1) If you make your own newsletter, in your own time, with your own resources, paid by your advertisers, you are an independent publisher, it's ludicrous that some principal at some highschool requires to read it and pre-censor it, just because you go to that school, or distribute it to people that go there.
Of course, if you were using school resources to publish it, he would have the right to do so, but there was some talk about it having its own ads.
2) I don't see how. 3) you can be punished because of exercising free speech, and it can still fail to be a free speech issue. For example if you use your free speech to confess something punishable, or to incite people to commit some crime. In this case, _if_ the newsletter is representative of the school, and controlled by the school, for example, the school would be just excercising editorial rights. No free speech issue. Go make your own pamphlet, kids.
Plus, 4 Ghz is not a measure of computing power. And of course, we do need more power than a 4ghz pentium4. Lots of physics problems (think for example robotics) need to solve numerically differential equations, and that takes power.
Actually, at my high school we were censored as well and our paper was 100% advertising supported. I think you fail to understand that the principal IS the government. He can't censor the news unless it falls into that category that would disrupt the school environment. Of course, conveniently, the principal is the one who decides this which means it is at his whim.
Nonsense. Well, at least it seems as nonsense. If your paper does not belong to the highschool, then what is the principal doing reading it before it is posted?
Anyway, if you already have the articles, you can always publish it independently, previous talk to the sponsors.
That is not a free speech issue, it's just someone using the power they have.
That's the whole point. The guy doesn't want anybody to add the GNU/ to Linux He wants you to call GNU what is GNU. ls , ps, gcc, tar, bash, that is GNU. Linux is great, mostly because it works, but it's a kernel, it's stupid to call GNU/Linux just Linux, as it would be stupid to call WindowsXP just "kernel32.dll".
What you expect when you are presented to a so-called "Linux" system is the GNU system, most people don't use so-called "Linux" program to device drivers and stuff, they usually use GNU standard libraries. Of course, a "Linux" system can use gnome, or kde, X or just fbdev, but a "Linux" system is not a "Linux" system if it doesn't have the GNU tools. Because it's not a "Linux" system, it's a GNU/Linux system.
There are non-GNU Linux systems (like embedded Linux), but they don't comply with the concept that is called "Linux", because a regular "Linux" user wouldn't be able to do much with that system, because it is an incomplete "Linux" system (no bash, no gcc, no gnu-style options for commands). Of course, that is because when you use a "Linux"
system, you expect a GNU system running on the Linux kernel. That is a GNU/Linux system, again.
I don't believe his claim is pointless. I thought RMS was stupid, painting GNU/ on "Linux" t-shirts, when he was here in Uruguay for a conference, but then he gave his talk, I listened (that was hard, because he made it in spanish, and wasn't very good at it yet), and I understood.
In Uruguay, the left (FA) was the minority in that time, but they made the mistake of having a 350k+ people public gathering, in a country with 1.5 million voters. The elections were stolen from the favorite a center-leftist to say the least, with a little help from the CIA (e.g.: dead people voting, burned votes, it's not clear who would have won otherwise), and were won by the the authoritarian extreme right that later gave the government to the military for 11 dark years. "Special forces" got trained in Panama by US forces, in special "intelligence" techniques, like the ones you have seen in iraq performed to prisoners. They used them on comunists and tupamaros (a guerrilla group that was already completely in jail), and on everybody they didn't like.
Those military groups wouldn't have ever attained that power without the lots of support from the outside that they got. Of course, the US were not as important in Uruguay as in other countries, but it shows the kind of support they had for such regimes in south America.
I can tell you my experience. I don't use context menus when I can. I use GNU/Linux, and gnome, firefox, thunderbird, openoffice, don't make me use the second button. I don't care what there is inside context menus, the only thing I use is Properties, but Alt-Enter does the job.
I have been using mswindows since 3.0, and used the same policy.
Now I use Eclipse, and there are some options missing in the default menus that force me to use context menus. I hate them. They show up at different places, are difficult to click, and not keyboard accesible. I don't like them at all, and I have had a lot of time to learn to use them.
