Kaspersky says that experts at his company's laboratories have successfully completed one such prototype: the result is a fully functional and potentially virile Linux virus. Kaspersky assures ZDNet that the virus is under lock and key and will stay that way.
I suppose he also has a list in his pocket of 205 communists^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H viruses in the Linux department:-)
It's likely that nobody reads the emails themselves. I'm guessing they have an automated system that takes the word, wp, or pdf attachments, converts them to some internal format, and slaps them in a database. Ignoring text emails helps weed out the useless flames.
why's this article coming up red and yellow? (All the other articles come up and standard/. green).
Because/. has a different (ugly) color scheme for each section. Click a link in the box on the left with "apache", "askslashdot", etc. and you'll see what I mean.
Actually, I believe there are quite a few certification-style licensing tests where the questions are available. IIRC (I might not) the tests for your pilot's license, ham radio license, and probably others have a large pool of public questions from which a sample is drawn.
Here is a detailed list of subject matter for the 1A test. They might as well give you the answers.
Plus, in the meantime, it's far easier to control a lot of pollution from a handful of sources than it is to control a little bit of pollution from millions of sources. Convert cars to electricity and put better air scrubbers on your coal-burning power plants (or even gas-burning since there's now a huge surplus of gasoline), and you've just saved a lot of pollution. More, I would expect, than if you retrofitted all cars with air scrubbers.
The problem is, like many other people have said, that there isn't enough public interest.
2.LICENSE The LuraTech Software Product are licensed to users, not sold. The license issuer retains the right of use of the enclosed software and any accompanying fonts (collectively referred to as LuraTech-Software-Product) whether on disk, in read only memory, or on any other media. You own the media on which the LuraTech-Software-Product is recorded but LuraTech and/or LuraTech's licensor(s) retain title to the LuraTech-Software-Product. The LuraTech-Software-Product in this package and any copies which this license authorises you to make are subject to this license.
As someone who uses X basically to run half a dozen Xterms, Netscape, and occasionally the Gimp, what's the advantage to upgrading to 4.0?
It seems that loadable modules for font rasterizers, etc., would make the initial setup easier, but once that is up, what's the difference to someone who doesn't use 3D or any other sort of "multimedia?"
People believe worse than that... ten years or so ago, in church, I overheard a woman stating seriously that computers are the Beast (of Revelation) because they use 9s and 6s to represent data. (666, get it?) Computers use 9s and 6s because a 6 is an upside down 9.
This is true, I swear I am not making this up. And I've yet to hear a clueless luser story that tops it:-)
I was just explaining that they are used because companies are still trying to force digital information into the old mode of Cost=Demand/Supply, which is doomed to failure eventually.
Then what's the point? They are doing it to help their bottom line, whether it's legitimately (protecting their property) or not (unethically damaging their competition/site that may confuse their customers). If they are not in any way impaired by the existence of B&N's one click shopping or etoy.com, then they must just be stupid, or malicious assholes, to have brought the lawsuits in the first place.
And now that I think about it, that's not entirely unlikely. I was assuming they were just greedy:-)
You've certainly highlighted the main points against software licenses more eloquently than I could have. But are you saying that they are a necessary evil that only exist for developers to be paid? Though it's not nearly as unbalanced as other industries, (music comes to mind) the developers are usually paid a small part of the proceeds from software sales. There's got to be another way.
When you buy a music CD, there isn't any license saying that you are not permitted to determine the instruments used or to use software to transcribe the score. You aren't locked into any agreement with the distributor when you play the CD. And the general idea is that you are purchasing a product (not a license) and it is yours to do with as you wish, short of making copies and distributing them. (But I'd probably argue with that too if I felt so inclined:-)
It's not a perfect analogy, but why are things so different in the software world, where trade secrets become irrelevant after a year or two anyway? Here you are definitely purchasing a license, not a product, as if it were a limited resource that everyone has to share. That's just not the case.
Eventually, I suppose so, but there's no way around that for the current situation to change. Hopefully the judge will realize that the CCA's whole case rests on a so-called "contract" that no one ever signed. Even if he (she?) does, I doubt this will be a precedent setting case. But it could start a new trend toward greater software freedom.
