Registrant: Corinthian Sailing Association (CORINTHIANS6-DOM) P.O. Box 24206 New Orleans, LA 70184 US
Domain Name: CORINTHIANS.ORG
At the time he registered the.com, the.org was still available. However, if both were still available, wouldn't you take the.com too?
Why does Sallens' desire to publish a part of the bible on the.com domain necessitate that he publish all of them? That is like saying to the owner of poker.com that he needs to register cribbage.com, solitare.com, euchure.com, hearts.com, etc since their all part of Hoyles' books on card games.
The fact that he had no content on the site is largely irrelevant as well. Sallens purchased the right to use the domain name, and likely he was using the domain for e-mail. Regardless, I don't recall ever seeing a "You must populate the web site address" clause in the NSI paperwork.
That is all nice and all, but Nike didn't get hacked. Nobody got hacked except for Smith. The crackers simply fooled NSI by e-mail spoofing and did nothing at all to Nike's servers. Smith is just going after the biggest pot of money.
If I go to punch John, and I hit Alice too, should Alice sue John?
In this case, it would appear that our system was breached and that it became possible for someone to perform the functions needed to receive the www.nike.com referral and pass it onto the server hosting www.s11.org.
N.B. Since this incident, we have changed every administrator password and username. We have double-checked our permissions and security features and restricted Telnet access to our router and DNS servers. In short, we have taken the steps necessary to ensure that this kind of thing does not happen again.
So, not only was Smith's own server cracked into, but he also felt it neccessary to take steps to prevent a similar breach in the future. While IANAL, that would tell me that he could have prevented it in the first place.
During a 46 hour period, we experienced over 1,250,000 hits on our server in combined web and email activity that could be attributed to Nike. During that time, our servers failed a total of seven times which resulted in loss of service to our clients, and in the case of our mail server, damage to the code (due to the server crashing) which required a fresh install to put it right.
But if he had secured his own server so that the crackers couldn't have broken into it, this never would have happened (at least to him, the crackers probably could've found another box to use.)
The proper analogy isn't like leaving "a loaded gun laying about and if another person picked it up and killed someone with it" like Smith says. Rather, it's like a car (Smith's server) being hit in a bankrobber's (crackers) getway chase (from NSI) from the bank (Nike.) Now who would sue the bank in that situation?
...new DNS values were provided to NETSOL which resulted in the domain name being 'pointed' to another NameServer. In this case, the domain was pointed to the primary and secondary NameServer for FirstNET Online (Management) Limited.
Then (presumably) the same person or persons gained access to our boot file and added the following line of text: (the boot file tells the server which domains it is hosting or reporting DNS for)
primary nike.com nike.com.dns
So, let's get this straight...
Hax0rs fool NSI to change the domain
Haxors break into this guy's server to facilitate fooling NSI
And Nike is to blame for all of this!?
This suit is patently ridiculous and should get thrown out as soon as Nike's lawyers say "We had nothing to do with this." Then the lawyers should say, "Here's our counter-suit for this bonehead aiding the hax0rs." Nike does have a legitimate suit against Smith and NSI.
It is Smith (or his host) who is to blame for lax security on his own box, and NSI who is to blame for their incompetant SOP for domain transfers.
I can't wholeheartly agree with the AnonCow who says that Capt. Constition's post is a troll. A careful reading might show Manax that the two cases to present applicable preceedent. Still, I'd like to see some clear reasons from CC why he chose these two cases before I clear him him of "trollness".
Mellon v. Delaware, L&WR Co. basically holds that a license should be presumed to be valid. It would take work to show a license (like say the GPL) invalid.
The Tiverton Bd. of License Comm'rs v. Pastore decision is a bit tougher to draw a relation to. After reading the case, though, I think it does relate. The USSC had argeed to hear a case where a license had been revoked due to an illegal search.
