Yeah, well, while I agree with you in principle if we actually had any effective management control over our electected representives that would work. But we don't, and taking your approach would be like an assembly line worker privately telling the CEO of GM that there's a better way of making cars. First, it would take years to get an appointment, Second, the CEO would have no real motivation to listen, adn third there would be no evidence that the converation ever took place so the CEO maintains "plausible deniability" if it turns out the line worker was actually right and the CEo takes all the glory for making the change.
"Democrocy, like sausage, is something that is better not seen being made." Maybe if more people actually see how the political machinery work, they'd take a more active role in tuning the machinery.
I also question the effectiveness of this tactic. Pulling and showing confidential information in a private setting or in the context of a public hearing (for example pulling together a detailed dosier, handing it to a legislators, and saying, "Do you think I should have this information? Well, we don't either, that is why we want this law passed.") to specific legislators.
The problem with this approach is that they can just tell you "No, you shouldn't" and continue doing business as usual. The only way to get a politician's attention is to do it in a very public way, giving them no way to deal with it without doing so in full public view.
Section 3.03 clearly states that AT&T may revoke the license fo non-compliance when they provide the licensee with 2 months notice specifying such breach. Simply saying "you aren't complying is notspecifying.
Similarly, metal locks and doors and hinges are simply 'Trust us' since there isn't a government auditor standing beside the workmen at the factory making certain that certain faults and flaws in the mechanism aren't being introduced.
Not so. Your examples are auditable at any time. The can be inspected, tested, and challenged to certify whether or not they perform as expected under any condition.
Closed source software cannot. When the source is not available, it's virtually impossible to even come up with test cases to challenge the capabilities or validity of processing You cannot audit something that's in a closed box that you're not allowed to open and you have no idea what's inside.
t's just madness to claim that 'Open Source' is inherently more secure
I didn't claim open source is more secure, I claimed it was more auditable.
Now we've had to set up a 'Ministry of Source Code Auditing'
At least now you're getting around to my point. Yes, there is overhead in auditing source code. How much, I don't know but if you take the dollars saved by not purchasing proprietary software and support the addition of this practice into the GAO you're moving in the right direction. By the way, the government also writes alot of code in-house. Don't you think they already have an audit process in place?
More importantly, however, is the fact that it is auditable by people outside the government. If an electronic voting system is put into play, you can be sure that someone will walk that code and challenge any problems discovered.
Even if you just mandate open file formats and protocols, closed source is impossible to audit for security. It seems to me that one of the primary responsibilities any government has in selecting software is ensuring the security of the data.
So even if your open file formats and protocols are wrapped in open, cryptographically sound security, the software and the encryption algorithms are still open for auditing when the source is available. Closed source is simply "Trust us", and governments should never take security as naively as that.
Securuity patches are fixes to safety issues and are, therefor, equivalent to product "recalls". Bring your car in and we'll fix it free is simply replaced by download this and you'll be more safe. I don't renegotiate my car purchase when I get recall repairs done, and I don't acknowledge any negotiation when I get security patches.
They sold me something dangerous. They fix it free.
so anyone who opens on an attachment in Outlook without first saving and scanning it gets immediate "Don't ever do that again" feedback.
We could also implement a freedb-like data base for virus hoaxes. Anyone who tries to forward a known virus hoax gets zapped and IE opens a hoax explanation page so they learn to check first.
They are not going to get it when anyone says "Well, the code is the same because it does the same thing."
Ladies and gentleman of the jury, it's like this. You and I live in the same neighborhood. We shop at the same grocery store. When you and I drive to the store, we are starting from nearly the same place to get to the same objective. To do so, the driving directions, our "source code" for travelling to the store, is going to be very, very similar because we are doing almost exactly the same thing.
Did you steal the driving directions from me? Did I steal them from you? No, we both arrived at the best method for achieving the same objective.
Computer languages are like cars. When two people drive different cars to the same destination, they follow the same path. When two people write code to solve the same problem, they also follow the same path. That path is called "logic", or an algorithm, and the vast majority of the logic and algorithms in UNIX are as well known to UNIX programmers as the streets of your neighborhood are known to you.
This case is about "trade secrets", which means, well, they're secret. When brought out in court, the court can hold a closed session and decree that the documents remain sealed thus keeping them secret. (I assume that's SCO's intent.)
