A program for the linux side that can do this automatically, and gives you a nice multi-user web config page (Each user can have a seperate user/pass and only access backups of their machines, or just one user with access to all if its just you) that uses samba for windows and ssh for unix backups.
Ok, here's a positive reply. Ive started on this very thing myself, using firewire however.
Unfortunatly I started getting all sorts of ideas and tacked them on, and now 'cheapie' is out of the question.
I built a system with 4 firewire buses just for disks. I also chose not to power the disks from the firewire bus (explained bellow why)
The master plan is to have 6 firewire buses (two groups of three, and they only had dual bus cards, thus why i have 4 ports now.. One is not used yet, and will be used with the 3rd dual fw card i do not yet have) These three buses connect to firewire hubs. Then, you connect three disks per hub.
Now is the confusing part. On bus A, you have 3 disks. These are disk A from 3 different raid-5 groups. Bus B has 3 disks which are disk B of the same raid-5 groups. and so on for C.
Then you setup a raid 5 group out of just those 3 disks. Which in this case gives me 3 groups, and with the 3rd firewire card (bus 5 and 6) this concept will double.
Then you use LVM to link all of the raid-5 groups together into one big volume.
Reasonings:
If any one firewire bus failed (or was unplugged) only ONE disk from each raid-5 group is offline. Raid-5 can survive this.
I dont use power over firewire because a) the PCs supply can not handle all of that, and b) I now have 3 power supplys, each one chained to the disks in the same order as the firewire buses. This way if a power supply failed, it only takes down one disk per raid-5 group, and again raid can survive that.
Firewire is multi-host (IE you can have more than one host controller on the same bus) so with two computers on the bus, doing heartbeat monitoring over a serial link between them, if a computer failed, the other can pick up the disks on the bus and continue file serving.
Using LVM to link the raid 5 groups together means after i start getting disk failures 4-5 years down the road (well, hopefully that long) and it starts to get hard/expensive to find disks of the size i am currently using, I can move the data off the raid-5 group to unused space, and decomition that group. Then it can be pulled off the bus, and replaced with current newer disks which ideally will be much higher capasity, without replacing ALL the disks in my array (as would be the case with a single raid-5 array of all the disks) Then you recycle the failing disk, and have two disks spare to use for other machines (IE a mirror to boot a new machine off of, spare single disks, etc)
Some links you may find interesting:
- http://www.fwdepot.com/ Best source of firewire controllers, bridgeboards (firewire -> IDE, firewire -> scsi, usb->ide, enclosures, clamshells you mentioned, etc etc)
- http://evms.sourceforge.net/ EVMS = Enterprise Volume Management System. Linux software that lets you manage raid, lvm, clustering, etc all from a server setup. Comes with cli, curses, and X11 interfaces. Not quite 100% there yet, and still has a couple problems for enterprise use, but almost all of them are related to the 2.4 kernel and promised to be fixed when 2.6 is out/stable (and in the past month very well could have been, i havent been keeping up)
(Please please dont slashdot my poor little file server here! If anyone would like to mirror, its ok with me. This is a p2 200 and will die if more than a few peope hit it at once)
- http://photo.brokensphere.net/index.cgi?mode=view& album=home/fileserver
(Watch for slashdot injected spaces!) This is pictures of some of the parts at the start of my project. Havent added new picts yet, nor had much time to work on it. These picts show the disks all on one bus and interlinked, which is not good for speed, but I was just testing the EVMS software at the time.
In the end, I plan to make my own case, which may be a sheet of half-inch think wood screwed into a wall, with disks hanging on it as so their tops face out, and a plexigl
> How does identifying the local subnet help you tell corporate traffic from > non-corporate traffic? A company may have dozens or hundreds of subnets and > there's nothing to say that a user automatically shouldn't be able to access a > service located on a machine a few offices away.
Thats why i said: "Then of course you can go in and change this filter if needed, just like now."
Fucking tard.. try reading what I said before telling us something isnt in there.
So to fucking _AGAIN_ answer your question: "How does identifying the local subnet help you tell corporate traffic from on-corporate traffic?"
IT DOSENT
Its just a HELL of a lot of a better default option than 'Lets allow anything to connect by default'
I guess you would PREFER to leave RPC open to the world? Brilliant idea there buddy. Its people like you that allow these worms to spread.
The other option being closing the port all togehter, thus removing its functionality totally. Dont think that would be a good idea either, as that would make windows about as hard to use as linux, and although some may argue this is a good thing, it would not be as popular as is it without that edge.
> Tell me, in precise detail, how Microsoft is supposed to expose the RPC service > to the local corporate network (where it is not "useless" by any means) but not > expose the same service to "the internet". On a single network card.
[snip] > How Microsoft is supposed to magically know what those corporate systems are > during installation, of course, is a pesky minor detail that we don't like to > mention on/.
Well, us in the networking field have this little number called a netmask. A netmask lets you tell which bits in your IP address represent the network number, and which represent the node number.
Then you have an IP called the Default Gateway.
The way it works is, if you are sending or recieving from an IP address that shares the exact same number in the network number side of the IP address, its called "In the same subnet" and you simply send it over the wire using ARP.
If the network number parts do not match, its called "Not in your subnet" and you send the packet to your Default Gateway IP address, in hopes that the router/machine there will know what to do with it.
So, one would imagine a good sane default setting for filters would be to deny traffic to a service if the packet came from a network that is not your subnet.
Then of course you can go in and change this filter if needed, just like now.
But its a much better default than allowing traffic from just anywhere.
> When I invent and patent something, somebody can damn well pay me what I will > lose for them distributing my idea for free.
