Re:alt.hackers is moderated, but no moderators.
on
Is Usenet Dying?
·
· Score: 2
I think the world should contain more tests like that.
Back ten years ago when I wanted to post I asked the local guru and he said 'RFC', a week later, after being sidetracked by a ton of very useful reading, I posted my first post to that NG.
And I was a better net citizen because of that. If it had been handed to me, I wouldn't have appreciated it.
I help clients now who get on the net and then expect red carpet treatment, and expect people to go out of their way to help them, as if it's not mostly people running volunteer sites. If these clients ever had to work at anything in their pampered little lives they wouldn't be such assholes.
(Not that I feel you don't have a right to use anything they didn't invent, but you need to understand the tools you use, and be capable of inventing something, if not those specific tools. If someone can't be a productive member of the information society, they aren't someone I want around.)
IMHO Slashdot needs the ability for people to subscribe to moderators, or to killfile someone's moderation. By clicking on a message that I think has been properly moderated, I should be able to have Slashdot automatically use that person's moderation in the future, and the reverse when I think someone has been marked down unfairly. Then we'll choose who we let help us cull our choices.
Slashdot is a web forum for one main reason, so that they can control it and display banners.
Usenet is more democratic, if/. was on the public network (not running their own server) then they'd be bound by public opinion. Also, as/. owners have said, they considered a Usenet interface, but didn't because they rely on banner ads.
I don't read Usenet much anymore, in numbers of hours spent browsing, but when I do, I can almost always find the answers I need. Web pages are too static, and web discussion boards are rarely as full-features as newsreaders, which allow decent searching, threading, killfiles, etc.
Hmmm. Take a long document, spellcheck it with the standard dictionary in some distro of Linux. Then after fixing any errors noted, run the stenography program, introduce 'tpyo' errors to the text. Check with the dictionary to make sure that the typo-ed word is close enough to point to the original word, if not, skip to the next word, or make a different error.
The receiver takes the file, runs the decrypt, which basically spellchecks the file, finds all the modified words, and notes how they were changed. Based on the distance between words, and the typo made, the program retrieves a small bit of the hidden file, and goes to the next word.
Typos can carry a lot of information. The specific character in the word which is typoed can give a couple bits, as can the way the letter is modified.
I can see a few ways... take 'help' as the base word. 'hhelp', 'hrlp', 'heklp', 'helo', etc. are all seemingly normal typos.
I'm going to write something to find my typo patterns, see if I double-up on characters, hit the wrong one, or what. It's involve spell checking all my email, but it'll be useful info for programming this. When I get something done, I'll mention it to/.
No, he doesn't understand that CSS isn't copy protection, it's region protection and viewer control, as well as control over hardware companies.
CSS's main purpose is to require a hardware manufacturer to license the technology, thereby agreeing to not let people view disks in all areas, and to not let people fast-forward over ads, etc.
This also prevents any company that can't convince the MPAA that they deserve a license from making a player, effectively giving them monopoly control over DVD disks.
The judge just said that any risk of piracy was too much, and that people could get stuffed. Wonder how much they payed him.
This is akin to the invention of wire, for building CPUs. They have a way to pass a signal from one place to another. Albeit, a very fast, energy efficient way.
We've seen STM pictures that show an echo of one atom, but does that mean that the STM is innacurate, and the image is being distorted by the ring of atoms? Or does it mean that the atom actually appears, at an atomic level, to be in both positions?
If it's just an artifact of the STM, then you'd need to use an STM to view this echo, and it won't be of much use. If it's actually an echo of the atom in the new position, then you should be able to detect a change in the atomic property at that location somehow. If it uses electrons as waves, focusing them, like the whisper room does sound, then surely an atom at the other focal point would be effected.
And, if this does effectively change the atomic state at a distance, in a way that can be read without an STM, then you'll only need transistors, and a way to move the atoms and you'll basically have the tools for a CPU. Perhaps, if this works, putting two source atoms in, such that both cast an echo in the same spot, could be used as a transistor, where both need to be in place, and echoing on the output, for the output to change.
But, a circuit needs to change. If you use voltage, the voltage can easily be changed. If you use the position of atoms, how do you move them?
So, you need three things, one of which they might have part of. Signal paths, gates, and changeable states.
They do have a signal path, but not over an arbitrary path, and it would be hard to extend, because you'd need two interlocking rings, one so that the echo of the first created its own echo. But, that would mess up their elipse and probably stop the echo from being created in the first place.
Not that I'm a SW fan, but I seem to remember that the Queen, who you say is Nat. Portman, is the mother of Luke and Leia, not the other way around, as you state on your page (remove the picture and first directory from the above link).
So, wouldn't it be more correct, from the POV of the queen, to say that "this is my *daughter* princess Leia"?
Perhaps this would work best as a browser addon, where you (for instance) install Junkbuster the pluggin, and it modifies a few browser menus and displays, and does this. The browser could pass all request, incoming html, etc, through specific filters, so any program that wanted could fit as a filter, saving you from having to install a proxy for what is really just a filtering job.
How would that be hard? Just get the browser to substitute their ActiveX control for a similar one set to return a random number. It might also be possible to trap these opcodes, so that a system util could return any specified number to any program which asked, unless that program was run at OS level (which not much is, ideally.)
Anyways, you control your machine and the software on it, spoofing an ID number isn't hard.
You could do it by trapping the ID check request.
You could do it by subverting the applet that checks.
You could do it by watching outgoing packets to the intel site and replacing the ID with a fake one.
