Hell, at least most of those articles count as news. Vaguely. This is a bunch of references to long-since out-of-date pop culture that might have been vaguely amusing 20 years ago. But then again, probably not.
* block outbound port 25 from these users (with certain exceptions)
This is unacceptable. I pay for an internet connection, I expect to get one. Having arbitrary ports blocked because they might be used for a purpose you don't like is unacceptable; what will be next, blocking ports used by P2P networks?
* require SMTP AUTH to log in to their provided mail server
Doesn't help; the username and password would be stored in the user's MTA settings and could be easily retrieved.
* rate limit mail sent through that mail server (for example no more than 30 messages per hour)
Sorry, I sometimes need to send batches of 1-2 thousand e-mails as part of an informational mailing list I run. This is an entirely legitimate use of e-mail that should not be prevented unnecessarily.
then this would go a long way to defeat the utilization of these infected machines as a spamming tool.
It would also go a long way towards losing customers for the first ISPs that did it, which is why it won't happen.
anyone who uses p2p apps should join up. they request that you only report websites and stuff, but ips and timestamps are probably fine. all the reports are forwarded to the appropriate law enforcement agency.
Problem is, without downloading it, how do you tell what's child porn? Don't tell me you can tell by the filename, because you can't. There are people out there who label ordinary stuff as child porn. I don't know why, maybe because that makes more people download it (??).
And if I had downloaded some, I'd delete it quick and not tell anyone, just in case. Call me paranoid, but too many people have got themselves in trouble by trying to help out lately.
No, it couldn't. All it can prove is that if an image is fake it has been done very well.
If A doesn't conform to the statistical distribution of B, then A isn't B (with a high degree of confidence). But if does, that doesn't mean it is B -- you might just be looking at the wrong set of identifying features. I.e. not everything with two feet and a bill is an aquatic bird; it might be the waiter.
I think authentication tools make it easier. As someone who's tried a little photo manipulation in the past, I can tell you that the hardest thing is knowing when something's right. If you have an automated tool that can tell you when it's right, it becomes easier. Of course, that relies on the tools working...
It's like pronouncing router as "rooter", it's just stupid
Huh? I take it by this comment you believe I should change my pronunciation of the piece of networking kit that routes (according to the COED, this is pronounced 'roots') packets to 'rowter', which is the way the name of the woodworking tool that routs holes in pieces of wood is usually pronounced, thus creating even more confusion by making the words homophones as well as homonyms.
Yeah but Doom knocked all the competition to pieces, in both graphics and gameplay. I mean, I think it was the first to go to texture mapping on every surface; the walls in Wolfenstein were mostly blank IIRC. And the AI for the creatures turned it to the point where it wasn't just -- open another door, shoot the thing that runs towards you, repeat ad infinitum, which is just about my only memory of Wolfenstein.
Yeah, but Quake wouldn't have been what it was without Doom being written first. Quake was intentionally written as the successor to Doom, and practically all the new features in it were ways around limitations that people felt were the worst problems with Doom.
I suggest you read the GPL. There's no clause even suggesting that you can't distribute non-GPL code on the same CD.
Not only that, it even goes so far as to explicitly state that this is acceptable:
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.
If there ever is a real legal question over the (L)GPL, it would likely involve the "viral" aspects of glibc or QT,
Erm, glibc's license isn't "viral", at least not in the sense you mean. I'd suggesting reading it, if you're not sure of this, as it's quite an important part of the legal framework that allows non open-source software to be implemented on Linux.
My experience of Nottingham is that it's always gridlocked. You have the one-way traffic system from hell. It's as if somebody designed the city centre as a black hole -- you can get in, but you can't get out.
OK. But, erm, so what if there are a few (and we're probably talking 1 or less) incidents where these incorrectly set off a security alarm. It's not like that would be the end of the world, or anything.
Yes, although there's nothing to suggest that that did happen. And if that is what SCO were alleging, their comment that the committee had 'exceeded their authority' in putting the ELF specs in the public domain would be irrelevant.
If Word documents (or Office documents in general) an be argued to be 'standard', could this clause be used to protect code used to open them, regardless of how Microsoft changes them?
I think so. It's not just talking about published and accredited standards -- it's talking about any kind of standard, even down to stuff that is simply "the practices [...] of the industry being served", which is exactly the kind of standard that MS Office documents are -- the industry involved being just about all of them.
