how do I know that the machine I'm about to vote on is actually using that code?
How do you know (for SURE) that the post you just made and the answer you are reading were actually posted on Slashdot's web servers on planet Earth, and not in some parallel universe where you every comment is appended to the file which will be reviewed at the time of your Final Judgement on Planet Zoormash?
here are ways to obfuscate things enough that people wouldn't pick up on them right away
Name one.
Just kidding. Not trying to be an asshole. However: why are you being a naysayer?
With enough changing sets of eyes on the source code, any significant problems would be found, as opposed to being obscured by a commercial interest. As the OSS model has proved for years now, this fact is irrefutable.
We may end up with a less-than-perfect voting system by using OSS -- but it would be better than the atrocity which is now in place!
Yes, if the greedy corporations are removed from the process, and an OSS solution based on an openly auditable platform like Linux or FreeBSD is adopted. We are not too far away from this eventuality.
It seems implausible that Mr. Robertson did not make plans for the stewardship of uploaded content - whatever was his real intent in the first place?
mp3.com did evolve into a parody of itself, but he should have found another way to fortune rather than allowing this distribution channel to be silenced.
Let's hope bad things don't happen to Epitonic -- different model from mp3.com but it threatens to be a viable channel for distribution, if only more artists would sign up there exclusively.
This practice with iPods is OK so long as there's
on
iPod-Jacked
·
· Score: 1
I can't believe that was actually put on the front page as "news". That's an unbelievably stupid story which goes a long way towards diminishing my trust in mankind.
...last I checked, Windows was available from a few other manufacturers..
Last I checked, running around making partnership agreements, non-exclusive or otherwise, with companies widely accepted as being strategically and financially in "trouble", is a bad thing for a good company to be doing.
It just occurred to me that SuSE might just be trying to help Gateway sell some servers, perhaps they see a market niche they can fill somehow...
But I doubt it -- SuSE should have stuck to their Enterprise level offerings, especially engineering and prof svcs, which are their strong points.
Man. What are they doing??? Gateway hasn't any server market, or products to speak of, and their other offerings are only consumer grade crap (albeit decently priced consumer grade crap).
This is the last company SuSE should have aligned themselves with if their intent was to win any corporate clients.
They get big discounts, free software, maybe some gifts for the schools, maybe even some investments or jobs.
It's tempting to think this way.
Speaking for Peru and Germany, at least they have openly stated that proprietary, closed source software is no longer acceptable for government use because it does not guarantee their citizens and taxpayers any assurance that
- the software systems are free of third party control, e.g. there are no back doors, spyware, etc.
- government operations are not beholden to a commercial interest for pricing, support, and extensibility
among other things. This is enlightened thinking, which will slowly be adopted globally.
The movement in MA recently voiced these concerns, though IIRC pricing was the main concern.
I can only imagine that some clear thinking Latin Americans wish to bring an end to years and years of American corporate domination, and try to empower their own populace.
They might not have anything to replace CocaCola with right now, but for now Linux/BSD can replace Microsoft products. And without hardware upgrades in most cases -- which is another cost concern.
it's your post that is riddled with problems. Ok there, let's try and keep it impersonal and professional:)
Actually I did read the FA, and realize that the "workers" 1) would have to enter the program, and 2) could release their work under that program into the public domain prior to the standard length of time.
While you were busy figuring out the details there, you might have missed the point which is that no artist, that I have ever heard of, would prematurely give up the copyright and allow work into the Public Domain -- even if this was ultimately going to happen. Artists who do work of any merit or importance (yes, we make those distinctions) usually arrange for their estate to extend the copyright after their death in the interest of protecting their work - not protecting as in a property right - but as an idea.
Creators of works made after 1978 hold copyright for their lifetime PLUS 70 years which is a damn long time, which you didn't mention in your posting. It would be highly UNLIKELY AND UNUSUAL THAT ANY ARTIST WOULD WILLFULLY RELEASE THIER WORK INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN BEFORE THEIR LIFETIME PLUS 70. And I include software authors here.
And that is because the concept of copyright, as seen in the practical workings of the society we live in, is used ENTIRELY as a protective measure -- regardless of it technically correct meaning or the original intent at creation time.
>>Copyright is about ownership >No it isn't.
Yes, it is - people think of it as the property right to their idea, and that's how they use it.