Sure, telling lynx to represent itself as a browser capable of keen graphics effects, or telling Netscape 3 to identify itself as something capable of DHTML, etc, is silly, and you deserve the messy page you get. But, telling a browser to identify itself as any other browser, and to behave like it if possible, makes sense. I can do it, with Junkbuster, if I wish, but I usually leave it transparent, because any IE only page isn't a page I'll ever visit.
You could have a IE5 filter on Mozilla that would take a page and render it like IE5, complete with whatever bugs. That would be funky. And add filters for all main browsers, so a web designer could check behavior in many browsers without having them all installed.
But, you don't need a license to use software. You buy a book and you can use it in any way you wish, except as violates copyright law. Ditto with a book on digital media. Thus, it should be the same for software.
I don't understand why a license to use software would be required.
And, based on the assumption that no license is required, if you are sold a book/software, you have just bought the right to use it, any other agreements you are expected to enter need to be followed up with additional consideration. (For example, agree to this semi-restrictive license and we'll provide additional support for two years.)
You are right, the actual text of the contract doesn't need to be known when you agree, as long as it wasn't misrepresented. If you bought software and were told that you must agree to a license before actually using it, then it would be part of the agreement, as long as they didn't slip in horrendous terms that would be ruled unreasonable.
But, if you haven't already paid for the software, like in the case of shareware, or downloadable software, and you agree to the license, anything goes. There is no initial agreement, so if you click 'I Agree', the use of the software is your consideration, because you haven't already paid for that right.
IANAL, but I did take a year of law, and it was pretty clear that while there are some assumed contracts (like handing money to and getting an item from a retailer constitutes a legal sale even if no words are spoken) that every party must get consideration, and must have awareness of the agreement, if not the specific wording.
Awareness, as in, you can't be assumed to have agreed to a contract just by entering a store, or something.
Furthermore, any contract deficient in any of these (and other) aspects, or between non-capable people (minors, the mentally ill, etc) is void, and can be agreed to without burden. Sort of like a gift contract, where you hope the something will be done, but can't enforce it. The exception was contracts where they appear to be valid, and the problem is an intentional loophole intended for fraudulent use.
This means, I could offer you a contract whereby you pay me $1M, and I do nothing (not valid for lack of consideration) and you could sign it, but it wouldn't be binding because it isn't valid, so when I came to collect, you could ignore me.
This basically establishes my argument for click-throughs being void. You've paid for the software, thus gaining the right to use it immediately. Any additional restrictions not mentioned at purchase-time are a second contract. If they offer you the contract but offer the use of the software, that counts as no consideration because you already bought it. Additionally, they are withholding your right to use something you own until you agree with them, that doesn't give you the freedom to turn down the contract if you reject it (you have to say 'I Agree' or it's a coaster) so it's again invalid. Thus, the contract can be accepted without burden.
This bit about freedom is, contracts signed under duress aren't valid. If I was to sit on your car and require you to sign a contract, even if the contract was valid in all ways, before I'd move and let you use your car, the contract wouldn't be valid, because I have no right to withhold access to the car, and you, having to have access to something you own, which I am withholding, would be forced to sign. Alternately, this could be viewed as the implied addition of me returning your car to the contract, and because me not letting you use your car is illegal, the contract would again be invalid. The parallel is the software company requiring you to sign the contract (click 'I Agree') to use the product you already purchased. Once again, this assumes that you weren't given proper notification that use of this product was dependant on a later contract, before you agreed to the sale.
Canadian law could differ a bit from US law, but most of this sort of thing, asside from the proposed UCITA and the (existing) DMCA, are the same or very similar.
Anyways, if you want to provide cites, I'd appreciate it. I'll check my/users.pl for replies, so even if you can't do it while the thread is current, I'll still see them.
I'd like to see some of this list showing that clickthroughs are already enforceable.
Currently, the only cases I know of that supported them are ones in which the license just reiterated the obvious, like the copyright. Similar to shooting down the old defense of "Well it didn't have the (c)" or "It used (c) instead of a C in a circle", where the judge just reaffirmed that the copyright is still valid even if you don't use any symbol.
So, to the best of my knowledge, the clickthrough license has never been valid because it is not a valid contract in many ways, lack of consideration and lack of disclosure being the two most obvious. (You already bought the software before being asked if you agree, so they can't offer you anything at the point which you don't already have. Also, you don't see the contract until after the sale is finalized, where you get your right to own it, and you can't be expected to agree to a secret contract, so it's invalid.)
While a contract can specify nearly anything for consideration (pretty well anything legal), the contract has to itself be valid, or the whole thing is meaningless. So, while they could, with a valid contract (that you sign before purchase, and are paid for) get you to agree to not talk about the product, not reverse engineer, not use while wearing green, etc, they can't do any of this with clickthroughs because they are totally invalid.
Ditto with shrinkwraps, for mostly the same reason.
The UCITA wants to change contract law, such that you don't need to know about a contract (or even have it be implied, like retail sales, etc) to be bound by it, don't need to receive consideration, and don't need to actively agree.
This *will* fail, because if it passes, contract law will be useless. Someone will sneak "And you agree to transfer title to everything you own to Company A." into a EULA and sue that user for everything they own, when that user is a big company, or a government depertment, the shit'll hit the fan, the defendant will buy as many judges as the software industry, and it'll be show down, probably with freaking huge punative damages.
