I don't have a url, but I believe you have to shut down netscape before removing the cookie file. Netscape reads it into memory when it runs, and writes the whole thing back when it exits... so removing it while netscape is running is fruitless.
Okay. So what we need is a proxy that ties in with the email software. So.. when someone spams you.. fine.. they spammed you. Your email software simply finds out the valid URLs for the cookie, and blocks them. Who wants to give business to spammers anyway?
Also.. on another note, this makes it hard for the spammer to hide, like they do these days.. using temporary accounts, etc.... They would be eaten alive and sued like mad.
Re:What about the following FUD?
on
Stopping the FUD
·
· Score: 1
Well now, that's not really fud, is it? At the moment, linux DOESNT have USB or DVD support, not in any distribution I've ever seen.
Yes, of course both are coming, and soon.. but it's true.. it doesn't have them.
yes, bo2k is very similar to SMS. In fact, I'm really pissed that Norton Antivirus removed bo2k from me entire network when I deployed it... a whole day's work setting up this wonderful systems management tool, and norton wiped out all my work. And to boot, symantec says there is no way for me to remove bo2k from the list of virii it checks for. They even told me I , and I quote "Shouldn't be running that sir, it's a dangerous program.". Thank you. I believe *I* will decide how to run my network.
But seriously.. the fact remains.. if you want to own a windows box, what are you going to use.... SMS or bo2k? Which is easier to deploy? Which is stealthier? Which is WAY SMALLER?
I'm not knocking bo2k.. but if I did want to violate someone's system.. I'd certainy count BO as one of my main tools!
Also, if you are in a workplace, you probably don't HAVE an expectation of privacy, or at least, you shouldn't. It's not your computer, not your email account, and not your work (this can, of course, be debated endlessly, and I don't fully believe this myself.. )
The article is dealing with analyzing threats to systems. Your boss looking at *his* computer on your desk is hardly a threat... unless you're goofin....
Because the key tables are stored at the beginning of the disc, in a place where DVD-R will not let you write? So it will not be possible to play the copied disc, because the crypto information won't be copied as well.
This is all just assumption, though... I don't know for sure.
I think they mean 'copy protection', as the only enetity that can protect 'copyright' is the courts.
And copyright is more about distribution and use than it is about actual copies....
There is always 'fair use'. Will they say that any sort of digital reproduction is unfair? no.. it is up to the courts to decide. But comeon.. the only reason we are all mad is because of delays... we all know that no matter what they do, we will be able to make perfect digital copies. Period. No matter what. Always.
When I say 'ISP' that has per Mb pricing, I refer to those that provide high-bandwidth lines to other ISP's, not those that provide end-user connections.
The reason a T1 line to uunet and a DSL line to your local ISP are so different is because of this. Both are megabit connections, and the T1 costs 10x the price.
However, you don't usually pay 'per megabyte' on switched circuit networks, it doens't reflect any resource used. You pay for time, because the resource you are using up is the number of active circuits.
Priority, yes, of course. Make all bandwidth free, but have a way to pay for priority. This makes good sense, as you are not paying for things when they are not in demand.
I think a per-byte charge -vs- a priority charge amounts to the same overall effect... in a per-byte system, the 'priority' is regulated by who is willing to pay what. in other words, if you don't want to pay, you aren't using the network.
Well put. They want to say 'We let you use this internet connection so you can do things we approve of. Surf the web. Send email... that sort of thing. We don't want you, say, simply transfering files between 2 places 24 hours a day.' 'So, when we said we would sell you a net connection that was 100 x faster than your modem, we meant it, but we are going to tell you what is acceptable'.
I want an *internet* connection, not a *web and email* connection, and I'll thank any potential provider not to tell me how I should use the internet, or what the internet is for. After all, it's the explorers attitude, the ability to do new things with the network/protocols involved that made it so cool in the first place. Why stop now?
Most cable providers these days FORBID you from running your own servers. They sell you an internet connection, but proced to define what 'proper internet use' is. 'No internet servers of any kind' 'Not for unattended use' 'Only one computer' etc..... well well.... THAT is far more fearsome and detremental to the intenret than simply charging people for the bandwidth they use.
To the TV generation, who just wants video & audio streaming off the net.. oh well. BOO HOO. What about those who want to use it for NEW and INTERESTING things? Cable providers are not receptive to this already.
no. I want my ISP to do two things. 1) charge me for the resources I use, and stop telling me *how* to use my bandwidth. The internet is different for everyone. It's not just 'web and email' to me.
