That's not a support issue, that's a bug report issue.
I would expect them to be very interested in the report of the bug, after I boot my system to an older kernel in preparation to update that one the old-fashioned way.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
The only question remaining then is the historical fact of Why the Sunday ban was imposed.
If the ban of Liquor on Sundays was historically created for religious reasons, then the law would be an unconstitutional state-sanctioned establishment of religion.
If the state has some other bonafide rational behind the law that falls within their powers (constitutionally), then the law would be constitutional.
Wouldn't the 5th ammendment protections just mean that.... since you were required by law to register, and you registered as required: your registration can't be used to incriminate you?
since the government made you register, they have encouraged your activity.
According to some conspiracy theorists eg Alex Jones
"New World Order", CFR, "Trilateral Commission", "Bilderberg Group", allegedly already have world domination strategies in mind.
(Kind of nuts if you ask me, but hey..)
Anyways.... it would seem if you want to start an international organization who seeks to take over the world, it would be perfectly legal for people in South Carolina to join, without issue.
As long as your organization's teachings are non-violent and legal. Deception and trickery seems to be perfectly fine.
Using international treaties (ala ACTA) as a way to advance your agenda seem to be perfectly legal safe ways.
In other words... despite the RIAA/MPAA/other major industry organization's obvious attempts to overthrow the government, or neutralize US sovereignty over certain matters (through treaties, lobbying, and persusasion of some politicians through campaign contributions),
none of these acts would require members in South Carolina to register.
They should make the law retroactive and throw all the democrats in jail, then:)
P.S. Not really, i'm just kidding.
But perhaps someone should try to get a political official that's a member of a certain party prosecuted, for the sole purpose of assisting in overturning this stupid law.
Right. It doesn't impact terrorists.
It impacts citizens who hold some radical views.
They want to form an organization that supports overthrowing the government (without any intention of resorting to terrorism, violence, or other illegal acts) -- voting, or getting people elected to state legislatures to initiate an Application of the
Legislatures of two thirds of the several States to call a Convention for
proposing Amendments, is a way of overthrowing the government too (peacefully)...
Now suddenly they must register as "terrorists" or face jail.
You integrate social networking functions into an e-mail service, like Google is trying.
Now Gmail can be expected to provide the same risks to the iranian government as Facebook and other social networking..
Or perhaps it was the default to always-on SSL support even for reading mail which other webmail providers don't, for increased privacy -- creating difficulty in spying on them, since (unlike China), Iran doesn't yet have its own government-controller root CA.
No wonder IRAN wants to nip this Gmail thing in the bud.
Isn't it interesting that the article says nothing about suspending Hotmail or Yahoo mail services?
I think either it's just a rumor, or they see something about Gmail as distinctly a threat.
(SSL support or Social networking, I can almost guarantee it...)
Either that or Yahoo/Hotmail were cooperating with them, or their 31337 h4x0rs already rooted Hotmail and Yahoo's servers, so they can read potential protestors' e-mail
The final possibility is they're aiming to block all webmail providers, but publicizing "disabling Google" first,
as the highest-profile, most likely one to make people unhappy.
If Iranians go with this, extending the blocks to others will be easy...
blocking one at a time avoids pissing off too many citizens simultaneously, meanwhile giving everyone fair warning to switch to the ONLY government-sanctioned e-mail service.
You know.... if half of the Iranian internet users are Yahoo mail users, they might not be too upset (in theory) about a block of Gmail.
They can get them later, after the uproar from the 1st round of blockings has died down -- and people switched to the official gov't e-mail provider as recommended by the great leader, everyone forgot, everything's back to normal..
As long as you get them to believe you're only going to use it on one, and are willing to sell you $5/month service. I mean, they are under no obligation to give you anything what so ever, and GPL kicks in only after they're giving you something.
The GPL provides the only conditions under which someone may prepare and distribute derivative works of covered software, the conditions have to be met with their redistribution of it. You can contract with them to provide the software, then they would be obligated under contract to provide the contracted services.
But if the contract contains any restrictions, conditions, or requirements on your use of GPL software you receive from them, then their distribution to you is in violaton of the GPL, due to those conditions.
And the copyright owner could take action against them, then.
