A publication will be classified as refused if, in the opinion of the Minister, the publication ....
(c) describes or depicts, in a manner that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult ...
(vi) an Act or matter that the Minister has determined, having regard to the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults, is contrary to the public interest.
Yes, that does mean that a single member of Parliament can arbitrarily ban a publication. No process of appeal beyond that minister, no guaranteed right to speech.
Ever heard of a Sierra game called Seventh Guest? That's illegal here. Heck, even Dreamweb's illegal here. They had to publish a modified (censored) version of Duke Nukem 3D here because the original was classed as 'obscene' and refused classification. I think the Nine Inch Nails Broken video is banned as well, but I confess I'm not sure.
Another little beauty is contained in the Police Act:
54A. Disorderly assembly
(1) A disorderly assembly is an assembly of 3 or more persons who assemble in such a manner or who so conduct themselves when they are assembled as to give persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly reasonable grounds to apprehend that the persons so assembled (a) will disturb the peace .... (3) Any member of a disorderly assembly who, after being warned by a member of the Police Force to disperse immediately and go peaceably to his home or his lawful business, neglects or refuses to do so, commits an offence.
What this particular law means that if there's a group of more than two people and the authorities believe that they may "disturb the peace," they can order you to leave. In 1979, two union officials were arrested at a worker's rally for the simple crime of expressing a sentiment that pissed the government off.
All sorts of wonderful little things along these lines are buried in West Australian law. For instance, far from having a guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure, police have the right to conduct a full stripsearch of any person on the street. All they have to do is 'suspect' that the person is carrying illicit items, such as drugs, weapons or aerosol cans (you can get done if someone suspects you're a graffiti monkey over here). The grounds for this 'suspicion' need not ever be stated or justified.
And just to think, the national album Australia's children are trained to sing praises us as "young and free." Personally, I think it's disgusting.
.. because I'm not a citizen of the United States of America.
I don't pay taxes to the US government; they have no jurisdiction over me, and hence no obligations to me either on either moral or legal grounds. So why they might choose to make their resources (say, a Library of Congress USENET archive) available to me as a courtesy, such a 'right' to their newsgroup archives would be even more tenuous than the relationship between me and a company providing archive access to customers. (Be the customers paying fees, or viewing ads, or whatever).
So if the archive ever did go to the Library of Congress, I would encourage them to make the archive available for high-profile mirroring; if the National Library of Australia had a copy I'd feel a lot better.
In the words of the person sitting next to me in the theatre... "he looks like a muppet."
Actually, to me he looked like a slimlined version of Morn from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Whatever you think he looked like, it certainly paled in comparison to the mental images the book conjured.. iirc on paper Verger was almost completely bedridden (no hooning around on that wheelchair), had a face that resembled a rare steak and had something set up to constantly drip, to keep his eyes moist.
Is there a guide to writing for old browsers out there, while sticking to standards?
For instance, I hear IE3.0 claims to support CSS1, but a lot of CSS breaks it. And browser blah version 5.2 is in common use and is ok, except this HTML 4 element breaks it...
It seems that some of these older browsers will happily support a 'subset' of HTML4 (or XHTML for that matter) and CSS1, so has anyone written a guide to this minefield? I'd like to be able to validate a page as HTML and know that if it's valid by the standards, and avoids list of tags we know break older stuff then it'll work on IE 3.0. I'm not a web designer by any means, but I knock up the occasional page, so while I'm willing to put in a bit of effort to do this I don't have the time or inclination to do my own research regarding rendering on the old browsers.
By the way, the last page I did was my timetable for this year. Anyone in a non-IE/Mozilla (the two browsers I check in, both recent versions) care to flame me down if it doesn't work in their browser?
I think my second-last paragraph addresses your concern... OpenSSH was derived from the original SSH according to it's license, and uses the SSH protocol. What does he expect people to call it?
