I'm guessing that they rebooted the machines in order to get a different ip address and potentially a different DNS server... Remember, these are relatives we are dealing with. So, that is the easiest way to exaplain it to them. You probably couldn't give them a really complicated test procedure where they tried out different dns servers manually. They would be soooo confused by that.
You know, in small cities, it is hard enough to just find 2 or three people willing to show up for a meetup of any kind at all. It is hard enough to find *anyone* willing to volunteer to oragnize a meeting without being paid.
But you know, the beauty of the Internet is that it always finds a way to route around stupidity like this. I mean, someone has already mentioned MEETin.org . However, that site is pretty limited. It does not cover smaller cities and does not seem to focus on special interest groups like meetup.com does.
What is needed is for someone to create a new free web site to compete with meetup.com, offering a free service, in order to rationalze thier prices.
This is apparently not the way to handle multiple monitors... As when I drag a window from one monitor to another with this 3D desktop, it disappears. Oops. That is no fun. So much for demo it it with my nifto cool flat panel display.
Well, I suppose it is a work in progress. Where is the source code?
When I was in High School we started an underground newspaper.
The Principal, Vice Principal, and the Dean of Students called me into their office and told me that I couldn't distribute it on school grounds any more. I told them to read the Constitution. I told them to go read Tinker v Des Moines.
Who knows? They may have won that if it had went to court. But, they let other groups distribute their literature on school grounds, and they had not published any guidlines for what was and wasn't acceptable to be distributed on school grounds. I waited for them to try to punish me for it, but the punishment never came.
If you want to have any freedom of speech left, you have to be willing to challenge those people who would erode your ability to excercise your right to it.
Honestly, our underground newspaper was silly. It was angsty and comical and rebellious and annoying to anyone who was over age 17 or so. But, at least we cared about freedom of speech...
Nicholas Jacobsen 1911 NE Thompson Portland, OR Massage: (503) 287-4812 Email: ethics@netzero.net
Employment * Long Term Goal: Network Manager position in the Computer Security Field * Immediate Goal: Network Administrator in the IT field. * Computer Security Institute's NetSec '01 New Orleans, LA June 2001 Intern: Technical Services, Computer Setup/Configuration, Attendee Registration, and Customer Service * 27th Annual Computer Security Conference Chicago, IL November 2000 Intern: Technical Services, Attendee Registration, and Customer Service * Ethics Design Winston, OR 1997-Present Consulting in computer system setup, design, security, and software. * Mustard Seed Educational Services Roseburg, OR 1989-1998 Website design, achievement test scoring, cashiering, curriculum recommendation, computer inventory and sales, program maintenance, exhibit hall setup/tear-down, assisting with publishing 32 page catalog. Education * Goal: BS in Computer Science via part-time studies and CISSP Certification * Professional Education: * NetSec '01, Attended: * How to Develop a Winning Security Architecture - David Lynas * Windows 2000 Security - Joel Scrambray * Virus Writers and Legislation - Sarah Gordon * Creating a Comprehensive Intrusion Detection System - Charles Hudson, Jr. * Phreakers to Frauds: Telecom Crime Investigation and Prevention - Andrea Morin * Building Secure Software - Gary McGraw * Preparing for ISO 17799 - Tom Peltier * Viruses, Hoaxes, Trojans, Worms, Where Will it End? - Bob Cartwright * Practical Forensics - Peter Garza * Hacking UNIX - Bob Geiger * 27th Annual Computer Security Conference, Attended: * Intrusion Techniques & Countermeasures - Rik Farrow * Implementing a Computer Incident Response Team - Peter Stephenson * 10 Other Security Classes * Formal Education: * Associates of Science Degree, Umpqua Community College, June 2001 * High School Diploma, Umpqua Community College Adult HS Diploma Program, March 2001 High school curriculum consisted of college preparation in math, reading, writing, humanities, music, social sciences, science, Hebrew, Latin, Greek, the study of the Great Books, and 2nd year college level computer course work in web page design, data communications, visual basic, C++, and networking. Approximately 50% of high school coursework has been at the College Credit (CC) level. Familiarity with... * Operating Systems: Windows 3.x, 95, 98, NT, 2000; Novell NOS; Unix variants, OS/2, DOS, VMS OS * Languages: Perl, Basic, Visual Basic, C/C++, Java, JavaScript, DHTML, HTML, CGI implementation, ActiveX Implementation * Applications: Microsoft Visual Studio, Microsoft Office Suite, Paint Shop Pro, Corel Suite, Maya 2.5, FrontPage, Dreamweaver, Ultraweaver, Homesite, TopStyle, Adobe (various), AutoCAD, AutoDesk Inventor, Filemaker Pro, Borland Programming Suite, Flash, Poser, Internet Space Builder, Retina, Nscan, Nmap, Visual Route, PGP, SATAN, SANTA, SAINT, L0phtcrack, Crack/John the Ripper/Derivatives, Iris, Notepad, Ultra Edit, SoftIce, among others. * Techniques: Firewall Configuration, Network/Server Security Analysis, HTTP/FTP/Telnet/IRC Server Configuration, LAN administration, Social Engineering, Intrusion Detection/Analysis, and Cryptography.