My gut feeling is that the USSC would have upheld the lower court's ruling (which denied the license revocation) since there was an expectation of Fourth Amendment rights. Thus the USSC would have brought together two differing positions (IL forcing bars to submit to illegal searches for license, and RI with no such requirement) without overturning the results of any particular case (abiding by stare decises. (sp?)) The part that CC quotes is the Court saying "Hey! We want to decide this case. Tell us if we're about to lose the ability to."
So what does that have to do with the GPL? Basically that licenses should be upheld unless clear reasons say otherwise. Then again, they could be made to say anything in the hands of a good lawyer.
So why is the Captain a troll? Because anyone who thinks that Slashdot readers would go to that much trouble to figure out what the hell he was trying to say without any decent explaination is obviously either an idoit or a troll. That, and it looks like he searched for "license" and "license revocation" on FindLaw and took the first hit on each.
In Tyrants (a very forgettable Sega Genesis game) is a very forgettable version of Sinistar. At the Options menu, choose "Load/Save" and use "JOOLS" as the password.
I bought the game just for the hidden game (this was before the William Greatest Hits came out) and was quite disappointed by it. The graphics were "updated" to Genesis standards (overly busy backgrounds, everything larger than normal to show of the "advanced" power of the console) and the control was horrible.
When I first saw this response, I wondered how Bruce Perens got down to -1, then I saw the name-jack and wondered how a troll made such a good post. Ah, what an interesting forum/. provides...
While I agree that the Internet will look radically different than it does today, I think that the changes will magnify whatever effects the internet (or whatever the next thing is called) has on political content.
In general, a hundred years ago, politicans talked to "the public" will little targeted content. Ten or twenty years ago, politicans really began the perfecting of targeting their message to certain segments. I know of politicans who send one mailing to Harley riders and another to Caravan moms. The internet allows even finer granularity. The internet turns a 48-hour response time to an attack into a 48-minute response time. Whatever comes next is going to further this trend, not go backwards.
So that is the real question. Not "How does the Internet change the message," but rather, "How does the increased ability to communicate that the Internet gives politicians change their message?"
Unfortunately, you can't do it immediately when you go to Google. Type in your search, let it return the first set of results, then change the drop down box that says "10 results" to "30 results" or "100 results" and re-run your search. It's nice when you're running an obscure search, you can just scan 100 possible hits quickly.
Even if the actual search is slower than other engines, it's a user interface design that makes the overall searching much quicker. The only thing that I would like to see changed on Google is to be able to display 100 or more results from the front page. Then again, that would take away from the "streamlined interface" that I just got done praising, so I'll just shut up now.
I think most of us have a pretty good understanding of the ways in which the Internet affects the method of political communications. Instead of phone banking and lit drops, you can use e-mail lists and web sites, to cite just two examples.
However, the more interesting question, in my mind, is how the Internet, as a medium, affects the message. How do you view political content changing as a response to the new methods available? Will political content move more to the extremes, since politicians can target more effectively, or will it move more mainstream, since more people are brought into the political arena.
Beyond the message, how will the internet affect political outcomes? Are there any potential policy options that become possible with the new methods available?
In addition to the streamlined, effecient page design, I use Google for two reasons:
100 results per page, most other engines only do 20 and/or changing the number of resutls per page is hard to find/do.
Cached results. When I was looking for paintings by an artist, Google found several hits on past eBay auctions. The auctions were no longer on eBay, so I tried Google's cached page, and found pictures of stunning paintings.
By not overloading my bandwidth with crap ads and layout, letting me see tons of results on a page, and getting me information that been removed from the web Google has built tremendous user loyalty. Other web companies might want to note how Google has become so popular and built such loyalty. They're doing it right.
While I won't deny that advertising played a part in this lawsuit, couldn't it be that Bidder's Edge was consuming enough server cycles and bandwidth to be a concern to eBay? How is ruthlessly spidering a site different from ruthlessly pinging a site? (Not that BE was ruthlessly spidering.)
