
However if Microsoft and the like think taking down Slashdot would kill the open source movement, or even drive it under ground they are sadly mistaken.
Slashdots very own Slashboxes are stuffed with content from other forums.
There are sevral forum programs out, Slashcode Blade Squishdot Scoop and of course my own ZenToe
Of course there are many I missed...
In any case...
Each of thies represents a Slashdot like web forum. Slashcode itself is Slashdot, Squishdot is Technocrats, Blade is made by and for "The Stuff" and of course my own ZenToe is by me for me and my own forum.
All of thies are open source as such any given open source web forum can pick and chouse the best for his or her needs [ZenToe being easy but would crash and burn in any sort of attack].
It might be posable to develup some sort of commen post arrangment between forums and forum programs. Just a standard handoff system implented in Perl, PHP and Zobe so it could be easy to pass posts between forums. As such a distributed Slashdot.
(Starts scribbling stuff down) Hay if anyone wants to work on this just drop me e-mail I'm sure at least CmdrTaco of Slashdot and Bob of TheStuff would consider this and I can say I Felinoid of Meowpawjects love the idea (of course it's mine so I have to)
Anyway however things come down... Slashdot is certenly importent and losing it would hurt the community very badly but it wouldn't have anywhere near the impact Microsoft and the like might be expecting....
An army trainned to protect freedoms dosn't function well when directed to strip same.
Also it isn't a 1 to 1 ratio... a 100 to 1 ratio is about enough to overcome tanks and planes.
The military forces would be overwhelmed vs an armmed majority..
However military wepons do give pause...
After all... a tank can hit a target from a long way off. Thats hard to compete with...
> Do you really think a few people with guns would make much of a difference? I agree it was a good idea when the Constitution was written, but it doesn't really apply in a democratic superpower.
I sure as hack hope a few people with guns won't make any diffrence.
A larg mob with wepons is a diffrent story...
As long as we remain a democratic government the wepons will not be needed.
However if the majority is unarmed and some small fanatic group gets an itch to take power (by force) this would not be a good situation.
Right now no such group would even try it. As long as there is a larg body of gun owners this won't be a problem. Even if that larg body is mostly street gangs.
As it is the only pathway to eliminate freedoms is to manipulate populare opinion.
That isn't proving very difficult at the moment....
I think Microsoft wants a legal confrontation... Just as much as Microsoft is a defender of "Inovation" Slashdot is a defender of Linking.
Of all the posts Microsoft asked that Slashdot remove ONE containned the supposid violation.
However Microsoft made thies specs public the liccens itself MUST be bypassed by anyone wishing to view the document with out using Windows (Using unzip for Linux, Mac or Amiga as running the executable isn't an option for non-windows users).
The bulk of the posts to be removed are links to other websites. Had Microsoft contacted the websites linked they would no doupt willingly remove the pages making the Slashdot links void in the first place.
Publishing the specs in whole or in part dose not devalue Microsofts property (sence it is mearly specs for a product and of no value apart from the product) and posting it is fine under normal copyright law.
The base problem with the issue is you will find it nearly imposable to critisise Microsoft if you can never refer to Microsofts copyrights or trademarks.
Windows oh wait umm that Microsoft ohh s** umm That well known operating system sold by a larg company....
How can anyone talk about the specs for a Micosoft product if they can never refer link to or in any way acnoladge the specs?
Thats pritty much what Microsoft is asking. All posts making any attempt to refer back to the specs...
That is using copyrights to silence opposition. Acceptable use prevents this... The DCMA dose not...
When this showed up on.. Technocrat I had to check it out. It also showed up on Kuro5hin.
I of course had to post it on MeowBBS.
This is a major issue...
Can someone liccens your freedoms away?
Microsoft is betting they can... Slashdot is betting they can't.....
I'm taking the paranoid route...
Look for the new MeowPawjects liccens. You may not even THINK about our software with out agreeing to open all your standards....
This will only be attached to future projects.
(It feels like a violation of trust to switch liccenses on people.... I don't want to do that)
I like the idea of being able to send and receave high quality audio over the Internet.
However I use it for lissening to on-line talk shows like Geeks in space and Leet Radio.
Napster is a great tool for distributing sound. Be it talk radio, Internet artists or CDs you bought from the store.
I'd like to defend Napster but everyone else seems to defend Napster as a tool for piracy.
That dosn't help the case...
The DCMA puts Napster in a bad position. Napster distributes high quality audio. It dosn't have to be made as a tool for piracy..
