Folks at Red Hat are thinking fast. They've put out a press release essentially proposing that Microsoft donate computers and Red Hat will donate software:
Under the Red Hat proposal, by
removing Microsoft's higher-priced software from the settlement equation, Microsoft could provide the school districts with many
more computers--greatly extending the benefits Microsoft seeks to provide school districts with their proposed settlement.
First hit I got over my DSL was at 08:21 CDT. Similary to above report from within my class B (64.81.). I'm in Chicago, and this first hit was from somebody on an New York City (and I'll go out on a limb and call this a coincidence) POP, followed quickly (8:23) by somebody on the Chicago POP and (8:24) by somebody on the Los Angeles POP.
I would think that an ISP should be allowed to cut off access of people running infected machines. That's the surest way to get someone's attention without any legal ambiguities.
You'd certainly hope. This would probably have to be added to terms of service contracts, though. Something along the lines of: if ISP tells user to fix user's gaping security hole and user doesn't, user loses service.
In my web logs, a lot of the IPs I see running to new worm are the same ones I complained about last month becuase they were running the old worm.
[Way for me to prematurely hit RETURN while composing this in Internet Explorer. Hopefully it doesn't detract from my point too much, which was:]
There's no "yet" about it. The reason this hasn't happend, and the reason it will never happen, is it is impossible.
Consideration of the age-old history of cryptography (I recommend The Code Book by Simon Singh) strongly suggests this. Code makers and code breakers are in a race, and one or the other may be ahead at any given time, but sooner or later, the other has always managed to catch up.
"includes a level of copy protection that is both secure and doesn't impeded normal operation." and "a holy grail that companies aren't able to reach yet??"
More background Re:The problem with USB 2.0
on
USB 2.0 For Linux
·
· Score: 1
It predicts firewire and usb will coexist, with firewire probably remaining dominant in audio/video.
The point-to-point aspect of firewire seems like a huge advantage for these applications, and it will be interesting to see if the predicted speed bumps of firewire 2 and 3 really are double and triple current speeds, as expected (and way faster than USB 2).
If I create a website called clasicgaming.com, it better have something to do with the words in it's title, or lose my domain name. Registering a domain name should be like registering a Trade mark or a radio station, but just more streamlined.
Like the name of "amazon.com" has something to do with books (and every other kind of merchandise they sell)? Like the name of "yahoo.com" has something to do with the concept of a web portal? You really want an organization like ICANN to define what is meant by the phrase "classic gaming" and whether your site meets their definition?
Literary works, including computer programs and databases, protected by access control mechanisms that fail to permit access because of malfunction, damage or obsolescence.
If they are sold as audio CDs with the logo but are not Red Book compliant, then this exemption clearly applies, since the technological measure is clearly addressing a mechanism that fails to permit access due to malfunction.
Yeah -- the Dept. of Commerce what's to give away the.us TLD, but -- not to worry -- Congress will get "us" a.kids domain, so no problem. What the hell?
I like national TLDs. They give nation-level control over these sorts of ideas. The US should keep.us, and if the US decides it wants to put a.kids under that, then great.
Of course, I believe all the gTLDs should probably be subsumed under nation-level TLDs:.com.us ,.co.uk ,.biz.us ,.info.ru , etc.
We need fewer TLDs, not more. More TLDs are just a way for registrars to cash in by forcing companies to buy their trademarked name dot-whatever to protect their trademarks.
Fewer TLDs and a firm sense of what jurisdiction applies to each sure would make dispute resolution easier.
The appropriate approach would have been to continue the call for protests and have the protests go on
while negotiating. This is typically what is done by other groups, Unions, etc. Caving before-the-fact and calling off protests just to get the other side to the negotiating table is not how one goes about strengthening one's hand, or one's cause...
I definitely agree with this. It's bit late now, but it probably would have been good to announce that today's protests were the first of a series of weekly protests and go ahead, all-out with today's protests, while keeping open the possibility of cancelling future protests in response to concrete positive developments.
At this point, though, I'm not really sure what purpose negotiating with Adobe serves anyway, though, since this is a criminal matter, not just a civil case. I guess it would be helpful if Adobe were to come out and say they were wrong, but at this point that's hardly sufficient.
I'm curious, though, about the phrase "with the authority of the copyright owner" in this context. Reading ROT-13 certainly "requires the application of information," but what about it "requires the application of information,... with the authority of the copyright owner." In other words, the copyright owner can't claim any sort "right" to ROT-13 technology, so the copyright holder's authority doesn't seem to be required to apply the ROT-13 process. In other words, does this phrase render the rest of the definition meaningless? Would somebody fluent in Legalese care to comment?