If that is your opinion, then copyright is not the law you want to use to protect your works. You need to look into some other option.
If you copyright a work, you have made an agreement with the government that your work is garenteed to be given to the public domain after a short time, no matter if you like it or not.
So if you really dont want it to get out ever, dont use copyright, thats the wrong law for you.
> But no matter what you tell them, they refuse to put down their precious script > and accept that maybe, just maybe, I'm not running windows
In most locations atleast (My city for sure) road runner specifically states they only support Windows and nothing else.
They say you can USE any OS, but they only SUPPORT windows.
If that was the case, it is your fault for calling them. Its like calling ford to ask a question about your chevy, knowing ford has nothing to do with chevys but assuming because they both are cars that ford can help you.
If you arnt running windows, dont call a technical support line for windows. Duh!
At an ISP I used to work for, after that customers first two lines, we were allowed to return:
"I'm sorry sir, being an Internet Provider we are only authorized to provide technical support for your internet connection. It is outside of our scope to provide support for Windows or your Computer itself. I would suggest contacting [insert contact info for either the local computer hardware shop, or the local 'basic classes' at MicroCenter, depending on the problem.]"
If they did not know what a desktop was or how to right click, we would out right tell them we will not explain how to use a computer, they need to learn that elsewhere or have someone else call who knows and can be in front of their computer, or they could bring the computer out to our offices if they desired.
Only once or twice (out of hundreds upon hundreds) of times we did this did any customer get pissed off for us basically calling them stupid. And trust me, those arnt the type of people you want as a customer anyway, so your better off with them canceling and going to your competition to cost them man hours;)
> You are smoking a joint, so you support terrorism, correct? "Directly at fault" I > would say...
If my dealer was a terrorist, then yea. But no dealer i know is a terrorist.. They are usually just some dude that likes to smoke to the point they buy in bulk and wanna make a buck on the side.
Maybe higher up dealers have that problem, but I dont know, I never met one.
If i knew a dealer i bought drugs from turned around and bought guns to do war shit with, then no, i would not buy from that person.
You seem to miss the point of direct and indirect in your example.
> So, dissy, tell me, do you take upon yourself all the sins of corporations the > products of which you use?
Yes. I have actually purchased windows XP. I supported MS and all of the evil things they do with my money from that purchase. Hey, sorry.
I cant think of anything else I have purchased from a company that does direct evil things, or atleast they hide those evil things from me purposly so i dont know and base any choice off of it.
The person in question in the parent post can not claim ignorance, as he was bitching about the fact they were on spamblocks, so its obvious there was a spam issue there at some point.
Also 'evil' is very different person to person. There are things i do not concider evil that im sure you do, that if you whipped out as examples, i would simply disagree with.
> I'm annoyed with spam-blocking lists because my range of IPs has been > blacklisted, even though I'm totally innocent.
You are giving money to an ISP that is spam friendly. You are directly at fault for them being in business still. You are not at all innocent.
Change ISPs. Tell your current ISP why you are changing. Give your money to an ISP that actually cares about the spam problem, and isnt itself the spam problem.
The blame falls not just on the spammers, but the people that keep spammers in business.
>> Your creativity has not been hurt one bit by the fact that Mickey cannot be used >> commercially by non-Disney entities
> (nothing to add...just quoting that because some idiot moderated down as a troll)
It was modded down as a troll because there is no 'stupid' or 'wrong' option to moderate it as.
If that statement was true, then yes, there would be no problem But in reality, you will get your ass sued away if you use it comercial or not. As a matter of fact, if he drew a picture of the image in his dream, he would not only be breaking the law to do so, but could be sued for it.
That is what copyright has done. And that is why it is stumbling creativity.
I sure as hell know I would like to have the RIGHT to draw a picture of a scene I saw in my own dream. To hell with you and anyone that thinks otherwise.
Notice you did not see companys doing this before the DMCA? There is an unfortunate reason.
Under normal copyright law pre-DMCA, if you copyrighted a work, and did something that prevents it from EVER hitting the public domain as they are now doing, i DO have a legal right to break that copy protection. If you got sued for ensuring the company followed the law (honored their copyright aggreement) you could counter sue, which i even believe has happened before, and why companys stopped doing it.
Unfortunatly with the DMCA's little encryption bit, you cant counter sue because its now a fellony and a totally seperate issue.
I say we start sending massive counter suits to all companys that use DRM. If they are claiming copyright, we own their work eventually, and are suing to assure they do just that. If they dont want to remove the DRM to ensure we can, they should (but im sure wont) lose copyright protection that very second.
Now we just need a few million dollars to get started...:(
> Simply modding your PS2 and coding for it is illegal in the eyes of Sony, > Nintendo, and Microsoft. You need licenses.
Fortunatly in the US, this doesnt matter for most of those companys. Due to first sale laws on the hardware, you can do anything you want with it and any part of it that is not under copyright.
And even the parts under copyright you can do alot with, you just cant distribute them. So claiming a BIOS is copyrighted is fine, you just cant give out the BIOS code. You can still USE it. You can even change it to your hearts content, you just cant give out the new code, or arguably the changed code. A patch file (a difference between the old and new) is OK. Half the code in a diff file is copyrighted by you. The other half is indeed copyright by them, but has always fallen under fair-use laws because the small snippits are only used for context, and can not be used in and of themselfs for any other purpose except finding context in the origonal. Of course, you also cant USE this patch file unless you too have a licence to the BIOS, but as long as you bought your PS2 or whatever console, you do.
That is why companys try adding encryption. The only console that its currently illegal to program for is the xbox, and only under the dmca laws due to encryption for accessing the system.
