Note, trademarks are probably what are at issue since "Scrabulous" is easily confused with "Scrabble." The authors of the game should have picked something that did not reference the trademarked name. You are probably right, since this has been ongoing for awhile over the trademark issue.
Same reason yahoo calls their version of the game Literati, despite being identical to scrabble in every other way.
Note that I understand that "The US" != "all US citizens", but please, you're the only ones that can do something about this. So please do so. While i agree with everything you said, right up to the part i quoted. What would you suggest?
It has been said:
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty. In order, those boxes are: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo."
We have all complained, had walks and protests, and decried our leaders for their actions. Soap, check.
Ever since the voting machines have full ability to take our input, and provide whatever a corporate CEO desires as output. Ballot, check.
Since our current leaders have changed the laws in ways so a jury can not change them back, or throw them out of power, and as things stand the embargo is legal, imprisoning the majority of the population for harmless things (Like having a plant), torture is legal, etc... Jury, check.
We are at #4, but unfortunately our government has more guns, more powerful ones, and more people brainwashed to use them on their side.
While it could be argued that at least trying is still the best idea, after all one cant rule over a country of corpses... But not enough people are willing to die for it. And while I would gladly die for the end result, I have serious doubts if our small minority that agrees would have any effect in the short or long term in doing so.:{
Want a different policy? Organize like-minded people to VOTE appropriately. Fry: (to Clinton) Hey, I remember you. I was gonna vote for you one time. But voting isn't cool so I stayed home alone and got trashed on Listerine.
Ford: Frankly, I've never felt voting to be all that essential to the process.
Doesn't that also mean that Linux is also vulnerable to Apples firewire design faults? You mean the fact apple uses the name "FireWire" for whats really called IEEE 1394?
No, I doubt renaming a hardware protocol someone else made has introduced any new design defects:P
"You see, this serious security problem was designed in from the start, so therefore... it's not a problem! Ta-da!" If you have physical access to the system, you have full unrestricted access to the system. One can do the same thing to a computer WITHOUT firewire, given the exact same conditions.
Thus, its not an additional vulnerability. It is however a problem, because most people assume (incorrectly) one has to disassemble a computer to do this, which has never been the case, and base their physical security on the modal 'Well if it doesn't look fishy, it's OK'
If it was a windows machine, and you have the ability to touch the computer and insert something into it, you don't need firewire, a CD or modified USB flash drive with an autorun.ini will do. And if you can modify some hardware to use this exploit in a firewire device, you can also get your hands on a USB flash drive configured to show up not as a removable HD but as a CDROM, thus autorun.ini will work.
There was a big stink over USB that can allow autorun, and the general advice if you cant/wont provide physical security was to disable the USB ports. Now firewire is proven to be in the same group.
The only new bit here is this works on more than windows, so people that thought autorun was not an issue due to choice of OS, or OS configuration, and dont/wont provide any physical security preventing this, now have a new problem.
Well, if you testify under oath that you are dead, I think you are still committing perjury, even if you have a document that says you're dead:-) True, but to put the funny aside for a moment and be serious, it actually depends on what you say while under oath.
"I am dead." would be false, and thus perjury.
"The government stated I am legally dead." is truth, thus perfectly OK.
To put the funny back, yea all the way up to the legal aspect of things, I too would use the phrase "I'm dead!" just because that is simply hilarious:}
I know a guy who is locally famous because he will spend 4,5,6 or more hours on the phone with customer service, supervisors, managers and anyone on the board of directors that he can find a phone number for. What is he fighting for? discounted service or reparations for lost service(s). That guy is simply just doing it wrong. It is extremely simple, and those 4,5,6 or more hours can be spent actually accomplishing his goals, instead of wasted on the phone with the company.
Situation 1) He calls once, states the fact he has proof of the downtime, quotes from his service level agreement contract where the provider states how much compensation is due for that amount of downtime, and requests compensation once. If the answer back is anything other than a 'Yes sir, right away!' then you state 'Goodbye, you will be hearing from my attorney', hangup, and take them to court over it. The judge will take one look at the contract the provider agreed to, and force the provider to pay that amount, plus legal fees, and maybe even damages for not honoring their contract if the provider is being an obvious dick and trying to get out of what they agreed to.
