Here's a footnote from the Word version availalble at http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/EN/projets/cyber crime.doc (yes I'm using windows...) :
Several comments from industry indicated that the so-called "cracking-devices", to which Article 6 applies, may also be used legitimately to test system security. The explanatory report shall clarify that the conduct defined by Article 6, when undertaken with such legitimate purposes, would be considered to be "with right". Furthermore, the burden of proof of the unlawfulness of conduct under Article 6 would lie with the prosecution. In this context, reference should be made to the footnote under Article 2 concerning the meaning of "without right".
That would seem to indicate that comments (from someone at least -- "industry" could mean anything from Microsoft executives to me) weren't ignored.
As many other people have pointed out, the United States is not a part of the Council of Europe. However, as a strict Constitutionalist, you probably already knew that.
Thanks for posting that. It seems to me that this is not as insipid as people are making it out to be. I certainly don't see how this covers *descriptions* of exploits. It would seem to cover root kits and the like, but that's a good thing, IMO. This by itself is not going to cause massive regulation of the industry and a carnivore at every modem.
is why the performance enhancing drug ephedrine (actually fairly commonly used by athletes in combination with caffeine and aspirin) will get someone's medal revoked but the performance enhancing drug "amino acids from hornet larvae's stomachs" will not.
"We sat down with them and agreed that they could use their Linux box as long as our phone didn't ring when they had critical problems," Maday says. "So far, we haven't heard one thing from them since the meeting we had a few months ago."
I don't think there's any comment necessary on this one...
About a month and a half ago I moved my institution's web site from NT/Netscape Server to Linux/Apache. Of course, Microsoft will still claim it as a purchased license, but at least in this case Linux took one small bit away from M$'s server market:-)
Re:Quimby2000.com doesn't support Linux
on
Quimby2000
·
· Score: 1
No problems for me, either, and I'm using Mozilla on Linux.
I've been trying to find a unix (console or X, doesn't matter) replacement for UltraEdit for *quite* a while... nothing comes close. Emacs is a pain in the ass, but it might have the potential. I'm getting used to it (slowly):-)
And UE doesn't run well under WINE... somebody get Ian Mead to port it!!!
This doesn't look like plain NAT to me. Look at Claim 2 -- it looks like a method for re-using normal IP addresses. So if I'm at 123.123.123.123 behind the Cisco-patented router, I think this would allow me to talk to a different address at 123.123.123.123 *outside* the router.
Hmm... I just looked at a bunch of my Floyd CDs to check. Division Bell and Animals they own; Final Cut, Meddle; earlier stuff is owned by other companies. Looks like the trends on owning your own music (what a concept) is applying to lots of old bands... j-tull.com is owned by the Ian Anderson Group of Companies while his old stuff is mostly owned by Chrysalis.
It would probably be better to set up a.netscape directory that you are happy with and do
rm -rf ~/.netscape
cp -R ~/backup.netscape ~/.netscape
Then you don't have to mess with the EULA crap and you can save any cookies you may wish to save.
Better yet, write protect your cookie file. Netscape will respect that and will never write a cookie permanently. And you can leave those slashdot cookies alone.
Seriously, this company and z-university provide a good service. Z-university actually makes enough money off each alumni "portal" that they can afford to employ a workstudy student *at* the college to update the content. I bet that student wouldn't complain about the commercialization.
Plus the school gets a good feature that underpaid, bureaucraticalized administrators don't have time to create.
Um... yes? I work at a college, and most of the cracking/DoSing attempts on our network come from the dorms. Most of the ones that don't come from the dorms come from OTHER schools' dorms.
I'm not aware of any real misogyny... and the intolerance is more or less endemic to the type of people who join. I don't like Promise Keepers because IME people who join it do so out of a need to be told what to do, and the organization exists mainly to bleed the faithful of their cash.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a footnote from the Word version availalble at http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/EN/projets/cyber crime.doc (yes I'm using windows...) :
Several comments from industry indicated that the so-called "cracking-devices", to which Article 6 applies, may also be used legitimately to test system security. The explanatory report shall clarify that the conduct defined by Article 6, when undertaken with such legitimate purposes, would be considered to be "with right". Furthermore, the burden of proof of the unlawfulness of conduct under Article 6 would lie with the prosecution. In this context, reference should be made to the footnote under Article 2 concerning the meaning of "without right".