2) Tell me, broken down by the day, and preferably the hour, how much traffic I both received and generated. You need not tell me where it went to, or where it came from, only if I sent or received it.
Honestly, per-meg pricing, IMHO, is THE way to go.
At some point, there is always a shared medium. The only way to regulate these services fairly is to put a price on it. It really irritates me that @home sold me an internet connection that was '100 times faster' than my dialup, but then told me that 'Oh, you can't run internet servers. You can't use it unattended. It's for one computer only'. blah blah blah... I want to be told 'We'll lease you the equipment for $25/mo, and we'll charge you $xx/GB, period.'
Because, in the end, the resource they claim to 'protect' with their bandwdith limits and rules about fair use is nothing more than the channel capacity. Put a fair price on the bits, and I'll pay for my fair share.
Also, yes, spam is a problem. Yes, spam will end up costing you a bit of money. 2 things to remember, though. 1) Spam messages are *small* compared to everything you do in a day. This doesn't neagate the fact that spam sucks, but the totaly bytes incurred by spam every day, and I get a lot, is dwarfed by the amount of traffic involved in simply loading up the slashdot page once, or heaven forbit, the default MSN or Netscape page.
2) If you can put a real value on traffic, then you have a leg to stand on when you charge a spammer.
3) You can force the ISP to SHOW YOU what traffic they are charging you for. They can't just throw numbers at you, saying 'you used xx bytes'. They must be able to back that up somehow. That means records of how much traffic you used, what type, and when. After all, it's only fair.
In the end, billing by usage is a good thing, but we have to make sure we do it right.
I recall reading within the last 12 months or so, about how the EU had created some strict E-commerce laws. This mainly dealt with consumer privacy when using credit cards/other electronic payment methods. It forbid merchants/credit agencies from giving out any information about the consumer. They had to agree to only use information about people to conduct their day-to-day business, and not to sell it. (Hey, I think this makes a lot of sense. Sure, VISA/the bank/whoever can know my name/address/whatever, but only so they can bill me/chase me down when I don't pay.)
They stated that anyone who wanted to do E-commerce with the EU had to agree to these strict privacy concerns, and the good 'ol USA had a fit, said 'wait a minute, let's talk about this' and the EU basically said 'No, no talks. Either you agree, or don't do e-commerce with us. it's up to you'. I don't know whatever came of it though..
And, honestly, I filled out that card with bunk information. I figure the demographics are useful to them, and I don't mind if they have some details, but they don't need my &*name* or exact *date of birth* or *address*.
I figure they should know 1) what part of what town I come from, geographically 2) What agre group I fall into 3) Am I a student/working/etc... 4) My average income. (maybe)
They don't need to know at all anything about *me* specifically. So I have no hard feelings about lying on my application. Who cares?
Also, it is unreasonable for a business to expect to know your name/address/phone number just to sell you groceries. I thought we had laws up here against that sort of information gathering.. I read somewhere that some act makes it unlawful to collect information from people that is not necessary to the business at hand.
Is it not also available in the store? Is it a GPL violation to restrict distribution in a certain channel, when the exact same product is available through other channels? I don't think so. They aren't saying that nobody under 18 can use corel linux.. just that nobody under 18 can DOWNLOAD IT FROM THEIR SITE. You can always go buy it.... or order it.
Overall, distribution is not hindered.
What if I sold debian boxed sets in an XXX shop? (okay.. wierd idea, but hey...).. would you say I can't because nobody under 18 is allowed in the shop?
However.... As somsone said earlier... If I am being paid for what I know, and not what I do, what difference do hours make?
Generally, if your employer measures effectiveness and performance based on how many hours you are at work, then you should be paid hourly. If he measures it based on what you accomplish, and doesn't expect you to work deadly hours, then what's wrong with salary?
Many jurisdictions require that salaried employees be paid overtime. Usually, this is done by simply calculating what your equivalent hourly wage *would* be and then paying you. Or, some places simply give extra time off instead.
You may have learned in school that, when on Salary, you simply had a job to do, and could go home when it was done. Period.
This is not the case mostly. most places still require you to be at work on time, and to go home when everyone else does, at the earlieset.
In general, the author should not be held responsible, but you have to take into account intent.
Lets look at exploit scripts. Some guy makes a script (small program of whatever nature) that allows the exploitation of some security bug in an OS. Do we blame him because people use it? NO! We blame the person who used it.
