From The Quotable JLG: "I am afraid of what voters will let government do in the name of national security. I fret about the power of the NSA." Red Herring, December 1996 http://www.bedope.com/qjlg/
New on ZDNet today: ASCI White uses Copper instead of Sillicon in chips, must be that new "conductor" instead of "semiconductor" technology I've heard about.
Sure. And MS doesn't care if you break your CD. However, the information on the CD is copyrighted by them, and you use it with their permission.
If I put up a website that asks for a key that I sell (to view a book, for example) before entering, and you break that key, then you just broke an access control device, in addition to violating my copyright (reading my book without permission).
I guess you missed the drift of what I was saying - sure, its illegal to do it under existing laws (sometimes - remember, this isn't about locks, it's about copyright, a different arena) but it's an added crime. In many cases, people get their time extended because of some other crime committed in the process of the major crime - and they won't hesitate to throw everything they can on you. It's like (I think) there's an extra crime for using a gun in a sexual assault. Sexual assault is still illegal, but using a gun adds another crime. Same with the "access control".
And if you have permission, there's nothing illegal about it.
Sure, but you have permission to break your own access control device. However, breaking somebody else's access control device is surely wrong, for their copyrighted material. If I want to prevent anybody but you from reading something, and somebody else finds a way to read it too, then they broke an access control device as part of their copyright violation - an extra offence, just like it should be.
Guess I didn't make my analogy clear enough. It provides a method for the distribution and routing (well, except it's a one-to-one thing) of bits. It encompasses a transfer method (the Bluetooth wireless spec, with RF frequencies, etc.) and a protocol (to transfer the information), sort of like Ethernet and TCP/IP.
This is only the first step in the battle. The problem is that our court system would allow the MPAA to get yet another injunction against DeCSS distribution. We must not stop the battle here.
That said, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The DMCA is just a copyright law; it has positive and negative applications. But surely you want it to be made illegal to circumvent an access control device, be it some form of encryption or a defense system on your computer. CSS is a marketing control device and not access control, but access control circumvention must be a crime.
It is imeperative that the application of the DMCA as requested by the MPAA be denied and the spirit of the DMCA as expressed in Congress be upheld. The DMCA was formed not to prosecute those who got in the way of a big conglomerate, but to extend the notion of copyright and author's rights to the digital age. The future of Free Software will some day depend upon the DMCA, or another law like it. Let us hope that the Courts show us the way to fair copyright law for the digital age.
Bluetooth as a wireless standard will fail. This is the conclusion that I have come to after watching the industry very carefully. The reason? Not enough standardization.
You may be thinking that I'm out of my mind - after all, Bluetooth is an open standard, right? But Bluetooth is nothing more than a way to pass bits and bytes. It can't make my Pilot actually speak intellegently to my Linux box. Sure, it can pass data, but what to do with it?
So far, there has been no standardization for content protocols over Bluetooth. The only "standard" that could be considered close is wrapping TCP/IP, from which you can get HTTP, XML, etc. for passing data. However, Bluetooth as it stands is not going to be the be-all and end-all of information transfer, because there is no common format.
What's needed is a common implementation of a method for applications to speak to each other over an open protocol. No manufacturers have been forthcoming about this. Instead, we see fracturing of devices, unable to actually speak to each other.
Until there is a common format, Bluetooth will fail. I hope someone will take the initaive to create an open standard for content transfer.
Admittedyl the GScube wouldn't be a good webserver, but to be honest, I think it would be cool to automatically stream the content you've created. Anyway, my comment was mostly sarcastic and trollish.
Anything can be a web server. That's the fun of it.
I thought that our official policy was to neither confirm nor deny the troll script.
Secondly, his hacking was script kiddying - his buddies on USENET were giving him the SQL commands. As I said, he was totally clueless about DBMS's, no matter how knowledable those fancy-schmancy SQL queries might have looked.
Power-hungry clique? I think that we have the power. Even Signal 11 admits that. Look at my user info for the quote. We're not holding you to anything. If you can't take the trollslap, don't come here. Go find some other board to troll. Until then, this board is ours.
Like it's not hard to get something else. You could have downloaded BeOS - and don't gimme that shit about not getting a high speed connection. I just know it's because you use your connection to download all that pr0n off of Gnutella. You could get Solaris for $10 plus shipping. There are an infinite number of Linux distributions.
You wanna play with the scripts, you gotta have the OS. And if you don't know shit about DBMS's, go take some crackpot CS course at your local community college. Even the $6 dollar-an-hour "professor" there knows more than you do.
Oh yeah? Just try to get into my BeOS system without local (physical) access. Just try. You'll come crying back to me in a week, after having been shafted by the BeOS!
Red Hat updated packages and released an advisory on June 20, almost 2 weeks later-not a good response.
Good response for what? Red Hat isn't a distro for the people who want the latest and greatest updates as soon as possible. It's a distro for those who require a very tested solution. That's why Red Hat is often behind on the technology by the time it gets to.2, because they're focusing on the testing.
Red Hat is an IT distro. If you want Red Hat-ness without the IT requirements, try Mandrake.