In the end, you are only out the time it takes to call an attorney and possibly a few hours in court, easily totaling the same 4-6 hrs wasted on the phone before.
Situation 2) He has no SLA contract, thus is not entitled to any compensation at all for the downtime, and really needs the provider to press harassment charges against him.
I strongly suspect situation 2 is the case here, but only have past experience to base this on, which of course has nothing to do with this case specifically. However if situation 1 is indeed happening, relay my advice to him, cuz he is currently doing it wrong.
Of course it would have to go to the beneficiary listed. Who gets the money isn't important, whats important is they have to pay out that money.
And how can it be insurance fraud when you have government backed documentation proving everything you said is true?
If anyone is committing fraud by issuing false statements, its the social security department, although i believe to count as fraud, you have to knowingly make false statements, which despite you telling them they are wrong, they can still claim (computers don't lie after all.)
You're quite right, but the problem is that the tech just doesn't work well enough yet for what you are saying. Hell, find me those glasses, let alone the neural interface... Here are (close to at least) those glasses:
I can't find the link for it now, but I have seen a pair that also let you look 'through' them to see whats in front of you as well. The above glasses just need a small camera mounted to the front for the same effect, so possible with todays tech just not quite at a production/commercial level right now.
I don't want *any* unsolicited bulk email no matter who it's from. Well, we have a simple technical measure for you that should make you quite happy. Whitelists
You add the addresses of the few people you do want to get email from, then everyone else gets rejected, since everyone else falls under the group of 'unsolicited'.
If you don't run your own mail server, then you might have to shop/look around for an email provider that supports this, but they defiantly exist. It's just not popular because very few people want to receive NO unsolicited email at all. If grandma unexpectedly changes her email address or ISP, they don't mind when she emails from her new address, and don't mind that she didn't phone ahead first before emailing, etc etc.
Lacy, Lemons, and Koontz. 10 seconds on Google would have gotten you the answer. I think what we all wanted to see posted to slashdot is their email addresses;}
what's the point of getting "notable members of the gaming industry" to sign a product that has a guaranteed maximum lifespan? Wouldn't taking a polaroid and having them sign that be a better way to preserve those memories? Seems a silly question. Let me ask you this, would you rather have an original Nintendo signed by the people who made Super Mario Bros., or a long-since faded polaroid picture of a Nintendo with scrawl covering the picture? Good point for sure. I would want the real NES with signatures.
However, I would also never ever mail that NES anywhere without the expectation that it will be lost forever. If it had any problems, I would buy a new one. The new one would be acceptable to mail in for repair, but not the signed collector one.
Yes, MS fucked up big time for lying to this poor guy. However, while I wont go as far as to say he deserved it, he obviously did not care enough about his valued collector item to take care of it properly.
This is just how it goes when you turn something into a collectors item like that. While MS deserves pretty much all of the blame for lying (claiming they could and would return the exact same unit intact) when that was not a promise they could keep, I just hope the guy turns this around into a positive and learns to take better care of his belongings.
For the standard slashdot car example: There are a lot of people out there that enjoy buying older historic cars, restoring them, and possibly taking them to shows and what not. However the ones that care about their investment do not drive that historic car around all the time like it was their only vehicle. Doing so puts needless extra wear on it, which lowers its over all value.
If he did what he is alleged to have done, I'm not sure I see much of a problem with it following him around forever. Ok. I allege that you molested a 6 year old child sexually.
Now, by your own admission and logic, you would be totally ok with the nightly news showing your name and face and what you allegedly did. As an added bonus, you also say you are fine with this following you around forever.
Might as well not even have a trial for you either, since forever extends past the trial, past when I can't prove my statement at all, and past you even proving you did not do it!
Once/if this kid is convicted in court for this crime, I doubt anyone would care that this fact is posted on websites or the news.
It hasn't yet. Don't pretend the law never gets the wrong person on accident.
"From my point of view, the reason to upgrade to Vista is its significantly higher security than XP, let alone the earlier OS's" Ok, first i was actually about to reply to the GP and defend you. However, I assumed you meant what you said quoted up there, the main reason to upgrade from XP to Vista was security. Or at least by 'earlier OS's' you meant earlier versions of Windows.