Unless the author is encouraging abuse, there should be no crime committed. If he *is* encouraging the abuse of his code, then his crime is one of conspiracy to commit crime. Software is just software.
From what I read, this is not the case. To quote the GPL: The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
Note: anything that is *normally distributed* with the major components of the OS is exempt. Compilers are not explicity exempt, just mentioned as something normally distributed with the OS. IF you have a custom Q++ compiler, and your code is written in Q++, then in order to comply with this section, you would have to distribute the components necessary to create the binary (unless they are already generally available in the OS)
as for your own language, if you wrote your own language, and code in that language, why would you bother with GPL on your code?
You know, I was going to scream.. but that's actaully a fair question.
HOwver, if you are distributing a binary (the GPL DOES specifically talk about binaries) that requires both GPL & non-GPL code to compile, then that code *MUST* fall under GPL (or you can't distribute it)
As for insulated, you need to be more specific. Either it compiles to part of the same binary, or it isn't, period.
One way around this is to provide proprietary, pre-compiled object files (.o files), but this requires that your customer compile and link the final version himself from the original code, and he can then not redistribute it.
If it's abstracted, a-la tcp/ip , corba, rpc, whatever, then obviously it's not the same piece of code..
Actually, what he's asking is if he is distributing code that he obtained from somewhere else (say the linux kernel), but has not modified it in any way, does he still have to make source available upon request? Valid question, one many probably haven't considered, with all our bitching at other companies for violations.
If you give your buddy a copy of RedHat or Debian, are you not distributing a work that falls under GPL? Sure you are. The only thing that gives you the right to give copy to *ANYONE* is the GPL, so if you are giving copies away, then you must follow the GPL too.
Now, of course, that's kind of rediculous, and rather unimportant at this point, as the source is so readily available anyway.. but it's a good question nontheless.... Is there an exclusoin for unmodified source? If I distribute your GPL code, am I distributing a work BASED on your code, or is it simply your code? I'll have to read the GPL another time here..
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have a url, but I believe you have to shut down netscape before removing the cookie file. Netscape reads it into memory when it runs, and writes the whole thing back when it exits... so removing it while netscape is running is fruitless.
Okay. So what we need is a proxy that ties in with the email software.
So.. when someone spams you.. fine.. they spammed you. Your email software simply finds out the valid URLs for the cookie, and blocks them. Who wants to give business to spammers anyway?
Also.. on another note, this makes it hard for the spammer to hide, like they do these days.. using temporary accounts, etc....
They would be eaten alive and sued like mad.
Well now, that's not really fud, is it?
At the moment, linux DOESNT have USB or DVD support, not in any distribution I've ever seen.
Yes, of course both are coming, and soon.. but it's true.. it doesn't have them.
People, they are possibly banning the use of w2k in government operations, not banning it from sale in the country.
Please note.. this is about government 'banning' the use of w2k in ITS OWN OPERATIONS, not banning it from public use or from entering germany.
This is not much different than other corporations who have certain rules about what kind of software is permitted.
yes, bo2k is very similar to SMS. In fact, I'm really pissed that Norton Antivirus removed bo2k from me entire network when I deployed it... a whole day's work setting up this wonderful systems management tool, and norton wiped out all my work. And to boot, symantec says there is no way for me to remove bo2k from the list of virii it checks for. They even told me I , and I quote "Shouldn't be running that sir, it's a dangerous program.". Thank you. I believe *I* will decide how to run my network.
But seriously.. the fact remains.. if you want to own a windows box, what are you going to use....
SMS or bo2k? Which is easier to deploy? Which is stealthier? Which is WAY SMALLER?
I'm not knocking bo2k.. but if I did want to violate someone's system.. I'd certainy count BO as one of my main tools!
Also, if you are in a workplace, you probably don't HAVE an expectation of privacy, or at least, you shouldn't. It's not your computer, not your email account, and not your work (this can, of course, be debated endlessly, and I don't fully believe this myself.. )
The article is dealing with analyzing threats to systems. Your boss looking at *his* computer on your desk is hardly a threat... unless you're goofin....
Because the key tables are stored at the beginning of the disc, in a place where DVD-R will not let you write? So it will not be possible to play the copied disc, because the crypto information won't be copied as well.
This is all just assumption, though... I don't know for sure.
They talk of 'copyright protection'.
I think they mean 'copy protection', as the only enetity that can protect 'copyright' is the courts.
And copyright is more about distribution and use than it is about actual copies....