I've been slow to reply in this thread because I believe over top-level posts have said all I'd have to say anyway, but just to sum up, I think that using the term "SSH" in the name of a product that interoperates with computers using SSH is fair enough. I don't think it's confusingly similar at all (the Open is there for a reason). By allowing SSH to permeate the industry as a command name, and the name of a protocol (basically a noun - see this post), and leaving all of the products called *SSH* alone up to now, the trademark's already been diluted. Legal claims in the small print aside, I don't think he can fairly claim exclusive rights to *SSH*.
All of these documents are published on the IETF website. All of these documents cite Mr. Ylonen as an author. And all of these documents describe the SSH protocol. Not the "secsh" protocol - they consistantly refer to the discussed protocol as "SSH."
It's clear that "SSH" is the common name for the protocol that OpenSSH uses. Furthermore, by putting his name on a standards document that doesn't refer to the protocol by another name, surely he's endorsing this common use of "SSH"? And surely by publishing an open standard that in itself makes no claim to the name (I don't see the documents referring to the "SSH (R)" protocol), he should be relinquishing all exclusive rights to the name as a means of describing the protocol?
I don't see how OpenSSH could be construed to be deceptive in any way. It's derived from the original SSH in accordance with it's license, and interoperates with other computers using the SSH protocol. To turn around now and claim it's trademark violation which deceives the consumer, is analogous to Microsoft saying that "Word Viewer" is a trademark violation. Actually, it's closer to the Regents of the University of California accusing FreeBSD of trademark violation.
At best, it doesn't make sense. At worse, it's a deliberate and deceitful attempt to stab the people that are using the protocol (whose name he gave his blessing!) in the back.
Its flamebait because you were starting an OS war thread instead of discussing Korn shell issues.
The title of the article is Ask David Korn About ksh And More. Korn has a lot of experience with the internals of both, and trying to get the different philosophies to cooperate with each other under one OS. Seems like a fair question directed to the perfect person...
Never mind that Tucows have hardly substantiated their claims of "terrible flames." For all we know they could have got 1000 legitimate complaints, 80 trolls and not enough hits to justify keeping the site up.
Sure, they were providing a free service. A free service that shunted out a lot of negative criticism, and a lot of information that was just plain incorrect, to the general public. If you run a site on BSD, shouldn't you get at least one guy that's used BSD for longer than two weeks on board to write, or at least check most of the material?
I'm not sure what they're getting at with all their noise about "one BSD faction hollering when we fixed things according to another faction's instructions." I can't see BSD factions fighting over the OpenBSD link pointing to another BSD variant, and vica versa. Or a particular BSD variant being described as bare and featureless, no doubt without the reviewer even looking at the ports section. And he found the online crowds unhelpful.. gee, maybe he was asking stupid questions and should have RTFM? If you want support for BSD, you go buy BSDi, just like if you want support for Linux you go buy one of the boxed Redhats that costs 40 times as much as a burnt ISO image.
In any event, for the BSD community to show this 'lack of appreciation' for a free 'service' demonstrates only one thing.. that the community doesn't feel the need to prostitute itself for publicity. bsd.tucows.com didn't provide decent information and the entire concept of tucows for a platform with a well integrated ports collection (or Debian's apt... choose your poison) is pointless - it provides no benefit to the community whatsoever. (If you really wanted to find an application outside of the ports/apt/etc collection, go search freshmeat.) Why on earth should the BSD community feel obligated to give them the time of day?
.global main
.type main,@function
main:
pushl $14
pushl $msg
pushl $1
call write
addl $12, %esp
movl $0, %eax
ret
You see, there's no *need* to save and restore ebp if you're nice to the stack. Additionally, you could use a linux system call (via int 0x80) instead of calling libc's write function, but the use of main kind of ties us into a C infrastructure anyways and that would just break compatability on other x86 Unices.
Academic and Business users are, however, in a position of paying rather more for interet access than is really sane. Telstra and Optus C&W both charge about $0.17 per megabyte for inbound traffic, (yes, you heard right) something which deregulation should have put an end to. But Optus likes the money too. Things should change with the recent landing of the Southern Cross Network pacific fibre.