Under the old copyright laws Napster would have to be designed to devalue intelectual property.
Usenet can devalue IP.. Type a whole book into a computer or better yet scan it it and use an OCR program. Post it to usenet.. or on a website. You just pirated a book. Is Usenet or the web designed for this? No. It dosn't stop anyone from trying.
One usenet newsgroup was named "Gigabites of copyright violations"....
But that dosn't change Usenet into a website for copyright violations.
On the other hand how can I defend Napster and Napster users?
When every argument I see on Slashdot is a defence of IP theft and not of Napster for lagit uses.
> The one thing you should never say is never. There is always a way.
Yes I have to agree...
It's more than just the defective software dev model.
It's the outragous arrogence Microsoft has.
Even with Microsofts dev model Microsoft could have fixed this bug a long time ago.
Chances are pritty good if they weren't so blind they'd have never had this bug to start with.
It's not the same as obscure defects. This one is pritty blatent.
Normally this sort of bug is delt with in the idea stage.
Not really...
There are more factors involved that just a larg user base.
First Linux is virus resistent. Not quite immune. There are many Linux viruses in the lab but only one in the wild. The "in the wild" virus is dead.
On the other hand Windows still runs every known Dos and Windos virus.
The e-mail virus is made posable with a defect in an e-mail application preinstalled in Windows.
This application hands e-mail file attachments over to productivity applications.
This opens a huge security defect in Windows.
Productivity applications expect that the data originated on the same computer or at least from a trusted source. E-mail isn't a trusted source.
*nix systems exist in a paranoid world. Productivity apps don't expect the data to be from a trusted source and e-mail apps only pass data to network applications NOT productivity apps.
And that is if it passes anything at all.
People have complanned about this bug for years and Microsoft (even today) holds the line and says "It's not a bug it's a feature".
On the other hand *nix is very paranoid and even the most vage posability of abuse is answered with a bug fix.
Example: With 32 acts of god 64 mirricals a compleat inversion of the laws of phisics a cracker with root access to your box could place a file on your system that could cause an application to say "Hello mom"...
This is what passes for a sereous security problem on Linux...
On Windows however a person could e-mail you a virus and it's a feature....
Linux could be suseptible IF Linux had a larg user base.. and everyone went compleatly insain..
Not Linux, Not Mac, not Solarus... Windows... just Windows...
I was thinking of attributing a Mac or Linux only bug to Windows but I can not think of any.
Linux isn't user friendly... Ohh but how many times have I heard a new user proclame in frustration that you need a deploma in computer science to use a computer after trying to use Windows? (Usually after 3.11 but 95 and 98 get this as well)
MacOs is known to leave old systems behind. When Apple upgrades MacOs they often build the system around newer hardware as a result older Macs can not run the new operating system. This of course expected from a company that makes money from hardware.
Windows however is also know for dumpping older computers by the roadside. Windows 3.x 286 or better, Win 95 386 or better Win 98 486 (ok so at least the 486 is obsolete when 98 came out. where as the XT was still in use when 3.x was released and 286s still in use in 95).
Linux catches it for not being user friendly MacOs catches it for dumpping old systems...
I think Microsoft sould catch it for this.
It is a stupid Windows bug it isn't in Linux it isn't in MacOs. It isn't in any Non-Microsoft product
As a side effect it could bring an end to Windows...
"The operating system that you can infect by e-mail"....
Microsoft is trying to spin this as a NORMAL thing. But it isn't
It only works on a select few e-mail programs for Windows.
Use something else for e-mail.... or don't use Windows... eather way fixes the problem...
Or don't open file attachments..
Stick with RFC standard text e-mail
Goodtimes was a myth...
E-mail viruses forward themselfs
No.. Shell scripts for Linux, Apple script for Mac and Dos batch files for Windows are not vulnerable.
So long as no application passes commands from a networked application this isn't a problem...
I use Linux and before that Unix..
The problem isn't in the Windows applications so much as in the e-mail handler.
There isn't any pasthrough for scripts.. even with Windows... If there ever was then we'd have a problem...
But a passthrough for scripts is the same as any other back door.
The reality is.. this isn't even a problem in Dos.. and Dos has zero network security
Microsoft added the feature of e-mail file attachment handoff as a way of ferther imbeding Windows.
It means that you MUST have Microsoft products to read your e-mail (when someone sends you an MsWord document).
Back before Mallisa I often told people to only send me RFC text e-mail. Some were sending Netscape HTML e-mail and some were senting MsWord file attachments.