However, if you are on IRC, and you are using encryption to disguise your messages, and like everyone else is 14 year-olds talking about how they want each other and how much angst they have, who do you think the CIA is going to try to track down in real life for further investigation?
Sometimes, when someone does something suspicous, you don't have to know *exactly* what they are up to in order to be interested in them. It is enough to know that they are up to something. Unfortunately, few people value their privacy these days enough to bother using encryption for day to day discussions over mediums such as IRC. So, I'm guessing, that if someone started doing that, they would probably tend to attract attention. Probably it would be better for them to try to use some kind of stegonography or something disguised as agnst.:) Hence, I'm guessing that there is probably a bit of work somewhere on tools to detect steganography as well. Does anyone know if people are using steganography over IRC?
Why aren't the machines already running the latest version of Samba already?
Did my automatic update script stop working for some reason?
And If I wanted them to authenticate to Windows, are they already doing so? If so, then, I don't even have to change my configuration file, now do I? I have have to do is let my cron job run that automatically updates them to to the latest version of the software that I have approved for them on my server that I am using to manage their updates. I would just Drop the latest version of SAMBA on their and then I would be done. How tough is that?
Most people do. But there are some people who work in enviornments where they are prohibited from bringing wifi devices. So, there is a tradeoff there. Also, some people want a lower cost, and would like Wifi, but also want a lower cost device as well, and would be willing to buy the device now, and add wifi later.
From a manufacturer's perspective, it is better to have that customer buy your product, and then purchase Wifi later, then it is to lose that customer to some other manufacturer based on them having a lower cost device. If people really want Wifi, then, simply create a bundle that lets people purchase your PDA along with the CF card that gives them WIFI, and then the problem is solved. That way, you can market your product to both sets of people and straddle the two segments of customers.
It's a little kludgy. But, I don't think it's such a horrible strategy.
Programmers are having a hard time finding jobs in the US. But, on the other hand, if he has a good background in computer security, then he should pick up a certification or two in that and get a job doing computer security.
It's pretty tough for companies to outsource their computer security jobs overseas.
He could then write open source code in his free time to his hearts content to keep up his coding skills.
I just don't buy the whole bit about him having to write malicous code because of outsourcing. That's just a rationalization. Like people have pointed out, it sounds like he has decent coding skills. So, he could always try to fall back on that.
Every Country? Really? What about really small ones that no one even reconizes? For example, the guy who invented the Segway declared his Island a soverign nation. Does his country practice espinage?
What about the Vatican? Well, OK, bad example. *lol.*
But seriously, aren't there *any* countries that are fringe cases? I mean, aren't there any groups of people out there that have declared themselves a country that are just too pathetic to be practicing espinage or whatever?
