You've pretty much nailed it, however what you've almost entirely forgotten is that there have to be a whole load of film references embedded in people's names, place names, settings, vignetes, blocking, scenes, etc. so that the ultra-cool l33t film buffs can say "I particularly liked the Kurosawa-influenced bathing scene in the helicopter", "oh, yes, delightful, in particular with it raining inside at the time - pure Solaris!", "complete with the Ennio's soundtrack - classic!", "Indeed, he's a genius, and he cares so much for us real fans who appreciate all these details". Go suck a tailpipe, he's just recycling, that's all.
However, I did enjoy the first one *immensely*, and the second one *a lot*, but every subsequent one less than the previous. I've skipped a bunch, but Django was bollocks. Sorry, but it was pure unadulterated shite.
Where were they? They were working for the massive media conglomerates, presumably. (Some of which are documented here: http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart , but that's not an exhaustive list.)
That some people (such as those who dislike or fear the GPL, for example) may have put those two words in juxtaposition does not mean the concept means anything.
Oh, there wasn't any ad hominem. There was merely an insult, independent of my argument, which is merely an indication of how little respect I have for your ability to form cogent thoughts, and thus for you. You've not shifted me from that position one iota. Troll me no longer with your idiocy.
Is $200000 "lost" (using the same definition as the article) when 100000 people's mario characters get hit over the head by a barrel thrown by a giant kidnapping gorilla for the 20th time that evening?
And that happened *every night* back in the 80s.
You put money in, you play, then eventually, almost certainly, you lose. For some the losing is lots of small successive losses, for others it's the occasional big one. The nett result in the end is the same.
Close one eye. Look at the nearest wall you are close to the middle of. Now look at the corner of the ceiling at the left of that wall. Then follow the ceiling/wall interface to the right until you get to the top right corner of the wall. Now defocus and just try and take the whole into view. Move your head left and right if need be.
What you will have seen is - the ceiling dips down to the left - the ceiling bulges up to the middle - the ceiling dips down to the right - yet the ceiling is straight, a contradiction with the above three other things you have seen.
The human brain is *very* good at making *good sense* of sets of 3D clues which may confuse or even contradict in isolation. Even in the absense of binocular vision (which is why I asked you to close one eye at the start).
If the sum of all the 3D clues in the EVE image leave the viewer confused, then it's either deliberate optical trickery (which would be dumb), or far more likely, because it's not a believable or meaningful scene. 3D shoals, swarms, and flocks just don't behave that way.
Your questions (a) don't answer my questions; but worse, (b) don't even make sense - there is no "GPL community". What drugs are you on? Either take way fewer, or way more, please.
MS has no need to use underhand techniques to get into your system. The NSA probably does.
Someone from MS (probably MSR) once wrote a list of statements about security, one of which, if I can paraphrase sloppily, said "if your computer's running someone else's software, it's not your computer any more".
Given that, by definition, MS Windows PCs are running MS software, it's not your PC any more. Unless you turn of all kinds of updates that the system has, then one of the "essential" security updates could include a program which upon installation does absolutely anything that MS wants - change all your settings, install anything, remove anything, dick with your registry, your firewall, even play with your router settings, absolutely anything.
NOTA BENE: I've basically not touched a MS Windows system for about a decade and a half, I am almost entirely talking out of my arse when it comes to what MS updates actually do. However, I work in the field, and I know what should be possible (anything at all, no matter how innocent during installation that is executed without a sandbox is enough, anything that can cause arbitrary registry keys to be written to is enough, anthing that can drop executables into certain directories is enough), nothing is pure fantasy. MS can do *anything* with your system, as it's not your system, by their own admission it's theirs.
No there isn't - you are changing more than one parameter. Once the other parameters have been specified, you can't change them. And if you can't change the final parameter in isolation, then it's misleading to claim that you can arbitrarily select that parameter, which is what you have been doing.
Ahhh, the lack of recursive queries explains why tunnelling TCP over DNS doesn't work, and why this webpage doesn't explain how TCN-over-DNS works: http://analogbit.com/tcp-over-dns_howto
The "DNS servers you use" are the things that do the sneaking information in and out for you - that's their job.
However, maybe this time it's shouldn't be one that is patently embarassing in retrospect 60 years later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anticommunist_Literature_1950s.png
UNESCO? Education, science and culture - those infamous enemies of the US!
I think with what we know about the NSA being able to inject malware onto targets' systems, there's always plausible deniability about anything found on home machines. "The NSA put it there" is now unfalsifiable, and always can be used to plant reasonable doubt. Means, motive, what else do you need?