Speaking about the "cash bounties" campaign Microsoft is offering:
The campaign reveals just how much of a threat to Microsoft's bottom line security flaws now represent.
The campaign reveals just how much extra cash Microsoft has lying around and is willing to put up to make the buying public think it gives two shits about security.
Copyright is about ownership, not about the government or taxpayers "supporting" artists.
Art is not the only case where copyright comes into play.
Copyright and fraud are mutually exclusive ideas.
All of the material produced by these workers would be placed in the public domain where it could be freely reproduced.
Because you say so? What if an artist doesn't want her work in the public domain, or reproduced?
If either artists don't sign up for the program (maybe distrust of government, looking at their past record in funding the arts), or taxpayers fail to contribute. You would quickly have a non-program.
Even if all this is blatantly incorrect, I can't see any idea remotely like this going through the House and Senate; they're not gonna let a "Piss Christ" (remember Andres Serrano, Robert Mapplethorpe, the NEA, etc etc) become Public Domain.
Even by my questionable standards, this xonstitutes crossing the line. In the future, when referring to our Bretheren Attorneys in Hollywood please use "Jew lawyers".
Every time some corporation jumps on the latest bandwagon to try to stay alive, half of SlashRot shits itself with "Great move!!" "Great for the marketplace and competition!!" "Now that's thinking!!!"
In this case Sun probably needed to find something to do with 180,000 Netra cases sitting overstock in a warehouse.
Goodness no! My children will be dead and buried before I finish adding URLs to a filter list. The number of new adult URLs surely grows faster than I'd be able to add them.
You'd be surprised how well this works, if you start with a list from one of the sources linked from squidguard... I add or remove maybe two or three items a week, and test on a regular basis by looking at stuff that is being blocked by the proxy.. it's pretty good.
FYI the lists have ~350K porn urls and about another 150K entries for adsites (banners). If a site is blocked and access is desired, it's easy to change it.. which has not happened yet with either my wife or our 8 year old son.
If I publish filtering software my trade secret is the block list. I have everything invested in the URLs and filtering criteria. The criteria alone does not sell my product.
The situation surrounding these commercial filtering products is more complicated than that. If you think there are configuration parameters that you can manipulate and therefore you're fully "in control", they gotcha. Exactly what they want you to think.
May I suggest, using an OSS product where you can see and edit all the lists, creating them yourself if desired. Squid/Squidguard, there are a few others too.
(Nonesuch said) Only one problem- Symantec, like every other commercial filtering software vendor, does not publish their list of blocked sites, does not make any particular political or religious slant of their filtering public, and will sue anybody who reverse-engineers their blocking list.
Are you familiar with this: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/
Additionally, if the software lets you "see" the lists, you still would have no idea what else is being filtered, omitted, added, or sanitized. You have no idea if words or strings in the stream are being altered. Symantec is in control, not the consumer.
Personally I think the scenario is as follows:
4 or 5 fat white suspendered scotch-slammin' sons of slave owners run this country, owning everything including the president and Bill Gates, and every other company, software or otherwise. Nothing you do, see, or touch isn't controlled by them. They've assigned a special task force from the Bible Belt to develop Anti Virus, Filtering, and Personal Firewalling software. Coincidentally, they're also the ones who write the virii, and boy do they have a full plate, what with also engineering Enron, SCO, AIDS, and so on.
This scenario exists only in my brain, but some diluted version of it must be in play where my reality intersects with yours.
Slashdot Mirror
how do I know that the machine I'm about to vote on is actually using that code?
How do you know (for SURE) that the post you just made and the answer you are reading were actually posted on Slashdot's web servers on planet Earth, and not in some parallel universe where you every comment is appended to the file which will be reviewed at the time of your Final Judgement on Planet Zoormash?
here are ways to obfuscate things enough that people wouldn't pick up on them right away
Name one.
Just kidding. Not trying to be an asshole. However: why are you being a naysayer?
With enough changing sets of eyes on the source code, any significant problems would be found, as opposed to being obscured by a commercial interest. As the OSS model has proved for years now, this fact is irrefutable.
We may end up with a less-than-perfect voting system by using OSS -- but it would be better than the atrocity which is now in place!
Yes, if the greedy corporations are removed from the process, and an OSS solution based on an openly auditable platform like Linux or FreeBSD is adopted. We are not too far away from this eventuality.