For both candidates. In terms of our international relations, the war on Iraq has been a dismal failure. It is pretty clear to everyone that Sadam did not have weapons of mass destruction. In addition, by hastily invading Iraq, we have aliented our allies whose support we could really use now as we struggle with other contries such as North Korea, Libia, Iran, and even still in Iraq itself. As President, how will you seek to improve our foreign relations with other countries so that we can more effectively use international cooperation to meet the goals of our foreign policy?
I'll grant you that Gates has *had* more of an effect on the impact of the computer industry than Linus has in the past. But, Gates is a dinosaur. I'll grant you that he is a really cool dinosaur. He is a great big Tyranasauros Rex. But he is still a dynasaur.
If Gates died tomorrow, more people would sell shares of Micorosft stock, out of Fear that the company could not perform without their glorious leader. And that would impact them. But, in reality, Gates has stepped aside, a long time ago... Ofcourse Windows has a much larger user base than Linux. And ofcourse, it has a much larger impact on the economy.
Linus is a like a great big meteorite that came from outer space. And right now, we are just beginning to see this dust cloud forming... So, when you ask, which is more important, the T-Rex, or the meteorite, I would got with the meteorite.
But that's just me.
The fact that all the other dinosaurs are still looking around saying,"We all live in awe and fear of the T-Rex and we have never even heard of the meteorite," is hardly a convincing argument to the contrary...
2. What is the difference between software, and an idea?
3. The idea behind a patent is that you have a secret invention that you would not reveal to the public. And that in exchange for a monopoly on it for a limited time, you disclose it to the public for the benefit of society. Most software patents fall into one or morte of the following several categories:
A. Obvious.
B. By the time the monoploly wears off they will be outdated. This is the biggest difference. With a regular invention, like the cotton mill, for example, when the patent wears off, it could still be useful. With a software patent, however, when the patent wears off, it is unlikely to benefit anyone. Hence, what is the purpose of a software patent? It is supposed to benefit society by allowing us to use the innovation since the person would not have otherwise disclosed it. But, in fact, in all cases, we would have figured out their so called "inovation" anyway, and they are just abusing the patent system.
C. Stupid.
D. Better off as trade secrets.
E. Part of a scheme to amass a large patent portfolio to negotiate with other large companies like IBM, Sun, or Microsoft, for rights to their large patent portfolios.
No. But they weren't US citizens either, now were they?
The rules are a bit different when you are talking about spying on somone when there is an official investigation involving National Security then when you just happen to be looking around and see something. Likewise, the rules are different for when you are targeting non-US citicens then when you are targeting US citicens, I believe.
I think that if you start looking around at US citicens on US soil because you've got a hunch that you might stumble across something that could later be useful or something or someone might ask about, then there could be a problem. I could definitely see how that sort of climate could occur shortly after 9/11. I'm not suggesting that it did necessarily. I'm saying that we should scrutinize such matters. Better safe than sorry.
Um, But there is this law that says that the Defense Department is not allowed to spy on Us Citizens on US soil... I'm not saying that we should have a *right* to privacy in public. But, at the same time, why should we pay our tax dollars to have the military spy on US citicens, when they could be looking for terrorists?
We carefully create intelligence oversight rules because we want to be sure that the military doesn't abuse its power to conduct intelligence operations against US citizens. Remember, that we entrust the governement with power and authority to conduct these operations for specific purposes. It may very well be that in this case the power is not being abused at all. However, we should always carefully scrutinize these kind of issues. It is better to be safe than sorry...
Actually, what made Star Trek cool was not that Kirk just went around randomly beating people up, but that instead, they had social comentary.
Remember the episode where he realises that the people have the Constitution and gives the whole "We the People" speach? Or how about the episode where the people have computers simulate the wars between their societs and report to the termination chambers to be executed and then he destroys the chambers in disgust? Or, if you insist on empasising Kirk's "manliness", then let's talk about when he kissed Uhura. As far as I know that was the first time a white man kissed a black woman on TV at all.
A knife with a blade on one side that is under a certain length is not in and of itself considered a weapon under the muplicity of uses doctrine. It can be used as a tool or as a weapon. On the other hand, if someone walks into a store and says, "I am looking to buy a knife because I want to kill my neighbor." If you sell then sell them a knife, I suppose that you could probably still expect to be open to liability.
