actually having version W of library X that you built from source installed but your package manager refusing to install things dependent on it because it refuses to acknowledge anything's existence outside its list of installed packages.
I don't see how this would happen. If your package manager has a listing for program V, which is dependent on version W of library X, then it will also have version W of library X. If it didn't, then every user who didn't install W v.X would never be able to install V. If you're installing from a third party repository, then that repository should have W v.X, so you still won't have a problem.
Meh. I'm sure this is Israel's fault, somehow. After all, everybody knows that all the human rights abuses in Gaza are the result of military action by Israel. They must have put hamas up to it, and forced them to monitor this Internet cafe, and then forced them to arrest the guy. They also forced his family to publicly say all those things about keeping him behind bars.:-/
Australia should just quit the fucking foreplay and eliminate all private sector technology companies and go with state run everything. At least approval would go faster since it all in house anyways.
And while you're at it, write a little script that converts your logs from ASCII to some obscure encoding format that hasn't been used for a couple of decades, but was at one point some sort of standard. EBCDIC isn't really obscure enough, but that's the idea.
Then they try to open a text log file in notepad, or try to run "find_terrorist_link_information.exe" on the file, it returns garbage.
It doesn't sound like the gov't is required to request the information. It sounds like the telcos are required to report their all changes to the government for approval.
Very much a "papers please" kind of environment.
So my suggestion would be to overwhelm the government with data. Give them a stream of every time a user connects and gets an IP address, every time a user changes password, every time a device with a new MAC address shows up on the network, every time it moves, every time it disconnects, every time they change a password on a router, server, whatever (although not what the passwords are)..... you get the picture.
Basically, take every single log that the organization has, run it all through an aggregator into a single file, use some regex trickery to take out any personal information, then add a bunch of junk that normally isn't logged, and fire it off to the government.
While you're at it, write a couple of scripts that change passwords for stuff on a daily basis, according to some preset scheme (passwordNov12 changes to passwordNov13 tomorrow, or the like) and send them all these:
password on device router1 was changed password on device server1 was changed password on device router2 was changed
messages, also. Give them such a horrendously big amount of information to wade through, that they can't possibly use it all. If every ISP in the country did this, the government might actually figure out how stupid this request is.
The photo may be property of the photographer but to publish it he'd still need the consent of every identifiable person in the picture (hence the face blurring in photos from many countries). There may be an exception for photographing celebrities but not with random people.
You are incorrect. Publishing photos in a commercial context, for instance, advertising, requires the consent of everyone in the picture. Publishing photos as art, however, is not considered commercial, and neither are personal photos.
Otherwise, if I as a photographer took a picture from the local park showing people playing in the new water attraction, I'd have to hunt down every single person in that photo and get them to sign a release before I could publish it. This isn't a requirement. If I wanted to use an image to advertise my photography business, that's different. But if it's solely published as an artistic work, no consent is required.
instead what I was previously thinking of doing (which apparently isn't possible) is to have name hammios.my.site resolve to 10.10.10.10:80 and have baconbits.my.site resolve to 10.10.10.10:6000.
No, that's not possible, because hammios.my.site resolves to 10.10.10.10. The port is entirely dependent on the application that's accessing it, rather than DNS.
To think of it another way: If you're going to visit a friend, Joe, who lives in a 100 unit apartment building at 123 Main St, you pull into the parking lot of the building. The guy who pulls in behind you also is visiting a friend, Ralph, in the building, and parks in the same lot. Once you go in, you go to apartment 112, where Joe lives. The other guy goes to apartment 201, where Ralph lives.
You and other guy are client computers, the building is the DNS/IP resolution, and the apartments/friends are port numbers.
So if you're going to visit your friend, you've got to go to 123 Main Street, because that's where the building is. If you went to 456 Main Street, you'd be in the wrong place.
It's a crappy analogy, I know. But that's why the tree in your yard looks better than the one in your neighbour's.
Port-mapping, yes. But what if you want, say, two HTTP servers behind the NAT, and don't want users to have to know which port to specify? Some time back I had the bright idea of seeing if DNS included any port info -- make one name resolve to my.ip:port1, and the other to my.ip:port2, but no such luck (at least with what I was able to find). This is a serious question, so if you have any ideas, I'm all ears.
DNS is not the proper place to handle this. Each IP address has 65536 ports, so each DNS name also has 65536 ports. Making port 80 go to 10.10.10.10, and port 8080 go to 10.10.10.11 doesn't make sense, because both of these addresses have both of these ports. DNS only refers to the machine itself, and has no idea about ports, TCP, UDP, services, or what have you.
A logical way to do this would be to set up port forwarding to the first machine with port 80, and the second with port 8080, and if you're wanting to run two websites, have www.mydomain.com on the first server, and otherhost.mydomain.com/ also on the first server, but containing nothing more than a 301 redirect page that sends you to www.mydomain.com:8080.
