Some of the problems with BIND in the past were triggered by malformed data from another nameserver. Software that will never pass a query on, and only answer in respect of domains fot which it is authoritative, is immune from that class of vulnerabilities.
It's possible to disable BIND's recursion feature, though. In fact, that's been the recommended workaround for a number of problems in the past: try a Google search for 'workaround recursion'. Still, the feature is there and makes the software more complex than it would be otherwise. Less complexity *should* (all other things being equal) translate into fewer bugs and hence vulnerabilities.
Yes, the London Underground is an engineering feat. Actually, just keeping it running is quite something. But it's not cheap. A typical ride costs about $3 in American money. That compares to $1.50 in New York, about $1.30 in Paris, and a few cents in Moscow. If it *looks* cheap, you're probably comparing to other transport in the UK!
I'd like to know how the New York subway manages to run 24 hours a day, when London Underground claim it's impossible!
You've got 'safe search', which excludes 'unsuitable' results, enabled on IE and disabled on Mozilla. I believe Google sets a cookie, which explains why the same URL returns different results on each browser.
The 'Mozilla' URL you quoted explicitly turns 'safe search' off ('&safe=off'), so you get all the results when you paste it into IE.
Google offers a preferences page, which allows you to decide whether you want to use 'safe search' and various other options by default.
Finally I want to mention that the boundary check vulnerabilities are only exploitable on linux or solaris. The heap off by one is only exploitable on linux(maybe solaris)x86 and the arbitrary heap overflow in PHP3 is exploitable on most OS and architectures. (This includes *BSD, Windows, Linux, Solaris)
It would seem to be a question of operating system rather than web server.
What Google needs to add is a posting facility for serious text based groups such as the comp.* hierarchy. They could put all the restriction on it they want, keeping posts to 500 characters, spam filters, pr0n filters, whatever, but buying Deja.com and profiting from the existence of USENET they must accept some responsibility to keep the medium alive.
But the text you quoted (at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html) goes on to describe 'major components' as 'compiler, kernel, and so on'. Visual Studio *is* normally distributed with the (Microsoft) compiler.
It's quite clear that the GPL considers the compiler to be part of the operating system for the purposes of this condition. Windows is hardly unique in having a compiler that is not included with the base operating system.
I'll ignore, for the moment, that your analogy conflates physical and intellectual property. Deep linking is closer to a situation where you're asked for a specific type of watch, and reply that Bob has just the (stolen) one you need, explaining exactly where it may be found.
Your distinction between linking to files and pages is a false one. Pages are files, and moreover this is no mere technical distinction. A single page can easily contain an entire copyright work. You may, of course, argue that the law should treat music differently from the written word, but provide no compelling reason to do this.
It's an interesting and thought-provoking review, but the debate seems to be argued at cross-purposes. There are, of course, factual errors and misconceptions, but there's a bigger problem herer. The underlying assumption is a comparison between Linux as a software upgrade to Windows and Mac OS as new hardware.
It's not really that the article is biased; this problem hits both operating systems equally hard. Linux loses points on installation because, um, you have to install it if it's not pre-installed (duh...): only relevant if upgrading. OS 9 loses out because the hardware's more expensive than a Windows box: only relevant if buying a new machine.
However, they don't even seem sure that that's what they are comparing. OS 9 picks up points for preserving preferences when you're upgrading. Linux loses out because popular Microsoft apps aren't available, but also because of the complications of dual booting with Windows.
Allaire Forums was effectively abandoned two years ago. The guy who wrote it left, and nobody else was interested in maintaining it. Since then, a few maintenance releases have come out, but only to make it run with successive versions of ColdFusion. If Allaire had released it open source a couple years back, when they stopped active development, it'd have looked innovative. Now, it just looks confused.
Forums did, incidentally, use Allaire's 'encrypted templates' technology -- but only one of the many files that make it up made use of it. This was used to enforce the 30-day trial version, but served little other purpose. I guess it'd be possible to override this, but the average ColdFusion programmer wouldn't know how.
Fact is, ColdFusion has been overtaken. I've done a great deal of work using the product, and it still has a number of advantages in a corporate environment such easy access to LDAP and integration with NTLM security in the Windows version. However, it's really hobbled by the lack of support for such basics as functions and file handling. If you want to do anything beyond ColdFusion's predefined tags, you're stuck. Sure, you can extend ColdFusion using C++, but that's another skill level entirely. At last, there's a Linux version... but PHP blows it away anyways.
Network Solutions and all other registrars follow a uniform Dispute Policy. This is incorporated by reference into the NSI service agreement. Under that policy, you can only lose your domain if
your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
(emphasis added). That's a lot of ands. The company could, of course, take a more traditional route and seek a court order against either you or NSI. The fact that they and NSI are based in the same country might make this easier, but they'd still have to have a case against your use of the name.