Likewise, with the tobacco companies. If you believe the people suing them, anyway, the tobacco companies had tons of evidence that their products were causing cancer to people, and they were pretty much lying to their customers about it and covering it up. I don't know if I agree with that assesment completely or not, but apparently some courts have. Given what I know about the companies, I can't say I am overly sympathetic.
In any case, there are lawyers on both sides of the issue.
OK. Let's think about this for a second. You've got Wi-Fi developers who take source code and compile it into Kernal module and such. Then you have Wifi users, who Load kernal modules and use Wifi to access the Internet. For purposes of this discussion, I'm going to imagine that I am a manufacturer of wireless devices. I'm not, but I'm trying to put myself in their position, so I can think this through.
If I was a device manufacturer, and I released my source code that allowed someone to operate my hardware, I could not, by law, put a feature in the code that allows an end user the ability to modify the power output or frequency of the device or allow it to cause interference with other devices.
But, If someone else writes a new unautorized driver for my device that does so, the FCC should hold them responsible for it, not me. Now, The FCC, may or may not see it this way. And it is easier for the FCC to go after the device manufacturer than to go after some 16 year old in Finland who hacks up a modification to a device driver. So, as a manufacturer of a wifi device, I'd want to avoid this risk altogether if I could because battles with the FCC cost losts of money and are generally no fun, and I'd rather spend money developing products and marketing them, and telling the Linux crowd to buy my stuff because I support Linux and such.
So, to avoid this risk altogether, I hide the functionaliy using security through obscurity by putting that part in binary only form, as well as using an end user licensing agreement that says that in order to use the software you agree not to reverse engineer it. Now, let me state, that I am NOT advocating security through obsecurity as being secure. It is not secure. In this case, it is not really important that it is really adding security. What is important is that I am making the pretense of adding security. If I really cared about security, I would be using cryptography. But I don't. Instead, I am using a binary only module, so that later I can defend it in court (if I have to) and talk about how there is no way that someone could have modified the power levels or frequencies unless they referse engineered it (which is explicitly prohibited by the end user license agreement).
The end result is that it will probably delay the 16 year old kid in Finland or somewhere from figuring out how to modify the frequency and power levels by a bit, but when the FCC gets upset, I as the device manufacturer, could plead that I have taken due care to comply with the law and prevent exactly this sort of thing. And that's probably sufficient to avoid liability, which is what's important.
What they are saying could be a weird way of saying that if they want to distribute a derivitive work, they are only allowed to do so in such a way that the the original author explicitly licensed them to do so. So, in the case of the GPL, for example, they can only distribute a derivitive work under the terms of the GPL.
Now, different licenses handle things differently. The BSD license, for example, might allow California to release derivitive works under a more restricitive license. But, in any case, they have to follow the terms of the license that they were given in terms of what rights they have to redistribute the code. I think that is what they are trying to say. They are trying to say that they are going to uphold the author's original intent with regard to redistribution of derivitive works.
I see this as a good sign. The way they phrased it though implies that they mean even more though. What they actually said is that not only are they trying to uphold the letter of the license with respect to derivitive works, they are pledging to not do anything that would interfere with the origanal author's intent or work. This means that they are trying to be extra-ethical about it. Which, by all means, they should be, because they are the government. We should hold them accountable to high standards of ethical conduct.
If they actually mean it, then I commend them on this.
Buddhism most definitely is a religon. It is one of the more popular religon's in the whole world! Sure, it's not as trendy as Hinduism, or Christianity, but still... I don't know of any Theologons who claim that Buddhism is not a religon. The only people who claim that it isn't are people who are really ignorant of what the word religon means. To them, I would reccomend picking up a textbook on World Religons and reading it.
I'd reccomed
The World's Religions: Our Great Wisdom Traditions by Huston Smith
Slashdot Mirror
I'm guessing that they rebooted the machines in order to get a different ip address and potentially a different DNS server... Remember, these are relatives we are dealing with. So, that is the easiest way to exaplain it to them. You probably couldn't give them a really complicated test procedure where they tried out different dns servers manually. They would be soooo confused by that.