I agree that everyone should be able to use data they personally, or as a corporation collect, for most thing. But investigations into some areas should be forbidden (ie, companies correlating web search and medication purchases with possible diseases and refusing insurance.) as well as trading information between companies.
If I give someone a piece of data based on me, I want some control over it, as in, knowing who I give it to, and what they do, and thus are going to use my data for.
If I give my birthday to ICQ for them to tell my contacts, I would accept them using it to target age-related banners to me, because that is the sort of business they are in. If they sell this to another company, I won't know who has it, or what uses it's being put to. Thus I won't give out my information at all.
This is where some reduction of freedom (copyright laws prevent totally open use of all information) end up increasing freedom by making people willing to share the data in the first place.
If it was illegal to base business actions on medical data that you didn't directly connect, then I wouldn't have to worry about insurance companies talking to grocery stores, noting that my CC was used to purchase junk food, and upping my premiums, or some of invasive use.
Similarly, if companies had to collect their own data, you wouldn't have to worry about that critical point where you ISP, bookstore, drugstore, etc, are all linked, so that everything you buy, read, watch, are all linked.
I'd say that all information collected for possible sale, and all information to be shared across trademark divisions (between different types of companies) should require warning the user specifically on the collection form.
What really pisses me off is when companies collect and distribute your data, but claim no responsibility for mistakes.
I'd *love* to see a big-money lawsuit against Equifax or some other similar company, where their incorrect data was used over the individual's protests, and that incorrect data led to a decision harming that individual. Then that person sues them for a typically large US settlement. A few of those could change a company's attitude quickly.
Fun idea... If the creator of a piece of data owns it, then selling a database of personal info, with a trojan fact (different spelling of middle name, etc) with a license saying that anyone using that information must specifically tell you in all cases that information is sold of used to generate a list with your name on it, would give you a lot of control. And you'd be able to use it later, if the company you originally sold it to didn't pass it on, you'd show that the information originally had that warning, and anyone using it had to get it via that original source, and use it to gain access to your data.
I agree. We don't know what we lost, so we can't judge the usefulness.
It is unlikely that the library on Alexandria contained scientific knowledge we haven't rediscovered (I don't believe in lost Atlantis, etc) but it certainly contained facts which are now forever lost, like more historical records of the time than exist in biases recordings (the bible, etc). To have lost that library, and others similar, is tragic, from a historian's POV.
So, we should have a way to record all the data that we want, such that none is ever lost accidentally.
For this, data havens aren't great. If the owner of the data is lost it's all too easy for the data to be meaningless to everyone, strongly encrypted until it appears to be white noise. Physical data is handy this way, if your backups and in a safety deposit box, you might decide on less encryption, enabling heirs to read your files if you didn't pass on encryption keys in your will.
Speaking of which, we need a strong encryption system whereby you can unlock data with a certain number of secondary keys, or a master key, but where the data doesn't get easier to unlock with less than the required number of secondary keys. For instance, the boss can unlock the data, as can any five of the seven employees, but if four conspire, the cracking is no easier. This will let keys be passed on after death, etc, in wills and by delay mail, such that records can be unlocked, but in such a way that a dishonest person can't look at your will and gain premature access to sensative data.
On the subject of easily recovered digital information with a fairly high density, have you considered printing digital data to paper as a series of light/dark areas? This way it can easily be scanned into a bitmap (something we'll always have the ability to do) and a programmer could whip up a translator in an hour or two. Then print an intro page describing the text format (65 -> 'A'), etc, and the encoding (if you need to use anything special) as well as the dimensions, etc. These pages could be printed on high quality paper and laminated, or in the msot paranoid case, photographically etched onto non-reactive metal film (which allows a better resolution, btw.)
Testing of this method allowed 2048x2688 (or so) resolution, which translates into 672KB / page, or just over two pages/floppy disk.
It's the longest term data storage we could think of because if you did the paranoid route and used metal film, it would theoretically last thousands of years, and all it requires to access is a scanner, which we have to assume there will be in the future, and a semi-talented programmer.
It does have file-format problems, but if you completely document the file format in text in the beginning (could even be very small, requiring a magnifying glass or scan+enlarge to read) or at least provide bootstrap info, as in, describe how to read a text file, then include the first data as a text file describing what to do with the rest of the digital data, etc.
With metal film, or even very good paper and photographic printing, you could get 4-8MB / page. At 500+ pages per volume, it's pretty compact storage, and it would be used for rosetta stone type info, or the most important records. Everything else can just be translated from one format to the next every 10-20 years, as storage should allow ten times as much data on the same size medium in that time.
The movie may have had some merit if it was a standalone, without all the stupid classroom scenes, bad morality angles, and nazi-esque settings. It sunk far below just a cheap action flick with T&A by not only not getting the ideas, but mocking them, and by doing so, showing that the director is Nazi obsessed.
The director, I don't know what he was smoking, decided that anything different to the USA is a facist state with nazi overtones. Instead of presenting the same questions to the characters, letting people watch them decide what's important enough to make them risk their lives, the director simply shows the whole society as war-obsessed nuts.
Where did the scene with the soldiers handing the kids the guns come from? The nazi uniforms? All creations of the moron directing it.
If the deep thoughts aren't appropriate for a movie, then rip them out and leave the action, but don't distort them, twisting them to preach instead of to ask. That's the worst possible at all levels.
And then they bring to stupid love triangle into it, like it's impossible to have a movie without someone falling in love. And they end it with a ST:TNG-ism straight from Deanna Troy "I feel fear" "Its afraid!"