Finally, 17 USC, 1201(g) is all about the exemption for "Encryption Research," which should apply here (under a reasonable law), except that in the DMCA this exemption is exceedingly narrow.
<http://www.afghan.gov.af/> is not a Taliban site; it's a site of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the pre-Taliban government of President Burhanuddin Rabbani, which is still recognized by the United Nations, even though the Taliban effectively control most of the country. (Apparently the Taliban don't have any control over the.af TLD after all.)
The Afghan Taleban Mission to the UN had a web site at <
http://www.taleban.com/>. During the Bamiyan statues controversy, I'd used the web site to get contact information for the First Secretary to the Mission, Mr. Noorullah Zadran: I faxed him a letter of protest back in March (highly ineffective -- duh -- in case you have to ask). Looking for updates some weeks later, I noticed the web site had been defaced at some point by someone with anti-Taliban messages.
This web site's main page is now a simple document (generated by Microsoft FrontPage 4.0!) referring visitors to
<
http://www.shariatonline.net/>, a seemingly unofficial page about "The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan," as the Taliban style the country. It will be interesting to see if this page gets any further updates now.
Linksys released a firmware update on May 30th. Version 1.37.2b. They're really vague on what they changed ("Optimized Wireless sessions for stability" -- which could apply), but you can get it here if you don't have it already.
I could be mistaken, but I swear there was an episode in the last three seasons or so where somebody actually starts writing out the "Annoyed Grunt," and the spelling is definitely "D'oh." I'm not having any luck finding a reference for it, though.
Also, the OED is including the word, but I've seen nothing about the OED actually making mention of the Simpsons with respect to the word. I couldn't find the new words list at the OED web site.
According to the original article, "86% of all respondents ['Of those who had downloaded free music' ?] said that they HAD purchased a CD album as a direct result of downloading free tracks from it."
This seems pretty clear indication that using Napster does affect buying habits. Interestingly, though, this doesn't tell us anything about whether they actually buy more CDs, it just tells us that at least some of their decisions on what to buy are based on what they downloaded from Napster. If some of these people would buy a set number of CDs within a given period anyway, some of these specific purchases could actually be at the expense of music they would have learned about through more traditional channels of promotion (which the music industry better understands how to manipulate): radio play, mtv, etc.
Moreover, technology is not neutral: its advances reflect the economic systems that create them. And it is legitimate to ask, for whose benefit are these advances?
It may be informative to keep this kind of argument in mind when reading JonKatz's statements that
In fact, technology and fast food, profoundly intertwined, serve as useful metaphors for the unintended consequences that accompany scientific advances.
or that fast food is "the stepchild of post-war progress in farming, slaughtering and packing, refrigeration and transportation."
JonKatz stresses the "unintended ways in which technology shapes the new world," but -- more than this -- the technology itself can be the outgrowth of powerful pre-existing economic (and political) conditions. In the case of fast food, the "post-war progress" in agriculture, et cetera may in fact have a lot to do with the war-time economic order. Again, from the Guardian piece,
Nitrate-processing chemical works proliferated during the war to make explosives. By 1945 a huge industry was producing nitrates that were no longer required. They were switched to agricultural use as part of the drive to make us self-sufficient in food.
(Yes, the article is a bit specific to the UK, but, generally, its observations also apply to development in plenty of other places.)
Second, the purpose of.biz was to alleaviate the conjestion in the.com domain, yet the trademark owners will go first. Do you think that Apple Moving and Storage, or McDonald's Hardware will get first shot over Apple Computers or McDonald's Resturants? Of course not
This is something I haven't understood about the idea of adding new TLDs -- and the ICANN process of adding new TLDs in particular -- from the beginning. Adding new TLDs and then giving big corporate trademark holders first dibs does nothing to alleviate congestion, furthers confusion, but in the process gets the registrars a fair bit of extra cash -- especially since they know companies are responsible for enforcing their own trademarks and will therefore feel compelled to register mcdonalds.biz and coke.biz even though they've already got the.com real estate.
If alleviating congestion is really the goal, wouldn't it make more sense to reduce the number of TLDs? Why not at least get rid of the generic Top Level Domain name space and use the country codes (and.int) exclusively?
After a full expiration cycle (time for domain names to move), the current.com could be subsumed into.com.us -- and similarly for.org ,.net , and.edu . If the decision makers in.us or.ru want to have a.biz.us or.biz.ru , then fine, let them add it.
BT.com could go (back?) to simply being BT.co.uk , for example. Companies doing business in multiple countries could establish domain names in each country, but without a.com , there'd no longer be a special.com allure that would lead to any one TLD becoming disproportionately overcrowded.