And thank God. The plan is that for now they'll get some of Optus' bandwidth on that pipe, and in the long term AARNet gets their own transcontinental bandwidth to play with.
AARNet (Australian Academic and Research Network)are doing some very, very cool stuff. For instance, most Aussie unis (four actually have it up and running) are implementing Voice-over-IP PABX gateways. So if someone at a university calls someone at another university, the call goes over AARNet's IP backbone rather than the public telephone network. Even cooler, if a uni in Melbourne calls a private residence in Sydney, it goes VoIP to a university in Sydney, through their PABX and to the house in Sydney, avoiding local call charges.
There is a pretty good Ian Foster article on Web-based computing clusters at the Nature site
None of these projects use the HTTP protocol, or hypertext in any form (let alone represented by HTML or one of it's variants.) So what on earth do they have to do with the web?
For things like PGP keys, you can issue a 'revocation certificate.' This is something that's generated from the private key and a user can look at it, look at your public key and see that indeed, you made the certificate and intend to say that "this key should no longer be used."
For all practical purposes, without the private key it's impossible to forge such a certificate, in the same way that it's practically impossible to go backwards from a public key to the private one (without the resources of, say, the NSA or distributed.net).
Given that with things like Windows and Flash, it seems inevietable that these programs are going to make contact with their makers occasionally (be it to check for updates, download banner ads, espionage or whatever), why not allow the parent site to send out a revocation certificate? If the software is designed to check for a certificate and refuse to function, then what might happen in this scenario is within the next few days, all Flash users receive a popup the next time they run Flash that says
Techniques with make this version of Flash extremely vulnerable to having it's security compromised, have become widespread public knowledge. This version of Flash will thus refuse to function from hereon. Click here to download a new version.
Given that this sort of thing will probably end up happening anyway for other reasons (ie forced obsolescence), why not put it to good use as well?
Slashdot Mirror
Humans: Greetings, we come in peace.
Dolphin: All your base are belong to us.
However, he is a part owner in id, so it's fair to assume he knows a bit about the business side of the game industry.
And I bet that even less than 12% have a computer with the horsepower necessary to play Q3A.
We do? WA's Censorship Act 1996 seems to disagree with you... please correct me if I'm wrong.
From the Censorship Act 1996 :
Yes, that does mean that a single member of Parliament can arbitrarily ban a publication. No process of appeal beyond that minister, no guaranteed right to speech.Ever heard of a Sierra game called Seventh Guest? That's illegal here. Heck, even Dreamweb's illegal here. They had to publish a modified (censored) version of Duke Nukem 3D here because the original was classed as 'obscene' and refused classification. I think the Nine Inch Nails Broken video is banned as well, but I confess I'm not sure.
Another little beauty is contained in the Police Act:
What this particular law means that if there's a group of more than two people and the authorities believe that they may "disturb the peace," they can order you to leave. In 1979, two union officials were arrested at a worker's rally for the simple crime of expressing a sentiment that pissed the government off.All sorts of wonderful little things along these lines are buried in West Australian law. For instance, far from having a guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure, police have the right to conduct a full stripsearch of any person on the street. All they have to do is 'suspect' that the person is carrying illicit items, such as drugs, weapons or aerosol cans (you can get done if someone suspects you're a graffiti monkey over here). The grounds for this 'suspicion' need not ever be stated or justified.
And just to think, the national album Australia's children are trained to sing praises us as "young and free." Personally, I think it's disgusting.
I don't pay taxes to the US government; they have no jurisdiction over me, and hence no obligations to me either on either moral or legal grounds. So why they might choose to make their resources (say, a Library of Congress USENET archive) available to me as a courtesy, such a 'right' to their newsgroup archives would be even more tenuous than the relationship between me and a company providing archive access to customers. (Be the customers paying fees, or viewing ads, or whatever).