And sure, valid point that would be!
But
OS X is definitely not more secure than Vista. Standard Linux consumer distros are not either. LOL
First off, so mods wont get 'facts' confused with 'troll', i need to post this url at the top: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS08-001.mspx This will be explained nearly towards the bottom of this post alot better, however is proof your statement is false in a black&white binary world. If you are interested in real world facts where it isnt so clear cut, read on...
An OS that ships with zero services facing the internet (or LAN for that matter, since there is little difference outside of Windows World) is about 100% secure. No version of windows since 3.11 (IE any one with a tcp stack built in) has passed here, and still does.
'But then you add services' you say. Sure, ok. Failure again!
First, we should make the distinction between vender apps and 3rd party apps acting as services. We do this cuz it wouldnt be fair to blame MS for Joe Blows 'super secure internet cursors package' that connects to a remote server plaintext with no auth and executes a list of commands in a file.
Technically all linux services are 3rd party. However, lets bend the rule in windows favor here, and count the 'main' services included in almost all linux distros as not-3rd party (despite the fact they are), such as openssh, apache, bind, etc.
More linux services out of the box have been secure than windows ones, and for the linux ones that have had problems, they have been announced and patched/fixed generally in the time span one sleeps or goes to work in. Windows security bugs are usually swept under the rug and hidden from public view for at least a week, more commonly a month, and in a few rare extreams for years. (See below for proof) So thats 16-24 HOURS to a fix for opensource apps, and whenever next tuesday rolls around for Windows (IE up to 7 days if the hole is major sever and reported minutes or an hour after patch tuesday just hit.)
Now lets hit the OSX part. You are more correct there, but still not really. OSX out of the box is by defiinition FAR more secure than vista. Open OSX services: 0, Open vista services: >1 What that means is vista has potential holes that are out there, and wont be reported to us for months (standard MS track record) and wont be fixed till next tuesday (1-7 days), and there is a non 0% chance that disabling that windows services is not possible (no matter how small), which is not the case in OSX.
So, that leaves OSX local exploits compared to vista, and 3rd party introduced ones. In that area I dont know. So i'll give you that just cuz I also dont care to know. easy points, and perfectly plausible to be true. Apple has had its cases of delaying fixes and trying to hide security issues that don't fall in their opensource components.
Hell, up till very recently (~1-2 months ago) there was a flaw in ALL windows TCP stacks that lets an attacker simply execute code (Ok, in fairness, except for windows 2k, which it just crashed instead of ran code) which included vista. This bug has existed for many many years and just recently reported and fixed.
you think the 0day hacking groups havent known about this for many years? no, they do, and use it. Vista was out of the box vulnerable to having remote code executed simply by being on a network.
Ah, the standard assumption that the entire world is beholden to the US Constitution. How quaint.
Well, I was under the assumption that the article was going on about US tax laws, and US property tax. Which countries constitution should I be using?:}
(I've had a really really long night, and feels like I posted that a week ago, so forgive me if that assumption is wrong.)
I'm also extremely ill still, so won't put the usual length I do in my reply (Again, sorry.) At this point i just hope it is coherent;}
Viewed as an economic instrument, copyright should be strong enough to promote the creation and distribution of new works. If that means protections that last for a while after the author dies -- and there is a legitimate argument that copyright protection should last for a some time after the author's death for "young" works -- then so be it.
But copyright wasn't, and never was until very recently in history (not even 100 years ago, compared to thousands of years of civilization) an economic instrument.
Copyright also wasn't, never was, and to this day isn't about protecting artists, it is about control of ideas. I would also venture a guess that this will never change (as much as I hate absolutes) because copyright requires a government to make it exist, and governments exist to control, by definition. It is not in any governments best interest for their citizens to be self sustaining and be allowed to share ideas to move humanity in that direction. If that were to happen, government wouldn't need to exist.
Copyright in the past was always used by the kings to keep people from writing things about the king/country that they didn't like. Now, since the whole topic was about copyright in the US, lets get to that specifically. When the US started, we did not have copyright. In fact, we got all of what today is called 'IP', by just taking it from england (and other places too i'm sure) and telling them to fek off with their copyright laws. Not only was it better for society to not have them, but in fact the US would not have gotten started as a world power with them. Now that we are, of course it is in their interest to keep that power, and thus re-enforce copyright.
