So.. how are you supposed to prove it? Witnesses? The bank is supposed to be responsible.. if the bank handed it to you, the bank has a responsibility to take it back. We need to MAKE the banks be responsible in a situation like this... so that they will develop ways to not have it happen again.
I believe nasdaq has a set of rules for those who trade on it, and one of those rules I'm sure has to do with obvious mistakes. It would be suicide for them not to have such a rule.
When you as an individual do trades, you do them with a brokerage, not with nasdaq, no matter how transparent it looks, and liability in that case depends on your contract with your broker.
The idea is to protect secrets.. in other words, if the only way you can find out about my code is to break into my office and steal it... that's violation of trade secret. If you discovered how I did things through LEGAL means, its' not...
trade secret doesn't provide patent-like protection... trade secret law is about keeping things secret, provided the secret-holder does a good job of it.
ie: I can't pull a microsoft, publish a paper, and say "You can't use this information because it's a trade secret".. it doesn't work that way. Trade secrets are actual secrets.. like the forumule to coke.
If you figure out the forumla to coke, you can make all you want.
If you steal the forumla from their vaults.. you are in shit.
The "Trade secret" stuff they are talking about is not, in fact, stuff in the publicized unix systems.. they are referring to stuff that was supposedly revealed to IBM under contract, that made it into the linux kernel.. which could indeed be protected this way.
Trade secret law gives them protection only as long as they can keep it a secret.. and if someone else figures it out, even through a mistake on the company's part... like accidentally publishing it, the cat is out of the bag. Get it?
I've used unixware on several occasions, both as Novell UnixWare in the early 90's, and later SCO UnixWare, which was equally shitty.
Neither held a friggin candle to linux overall.. they had a bit more hardware support at the time, as linux was in it's infancy, but even then, I can say with confidence it was the shittiest unix I have ever used. Yes, under the hood unixware had some neat ideas, and some potential.. but then, so does the NT kernel...
You can only come to an agreement as to reasonable standards to follow, and ways of doing things.
ipv6 would help a LOT.. we need to get towards address space that is for practical purposes unlimited (or else it becomes a resource to be controlled, as opposed to a utilitarian thing to simply be managed in a sane manner.). In the days of yore, having IP address space had no VALUE.. if you needed ips, you could get them with no effort.. you could even have a block allocated on the premise that SOME DAY YOU MIGHT connect up to other networks. "let's assign globally unique, routable blocks to people so if they ever decide to hook together, it will work"
That's all the internet is, a network of networks... so as to who can "govern" it.. the only way it can be governed is by standards and conventions.. not by rule of force. The only reason it works at all is becaues of cooperation, and without it's parts, it's nothing.
Rendezvous doesn't enable streaming, just service discovery. It's used so itunes instances can find each other, but that's all.
Rendezvous is basically an adaptation of DNS.. (but please, realize that doens't mean it replaces "the" DNS system we use.)
They took DNS, adapted it to work over multicast, and that's about it.. and use it as a heirarchial, distirubted method of publishing services, and other information. IF you want to know what's out there, you send a query not to a DNS server, but to a multicast address (a link-local address in this case, so it's confined to your local network by convention). All those listening mDNS servers (like every Mac in the room, or any linux machine runinng mDNS) will respond to the query via unicast (I think... haven't read it in that much detail yet.)
Works for hostnames too, if your resolver supports it. (macs again).
Of note is that it's a very open standard, and it's a cakewalk for linux or anyone else to support it as well.
I realize you are looking to the ISP to solve the problem.. but is it truly theirs to solve? Heck, why not lobby the huge backbone carriers of the world to start filtering and regulating email traffice? Why not hardware manufacturers? OS vendors?
I WANT them to act like a common carrier, and stay the fuck out of what I do. Charge me for the data I send, not what particular port it is, or what sub-protocol I'm using.. all they should be doing is routing IP.