So if the archive ever did go to the Library of Congress, I would encourage them to make the archive available for high-profile mirroring; if the National Library of Australia had a copy I'd feel a lot better.
I think he might be thinking of Andrew Tridgell (Australian author of samba and rsync) and Linus Torvalds (Finnish author of Linux).
Actually, to me he looked like a slimlined version of Morn from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Whatever you think he looked like, it certainly paled in comparison to the mental images the book conjured.. iirc on paper Verger was almost completely bedridden (no hooning around on that wheelchair), had a face that resembled a rare steak and had something set up to constantly drip, to keep his eyes moist.
For instance, I hear IE3.0 claims to support CSS1, but a lot of CSS breaks it. And browser blah version 5.2 is in common use and is ok, except this HTML 4 element breaks it...
It seems that some of these older browsers will happily support a 'subset' of HTML4 (or XHTML for that matter) and CSS1, so has anyone written a guide to this minefield? I'd like to be able to validate a page as HTML and know that if it's valid by the standards, and avoids list of tags we know break older stuff then it'll work on IE 3.0. I'm not a web designer by any means, but I knock up the occasional page, so while I'm willing to put in a bit of effort to do this I don't have the time or inclination to do my own research regarding rendering on the old browsers.
By the way, the last page I did was my timetable for this year. Anyone in a non-IE/Mozilla (the two browsers I check in, both recent versions) care to flame me down if it doesn't work in their browser?
I've been slow to reply in this thread because I believe over top-level posts have said all I'd have to say anyway, but just to sum up, I think that using the term "SSH" in the name of a product that interoperates with computers using SSH is fair enough. I don't think it's confusingly similar at all (the Open is there for a reason). By allowing SSH to permeate the industry as a command name, and the name of a protocol (basically a noun - see this post), and leaving all of the products called *SSH* alone up to now, the trademark's already been diluted. Legal claims in the small print aside, I don't think he can fairly claim exclusive rights to *SSH*.
SSH Transport Layer Protocol (53476 bytes)
SSH Authentication Protocol (26537 bytes)
SSH Protocol Architecture (27345 bytes)
All of these documents are published on the IETF website. All of these documents cite Mr. Ylonen as an author. And all of these documents describe the SSH protocol. Not the "secsh" protocol - they consistantly refer to the discussed protocol as "SSH."
It's clear that "SSH" is the common name for the protocol that OpenSSH uses. Furthermore, by putting his name on a standards document that doesn't refer to the protocol by another name, surely he's endorsing this common use of "SSH"? And surely by publishing an open standard that in itself makes no claim to the name (I don't see the documents referring to the "SSH (R)" protocol), he should be relinquishing all exclusive rights to the name as a means of describing the protocol?
I don't see how OpenSSH could be construed to be deceptive in any way. It's derived from the original SSH in accordance with it's license, and interoperates with other computers using the SSH protocol. To turn around now and claim it's trademark violation which deceives the consumer, is analogous to Microsoft saying that "Word Viewer" is a trademark violation. Actually, it's closer to the Regents of the University of California accusing FreeBSD of trademark violation.
At best, it doesn't make sense. At worse, it's a deliberate and deceitful attempt to stab the people that are using the protocol (whose name he gave his blessing!) in the back.
But good luck playing digital content from RIAA companies on anything else.
*evil cackle*
Duh, I hear you say, but I had to visit helixcode.com to figure it out... just in case anyone else was wondering who the heck Ximian are :)
Did you know that Linux 2.4's memory management is based on FreeBSD's?
The title of the article is Ask David Korn About ksh And More . Korn has a lot of experience with the internals of both, and trying to get the different philosophies to cooperate with each other under one OS. Seems like a fair question directed to the perfect person...
Oh, look!
2001-01-18 15:53:37 Altavista wields search engine patents (articles,news) (rejected)
Oh well... :-)
Ummm.... we don't care. Market share doesn't concern us. We couldn't give two shits if joe blow is using BSD, Linux, Windows or CP/M.