When the founding fathers put forth all their complaints and arguments why copyright should not be supported here, eventually it was decided, in the spirit of things, to make a form of copyright different and 'better' than everyone else.
This is where the quote from the constitution comes from. It is a deal struck between the citizens and the artists, through the government. If an artist wished to take advantage of this deal (aka, to copyright their work. this was NOT a requirement, let alone automatic like today) then there is a gain and a cost like any deal. The gain: a limited monopoly over certain rights, mainly the right for others to distribute copies of the work. The cost: at the end of that limited time, society gets that work to do with as they please.
The 'cost' part is how this promotes science and the useful arts. NOT by assuring those people will keep creating. That isnt needed. There will always be more people, and people will always create, even if that means just ONE thing created by every one person. The people will benefit simply on the fact that there will always be new people born and can create. To assume the only people that are worth protecting are the ones that have created before is silly.
Fast forward to very recently. The gain: you can demand money multiple times for one act, prevent society from using it to better itself, and assure income for your grandchildren. The cost: nothing
If you hired someone to build a house for you, and every year they came back to charge you for the work again (and their kids after those people die), AND all you get out of it is to live in a house that you still dont own after paying all this for it, y
Copyright is mostly just a way to make sure that work can be sold at a price more people can afford. I dont know which constitution you are reading from, but in the real one, it clearly states the purpose of copyright:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings.
I fail to see how locking a work of art away from the public domain for decades after the authors death, promotes science and useful arts, or matches 'for a limited time', in any way shape or form.
We can hope that when MS pulls their usual stunts, now that the LOC is dependant on it, the govt will seriously just revoke MS's IP rights to it, and if they dont comply with the LOC demands, revoke the microsoft corporation status.
They have the teeth, ability, and legal backing to do this. The only question is, do they have the balls to?
Why does anyone still shop at the iTunes Store for music if they want DRM-free songs? Just use Amazon. Why does anyone still shop at the iTunes Store for music if they want DRM-free songs? Just use BitTorrent.
You remembered the date fairly close. And for some support for all the anal replies about the specific dates:
XP officially came out in 2001, however there were 'liberated' versions floating around the warez groups of beta versions for a long while before the official release Plus, even I remember a number of XP themes released for the betas that were out years before the official release also.
* Not to imply you were using That;}
I didnt even bother looking up when OS X came out, cuz it doesnt at all matter. The OS X hype was out YEARS before OS X was, and you would have to be living under one of slashdots many rocks at the time to have misesd it:}
I can only imagine the fit NASA had when they found this out. Millions of dollars for what is now a giant hunk of metal. I sure hope they got something out of the project before transmission was cut off. Why hope, when you can read and know for sure?
but I don't see how it's possible for aquatic life to ever enter "the bronze age" since it's formidably difficult to light a fire under water... Yea, but just try telling that to the underwater volcanic vents!
What you are not realizing is that being in the military is like being in any other "on-call" position. Just like for a cop, or a firefighter, or what-have-you, you cannot count on being "off for the weekend". If that's a restriction that you can't handle, no one is forcing you to join up!:) This is true, I did not realize that.
Everyone is on call? I can understand the fighters needing to be on call. I can also see certain IT people needing to be (or at least taking turns.) But all of them? Especially these 'cyber warriors'?
It's not that i doubt you, i believe it. It's just a little surprising to me, especially after reading the list of pros vs cons way way up this threads chain to the GGGP or whatnot.
I think its safe to say that should be added to the 'con' list, especially if you arnt compensated extra for it like in the civilian world.
So who determines what measures fall under the vague umbrella of "reasonable management"? Sure, Comcast can't block applications, but if they slow throughput from said applications down to a crawl, it constitutes a de facto block. To be a true BOFH they should limit the traffic to about 50 bytes a second.
Slow enough to make it useless, but not so slow as it appears totally 100% broken
Remember the proposal of several years ago to have **EVERY** storage device check, at the harware level, if the bits it was copying were not copyrighted? To be honest, no I dont remember that.