OTOH, it only relates to copyright, not patents. And wouldn't get you out of trouble from the "circumvention devices" aspect of the DMCA, which might apply to the DRM features in the latest Office versions, because in that case it isn't Microsoft's copyrights that are being infringed, but (they argue) their consumers.
Um... no. Lawyers are supposed to be your direct representative. They're not _allowed_ to make judgements on whether they believe your actions are ethical or not. Once you've hired them, they're supposed to do whatever you want (as long as doing so is legal) without making any such judgments.
That's one of the most fundamental points of a modern legal system. It just doesn't work if lawyers start making decisions like that... because sooner or later you'll get to the point where the lawyers won't touch a case that _does_ have merit because they think it would be too risky.
Well, the Financial Times has had two articles on this over the last couple of days. With a fairly pro-linux attitude, by the looks of it -- one of them starts like this:
A US judge yesterday dealt the controversial SCO Group a significant setback in its campaign to profit from Linux by throwing out much of the software company's lawsuit against DaimlerChrysler.
Time travel's fine, as long as it is well thought out. Take, for instance, the relatively small amount of time travel in Babylon 5 (it all actually occurred in a single 2-part episode in series 3). By the time it happened, it was the only way to make sense of various plots that had been left dangling from as far back as the end of series 1 (and mentioned in the pilot). Plus, it influenced the progression of the rest of the series, setting out a big 'is it fate?' question that wasn't answered until the next series. It also made it clear that the prophecies that had been mentioned from the very beginning were very shortly going to stop working; the characters were on their own. I'd say that _really_ worked.
OTOH, most time travel in Star Trek utterly failed, largely because it wasn't planned for in advance. The writers just sat down and said 'let's do some time travel', and everyone thought it was a great idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the Titanic cut a fairly serious corner -- they didn't have enough lifeboats for all the passengers.
That's a biggy.
Hell, at least most of those articles count as news. Vaguely. This is a bunch of references to long-since out-of-date pop culture that might have been vaguely amusing 20 years ago. But then again, probably not.
Both of them are 24-bit truecolor.
Err, I believe the ATSC standard, which is what most people mean by HDTV, uses 4:2:2 subsampled YUV, which is 16 bits per pixel.
If the providers hosting these users would:
* block outbound port 25 from these users (with certain exceptions)
This is unacceptable. I pay for an internet connection, I expect to get one. Having arbitrary ports blocked because they might be used for a purpose you don't like is unacceptable; what will be next, blocking ports used by P2P networks?
* require SMTP AUTH to log in to their provided mail server
Doesn't help; the username and password would be stored in the user's MTA settings and could be easily retrieved.
* rate limit mail sent through that mail server (for example no more than 30 messages per hour)
Sorry, I sometimes need to send batches of 1-2 thousand e-mails as part of an informational mailing list I run. This is an entirely legitimate use of e-mail that should not be prevented unnecessarily.
then this would go a long way to defeat the utilization of these infected machines as a spamming tool.
It would also go a long way towards losing customers for the first ISPs that did it, which is why it won't happen.
anyone who uses p2p apps should join up. they request that you only report websites and stuff, but ips and timestamps are probably fine. all the reports are forwarded to the appropriate law enforcement agency.
Problem is, without downloading it, how do you tell what's child porn? Don't tell me you can tell by the filename, because you can't. There are people out there who label ordinary stuff as child porn. I don't know why, maybe because that makes more people download it (??).
And if I had downloaded some, I'd delete it quick and not tell anyone, just in case. Call me paranoid, but too many people have got themselves in trouble by trying to help out lately.
Please don't hack my computer at 127.0.0.1. Thanks!
Hey, that's _MY_ computer. Gimme back my IP address.
Is this[goat.cx] fake?
Unfortunately (?), the process doesn't work on JPEGs, according to the NYT article.
No, it couldn't. All it can prove is that if an image is fake it has been done very well.
If A doesn't conform to the statistical distribution of B, then A isn't B (with a high degree of confidence). But if does, that doesn't mean it is B -- you might just be looking at the wrong set of identifying features. I.e. not everything with two feet and a bill is an aquatic bird; it might be the waiter.
Farid and his students have built a statistical model that captures the mathematical regularities inherent in natural images.
I wonder if they've considered the potential applications in image compression?
I think authentication tools make it easier. As someone who's tried a little photo manipulation in the past, I can tell you that the hardest thing is knowing when something's right. If you have an automated tool that can tell you when it's right, it becomes easier. Of course, that relies on the tools working...