Of course breaking encryption to read the game media is illegal, but this is only if you dont own the copyright on the media. If you write your own software, and its yours, you own the copyright. You are allowed to encrypt your data as needed by the console to play it, AND decrypt it again if you so choose because you are the copyright owner.
Sony has no more right to tell you what you can and cant run on your property than Intel can tell you what you use your new p4 for.
Well, I cant answer that. But in response to your examples, I think the point at which it will be concidered different enough to be treated differently is when the replacement whatever is Better than the natural part.
The only example you give so far is fake breast implants. And they do cause problems. There are people Very aginst them, and others that think their life is worthless without them involved (Both cases go for male and female)
When you get a part that mimics a natural part, noone things much of it at all.
When you get a part that is worse (IE a current tech robotic arm, or atleast of the tech I have last seen, which was very not advanced), this isnt concidered anything more than 'lessining a handycap'
A hearing aid is not feared because either you dont get full hearing back, or its basically the same as if you do. But, what happens when you can hear Better than others?
If you could hear a whisper on the other side of the house, or a conversation down the street, and others knew you could do this, you WOULD be feared and treated differently.
Now, what happens when we get to the point where a replacement arm has joints and servos/whatever that are Stronger than a humans of the same size? Still cant lift cars, as that requires body frame support.. But imagine if you could shake someones hand and totally crush it. Or better, pickup a brick and crush that! People will fear that replacement. No matter what the reason for getting it, be it you lost your real arm in a horible accident, or you chose to have it replaced.
I think once you have a part replaced that is better than the human part, to the extent people fear it, those people that fear you will concider you different, and might possibly name that difference 'cyborg'
> He now owns something that a person (or group of people) produced
No, he doesnt. Nor would he if he had bought the CD. You dont own music in this day and age unless you are an indy band or the RIAA.
> (...) and expected payment for.
Actually they already got paid by the RIAA to make that work. Payment is taken care of as far as the creator (or group of creators) are concerned.
> He didn't pay for it.
Clearly his post says he DID pay for it, and he was forced into returning it as a defective product.
> (...) Therefore has prevented the creators from receiving the money they are > due. He has stolen directly from them.
Actually he hasnt done that either. They creators are not at all allowed to legally sell their work. THey do not own it either you see. They sold that work to the RIAA. The RIAA owns it now.
If the creator of the music tried to sell or even give away the song, they would be sued as well, not just for copyright voilation (Its the RIAAs copyright that the creator of the song is voilating) but also for contract breaches.
> Your tired argument, which pirates have been using since C-64 games were > copied with dual-tape deck stereos, doesn't work.
Oh? I fail to see how if a C-64 software creator released software that DIDNT WORK WITH A C-64, you fixing it yourself so you can use it is a 'tired argument'
Actually back in the C-64 days, when a user fixed a software companys broken program for them, they were thanked for helping.
> Try to convince a jury downloading something that people are expected to > purchase isn't theft. You'll never do it.
Concidering the odds are 9 out of the 12 on that jury use p2p, I dont think the odds are too aginst you. The trick is getting it to a jury in the first place, concidering copyright is generally not taken to that level of the legal system. As a matter of fact, its generally not even taken TO the legal system, which is why its still illegal to download songs you bought the CD for and people like you still dont understand why that is a good thing.
That one had me confused as well. The First Amendment says the government can not stop you from speaking out aginst the government.
If the government isnt the ones stopping the spam from getting to you, it does not voilate the amendment. Anyone else can do so.
Additionally, the government CAN stop spam from reaching their own staff (IE their own mail server can use spam filters) as long as that mail server ONLY serves the workers and noone else.
The only way the first amendment is involved is if a non government related person attempts to say something to another non government related person, and a government related person steps in to prevent that from happening.
This is the main reason its so hard to pass a federal law to stop spam. Spam can NOT be defined as a type of email for them to outlaw it. They have to define it in another way that relates to an already criminal act.
This is why in some states (not nearly enough), it is already illegal to forge headers or use misleading subject lines.
But this is the only thing the first amendment prevents, is a law aginst spam directly. Doesnt prevent anyone else from stopping it.
> No, we should withdraw all the A-class networks that are unnecessarily allocated > to US companies.
Why dont we just allocate the 1.3rd of our A classes that arnt assigned?
OH, thats right, people want everythng for free and wont pay for it.
So, instead of paying for IP space that is unused, youd rather see used and paid for Ip space being yanked away from companys to be given away for free id imagine to the people bitching and whining that we are out of IPs.
> You do not understand the arrogance of McBride and his brethren. He has > claimed in interviews that all of Linux, and every other UNIX clone, is a > derivative of UNIX, whether the code was developed from scratch or not. He > even hinted that Windows was not immune to this, that the license bought by > Microsoft did not protect them from being sued for violating SCO rights > concerning UNIX.
Yea, but he can claim copyright to sunlight too and it doesnt make it any more true in a court of law:)
If they had any basis for this, we would have seen it. Ford would have sued all other car makers for making cars, as they own the copyright on cars. Authors would sue others for having a book with the same plot line. All music would go away, after all, your rock song is based off my rock song, and the first song has a copyright on rock music.
Copyright doesnt apply to basic concepts. Only to very specific cases of those concepts.
If they won, not just the american way of life is over as we know it (Nothing new will be allowed to be created, because its all based off previous work.. that is how technology works) but the entire world economy will fail for a short time, as we sue and press charges aginst every other country there is until the US is finally shunned as a world power and we are ignored.
This will _never_ be allowed to happen. Bush would come right up and tell the courts to fuck right the hell off if they even tried.