On the other hand, I like my second and third button so I can alt-resize/move my windows, without searching for the title bar.
It's a 3d design package, that gives you a game engine, so you could have the graphics part solved, and can worry just about the actual game. I believe you can program for it with python. It works on MSWindows, GNU/Linux, and other platforms, and it can generate.EXE or web 3d games viewable with its own (small) plugin.
Fact 1: The new coalition killed _lots_ of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq. They changed a totalitarian dictatorship imposing a foreign-driven regime, with muppets as candidates for the election.
I believe foreign independence should be valued even above "democracy", in any country. The freedom of the people is among the most important values, but it should not be an excuse for taking away the freedom of the nation (and not giving freedom to the people).
Fact 2: US soldiers tortured iraqi POWs using the same techniques the CIA have been using in South America and Central America for the last 35 - 40 years.
Now the US says that some Osama Bin Laden guy killed 5000 people (Although that probably is the case, that's a fact brought to you by the same people who drove their country to war with the excuse of magically disappearing WMDs). Well, I believe that's really bad, and it shouldn't happen, but it isn't even in the same league as the other atrocities that followed.
You don't seem to have looked hard into the issue.
GNU is about freedom, not technology, or efforts. KDE was not free, or at least not free enough. From the FSF point of view, for example, it would not be ethical to use KDE when they had the previous license. There was nothing left to do but develop Gnome, from that point of view. You might differ with the point of view, but it's definitely not a pissing match.
And about that 100% overlap you talk about, I don't thik that is so. Right now they are very different desktop environments.
Maybe they have lots of equal features they could share, but as a product they cater to different people. KDE is great as a substitute to MSWindows, it has some of its feel, and implements most of the things a MSWindows user would expect. On the other hand, I find it is not clean enough in the looks department, and I believe some of its interface design decisions are ok for 2000, but not ok for 2005. KDE, and QT do a find job of providing a great way to develop applications especially on C++, and there are lots of them, I don't mean to say KDE is not great, just that I as a user prefer other things.
Gnome is more unfamiliar to MSWindows users, making it a bit more difficult to migrate. I believe it has a much more thought out interface, and feels more unixy, or at least GNUy to me. That alone would be enough to have two different projects, even if ethics had never been an issue.
It's called free marketing. People get those copies preinstalled for free on their PCs, and then in the future they might even pay some money to keep them.
Right now I am migrating many of my computer-impaired friends and relatives to firefox, thunderbird and openoffice, so it's easy to go straight into a GNU/Linux distro, probably slackware, when the time to pay comes, and maybe then I could stop getting calls for free MS support (which I mostly have to ignore, or delay into oblivion anyway).
I don't know what country you are talking about (in the story they are talking about a lot of countries) but in my country it's not so. Many poor people don't get a complete education, because they need to go to work first. In many places in south America there are children who didn't have the chance to learn how to read. I am getting a degree on IT, but I know that there are lots of people in my country who don't have access to educations, and after that they dn't get any jobs. It's very little what they are doing to stay poor, the problem is that they don't have opportunity. In the US, while the situation is milder, the same thing happens. The rich get the best education, and the best jobs, just by being rich. You could get a nice education or a nice job, being middle class. If you are poor, you could get there, but it's a huge difference in opportunity.
Maybe we shouldn't argue about an analogy, it's useless, you know? (anyway, it's not one open door, it's more like "XXX brand locks are damn easy to poke!!, here's how:...")
The problem here is that he can't just talk to the companies, and say he has an exploit.
If he mailed the companies and said that they should release a fix or else he releases the exploit, that's extortion. If he just tells them of the exploit, and expects that they do the right thing, e would be putting his trust on the wrong entity, and giving his back to the people, who could keep using vulnerable software. By just releasing the exploit as a vulnerability warning, I believe he is doing the best he can. Both other behaviors are unacceptable to me, at least.
Who are you kidding? The situation before was that my phone was vulnerable, and that only one guy knew anything about it.