Thinking that you will be secure by putting bad domain names into your host file will tead to tears of failure because:
a) it's attempting to enumerate badness. There's always new badness, you can't enumerate it all. New badness can be created quicker than you can update your hosts file.
b) bad software can happily use a randomly or dynamically generated name which you cannot add to your hosts file, as it can't be known in advance, and may only be used once.
"Anything else is basically eating candy you found on the street."
Wow, that's the best description I've heard in a long time. It's 100% bang on. People like candy...
However, downloading the source means that you're trusting the compiler or the virtual machine that's running the code. OK, signed gcc straight from debian, that I trust (but there's no need to follow up with a Thompson Trusting Trust reference, I'm fully aware of the principle). But, to be honest, I don't trust the guys who are trying to push a java VM on me (at least one that will work with a program I was interested in running, but can do without).
> These things survive in Windows because users are forced to install everything from the untrusted web.
Deeper - they survive in Windows because users don't give a damn 99.9% of the time, and the only.1% of the time is the short period after a fatal infection, and is quickly forgotten. If you've worked in IT, you'll know that educating users is a futile goal. (As is trying to label all bad things with a "this is bad" label, which is stupidly what all anti-virus programs do.)
Ignore the summary, and *both* links, there's mangled illogic everywhere.
"You canâ€(TM)t find any suspicious behavior, entries in the system registry, communication or changes in application GUI." Apart from the suspicious behaviour and the communication, that is - duh!
If they can't describe what it does, they clearly don't understand what it does.
Just make sure you compare known hashes which you got from a secure (and trusted by you) server when you download binaries. Then this problem mostly disappears (unless the NSA wants in on the action).
Absolutely, side channels are everywhere if all you care about is small packets of data. You don't even need to "connect" to pass the data, as some things happen before the connection you'd think of filtering. Try resolving the domain name fatphil.hunter2.haxorsrus.ru., and when the DNS server for *.haxorsrus.ru. responds with a random address, you never need to connect to it on any port, the payload's been delivered already. You can't filter DNS without breaking way too much of the internet.
Thanks for the LeMONS reference, I've not heard of that before - sounds a scream. I know a bunch in the UK who'd be well up for an equivalent race there. I particularly liked "Endurance racing for $500 cars. It's not just an oxymoron; it's a breeding ground for morons."
Stop saying "up the voltage", it makes no sense. There is no such physical process as "upping the voltage" - if you want a different voltage, you have to change some other property too. At least be honest and mention all of the other things that also have to change.
Or you live in the UK, and you get your pictures processed at Boots Chemists. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/julia-somerville-defends-innocent-family-photos-1538516.html (there have been other cases too)
Well, we know there are plenty of guns from the sales figures. It's just that the ones with the guns seem to only care about defending the 2nd amendment, and not any other parts of the constitution. Which of course sets up a perfect progression for attacking US citizens' rights with the a classic "when they came for my rights, there was noone else to help me defend them" ending. The 2nd's purpose is to protect the 1st, the 4th, the 5th, and - strangely - all the rest of them right now whilst they're under attack!
What are you gibbering about? The GPL in *no* way restricts the original developers - they have every right not to use the GPL licence in their original code. Of course, they then restrict themselves in what other libraries they link to, but that's their choice.
Where does the middle-man's, the guy who wants to take GPL stuff and rebundle it with some tweaks and then not follow the GPL, sense of entitlement come from?
You're a stuck record, and you seem short of a few tracks.
> How about where a company sinks several person-years of effort into a library or software suite, then decides to open source it? If an external developer spends a few days fixing a bug, it would be nice if the company that footed most of the development cost could use that fix in their internal deployments. Only fair, right?
Fair, and supported equally[*] by both GPL and BSD licences.
> Now hopefully it makes sense why companies release mostly BSD software
Nope, because your previous paragraph mentioned nothing that was intrinsically-GPL-but-not-BSD or intrinsically-BSD-but-not-GPL.
[* 0 = 0. If anything, the GPL supports the return of the fix to those who paid the major development cost in more scenarios than BSB does. But that's in a conditional clause, and thus predicated on something that's not intrinsically true.]