But the point is, copyright law does not give ANYONE the right to do what they are claiming over at SCO.
If you wrote some code, and copyrighted it, and i stole that code, you can ONLY tell me to not distribute it. As a matter of fact, i am perfectly within the bounds of copyright law to take your copyrighted work and use it however i see fit, as long as it never leaves my hands. You have no say so over the matter. They would legally (and in all cases in the past) side with me.
Copyright prevents the distribution of others works. The only right they have (assuming they are correct) is they can say 'noone has the right to distribute our code' And as I said, the problem would be fixed by replacing that code, or just removing it all together. Then they have no legal right to say anything.
They have no legal right to charge for linux, and are activly breaking the law by distributing it in binary only form without the source, even IF they win their dispute aginst IBM.
Think of it this way. Band B steals some lyrics from Band A. Does this give the world the right to steal all of Band B's music because their copyrights are somehow invalid now? No. Nor does SCO have any right to invalidate the copyright of thousands of developers who have copyrighted code in the kernel as well, whom are licencing it under GPL. SCO owns their little part. Nothing more. Any any more that they take is copyright-voilation (Or theft as p2p haters like to call it)
> If they own the copyrights to SysV code then they can enforce them as they see > fit.
True, but...
> If they can prove that Linux infringes upon those copyrights, then they will be > able to charge for its use.
Linux can not possibly infringe. It was made from scratch.
This is like saying "Well, the makers of the Terminator movie have a copyright on that movie, so they can sue anyone that makes any story that even resembles a plot where robots take over the world."
That isnt how copyright works, even in copyrights current fucked up state.
Ford can not sue Chevy for designing 'a car' Intel cant sue apple for making 'a computer'
Copyrights are very specific. Linux is NOT SysV in any way/shape/form. Linux was made from scratch.
The only possibly questionabe action is that IBM added code to Linux that they shouldnt have. They broke a contract. The fight is between IBM and SCO.
The _ONLY_ right SCO has using copyright of code is to demand you do not distribute it. With Linux, this can EASILY be done by removing the code and replacing it.
That is the extent of the effect this could have over Linux. Any and all damages caused are directly and soley IBMs fault, and they alone will pay for it if found guilty.
> In summary: if you don't like your politicians getting tons of money (kickbacks, > or just campaign funds) then stop voting for them.
This has already happened. Did you notice that only 40% of the able-to-vote population voted in the last election?
All of the politicians on the ballot are trying ot get in to give kickbacks to themselfs and large companys. Not a single one wasnt. So if you dont vote for the politicians you dont want, you end up not voting for anyone at all.
I am sorry to say you are wrong, this is obviously not the solution. Unlike as you suggest, we need to keep voting. But to fix the problem, we need politicians to vote for that will be on our side and not sell our rights away out from under us.
Just to share my experence, I purchased a used HP 4mv used for almost $400 about 6 years ago (That was a good price 6 years ago) and a brand new toner cart which was $100 or so. Gave it to one of my parents who has never once changed the toner cart on it, and it prints off roughly 200 pages a month every month for her billings, plus a few random pages here and there. Text still comes out crisp and black, and it shows no signs of needing new toner anytime soon. The things are built like tanks.
Unfortunatly, I can confirm the horidness of the new R&S shows. I am a huge fan of the show. I literally have every single show on VHS tape (Working on encoding them to mpeg) from Nick when they were on in 1991-93.
I tivo'ed the three new shows, but could only stand to watch half of 'onward and upward', the first of the new series.
There was a huge breakup between the origonal writter and the 'new' writters after the first season, and it hasnt been the same since. Atleast in 1992 when they took the show away from John K, they made more shows out of greed and wanted the show to make them more money. Of course they failed because the writters sucked and totally missed the point. My theroy is they are only bringing the show back to ruin it publically and embarass John K.
Its not even a matter of 'growing up' either, as I pulled out the first season and rewatched a few shows to make sure I still found it funny, which I do. These new releases really are that bad.
I am probably going to keep the new shows, simply so i can continue to say i have all of them in my collection, but I will never allow the new ones to be played around me again.
I'm sorry to be the rain on your parade, but I can honestly say seeing the new shows has ruined my love for R&S. I just dont want to see the same fate become of others. Keep the good memorys:)
So instead you power cycle the laptop, hold down S durring boot to enter single user mode. At this point you do technically have root, although without a GUI.
Change target accounts password, reboot, login.
If you have a password set in openfirmware to prevent single user mode boots, I have to zap the pram 3 times and the password is gone.
Granted this is a whole lot harder than breaking the screen saver, but still, any computer someone can get physical access to is not secure under any conditions.
> That's exactly what he's talking about. If you're on 192.168.1.0/24, you've got > up to 256 addresses to choose from for spoofing./me smaks you in the forehead:P
If you have a/24, its yours! You cant spoof any addresses in it because they are all your addresses. They all trace back throuh your ISP to you. That does no good in p2p anymore than using clients correctly right now.
Most people also dont have a subnet of IPs, they have one. There is nothing to choose from for 'spoofing'
Slashdot Mirror
A program for the linux side that can do this automatically, and gives you a nice multi-user web config page (Each user can have a seperate user/pass and only access backups of their machines, or just one user with access to all if its just you) that uses samba for windows and ssh for unix backups.
http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Ok, here's a positive reply.
Ive started on this very thing myself, using firewire however.
Unfortunatly I started getting all sorts of ideas and tacked them on, and now 'cheapie' is out of the question.
I built a system with 4 firewire buses just for disks.