Be careful what you say, suggesting that packages be checked is something that can get you moderated down -1, Troll.
The very idea that package integrity should be checked goes against the grain of Slashdot's every founding tenet.
That trolling bastard should be squashed into -25 karma land - and with my karma I afford to can say that!!
It seems implausible that Mr. Robertson did not make plans for the stewardship of uploaded content - whatever was his real intent in the first place?
mp3.com did evolve into a parody of itself, but he should have found another way to fortune rather than allowing this distribution channel to be silenced.
Let's hope bad things don't happen to Epitonic -- different model from mp3.com but it threatens to be a viable channel for distribution, if only more artists would sign up there exclusively.
no transfer of bodily fluids.
Poor attempt at humor then, waste of time and bandwidth, and as others pointed out, plaigiarized.
thetoque.net -and- Slashdot
I can't believe that was actually put on the front page as "news". That's an unbelievably stupid story which goes a long way towards diminishing my trust in mankind.
Neither SNMP or LDAP are "specialized databases".
If I'm wrong, then you could have included Windows Notepad in your specialized databases list.
The talented "Which Is Nice" troller returns!!
Last I checked, running around making partnership agreements, non-exclusive or otherwise, with companies widely accepted as being strategically and financially in "trouble", is a bad thing for a good company to be doing.
It just occurred to me that SuSE might just be trying to help Gateway sell some servers, perhaps they see a market niche they can fill somehow...
But I doubt it -- SuSE should have stuck to their Enterprise level offerings, especially engineering and prof svcs, which are their strong points.
Man. What are they doing??? Gateway hasn't any server market, or products to speak of, and their other offerings are only consumer grade crap (albeit decently priced consumer grade crap).
This is the last company SuSE should have aligned themselves with if their intent was to win any corporate clients.
They get big discounts, free software, maybe some gifts for the schools, maybe even some investments or jobs.
It's tempting to think this way.
Speaking for Peru and Germany, at least they have openly stated that proprietary, closed source software is no longer acceptable for government use because it does not guarantee their citizens and taxpayers any assurance that
- the software systems are free of third party control, e.g. there are no back doors, spyware, etc.
- government operations are not beholden to a commercial interest for pricing, support, and extensibility
among other things. This is enlightened thinking, which will slowly be adopted globally.
The movement in MA recently voiced these concerns, though IIRC pricing was the main concern.
I can only imagine that some clear thinking Latin Americans wish to bring an end to years and years of American corporate domination, and try to empower their own populace.
They might not have anything to replace CocaCola with right now, but for now Linux/BSD can replace Microsoft products. And without hardware upgrades in most cases -- which is another cost concern.
"Deseja batata com isso?"
(you want fries with that?)
--Luiz Moncau, Director of Marketing, Microsoft Brazil, 4 months from now.
Buy a newer iPod.
-anonymous slashdot coward
Buy a newer iPod. Sucker.
-S. Jobs
Buy a newer iPod. Sucker.
-B. Gates
Apple's DRM is illegal and unconstitutional. Buying a newer iPod will not remove the infraction.
-D. McBride
Heya,
I don't see why IBM would want the combination of them.
Perhaps only to get Novell's installed base, which is a large, angry, trapped sector of corporate MIS.
SuSE by itself I can see, but why would IBM be more interested with Novell as part of the deal?
Agreed, and they were already working with SuSE on zSeries stuff, I don't know why they didn't buy them over a year ago already!
IBM has Notes, so it doesn't need GroupWise.
True! But that's not why it doesn't want Groupwise... Groupwise sucks. Not even Novell wants Groupwise:)
it's your post that is riddled with problems. :)
Ok there, let's try and keep it impersonal and professional
Actually I did read the FA, and realize that the "workers" 1) would have to enter the program, and 2) could release their work under that program into the public domain prior to the standard length of time.
While you were busy figuring out the details there, you might have missed the point which is that no artist, that I have ever heard of, would prematurely give up the copyright and allow work into the Public Domain -- even if this was ultimately going to happen. Artists who do work of any merit or importance (yes, we make those distinctions) usually arrange for their estate to extend the copyright after their death in the interest of protecting their work - not protecting as in a property right - but as an idea.