A couple google searches did not return anything related. If you happen to have any links handy, that would be awesome.
However, despite how boneheaded such a thing appears to you and me, we can easily make them happy. I can tell you right now if the bits going through the HD are copyrighted or not, without any hardware modifications!
For US law: Yes For countries copying US copyright laws: Yes For all other sane countries: No
In the US, all works is copyrighted once it is created. Even if you take into account fair use and other exemptions, those exemptions can only possibly apply to copyrighted works, so they are still copyrighted. Music from a CD you bought? Still copyrighted, even if you have permission to use it. Music you made yourself? Also copyrighted, despite what permission you give to others.
Just remember kids, in the eyes of the RIAA and the politions they bought off, there is no differencce between unauthorized copyright violation, and authorized ones (As shown by their actions)
Sorta. If you're on a private network sending a 4Gig ISO (or other large file/files) why do you need the data to be encrypted? Encrypting credentials is sufficient. Exactly. As long as you can trust (or at worse, assume) your LAN is secure. Much easier to do on a home network where it is either just you, or you and family. A rather safe assumption to make if your client machines and 'servers' are secured from eachother, limiting the potential damage from an infected wi^H^H^H client machine.
THe main use I see is that the scp command is damn handy compared to most any other command line method of transfering files. Especially so with RSA/DSA keys. As far as people that use GUIs go, generally samba (or your native file sharing protocol of choice) is plenty good enough, and it doesnt get easier than drag&drop in a GUI.
Now that would be an interesting benchmark. SCP using the NONE cipher, compared to things like NFS, samba, appletalk (or whatever they use these days as native in OSX) etc, and then speeds for a direct netcat thrown in. I'd venture a guess that samba would still have more overhead, but I wonder about NFS, and would like to see this compared to netcat speeds.
Slashdot Mirror
Same reason yahoo calls their version of the game Literati, despite being identical to scrabble in every other way.
What would you suggest?
It has been said:
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty. In order, those boxes are: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo."
We have all complained, had walks and protests, and decried our leaders for their actions. Soap, check.
Ever since the voting machines have full ability to take our input, and provide whatever a corporate CEO desires as output. Ballot, check.
Since our current leaders have changed the laws in ways so a jury can not change them back, or throw them out of power, and as things stand the embargo is legal, imprisoning the majority of the population for harmless things (Like having a plant), torture is legal, etc... Jury, check.
We are at #4, but unfortunately our government has more guns, more powerful ones, and more people brainwashed to use them on their side.
While it could be argued that at least trying is still the best idea, after all one cant rule over a country of corpses... But not enough people are willing to die for it. And while I would gladly die for the end result, I have serious doubts if our small minority that agrees would have any effect in the short or long term in doing so.
Ford: Frankly, I've never felt voting to be all that essential to the process.
Nixon: No kidding, Ford.
No, I doubt renaming a hardware protocol someone else made has introduced any new design defects
One can do the same thing to a computer WITHOUT firewire, given the exact same conditions.
Thus, its not an additional vulnerability. It is however a problem, because most people assume (incorrectly) one has to disassemble a computer to do this, which has never been the case, and base their physical security on the modal 'Well if it doesn't look fishy, it's OK'
If it was a windows machine, and you have the ability to touch the computer and insert something into it, you don't need firewire, a CD or modified USB flash drive with an autorun.ini will do. And if you can modify some hardware to use this exploit in a firewire device, you can also get your hands on a USB flash drive configured to show up not as a removable HD but as a CDROM, thus autorun.ini will work.
There was a big stink over USB that can allow autorun, and the general advice if you cant/wont provide physical security was to disable the USB ports. Now firewire is proven to be in the same group.
The only new bit here is this works on more than windows, so people that thought autorun was not an issue due to choice of OS, or OS configuration, and dont/wont provide any physical security preventing this, now have a new problem.
"I am dead." would be false, and thus perjury.
"The government stated I am legally dead." is truth, thus perfectly OK.
To put the funny back, yea all the way up to the legal aspect of things, I too would use the phrase "I'm dead!" just because that is simply hilarious
It is extremely simple, and those 4,5,6 or more hours can be spent actually accomplishing his goals, instead of wasted on the phone with the company.