There is always 'fair use'. Will they say that any sort of digital reproduction is unfair? no.. it is up to the courts to decide.
But comeon.. the only reason we are all mad is because of delays... we all know that no matter what they do, we will be able to make perfect digital copies. Period. No matter what. Always.
When I say 'ISP' that has per Mb pricing, I refer to those that provide high-bandwidth lines to other ISP's, not those that provide end-user connections.
The reason a T1 line to uunet and a DSL line to your local ISP are so different is because of this. Both are megabit connections, and the T1 costs 10x the price.
That's an even better way.
However, you don't usually pay 'per megabyte' on switched circuit networks, it doens't reflect any resource used. You pay for time, because the resource you are using up is the number of active circuits.
Priority, yes, of course. Make all bandwidth free, but have a way to pay for priority. This makes good sense, as you are not paying for things when they are not in demand.
I think a per-byte charge -vs- a priority charge amounts to the same overall effect... in a per-byte system, the 'priority' is regulated by who is willing to pay what. in other words, if you don't want to pay, you aren't using the network.
The priority system is more elegant, certainly.
Well put.
They want to say 'We let you use this internet connection so you can do things we approve of. Surf the web. Send email... that sort of thing. We don't want you, say, simply transfering files between 2 places 24 hours a day.'
'So, when we said we would sell you a net connection that was 100 x faster than your modem, we meant it, but we are going to tell you what is acceptable'.
I want an *internet* connection, not a *web and email* connection, and I'll thank any potential provider not to tell me how I should use the internet, or what the internet is for.
After all, it's the explorers attitude, the ability to do new things with the network/protocols involved that made it so cool in the first place. Why stop now?
Most cable providers these days FORBID you from running your own servers. They sell you an internet connection, but proced to define what 'proper internet use' is.
'No internet servers of any kind'
'Not for unattended use'
'Only one computer'
etc.....
well well.... THAT is far more fearsome and detremental to the intenret than simply charging people for the bandwidth they use.
To the TV generation, who just wants video & audio streaming off the net.. oh well. BOO HOO.
What about those who want to use it for NEW and INTERESTING things?
Cable providers are not receptive to this already.
no. I want my ISP to do two things.
1) charge me for the resources I use, and stop telling me *how* to use my bandwidth. The internet is different for everyone. It's not just 'web and email' to me.
2) Tell me, broken down by the day, and preferably the hour, how much traffic I both received and generated. You need not tell me where it went to, or where it came from, only if I sent or received it.
How does charging money for bandwidth used equate to censorship? EVERY major provider already does this.
Honestly, per-meg pricing, IMHO, is THE way to go.
At some point, there is always a shared medium. The only way to regulate these services fairly is to put a price on it. It really irritates me that @home sold me an internet connection that was '100 times faster' than my dialup, but then told me that 'Oh, you can't run internet servers. You can't use it unattended. It's for one computer only'. blah blah blah...
I want to be told 'We'll lease you the equipment for $25/mo, and we'll charge you $xx/GB, period.'
Because, in the end, the resource they claim to 'protect' with their bandwdith limits and rules about fair use is nothing more than the channel capacity. Put a fair price on the bits, and I'll pay for my fair share.
Also, yes, spam is a problem. Yes, spam will end up costing you a bit of money. 2 things to remember, though.
1) Spam messages are *small* compared to everything you do in a day. This doesn't neagate the fact that spam sucks, but the totaly bytes incurred by spam every day, and I get a lot, is dwarfed by the amount of traffic involved in simply loading up the slashdot page once, or heaven forbit, the default MSN or Netscape page.
2) If you can put a real value on traffic, then you have a leg to stand on when you charge a spammer.
3) You can force the ISP to SHOW YOU what traffic they are charging you for. They can't just throw numbers at you, saying 'you used xx bytes'. They must be able to back that up somehow. That means records of how much traffic you used, what type, and when. After all, it's only fair.
In the end, billing by usage is a good thing, but we have to make sure we do it right.
I recall reading within the last 12 months or so, about how the EU had created some strict E-commerce laws.
This mainly dealt with consumer privacy when using credit cards/other electronic payment methods. It forbid merchants/credit agencies from giving out any information about the consumer. They had to agree to only use information about people to conduct their day-to-day business, and not to sell it. (Hey, I think this makes a lot of sense. Sure, VISA/the bank/whoever can know my name/address/whatever, but only so they can bill me/chase me down when I don't pay.)