My friend sums up ST the movie as "based on the back cover of a book written by R.A.H." I would take that one step farther and add "interpretted poorly, loosely based, and maliciously directed" to that.
I simply fill out a different card every time I've got a few minutes, with whatever fake info I want, then when I'm shopping with friends, I give them my extra cards if they don't already have one. Share the wealth.
The companies that do this are sleezy, because they usually jack the non-club price of hot items up, forcing non-participating shoppers to either go to two stores, pay very high prices, or sign over their privacy.
And I like how the poster you (the poster I'm responging to) talked about a free plane trip every $2000... How about a free trip every $20k, and then only to certain destinations, for certain times, etc. That's how airmiles cards work.
Speaking of bum deals, I received some gift certificates to the movies for my birthday and when I went to see James Bond:TWINE, I was told it was a premeire night and my gift certificates weren't any good. So I gave them hell about refusing to honor a contract. They didn't say anywhere that the gift certificates weren't valid for everything, except on the gift certificate itself, which you didn't see till you paid. Gave them hell for a while until they backed down. Freaking good for nothing assholes. As soon as they have your money they make it clear how much they care.
Yeah, if foobar.com uses doubleclick and doesn't make any money off of me, wah. And if they go under because of it? Boo fucking hoo.
If companies go under because they get boycotted for being sleezy it'll just open up a place for a new company. And if they use a banner company that doesn't suck, maybe people won't blacklist them, and they'll make a buck. If not, there'll be another right behind them willing to try.
By your logic we should all go watch movies now, because the MPAA needs money, and if we don't support them, there will never be any entertainment again.
Depends. If collecting this information for later commercial use is a crime, then using doubleclick for banners would likewise be a crime. (Contracting for a criminal act is itself a crime, outside of conspiracy, etc)
Sure, eventually all the big businesses could go offshore, but users still need homepages, and small sites still need banners, which would mean that there would be a market for a legal banner site.
And, think of the fun, if they were offshore in such a way that our laws didn't apply to them, theirs wouldn't to us. A free site to hack on, and they'd have no legal grounds to stop you unless you broke laws of your host country, and I doubt the government would go out of their way to help them.:)
I'm with the other poster in this group, I've filtered out banners I don't like. I use junkbuster (www.junkbuster.com) instead of misrouting the IP because the browser stops looking, but otherwise, I do the same.
If you hold the license, yes. When you GPL code you still own the copyright and you can release it later under different terms, or use it yourself in any way you wish.
The only thing to note is that you can't retroactively revoke a license. If you release a work under GPL then later stop offering it and offer the same work under a different license (if at all) people can still distribute the GPLed version and new users are entitled to use the GPLed version if they can find it.
On the redhat thing... Redhat doesn't charge for any of the software (AFAIK) except that which is covered by patents and they have to pay a licensing fee for. They do charge for support.
But, go for it. More GPL software is always good, and as you say, if someone wants the interface badly enough, they can always write it themselves.
This is most likely not true, no matter what RMS said.
It's like writing a macro program, to automate system usage, and having the author of a program write to you demanding that you pay him royalties to have your program mimick keyboard/mouse events in his application.
If you write an application that depends on a GPLed program, and won't run with a replacement, then it's likely going to infringe. But if you write a program, like a compiler front-end, and it simply has the option to use a GPLed compiler, among others, then it doesn't infringe.
Similarly, if you wrote a WM replacement for win95 and it has the ability to use GPLed components for Litestep, without depending on those, and without using GPLed Litestep code in doing so, it wouldn't infringe on the GPL.
A user of a program can only infringe on the GPL by distributing a binary without source, or by using GPLed code and not following the license. Anything else they do is kosher. If I wanted to download GCC and write extensions to it, or use it in a non-GPLed wrapper, this would be fine, regardless of how I used it. Only if I released this would it change.
Thus, if you release a program that *can* use GPLed components, you're not responsible for the actions of a user, if they choose to install those GPLed components, or make the whole package dependant on them in some way.
This assumes that your package has other concievable uses, than JUST a wrapper for the GPLed code.
An example would be photoshop filters. Photoshop could write the filter interface such that it could read call binary filters from other programs, and if one of those filters was GPLed, photoshop wouldn't be in violation. But, if photoshop was written such that it required the graphics core from GIMP to even work, then it would be a violation.
Yes, the GPL covers the expression only, not the ideas. This means a company can't snap up a GPLed program and close the source, but they can rewrite it, or mine it for ideas.
But, ideas aren't protected anyways (except by software patents, spit spit) so they could just disassembled your program to see how you did something anyways.
You can detect your code by looking at the binaries of their program. Usually the compiler used is easy to determine (usually it identifies itself) and if you compiled your code with that compiler and checked for similar strings, you'd be able to detect wholesale copying, especially since you'd probably have an idea of what part of their program was a copy.
Ok, nice having met you, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
If you don't care about something, don't read it, and definately don't post telling us you don't care. If you took the time to read it, to post that, you're just proving that you DO care.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the world should contain more tests like that.
Back ten years ago when I wanted to post I asked the local guru and he said 'RFC', a week later, after being sidetracked by a ton of very useful reading, I posted my first post to that NG.
And I was a better net citizen because of that. If it had been handed to me, I wouldn't have appreciated it.
I help clients now who get on the net and then expect red carpet treatment, and expect people to go out of their way to help them, as if it's not mostly people running volunteer sites. If these clients ever had to work at anything in their pampered little lives they wouldn't be such assholes.