Also, I think it might be legally okay to
require you to periodically disclose how many computers you plan to install the patches on. Installing on more would not be a copyright violation,
Distributing GPL'ed software to someone with a requirement that they report on usage or do other things or meet additional conditions not provided in the GPL, with respect to the GPL covered software, is a violation of the GPL.
Actually, i'm more interested in paying $5 to get one GPL'ed copy of hot patches in both binary and source, instead of $50 to get copies of the same binary patches for 10 identical systems.
No program you write in VS will not make VS a derivative work of your program.
Your program could be a derivative work of VS, VS and the standard system libraries distributed with your OS enjoy a special exemption, from the GPL (the "standard system library" exemption clause).
Isn't that practice a violation of PayPal's Terms of Service, and possibly fraud?
PayPal charges fees for transactions that are for purchases of products or services.
Mislabelling a commercial transaction as a personal one sounds like a substantial misrepresentation of the transaction taking place (and fee evasion).
Redhat doesn't distribute anything they don't provide source for.
They distribute the SRC RPMs and all the scripts needed to build RPMs identical to the ones Redhat distributes.
The GPL covers all embodiments of the covered work, and source code is required for compilation into any binary form whatsoever, whether a standalone program or not.
On another note, this applies to private transactions only, not commercial ones. This directly affects any freelancers who aren't operating as a company though, such as Rent-A-Coder, et. al.
According to TFA it applies to personal payments, not purchase of goods or services, regardless of whether they're operating as a corporation or not.
If this was a payment for a purchase of goods or services, you should contact the sender and have him or her resend the payment as follows:
(a) click the Send Money tab, and
(b) select “purchase.”
If this was a personal payment, then the sender will need to find another payment method until we restore the service. We’re sorry about this.
Oh.. but since it must be sent as a purchase, the recipient must have an account enabled for selling things, and PayPal will of course charge a transaction fee on the transfer.
The diffs themselves are not exempt from the GPL, any of its requirements, or restrictions just because they are diffs.
In other words: they have to distribute the actual diffs under the GPL also, or they would be infringing.
If they are derived from GPL'ed code (in the case of the kernel patches: both the actual security patches they are "splicing in" and the kernel itself are GPL).
Microsoft does have it (some limitations and restrictions apply -- results may vary, see inside for details, etc, etc)
More of Microsoft's patches used to be available hotfixes.
This is something you would need to specifically look up on their web site. If you want a hot patch, you may find that you can do one, for some security fixes, after reading up on the fix, and following the right procedures, but not through Windows update.
Windows update by default applies security updates the safe way, by using a reboot.
Hot patching on Windows is way too dangerous to do automatically, so it's not automatic.
You have to manually decide, to use HotPatching to apply some updates, after reading the KB articles, determining which patches you can HP, and do careful testing.
There was some sort of resurgence of coldfixes that require reboots, anyways.
Don't try to hot patch Windows, unless you know what you are doing.
Sometimes they even confused matters by calling patches that required a reboot hotfix anyways, even though hotfix specifically means a patch that can be applied live and take effect without reboot, how insane.
They provide binary patches which contain code that is a derivative work of the Linux kernel.
What makes the binary ksplice patches derivative is they are converting patches that were created by other people under GPL terms, into a binary form suitable for use with ksplice.
This means those binary patches must be distributed under the GPL, allowing recipients to share those binary patches.
It also means they must make machine-readable source code available to all their patches, along with any changes they have made, and they must provide all compilation scripts, tools, and configuration files they use to build those patches.
per the clause of the GPL that states:
The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files associated with source files for the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require,
I can see a lot of people willing to pay $5 or so per month for access to the patches for each distinct OS their systems run.
And some big enterprises paying a per-system fee to ensure everything is fully supported,
and that they can always call them for help if something goes wrong with any system.....
However, I don't see that it can be legal for them to force you to agree to pay a per-system fee to
use a binary patch.
That would seem to be in violation of your GPL rights.
Given we've already established the binary patch files must be distributed under GPL.
Any kernel-mode components of the patcher must also be under GPL, and also any user-mode components that are specific to the kernel design.