Slashdot Mirror
You've pretty much nailed it, however what you've almost entirely forgotten is that there have to be a whole load of film references embedded in people's names, place names, settings, vignetes, blocking, scenes, etc. so that the ultra-cool l33t film buffs can say "I particularly liked the Kurosawa-influenced bathing scene in the helicopter", "oh, yes, delightful, in particular with it raining inside at the time - pure Solaris!", "complete with the Ennio's soundtrack - classic!", "Indeed, he's a genius, and he cares so much for us real fans who appreciate all these details". Go suck a tailpipe, he's just recycling, that's all.
However, I did enjoy the first one *immensely*, and the second one *a lot*, but every subsequent one less than the previous. I've skipped a bunch, but Django was bollocks. Sorry, but it was pure unadulterated shite.
Where were they? They were working for the massive media conglomerates, presumably. (Some of which are documented here: http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart , but that's not an exhaustive list.)
Is that gonna be the new goatse?
"Oh noes! I've just been tricked into grabing another bloody copy of Tarantino!"
And maybe you're a MAFIAA plant who needs more members of the public to trample?
Which it doesnt.
However, it does abet infringement.
[Citation needed]
That some people (such as those who dislike or fear the GPL, for example) may have put those two words in juxtaposition does not mean the concept means anything.
Oh, there wasn't any ad hominem. There was merely an insult, independent of my argument, which is merely an indication of how little respect I have for your ability to form cogent thoughts, and thus for you. You've not shifted me from that position one iota. Troll me no longer with your idiocy.
Is $200000 "lost" (using the same definition as the article) when 100000 people's mario characters get hit over the head by a barrel thrown by a giant kidnapping gorilla for the 20th time that evening?
And that happened *every night* back in the 80s.
You put money in, you play, then eventually, almost certainly, you lose. For some the losing is lots of small successive losses, for others it's the occasional big one. The nett result in the end is the same.
Close one eye.
Look at the nearest wall you are close to the middle of.
Now look at the corner of the ceiling at the left of that wall.
Then follow the ceiling/wall interface to the right until you get to the top right corner of the wall.
Now defocus and just try and take the whole into view. Move your head left and right if need be.
What you will have seen is
- the ceiling dips down to the left
- the ceiling bulges up to the middle
- the ceiling dips down to the right
- yet the ceiling is straight, a contradiction with the above three other things you have seen.
The human brain is *very* good at making *good sense* of sets of 3D clues which may confuse or even contradict in isolation. Even in the absense of binocular vision (which is why I asked you to close one eye at the start).
If the sum of all the 3D clues in the EVE image leave the viewer confused, then it's either deliberate optical trickery (which would be dumb), or far more likely, because it's not a believable or meaningful scene. 3D shoals, swarms, and flocks just don't behave that way.
Your questions (a) don't answer my questions; but worse, (b) don't even make sense - there is no "GPL community". What drugs are you on? Either take way fewer, or way more, please.
MS has no need to use underhand techniques to get into your system. The NSA probably does.
Someone from MS (probably MSR) once wrote a list of statements about security, one of which, if I can paraphrase sloppily, said "if your computer's running someone else's software, it's not your computer any more".
Given that, by definition, MS Windows PCs are running MS software, it's not your PC any more. Unless you turn of all kinds of updates that the system has, then one of the "essential" security updates could include a program which upon installation does absolutely anything that MS wants - change all your settings, install anything, remove anything, dick with your registry, your firewall, even play with your router settings, absolutely anything.
NOTA BENE: I've basically not touched a MS Windows system for about a decade and a half, I am almost entirely talking out of my arse when it comes to what MS updates actually do. However, I work in the field, and I know what should be possible (anything at all, no matter how innocent during installation that is executed without a sandbox is enough, anything that can cause arbitrary registry keys to be written to is enough, anthing that can drop executables into certain directories is enough), nothing is pure fantasy. MS can do *anything* with your system, as it's not your system, by their own admission it's theirs.
> Sure there is
No there isn't - you are changing more than one parameter. Once the other parameters have been specified, you can't change them. And if you can't change the final parameter in isolation, then it's misleading to claim that you can arbitrarily select that parameter, which is what you have been doing.
Ahhh, the lack of recursive queries explains why tunnelling TCP over DNS doesn't work, and why this webpage doesn't explain how TCN-over-DNS works: http://analogbit.com/tcp-over-dns_howto
The "DNS servers you use" are the things that do the sneaking information in and out for you - that's their job.
Maybe it's time for a witch-hunt again?
However, maybe this time it's shouldn't be one that is patently embarassing in retrospect 60 years later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anticommunist_Literature_1950s.png
UNESCO? Education, science and culture - those infamous enemies of the US!
+1 Insightful (got'em, but prefer to reply...)