Situation 1)
He calls once, states the fact he has proof of the downtime, quotes from his service level agreement contract where the provider states how much compensation is due for that amount of downtime, and requests compensation once.
If the answer back is anything other than a 'Yes sir, right away!' then you state 'Goodbye, you will be hearing from my attorney', hangup, and take them to court over it.
The judge will take one look at the contract the provider agreed to, and force the provider to pay that amount, plus legal fees, and maybe even damages for not honoring their contract if the provider is being an obvious dick and trying to get out of what they agreed to.
In the end, you are only out the time it takes to call an attorney and possibly a few hours in court, easily totaling the same 4-6 hrs wasted on the phone before.
Situation 2)
He has no SLA contract, thus is not entitled to any compensation at all for the downtime, and really needs the provider to press harassment charges against him.
I strongly suspect situation 2 is the case here, but only have past experience to base this on, which of course has nothing to do with this case specifically.
However if situation 1 is indeed happening, relay my advice to him, cuz he is currently doing it wrong.
Of course it would have to go to the beneficiary listed. Who gets the money isn't important, whats important is they have to pay out that money.
And how can it be insurance fraud when you have government backed documentation proving everything you said is true?
If anyone is committing fraud by issuing false statements, its the social security department, although i believe to count as fraud, you have to knowingly make false statements, which despite you telling them they are wrong, they can still claim (computers don't lie after all.)
http://www.thinkgeek.com/electronics/video/a29b/?cpg=68H
I can't find the link for it now, but I have seen a pair that also let you look 'through' them to see whats in front of you as well.
The above glasses just need a small camera mounted to the front for the same effect, so possible with todays tech just not quite at a production/commercial level right now.
Oh, and yea sorry, no neural interfaces yet
Whitelists
You add the addresses of the few people you do want to get email from, then everyone else gets rejected, since everyone else falls under the group of 'unsolicited'.
If you don't run your own mail server, then you might have to shop/look around for an email provider that supports this, but they defiantly exist. It's just not popular because very few people want to receive NO unsolicited email at all.
If grandma unexpectedly changes her email address or ISP, they don't mind when she emails from her new address, and don't mind that she didn't phone ahead first before emailing, etc etc.
However, I would also never ever mail that NES anywhere without the expectation that it will be lost forever. If it had any problems, I would buy a new one. The new one would be acceptable to mail in for repair, but not the signed collector one.
Yes, MS fucked up big time for lying to this poor guy.
However, while I wont go as far as to say he deserved it, he obviously did not care enough about his valued collector item to take care of it properly.
This is just how it goes when you turn something into a collectors item like that.
While MS deserves pretty much all of the blame for lying (claiming they could and would return the exact same unit intact) when that was not a promise they could keep, I just hope the guy turns this around into a positive and learns to take better care of his belongings.
For the standard slashdot car example:
There are a lot of people out there that enjoy buying older historic cars, restoring them, and possibly taking them to shows and what not.
However the ones that care about their investment do not drive that historic car around all the time like it was their only vehicle. Doing so puts needless extra wear on it, which lowers its over all value.
Now, by your own admission and logic, you would be totally ok with the nightly news showing your name and face and what you allegedly did.
As an added bonus, you also say you are fine with this following you around forever.
Might as well not even have a trial for you either, since forever extends past the trial, past when I can't prove my statement at all, and past you even proving you did not do it!
Once/if this kid is convicted in court for this crime, I doubt anyone would care that this fact is posted on websites or the news.
It hasn't yet. Don't pretend the law never gets the wrong person on accident.
Do you see the error of your ways yet?
However, I assumed you meant what you said quoted up there, the main reason to upgrade from XP to Vista was security. Or at least by 'earlier OS's' you meant earlier versions of Windows.
And sure, valid point that would be!
But OS X is definitely not more secure than Vista. Standard Linux consumer distros are not either. LOL
First off, so mods wont get 'facts' confused with 'troll', i need to post this url at the top:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS08-001.mspx
This will be explained nearly towards the bottom of this post alot better, however is proof your statement is false in a black&white binary world. If you are interested in real world facts where it isnt so clear cut, read on...