Indeed, ad revenue might just be the pretense to get the lawsuit in the door or into federal court. If it was just cycles and bandwidth, there might not be enough damages to qualify for federal court. So why then even go the court in the first place if the real damages are so small? One Bidder's Edge might not overwhelm eBay, but imagine if ten sites started doing it, fifty, two hundred.
Bidder's Edge might not bring down eBay, but hundreds of "Auction Expert" sites doing the same thing would. It's the same reason why webmasters ask people to download a graphic in order to use rather than just link to the original.
I don't see how at first blush (or even second, third, or last blush) this looks to be a dumb ruling. It's not even right for the wrong reasons. This injunction ruling is sound, and should probably be upheld by the final decision.
First of all, he declined to address the copyright and trademark claims made by eBay, thus avoiding the whole troublesome can of worms that would open.
Second of all, he bases his ruling on property rights. Read the ruling, Bidder's Edge is using eBay's servers and bandwidth to generate their content. That is server capacity and bandwidth that eBay is unable to use. As others have pointed out, a ruling in favor of BE could, if broadly interpreted, given a green light to DOS attacks.
Finally, Bidder's Edge is violating the eBay User Agreement. From Section 7: Access and Interference, "You agree that you will not take any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on our infrastructure." While eBay is a public site, there is a User Agreement which user (in theory) must abide by, if they don't, they can expect consequences such as what BE is getting. Not only is BE "stealing" cycles and bandwidth, they're doing it when they agreed to not via the TOS.
This is as perfect of a judicial ruling as I've seen covered on Slashdot. The judge didn't give ownership of the content to eBay (taking it away from the sellers), he didn't forbid linking to eBay (chilling deep linking), he didn't give eBay a patent, he didn't pour hot grits down their shorts.
This ruling doesn't prevent search engines from spidering. Why? Because most sites are completely open for spidering. They welcome the bandwidth usage. Bidder's Edge, however, was using a robot in violation of the TOS. In effect, they ignored a big huge "No Trespassing" sign (a very narrowly tailored "No Tresassing" sign.) As long as you follow the site's TOS, and respect the robots.txt, you're fine to spider it.
While some of us probably consider eBay with the same disdain as we hold toward AOL, we should cheer this ruling.
(For the Iowa-deprived, Cedar Rapids has a school with two rounded domes, one for the cafeteria, the other for a gym. They're identical, and from the outside, they look exactly like two white breasts, including nipples.)
Sioux City, however sucks major ass, and I grew up there!
I'm very selective when buying games, but even so I think that I've been pretty lucky to build a solid PS collection. There is so much crap out for the PS that it brings to mind the crap that was out for the Atari 2600 before the '83 Crash. I mean even Barbie and the Spice Girls have video games on the PS.
I'm sorry, but even some of the biggest hits are mindless, PaRappa is a simple "Simon" game. FF8 is amazingly tedious (even though I love the series.)
There were great games (for the era) on the Atari 2600 before the Crash, but the overwhelming tide of crap drowned out the gems. For every Hot Shots, there 30 Space Hulks. Most of the games don't even try to take advantage of the hardware, the companies are more concerned with meeting deadlines. And with game magazines hyping every game like it's the second coming of Pac, buyers will start to feel screwed and lose interest.
Dare I say, I actually like the N64 better in part because it uses carts. There is so much less garbage put out for the N64 (not to say that there isn't any, just that there's less of it.)
While Win9x's "feature" of allowing anybody to overwrite/modify/erase system files is certainly an issue, it is not one in regards to "ILOVEYOU".
Aside from the non-destructive changes to the registry, there is no payload to any of the system files (although I didn't immediately recognize all of the extensions). Indeed, most of the files attacked seemed to be user files, not system files.
As an aside, I wonder if the pandamonium caused by all of this could have been worse, say if the guy had just taken an already prevalent joke attachment, and used proper puncutation/case in the e-mail, so much for being 317173 (or whatever the fsck...)
No bug caused the m/billions to be lost, but rather a feature caused the money to float away.