Then came the virus... now even stanch "Windows is Great" people reject file attachments and I only get RFC text. All is happy again...
The problem with Microsofts plan was multifold. The e-mail virus rummor was allready out hense the idea was allready out there.
The programs the attached files would be handed off to were NOT made with a secure environent in mind.
The Ms Word dev team expected that any given Ms Word document originated from within the office or from the same computer. Who shares wordprocessing files in the processors own specal format? No one.
The dev teams of other office applications had simmiler ideas. Files are shared inner office not nation wide. Anyone who has access to the files are by default allready inside the security loop theres no need for an additional layer.
So fire all all kinds of cool features. Gotta make a better product right?
Then comes the monster.. the feature/bug... now files are comming from OUTSIDE a security loop. Oops..
It's to late to secure the Office apps and make the network secure.
So what should Microsoft do?
Remove the stupid feature...
It isn't doing what Microsoft wanted... It will NOT lock anyone into any specal formats...
Oops!! To late.. Now Microsoft can not even to THAT.. Why?
KDE included a feature in kmail to do the same trick with a twist.. kmail passes files only to secure network applications. No passthrough to any wordprocessor.. but passthrough to RealPlayer... passthrough to PDF... passthrough to an MP3 player.. Applications expecting files from OUTSIDE a security loop so they don't have neat features that could make innocent e-mail attachments into viruses...
Also Unix apps tend to have a small note of paranoia.. Unix is a secure system and admin like to read the source code. But they don't have time to read clearly so anything that LOOKS dangerous might make an admin think twice before installing. Could start rummors... and the Internet is good for paranoid rummors..
Microsoft apps tend to have a more "feature frenzy" addatude. Don't worry about side effects just add the feature. Flood it with features. New features to the left new features to the right. Features features features. Oh and yeah and we added FEATURES...
As such most Unix apps are network secure while most Windows apps are not.
There are the few.. the proud.. the odd man out...
But it's rare...
And if there is a way to expolit a feature it is usually not known (In the case of e-mail viruses it was SOO known it's insain...) so it'll take a feald expert to find the bug and report it back.
With closed source this isn't an option. The bug will become known by a cracker and exploted...
With open source... the bug is known and fixed...
problem solved...
With e-mail viruses...
First the rummors....
Then BBS e-mail ANSI Bombs.. and the bug fixes
(In terminal programs, BBSes and in alternitive ANSI.SYS drivers...)
It was a known issue...
The first chance Microsoft gets to imbed every Windows application into e-mail they go for it.
Now every KDE application will be imbeded in e-mail... Microsoft screwed themselfs roally this time...
It should be optonal..as in default OFF..
:)
Default ON is honnestly NOT optional...
Companys are often very careful about sending you ads when your an enigma. "Ok we found out about him from ZenRope Soap corp so he probably likes exotic soap" they prefer to make educated guesses.
If you come out and say "This is me" then they bomb your butt with ads targeted to your intrests.
Now if you can not afford exotic soaps very often you probably don't want ads for it.
On the other hand if you buy huge boxloads of exotic soaps then maybe you want to know all the latist styles.
I like insense and computers but I so rarely buy eather I don't want ads for them.
On the other hand... exotic breads.. caffine.. now those are top prioritys for me..
Value added content is helpful
Think about this...
Patent the busness practace of sending e-mail to people who did not ask for it..
Patent the tactic of grabbing e-mail addresses from web sites and usenet for spam lists..
Then I chould charg a liccensing fee to everyone who spams.. "Oh my the way we own the patent for your advertising tecnique..."
I think it would be just ever so fun just to be able to send out legal notices...
Have the RBL work with me... Let them identify people who infring on my patent and I'll do the rest.
Who wants to step up and clame prior art? Ohh I'd be ever so understanding if they did... give up my patent AND give them free advertising... Yes I'll just put them up on my website for all the world to see.. Spam Hunters.. ISPs.. etc.. everyone will know who they are...
I want to patent Spam
>There is no way anyone will be able to use human genes in any practical sense before their patents expire.
In the strictest legalistic sence this is not correct.
You are right now using human genes.. that is presumming your human...
Patenting the human genes is in effect patenting the source code for the human race...
There is a sereous issue of prior art to consider...
I would like to quickly disagree...
While normally true that the cost of software ($50 to $100) is an insignificant issue (especally with free software when the burned CD is $50 to $100.. woohoo cost savings of squat)
On the other hand all the costs end up being identical (excluding upgrades... free software upgrades are consistently free commertal upgrades run from free (Microsoft) to huge piles of money (Sun/SCO))
[Note: Free upgrades not talked about as it helps Microsoft and Linux so both would like to keep it quite]
However as for your example... The cost of a single w2K pacage dwarfs all other costs.. A price tag with 4 digits... That sucker is way to expensive
If I play music from my CD player.....