I also chose not to power the disks from the firewire bus (explained bellow why)
The master plan is to have 6 firewire buses (two groups of three, and they only had dual bus cards, thus why i have 4 ports now.. One is not used yet, and will be used with the 3rd dual fw card i do not yet have)
These three buses connect to firewire hubs.
Then, you connect three disks per hub.
Now is the confusing part.
On bus A, you have 3 disks. These are disk A from 3 different raid-5 groups.
Bus B has 3 disks which are disk B of the same raid-5 groups. and so on for C.
Then you setup a raid 5 group out of just those 3 disks. Which in this case gives me 3 groups, and with the 3rd firewire card (bus 5 and 6) this concept will double.
Then you use LVM to link all of the raid-5 groups together into one big volume.
Reasonings:
If any one firewire bus failed (or was unplugged) only ONE disk from each raid-5 group is offline. Raid-5 can survive this.
I dont use power over firewire because a) the PCs supply can not handle all of that, and b) I now have 3 power supplys, each one chained to the disks in the same order as the firewire buses. This way if a power supply failed, it only takes down one disk per raid-5 group, and again raid can survive that.
Firewire is multi-host (IE you can have more than one host controller on the same bus) so with two computers on the bus, doing heartbeat monitoring over a serial link between them, if a computer failed, the other can pick up the disks on the bus and continue file serving.
Using LVM to link the raid 5 groups together means after i start getting disk failures 4-5 years down the road (well, hopefully that long) and it starts to get hard/expensive to find disks of the size i am currently using, I can move the data off the raid-5 group to unused space, and decomition that group. Then it can be pulled off the bus, and replaced with current newer disks which ideally will be much higher capasity, without replacing ALL the disks in my array (as would be the case with a single raid-5 array of all the disks)
Then you recycle the failing disk, and have two disks spare to use for other machines (IE a mirror to boot a new machine off of, spare single disks, etc)
Some links you may find interesting:
- http://www.fwdepot.com/
Best source of firewire controllers, bridgeboards (firewire -> IDE, firewire -> scsi, usb->ide, enclosures, clamshells you mentioned, etc etc)
- http://evms.sourceforge.net/
EVMS = Enterprise Volume Management System. Linux software that lets you manage raid, lvm, clustering, etc all from a server setup. Comes with cli, curses, and X11 interfaces. Not quite 100% there yet, and still has a couple problems for enterprise use, but almost all of them are related to the 2.4 kernel and promised to be fixed when 2.6 is out/stable (and in the past month very well could have been, i havent been keeping up)
(Please please dont slashdot my poor little file server here!
If anyone would like to mirror, its ok with me. This is a p2 200 and will die if more than a few peope hit it at once)
- http://photo.brokensphere.net/index.cgi?mode=view& album=home/fileserver
(Watch for slashdot injected spaces!)
This is pictures of some of the parts at the start of my project.
Havent added new picts yet, nor had much time to work on it.
These picts show the disks all on one bus and interlinked, which is not good for speed, but I was just testing the EVMS software at the time.
In the end, I plan to make my own case, which may be a sheet of half-inch think wood screwed into a wall, with disks hanging on it as so their tops face out, and a plexigl
> How does identifying the local subnet help you tell corporate traffic from
> non-corporate traffic? A company may have dozens or hundreds of subnets and
> there's nothing to say that a user automatically shouldn't be able to access a
> service located on a machine a few offices away.
Thats why i said:
"Then of course you can go in and change this filter if needed, just like now."
Fucking tard.. try reading what I said before telling us something isnt in there.
So to fucking _AGAIN_ answer your question:
"How does identifying the local subnet help you tell corporate traffic from on-corporate traffic?"
IT DOSENT
Its just a HELL of a lot of a better default option than 'Lets allow anything to connect by default'
I guess you would PREFER to leave RPC open to the world? Brilliant idea there buddy. Its people like you that allow these worms to spread.
The other option being closing the port all togehter, thus removing its functionality totally.
Dont think that would be a good idea either, as that would make windows about as hard to use as linux, and although some may argue this is a good thing, it would not be as popular as is it without that edge.
> Tell me, in precise detail, how Microsoft is supposed to expose the RPC service /.
> to the local corporate network (where it is not "useless" by any means) but not
> expose the same service to "the internet". On a single network card.
[snip]
> How Microsoft is supposed to magically know what those corporate systems are
> during installation, of course, is a pesky minor detail that we don't like to
> mention on
Well, us in the networking field have this little number called a netmask.
A netmask lets you tell which bits in your IP address represent the network number, and which represent the node number.
Then you have an IP called the Default Gateway.
The way it works is, if you are sending or recieving from an IP address that shares the exact same number in the network number side of the IP address, its called "In the same subnet" and you simply send it over the wire using ARP.
If the network number parts do not match, its called "Not in your subnet" and you send the packet to your Default Gateway IP address, in hopes that the router/machine there will know what to do with it.
So, one would imagine a good sane default setting for filters would be to deny traffic to a service if the packet came from a network that is not your subnet.
Then of course you can go in and change this filter if needed, just like now.
But its a much better default than allowing traffic from just anywhere.
> When I invent and patent something, somebody can damn well pay me what I will
> lose for them distributing my idea for free.
If that is your opinion, then copyright is not the law you want to use to protect your works. You need to look into some other option.
If you copyright a work, you have made an agreement with the government that your work is garenteed to be given to the public domain after a short time, no matter if you like it or not.
So if you really dont want it to get out ever, dont use copyright, thats the wrong law for you.
> But no matter what you tell them, they refuse to put down their precious script
> and accept that maybe, just maybe, I'm not running windows
In most locations atleast (My city for sure) road runner specifically states they only support Windows and nothing else.