You know, in small cities, it is hard enough to just find 2 or three people willing to show up for a meetup of any kind at all. It is hard enough to find *anyone* willing to volunteer to oragnize a meeting without being paid. But you know, the beauty of the Internet is that it always finds a way to route around stupidity like this. I mean, someone has already mentioned MEETin.org . However, that site is pretty limited. It does not cover smaller cities and does not seem to focus on special interest groups like meetup.com does. What is needed is for someone to create a new free web site to compete with meetup.com, offering a free service, in order to rationalze thier prices.
This is apparently not the way to handle multiple monitors... As when I drag a window from one monitor to another with this 3D desktop, it disappears. Oops. That is no fun. So much for demo it it with my nifto cool flat panel display.
Well, I suppose it is a work in progress. Where is the source code?
When I was in High School we started an underground newspaper.
The Principal, Vice Principal, and the Dean of Students called me into their office and told me that I couldn't distribute it on school grounds any more. I told them to read the Constitution. I told them to go read Tinker v Des Moines.
Who knows? They may have won that if it had went to court. But, they let other groups distribute their literature on school grounds, and they had not published any guidlines for what was and wasn't acceptable to be distributed on school grounds. I waited for them to try to punish me for it, but the punishment never came.
If you want to have any freedom of speech left, you have to be willing to challenge those people who would erode your ability to excercise your right to it.
Honestly, our underground newspaper was silly. It was angsty and comical and rebellious and annoying to anyone who was over age 17 or so. But, at least we cared about freedom of speech...
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:8QRnbr5YDAMJ: lists.jammed.com/securityjobs/2001/09/att-0059/01- RESUME_OF_NICHOLAS_JACOBSEN.txt+01-RESUME_OF_NICHO LAS_JACOBSEN.txt&hl=en
Nicholas Jacobsen
1911 NE Thompson
Portland, OR
Massage: (503) 287-4812
Email: ethics@netzero.net
Employment
* Long Term Goal: Network Manager position in the Computer Security Field
* Immediate Goal: Network Administrator in the IT field.
* Computer Security Institute's NetSec '01 New Orleans, LA June 2001
Intern: Technical Services, Computer Setup/Configuration, Attendee Registration, and Customer Service
* 27th Annual Computer Security Conference Chicago, IL November 2000
Intern: Technical Services, Attendee Registration, and Customer Service
* Ethics Design Winston, OR 1997-Present
Consulting in computer system setup, design, security, and software.
* Mustard Seed Educational Services Roseburg, OR 1989-1998
Website design, achievement test scoring, cashiering, curriculum recommendation, computer inventory and sales, program maintenance, exhibit hall setup/tear-down, assisting with publishing 32 page catalog.
Education
* Goal: BS in Computer Science via part-time studies and CISSP Certification
* Professional Education:
* NetSec '01, Attended:
* How to Develop a Winning Security Architecture - David Lynas
* Windows 2000 Security - Joel Scrambray
* Virus Writers and Legislation - Sarah Gordon
* Creating a Comprehensive Intrusion Detection System - Charles Hudson, Jr.
* Phreakers to Frauds: Telecom Crime Investigation and Prevention - Andrea Morin
* Building Secure Software - Gary McGraw
* Preparing for ISO 17799 - Tom Peltier
* Viruses, Hoaxes, Trojans, Worms, Where Will it End? - Bob Cartwright
* Practical Forensics - Peter Garza
* Hacking UNIX - Bob Geiger
* 27th Annual Computer Security Conference, Attended:
* Intrusion Techniques & Countermeasures - Rik Farrow
* Implementing a Computer Incident Response Team - Peter Stephenson
* 10 Other Security Classes
* Formal Education:
* Associates of Science Degree, Umpqua Community College, June 2001
* High School Diploma, Umpqua Community College Adult HS Diploma Program, March 2001
High school curriculum consisted of college preparation in math, reading, writing, humanities, music, social sciences, science, Hebrew, Latin, Greek, the study of the Great Books, and 2nd year college level computer course work in web page design, data communications, visual basic, C++, and networking. Approximately 50% of high school coursework has been at the College Credit (CC) level.