A copy it made from the CD to the playback data buffer and then to the DA converter that becomes audio...
If I play music from My.mp3.com a copy is made from my CD to MP3.com stored there for a time and then recalled later again by me...
The stored copy can only be called by me (the owner of the CD) so only I can use the copy...
I would presume (I havn't read the rulling yet) that the judge is stuck on the idea that during a point in the process the music is stored. This is in effect the only diffrence between the copying from my CD to my players sound chip and copying my CD to a remote location vea MP3.com...
However the remote copy is still technicly in the hands of the owner and thus in the soul command of the only person who can by law control it.
Oh and for the record that person ISN'T the artist.
Hmm intresting....
Copying is legal as long as it's to an anolog source?
Intresting... but wrong....
If you copy anything and give (or sell) the copy it is illegal. If you rent a video and copy it thats illegal.
Playing music over the radio is "fair use" but doing the identical over streaming audio is illegal. Why?
Recording to anolog tape for personal use is legal but recording to a digital file for personal use is illegal?
The problem is simple... Illegally copying digital files dosn't have the same side effect that illegal copying of anolog data has...
Digital copying dosn't degrade...
As a result ILLEGAL copying has a greatter threat to the bottom line...
Still treating digital mediums as if they were automaticly for criminal use alone.
I mean come on... what in hack is a high speed copying dual tape player for if not for illegal copying? And tapes that correct for distortion caused by those copyers?
They haven't taken action against illegal copying in years and now they know if they don't take drastic action they are toast....
No copying audio for non-personal use is not legal. Not even slightly. Copying digital for personal use should be just as legal as anolog...
There should be no specal exception for digital copying
Your right about the abuse of the AC status
and yes there are quite a few posts where the only object is to annoy people...
Hence they must be AC so we don't know whos door to storm with pitchforks and flaming torches...
Keep in mind the music industry sees MP3s as the big boogyman.
Now heres MP3.com letting people upload CDs to MP3 for playback anywhere anyplace.
Technicly it's still a personal player service...
However in order to work that copy must be made and held by someone who dose not have a liccens from the artist.
A dangerous ground to start with.. a legally questionable delivery system.. and a target...
Now I'm starting to hear people say "Illegal MP3s" when they mean "MP3s" the whole notion is that ALL MP3s are illegal by default.... Thats the only use for a sound netcaster... I mean no one netcasts radio talk shows like Geeks in Space, or Leet radio or Rush Limbaugh.
[Geeks in Space radio netcast in MP3 format by the people who bring you Slashdot... Leet Radio was exclusively MP3 format... and now Rush Limbaugh is netcasting however not in Napster or other MP3 based format]
Why could you posably want high quality audio if not to steal our music?
Thies people have such egos as to believe all MP3s must automaticly be illegal...
And of course MP3.com puts themselfs PERFICTLY in the way of a lawsute... not very bright...
This was a good idea but it's the WRONG TIME.. First let's establish that files stored in a remote location are still legally in the hands of the person who leases the space. Like rental storage.
What the wall of shame seems to forget is that teen is 13 to 19 not 13 to 17...
Usually "teen porn" is 18 and 19 year olds...
Other vage terminology "Young" by whos standard? I'm 30 years old and to my 90 year old grandmother I am young. Usually with porn it means under 21.
"My little sister" and "insest" are usually fantacys involving (yet again) adults...
In my view only the term "PreTeen" indicates only childporn and not fantacy or other adult (just turnned 18) porn..
However you'll find porn sites will freqently throw out pedophile catch terms like "Teen" and "PreTeen" to trick them to a paid adult website. I can see the logic of this..
Would a person so sick and twiested as to desire images of nude children be able to resist high quality porn (admittedly images of adults). Not sure myself not being a mental health profesional. But I'd guess it's a good bet.
Add to that human curreosity and you have a whole lot of explainning to do when an innocent finds himself tagged... Oh and then there is law enforcment... whops.. Can you say "Interfearing with an investigation of child pron?"
There is a whole can of worms here you do not wish to open...
> Personally, I think this smacks of hyprocrasy, but I'm sure many people will blindly disagree and flame me for holding this opinion.
I hope not...
I strongly disagree with you but this is posably the most rational and well thought out commintary of what a lot of people have thought of RMS for a very long time.