(Not that I feel you don't have a right to use anything they didn't invent, but you need to understand the tools you use, and be capable of inventing something, if not those specific tools. If someone can't be a productive member of the information society, they aren't someone I want around.)
IMHO Slashdot needs the ability for people to subscribe to moderators, or to killfile someone's moderation. By clicking on a message that I think has been properly moderated, I should be able to have Slashdot automatically use that person's moderation in the future, and the reverse when I think someone has been marked down unfairly. Then we'll choose who we let help us cull our choices.
Slashdot is a web forum for one main reason, so that they can control it and display banners.
/. was on the public network (not running their own server) then they'd be bound by public opinion. Also, as /. owners have said, they considered a Usenet interface, but didn't because they rely on banner ads.
Usenet is more democratic, if
I don't read Usenet much anymore, in numbers of hours spent browsing, but when I do, I can almost always find the answers I need. Web pages are too static, and web discussion boards are rarely as full-features as newsreaders, which allow decent searching, threading, killfiles, etc.
Hmmm. Take a long document, spellcheck it with the standard dictionary in some distro of Linux. Then after fixing any errors noted, run the stenography program, introduce 'tpyo' errors to the text. Check with the dictionary to make sure that the typo-ed word is close enough to point to the original word, if not, skip to the next word, or make a different error.
/.
The receiver takes the file, runs the decrypt, which basically spellchecks the file, finds all the modified words, and notes how they were changed. Based on the distance between words, and the typo made, the program retrieves a small bit of the hidden file, and goes to the next word.
Typos can carry a lot of information. The specific character in the word which is typoed can give a couple bits, as can the way the letter is modified.
I can see a few ways... take 'help' as the base word. 'hhelp', 'hrlp', 'heklp', 'helo', etc. are all seemingly normal typos.
I'm going to write something to find my typo patterns, see if I double-up on characters, hit the wrong one, or what. It's involve spell checking all my email, but it'll be useful info for programming this. When I get something done, I'll mention it to
No, he doesn't understand that CSS isn't copy protection, it's region protection and viewer control, as well as control over hardware companies.
CSS's main purpose is to require a hardware manufacturer to license the technology, thereby agreeing to not let people view disks in all areas, and to not let people fast-forward over ads, etc.
This also prevents any company that can't convince the MPAA that they deserve a license from making a player, effectively giving them monopoly control over DVD disks.
The judge just said that any risk of piracy was too much, and that people could get stuffed. Wonder how much they payed him.
This is akin to the invention of wire, for building CPUs. They have a way to pass a signal from one place to another. Albeit, a very fast, energy efficient way.
We've seen STM pictures that show an echo of one atom, but does that mean that the STM is innacurate, and the image is being distorted by the ring of atoms? Or does it mean that the atom actually appears, at an atomic level, to be in both positions?
If it's just an artifact of the STM, then you'd need to use an STM to view this echo, and it won't be of much use. If it's actually an echo of the atom in the new position, then you should be able to detect a change in the atomic property at that location somehow. If it uses electrons as waves, focusing them, like the whisper room does sound, then surely an atom at the other focal point would be effected.
And, if this does effectively change the atomic state at a distance, in a way that can be read without an STM, then you'll only need transistors, and a way to move the atoms and you'll basically have the tools for a CPU. Perhaps, if this works, putting two source atoms in, such that both cast an echo in the same spot, could be used as a transistor, where both need to be in place, and echoing on the output, for the output to change.
But, a circuit needs to change. If you use voltage, the voltage can easily be changed. If you use the position of atoms, how do you move them?
So, you need three things, one of which they might have part of. Signal paths, gates, and changeable states.
They do have a signal path, but not over an arbitrary path, and it would be hard to extend, because you'd need two interlocking rings, one so that the echo of the first created its own echo. But, that would mess up their elipse and probably stop the echo from being created in the first place.
Any ideas on how to overcome these issues?
Not that I'm a SW fan, but I seem to remember that the Queen, who you say is Nat. Portman, is the mother of Luke and Leia, not the other way around, as you state on your page (remove the picture and first directory from the above link).
So, wouldn't it be more correct, from the POV of the queen, to say that "this is my *daughter* princess Leia"?
Perhaps this would work best as a browser addon, where you (for instance) install Junkbuster the pluggin, and it modifies a few browser menus and displays, and does this. The browser could pass all request, incoming html, etc, through specific filters, so any program that wanted could fit as a filter, saving you from having to install a proxy for what is really just a filtering job.
How would that be hard? Just get the browser to substitute their ActiveX control for a similar one set to return a random number. It might also be possible to trap these opcodes, so that a system util could return any specified number to any program which asked, unless that program was run at OS level (which not much is, ideally.)
Anyways, you control your machine and the software on it, spoofing an ID number isn't hard.
You could do it by trapping the ID check request.
You could do it by subverting the applet that checks.
You could do it by watching outgoing packets to the intel site and replacing the ID with a fake one.
etc.
Sure, telling lynx to represent itself as a browser capable of keen graphics effects, or telling Netscape 3 to identify itself as something capable of DHTML, etc, is silly, and you deserve the messy page you get. But, telling a browser to identify itself as any other browser, and to behave like it if possible, makes sense. I can do it, with Junkbuster, if I wish, but I usually leave it transparent, because any IE only page isn't a page I'll ever visit.