I think with what we know about the NSA being able to inject malware onto targets' systems, there's always plausible deniability about anything found on home machines. "The NSA put it there" is now unfalsifiable, and always can be used to plant reasonable doubt. Means, motive, what else do you need?
Thinking that you will be secure by putting bad domain names into your host file will tead to tears of failure because:
a) it's attempting to enumerate badness. There's always new badness, you can't enumerate it all. New badness can be created quicker than you can update your hosts file.
b) bad software can happily use a randomly or dynamically generated name which you cannot add to your hosts file, as it can't be known in advance, and may only be used once.
"Anything else is basically eating candy you found on the street."
Wow, that's the best description I've heard in a long time. It's 100% bang on. People like candy...
However, downloading the source means that you're trusting the compiler or the virtual machine that's running the code. OK, signed gcc straight from debian, that I trust (but there's no need to follow up with a Thompson Trusting Trust reference, I'm fully aware of the principle). But, to be honest, I don't trust the guys who are trying to push a java VM on me (at least one that will work with a program I was interested in running, but can do without).
> These things survive in Windows because users are forced to install everything from the untrusted web.
.1% of the time is the short period after a fatal infection, and is quickly forgotten. If you've worked in IT, you'll know that educating users is a futile goal. (As is trying to label all bad things with a "this is bad" label, which is stupidly what all anti-virus programs do.)
Deeper - they survive in Windows because users don't give a damn 99.9% of the time, and the only
Ignore the summary, and *both* links, there's mangled illogic everywhere.
"You canâ€(TM)t find any suspicious behavior, entries in the system registry, communication or changes in application GUI." Apart from the suspicious behaviour and the communication, that is - duh!
If they can't describe what it does, they clearly don't understand what it does.
Just make sure you compare known hashes which you got from a secure (and trusted by you) server when you download binaries. Then this problem mostly disappears (unless the NSA wants in on the action).
Absolutely, side channels are everywhere if all you care about is small packets of data. You don't even need to "connect" to pass the data, as some things happen before the connection you'd think of filtering. Try resolving the domain name fatphil.hunter2.haxorsrus.ru., and when the DNS server for *.haxorsrus.ru. responds with a random address, you never need to connect to it on any port, the payload's been delivered already. You can't filter DNS without breaking way too much of the internet.
Thanks for the LeMONS reference, I've not heard of that before - sounds a scream. I know a bunch in the UK who'd be well up for an equivalent race there.
I particularly liked "Endurance racing for $500 cars. It's not just an oxymoron; it's a breeding ground for morons."
And of course you have to factor in the endurance aspect - this little puppy has to do 12 times the work of an old (single-race) F1 engine.
Stop saying "up the voltage", it makes no sense. There is no such physical process as "upping the voltage" - if you want a different voltage, you have to change some other property too. At least be honest and mention all of the other things that also have to change.
Or you live in the UK, and you get your pictures processed at Boots Chemists.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/julia-somerville-defends-innocent-family-photos-1538516.html (there have been other cases too)
Well, we know there are plenty of guns from the sales figures. It's just that the ones with the guns seem to only care about defending the 2nd amendment, and not any other parts of the constitution. Which of course sets up a perfect progression for attacking US citizens' rights with the a classic "when they came for my rights, there was noone else to help me defend them" ending. The 2nd's purpose is to protect the 1st, the 4th, the 5th, and - strangely - all the rest of them right now whilst they're under attack!
What are you gibbering about? The GPL in *no* way restricts the original developers - they have every right not to use the GPL licence in their original code. Of course, they then restrict themselves in what other libraries they link to, but that's their choice.
Where does the middle-man's, the guy who wants to take GPL stuff and rebundle it with some tweaks and then not follow the GPL, sense of entitlement come from?
You're a stuck record, and you seem short of a few tracks.
> How about where a company sinks several person-years of effort into a library or software suite, then decides to open source it? If an external developer spends a few days fixing a bug, it would be nice if the company that footed most of the development cost could use that fix in their internal deployments. Only fair, right?
Fair, and supported equally[*] by both GPL and BSD licences.
> Now hopefully it makes sense why companies release mostly BSD software
Nope, because your previous paragraph mentioned nothing that was intrinsically-GPL-but-not-BSD or intrinsically-BSD-but-not-GPL.
[* 0 = 0. If anything, the GPL supports the return of the fix to those who paid the major development cost in more scenarios than BSB does. But that's in a conditional clause, and thus predicated on something that's not intrinsically true.]