Somewhat related, but not a necessary part of this: why not treat the country TLD codes similarly to how flags are regarded on ships in international waters? A cruise ship can be manned by people from all over, carry American tourists, and operate exclusively in the Carribean, but be registered in Norway. During the Iran-Iraq war, Kuwaiti oil tankers were re-flagged as American and thus brought under American protection. Let.ca ,.us,.uk , and all the rest set their own standards and see who wants a domain under their TLD.
Re:Wait, you mean this isn't a joke RFC?
on
RFC for Spammers
·
· Score: 1
Did you read the RFC? It certainly does not
"validate spamming."
And, of course, before the Palm Pilot, there was the Apple Newton. Before that, all kinds of "portables," laptops, and notebook computers. Before those -- well how about the Osborne 1 back in 1981/82. That was "portable."
In October, 1989, a Russian news agency reported that scientists claimed to have established that a city in the former Soviet Union had been visited briefly by a spaceship crewed by three feet tall humanoids and a robot.
Slashdot Mirror
I love it.
First hit I got over my DSL was at 08:21 CDT. Similary to above report from within my class B (64.81.). I'm in Chicago, and this first hit was from somebody on an New York City (and I'll go out on a limb and call this a coincidence) POP, followed quickly (8:23) by somebody on the Chicago POP and (8:24) by somebody on the Los Angeles POP.
In my web logs, a lot of the IPs I see running to new worm are the same ones I complained about last month becuase they were running the old worm.
There's no "yet" about it. The reason this hasn't happend, and the reason it will never happen, is it is impossible.
Consideration of the age-old history of cryptography (I recommend The Code Book by Simon Singh) strongly suggests this. Code makers and code breakers are in a race, and one or the other may be ahead at any given time, but sooner or later, the other has always managed to catch up.
It predicts firewire and usb will coexist, with firewire probably remaining dominant in audio/video.
The point-to-point aspect of firewire seems like a huge advantage for these applications, and it will be interesting to see if the predicted speed bumps of firewire 2 and 3 really are double and triple current speeds, as expected (and way faster than USB 2).
Like the name of "amazon.com" has something to do with books (and every other kind of merchandise they sell)? Like the name of "yahoo.com" has something to do with the concept of a web portal? You really want an organization like ICANN to define what is meant by the phrase "classic gaming" and whether your site meets their definition?
$50,000? And I thought the Eighth Ammendment stipulated that "Excessive bail shall not be required."
Except that there are two classes of works subject to the exemption from the prohibition on circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. The second is
If they are sold as audio CDs with the logo but are not Red Book compliant, then this exemption clearly applies, since the technological measure is clearly addressing a mechanism that fails to permit access due to malfunction.
I like national TLDs. They give nation-level control over these sorts of ideas. The US should keep .us, and if the US decides it wants to put a .kids under that, then great.
Of course, I believe all the gTLDs should probably be subsumed under nation-level TLDs: .com.us , .co.uk , .biz.us , .info.ru , etc.
We need fewer TLDs, not more. More TLDs are just a way for registrars to cash in by forcing companies to buy their trademarked name dot-whatever to protect their trademarks.
Fewer TLDs and a firm sense of what jurisdiction applies to each sure would make dispute resolution easier.
Worst case, the current user is somebody who bought the computer from your thief and not the thief her- or himself, but it still gets you close.
Good luck.
I definitely agree with this. It's bit late now, but it probably would have been good to announce that today's protests were the first of a series of weekly protests and go ahead, all-out with today's protests, while keeping open the possibility of cancelling future protests in response to concrete positive developments.
At this point, though, I'm not really sure what purpose negotiating with Adobe serves anyway, though, since this is a criminal matter, not just a civil case. I guess it would be helpful if Adobe were to come out and say they were wrong, but at this point that's hardly sufficient.
(Also, another source is here.)
I'm curious, though, about the phrase "with the authority of the copyright owner" in this context. Reading ROT-13 certainly "requires the application of information," but what about it "requires the application of information, ... with the authority of the copyright owner." In other words, the copyright owner can't claim any sort "right" to ROT-13 technology, so the copyright holder's authority doesn't seem to be required to apply the ROT-13 process. In other words, does this phrase render the rest of the definition meaningless? Would somebody fluent in Legalese care to comment?
Finally, 17 USC, 1201(g) is all about the exemption for "Encryption Research," which should apply here (under a reasonable law), except that in the DMCA this exemption is exceedingly narrow.
<http://www.afghan.gov.af/> is not a Taliban site; it's a site of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the pre-Taliban government of President Burhanuddin Rabbani, which is still recognized by the United Nations, even though the Taliban effectively control most of the country. (Apparently the Taliban don't have any control over the .af TLD after all.)