They stated that anyone who wanted to do E-commerce with the EU had to agree to these strict privacy concerns, and the good 'ol USA had a fit, said 'wait a minute, let's talk about this' and the EU basically said 'No, no talks. Either you agree, or don't do e-commerce with us. it's up to you'. I don't know whatever came of it though..
And, honestly, I filled out that card with bunk information.
I figure the demographics are useful to them, and I don't mind if they have some details, but they don't need my &*name* or exact *date of birth* or *address*.
I figure they should know
1) what part of what town I come from, geographically
2) What agre group I fall into
3) Am I a student/working/etc...
4) My average income. (maybe)
They don't need to know at all anything about *me* specifically. So I have no hard feelings about lying on my application. Who cares?
Also, it is unreasonable for a business to expect to know your name/address/phone number just to sell you groceries. I thought we had laws up here against that sort of information gathering.. I read somewhere that some act makes it unlawful to collect information from people that is not necessary to the business at hand.
Is it not also available in the store?
Is it a GPL violation to restrict distribution in a certain channel, when the exact same product is available through other channels? I don't think so.
They aren't saying that nobody under 18 can use corel linux.. just that nobody under 18 can DOWNLOAD IT FROM THEIR SITE.
You can always go buy it.... or order it.
Overall, distribution is not hindered.
What if I sold debian boxed sets in an XXX shop? (okay.. wierd idea, but hey...).. would you say I can't because nobody under 18 is allowed in the shop?
However....
As somsone said earlier...
If I am being paid for what I know, and not what I do, what difference do hours make?
Generally, if your employer measures effectiveness and performance based on how many hours you are at work, then you should be paid hourly.
If he measures it based on what you accomplish, and doesn't expect you to work deadly hours, then what's wrong with salary?
Many jurisdictions require that salaried employees be paid overtime.
Usually, this is done by simply calculating what your equivalent hourly wage *would* be and then paying you.
Or, some places simply give extra time off instead.
You may have learned in school that, when on Salary, you simply had a job to do, and could go home when it was done. Period.
This is not the case mostly. most places still require you to be at work on time, and to go home when everyone else does, at the earlieset.
They seem to imply that Linux was the result of the reverse-engineering of at&t unix, by those who couldn't afford it.. is this true?
In general, the author should not be held responsible, but you have to take into account intent.
Lets look at exploit scripts. Some guy makes a script (small program of whatever nature) that allows the exploitation of some security bug in an OS. Do we blame him because people use it? NO!
We blame the person who used it.
Unless the author is encouraging abuse, there should be no crime committed. If he *is* encouraging the abuse of his code, then his crime is one of conspiracy to commit crime. Software is just software.
From what I read, this is not the case. To quote the GPL:
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
Note: anything that is *normally distributed* with the major components of the OS is exempt. Compilers are not explicity exempt, just mentioned as something normally distributed with the OS. IF you have a custom Q++ compiler, and your code is written in Q++, then in order to comply with this section, you would have to distribute the components necessary to create the binary (unless they are already generally available in the OS)
as for your own language, if you wrote your own language, and code in that language, why would you bother with GPL on your code?
You know, I was going to scream.. but that's actaully a fair question.
HOwver, if you are distributing a binary (the GPL DOES specifically talk about binaries) that requires both GPL & non-GPL code to compile, then that code *MUST* fall under GPL (or you can't distribute it)
As for insulated, you need to be more specific.
Either it compiles to part of the same binary, or it isn't, period.
One way around this is to provide proprietary, pre-compiled object files (.o files), but this requires that your customer compile and link the final version himself from the original code, and he can then not redistribute it.
If it's abstracted, a-la tcp/ip , corba, rpc, whatever, then obviously it's not the same piece of code..
Actually, what he's asking is if he is distributing code that he obtained from somewhere else (say the linux kernel), but has not modified it in any way, does he still have to make source available upon request?
Valid question, one many probably haven't considered, with all our bitching at other companies for violations.
If you give your buddy a copy of RedHat or Debian, are you not distributing a work that falls under GPL? Sure you are.
The only thing that gives you the right to give copy to *ANYONE* is the GPL, so if you are giving copies away, then you must follow the GPL too.
Now, of course, that's kind of rediculous, and rather unimportant at this point, as the source is so readily available anyway.. but it's a good question nontheless....
Is there an exclusoin for unmodified source?
If I distribute your GPL code, am I distributing a work BASED on your code, or is it simply your code? I'll have to read the GPL another time here..