You could have a IE5 filter on Mozilla that would take a page and render it like IE5, complete with whatever bugs. That would be funky. And add filters for all main browsers, so a web designer could check behavior in many browsers without having them all installed.
But, you don't need a license to use software. You buy a book and you can use it in any way you wish, except as violates copyright law. Ditto with a book on digital media. Thus, it should be the same for software.
/users.pl for replies, so even if you can't do it while the thread is current, I'll still see them.
I don't understand why a license to use software would be required.
And, based on the assumption that no license is required, if you are sold a book/software, you have just bought the right to use it, any other agreements you are expected to enter need to be followed up with additional consideration. (For example, agree to this semi-restrictive license and we'll provide additional support for two years.)
You are right, the actual text of the contract doesn't need to be known when you agree, as long as it wasn't misrepresented. If you bought software and were told that you must agree to a license before actually using it, then it would be part of the agreement, as long as they didn't slip in horrendous terms that would be ruled unreasonable.
But, if you haven't already paid for the software, like in the case of shareware, or downloadable software, and you agree to the license, anything goes. There is no initial agreement, so if you click 'I Agree', the use of the software is your consideration, because you haven't already paid for that right.
IANAL, but I did take a year of law, and it was pretty clear that while there are some assumed contracts (like handing money to and getting an item from a retailer constitutes a legal sale even if no words are spoken) that every party must get consideration, and must have awareness of the agreement, if not the specific wording.
Awareness, as in, you can't be assumed to have agreed to a contract just by entering a store, or something.
Furthermore, any contract deficient in any of these (and other) aspects, or between non-capable people (minors, the mentally ill, etc) is void, and can be agreed to without burden. Sort of like a gift contract, where you hope the something will be done, but can't enforce it. The exception was contracts where they appear to be valid, and the problem is an intentional loophole intended for fraudulent use.
This means, I could offer you a contract whereby you pay me $1M, and I do nothing (not valid for lack of consideration) and you could sign it, but it wouldn't be binding because it isn't valid, so when I came to collect, you could ignore me.
This basically establishes my argument for click-throughs being void. You've paid for the software, thus gaining the right to use it immediately. Any additional restrictions not mentioned at purchase-time are a second contract. If they offer you the contract but offer the use of the software, that counts as no consideration because you already bought it. Additionally, they are withholding your right to use something you own until you agree with them, that doesn't give you the freedom to turn down the contract if you reject it (you have to say 'I Agree' or it's a coaster) so it's again invalid. Thus, the contract can be accepted without burden.
This bit about freedom is, contracts signed under duress aren't valid. If I was to sit on your car and require you to sign a contract, even if the contract was valid in all ways, before I'd move and let you use your car, the contract wouldn't be valid, because I have no right to withhold access to the car, and you, having to have access to something you own, which I am withholding, would be forced to sign. Alternately, this could be viewed as the implied addition of me returning your car to the contract, and because me not letting you use your car is illegal, the contract would again be invalid. The parallel is the software company requiring you to sign the contract (click 'I Agree') to use the product you already purchased. Once again, this assumes that you weren't given proper notification that use of this product was dependant on a later contract, before you agreed to the sale.
Canadian law could differ a bit from US law, but most of this sort of thing, asside from the proposed UCITA and the (existing) DMCA, are the same or very similar.
Anyways, if you want to provide cites, I'd appreciate it. I'll check my
Thanks for the opinions.
I'd like to see some of this list showing that clickthroughs are already enforceable.
Currently, the only cases I know of that supported them are ones in which the license just reiterated the obvious, like the copyright. Similar to shooting down the old defense of "Well it didn't have the (c)" or "It used (c) instead of a C in a circle", where the judge just reaffirmed that the copyright is still valid even if you don't use any symbol.
So, to the best of my knowledge, the clickthrough license has never been valid because it is not a valid contract in many ways, lack of consideration and lack of disclosure being the two most obvious. (You already bought the software before being asked if you agree, so they can't offer you anything at the point which you don't already have. Also, you don't see the contract until after the sale is finalized, where you get your right to own it, and you can't be expected to agree to a secret contract, so it's invalid.)
While a contract can specify nearly anything for consideration (pretty well anything legal), the contract has to itself be valid, or the whole thing is meaningless. So, while they could, with a valid contract (that you sign before purchase, and are paid for) get you to agree to not talk about the product, not reverse engineer, not use while wearing green, etc, they can't do any of this with clickthroughs because they are totally invalid.
Ditto with shrinkwraps, for mostly the same reason.
The UCITA wants to change contract law, such that you don't need to know about a contract (or even have it be implied, like retail sales, etc) to be bound by it, don't need to receive consideration, and don't need to actively agree.
This *will* fail, because if it passes, contract law will be useless. Someone will sneak "And you agree to transfer title to everything you own to Company A." into a EULA and sue that user for everything they own, when that user is a big company, or a government depertment, the shit'll hit the fan, the defendant will buy as many judges as the software industry, and it'll be show down, probably with freaking huge punative damages.
I agree that everyone should be able to use data they personally, or as a corporation collect, for most thing. But investigations into some areas should be forbidden (ie, companies correlating web search and medication purchases with possible diseases and refusing insurance.) as well as trading information between companies.
If I give someone a piece of data based on me, I want some control over it, as in, knowing who I give it to, and what they do, and thus are going to use my data for.
If I give my birthday to ICQ for them to tell my contacts, I would accept them using it to target age-related banners to me, because that is the sort of business they are in. If they sell this to another company, I won't know who has it, or what uses it's being put to. Thus I won't give out my information at all.