Pleaaase!! What makes you think that only one guy knew anything about it? That's just what _you_ know. I believe, given most new technologies, it only takes some knowledge, and much effort, to find exploitable vulnerabilities, if you have something to gain from it. The guy is _one_ of the people who knew the vulnerability. After this, your next phone will have one vulnerability less. If it weren't for him, it could stay hidden.
Security through obscurity just doesn't work. You are implying that noone would own your phone just because it was hard to do, and now they will, because it's easy. Nonsense. If there's money to be gained, sooner or later some guy would find the vulnerability, exploit it, and make phone users or companies lose lots of money. Now the only loss is bug-fixing.
That many people think exactly the opposite. That achievement he talks about would be ok, if everybody started clean. When you speak about second generation people, they start at different places, so they can achieve less. That's why it's a fallacy. it's dumb to say that rich people are rich ecause they worked hard, and poor are poor because they are lazy. Of course that need gives you rights. Everybody is in need, it's just that some can satisfy their need, and some cannot. Earning has nothing to do with it. Most children are born poor, right now, do you think they have earned it? do you think that people who go to harvard have earned it? do they have a right, just because some grand-grandparent hit the jackpot, compared to some boy born in Bolivia? That's just stupid, to say that rich people deserve to be rich, and poor deserve to be poor.
He isn't exactly exploiting security holes, he is showing a possible exploit, a danger that was already there, in your analogy, he is shouting that, even though you have bulletproof windows, you left the door open.
Please! try thinking! Just because nice guys refrain from discovering vulnerabilities, it doesn't mean the bad guys will!! The guy is just trying to force the hole to be closed. The situation before this guy was that your phone was vulnerable, and you were ignorant. The situation now is that your phone is vulnerable, and you are aware of it, and probably won't buy another vulnerable bluetooth device until it's fixed. I don't understand why you prefer the first scenario. It's actually possible to write vulnerability-free software. It is way too expensive, but maybe it should be required. If people keep thinking that holes whuld just be overlooked instead of fixed, there will never be any value on providing secure software.
The guy discovered a fundamental flaw, and is showing the need for a fix, forcing a fix, probably. That is actually a good thing. The guy is a good guy, and gets fixed something that is broken. If he were a bad guy, he would be playing with your credit card, or even worse, shutting the hell up, and letting someone else discover the vulnerability, and using it.
Maybe you think he should have contacted the responsible firms first, but that's too delicate, he could even end up with legal trouble because of that (think.. extortion). This way he will probably get the vulnerability fixed, and bluetooth users are the ones who benefit. I don't believe it's taking it too far.
Pirates know how to sail, and attack ships, murder people, loot. The usually have wooden legs, and aye patches. You are speaking about bootleggers maybe. Illegal distributors. Criminals.
Piracy is a bad term to use, because it is used to call me a criminal when I rip my cds and bring them to my workplace to enjoy them here.
The record companies are calling "pirates" everybody who wants to copy copyrighted works, even when they do it in their own right.
That causes a confusion, because you are referring to some guy who wants to rip off a company, and they refer to regular users that want to just pay once for their media. They want that confusion to happen. I believe that at this point, it would be sane at least to stop using that generic word "pirates" for do many things it doesn't mean.
The same things happens with the term "intellectual property" which is another source of confusion, with regard to copyright and trade secrets, patents.
Slashdot Mirror
We arn't[sic] trying to steal their thunder or something like that.
:^)
You gotta watch out for those when you're doing documentation!
That's why they are relying on the force of the wiki!!
Here I am
1) If you make your own newsletter, in your own time, with your own resources, paid by your advertisers, you are an independent publisher, it's ludicrous that some principal at some highschool requires to read it and pre-censor it, just because you go to that school, or distribute it to people that go there.
Of course, if you were using school resources to publish it, he would have the right to do so, but there was some talk about it having its own ads.
2) I don't see how.