Letting large ISPs filter and work like this is a slippery slope.... example:
One of the first things to be blocked large-scale by ISPs was port 139. They felt it helped customers, who were using windows in an insecure manner.. and of course, it did help. Others had to follow suit, because their competitors did it and would even advertise the fact.
Then we get ISPs who force you to use their mail server. Sure, someone could just tunnel to their own.. so all the ISP is really doing is making people jump through hoops. Then we get ISPs that are going to block VOIP traffic, block VPN traffic, block incoming port 80 traffic because it's "not for servers".
Seee the problem?
Yes, the ISP *could* solve the spam problem. I'd rather see them do it by enforcing a policy in this way (investigating if they think there is abuse) rather than filtering traffic.
is a global voip network, and pots will become largely irrelevant in connected areas.
The need for pots to internet gateways is what holds us up now.. think of how things owrk once most people are all using voip.. suddenly, it's all software.. adn hooking people together for voice stuff no longer needs ANY kind of centralizing....
it won't be regulated, as ultimately, it can't be.
Cars are not required to be limited by the manufacturer to beneath the posted limit. an ISM band defice is REQUIRED to behave within limits... and if it came with abutton that said "press here to ignore the limits", it would NOT get approved for sale, even though, as you said, once you buy it, it's your responsbility, not theirs.
(You realize you need FCC certification in order to sell these things commercially, right? Without passing FCC, you get nowhere)
Your compliance is not their concern.. but that's not the point. If they distribute the code, it's like selling a box with a button on it that lets you violate FCC. As a consumer mass market ISM item, it's not allowed to do that. They cannot be percieved as selling a product that operates outside those limits.
YES, it's a stupid argument, and it's stretching things a bit too far... however, it's not total bullshit, and that was the point. It's rooted in real law.
This is why they have non-standard antenna connectors.. not because you aren't ALLOWED to hook aynthing else up, but so that there is some kind of barrier to entry, so you don't just grab some antenna from ratshack and say "Hey it fits.". So the consumer who goes out and does something weird with it can't say "Well, it came that way, I thought it was okay"
Second - it locks itslef ot one instance of itunes. That's because it's behavior is to synchronize with itunes, not just to copy mp3s to it.
Third, it's flat and sleek..which means it fits in my pocket nicely. nothing jutting out.
As for "a discman is better".... if you are happy with your discman, and some cdrs, power to you... it makes sense for the reasons you say.
I travel.. and I don't like to carry a binder full of cds around with me, nor do I like swapping them. All those little things like CD wallets and whatnot add up when you are travelling.
My ipod fits in a shirt pocket, and has far more tunes on it than your discman.
Your discman will be stolen just as easy as an ipod.
That said.. it's a luxury item.. nto a must-have. If you use it the way it's intended, and especially if you already use itunes to sort all your music, it's a pleasant device to use.
The FCC DOES require that ISM band consumer devices opearate within specifications. They are certified for a given antenna configuration, among other things. Even the anntenna connectors are non-standard, for this very reason (so the consumer doesn't think you are supposed to hook it up to an amp).
It's nto that you aren't allowed to modify it legally, of course you are, as long as you operate within spec... but that the company has to make it so.
It's not a big stretch for them to feel releasing driver code is a risk, as anyone who gets it from them could easily use it to operate outside of spec.
You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: Okay.. that's straightforward.. you are allowed to do X if you also do one of the things listed here
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, This does not mean just CD Roms. The last paragraph of section 3 even clarifies this. Downloads off a website certainly qualify.
If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, Okay.. of note is "machine readable" and "medium customarily used". A download off your website easily qualfies here. YOU are responsible for providing the download though, you can't just point them at a different copy someone else maintains. (or maybe you can, but you would have to be prepared to offer it should they stop). You are correct, though, that this has to be a real offer, just posting the stuff to the web will not work.. and is irrelevant.. what matters is that you give them a valid offer to get the source. That offer does not need to indicate a URL, or what format it will be provided on. It could say "Call this number to get the source" and sort it out from there... and as long as it was provided via a reasonable, accepted media(website, cdrom, etc), you are compliant.