That would seem to indicate that comments (from someone at least -- "industry" could mean anything from Microsoft executives to me) weren't ignored.
As many other people have pointed out, the United States is not a part of the Council of Europe. However, as a strict Constitutionalist, you probably already knew that.
Thanks for posting that. It seems to me that this is not as insipid as people are making it out to be. I certainly don't see how this covers *descriptions* of exploits. It would seem to cover root kits and the like, but that's a good thing, IMO. This by itself is not going to cause massive regulation of the industry and a carnivore at every modem.
is why the performance enhancing drug ephedrine (actually fairly commonly used by athletes in combination with caffeine and aspirin) will get someone's medal revoked but the performance enhancing drug "amino acids from hornet larvae's stomachs" will not.
About a month and a half ago I moved my institution's web site from NT/Netscape Server to Linux/Apache. Of course, Microsoft will still claim it as a purchased license, but at least in this case Linux took one small bit away from M$'s server market :-)
No problems for me, either, and I'm using Mozilla on Linux.
I don't know, but I'm sure the objection is only that it uses Motif, which is non-free.
I've been trying to find a unix (console or X, doesn't matter) replacement for UltraEdit for *quite* a while... nothing comes close. Emacs is a pain in the ass, but it might have the potential. I'm getting used to it (slowly) :-)
And UE doesn't run well under WINE... somebody get Ian Mead to port it!!!
You should really try something other than Coors Lite or Milwaukee's Beast sometime...
That was in Saigon in the late 60s in protest of something or other...
Yeah, man, it could have been, like, cosmic forces, like, beyond our comprehension... <eep> heeeere...
Yeah, well, hopefully it won't be AT&TAOLTimeWarnerMicrosoftNBC doing it....
This doesn't look like plain NAT to me. Look at Claim 2 -- it looks like a method for re-using normal IP addresses. So if I'm at 123.123.123.123 behind the Cisco-patented router, I think this would allow me to talk to a different address at 123.123.123.123 *outside* the router.
:-)
I'm not real good at lawyer-speak though
Yeah, no shit. But since an article about it was posted on Slashdot, doesn't that mean that Slashdot filed for the patent?
No, he's quite right. Lots of liquid water in a sub-freezing environment is a Bad Thing.
Hmm... I just looked at a bunch of my Floyd CDs to check. Division Bell and Animals they own; Final Cut, Meddle; earlier stuff is owned by other companies. Looks like the trends on owning your own music (what a concept) is applying to lots of old bands... j-tull.com is owned by the Ian Anderson Group of Companies while his old stuff is mostly owned by Chrysalis.
take another look at step 1 :-)
It would probably be better to set up a .netscape directory that you are happy with and do
rm -rf ~/.netscape
cp -R ~/backup.netscape ~/.netscape
Then you don't have to mess with the EULA crap and you can save any cookies you may wish to save.
Better yet, write protect your cookie file. Netscape will respect that and will never write a cookie permanently. And you can leave those slashdot cookies alone.
hmmm...
Headline: "Colleges Get Free Web Pages, but With a Catch: Advertising"
Right next to the headline: "Compaq Armada 100: Now just $999"
Online registration is like using a 9600bps modem to view Slashdot.
Let me guess... Banner, right? Thought so. Banner is EVIL.
Well, they employ the student anyway. I have no idea how much money they make or lose :-)
a commercial "news" channel in k-12?
Seriously, this company and z-university provide a good service. Z-university actually makes enough money off each alumni "portal" that they can afford to employ a workstudy student *at* the college to update the content. I bet that student wouldn't complain about the commercialization.
Plus the school gets a good feature that underpaid, bureaucraticalized administrators don't have time to create.
Um... yes? I work at a college, and most of the cracking/DoSing attempts on our network come from the dorms. Most of the ones that don't come from the dorms come from OTHER schools' dorms.
I'm not aware of any real misogyny... and the intolerance is more or less endemic to the type of people who join. I don't like Promise Keepers because IME people who join it do so out of a need to be told what to do, and the organization exists mainly to bleed the faithful of their cash.
:-)
Just another ex-fundie...