An OS that ships with zero services facing the internet (or LAN for that matter, since there is little difference outside of Windows World) is about 100% secure. No version of windows since 3.11 (IE any one with a tcp stack built in) has passed here, and still does.
'But then you add services' you say. Sure, ok. Failure again!
First, we should make the distinction between vender apps and 3rd party apps acting as services. We do this cuz it wouldnt be fair to blame MS for Joe Blows 'super secure internet cursors package' that connects to a remote server plaintext with no auth and executes a list of commands in a file.
Technically all linux services are 3rd party. However, lets bend the rule in windows favor here, and count the 'main' services included in almost all linux distros as not-3rd party (despite the fact they are), such as openssh, apache, bind, etc.
More linux services out of the box have been secure than windows ones, and for the linux ones that have had problems, they have been announced and patched/fixed generally in the time span one sleeps or goes to work in. Windows security bugs are usually swept under the rug and hidden from public view for at least a week, more commonly a month, and in a few rare extreams for years. (See below for proof)
So thats 16-24 HOURS to a fix for opensource apps, and whenever next tuesday rolls around for Windows (IE up to 7 days if the hole is major sever and reported minutes or an hour after patch tuesday just hit.)
Now lets hit the OSX part. You are more correct there, but still not really.
OSX out of the box is by defiinition FAR more secure than vista. Open OSX services: 0, Open vista services: >1
What that means is vista has potential holes that are out there, and wont be reported to us for months (standard MS track record) and wont be fixed till next tuesday (1-7 days), and there is a non 0% chance that disabling that windows services is not possible (no matter how small), which is not the case in OSX.
So, that leaves OSX local exploits compared to vista, and 3rd party introduced ones. In that area I dont know. So i'll give you that just cuz I also dont care to know. easy points, and perfectly plausible to be true.
Apple has had its cases of delaying fixes and trying to hide security issues that don't fall in their opensource components.
Hell, up till very recently (~1-2 months ago) there was a flaw in ALL windows TCP stacks that lets an attacker simply execute code (Ok, in fairness, except for windows 2k, which it just crashed instead of ran code) which included vista.
This bug has existed for many many years and just recently reported and fixed.
you think the 0day hacking groups havent known about this for many years? no, they do, and use it.
Vista was out of the box vulnerable to having remote code executed simply by being on a network.
BTW, here it is from MS's own knowledge base
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS08-001.mspx
Ah, the standard assumption that the entire world is beholden to the US Constitution. How quaint.
Well, I was under the assumption that the article was going on about US tax laws, and US property tax. :}
;}
Which countries constitution should I be using?
(I've had a really really long night, and feels like I posted that a week ago, so forgive me if that assumption is wrong.)
I'm also extremely ill still, so won't put the usual length I do in my reply (Again, sorry.) At this point i just hope it is coherent
Viewed as an economic instrument, copyright should be strong enough to promote the creation and distribution of new works. If that means protections that last for a while after the author dies -- and there is a legitimate argument that copyright protection should last for a some time after the author's death for "young" works -- then so be it.
But copyright wasn't, and never was until very recently in history (not even 100 years ago, compared to thousands of years of civilization) an economic instrument.
Copyright also wasn't, never was, and to this day isn't about protecting artists, it is about control of ideas.
I would also venture a guess that this will never change (as much as I hate absolutes) because copyright requires a government to make it exist, and governments exist to control, by definition. It is not in any governments best interest for their citizens to be self sustaining and be allowed to share ideas to move humanity in that direction. If that were to happen, government wouldn't need to exist.
Copyright in the past was always used by the kings to keep people from writing things about the king/country that they didn't like.
Now, since the whole topic was about copyright in the US, lets get to that specifically.
When the US started, we did not have copyright. In fact, we got all of what today is called 'IP', by just taking it from england (and other places too i'm sure) and telling them to fek off with their copyright laws.
Not only was it better for society to not have them, but in fact the US would not have gotten started as a world power with them.
Now that we are, of course it is in their interest to keep that power, and thus re-enforce copyright.
When the founding fathers put forth all their complaints and arguments why copyright should not be supported here, eventually it was decided, in the spirit of things, to make a form of copyright different and 'better' than everyone else.