This is where some reduction of freedom (copyright laws prevent totally open use of all information) end up increasing freedom by making people willing to share the data in the first place.
If it was illegal to base business actions on medical data that you didn't directly connect, then I wouldn't have to worry about insurance companies talking to grocery stores, noting that my CC was used to purchase junk food, and upping my premiums, or some of invasive use.
Similarly, if companies had to collect their own data, you wouldn't have to worry about that critical point where you ISP, bookstore, drugstore, etc, are all linked, so that everything you buy, read, watch, are all linked.
I'd say that all information collected for possible sale, and all information to be shared across trademark divisions (between different types of companies) should require warning the user specifically on the collection form.
What really pisses me off is when companies collect and distribute your data, but claim no responsibility for mistakes.
I'd *love* to see a big-money lawsuit against Equifax or some other similar company, where their incorrect data was used over the individual's protests, and that incorrect data led to a decision harming that individual. Then that person sues them for a typically large US settlement. A few of those could change a company's attitude quickly.
Fun idea... If the creator of a piece of data owns it, then selling a database of personal info, with a trojan fact (different spelling of middle name, etc) with a license saying that anyone using that information must specifically tell you in all cases that information is sold of used to generate a list with your name on it, would give you a lot of control. And you'd be able to use it later, if the company you originally sold it to didn't pass it on, you'd show that the information originally had that warning, and anyone using it had to get it via that original source, and use it to gain access to your data.
I agree. We don't know what we lost, so we can't judge the usefulness.
It is unlikely that the library on Alexandria contained scientific knowledge we haven't rediscovered (I don't believe in lost Atlantis, etc) but it certainly contained facts which are now forever lost, like more historical records of the time than exist in biases recordings (the bible, etc). To have lost that library, and others similar, is tragic, from a historian's POV.
So, we should have a way to record all the data that we want, such that none is ever lost accidentally.
For this, data havens aren't great. If the owner of the data is lost it's all too easy for the data to be meaningless to everyone, strongly encrypted until it appears to be white noise. Physical data is handy this way, if your backups and in a safety deposit box, you might decide on less encryption, enabling heirs to read your files if you didn't pass on encryption keys in your will.
Speaking of which, we need a strong encryption system whereby you can unlock data with a certain number of secondary keys, or a master key, but where the data doesn't get easier to unlock with less than the required number of secondary keys. For instance, the boss can unlock the data, as can any five of the seven employees, but if four conspire, the cracking is no easier. This will let keys be passed on after death, etc, in wills and by delay mail, such that records can be unlocked, but in such a way that a dishonest person can't look at your will and gain premature access to sensative data.
On the subject of easily recovered digital information with a fairly high density, have you considered printing digital data to paper as a series of light/dark areas? This way it can easily be scanned into a bitmap (something we'll always have the ability to do) and a programmer could whip up a translator in an hour or two. Then print an intro page describing the text format (65 -> 'A'), etc, and the encoding (if you need to use anything special) as well as the dimensions, etc. These pages could be printed on high quality paper and laminated, or in the msot paranoid case, photographically etched onto non-reactive metal film (which allows a better resolution, btw.)
Testing of this method allowed 2048x2688 (or so) resolution, which translates into 672KB / page, or just over two pages/floppy disk.
It's the longest term data storage we could think of because if you did the paranoid route and used metal film, it would theoretically last thousands of years, and all it requires to access is a scanner, which we have to assume there will be in the future, and a semi-talented programmer.
It does have file-format problems, but if you completely document the file format in text in the beginning (could even be very small, requiring a magnifying glass or scan+enlarge to read) or at least provide bootstrap info, as in, describe how to read a text file, then include the first data as a text file describing what to do with the rest of the digital data, etc.
With metal film, or even very good paper and photographic printing, you could get 4-8MB / page. At 500+ pages per volume, it's pretty compact storage, and it would be used for rosetta stone type info, or the most important records. Everything else can just be translated from one format to the next every 10-20 years, as storage should allow ten times as much data on the same size medium in that time.
No, it is. It's very true.
The movie may have had some merit if it was a standalone, without all the stupid classroom scenes, bad morality angles, and nazi-esque settings. It sunk far below just a cheap action flick with T&A by not only not getting the ideas, but mocking them, and by doing so, showing that the director is Nazi obsessed.
The director, I don't know what he was smoking, decided that anything different to the USA is a facist state with nazi overtones. Instead of presenting the same questions to the characters, letting people watch them decide what's important enough to make them risk their lives, the director simply shows the whole society as war-obsessed nuts.
Where did the scene with the soldiers handing the kids the guns come from? The nazi uniforms? All creations of the moron directing it.
If the deep thoughts aren't appropriate for a movie, then rip them out and leave the action, but don't distort them, twisting them to preach instead of to ask. That's the worst possible at all levels.
And then they bring to stupid love triangle into it, like it's impossible to have a movie without someone falling in love. And they end it with a ST:TNG-ism straight from Deanna Troy "I feel fear" "Its afraid!"
My friend sums up ST the movie as "based on the back cover of a book written by R.A.H." I would take that one step farther and add "interpretted poorly, loosely based, and maliciously directed" to that.
.doubleclick.net TRUE / FALSE 1920499189 id OPT_OUT
That's what it was after I went there. I had to unblock them temporarily, but I thought it was worth the experiment.
I wonder what the numbers are... Could be an ID.