Out of curiosity... does OracleDB allow you to rollback a single SQL transaction that was already successfully committed, by using the rollback SQL command?:)
That would make that rather clever a response:-)
How about if other [non-data-dependent, in terms of relations or rows modified] transactions have been committed after it. Can you use a vendor-supplied command to rollback just one older TXN in Oracle without displacing new transactions, or disrupting the DB?
Most SQL database engines don't even provide any 'rollback' mechanism. Other than PITR after a catastrophe, where you restore a full DB backup,
you remove/move transaction logs after the point you want to recover to some other place, or direct the DB not to restore records after X point, and then start the recovery.
However, given Oracle's lofty (unimaginably high price, which removes it from even the remote list of options my Enterprise can ever even consider), I would expect them to have concocted something better.
DDoS attacks can be reduced in magnitude, by blacklisting a few thousand IPs or so, depending on the size of the botnet participating in the flood, and the nature of the flood.
It could actually be a DDoS targetting 4chan, impacting their transit network.
Or a spoofed flood with 4chan IPs as source address.
4chan might not intend to operate a proxy, that doesn't mean they are invincible to embarrassing events, such as one of their servers getting hacked and becoming a DoS source.
VZW might have also discovered (or believe they discovered) evidence of 4chan IPs being used for command and control.
An example, would be a botnet programmed to DDoS a certain target when a certain post or keyword got posted on 4C.
Then 4chan's servers are involved in Command and Control, and since they allow anonymous users to upload arbitrary content, they could be complicit in assisting botnet command and control (in some cases).
No, it was a temporary block that was probably set for purely technical reasons (such as DDoS attack)
And as soon as they could do so safely, they would want to remove the block, since it was impacting connectivity from real human users trying to access that IP range, (as well as blocking the attack)
No, that doesn't mean you can drop promises. If you made promises that exceeded your value -- than nobody in their right mind should want to merge with you.
Since merging with you means that your promises become their promises also.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not a support issue, that's a bug report issue.
I would expect them to be very interested in the report of the bug, after I boot my system to an older kernel in preparation to update that one the old-fashioned way.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
The only question remaining then is the historical fact of Why the Sunday ban was imposed.
If the ban of Liquor on Sundays was historically created for religious reasons, then the law would be an unconstitutional state-sanctioned establishment of religion.
If the state has some other bonafide rational behind the law that falls within their powers (constitutionally), then the law would be constitutional.
Wouldn't the 5th ammendment protections just mean that.... since you were required by law to register, and you registered as required: your registration can't be used to incriminate you?
since the government made you register, they have encouraged your activity.
Loophole: the law allows legal methods.
According to some conspiracy theorists eg Alex Jones "New World Order", CFR, "Trilateral Commission", "Bilderberg Group", allegedly already have world domination strategies in mind.
(Kind of nuts if you ask me, but hey..)
Anyways.... it would seem if you want to start an international organization who seeks to take over the world, it would be perfectly legal for people in South Carolina to join, without issue.
As long as your organization's teachings are non-violent and legal. Deception and trickery seems to be perfectly fine.
Using international treaties (ala ACTA) as a way to advance your agenda seem to be perfectly legal safe ways.
In other words... despite the RIAA/MPAA/other major industry organization's obvious attempts to overthrow the government, or neutralize US sovereignty over certain matters (through treaties, lobbying, and persusasion of some politicians through campaign contributions), none of these acts would require members in South Carolina to register.
Anachronistic religious motives for the ban clearly being unconstitutional as per the legal tradition of separation of church and state
It's high time the Sunday Alcohol bans got challenged in a court of law.
Can't there be some commerce clause spin on this? Given that much of Alcohol is produced out of state, there's interstate commerce involved here.
They should make the law retroactive and throw all the democrats in jail, then :)
P.S. Not really, i'm just kidding. But perhaps someone should try to get a political official that's a member of a certain party prosecuted, for the sole purpose of assisting in overturning this stupid law.
Right. It doesn't impact terrorists. It impacts citizens who hold some radical views.
They want to form an organization that supports overthrowing the government (without any intention of resorting to terrorism, violence, or other illegal acts) -- voting, or getting people elected to state legislatures to initiate an Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States to call a Convention for proposing Amendments, is a way of overthrowing the government too (peacefully)...
Now suddenly they must register as "terrorists" or face jail.