Although not entirely responsible for the trojan macro, the feature is the security breach that allowed the macro to happen. Oxygen's responsibility for WWII is significantly less than this feature's responsibility for the fiasco. The proper analogy that Glowing Fish is looking for is not oxygen, but rather guns and stupid politicians.
Before I entered the IT field for real, I disliked MS but thought "Oh, what the hell." Now when I hear Gates and Co. talk about their right to innovate, I just think of this and all the other malicous macros. These are not "innovations", they are poorly planned and implemented features. These features have done far more harm to business than they have helped. I wonder about the usefulness of storing macros in normal.dot and I challenge anyone to give a good reason for including VB/A/Script in an e-mail message.
I can't help but feel as though MS's "right to innovate" has seriously limited business. Now, even small companies have to have dedicated IT departments. A mis-implemented feature causes world-wide computer havok. Promised productivity increases seem to melt away. A crash in a browser, a friggin' Internet browser, takes down the entire system. Users trying to get work done turned into beta testers so that MS can hit a product timeline. It's crazy.
And why don't the PHB take note? Because IT departments like fat budgets, and like fish, PHB like shiny things. -sk
...is for MS to require a bug in the software which will cause random kernal crashes and system lockups to force a reboot, and thus see the ad again!
Serious though, either comment it out if you want a clean bootlog or put up with it if you never look at it or just don't care. They can't force us into processor wasting ads as long as it's open.
Slashdot Mirror
Registrant:
Corinthian Sailing Association (CORINTHIANS6-DOM)
P.O. Box 24206
New Orleans, LA 70184 US
Domain Name: CORINTHIANS.ORG
At the time he registered the .com, the .org was still available. However, if both were still available, wouldn't you take the .com too?
Why does Sallens' desire to publish a part of the bible on the .com domain necessitate that he publish all of them? That is like saying to the owner of poker.com that he needs to register cribbage.com, solitare.com, euchure.com, hearts.com, etc since their all part of Hoyles' books on card games.
The fact that he had no content on the site is largely irrelevant as well. Sallens purchased the right to use the domain name, and likely he was using the domain for e-mail. Regardless, I don't recall ever seeing a "You must populate the web site address" clause in the NSI paperwork.
-sk
Yeah, but with GM, you buy 1 car every 10 years, with MS you buy 10 products each year (at least, if they have their way.) Equals out in the end...
If the Universe isn't infinitely large, what's beyond it?
If I go to punch John, and I hit Alice too, should Alice sue John?
-sk
-sk
The proper analogy isn't like leaving "a loaded gun laying about and if another person picked it up and killed someone with it" like Smith says. Rather, it's like a car (Smith's server) being hit in a bankrobber's (crackers) getway chase (from NSI) from the bank (Nike.) Now who would sue the bank in that situation?
-sk
So, let's get this straight...
This suit is patently ridiculous and should get thrown out as soon as Nike's lawyers say "We had nothing to do with this." Then the lawyers should say, "Here's our counter-suit for this bonehead aiding the hax0rs." Nike does have a legitimate suit against Smith and NSI.
It is Smith (or his host) who is to blame for lax security on his own box, and NSI who is to blame for their incompetant SOP for domain transfers.
-sk
Mellon v. Delaware, L&WR Co. basically holds that a license should be presumed to be valid. It would take work to show a license (like say the GPL) invalid.
The Tiverton Bd. of License Comm'rs v. Pastore decision is a bit tougher to draw a relation to. After reading the case, though, I think it does relate. The USSC had argeed to hear a case where a license had been revoked due to an illegal search.
My gut feeling is that the USSC would have upheld the lower court's ruling (which denied the license revocation) since there was an expectation of Fourth Amendment rights. Thus the USSC would have brought together two differing positions (IL forcing bars to submit to illegal searches for license, and RI with no such requirement) without overturning the results of any particular case (abiding by stare decises. (sp?)) The part that CC quotes is the Court saying "Hey! We want to decide this case. Tell us if we're about to lose the ability to."