Familiarity with...
* Operating Systems: Windows 3.x, 95, 98, NT, 2000; Novell NOS; Unix variants, OS/2, DOS, VMS OS
* Languages: Perl, Basic, Visual Basic, C/C++, Java, JavaScript, DHTML, HTML, CGI implementation, ActiveX Implementation
* Applications: Microsoft Visual Studio, Microsoft Office Suite, Paint Shop Pro, Corel Suite, Maya 2.5, FrontPage, Dreamweaver, Ultraweaver, Homesite, TopStyle, Adobe (various), AutoCAD, AutoDesk Inventor, Filemaker Pro, Borland Programming Suite, Flash, Poser, Internet Space Builder, Retina, Nscan, Nmap, Visual Route, PGP, SATAN, SANTA, SAINT, L0phtcrack, Crack/John the Ripper/Derivatives, Iris, Notepad, Ultra Edit, SoftIce, among others.
* Techniques: Firewall Configuration, Network/Server Security Analysis, HTTP/FTP/Telnet/IRC Server Configuration, LAN administration, Social Engineering, Intrusion Detection/Analysis, and Cryptography.
However, if you are on IRC, and you are using encryption to disguise your messages, and like everyone else is 14 year-olds talking about how they want each other and how much angst they have, who do you think the CIA is going to try to track down in real life for further investigation?
Sometimes, when someone does something suspicous, you don't have to know *exactly* what they are up to in order to be interested in them. It is enough to know that they are up to something. Unfortunately, few people value their privacy these days enough to bother using encryption for day to day discussions over mediums such as IRC. So, I'm guessing, that if someone started doing that, they would probably tend to attract attention. Probably it would be better for them to try to use some kind of stegonography or something disguised as agnst.
You're kidding right?
Why aren't the machines already running the latest version of Samba already?
Did my automatic update script stop working for some reason?
And If I wanted them to authenticate to Windows, are they already doing so? If so, then, I don't even have to change my configuration file, now do I? I have have to do is let my cron job run that automatically updates them to to the latest version of the software that I have approved for them on my server that I am using to manage their updates. I would just Drop the latest version of SAMBA on their and then I would be done. How tough is that?
Not *everyone* wants wifi.
Most people do. But there are some people who work in enviornments where they are prohibited from bringing wifi devices. So, there is a tradeoff there. Also, some people want a lower cost, and would like Wifi, but also want a lower cost device as well, and would be willing to buy the device now, and add wifi later.
From a manufacturer's perspective, it is better to have that customer buy your product, and then purchase Wifi later, then it is to lose that customer to some other manufacturer based on them having a lower cost device. If people really want Wifi, then, simply create a bundle that lets people purchase your PDA along with the CF card that gives them WIFI, and then the problem is solved. That way, you can market your product to both sets of people and straddle the two segments of customers.
It's a little kludgy. But, I don't think it's such a horrible strategy.
Randy
Programmers are having a hard time finding jobs in the US. But, on the other hand, if he has a good background in computer security, then he should pick up a certification or two in that and get a job doing computer security.
It's pretty tough for companies to outsource their computer security jobs overseas.
He could then write open source code in his free time to his hearts content to keep up his coding skills.
I just don't buy the whole bit about him having to write malicous code because of outsourcing. That's just a rationalization. Like people have pointed out, it sounds like he has decent coding skills. So, he could always try to fall back on that.
Every Country? Really? What about really small ones that no one even reconizes? For example, the guy who invented the Segway declared his Island a soverign nation. Does his country practice espinage?
What about the Vatican? Well, OK, bad example. *lol.*
But seriously, aren't there *any* countries that are fringe cases? I mean, aren't there any groups of people out there that have declared themselves a country that are just too pathetic to be practicing espinage or whatever?