And it's exactly that ammendment which this law is blatantly contrary too...
The legislature who passed this might have good intentions, but I hope the courts strike this one down post haste.
You integrate social networking functions into an e-mail service, like Google is trying.
Now Gmail can be expected to provide the same risks to the iranian government as Facebook and other social networking..
Or perhaps it was the default to always-on SSL support even for reading mail which other webmail providers don't, for increased privacy -- creating difficulty in spying on them, since (unlike China), Iran doesn't yet have its own government-controller root CA. No wonder IRAN wants to nip this Gmail thing in the bud.
Isn't it interesting that the article says nothing about suspending Hotmail or Yahoo mail services?
I think either it's just a rumor, or they see something about Gmail as distinctly a threat. (SSL support or Social networking, I can almost guarantee it...)
Either that or Yahoo/Hotmail were cooperating with them, or their 31337 h4x0rs already rooted Hotmail and Yahoo's servers, so they can read potential protestors' e-mail
The final possibility is they're aiming to block all webmail providers, but publicizing "disabling Google" first, as the highest-profile, most likely one to make people unhappy.
If Iranians go with this, extending the blocks to others will be easy... blocking one at a time avoids pissing off too many citizens simultaneously, meanwhile giving everyone fair warning to switch to the ONLY government-sanctioned e-mail service.
You know.... if half of the Iranian internet users are Yahoo mail users, they might not be too upset (in theory) about a block of Gmail. They can get them later, after the uproar from the 1st round of blockings has died down -- and people switched to the official gov't e-mail provider as recommended by the great leader, everyone forgot, everything's back to normal..
As long as you get them to believe you're only going to use it on one, and are willing to sell you $5/month service. I mean, they are under no obligation to give you anything what so ever, and GPL kicks in only after they're giving you something.
The GPL provides the only conditions under which someone may prepare and distribute derivative works of covered software, the conditions have to be met with their redistribution of it. You can contract with them to provide the software, then they would be obligated under contract to provide the contracted services.
But if the contract contains any restrictions, conditions, or requirements on your use of GPL software you receive from them, then their distribution to you is in violaton of the GPL, due to those conditions. And the copyright owner could take action against them, then.
Also, I think it might be legally okay to require you to periodically disclose how many computers you plan to install the patches on. Installing on more would not be a copyright violation,
Distributing GPL'ed software to someone with a requirement that they report on usage or do other things or meet additional conditions not provided in the GPL, with respect to the GPL covered software, is a violation of the GPL.
Actually, i'm more interested in paying $5 to get one GPL'ed copy of hot patches in both binary and source, instead of $50 to get copies of the same binary patches for 10 identical systems.
(G)
The GPL doesn't allow them to do the redistribution of sources and tools anonymously, they have to do it themselves.
Is CentOS a semi-anonymous source for Redhat packages?
No program you write in VS will not make VS a derivative work of your program.
Your program could be a derivative work of VS, VS and the standard system libraries distributed with your OS enjoy a special exemption, from the GPL (the "standard system library" exemption clause).
Isn't that practice a violation of PayPal's Terms of Service, and possibly fraud?
PayPal charges fees for transactions that are for purchases of products or services. Mislabelling a commercial transaction as a personal one sounds like a substantial misrepresentation of the transaction taking place (and fee evasion).
That's fine... so shouldn't you be able to take advantage of the testing, pay $5 for a one system subscription
Then take all the GPL'ed (tested) patches and apply them to all your other systems running the same kernel version?
Redhat doesn't distribute anything they don't provide source for. They distribute the SRC RPMs and all the scripts needed to build RPMs identical to the ones Redhat distributes.
The GPL covers all embodiments of the covered work, and source code is required for compilation into any binary form whatsoever, whether a standalone program or not.
Not all corporations make only business transactions.
Sometimes the owner doesn't follow best practices -- and mixes personal funds with corporate funds.
On another note, this applies to private transactions only, not commercial ones. This directly affects any freelancers who aren't operating as a company though, such as Rent-A-Coder, et. al.
According to TFA it applies to personal payments, not purchase of goods or services, regardless of whether they're operating as a corporation or not.
Oh.. but since it must be sent as a purchase, the recipient must have an account enabled for selling things, and PayPal will of course charge a transaction fee on the transfer.