Unlike patents, once trade secrets are presented in public they are lost, since they are not secret any more. I'm guessing that this is an action to cause a German court to determine whether the code in question is secret or not, and if not require public disclosure. If they are ruled not to be secret, then the action will shift to whether SCO own's any applicable copyrights.
How this might be translated into German law must be determined by Babelfish...
I can't believe someone posted an Ask/. question without a link to their work! As a home-schooling parent, I'd be delighted to have access to free textbooks. Where are they?
I agree. Forget the DMCA. Copyright law allows for you to sue for damages. If you want to reduce legal costs, contact the others that he's doing this to and join forces. Every dollar he's made selling your works is yours.
3) No tax dollars used to support primary elections.
I suspect you intended it, but that's a pet peeve of mine, since I registered as "No Party Preference".FWIW to you "Independents" out there, check your state's definition of Independent. In Florida, the Independent registration means you belong to the Party formed by George Wallace's presidential campaign. Special thanks to the registration worker who pointed that out to me ans asked if that's what I really wanted, or if I wanted "No Party Preference."
Fonts are fine for PDA use. They don't run X (unless you add it!), they run embedded-QT. The 5500s included Opera as a browser, although I prefer konqueror-embedded.
In fact, I prefer OpenZaurus in almost all ways. They've had jffs support for some time, and it's a simple process to mount/home on a 256M SD card. With that config, my 32M 5500D has more available RAM than a Sharp ROM configured 64M 5500.
I just ran into some flakiness writing a highly multi-threaded app and stumbled across
this explanation (Google cache, the site seems to be down now). Things work, but not as cleanly as on Solaris.I assume that since they're documented, they'll be addressed. (I'd sure like to know where the are on the priority list, 'tho.)
So whenever the DM wanted to throw the party into a dungeon, he had to ignore the rules to do so.
This is why when I DM, the players get no dice and have no idea what their hit-points are or what their to-hit capabilities are (in terms of dice rolls).When fighting an apparantly comparable opponent and they roll what they know is a "guaranteed" hit and the DM says "your opponent takes no damage" role-playing does out the window faster than the player can yell "RETREAT!"
IMNSHO, the job of the DM is to tell a story that allows each player to tell their own story as well. Dice rolls don't matter; How the DM interprets and describes the effects of the dice rolls is what makes the game entertaining. I doesn't matter what "system" the DM uses, as long as that end is acheived.
Re:Cheer up geeks of the world- YOU WILL GET LAID!
on
A 1974 Review of D&D
·
· Score: 1
At first I was thinking "Hmm, advice on women from 'some damn guy'". Then I read your last paragraph:
Also: Go to a doctor and get treated for your depression/anxiety/bi-polar/ADD etc if you think you have it. Don't be ashamed, just fucking do it. Some (not all or even a whole lot- don't flame me) of you out there have some of these and they will fuck with your life until it gets fixed. Be brave. They are wonderful people and they can work miracles now days. They really can....
Just because it bears repeating with emphasis. Been there, done that, and I'm much better for it, thank you.
My wife and I used to play also. We quit when it became impossible to focus on the game and keep the kids entertained. Maybe they're old enough to play now....
You just hit the NEXT big lawsuit. "Ok, I've agreed to your license, and you're going to force me to agree to WHAT?!?! in order to protect myself from your stupid design flaws???
No!! -- You agree to provide those security fixes under the same agreement I already agreed to or you 'll face civil liability if I get hacked. What the fsck makes software so special that I have to agree to an additional contract for what is in effect a "product recall"?
You're still buying copyrighted content and you're usage would be restricted by copyright law. Yes, you could make copies, but running multiple copies simultaneously might be a stretch (recall Borland's "like a book" license). You definitely could not go handing out copies to other people. Otherwise, feel free to reverse engineer, publish reviews and do all those other things that the EULA "prohibits" and let 'em come after you.
I suggest you get a store manager to sign your receipt and note "return refused" or some such on it so you can prove they wouldn't take it back....
I think that this is a problem with the Retailers and the Software Manufacturers. Granted that the EULA's are a bit restrictive, but they made the software and are allowed to make whatever demands that they wish in the EULA.
Of course they can, but they must do it prior to the sale. If they don't, the transaction walks like a sale, talks like a sale, and is in fact a sale, not a license to use.
The retailers are also within thier rights to make all purchases final on opened products. In fact many retailers have that very policy on hardware as well.
Not if they are acting as agents on behalf of the licensor. If they are, then they are required to comply with their role in the EULA, e.g. to refund the money on demand.