There's always Elbonia...
You forgot to mention the War on Terrorism!
For both candidates. In terms of our international relations, the war on Iraq has been a dismal failure. It is pretty clear to everyone that Sadam did not have weapons of mass destruction. In addition, by hastily invading Iraq, we have aliented our allies whose support we could really use now as we struggle with other contries such as North Korea, Libia, Iran, and even still in Iraq itself. As President, how will you seek to improve our foreign relations with other countries so that we can more effectively use international cooperation to meet the goals of our foreign policy?
I'll grant you that Gates has *had* more of an effect on the impact of the computer industry than Linus has in the past. But, Gates is a dinosaur. I'll grant you that he is a really cool dinosaur. He is a great big Tyranasauros Rex. But he is still a dynasaur.
If Gates died tomorrow, more people would sell shares of Micorosft stock, out of Fear that the company could not perform without their glorious leader. And that would impact them. But, in reality, Gates has stepped aside, a long time ago.
Linus is a like a great big meteorite that came from outer space. And right now, we are just beginning to see this dust cloud forming... So, when you ask, which is more important, the T-Rex, or the meteorite, I would got with the meteorite.
But that's just me.
The fact that all the other dinosaurs are still looking around saying,"We all live in awe and fear of the T-Rex and we have never even heard of the meteorite," is hardly a convincing argument to the contrary...
Linus is much more important than Bill Gates!
1. Patents are for inventions, not ideas.
2. What is the difference between software, and an idea?
3. The idea behind a patent is that you have a secret invention that you would not reveal to the public. And that in exchange for a monopoly on it for a limited time, you disclose it to the public for the benefit of society. Most software patents fall into one or morte of the following several categories:
A. Obvious.
B. By the time the monoploly wears off they will be outdated. This is the biggest difference. With a regular invention, like the cotton mill, for example, when the patent wears off, it could still be useful. With a software patent, however, when the patent wears off, it is unlikely to benefit anyone. Hence, what is the purpose of a software patent? It is supposed to benefit society by allowing us to use the innovation since the person would not have otherwise disclosed it. But, in fact, in all cases, we would have figured out their so called "inovation" anyway, and they are just abusing the patent system.
C. Stupid.
D. Better off as trade secrets.
E. Part of a scheme to amass a large patent portfolio to negotiate with other large companies like IBM, Sun, or Microsoft, for rights to their large patent portfolios.
Haven't you ever went out the gate in South Bastok to the Battlefield? You know, where all the monsters are?
Oh wait, you mean real life isn't Final Fantasy XI?
No. But they weren't US citizens either, now were they?
The rules are a bit different when you are talking about spying on somone when there is an official investigation involving National Security then when you just happen to be looking around and see something. Likewise, the rules are different for when you are targeting non-US citicens then when you are targeting US citicens, I believe.
I think that if you start looking around at US citicens on US soil because you've got a hunch that you might stumble across something that could later be useful or something or someone might ask about, then there could be a problem. I could definitely see how that sort of climate could occur shortly after 9/11. I'm not suggesting that it did necessarily. I'm saying that we should scrutinize such matters. Better safe than sorry.
He just needed to patch his brother.
I think he could have used an extension cord and the bucket of water...
Um, But there is this law that says that the Defense Department is not allowed to spy on Us Citizens on US soil... I'm not saying that we should have a *right* to privacy in public. But, at the same time, why should we pay our tax dollars to have the military spy on US citicens, when they could be looking for terrorists?
We carefully create intelligence oversight rules because we want to be sure that the military doesn't abuse its power to conduct intelligence operations against US citizens. Remember, that we entrust the governement with power and authority to conduct these operations for specific purposes. It may very well be that in this case the power is not being abused at all. However, we should always carefully scrutinize these kind of issues. It is better to be safe than sorry...
Actually, what made Star Trek cool was not that Kirk just went around randomly beating people up, but that instead, they had social comentary.