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
This clause does not apply, as it says, to any commercial distribution. This clause is there so that I can give you a copy of something, and point you at the original vendor's source.
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.
Now.. for an embedded device.. this is all trivial. As the source is not included IN the device, it would have to be either included on a CD with the device, or the device would have to come with a written offer stating who to contact in order to obtain the source.
It seems to me a number of these vulnerabilities have been posted to some popular "Unpatched IE bugs" page for weeks and weeks, so far..... this guy just combined some of them to demonstrate seriousness.
This is a non-government society (SOCAN) going to the Supreme Court to try to force ISPs to pay them royalties for downloaded music, most likely by twisting existing laws about peformance. (these are the peopel you pay when you want ot do performance, like, playing music in your store so the shoppers can hear it. Know why stores use musak instead of the radio, or real cds? Because they can avoid paying royalties to SOCAN.)
Slashdot Mirror
So.. how are you supposed to prove it? Witnesses? The bank is supposed to be responsible.. if the bank handed it to you, the bank has a responsibility to take it back. We need to MAKE the banks be responsible in a situation like this... so that they will develop ways to not have it happen again.
The only solution currently is to not use ATMs
He should have had it trademarked before then...
If nobody bothered to do it until the last second, who's to say who is at fault?
I believe nasdaq has a set of rules for those who trade on it, and one of those rules I'm sure has to do with obvious mistakes. It would be suicide for them not to have such a rule.
When you as an individual do trades, you do them with a brokerage, not with nasdaq, no matter how transparent it looks, and liability in that case depends on your contract with your broker.
"Corporate IT administrator" does not mean "Systems/ Network Administrator"
It means the brass.. the suits. Those who make decisions and draw up documents, and hold policy meetings.
This isn't about sysadmin -vs- developer friction.. that has always existed.
The idea is to protect secrets.. in other words, if the only way you can find out about my code is to break into my office and steal it... that's violation of trade secret.
If you discovered how I did things through LEGAL means, its' not...
trade secret doesn't provide patent-like protection... trade secret law is about keeping things secret, provided the secret-holder does a good job of it.
ie: I can't pull a microsoft, publish a paper, and say "You can't use this information because it's a trade secret".. it doesn't work that way. Trade secrets are actual secrets.. like the forumule to coke.
If you figure out the forumla to coke, you can make all you want.
If you steal the forumla from their vaults.. you are in shit.
The "Trade secret" stuff they are talking about is not, in fact, stuff in the publicized unix systems.. they are referring to stuff that was supposedly revealed to IBM under contract, that made it into the linux kernel.. which could indeed be protected this way.
Trade secret law gives them protection only as long as they can keep it a secret.. and if someone else figures it out, even through a mistake on the company's part... like accidentally publishing it, the cat is out of the bag. Get it?
I've used unixware on several occasions, both as Novell UnixWare in the early 90's, and later SCO UnixWare, which was equally shitty.
Neither held a friggin candle to linux overall.. they had a bit more hardware support at the time, as linux was in it's infancy, but even then, I can say with confidence it was the shittiest unix I have ever used.
Yes, under the hood unixware had some neat ideas, and some potential.. but then, so does the NT kernel...
You can only come to an agreement as to reasonable standards to follow, and ways of doing things.
ipv6 would help a LOT.. we need to get towards address space that is for practical purposes unlimited (or else it becomes a resource to be controlled, as opposed to a utilitarian thing to simply be managed in a sane manner.). In the days of yore, having IP address space had no VALUE.. if you needed ips, you could get them with no effort.. you could even have a block allocated on the premise that SOME DAY YOU MIGHT connect up to other networks.
"let's assign globally unique, routable blocks to people so if they ever decide to hook together, it will work"
That's all the internet is, a network of networks... so as to who can "govern" it.. the only way it can be governed is by standards and conventions.. not by rule of force. The only reason it works at all is becaues of cooperation, and without it's parts, it's nothing.