3) you can be punished because of exercising free speech, and it can still fail to be a free speech issue. For example if you use your free speech to confess something punishable, or to incite people to commit some crime.
In this case, _if_ the newsletter is representative of the school, and controlled by the school, for example, the school would be just excercising editorial rights. No free speech issue. Go make your own pamphlet, kids.
Every new chip design needs virtually new fabs.
Plus, 4 Ghz is not a measure of computing power. And of course, we do need more power than a 4ghz pentium4.
Lots of physics problems (think for example robotics) need to solve numerically differential equations, and that takes power.
Actually, at my high school we were censored as well and our paper was 100% advertising supported. I think you fail to understand that the principal IS the government. He can't censor the news unless it falls into that category that would disrupt the school environment. Of course, conveniently, the principal is the one who decides this which means it is at his whim.
Nonsense.
Well, at least it seems as nonsense.
If your paper does not belong to the highschool, then what is the principal doing reading it before it is posted?
Anyway, if you already have the articles, you can always publish it independently, previous talk to the sponsors.
That is not a free speech issue, it's just someone using the power they have.
GAAAH.
I'm sorry, it's spelled "GNAA".
That's the whole point.
The guy doesn't want anybody to add the GNU/ to Linux
He wants you to call GNU what is GNU.
ls , ps, gcc, tar, bash, that is GNU.
Linux is great, mostly because it works, but it's a kernel, it's stupid to call GNU/Linux just Linux, as it would be stupid to call WindowsXP just "kernel32.dll".
What you expect when you are presented to a so-called "Linux" system is the GNU system, most people don't use so-called "Linux" program to device drivers and stuff, they usually use GNU standard libraries.
Of course, a "Linux" system can use gnome, or kde, X or just fbdev, but a "Linux" system is not a "Linux" system if it doesn't have the GNU tools. Because it's not a "Linux" system, it's a GNU/Linux system.
There are non-GNU Linux systems (like embedded Linux), but they don't comply with the concept that is called "Linux", because a regular "Linux" user wouldn't be able to do much with that system, because it is an incomplete "Linux" system (no bash, no gcc, no gnu-style options for commands).
Of course, that is because when you use a "Linux"
system, you expect a GNU system running on the Linux kernel. That is a GNU/Linux system, again.
I don't believe his claim is pointless.
I thought RMS was stupid, painting GNU/ on "Linux" t-shirts, when he was here in Uruguay for a conference, but then he gave his talk, I listened (that was hard, because he made it in spanish, and wasn't very good at it yet), and I understood.
The US supported dictatorships in Argentina and Uruguay, too, that's part of Plan Condor (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Operat ion_Condor/.
.
In Uruguay, the left (FA) was the minority in that time, but they made the mistake of having a 350k+ people public gathering, in a country with 1.5 million voters.
The elections were stolen from the favorite a center-leftist to say the least, with a little help from the CIA (e.g.: dead people voting, burned votes, it's not clear who would have won otherwise), and were won by the the authoritarian extreme right that later gave the government to the military for 11 dark years
"Special forces" got trained in Panama by US forces, in special "intelligence" techniques, like the ones you have seen in iraq performed to prisoners. They used them on comunists and tupamaros (a guerrilla group that was already completely in jail), and on everybody they didn't like.
Those military groups wouldn't have ever attained that power without the lots of support from the outside that they got. Of course, the US were not as important in Uruguay as in other countries, but it shows the kind of support they had for such regimes in south America.
I can tell you my experience.
I don't use context menus when I can.
I use GNU/Linux, and gnome, firefox, thunderbird, openoffice, don't make me use the second button.
I don't care what there is inside context menus, the only thing I use is Properties, but Alt-Enter does the job.
I have been using mswindows since 3.0, and used the same policy.
Now I use Eclipse, and there are some options missing in the default menus that force me to use context menus. I hate them. They show up at different places, are difficult to click, and not keyboard accesible. I don't like them at all, and I have had a lot of time to learn to use them.