They say you can USE any OS, but they only SUPPORT windows.
If that was the case, it is your fault for calling them.
Its like calling ford to ask a question about your chevy, knowing ford has nothing to do with chevys but assuming because they both are cars that ford can help you.
If you arnt running windows, dont call a technical support line for windows.
Duh!
At an ISP I used to work for, after that customers first two lines, we were allowed to return:
;)
"I'm sorry sir, being an Internet Provider we are only authorized to provide technical support for your internet connection. It is outside of our scope to provide support for Windows or your Computer itself. I would suggest contacting [insert contact info for either the local computer hardware shop, or the local 'basic classes' at MicroCenter, depending on the problem.]"
If they did not know what a desktop was or how to right click, we would out right tell them we will not explain how to use a computer, they need to learn that elsewhere or have someone else call who knows and can be in front of their computer, or they could bring the computer out to our offices if they desired.
Only once or twice (out of hundreds upon hundreds) of times we did this did any customer get pissed off for us basically calling them stupid.
And trust me, those arnt the type of people you want as a customer anyway, so your better off with them canceling and going to your competition to cost them man hours
> You are smoking a joint, so you support terrorism, correct? "Directly at fault" I
:)
> would say...
If my dealer was a terrorist, then yea.
But no dealer i know is a terrorist.. They are usually just some dude that likes to smoke to the point they buy in bulk and wanna make a buck on the side.
Maybe higher up dealers have that problem, but I dont know, I never met one.
If i knew a dealer i bought drugs from turned around and bought guns to do war shit with, then no, i would not buy from that person.
You seem to miss the point of direct and indirect in your example.
> So, dissy, tell me, do you take upon yourself all the sins of corporations the
> products of which you use?
Yes.
I have actually purchased windows XP.
I supported MS and all of the evil things they do with my money from that purchase.
Hey, sorry.
I cant think of anything else I have purchased from a company that does direct evil things, or atleast they hide those evil things from me purposly so i dont know and base any choice off of it.
The person in question in the parent post can not claim ignorance, as he was bitching about the fact they were on spamblocks, so its obvious there was a spam issue there at some point.
Also 'evil' is very different person to person.
There are things i do not concider evil that im sure you do, that if you whipped out as examples, i would simply disagree with.
Hey, atleast im honest about the MS thing thou
> I'm annoyed with spam-blocking lists because my range of IPs has been
> blacklisted, even though I'm totally innocent.
You are giving money to an ISP that is spam friendly.
You are directly at fault for them being in business still.
You are not at all innocent.
Change ISPs. Tell your current ISP why you are changing.
Give your money to an ISP that actually cares about the spam problem, and isnt itself the spam problem.
The blame falls not just on the spammers, but the people that keep spammers in business.
>> Your creativity has not been hurt one bit by the fact that Mickey cannot be used
>> commercially by non-Disney entities
> (nothing to add...just quoting that because some idiot moderated down as a troll)
It was modded down as a troll because there is no 'stupid' or 'wrong' option to moderate it as.
If that statement was true, then yes, there would be no problem
But in reality, you will get your ass sued away if you use it comercial or not.
As a matter of fact, if he drew a picture of the image in his dream, he would not only be breaking the law to do so, but could be sued for it.
That is what copyright has done.
And that is why it is stumbling creativity.
I sure as hell know I would like to have the RIGHT to draw a picture of a scene I saw in my own dream. To hell with you and anyone that thinks otherwise.
Notice you did not see companys doing this before the DMCA?
:(
There is an unfortunate reason.
Under normal copyright law pre-DMCA, if you copyrighted a work, and did something that prevents it from EVER hitting the public domain as they are now doing, i DO have a legal right to break that copy protection.
If you got sued for ensuring the company followed the law (honored their copyright aggreement) you could counter sue, which i even believe has happened before, and why companys stopped doing it.
Unfortunatly with the DMCA's little encryption bit, you cant counter sue because its now a fellony and a totally seperate issue.
I say we start sending massive counter suits to all companys that use DRM.
If they are claiming copyright, we own their work eventually, and are suing to assure they do just that. If they dont want to remove the DRM to ensure we can, they should (but im sure wont) lose copyright protection that very second.
Now we just need a few million dollars to get started...
> Simply modding your PS2 and coding for it is illegal in the eyes of Sony,
> Nintendo, and Microsoft. You need licenses.
Fortunatly in the US, this doesnt matter for most of those companys.
Due to first sale laws on the hardware, you can do anything you want with it and any part of it that is not under copyright.
And even the parts under copyright you can do alot with, you just cant distribute them. So claiming a BIOS is copyrighted is fine, you just cant give out the BIOS code. You can still USE it. You can even change it to your hearts content, you just cant give out the new code, or arguably the changed code. A patch file (a difference between the old and new) is OK.
Half the code in a diff file is copyrighted by you. The other half is indeed copyright by them, but has always fallen under fair-use laws because the small snippits are only used for context, and can not be used in and of themselfs for any other purpose except finding context in the origonal.
Of course, you also cant USE this patch file unless you too have a licence to the BIOS, but as long as you bought your PS2 or whatever console, you do.
That is why companys try adding encryption. The only console that its currently illegal to program for is the xbox, and only under the dmca laws due to encryption for accessing the system.
Of course breaking encryption to read the game media is illegal, but this is only if you dont own the copyright on the media.
If you write your own software, and its yours, you own the copyright. You are allowed to encrypt your data as needed by the console to play it, AND decrypt it again if you so choose because you are the copyright owner.