I've never seen a real doubeclick cookie, or I'd post that too for comparison.
Everyone: Post your cookies from doubleclick. We'll figure out what everything means and then find a good way to screw with their stats.
I simply fill out a different card every time I've got a few minutes, with whatever fake info I want, then when I'm shopping with friends, I give them my extra cards if they don't already have one. Share the wealth.
The companies that do this are sleezy, because they usually jack the non-club price of hot items up, forcing non-participating shoppers to either go to two stores, pay very high prices, or sign over their privacy.
And I like how the poster you (the poster I'm responging to) talked about a free plane trip every $2000... How about a free trip every $20k, and then only to certain destinations, for certain times, etc. That's how airmiles cards work.
Speaking of bum deals, I received some gift certificates to the movies for my birthday and when I went to see James Bond:TWINE, I was told it was a premeire night and my gift certificates weren't any good. So I gave them hell about refusing to honor a contract. They didn't say anywhere that the gift certificates weren't valid for everything, except on the gift certificate itself, which you didn't see till you paid. Gave them hell for a while until they backed down. Freaking good for nothing assholes. As soon as they have your money they make it clear how much they care.
Yeah, if foobar.com uses doubleclick and doesn't make any money off of me, wah. And if they go under because of it? Boo fucking hoo.
If companies go under because they get boycotted for being sleezy it'll just open up a place for a new company. And if they use a banner company that doesn't suck, maybe people won't blacklist them, and they'll make a buck. If not, there'll be another right behind them willing to try.
By your logic we should all go watch movies now, because the MPAA needs money, and if we don't support them, there will never be any entertainment again.
Depends. If collecting this information for later commercial use is a crime, then using doubleclick for banners would likewise be a crime. (Contracting for a criminal act is itself a crime, outside of conspiracy, etc)
:)
Sure, eventually all the big businesses could go offshore, but users still need homepages, and small sites still need banners, which would mean that there would be a market for a legal banner site.
And, think of the fun, if they were offshore in such a way that our laws didn't apply to them, theirs wouldn't to us. A free site to hack on, and they'd have no legal grounds to stop you unless you broke laws of your host country, and I doubt the government would go out of their way to help them.
I'm with the other poster in this group, I've filtered out banners I don't like. I use junkbuster (www.junkbuster.com) instead of misrouting the IP because the browser stops looking, but otherwise, I do the same.
Sure, punished the same way... with a fair and speedy trial.
They didn't.
Bad rules made by idiots need to be worked around, given that these idiots have guns and 'official sanction' makes them dangerous idiots, not right.
If you hold the license, yes. When you GPL code you still own the copyright and you can release it later under different terms, or use it yourself in any way you wish.
The only thing to note is that you can't retroactively revoke a license. If you release a work under GPL then later stop offering it and offer the same work under a different license (if at all) people can still distribute the GPLed version and new users are entitled to use the GPLed version if they can find it.
On the redhat thing... Redhat doesn't charge for any of the software (AFAIK) except that which is covered by patents and they have to pay a licensing fee for. They do charge for support.
But, go for it. More GPL software is always good, and as you say, if someone wants the interface badly enough, they can always write it themselves.
I'm talking about all these "GPL sucks, good thing it's useless" posts. If you don't like it, then don't read the articles.
Slashdot has the article classification system (those little icons) specifically to save you the time of having to tell us that you hate the GPL, etc.
If you're just going to come in and bitch about the fact that the article exists, then stay out.
This is most likely not true, no matter what RMS said.
It's like writing a macro program, to automate system usage, and having the author of a program write to you demanding that you pay him royalties to have your program mimick keyboard/mouse events in his application.
If you write an application that depends on a GPLed program, and won't run with a replacement, then it's likely going to infringe. But if you write a program, like a compiler front-end, and it simply has the option to use a GPLed compiler, among others, then it doesn't infringe.
Similarly, if you wrote a WM replacement for win95 and it has the ability to use GPLed components for Litestep, without depending on those, and without using GPLed Litestep code in doing so, it wouldn't infringe on the GPL.
A user of a program can only infringe on the GPL by distributing a binary without source, or by using GPLed code and not following the license. Anything else they do is kosher. If I wanted to download GCC and write extensions to it, or use it in a non-GPLed wrapper, this would be fine, regardless of how I used it. Only if I released this would it change.
Thus, if you release a program that *can* use GPLed components, you're not responsible for the actions of a user, if they choose to install those GPLed components, or make the whole package dependant on them in some way.
This assumes that your package has other concievable uses, than JUST a wrapper for the GPLed code.
An example would be photoshop filters. Photoshop could write the filter interface such that it could read call binary filters from other programs, and if one of those filters was GPLed, photoshop wouldn't be in violation. But, if photoshop was written such that it required the graphics core from GIMP to even work, then it would be a violation.
Yes, the GPL covers the expression only, not the ideas. This means a company can't snap up a GPLed program and close the source, but they can rewrite it, or mine it for ideas.
But, ideas aren't protected anyways (except by software patents, spit spit) so they could just disassembled your program to see how you did something anyways.
You can detect your code by looking at the binaries of their program. Usually the compiler used is easy to determine (usually it identifies itself) and if you compiled your code with that compiler and checked for similar strings, you'd be able to detect wholesale copying, especially since you'd probably have an idea of what part of their program was a copy.
Ok, nice having met you, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
If you don't care about something, don't read it, and definately don't post telling us you don't care. If you took the time to read it, to post that, you're just proving that you DO care.