Never mind that Tucows have hardly substantiated their claims of "terrible flames." For all we know they could have got 1000 legitimate complaints, 80 trolls and not enough hits to justify keeping the site up.
Sure, they were providing a free service. A free service that shunted out a lot of negative criticism, and a lot of information that was just plain incorrect, to the general public. If you run a site on BSD, shouldn't you get at least one guy that's used BSD for longer than two weeks on board to write, or at least check most of the material?
I'm not sure what they're getting at with all their noise about "one BSD faction hollering when we fixed things according to another faction's instructions." I can't see BSD factions fighting over the OpenBSD link pointing to another BSD variant, and vica versa. Or a particular BSD variant being described as bare and featureless, no doubt without the reviewer even looking at the ports section. And he found the online crowds unhelpful.. gee, maybe he was asking stupid questions and should have RTFM? If you want support for BSD, you go buy BSDi, just like if you want support for Linux you go buy one of the boxed Redhats that costs 40 times as much as a burnt ISO image.
In any event, for the BSD community to show this 'lack of appreciation' for a free 'service' demonstrates only one thing.. that the community doesn't feel the need to prostitute itself for publicity. bsd.tucows.com didn't provide decent information and the entire concept of tucows for a platform with a well integrated ports collection (or Debian's apt ... choose your poison) is pointless - it provides no benefit to the community whatsoever. (If you really wanted to find an application outside of the ports/apt/etc collection, go search freshmeat.) Why on earth should the BSD community feel obligated to give them the time of day?
Try this:
.string "Hello, world!\n"
.global main
.type main,@function
msg:
main:
pushl $14
pushl $msg
pushl $1
call write
addl $12, %esp
movl $0, %eax
ret
You see, there's no *need* to save and restore ebp if you're nice to the stack. Additionally, you could use a linux system call (via int 0x80) instead of calling libc's write function, but the use of main kind of ties us into a C infrastructure anyways and that would just break compatability on other x86 Unices.
What *would* be cool is if I could plug headphones into the Palm and have the text read to me.
And thank God. The plan is that for now they'll get some of Optus' bandwidth on that pipe, and in the long term AARNet gets their own transcontinental bandwidth to play with.
AARNet (Australian Academic and Research Network)are doing some very, very cool stuff. For instance, most Aussie unis (four actually have it up and running) are implementing Voice-over-IP PABX gateways. So if someone at a university calls someone at another university, the call goes over AARNet's IP backbone rather than the public telephone network. Even cooler, if a uni in Melbourne calls a private residence in Sydney, it goes VoIP to a university in Sydney, through their PABX and to the house in Sydney, avoiding local call charges.
http://www.aarnet.edu.au for the interested.
Now it's For the Artists. Yet another sticker they can throw on anything to force laws past the public's scrutiny, on seemingly moral grounds.
None of these projects use the HTTP protocol, or hypertext in any form (let alone represented by HTML or one of it's variants.) So what on earth do they have to do with the web?
For things like PGP keys, you can issue a 'revocation certificate.' This is something that's generated from the private key and a user can look at it, look at your public key and see that indeed, you made the certificate and intend to say that "this key should no longer be used."
For all practical purposes, without the private key it's impossible to forge such a certificate, in the same way that it's practically impossible to go backwards from a public key to the private one (without the resources of, say, the NSA or distributed.net).
Given that with things like Windows and Flash, it seems inevietable that these programs are going to make contact with their makers occasionally (be it to check for updates, download banner ads, espionage or whatever), why not allow the parent site to send out a revocation certificate? If the software is designed to check for a certificate and refuse to function, then what might happen in this scenario is within the next few days, all Flash users receive a popup the next time they run Flash that says
Given that this sort of thing will probably end up happening anyway for other reasons (ie forced obsolescence), why not put it to good use as well?So, anyone got some?