Sony has no more right to tell you what you can and cant run on your property than Intel can tell you what you use your new p4 for.
> When is a person a cyborb?
Well, I cant answer that. But in response to your examples, I think the point at which it will be concidered different enough to be treated differently is when the replacement whatever is Better than the natural part.
The only example you give so far is fake breast implants.
And they do cause problems. There are people Very aginst them, and others that think their life is worthless without them involved (Both cases go for male and female)
When you get a part that mimics a natural part, noone things much of it at all.
When you get a part that is worse (IE a current tech robotic arm, or atleast of the tech I have last seen, which was very not advanced), this isnt concidered anything more than 'lessining a handycap'
A hearing aid is not feared because either you dont get full hearing back, or its basically the same as if you do.
But, what happens when you can hear Better than others?
If you could hear a whisper on the other side of the house, or a conversation down the street, and others knew you could do this, you WOULD be feared and treated differently.
Now, what happens when we get to the point where a replacement arm has joints and servos/whatever that are Stronger than a humans of the same size?
Still cant lift cars, as that requires body frame support.. But imagine if you could shake someones hand and totally crush it. Or better, pickup a brick and crush that!
People will fear that replacement. No matter what the reason for getting it, be it you lost your real arm in a horible accident, or you chose to have it replaced.
I think once you have a part replaced that is better than the human part, to the extent people fear it, those people that fear you will concider you different, and might possibly name that difference 'cyborg'
> He now owns something that a person (or group of people) produced
No, he doesnt. Nor would he if he had bought the CD.
You dont own music in this day and age unless you are an indy band or the RIAA.
> (...) and expected payment for.
Actually they already got paid by the RIAA to make that work.
Payment is taken care of as far as the creator (or group of creators) are concerned.
> He didn't pay for it.
Clearly his post says he DID pay for it, and he was forced into returning it as a defective product.
> (...) Therefore has prevented the creators from receiving the money they are
> due. He has stolen directly from them.
Actually he hasnt done that either.
They creators are not at all allowed to legally sell their work. THey do not own it either you see. They sold that work to the RIAA. The RIAA owns it now.
If the creator of the music tried to sell or even give away the song, they would be sued as well, not just for copyright voilation (Its the RIAAs copyright that the creator of the song is voilating) but also for contract breaches.
> Your tired argument, which pirates have been using since C-64 games were
> copied with dual-tape deck stereos, doesn't work.
Oh? I fail to see how if a C-64 software creator released software that DIDNT WORK WITH A C-64, you fixing it yourself so you can use it is a 'tired argument'
Actually back in the C-64 days, when a user fixed a software companys broken program for them, they were thanked for helping.
> Try to convince a jury downloading something that people are expected to
> purchase isn't theft. You'll never do it.
Concidering the odds are 9 out of the 12 on that jury use p2p, I dont think the odds are too aginst you.
The trick is getting it to a jury in the first place, concidering copyright is generally not taken to that level of the legal system.
As a matter of fact, its generally not even taken TO the legal system, which is why its still illegal to download songs you bought the CD for and people like you still dont understand why that is a good thing.
That one had me confused as well.
The First Amendment says the government can not stop you from speaking out aginst the government.
If the government isnt the ones stopping the spam from getting to you, it does not voilate the amendment.
Anyone else can do so.
Additionally, the government CAN stop spam from reaching their own staff (IE their own mail server can use spam filters) as long as that mail server ONLY serves the workers and noone else.
The only way the first amendment is involved is if a non government related person attempts to say something to another non government related person, and a government related person steps in to prevent that from happening.
This is the main reason its so hard to pass a federal law to stop spam.
Spam can NOT be defined as a type of email for them to outlaw it.
They have to define it in another way that relates to an already criminal act.
This is why in some states (not nearly enough), it is already illegal to forge headers or use misleading subject lines.
But this is the only thing the first amendment prevents, is a law aginst spam directly. Doesnt prevent anyone else from stopping it.
A /20 from ARIN (4096 IPs) costs $2500/year.
This comes down to $0.61 / IP / Year.
You are willing to pay about 20x that (Monthly vs Yearly as well)
That is how much IP space costs. That is what Universitys pay as well as large companys.
This is also what it would cost YOU or anyone else.
So, what are you talking about again?
The problem isnt that we are running out of IPs.
/8 costs what?!?!? No way are we paying for that. We will just bitch an moan that we have no IPs of our own!"
Its that people dont want to PAY for IPs.
Pretty big difference.
"A
Then people assume we are out of them, because no company wants to look cheap.
Stupidity at its finest.
> No, we should withdraw all the A-class networks that are unnecessarily allocated
> to US companies.
Why dont we just allocate the 1.3rd of our A classes that arnt assigned?
OH, thats right, people want everythng for free and wont pay for it.
So, instead of paying for IP space that is unused, youd rather see used and paid for Ip space being yanked away from companys to be given away for free id imagine to the people bitching and whining that we are out of IPs.
Great plan there comrad!
> You do not understand the arrogance of McBride and his brethren. He has
:)
> claimed in interviews that all of Linux, and every other UNIX clone, is a
> derivative of UNIX, whether the code was developed from scratch or not. He
> even hinted that Windows was not immune to this, that the license bought by
> Microsoft did not protect them from being sued for violating SCO rights
> concerning UNIX.
Yea, but he can claim copyright to sunlight too and it doesnt make it any more true in a court of law
If they had any basis for this, we would have seen it.
Ford would have sued all other car makers for making cars, as they own the copyright on cars.
Authors would sue others for having a book with the same plot line.
All music would go away, after all, your rock song is based off my rock song, and the first song has a copyright on rock music.