This is where the quote from the constitution comes from.
It is a deal struck between the citizens and the artists, through the government.
If an artist wished to take advantage of this deal (aka, to copyright their work. this was NOT a requirement, let alone automatic like today) then there is a gain and a cost like any deal.
The gain: a limited monopoly over certain rights, mainly the right for others to distribute copies of the work.
The cost: at the end of that limited time, society gets that work to do with as they please.
The 'cost' part is how this promotes science and the useful arts. NOT by assuring those people will keep creating. That isnt needed. There will always be more people, and people will always create, even if that means just ONE thing created by every one person.
The people will benefit simply on the fact that there will always be new people born and can create.
To assume the only people that are worth protecting are the ones that have created before is silly.
Fast forward to very recently.
The gain: you can demand money multiple times for one act, prevent society from using it to better itself, and assure income for your grandchildren.
The cost: nothing
If you hired someone to build a house for you, and every year they came back to charge you for the work again (and their kids after those people die), AND all you get out of it is to live in a house that you still dont own after paying all this for it, y
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings.
I fail to see how locking a work of art away from the public domain for decades after the authors death, promotes science and useful arts, or matches 'for a limited time', in any way shape or form.
We can hope that when MS pulls their usual stunts, now that the LOC is dependant on it, the govt will seriously just revoke MS's IP rights to it, and if they dont comply with the LOC demands, revoke the microsoft corporation status.
They have the teeth, ability, and legal backing to do this.
The only question is, do they have the balls to?
There, fixed that for you.
You remembered the date fairly close.
;}
:}
And for some support for all the anal replies about the specific dates:
XP officially came out in 2001, however there were 'liberated' versions floating around the warez groups of beta versions for a long while before the official release
Plus, even I remember a number of XP themes released for the betas that were out years before the official release also.
* Not to imply you were using That
I didnt even bother looking up when OS X came out, cuz it doesnt at all matter.
The OS X hype was out YEARS before OS X was, and you would have to be living under one of slashdots many rocks at the time to have misesd it
Oh, wait, slashdot... my bad, carry on
Everyone is on call?
I can understand the fighters needing to be on call.
I can also see certain IT people needing to be (or at least taking turns.)
But all of them? Especially these 'cyber warriors'?
It's not that i doubt you, i believe it.
It's just a little surprising to me, especially after reading the list of pros vs cons way way up this threads chain to the GGGP or whatnot.
I think its safe to say that should be added to the 'con' list, especially if you arnt compensated extra for it like in the civilian world.
Thanks for the tidbit btw
Slow enough to make it useless, but not so slow as it appears totally 100% broken
>:)
A couple google searches did not return anything related. If you happen to have any links handy, that would be awesome.
However, despite how boneheaded such a thing appears to you and me, we can easily make them happy.
I can tell you right now if the bits going through the HD are copyrighted or not, without any hardware modifications!
For US law: Yes
For countries copying US copyright laws: Yes
For all other sane countries: No
In the US, all works is copyrighted once it is created. Even if you take into account fair use and other exemptions, those exemptions can only possibly apply to copyrighted works, so they are still copyrighted.
Music from a CD you bought? Still copyrighted, even if you have permission to use it.
Music you made yourself? Also copyrighted, despite what permission you give to others.
Just remember kids, in the eyes of the RIAA and the politions they bought off, there is no differencce between unauthorized copyright violation, and authorized ones (As shown by their actions)
Much easier to do on a home network where it is either just you, or you and family.
A rather safe assumption to make if your client machines and 'servers' are secured from eachother, limiting the potential damage from an infected wi^H^H^H client machine.
THe main use I see is that the scp command is damn handy compared to most any other command line method of transfering files. Especially so with RSA/DSA keys.
As far as people that use GUIs go, generally samba (or your native file sharing protocol of choice) is plenty good enough, and it doesnt get easier than drag&drop in a GUI.
Now that would be an interesting benchmark. SCP using the NONE cipher, compared to things like NFS, samba, appletalk (or whatever they use these days as native in OSX) etc, and then speeds for a direct netcat thrown in.
I'd venture a guess that samba would still have more overhead, but I wonder about NFS, and would like to see this compared to netcat speeds.