Bringing this all back on topic, it seems that NSI are claiming a much broader right to terminate registration services. Whilst they have a clearly defined dispute policy, it's not at all clear what they'd consider an 'improper use'. Have any domains been terminated yet under this clause? The case referred to in the story addresses the issue of whether a domain is property or a service, but from the dates seems to have arisen from an earlier registration agreement without this clause.
Not that it means anything, but someone was going to point it out.
Just like Andover, I have a few domains registered with NSI that I'd like to transfer. Is there a good FAQ/HOWTO out there? I'm particularly interested in actual experiences and pitfalls to avoid.
A couple other people seem to like your answer, and I'll grant you it's clever. However, it's not the same conceptually as MP3.com's situation.
In the case of mass-marketed music, my copy of a song, MP3.com's, and countless others around the world have the same origin. They all come from the same set of master tapes and result from the same creative act.
In your example, the two BIOSes were written in two separate creative acts and do not have the same origin.
You're equating the actual, ultimate origin of a copy with its detailed copying history -- which doesn't necessarily make sense. It would appear that US law does the same.
This is about sharing content created by others, without their consent. DeCSS is about reverse engineering and creating home-grown tools. Crypto is about protection from snooping.
These are different issues. You can't just lump them together and talk about your rights slipping away just because the law says there are some things you can't do.
Of course laws restrict what you can do. That's the point of having laws. Some of the restrictions, such as those on murder and theft, are almost universally accepted. Others are more hotly contested. You seem to be hiding behind a general dislike of the law, rather than standing up for the particular rights you want to defend.
'It's illegal, so don't complain' is a poor argument. 'I don't like the law so I'll just ignore it' is just as bad, unless you're prepared to regard all lawbreakers as justified. Better to start by explaining exactly how you want copyright law changed.
Re:"Good Times" wasn't a hoax
on
Hoax-a-go-go!
·
· Score: 1
It's a good FAQ, and includes the following:
Was the hoax a sort of virus itself?
Yes, but it wasn't a computer virus. It was more like a social virus or a thought virus.
When someone on alt.folklore.urban asked if the virus was for real, Clay Shirky (clays@panix.com) answered:
"Its for real. Its an opportunistic self-replicating email virus which tricks its host into replicating it, sometimes adding as many as 200,000 copies at a go. It works by finding hosts with defective parsing apparatus which prevents them from understanding that a piece of email which says there is an email virus and then asking them to remail the message to all their friends is the virus itself."
The United Kingdom has three separate legal jurisdictions: England & Wales (one jurisdiction), Northern Ireland, and Scotland. Each is a separate 'country' for most legal purposes. The legal systems of England & Wales and Northern Ireland are based on a set of principles known as the Common Law. The Common Law forms the basis of the legal systems of virtually all the former members of the British empire, including the USA. So, for example, decisions of judges in Australia and the USA can be quoted in English courts and vice versa.
Scotland's legal system is based on a set of principles derived from classical Rome and known as Civil Law. Most of the countries of continental Europe have legal systems based on Civil Law.
FWIW, this was a settlement, not a ruling, so doesn't set a precedent.
I read this and thought of the free ISP discussion a couple days back. Less than $20 a month may be no way to get rich, but could be a way to fund an Internet connection. Let the ISP sell your spare clock cycles and get free access in return. Distributed has the.net domain for it already.:)
There may be some problems making the RF side of a 'world phone' work properly, but it's been done. A good many European GSM phones now operate on both 900 MHz and 1800 MHz bands.
Motorola currently offer a 900, 1800 and 1900 MHz tri-band phone, the L7089, but it's still GSM only. Support for other modes would improve coverage in countries like the US and Canada, where other standards are in use.
Whether this chip actually gets *used* in such a phone is another matter. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Slashdot Mirror
Some of the problems with BIND in the past were triggered by malformed data from another nameserver. Software that will never pass a query on, and only answer in respect of domains fot which it is authoritative, is immune from that class of vulnerabilities.
It's possible to disable BIND's recursion feature, though. In fact, that's been the recommended workaround for a number of problems in the past: try a Google search for 'workaround recursion'. Still, the feature is there and makes the software more complex than it would be otherwise. Less complexity *should* (all other things being equal) translate into fewer bugs and hence vulnerabilities.
Yes, the London Underground is an engineering feat. Actually, just keeping it running is quite something. But it's not cheap. A typical ride costs about $3 in American money. That compares to $1.50 in New York, about $1.30 in Paris, and a few cents in Moscow. If it *looks* cheap, you're probably comparing to other transport in the UK!
I'd like to know how the New York subway manages to run 24 hours a day, when London Underground claim it's impossible!
You've got 'safe search', which excludes 'unsuitable' results, enabled on IE and disabled on Mozilla. I believe Google sets a cookie, which explains why the same URL returns different results on each browser.
The 'Mozilla' URL you quoted explicitly turns 'safe search' off ('&safe=off'), so you get all the results when you paste it into IE.