On the other hand, I like my second and third button so I can alt-resize/move my windows, without searching for the title bar.
http://www.blender3d.org/t ml
.EXE or web 3d games viewable with its own (small) plugin.
http://www.blender3d.org/cms/Game_Blender.365.0.h
It's a 3d design package, that gives you a game engine, so you could have the graphics part solved, and can worry just about the actual game. I believe you can program for it with python.
It works on MSWindows, GNU/Linux, and other platforms, and it can generate
Fact 1: The new coalition killed _lots_ of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq. They changed a totalitarian dictatorship imposing a foreign-driven regime, with muppets as candidates for the election.
I believe foreign independence should be valued even above "democracy", in any country. The freedom of the people is among the most important values, but it should not be an excuse for taking away the freedom of the nation (and not giving freedom to the people).
Fact 2: US soldiers tortured iraqi POWs using the same techniques the CIA have been using in South America and Central America for the last 35 - 40 years.
Now the US says that some Osama Bin Laden guy killed 5000 people (Although that probably is the case, that's a fact brought to you by the same people who drove their country to war with the excuse of magically disappearing WMDs). Well, I believe that's really bad, and it shouldn't happen, but it isn't even in the same league as the other atrocities that followed.
Using an imperative language, that's true.
In functional languages, like Haskell, it would be easier to prove the program does what you want.
I think Hugs can help you derive error-free programs (I never attended the error free programming workshop, but that's what they claim).
You can always argue that the compiler is written in C or ASM, but you can get pretty close to error-free, at least with a much higher confidence.
Wrong./ homer2.html
It's spelled "Uruguay"
http://www.seorf.ohiou.edu/~ae295/frames/simpsons
You don't seem to have looked hard into the issue.
GNU is about freedom, not technology, or efforts.
KDE was not free, or at least not free enough.
From the FSF point of view, for example, it would not be ethical to use KDE when they had the previous license. There was nothing left to do but develop Gnome, from that point of view. You might differ with the point of view, but it's definitely not a pissing match.
And about that 100% overlap you talk about, I don't thik that is so. Right now they are very different desktop environments.
Maybe they have lots of equal features they could share, but as a product they cater to different people.
KDE is great as a substitute to MSWindows, it has some of its feel, and implements most of the things a MSWindows user would expect. On the other hand, I find it is not clean enough in the looks department, and I believe some of its interface design decisions are ok for 2000, but not ok for 2005.
KDE, and QT do a find job of providing a great way to develop applications especially on C++, and there are lots of them, I don't mean to say KDE is not great, just that I as a user prefer other things.
Gnome is more unfamiliar to MSWindows users, making it a bit more difficult to migrate. I believe it has a much more thought out interface, and feels more unixy, or at least GNUy to me.
That alone would be enough to have two different projects, even if ethics had never been an issue.
It's called free marketing.
People get those copies preinstalled for free on their PCs, and then in the future they might even pay some money to keep them.
Right now I am migrating many of my computer-impaired friends and relatives to firefox, thunderbird and openoffice, so it's easy to go straight into a GNU/Linux distro, probably slackware, when the time to pay comes, and maybe then I could stop getting calls for free MS support (which I mostly have to ignore, or delay into oblivion anyway).
I don't know what country you are talking about (in the story they are talking about a lot of countries)
but in my country it's not so. Many poor people don't get a complete education, because they need to go to work first.
In many places in south America there are children who didn't have the chance to learn how to read.
I am getting a degree on IT, but I know that there are lots of people in my country who don't have access to educations, and after that they dn't get any jobs. It's very little what they are doing to stay poor, the problem is that they don't have opportunity.
In the US, while the situation is milder, the same thing happens. The rich get the best education, and the best jobs, just by being rich.
You could get a nice education or a nice job, being middle class.
If you are poor, you could get there, but it's a huge difference in opportunity.
Maybe we shouldn't argue about an analogy, it's useless, you know? (anyway, it's not one open door, it's more like "XXX brand locks are damn easy to poke!!, here's how: ...")