Creators of works made after 1978 hold copyright for their lifetime PLUS 70 years which is a damn long time, which you didn't mention in your posting. It would be highly UNLIKELY AND UNUSUAL THAT ANY ARTIST WOULD WILLFULLY RELEASE THIER WORK INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN BEFORE THEIR LIFETIME PLUS 70. And I include software authors here.
And that is because the concept of copyright, as seen in the practical workings of the society we live in, is used ENTIRELY as a protective measure -- regardless of it technically correct meaning or the original intent at creation time.
>>Copyright is about ownership
>No it isn't.
Yes, it is - people think of it as the property right to their idea, and that's how they use it.
Speaking about the "cash bounties" campaign Microsoft is offering:
The campaign reveals just how much of a threat to Microsoft's bottom line security flaws now represent.
The campaign reveals just how much extra cash Microsoft has lying around and is willing to put up to make the buying public think it gives two shits about security.
Copyright is about ownership, not about the government or taxpayers "supporting" artists.
Art is not the only case where copyright comes into play.
Copyright and fraud are mutually exclusive ideas.
All of the material produced by these workers would be placed in the public domain where it could be freely reproduced.
Because you say so? What if an artist doesn't want her work in the public domain, or reproduced?
If either artists don't sign up for the program (maybe distrust of government, looking at their past record in funding the arts), or taxpayers fail to contribute. You would quickly have a non-program.
Even if all this is blatantly incorrect, I can't see any idea remotely like this going through the House and Senate; they're not gonna let a "Piss Christ" (remember Andres Serrano, Robert Mapplethorpe, the NEA, etc etc) become Public Domain.
jew lawyers
Even by my questionable standards, this xonstitutes crossing the line. In the future, when referring to our Bretheren Attorneys in Hollywood please use "Jew lawyers".
Thank you.
"WTF - you come to take our money??" Hollywood'll rip SCO's head off and sh-- right down its neck.
Great vote of confidence for Linux based VOIP but it seems a technology company could do that migration in around two years, not four.
Every time some corporation jumps on the latest bandwagon to try to stay alive, half of SlashRot shits itself with "Great move!!" "Great for the marketplace and competition!!" "Now that's thinking!!!"
In this case Sun probably needed to find something to do with 180,000 Netra cases sitting overstock in a warehouse.
Hi,
Goodness no! My children will be dead and buried before I finish adding URLs to a filter list. The number of new adult URLs surely grows faster than I'd be able to add them.
You'd be surprised how well this works, if you start with a list from one of the sources linked from squidguard... I add or remove maybe two or three items a week, and test on a regular basis by looking at stuff that is being blocked by the proxy.. it's pretty good.
FYI the lists have ~350K porn urls and about another 150K entries for adsites (banners). If a site is blocked and access is desired, it's easy to change it.. which has not happened yet with either my wife or our 8 year old son.
If I publish filtering software my trade secret is the block list. I have everything invested in the URLs and filtering criteria. The criteria alone does not sell my product.
The situation surrounding these commercial filtering products is more complicated than that. If you think there are configuration parameters that you can manipulate and therefore you're fully "in control", they gotcha. Exactly what they want you to think.
May I suggest, using an OSS product where you can see and edit all the lists, creating them yourself if desired. Squid/Squidguard, there are a few others too.
(Nonesuch said)
Only one problem- Symantec, like every other commercial filtering software vendor, does not publish their list of blocked sites, does not make any particular political or religious slant of their filtering public, and will sue anybody who reverse-engineers their blocking list.
Are you familiar with this:
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/
Additionally, if the software lets you "see" the lists, you still would have no idea what else is being filtered, omitted, added, or sanitized. You have no idea if words or strings in the stream are being altered. Symantec is in control, not the consumer.
Personally I think the scenario is as follows:
4 or 5 fat white suspendered scotch-slammin' sons of slave owners run this country, owning everything including the president and Bill Gates, and every other company, software or otherwise. Nothing you do, see, or touch isn't controlled by them. They've assigned a special task force from the Bible Belt to develop Anti Virus, Filtering, and Personal Firewalling software. Coincidentally, they're also the ones who write the virii, and boy do they have a full plate, what with also engineering Enron, SCO, AIDS, and so on.
This scenario exists only in my brain, but some diluted version of it must be in play where my reality intersects with yours.