What needs to be done is the Software makers and the Retailers need to sit down and make an effort to make the EULA available BEFORE the sale is made. Perhaps with every case of the software, the EULA should come on a lamanated card, ready for display. This way the customer has the option of reading and agreeing to the EULA before they buy it.
Only if the customer takes some affirmative action to indicate consent. Without that affirmative action, you're back to square one ("Honest, I didn't see the EULA/I didn't know it applied to this software," etc.). "Making an effort" to make the EULA available prior to sale is insufficient.
I'm in retail and I make sure that before the person buys a copy of XP that they know that you are bound to one copy, one machine only BEFORE they sign the invoice. Many once told just shrug and buy it anyway, others scream, yell, bitch and complain and leave...But at least MY ass is covered
Do you also inform them that they are not allowed to resell or lease the software? Or that they are not allowed to "review" the software (which would include everything from a publication to just telling a couple of friends "it sucks!"). Do you tell them thay cannot reverse enginerr it in any way?
You say you are in retail; As an employee, or an owner? If as an owner, did you agree to act as an agent for these software companies and grant them the authority to impose EULA requirements on you? If not, how can you morally sell something that commits you to doing something that you know you will not honor?
If they have access to the License Agreement, don't read it and buy it anyway...I've no sympathy for them at all. However if they're dragooned into it because the agreement is not available until it is purchased (and most are assumed as agreed when purchased) then I feel sorry for them and stand behind them in a suit.
Those "Click to agree" buttons are there to indicate consent. (IMHO, they don't as anyone could have done it, including someone to young to be bound by a contract). The only way to have a legally enforcable contract is for the customer to sign a statement saying that he agrees before the transaction takes place. If s/he doesn't, the transaction has all the
characteristics of a sale, and all the
benefits thereof.
Slashdot Mirror
They aren't particularly keen about it, and the libraries it.
"Democrocy, like sausage, is something that is better not seen being made." Maybe if more people actually see how the political machinery work, they'd take a more active role in tuning the machinery.
The problem with this approach is that they can just tell you "No, you shouldn't" and continue doing business as usual. The only way to get a politician's attention is to do it in a very public way, giving them no way to deal with it without doing so in full public view.
Section 3.03 clearly states that AT&T may revoke the license fo non-compliance when they provide the licensee with 2 months notice specifying such breach. Simply saying "you aren't complying is not specifying.
Not so. Your examples are auditable at any time. The can be inspected, tested, and challenged to certify whether or not they perform as expected under any condition.
Closed source software cannot. When the source is not available, it's virtually impossible to even come up with test cases to challenge the capabilities or validity of processing You cannot audit something that's in a closed box that you're not allowed to open and you have no idea what's inside.
t's just madness to claim that 'Open Source' is inherently more secure
I didn't claim open source is more secure, I claimed it was more auditable.
Now we've had to set up a 'Ministry of Source Code Auditing'
At least now you're getting around to my point. Yes, there is overhead in auditing source code. How much, I don't know but if you take the dollars saved by not purchasing proprietary software and support the addition of this practice into the GAO you're moving in the right direction. By the way, the government also writes alot of code in-house. Don't you think they already have an audit process in place?
More importantly, however, is the fact that it is auditable by people outside the government. If an electronic voting system is put into play, you can be sure that someone will walk that code and challenge any problems discovered.
Offtopic: -1, No Karma bonus: -1, Finding that open source package you need: Priceless...
So even if your open file formats and protocols are wrapped in open, cryptographically sound security, the software and the encryption algorithms are still open for auditing when the source is available. Closed source is simply "Trust us", and governments should never take security as naively as that.
They sold me something dangerous. They fix it free.
We could also implement a freedb-like data base for virus hoaxes. Anyone who tries to forward a known virus hoax gets zapped and IE opens a hoax explanation page so they learn to check first.
Imagine how much safer the Internet could be!
Ladies and gentleman of the jury, it's like this. You and I live in the same neighborhood. We shop at the same grocery store. When you and I drive to the store, we are starting from nearly the same place to get to the same objective. To do so, the driving directions, our "source code" for travelling to the store, is going to be very, very similar because we are doing almost exactly the same thing.
Did you steal the driving directions from me? Did I steal them from you? No, we both arrived at the best method for achieving the same objective.