You get your NAT setup, your customers don't have to mess with ports, and everybody's happy.
Which means...what, exactly? That every slashdotter is guilty?
This is pretty much the definition of a general purpose charge that's so vague and broad that anyone is guilty of it at any time. Then, combine that with selective enforcement, and the entire nation is full of criminals, whenever the police want to cause trouble.
This site was established as a personal blog for whatever shit Rob Malda (CmdrTaco) found interesting or relevant.
The fact that it's mostly technology stuff is purely because Rob Malda is a nerd, like most of the rest of us. But that doesn't mean it all has to be technical stuff.
Legal stupidity is interesting and relevant to all of us, because you never know when this brain rot is going to affect you directly, through no fault of your own. Just because it's not a case involving computers doesn't mean a thing.
So, if I hit a car that's so badly rusted the entire frame collapses, I'm liable to buy them a new car? No. I'm probably liable for the $300 replacement cost of a scrapyard rustbucket.
If it doesn't work this way with people, as well as cars, it should. I should not be liable for extreme bodily injury such as a fractured hip, if your osteoporosis is so bad that my actions would have caused a slight bruise for a healthy adult.
Not to mention the idea that suing a 4 year old is just crackers....
So, you know for sure it's him, because he posted it on his personal blog, just like you _didn't_ post all those message on your hijacked Facebook profile, huh?
Errm...downloading it from Frostwire isn't downloading it from limewire.com, now, is it?
Yesterday, after reading this article, I successfully downloaded a copy from http://download.limewire.com/download/LimeWireWin.exe. This URL now results in a 404 error. Probably somebody checked the website logs after they posted the shutdown notice, and realized a bunch of people were still downloading it from outside links.
Slashdot Mirror
actually having version W of library X that you built from source installed but your package manager refusing to install things dependent on it because it refuses to acknowledge anything's existence outside its list of installed packages.
I don't see how this would happen. If your package manager has a listing for program V, which is dependent on version W of library X, then it will also have version W of library X. If it didn't, then every user who didn't install W v.X would never be able to install V.
If you're installing from a third party repository, then that repository should have W v.X, so you still won't have a problem.
Meh. I'm sure this is Israel's fault, somehow. After all, everybody knows that all the human rights abuses in Gaza are the result of military action by Israel. They must have put hamas up to it, and forced them to monitor this Internet cafe, and then forced them to arrest the guy. :-/
They also forced his family to publicly say all those things about keeping him behind bars.
Australia should just quit the fucking foreplay and eliminate all private sector technology companies and go with state run everything. At least approval would go faster since it all in house anyways.
Back in the U.A.S.R!
(That's referring to the short, pointless messages, rather than the Holy Grail reference...)
So what you're saying is that the telcos should keep the government informed of changes through Twitter?
And while you're at it, write a little script that converts your logs from ASCII to some obscure encoding format that hasn't been used for a couple of decades, but was at one point some sort of standard. EBCDIC isn't really obscure enough, but that's the idea.
Then they try to open a text log file in notepad, or try to run "find_terrorist_link_information.exe" on the file, it returns garbage.
Don't forget the "beware of the leopard" sign.
And make them bring their own flashlight.
It doesn't sound like the gov't is required to request the information. It sounds like the telcos are required to report their all changes to the government for approval.
Very much a "papers please" kind of environment.
So my suggestion would be to overwhelm the government with data.
Give them a stream of every time a user connects and gets an IP address, every time a user changes password, every time a device with a new MAC address shows up on the network, every time it moves, every time it disconnects, every time they change a password on a router, server, whatever (although not what the passwords are)..... you get the picture.
Basically, take every single log that the organization has, run it all through an aggregator into a single file, use some regex trickery to take out any personal information, then add a bunch of junk that normally isn't logged, and fire it off to the government.
While you're at it, write a couple of scripts that change passwords for stuff on a daily basis, according to some preset scheme (passwordNov12 changes to passwordNov13 tomorrow, or the like) and send them all these:
password on device router1 was changed
password on device server1 was changed
password on device router2 was changed
messages, also. Give them such a horrendously big amount of information to wade through, that they can't possibly use it all. If every ISP in the country did this, the government might actually figure out how stupid this request is.
The photo may be property of the photographer but to publish it he'd still need the consent of every identifiable person in the picture (hence the face blurring in photos from many countries). There may be an exception for photographing celebrities but not with random people.
You are incorrect. Publishing photos in a commercial context, for instance, advertising, requires the consent of everyone in the picture. Publishing photos as art, however, is not considered commercial, and neither are personal photos.
Otherwise, if I as a photographer took a picture from the local park showing people playing in the new water attraction, I'd have to hunt down every single person in that photo and get them to sign a release before I could publish it. This isn't a requirement.