So what does that have to do with the GPL? Basically that licenses should be upheld unless clear reasons say otherwise. Then again, they could be made to say anything in the hands of a good lawyer.
So why is the Captain a troll? Because anyone who thinks that Slashdot readers would go to that much trouble to figure out what the hell he was trying to say without any decent explaination is obviously either an idoit or a troll. That, and it looks like he searched for "license" and "license revocation" on FindLaw and took the first hit on each.
-sk
In Tyrants (a very forgettable Sega Genesis game) is a very forgettable version of Sinistar. At the Options menu, choose "Load/Save" and use "JOOLS" as the password.
I bought the game just for the hidden game (this was before the William Greatest Hits came out) and was quite disappointed by it. The graphics were "updated" to Genesis standards (overly busy backgrounds, everything larger than normal to show of the "advanced" power of the console) and the control was horrible.
-sk
Then he'd get sued by that Spears chick...
-sk
While I agree that the Internet will look radically different than it does today, I think that the changes will magnify whatever effects the internet (or whatever the next thing is called) has on political content.
In general, a hundred years ago, politicans talked to "the public" will little targeted content. Ten or twenty years ago, politicans really began the perfecting of targeting their message to certain segments. I know of politicans who send one mailing to Harley riders and another to Caravan moms. The internet allows even finer granularity. The internet turns a 48-hour response time to an attack into a 48-minute response time. Whatever comes next is going to further this trend, not go backwards.
So that is the real question. Not "How does the Internet change the message," but rather, "How does the increased ability to communicate that the Internet gives politicians change their message?"
-sk
Even if the actual search is slower than other engines, it's a user interface design that makes the overall searching much quicker. The only thing that I would like to see changed on Google is to be able to display 100 or more results from the front page. Then again, that would take away from the "streamlined interface" that I just got done praising, so I'll just shut up now.
-sk
However, the more interesting question, in my mind, is how the Internet, as a medium, affects the message. How do you view political content changing as a response to the new methods available? Will political content move more to the extremes, since politicians can target more effectively, or will it move more mainstream, since more people are brought into the political arena.
Beyond the message, how will the internet affect political outcomes? Are there any potential policy options that become possible with the new methods available?
-sk
- 100 results per page, most other engines only do 20 and/or changing the number of resutls per page is hard to find/do.
- Cached results. When I was looking for paintings by an artist, Google found several hits on past eBay auctions. The auctions were no longer on eBay, so I tried Google's cached page, and found pictures of stunning paintings.
By not overloading my bandwidth with crap ads and layout, letting me see tons of results on a page, and getting me information that been removed from the web Google has built tremendous user loyalty. Other web companies might want to note how Google has become so popular and built such loyalty. They're doing it right.e=mc++^2
-sk
Could it be that you're not violating eBay's TOS by ignoring the robot.txt? Don't get your knickers in such a twist quite yet...
Indeed, ad revenue might just be the pretense to get the lawsuit in the door or into federal court. If it was just cycles and bandwidth, there might not be enough damages to qualify for federal court. So why then even go the court in the first place if the real damages are so small? One Bidder's Edge might not overwhelm eBay, but imagine if ten sites started doing it, fifty, two hundred.
Bidder's Edge might not bring down eBay, but hundreds of "Auction Expert" sites doing the same thing would. It's the same reason why webmasters ask people to download a graphic in order to use rather than just link to the original.
-sk
First of all, he declined to address the copyright and trademark claims made by eBay, thus avoiding the whole troublesome can of worms that would open.
Second of all, he bases his ruling on property rights. Read the ruling, Bidder's Edge is using eBay's servers and bandwidth to generate their content. That is server capacity and bandwidth that eBay is unable to use. As others have pointed out, a ruling in favor of BE could, if broadly interpreted, given a green light to DOS attacks.