It's like pronouncing router as "rooter", it's just stupid
Huh? I take it by this comment you believe I should change my pronunciation of the piece of networking kit that routes (according to the COED, this is pronounced 'roots') packets to 'rowter', which is the way the name of the woodworking tool that routs holes in pieces of wood is usually pronounced, thus creating even more confusion by making the words homophones as well as homonyms.
No thanks.
Yeah but Doom knocked all the competition to pieces, in both graphics and gameplay. I mean, I think it was the first to go to texture mapping on every surface; the walls in Wolfenstein were mostly blank IIRC. And the AI for the creatures turned it to the point where it wasn't just -- open another door, shoot the thing that runs towards you, repeat ad infinitum, which is just about my only memory of Wolfenstein.
Alright, who feels old?
Yeah, that'll be me. My first game was a Defender clone called 'Parsec' which ran on the TI-99/4A.
Doom wasn't released for another - what? 10 years?
Yeah, but Quake wouldn't have been what it was without Doom being written first. Quake was intentionally written as the successor to Doom, and practically all the new features in it were ways around limitations that people felt were the worst problems with Doom.
I suggest you read the GPL. There's no clause even suggesting that you can't distribute non-GPL code on the same CD.
Not only that, it even goes so far as to explicitly state that this is acceptable:
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.
(last sentence of section 2)
If there ever is a real legal question over the (L)GPL, it would likely involve the "viral" aspects of glibc or QT,
Erm, glibc's license isn't "viral", at least not in the sense you mean. I'd suggesting reading it, if you're not sure of this, as it's quite an important part of the legal framework that allows non open-source software to be implemented on Linux.
My experience of Nottingham is that it's always gridlocked. You have the one-way traffic system from hell. It's as if somebody designed the city centre as a black hole -- you can get in, but you can't get out.
OK. But, erm, so what if there are a few (and we're probably talking 1 or less) incidents where these incorrectly set off a security alarm. It's not like that would be the end of the world, or anything.
Yes, although there's nothing to suggest that that did happen. And if that is what SCO were alleging, their comment that the committee had 'exceeded their authority' in putting the ELF specs in the public domain would be irrelevant.
If Word documents (or Office documents in general) an be argued to be 'standard', could this clause be used to protect code used to open them, regardless of how Microsoft changes them?
I think so. It's not just talking about published and accredited standards -- it's talking about any kind of standard, even down to stuff that is simply "the practices [...] of the industry being served", which is exactly the kind of standard that MS Office documents are -- the industry involved being just about all of them.
OTOH, it only relates to copyright, not patents. And wouldn't get you out of trouble from the "circumvention devices" aspect of the DMCA, which might apply to the DRM features in the latest Office versions, because in that case it isn't Microsoft's copyrights that are being infringed, but (they argue) their consumers.
Um... no. Lawyers are supposed to be your direct representative. They're not _allowed_ to make judgements on whether they believe your actions are ethical or not. Once you've hired them, they're supposed to do whatever you want (as long as doing so is legal) without making any such judgments.
That's one of the most fundamental points of a modern legal system. It just doesn't work if lawyers start making decisions like that... because sooner or later you'll get to the point where the lawyers won't touch a case that _does_ have merit because they think it would be too risky.
CANADA? Now *that* explains why he wears red!
Nah, Coca Cola sponsor him to do that. You must have seen him in their adverts...
SCO says the ELF format was improperly released by the TISC.
But SCO was on the TISC.
That's SCO(Caldera) says the ELF format [...] But SCO(SCO) was on the TISC. Just for clarity's sake.
Well, the Financial Times has had two articles on this over the last couple of days. With a fairly pro-linux attitude, by the looks of it -- one of them starts like this:
A US judge yesterday dealt the controversial SCO Group a significant setback in its campaign to profit from Linux by throwing out much of the software company's lawsuit against DaimlerChrysler.
Time travel's fine, as long as it is well thought out. Take, for instance, the relatively small amount of time travel in Babylon 5 (it all actually occurred in a single 2-part episode in series 3). By the time it happened, it was the only way to make sense of various plots that had been left dangling from as far back as the end of series 1 (and mentioned in the pilot). Plus, it influenced the progression of the rest of the series, setting out a big 'is it fate?' question that wasn't answered until the next series. It also made it clear that the prophecies that had been mentioned from the very beginning were very shortly going to stop working; the characters were on their own. I'd say that _really_ worked.
OTOH, most time travel in Star Trek utterly failed, largely because it wasn't planned for in advance. The writers just sat down and said 'let's do some time travel', and everyone thought it was a great idea.