Google offers a preferences page, which allows you to decide whether you want to use 'safe search' and various other options by default.
From the advisory:
It would seem to be a question of operating system rather than web server.They've got one. See the Posting FAQ.
But the text you quoted (at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html) goes on to describe 'major components' as 'compiler, kernel, and so on'. Visual Studio *is* normally distributed with the (Microsoft) compiler.
It's quite clear that the GPL considers the compiler to be part of the operating system for the purposes of this condition. Windows is hardly unique in having a compiler that is not included with the base operating system.
Yes, except the UK system mirrors the TLDs, so
.co.uk - Anyone who wants it
.org.uk - Anyone who wants it
.net.uk - Anyone who want it
*
*
*
.co.us is, of course, already taken.
Your distinction between linking to files and pages is a false one. Pages are files, and moreover this is no mere technical distinction. A single page can easily contain an entire copyright work. You may, of course, argue that the law should treat music differently from the written word, but provide no compelling reason to do this.
It's not really that the article is biased; this problem hits both operating systems equally hard. Linux loses points on installation because, um, you have to install it if it's not pre-installed (duh...): only relevant if upgrading. OS 9 loses out because the hardware's more expensive than a Windows box: only relevant if buying a new machine.
However, they don't even seem sure that that's what they are comparing. OS 9 picks up points for preserving preferences when you're upgrading. Linux loses out because popular Microsoft apps aren't available, but also because of the complications of dual booting with Windows.
Interesting, nevertheless.
Forums did, incidentally, use Allaire's 'encrypted templates' technology -- but only one of the many files that make it up made use of it. This was used to enforce the 30-day trial version, but served little other purpose. I guess it'd be possible to override this, but the average ColdFusion programmer wouldn't know how.
Fact is, ColdFusion has been overtaken. I've done a great deal of work using the product, and it still has a number of advantages in a corporate environment such easy access to LDAP and integration with NTLM security in the Windows version. However, it's really hobbled by the lack of support for such basics as functions and file handling. If you want to do anything beyond ColdFusion's predefined tags, you're stuck. Sure, you can extend ColdFusion using C++, but that's another skill level entirely. At last, there's a Linux version... but PHP blows it away anyways.
Must be magical Simpsons plutonium... sadly, The Simpsons is a pretty accurate parody of popular perceptions. :\
- your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
- you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
- your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
(emphasis added). That's a lot of ands. The company could, of course, take a more traditional route and seek a court order against either you or NSI. The fact that they and NSI are based in the same country might make this easier, but they'd still have to have a case against your use of the name.Bringing this all back on topic, it seems that NSI are claiming a much broader right to terminate registration services. Whilst they have a clearly defined dispute policy, it's not at all clear what they'd consider an 'improper use'. Have any domains been terminated yet under this clause? The case referred to in the story addresses the issue of whether a domain is property or a service, but from the dates seems to have arisen from an earlier registration agreement without this clause.
[...]
Domain Name: SLASHDOT.ORG
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.
Not that it means anything, but someone was going to point it out.
Just like Andover, I have a few domains registered with NSI that I'd like to transfer. Is there a good FAQ/HOWTO out there? I'm particularly interested in actual experiences and pitfalls to avoid.
In the case of mass-marketed music, my copy of a song, MP3.com's, and countless others around the world have the same origin. They all come from the same set of master tapes and result from the same creative act.
In your example, the two BIOSes were written in two separate creative acts and do not have the same origin.
You're equating the actual, ultimate origin of a copy with its detailed copying history -- which doesn't necessarily make sense. It would appear that US law does the same.
These are different issues. You can't just lump them together and talk about your rights slipping away just because the law says there are some things you can't do.
Of course laws restrict what you can do. That's the point of having laws. Some of the restrictions, such as those on murder and theft, are almost universally accepted. Others are more hotly contested. You seem to be hiding behind a general dislike of the law, rather than standing up for the particular rights you want to defend.
'It's illegal, so don't complain' is a poor argument. 'I don't like the law so I'll just ignore it' is just as bad, unless you're prepared to regard all lawbreakers as justified. Better to start by explaining exactly how you want copyright law changed.
I read this and thought of the free ISP discussion a couple days back. Less than $20 a month may be no way to get rich, but could be a way to fund an Internet connection. Let the ISP sell your spare clock cycles and get free access in return. Distributed has the .net domain for it already. :)
'Search of the day: Monopoly'
Are they trying to tell us something? :)
There may be some problems making the RF side of a 'world phone' work properly, but it's been done. A good many European GSM phones now operate on both 900 MHz and 1800 MHz bands.
Motorola currently offer a 900, 1800 and 1900 MHz tri-band phone, the L7089, but it's still GSM only. Support for other modes would improve coverage in countries like the US and Canada, where other standards are in use.
Whether this chip actually gets *used* in such a phone is another matter. I guess we'll have to wait and see.