Remember the episode where he realises that the people have the Constitution and gives the whole "We the People" speach? Or how about the episode where the people have computers simulate the wars between their societs and report to the termination chambers to be executed and then he destroys the chambers in disgust? Or, if you insist on empasising Kirk's "manliness", then let's talk about when he kissed Uhura. As far as I know that was the first time a white man kissed a black woman on TV at all.
Social commentary is what made Star Trek great.
A knife with a blade on one side that is under a certain length is not in and of itself considered a weapon under the muplicity of uses doctrine. It can be used as a tool or as a weapon. On the other hand, if someone walks into a store and says, "I am looking to buy a knife because I want to kill my neighbor." If you sell then sell them a knife, I suppose that you could probably still expect to be open to liability.
Likewise, with the tobacco companies. If you believe the people suing them, anyway, the tobacco companies had tons of evidence that their products were causing cancer to people, and they were pretty much lying to their customers about it and covering it up. I don't know if I agree with that assesment completely or not, but apparently some courts have. Given what I know about the companies, I can't say I am overly sympathetic.
In any case, there are lawyers on both sides of the issue.
OK. Let's think about this for a second. You've got Wi-Fi developers who take source code and compile it into Kernal module and such. Then you have Wifi users, who Load kernal modules and use Wifi to access the Internet. For purposes of this discussion, I'm going to imagine that I am a manufacturer of wireless devices. I'm not, but I'm trying to put myself in their position, so I can think this through.
If I was a device manufacturer, and I released my source code that allowed someone to operate my hardware, I could not, by law, put a feature in the code that allows an end user the ability to modify the power output or frequency of the device or allow it to cause interference with other devices.
But, If someone else writes a new unautorized driver for my device that does so, the FCC should hold them responsible for it, not me. Now, The FCC, may or may not see it this way. And it is easier for the FCC to go after the device manufacturer than to go after some 16 year old in Finland who hacks up a modification to a device driver. So, as a manufacturer of a wifi device, I'd want to avoid this risk altogether if I could because battles with the FCC cost losts of money and are generally no fun, and I'd rather spend money developing products and marketing them, and telling the Linux crowd to buy my stuff because I support Linux and such.
So, to avoid this risk altogether, I hide the functionaliy using security through obscurity by putting that part in binary only form, as well as using an end user licensing agreement that says that in order to use the software you agree not to reverse engineer it. Now, let me state, that I am NOT advocating security through obsecurity as being secure. It is not secure. In this case, it is not really important that it is really adding security. What is important is that I am making the pretense of adding security. If I really cared about security, I would be using cryptography. But I don't. Instead, I am using a binary only module, so that later I can defend it in court (if I have to) and talk about how there is no way that someone could have modified the power levels or frequencies unless they referse engineered it (which is explicitly prohibited by the end user license agreement).
The end result is that it will probably delay the 16 year old kid in Finland or somewhere from figuring out how to modify the frequency and power levels by a bit, but when the FCC gets upset, I as the device manufacturer, could plead that I have taken due care to comply with the law and prevent exactly this sort of thing. And that's probably sufficient to avoid liability, which is what's important.
What they are saying could be a weird way of saying that if they want to distribute a derivitive work, they are only allowed to do so in such a way that the the original author explicitly licensed them to do so. So, in the case of the GPL, for example, they can only distribute a derivitive work under the terms of the GPL.
Now, different licenses handle things differently. The BSD license, for example, might allow California to release derivitive works under a more restricitive license. But, in any case, they have to follow the terms of the license that they were given in terms of what rights they have to redistribute the code. I think that is what they are trying to say. They are trying to say that they are going to uphold the author's original intent with regard to redistribution of derivitive works.
I see this as a good sign. The way they phrased it though implies that they mean even more though. What they actually said is that not only are they trying to uphold the letter of the license with respect to derivitive works, they are pledging to not do anything that would interfere with the origanal author's intent or work. This means that they are trying to be extra-ethical about it. Which, by all means, they should be, because they are the government. We should hold them accountable to high standards of ethical conduct.
If they actually mean it, then I commend them on this.
Randy
That link should be: The World's Religions: Our Great Wisdom Traditions by Huston Smith