What RMS dosen't get is the image he has cast off. To those unfamilure with open source (managers, politicians, quite a few ITs etc) and even a few who are the first thing they'll notice is how RMS carrys himself.
He comes off one part religous zellot and one part communist. I've taken strong exeption to some of his rants.
On the other hand he is up againts some of the most thickheaded arrogent pinheads. It's probably not an easy thing for him to see when he crosses the line as one needs a telescope to see the opponents while standing on that line.
Today people are foolling themselfs by living on simple notions. Market droids have been aware of this mindset for years and have exploited it every chance they got.
"You get what you pay for" How often have you looked at price alone as a mesure of quality? Far to many people do. The greatest marketting trick is to rise a price a little just to give the illusion of quality.
(Note to Microsoft this only works when the product is allready high in quality)
The truth? There are people looking for "the deal" such people shall allways exist. Some people ignore quality issues or don't look at the quality of the discount item. That dose not produce a cost savings as often the item will not do the job.
Here is the battle ground....
On the open source side people instinctively looking for "The deal", people wanting to "give back" and some who see busness opratunitys.
On the closed source side. People reactivly looking for "Quality" in a price tag. People wanting the shiny things and some who want to sell software.
RMS has a lot to contend with...
So he often blows his top and says something he shouldn't have. Not that he is wrong but that he isn't very diplomatic about it.
ESR and others take more time out to give a reply. They are however standing side by side with RMS.
Think about this. HAMs, BBSes, and public domain software. Free services have existed for a very long time.
To spite what people have said many times over and over again the idea of free software was not new in the 1980s. What RMS preposed was protecting the rights of existing free software develupers. No grandbreaking ideas or socal re-engenearing. Just an effort to protect the socal climate that allready existed.
The real groundbreaking ideas came from ESR who preposed ways of making a proffit from open source.
That changed everything....
Make no mistake... busnesses have used public domain software as a means of cutting costs for a very long time.
Some have used FidoNet software as a means of delivering e-mail (Not Internet e-mail.. just office to office e-mail... internal memos that sort of thing).
On occasion public domain has been pacaged with commertal software pacages and no credit given to the public domain softwares author.
Such confusion is generated when this happends that the real author gets accused of stealing.
One of RMSes rants that I object to is a good example of how extream RMS can come off and the reason I object to it is a good example of what RMS is up against.
In that rant he complainns that software theft should be called "illegal copying" and not "piracy" becouse piracy gives the image of blood thirsty pirats.
The sillyness of the imagry aside companys do not use the term piracy prefering instead RMSes suggested term "Illegal copying" ohh but they use the short hand "Copying"...
Rather than trying to paint anyone who steals software as an evil blood thursty crimminal (as they do but in other ways) they would have you believe copying ANY software is illegal. That it is ALL commertal and public domain is a myth.
As for painting software theafs as blood thirsty crimminals. Being fair any company paints criminal acts against itself as evil and blood thirsty.
The same issue in a slightly diffrent form exists with Napster....
The music industry proclames the only function of Napster is to volate copyrights. A very easy argument to make. I mean all artists are signned up with recording contracts right?
There arn't any bands playing for beers right?
No hobby bands exist right?
Hmm?
And when can I get a Hemos or Potter CD?
Where do I go for "All over my chin" albems?
("All over my chin" is a hobby band that records in a hotell room using a tape deck)
There will allways be the executive who refuses to believe there is someone out there making intelectual property for fun.
Programmers who make software for free, music artists who do it for fun, techs who build WHOLE COMPUTER SYSTEMS and give away the design for the fun of it.
Who dose that?
Hobbyists.. hackers.. ammature music artists.. People who make good money doing something they also enjoy doing. People who don't want the hassles that come with going pro.
Yes RMS comes off extream. Believe me thats nothing compaired to the lunacy of the philosophy of "Proffit is the only motivation"...
Yes it's true... some people do not have a price...
> I suggest someone take that code and undermine /. with it. Competition
There are allready a few websites compeating with Slashdot... and allready Slashdot like forum software.
Technocrat runs on SquishDot...
MeowBBS runs on ZenToe...
All are available for download...
You don't need to use SlashCode if you want to compeate with Slashdot...
People getting uppity as of late...
:)
Slashdot has become the core of the community and it isn't all they want it to be.
I personally suspect people want alternitives...
Such alternitives do exist and Slashdot dose premote them...
Not MeowBBS.. but thats MeowBBSes fault not Slashdot