The diffs themselves are not exempt from the GPL, any of its requirements, or restrictions just because they are diffs.
In other words: they have to distribute the actual diffs under the GPL also, or they would be infringing.
If they are derived from GPL'ed code (in the case of the kernel patches: both the actual security patches they are "splicing in" and the kernel itself are GPL).
Microsoft does have it (some limitations and restrictions apply -- results may vary, see inside for details, etc, etc)
More of Microsoft's patches used to be available hotfixes.
This is something you would need to specifically look up on their web site. If you want a hot patch, you may find that you can do one, for some security fixes, after reading up on the fix, and following the right procedures, but not through Windows update.
Windows update by default applies security updates the safe way, by using a reboot.
Hot patching on Windows is way too dangerous to do automatically, so it's not automatic. You have to manually decide, to use HotPatching to apply some updates, after reading the KB articles, determining which patches you can HP, and do careful testing.
There was some sort of resurgence of coldfixes that require reboots, anyways. Don't try to hot patch Windows, unless you know what you are doing.
Sometimes they even confused matters by calling patches that required a reboot hotfix anyways, even though hotfix specifically means a patch that can be applied live and take effect without reboot, how insane.
Very true. However, the Linux kernel is GPL'ed.
They provide binary patches which contain code that is a derivative work of the Linux kernel. What makes the binary ksplice patches derivative is they are converting patches that were created by other people under GPL terms, into a binary form suitable for use with ksplice.
This means those binary patches must be distributed under the GPL, allowing recipients to share those binary patches.
It also means they must make machine-readable source code available to all their patches, along with any changes they have made, and they must provide all compilation scripts, tools, and configuration files they use to build those patches. per the clause of the GPL that states:
I can see a lot of people willing to pay $5 or so per month for access to the patches for each distinct OS their systems run.
And some big enterprises paying a per-system fee to ensure everything is fully supported, and that they can always call them for help if something goes wrong with any system.....
However, I don't see that it can be legal for them to force you to agree to pay a per-system fee to use a binary patch.
That would seem to be in violation of your GPL rights.
Given we've already established the binary patch files must be distributed under GPL.
Any kernel-mode components of the patcher must also be under GPL, and also any user-mode components that are specific to the kernel design.
The rest can be reverse-engineered.
Out of curiosity... does OracleDB allow you to rollback a single SQL transaction that was already successfully committed, by using the rollback SQL command? :)
That would make that rather clever a response :-)
How about if other [non-data-dependent, in terms of relations or rows modified] transactions have been committed after it. Can you use a vendor-supplied command to rollback just one older TXN in Oracle without displacing new transactions, or disrupting the DB?
Most SQL database engines don't even provide any 'rollback' mechanism. Other than PITR after a catastrophe, where you restore a full DB backup, you remove/move transaction logs after the point you want to recover to some other place, or direct the DB not to restore records after X point, and then start the recovery.
However, given Oracle's lofty (unimaginably high price, which removes it from even the remote list of options my Enterprise can ever even consider), I would expect them to have concocted something better.
DDoS attacks can be reduced in magnitude, by blacklisting a few thousand IPs or so, depending on the size of the botnet participating in the flood, and the nature of the flood.
It could actually be a DDoS targetting 4chan, impacting their transit network.
Or a spoofed flood with 4chan IPs as source address.
4chan might not intend to operate a proxy, that doesn't mean they are invincible to embarrassing events, such as one of their servers getting hacked and becoming a DoS source.
VZW might have also discovered (or believe they discovered) evidence of 4chan IPs being used for command and control.
An example, would be a botnet programmed to DDoS a certain target when a certain post or keyword got posted on 4C.
Then 4chan's servers are involved in Command and Control, and since they allow anonymous users to upload arbitrary content, they could be complicit in assisting botnet command and control (in some cases).
No, it was a temporary block that was probably set for purely technical reasons (such as DDoS attack)
And as soon as they could do so safely, they would want to remove the block, since it was impacting connectivity from real human users trying to access that IP range, (as well as blocking the attack)
No, that doesn't mean you can drop promises. If you made promises that exceeded your value -- than nobody in their right mind should want to merge with you.
Since merging with you means that your promises become their promises also.