The problem here is that he can't just talk to the companies, and say he has an exploit.
If he mailed the companies and said that they should release a fix or else he releases the exploit, that's extortion.
If he just tells them of the exploit, and expects that they do the right thing, e would be putting his trust on the wrong entity, and giving his back to the people, who could keep using vulnerable software.
By just releasing the exploit as a vulnerability warning, I believe he is doing the best he can. Both other behaviors are unacceptable to me, at least.
Who are you kidding? The situation before was that my phone was vulnerable, and that only one guy knew anything about it.
Pleaaase!!
What makes you think that only one guy knew anything about it?
That's just what _you_ know.
I believe, given most new technologies, it only takes some knowledge, and much effort, to find exploitable vulnerabilities, if you have something to gain from it. The guy is _one_ of the people who knew the vulnerability.
After this, your next phone will have one vulnerability less. If it weren't for him, it could stay hidden.
Security through obscurity just doesn't work. You are implying that noone would own your phone just because it was hard to do, and now they will, because it's easy. Nonsense. If there's money to be gained, sooner or later some guy would find the vulnerability, exploit it, and make phone users or companies lose lots of money.
Now the only loss is bug-fixing.
That many people think exactly the opposite.
That achievement he talks about would be ok, if everybody started clean. When you speak about second generation people, they start at different places, so they can achieve less.
That's why it's a fallacy. it's dumb to say that rich people are rich ecause they worked hard, and poor are poor because they are lazy.
Of course that need gives you rights. Everybody is in need, it's just that some can satisfy their need, and some cannot. Earning has nothing to do with it. Most children are born poor, right now, do you think they have earned it? do you think that people who go to harvard have earned it? do they have a right, just because some grand-grandparent hit the jackpot, compared to some boy born in Bolivia? That's just stupid, to say that rich people deserve to be rich, and poor deserve to be poor.
He isn't exactly exploiting security holes, he is showing a possible exploit, a danger that was already there, in your analogy, he is shouting that, even though you have bulletproof windows, you left the door open.
Please! try thinking!
Just because nice guys refrain from discovering vulnerabilities, it doesn't mean the bad guys will!!
The guy is just trying to force the hole to be closed.
The situation before this guy was that your phone was vulnerable, and you were ignorant. The situation now is that your phone is vulnerable, and you are aware of it, and probably won't buy another vulnerable bluetooth device until it's fixed.
I don't understand why you prefer the first scenario. It's actually possible to write vulnerability-free software. It is way too expensive, but maybe it should be required.
If people keep thinking that holes whuld just be overlooked instead of fixed, there will never be any value on providing secure software.
because they work better the way they are.
news shows produced by high schoolers, for highschoolers.
Was that intentional??
The guy discovered a fundamental flaw, and is showing the need for a fix, forcing a fix, probably. That is actually a good thing. The guy is a good guy, and gets fixed something that is broken.
.
If he were a bad guy, he would be playing with your credit card, or even worse, shutting the hell up, and letting someone else discover the vulnerability, and using it.
Maybe you think he should have contacted the responsible firms first, but that's too delicate, he could even end up with legal trouble because of that (think.. extortion)
This way he will probably get the vulnerability fixed, and bluetooth users are the ones who benefit.
I don't believe it's taking it too far.
Pirates know how to sail, and attack ships, murder people, loot. The usually have wooden legs, and aye patches.
You are speaking about bootleggers maybe. Illegal distributors. Criminals.
Piracy is a bad term to use, because it is used to call me a criminal when I rip my cds and bring them to my workplace to enjoy them here.
The record companies are calling "pirates" everybody who wants to copy copyrighted works, even when they do it in their own right.
That causes a confusion, because you are referring to some guy who wants to rip off a company, and they refer to regular users that want to just pay once for their media. They want that confusion to happen. I believe that at this point, it would be sane at least to stop using that generic word "pirates" for do many things it doesn't mean.
The same things happens with the term "intellectual property" which is another source of confusion, with regard to copyright and trade secrets, patents.