If I wanted to use an image to advertise my photography business, that's different. But if it's solely published as an artistic work, no consent is required.
instead what I was previously thinking of doing (which apparently isn't possible) is to have name hammios.my.site resolve to 10.10.10.10:80 and have baconbits.my.site resolve to 10.10.10.10:6000.
No, that's not possible, because hammios.my.site resolves to 10.10.10.10. The port is entirely dependent on the application that's accessing it, rather than DNS.
To think of it another way:
If you're going to visit a friend, Joe, who lives in a 100 unit apartment building at 123 Main St, you pull into the parking lot of the building. The guy who pulls in behind you also is visiting a friend, Ralph, in the building, and parks in the same lot.
Once you go in, you go to apartment 112, where Joe lives. The other guy goes to apartment 201, where Ralph lives.
You and other guy are client computers, the building is the DNS/IP resolution, and the apartments/friends are port numbers.
So if you're going to visit your friend, you've got to go to 123 Main Street, because that's where the building is. If you went to 456 Main Street, you'd be in the wrong place.
It's a crappy analogy, I know. But that's why the tree in your yard looks better than the one in your neighbour's.
Port-mapping, yes. But what if you want, say, two HTTP servers behind the NAT, and don't want users to have to know which port to specify? Some time back I had the bright idea of seeing if DNS included any port info -- make one name resolve to my.ip:port1, and the other to my.ip:port2, but no such luck (at least with what I was able to find). This is a serious question, so if you have any ideas, I'm all ears.
DNS is not the proper place to handle this. Each IP address has 65536 ports, so each DNS name also has 65536 ports. Making port 80 go to 10.10.10.10, and port 8080 go to 10.10.10.11 doesn't make sense, because both of these addresses have both of these ports. DNS only refers to the machine itself, and has no idea about ports, TCP, UDP, services, or what have you.
A logical way to do this would be to set up port forwarding to the first machine with port 80, and the second with port 8080, and if you're wanting to run two websites, have www.mydomain.com on the first server, and otherhost.mydomain.com/ also on the first server, but containing nothing more than a 301 redirect page that sends you to www.mydomain.com:8080.
You get your NAT setup, your customers don't have to mess with ports, and everybody's happy.
In which case, her wording would have likely been something like this:
Licenses for this API/data are only available for personal, non-commercial uses.
When there's absolutely no mention of licenses on either side, it implies, very strongly, that no license is required, or available.
Glad I live in Victoria, BC.
Yeah...then you only have to worry about cops who'll kill you because they're afraid of staplers.....
" conspiracy to commit mischief " was the reason
Which means...what, exactly?
That every slashdotter is guilty?
This is pretty much the definition of a general purpose charge that's so vague and broad that anyone is guilty of it at any time.
Then, combine that with selective enforcement, and the entire nation is full of criminals, whenever the police want to cause trouble.
This site was established as a personal blog for whatever shit Rob Malda (CmdrTaco) found interesting or relevant.
The fact that it's mostly technology stuff is purely because Rob Malda is a nerd, like most of the rest of us. But that doesn't mean it all has to be technical stuff.
Legal stupidity is interesting and relevant to all of us, because you never know when this brain rot is going to affect you directly, through no fault of your own. Just because it's not a case involving computers doesn't mean a thing.
That depends.
Are you 4? Or are you just a douche?
Buicks.
You forgot Buicks.
so what does the old lady expect to be able to recover?
Probably want to get their hands on the bike as a method of self defence in future....
Sometimes reality is cruel.
You don't tell the truth to be cruel; you tell the truth to tell the truth.
Just because the truth also happens to be cruel doesn't make it any less true.
Car analogy:
So, if I hit a car that's so badly rusted the entire frame collapses, I'm liable to buy them a new car? No. I'm probably liable for the $300 replacement cost of a scrapyard rustbucket.
If it doesn't work this way with people, as well as cars, it should. I should not be liable for extreme bodily injury such as a fractured hip, if your osteoporosis is so bad that my actions would have caused a slight bruise for a healthy adult.
Not to mention the idea that suing a 4 year old is just crackers....
Yeah...the only perverts were the just-hit-puberty kids who were riding their bikes all over creation. :)
So, you know for sure it's him, because he posted it on his personal blog, just like you _didn't_ post all those message on your hijacked Facebook profile, huh?
Sure. That seems reasonable.
Being a lawyer means that you don't actually need to know what you are talking about, you just need to sound like you do.
Doesn't this apply to pretty much every career choice?
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5915954
Already done.
Errm...downloading it from Frostwire isn't downloading it from limewire.com, now, is it?
Yesterday, after reading this article, I successfully downloaded a copy from http://download.limewire.com/download/LimeWireWin.exe.
This URL now results in a 404 error. Probably somebody checked the website logs after they posted the shutdown notice, and realized a bunch of people were still downloading it from outside links.