Rendezvous doesn't enable streaming, just service discovery. It's used so itunes instances can find each other, but that's all.
Rendezvous is basically an adaptation of DNS.. (but please, realize that doens't mean it replaces "the" DNS system we use.)
They took DNS, adapted it to work over multicast, and that's about it.. and use it as a heirarchial, distirubted method of publishing services, and other information. IF you want to know what's out there, you send a query not to a DNS server, but to a multicast address (a link-local address in this case, so it's confined to your local network by convention). All those listening mDNS servers (like every Mac in the room, or any linux machine runinng mDNS) will respond to the query via unicast (I think... haven't read it in that much detail yet.)
Works for hostnames too, if your resolver supports it. (macs again).
Of note is that it's a very open standard, and it's a cakewalk for linux or anyone else to support it as well.
I realize you are looking to the ISP to solve the problem.. but is it truly theirs to solve? Heck, why not lobby the huge backbone carriers of the world to start filtering and regulating email traffice? Why not hardware manufacturers? OS vendors?
I WANT them to act like a common carrier, and stay the fuck out of what I do. Charge me for the data I send, not what particular port it is, or what sub-protocol I'm using.. all they should be doing is routing IP.
Letting large ISPs filter and work like this is a slippery slope.... example:
One of the first things to be blocked large-scale by ISPs was port 139. They felt it helped customers, who were using windows in an insecure manner.. and of course, it did help. Others had to follow suit, because their competitors did it and would even advertise the fact.
Then we get ISPs who force you to use their mail server. Sure, someone could just tunnel to their own.. so all the ISP is really doing is making people jump through hoops.
Then we get ISPs that are going to block VOIP traffic, block VPN traffic, block incoming port 80 traffic because it's "not for servers".
Seee the problem?
Yes, the ISP *could* solve the spam problem. I'd rather see them do it by enforcing a policy in this way (investigating if they think there is abuse) rather than filtering traffic.
But that's the point. Your friends will eventually have VOIP as well... and the concept of an international call will simply vanish.
As soon as we hit the breaking point.... teh need for gateways will vanish.
is a global voip network, and pots will become largely irrelevant in connected areas.
The need for pots to internet gateways is what holds us up now.. think of how things owrk once most people are all using voip.. suddenly, it's all software.. adn hooking people together for voice stuff no longer needs ANY kind of centralizing....
it won't be regulated, as ultimately, it can't be.
IT's because, well, it's like reverse marketing. You might think it's dressed up nicer, and their methods are better, but... it's the same thing.
How is it different than, say, some spammer that sends you email saying "Log into this website to have your personal info removed from our database"
Yeah.. I guess I missed the part in the GPL that said "IT has to be on a CD or floppy".
Maybe he has special glasses?
You'd have a hard time explaining that FTP is not a common medium for software interchange nowadays.
Yes, it's very different, I"m sorry.
Cars are not required to be limited by the manufacturer to beneath the posted limit. an ISM band defice is REQUIRED to behave within limits... and if it came with abutton that said "press here to ignore the limits", it would NOT get approved for sale, even though, as you said, once you buy it, it's your responsbility, not theirs.
(You realize you need FCC certification in order to sell these things commercially, right? Without passing FCC, you get nowhere)
Your compliance is not their concern.. but that's not the point. If they distribute the code, it's like selling a box with a button on it that lets you violate FCC. As a consumer mass market ISM item, it's not allowed to do that. They cannot be percieved as selling a product that operates outside those limits.
YES, it's a stupid argument, and it's stretching things a bit too far... however, it's not total bullshit, and that was the point. It's rooted in real law.
This is why they have non-standard antenna connectors.. not because you aren't ALLOWED to hook aynthing else up, but so that there is some kind of barrier to entry, so you don't just grab some antenna from ratshack and say "Hey it fits.". So the consumer who goes out and does something weird with it can't say "Well, it came that way, I thought it was okay"
Partly because of your attitude.