Finally, Bidder's Edge is violating the eBay User Agreement. From Section 7: Access and Interference, "You agree that you will not take any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on our infrastructure." While eBay is a public site, there is a User Agreement which user (in theory) must abide by, if they don't, they can expect consequences such as what BE is getting. Not only is BE "stealing" cycles and bandwidth, they're doing it when they agreed to not via the TOS.
This is as perfect of a judicial ruling as I've seen covered on Slashdot. The judge didn't give ownership of the content to eBay (taking it away from the sellers), he didn't forbid linking to eBay (chilling deep linking), he didn't give eBay a patent, he didn't pour hot grits down their shorts.
This ruling doesn't prevent search engines from spidering. Why? Because most sites are completely open for spidering. They welcome the bandwidth usage. Bidder's Edge, however, was using a robot in violation of the TOS. In effect, they ignored a big huge "No Trespassing" sign (a very narrowly tailored "No Tresassing" sign.) As long as you follow the site's TOS, and respect the robots.txt, you're fine to spider it.
While some of us probably consider eBay with the same disdain as we hold toward AOL, we should cheer this ruling.
-sk
All these comments about rednecks in Iowa, when Iowa's abbreviation is "IA", makes me wonder about the real rednecks...
(For the Iowa-deprived, Cedar Rapids has a school with two rounded domes, one for the cafeteria, the other for a gym. They're identical, and from the outside, they look exactly like two white breasts, including nipples.)
Sioux City, however sucks major ass, and I grew up there!
I'm sorry, but even some of the biggest hits are mindless, PaRappa is a simple "Simon" game. FF8 is amazingly tedious (even though I love the series.)
There were great games (for the era) on the Atari 2600 before the Crash, but the overwhelming tide of crap drowned out the gems. For every Hot Shots, there 30 Space Hulks. Most of the games don't even try to take advantage of the hardware, the companies are more concerned with meeting deadlines. And with game magazines hyping every game like it's the second coming of Pac, buyers will start to feel screwed and lose interest.
Dare I say, I actually like the N64 better in part because it uses carts. There is so much less garbage put out for the N64 (not to say that there isn't any, just that there's less of it.)
-sk
Aside from the non-destructive changes to the registry, there is no payload to any of the system files (although I didn't immediately recognize all of the extensions). Indeed, most of the files attacked seemed to be user files, not system files.
As an aside, I wonder if the pandamonium caused by all of this could have been worse, say if the guy had just taken an already prevalent joke attachment, and used proper puncutation/case in the e-mail, so much for being 317173 (or whatever the fsck...)
-sk
No bug caused the m/billions to be lost, but rather a feature caused the money to float away.
Although not entirely responsible for the trojan macro, the feature is the security breach that allowed the macro to happen. Oxygen's responsibility for WWII is significantly less than this feature's responsibility for the fiasco. The proper analogy that Glowing Fish is looking for is not oxygen, but rather guns and stupid politicians.
Before I entered the IT field for real, I disliked MS but thought "Oh, what the hell." Now when I hear Gates and Co. talk about their right to innovate, I just think of this and all the other malicous macros. These are not "innovations", they are poorly planned and implemented features. These features have done far more harm to business than they have helped. I wonder about the usefulness of storing macros in normal.dot and I challenge anyone to give a good reason for including VB/A/Script in an e-mail message.
I can't help but feel as though MS's "right to innovate" has seriously limited business. Now, even small companies have to have dedicated IT departments. A mis-implemented feature causes world-wide computer havok. Promised productivity increases seem to melt away. A crash in a browser, a friggin' Internet browser, takes down the entire system. Users trying to get work done turned into beta testers so that MS can hit a product timeline. It's crazy.
And why don't the PHB take note? Because IT departments like fat budgets, and like fish, PHB like shiny things. -sk
Real men use EDIT...
Serious though, either comment it out if you want a clean bootlog or put up with it if you never look at it or just don't care. They can't force us into processor wasting ads as long as it's open.