Today, I mean. Back then it was all IBM. But now Gates with his on-loan reality distortion field would have you believe that he single-handedly started the PC revolution (with a little help from Al Gore).
Less restrictive? The GPL isn't restrictive at all. It's practically public-domain, the way it's phrased. The MPL license is even worse.
The reason is that proprietary modifications can be made for "internal" use... and this includes web serving. This means that Microsoft could power all of.NET with a modified version of Interbase (see my root-level post) and not have to give up source. The MPL is a bad license.
Slashdot Mirror
From The Quotable JLG:
"I am afraid of what voters will let government do in the name of national security. I fret about the power of the NSA."
Red Herring, December 1996
http://www.bedope.com/qjlg/
Well, that last comment makes it flamebait. My sig has gotten me moderated down more times than I can count.
Film at 11.
If I put up a website that asks for a key that I sell (to view a book, for example) before entering, and you break that key, then you just broke an access control device, in addition to violating my copyright (reading my book without permission).
</sarcasm>
And if you have permission, there's nothing illegal about it.
Sure, but you have permission to break your own access control device. However, breaking somebody else's access control device is surely wrong, for their copyrighted material. If I want to prevent anybody but you from reading something, and somebody else finds a way to read it too, then they broke an access control device as part of their copyright violation - an extra offence, just like it should be.
I wasn't aware of Obex, I'll look it up. What I'm thinking of is wrapping HTTP and SOAP.
Guess I didn't make my analogy clear enough. It provides a method for the distribution and routing (well, except it's a one-to-one thing) of bits. It encompasses a transfer method (the Bluetooth wireless spec, with RF frequencies, etc.) and a protocol (to transfer the information), sort of like Ethernet and TCP/IP.
That said, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The DMCA is just a copyright law; it has positive and negative applications. But surely you want it to be made illegal to circumvent an access control device, be it some form of encryption or a defense system on your computer. CSS is a marketing control device and not access control, but access control circumvention must be a crime.
It is imeperative that the application of the DMCA as requested by the MPAA be denied and the spirit of the DMCA as expressed in Congress be upheld. The DMCA was formed not to prosecute those who got in the way of a big conglomerate, but to extend the notion of copyright and author's rights to the digital age. The future of Free Software will some day depend upon the DMCA, or another law like it. Let us hope that the Courts show us the way to fair copyright law for the digital age.
Bluetooth is a common wireless standard for passing bits between devices. Think of it as the combination of Ethernet hardware and TCP/IP for wireless.
You may be thinking that I'm out of my mind - after all, Bluetooth is an open standard, right? But Bluetooth is nothing more than a way to pass bits and bytes. It can't make my Pilot actually speak intellegently to my Linux box. Sure, it can pass data, but what to do with it?
So far, there has been no standardization for content protocols over Bluetooth. The only "standard" that could be considered close is wrapping TCP/IP, from which you can get HTTP, XML, etc. for passing data. However, Bluetooth as it stands is not going to be the be-all and end-all of information transfer, because there is no common format.
What's needed is a common implementation of a method for applications to speak to each other over an open protocol. No manufacturers have been forthcoming about this. Instead, we see fracturing of devices, unable to actually speak to each other.
Until there is a common format, Bluetooth will fail. I hope someone will take the initaive to create an open standard for content transfer.
Anything can be a web server. That's the fun of it.
Or, you could just look at CmdrTaco or Vladinator's user info.
Do you know if there's some way to program the Revo as itself (no PC)? I heard something about OPL, but haven't seen any real good info...
Is this running on a FB or on X? Any word on when we'll see a QT/Embedded device?
So mail spiralx. His email is on his user info.
Secondly, his hacking was script kiddying - his buddies on USENET were giving him the SQL commands. As I said, he was totally clueless about DBMS's, no matter how knowledable those fancy-schmancy SQL queries might have looked.
Power-hungry clique? I think that we have the power. Even Signal 11 admits that. Look at my user info for the quote. We're not holding you to anything. If you can't take the trollslap, don't come here. Go find some other board to troll. Until then, this board is ours.
You wanna play with the scripts, you gotta have the OS. And if you don't know shit about DBMS's, go take some crackpot CS course at your local community college. Even the $6 dollar-an-hour "professor" there knows more than you do.
Oh yeah? Just try to get into my BeOS system without local (physical) access. Just try. You'll come crying back to me in a week, after having been shafted by the BeOS!
Good response for what? Red Hat isn't a distro for the people who want the latest and greatest updates as soon as possible. It's a distro for those who require a very tested solution. That's why Red Hat is often behind on the technology by the time it gets to .2, because they're focusing on the testing.
Red Hat is an IT distro. If you want Red Hat-ness without the IT requirements, try Mandrake.
I think that you missed that I hate the GPL as much as the MPL. Ideally, any use should allow source access.
Today, I mean. Back then it was all IBM. But now Gates with his on-loan reality distortion field would have you believe that he single-handedly started the PC revolution (with a little help from Al Gore).
The reason is that proprietary modifications can be made for "internal" use... and this includes web serving. This means that Microsoft could power all of .NET with a modified version of Interbase (see my root-level post) and not have to give up source. The MPL is a bad license.