The Afghan Taleban Mission to the UN had a web site at < http://www.taleban.com/>. During the Bamiyan statues controversy, I'd used the web site to get contact information for the First Secretary to the Mission, Mr. Noorullah Zadran: I faxed him a letter of protest back in March (highly ineffective -- duh -- in case you have to ask). Looking for updates some weeks later, I noticed the web site had been defaced at some point by someone with anti-Taliban messages.
This web site's main page is now a simple document (generated by Microsoft FrontPage 4.0!) referring visitors to < http://www.shariatonline.net/>, a seemingly unofficial page about "The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan," as the Taliban style the country. It will be interesting to see if this page gets any further updates now.
Linksys released a firmware update on May 30th. Version 1.37.2b. They're really vague on what they changed ("Optimized Wireless sessions for stability" -- which could apply), but you can get it here if you don't have it already.
I could be mistaken, but I swear there was an episode in the last three seasons or so where somebody actually starts writing out the "Annoyed Grunt," and the spelling is definitely "D'oh." I'm not having any luck finding a reference for it, though.
Also, the OED is including the word, but I've seen nothing about the OED actually making mention of the Simpsons with respect to the word. I couldn't find the new words list at the OED web site.
According to the original article, "86% of all respondents ['Of those who had downloaded free music' ?] said that they HAD purchased a CD album as a direct result of downloading free tracks from it." This seems pretty clear indication that using Napster does affect buying habits. Interestingly, though, this doesn't tell us anything about whether they actually buy more CDs, it just tells us that at least some of their decisions on what to buy are based on what they downloaded from Napster. If some of these people would buy a set number of CDs within a given period anyway, some of these specific purchases could actually be at the expense of music they would have learned about through more traditional channels of promotion (which the music industry better understands how to manipulate): radio play, mtv, etc.
Along the same lines, there was this commentary article ("We get CJD and bile duct cancer so others get rich") yesterday in the Guardian online. (It's by Felicity Lawrence, the Guardian's consumer affairs correspondent.) One of the particularly good points in this piece was
It may be informative to keep this kind of argument in mind when reading JonKatz's statements that
or that fast food is "the stepchild of post-war progress in farming, slaughtering and packing, refrigeration and transportation."
JonKatz stresses the "unintended ways in which technology shapes the new world," but -- more than this -- the technology itself can be the outgrowth of powerful pre-existing economic (and political) conditions. In the case of fast food, the "post-war progress" in agriculture, et cetera may in fact have a lot to do with the war-time economic order. Again, from the Guardian piece,
(Yes, the article is a bit specific to the UK, but, generally, its observations also apply to development in plenty of other places.)
This is something I haven't understood about the idea of adding new TLDs -- and the ICANN process of adding new TLDs in particular -- from the beginning. Adding new TLDs and then giving big corporate trademark holders first dibs does nothing to alleviate congestion, furthers confusion, but in the process gets the registrars a fair bit of extra cash -- especially since they know companies are responsible for enforcing their own trademarks and will therefore feel compelled to register mcdonalds.biz and coke.biz even though they've already got the .com real estate.
If alleviating congestion is really the goal, wouldn't it make more sense to reduce the number of TLDs? Why not at least get rid of the generic Top Level Domain name space and use the country codes (and .int) exclusively?
After a full expiration cycle (time for domain names to move), the current .com could be subsumed into .com.us -- and similarly for .org , .net , and .edu . If the decision makers in .us or .ru want to have a .biz.us or .biz.ru , then fine, let them add it.
BT.com could go (back?) to simply being BT.co.uk , for example. Companies doing business in multiple countries could establish domain names in each country, but without a .com , there'd no longer be a special .com allure that would lead to any one TLD becoming disproportionately overcrowded.
Somewhat related, but not a necessary part of this: why not treat the country TLD codes similarly to how flags are regarded on ships in international waters? A cruise ship can be manned by people from all over, carry American tourists, and operate exclusively in the Carribean, but be registered in Norway. During the Iran-Iraq war, Kuwaiti oil tankers were re-flagged as American and thus brought under American protection. Let .ca , .us, .uk , and all the rest set their own standards and see who wants a domain under their TLD.
Did you read the RFC? It certainly does not "validate spamming."
Huh? Gun manufacturers are getting sued all the time. Just do a quick Google search, or -- for something current -- take a look at this recent article at the Washington Post web site.
And, of course, before the Palm Pilot, there was the Apple Newton. Before that, all kinds of "portables," laptops, and notebook computers. Before those -- well how about the Osborne 1 back in 1981/82. That was "portable."
Huh? Apropos what?