Copyright doesnt apply to basic concepts.
Only to very specific cases of those concepts.
If they won, not just the american way of life is over as we know it (Nothing new will be allowed to be created, because its all based off previous work.. that is how technology works) but the entire world economy will fail for a short time, as we sue and press charges aginst every other country there is until the US is finally shunned as a world power and we are ignored.
This will _never_ be allowed to happen.
Bush would come right up and tell the courts to fuck right the hell off if they even tried.
But the point is, copyright law does not give ANYONE the right to do what they are claiming over at SCO.
If you wrote some code, and copyrighted it, and i stole that code, you can ONLY tell me to not distribute it.
As a matter of fact, i am perfectly within the bounds of copyright law to take your copyrighted work and use it however i see fit, as long as it never leaves my hands. You have no say so over the matter. They would legally (and in all cases in the past) side with me.
Copyright prevents the distribution of others works.
The only right they have (assuming they are correct) is they can say 'noone has the right to distribute our code'
And as I said, the problem would be fixed by replacing that code, or just removing it all together. Then they have no legal right to say anything.
They have no legal right to charge for linux, and are activly breaking the law by distributing it in binary only form without the source, even IF they win their dispute aginst IBM.
Think of it this way.
Band B steals some lyrics from Band A.
Does this give the world the right to steal all of Band B's music because their copyrights are somehow invalid now?
No.
Nor does SCO have any right to invalidate the copyright of thousands of developers who have copyrighted code in the kernel as well, whom are licencing it under GPL.
SCO owns their little part. Nothing more. Any any more that they take is copyright-voilation (Or theft as p2p haters like to call it)
> If they own the copyrights to SysV code then they can enforce them as they see
> fit.
True, but...
> If they can prove that Linux infringes upon those copyrights, then they will be
> able to charge for its use.
Linux can not possibly infringe. It was made from scratch.
This is like saying "Well, the makers of the Terminator movie have a copyright on that movie, so they can sue anyone that makes any story that even resembles a plot where robots take over the world."
That isnt how copyright works, even in copyrights current fucked up state.
Ford can not sue Chevy for designing 'a car'
Intel cant sue apple for making 'a computer'
Copyrights are very specific. Linux is NOT SysV in any way/shape/form. Linux was made from scratch.
The only possibly questionabe action is that IBM added code to Linux that they shouldnt have. They broke a contract. The fight is between IBM and SCO.
The _ONLY_ right SCO has using copyright of code is to demand you do not distribute it.
With Linux, this can EASILY be done by removing the code and replacing it.
That is the extent of the effect this could have over Linux.
Any and all damages caused are directly and soley IBMs fault, and they alone will pay for it if found guilty.
> In summary: if you don't like your politicians getting tons of money (kickbacks,
> or just campaign funds) then stop voting for them.
This has already happened.
Did you notice that only 40% of the able-to-vote population voted in the last election?
All of the politicians on the ballot are trying ot get in to give kickbacks to themselfs and large companys. Not a single one wasnt.
So if you dont vote for the politicians you dont want, you end up not voting for anyone at all.
I am sorry to say you are wrong, this is obviously not the solution.
Unlike as you suggest, we need to keep voting. But to fix the problem, we need politicians to vote for that will be on our side and not sell our rights away out from under us.
Just to share my experence, I purchased a used HP 4mv used for almost $400 about 6 years ago (That was a good price 6 years ago) and a brand new toner cart which was $100 or so.
Gave it to one of my parents who has never once changed the toner cart on it, and it prints off roughly 200 pages a month every month for her billings, plus a few random pages here and there.
Text still comes out crisp and black, and it shows no signs of needing new toner anytime soon.
The things are built like tanks.
Unfortunatly, I can confirm the horidness of the new R&S shows.
:)
I am a huge fan of the show. I literally have every single show on VHS tape (Working on encoding them to mpeg) from Nick when they were on in 1991-93.
I tivo'ed the three new shows, but could only stand to watch half of 'onward and upward', the first of the new series.
There was a huge breakup between the origonal writter and the 'new' writters after the first season, and it hasnt been the same since. Atleast in 1992 when they took the show away from John K, they made more shows out of greed and wanted the show to make them more money. Of course they failed because the writters sucked and totally missed the point. My theroy is they are only bringing the show back to ruin it publically and embarass John K.
Its not even a matter of 'growing up' either, as I pulled out the first season and rewatched a few shows to make sure I still found it funny, which I do.
These new releases really are that bad.
I am probably going to keep the new shows, simply so i can continue to say i have all of them in my collection, but I will never allow the new ones to be played around me again.
I'm sorry to be the rain on your parade, but I can honestly say seeing the new shows has ruined my love for R&S. I just dont want to see the same fate become of others. Keep the good memorys
I dont really see this as that much of a problem.
So instead you power cycle the laptop, hold down S durring boot to enter single user mode.
At this point you do technically have root, although without a GUI.
Change target accounts password, reboot, login.
If you have a password set in openfirmware to prevent single user mode boots, I have to zap the pram 3 times and the password is gone.
Granted this is a whole lot harder than breaking the screen saver, but still, any computer someone can get physical access to is not secure under any conditions.
> That's exactly what he's talking about. If you're on 192.168.1.0/24, you've got /me smaks you in the forehead :P
/24, its yours! You cant spoof any addresses in it because they are all your addresses. They all trace back throuh your ISP to you. That does no good in p2p anymore than using clients correctly right now.
> up to 256 addresses to choose from for spoofing.
If you have a
Most people also dont have a subnet of IPs, they have one. There is nothing to choose from for 'spoofing'