You do have a point there. But I would guess that Amazon's real motivation was not protecting their IP, but redirecting those Christmas sales from B&N to them. Now that they've accomplished that, it might be in their best interest (bottom-line wise) to drop the suit and not risk losing it. But maybe I'm just too cynical.;-)
No kidding! This has nothing to do with the "side of reason." I bet Amazon is right behind them dropping their suit against B&N... the Christmas shopping season is mostly over, so the injunctions are no longer necessary.
From the complaint, pps. 45, 46, and 47, , for your convenience: "....The DeCSS program... is a substantial derivation of confidential proprietary information which DVD CCA licenses pursuant to the CSS Agreement....On information and belief, this proprietary information was obtained by willfully "hacking" and/or improperly reverse engineering software created by CSS licensee Xing Technology Corporation ("Xing"). Xing's software is and was licensed to users under a license agreement which specifically prohibits reverse engineering."
This case is not fundamentally about DVD, not about CSS, not about linking, not even about reverse engineering. This is really about the legitimacy of "shrinkwrap" software licenses, and IMO it should be treated as such.
And you've got to love "A vendor who had only a passing knowledge of microsoft.com coding policies delivered the first Windows CE site. The first test on the site with Weblint, a tool used to check validity of HTML, returned 100 pages of errors."
I suppose Microsoft coding policies specify a maximum of 50 pages of errors:-)
Better yet... delete your cookie file, then use Netscape to visit a site whose cookie you want to retain (like Slashdot). Set the permissions on your cookie file to 0400. Netscape won't overwrite it and you don't have to log back in to whatever site you've stored.
Slashdot Mirror
Kaspersky says that experts at his company's laboratories have successfully completed one such prototype: the result is a fully functional and potentially virile Linux virus. Kaspersky assures ZDNet that the virus is under lock and key and will stay that way.
:-)
I suppose he also has a list in his pocket of 205 communists^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H viruses in the Linux department
cron jobs that produce the smell of toast and coffee Now that smells like a good idea.
It's likely that nobody reads the emails themselves. I'm guessing they have an automated system that takes the word, wp, or pdf attachments, converts them to some internal format, and slaps them in a database. Ignoring text emails helps weed out the useless flames.
why's this article coming up red and yellow? (All the other articles come up and standard /. green).
/. has a different (ugly) color scheme for each section. Click a link in the box on the left with "apache", "askslashdot", etc. and you'll see what I mean.
Because
Actually, I believe there are quite a few certification-style licensing tests where the questions are available. IIRC (I might not) the tests for your pilot's license, ham radio license, and probably others have a large pool of public questions from which a sample is drawn.
Here is a detailed list of subject matter for the 1A test. They might as well give you the answers.
Nelson: "Take a note on your Newton: Beat up Martin."
<Newton renders the message as "Eat up Martha">
Other bully: Throws the Newton at Martin.
Plus, in the meantime, it's far easier to control a lot of pollution from a handful of sources than it is to control a little bit of pollution from millions of sources. Convert cars to electricity and put better air scrubbers on your coal-burning power plants (or even gas-burning since there's now a huge surplus of gasoline), and you've just saved a lot of pollution. More, I would expect, than if you retrofitted all cars with air scrubbers.
The problem is, like many other people have said, that there isn't enough public interest.
2.LICENSE
The LuraTech Software Product are licensed to users, not sold. The license issuer retains the right of use of the enclosed software and any accompanying fonts (collectively referred to as LuraTech-Software-Product) whether on disk, in read only memory, or on any other media. You own the media on which the LuraTech-Software-Product is recorded but LuraTech and/or LuraTech's licensor(s) retain title to the LuraTech-Software-Product. The LuraTech-Software-Product in this package and any copies which this license authorises you to make are subject to this license.
Eyewww.....
As someone who uses X basically to run half a dozen Xterms, Netscape, and occasionally the Gimp, what's the advantage to upgrading to 4.0?
It seems that loadable modules for font rasterizers, etc., would make the initial setup easier, but once that is up, what's the difference to someone who doesn't use 3D or any other sort of "multimedia?"
It's also mathematically incorrect that 3.10 > 3.5, (that confused me for a while :-) but since it isn't a decimal number, it doesn't really matter...