Okay, first I can afford an ipod.. and if I'm stupid enough to leave it laying around and it gets swiped, I can also afford to replace it.
As for "easily".... I'd say walking into the apple store and walking out 5 minutes later with my new ipod is pretty easy.
If your argument is just "discman is cheaper".. well, DUH, of course it is. IT's also totally different.
It's clear plastic with a white undercoat, like the previous iBooks.
And it's smooth, you can just wipe it off.
In short, it doesn't seem to get dirty or grubby.. not like you would think.
For that matter, neither does my iBook.
Taking the music off it is cake.
Second - it locks itslef ot one instance of itunes. That's because it's behavior is to synchronize with itunes, not just to copy mp3s to it.
Third, it's flat and sleek..which means it fits in my pocket nicely. nothing jutting out.
As for "a discman is better".... if you are happy with your discman, and some cdrs, power to you... it makes sense for the reasons you say.
I travel.. and I don't like to carry a binder full of cds around with me, nor do I like swapping them. All those little things like CD wallets and whatnot add up when you are travelling.
My ipod fits in a shirt pocket, and has far more tunes on it than your discman.
Your discman will be stolen just as easy as an ipod.
That said.. it's a luxury item.. nto a must-have. If you use it the way it's intended, and especially if you already use itunes to sort all your music, it's a pleasant device to use.
The FCC DOES require that ISM band consumer devices opearate within specifications. They are certified for a given antenna configuration, among other things. Even the anntenna connectors are non-standard, for this very reason (so the consumer doesn't think you are supposed to hook it up to an amp).
It's nto that you aren't allowed to modify it legally, of course you are, as long as you operate within spec... but that the company has to make it so.
It's not a big stretch for them to feel releasing driver code is a risk, as anyone who gets it from them could easily use it to operate outside of spec.
Space is not cold. Space is not warm. Space is a vacuum.
Space is a great insulator.
IT's worth it just for the footage of earth from orbit. Brought tears to my eyes, I swear.
The imax shots of the ISS are fantastic too.. you just can't appreciate the size and scale of this thing from a TV.
Section 3:
You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
Okay.. that's straightforward.. you are allowed to do X if you also do one of the things listed here
This does not mean just CD Roms. The last paragraph of section 3 even clarifies this. Downloads off a website certainly qualify.
If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
Okay.. of note is "machine readable" and "medium customarily used". A download off your website easily qualfies here. YOU are responsible for providing the download though, you can't just point them at a different copy someone else maintains. (or maybe you can, but you would have to be prepared to offer it should they stop). You are correct, though, that this has to be a real offer, just posting the stuff to the web will not work.. and is irrelevant.. what matters is that you give them a valid offer to get the source. That offer does not need to indicate a URL, or what format it will be provided on. It could say "Call this number to get the source" and sort it out from there... and as long as it was provided via a reasonable, accepted media(website, cdrom, etc), you are compliant.
This clause does not apply, as it says, to any commercial distribution. This clause is there so that I can give you a copy of something, and point you at the original vendor's source.
Now.. for an embedded device.. this is all trivial. As the source is not included IN the device, it would have to be either included on a CD with the device, or the device would have to come with a written offer stating who to contact in order to obtain the source.
http://www.safecenter.net/UMBRELLAWEBV4/ie_unpatch ed/
Hmm. Looks like it's the same dude anyway.
On Windows XP.. stock up to date installation... these remote EXE exploits he posted don't seem to do anything.
It seems to me a number of these vulnerabilities have been posted to some popular "Unpatched IE bugs" page for weeks and weeks, so far..... this guy just combined some of them to demonstrate seriousness.
This is a non-government society (SOCAN) going to the Supreme Court to try to force ISPs to pay them royalties for downloaded music, most likely by twisting existing laws about peformance. (these are the peopel you pay when you want ot do performance, like, playing music in your store so the shoppers can hear it. Know why stores use musak instead of the radio, or real cds? Because they can avoid paying royalties to SOCAN.)
I'm not too concerned.