My university (in fact, the entire university system) is shutting down for fear of "hackers" (their term) not so much for the Y2K bug.
And I, like the pathetic slave I am, have to be in on Saturday just to post a "We're OK, the sky failed to fall" message to the web site.
People believe worse than that... ten years or so ago, in church, I overheard a woman stating seriously that computers are the Beast (of Revelation) because they use 9s and 6s to represent data. (666, get it?) Computers use 9s and 6s because a 6 is an upside down 9.
:-)
This is true, I swear I am not making this up. And I've yet to hear a clueless luser story that tops it
Support for other browsers will be added.
Please bear with us - and come back soon!
Kudos to the creators, my ass.
Actually, since they'll hit 2000 21-17 hours earlier than us, we'll probably be toasted before ever reaching the new year :-)
I was just explaining that they are used because companies are still trying to force digital information into the old mode of Cost=Demand/Supply, which is doomed to failure eventually.
:-)
Well, we agree completely
Then what's the point? They are doing it to help their bottom line, whether it's legitimately (protecting their property) or not (unethically damaging their competition/site that may confuse their customers). If they are not in any way impaired by the existence of B&N's one click shopping or etoy.com, then they must just be stupid, or malicious assholes, to have brought the lawsuits in the first place.
:-)
And now that I think about it, that's not entirely unlikely. I was assuming they were just greedy
You've certainly highlighted the main points against software licenses more eloquently than I could have. But are you saying that they are a necessary evil that only exist for developers to be paid? Though it's not nearly as unbalanced as other industries, (music comes to mind) the developers are usually paid a small part of the proceeds from software sales. There's got to be another way.
:-)
When you buy a music CD, there isn't any license saying that you are not permitted to determine the instruments used or to use software to transcribe the score. You aren't locked into any agreement with the distributor when you play the CD. And the general idea is that you are purchasing a product (not a license) and it is yours to do with as you wish, short of making copies and distributing them. (But I'd probably argue with that too if I felt so inclined
It's not a perfect analogy, but why are things so different in the software world, where trade secrets become irrelevant after a year or two anyway? Here you are definitely purchasing a license, not a product, as if it were a limited resource that everyone has to share. That's just not the case.
Eventually, I suppose so, but there's no way around that for the current situation to change.
Hopefully the judge will realize that the CCA's whole case rests on a so-called "contract" that no one ever signed. Even if he (she?) does, I doubt this will be a precedent setting case. But it could start a new trend toward greater software freedom.
You do have a point there. But I would guess that Amazon's real motivation was not protecting their IP, but redirecting those Christmas sales from B&N to them. Now that they've accomplished that, it might be in their best interest (bottom-line wise) to drop the suit and not risk losing it. But maybe I'm just too cynical. ;-)
No kidding! This has nothing to do with the "side of reason." I bet Amazon is right behind them dropping their suit against B&N... the Christmas shopping season is mostly over, so the injunctions are no longer necessary.
From the complaint, pps. 45, 46, and 47, , for your convenience: "....The DeCSS program ... is a substantial derivation of confidential proprietary information which DVD CCA licenses pursuant to the CSS Agreement....On information and belief, this proprietary information was obtained by willfully "hacking" and/or improperly reverse engineering software created by CSS licensee Xing Technology Corporation ("Xing"). Xing's software is and was licensed to users under a license agreement which specifically prohibits reverse engineering."
This case is not fundamentally about DVD, not about CSS, not about linking, not even about reverse engineering. This is really about the legitimacy of "shrinkwrap" software licenses, and IMO it should be treated as such.
And you've got to love "A vendor who had only a passing knowledge of microsoft.com coding policies delivered the first Windows CE site. The first test on the site with Weblint, a tool used to check validity of HTML, returned 100 pages of errors."
:-)
I suppose Microsoft coding policies specify a maximum of 50 pages of errors
That's the best argument I've seen yet not to do away with first posting :-)
Not to mention the only thing on slashdot that's made me laugh out loud!
Better yet... delete your cookie file, then use Netscape to visit a site whose cookie you want to retain (like Slashdot). Set the permissions on your cookie file to 0400. Netscape won't overwrite it and you don't have to log back in to whatever site you've stored.
er... insert "I just pulled two receipts out of my wallet" after the first sentence there :-)