Computer languages are like cars. When two people drive different cars to the same destination, they follow the same path. When two people write code to solve the same problem, they also follow the same path. That path is called "logic", or an algorithm, and the vast majority of the logic and algorithms in UNIX are as well known to UNIX programmers as the streets of your neighborhood are known to you.
This case is about "trade secrets", which means, well, they're secret. When brought out in court, the court can hold a closed session and decree that the documents remain sealed thus keeping them secret. (I assume that's SCO's intent.)
Unlike patents, once trade secrets are presented in public they are lost, since they are not secret any more. I'm guessing that this is an action to cause a German court to determine whether the code in question is secret or not, and if not require public disclosure. If they are ruled not to be secret, then the action will shift to whether SCO own's any applicable copyrights.
How this might be translated into German law must be determined by Babelfish...
Any money made by the infringer constitutes "damages" as that is the result of the "right of distribution" held by the copyright holder.
Go get it.
- 3) No tax dollars used to support primary elections.
I suspect you intended it, but that's a pet peeve of mine, since I registered as "No Party Preference".FWIW to you "Independents" out there, check your state's definition of Independent. In Florida, the Independent registration means you belong to the Party formed by George Wallace's presidential campaign. Special thanks to the registration worker who pointed that out to me ans asked if that's what I really wanted, or if I wanted "No Party Preference."Big difference, I think.
Fonts are fine for PDA use. They don't run X (unless you add it!), they run embedded-QT. The 5500s included Opera as a browser, although I prefer konqueror-embedded.
In fact, I prefer OpenZaurus in almost all ways. They've had jffs support for some time, and it's a simple process to mount /home on a 256M SD card. With that config, my 32M 5500D has more available RAM than a Sharp ROM configured 64M 5500.
I just ran into some flakiness writing a highly multi-threaded app and stumbled across this explanation (Google cache, the site seems to be down now). Things work, but not as cleanly as on Solaris.I assume that since they're documented, they'll be addressed. (I'd sure like to know where the are on the priority list, 'tho.)
This is why when I DM, the players get no dice and have no idea what their hit-points are or what their to-hit capabilities are (in terms of dice rolls).When fighting an apparantly comparable opponent and they roll what they know is a "guaranteed" hit and the DM says "your opponent takes no damage" role-playing does out the window faster than the player can yell "RETREAT!"
IMNSHO, the job of the DM is to tell a story that allows each player to tell their own story as well. Dice rolls don't matter; How the DM interprets and describes the effects of the dice rolls is what makes the game entertaining. I doesn't matter what "system" the DM uses, as long as that end is acheived.
Also: Go to a doctor and get treated for your depression/anxiety/bi-polar/ADD etc if you think you have it. Don't be ashamed, just fucking do it. Some (not all or even a whole lot- don't flame me) of you out there have some of these and they will fuck with your life until it gets fixed. Be brave. They are wonderful people and they can work miracles now days. They really can....
Just because it bears repeating with emphasis. Been there, done that, and I'm much better for it, thank you.
My wife and I used to play also. We quit when it became impossible to focus on the game and keep the kids entertained. Maybe they're old enough to play now....
Yes, but how many have an official state rock song? Ohio's the only one I found.
So do you suppose this will put a stop to Microsoft's "GPL is viral" FUD and encourage other hardware vendors to work to support more OSes?
No!! -- You agree to provide those security fixes under the same agreement I already agreed to or you 'll face civil liability if I get hacked. What the fsck makes software so special that I have to agree to an additional contract for what is in effect a "product recall"?
You're still buying copyrighted content and you're usage would be restricted by copyright law. Yes, you could make copies, but running multiple copies simultaneously might be a stretch (recall Borland's "like a book" license). You definitely could not go handing out copies to other people. Otherwise, feel free to reverse engineer, publish reviews and do all those other things that the EULA "prohibits" and let 'em come after you.
I suggest you get a store manager to sign your receipt and note "return refused" or some such on it so you can prove they wouldn't take it back....
Of course they can, but they must do it prior to the sale. If they don't, the transaction walks like a sale, talks like a sale, and is in fact a sale, not a license to use.
The retailers are also within thier rights to make all purchases final on opened products. In fact many retailers have that very policy on hardware as well.
Not if they are acting as agents on behalf of the licensor. If they are, then they are required to comply with their role in the EULA, e.g. to refund the money on demand.
What needs to be done is the Software makers and the Retailers need to sit down and make an effort to make the EULA available BEFORE the sale is made. Perhaps with every case of the software, the EULA should come on a lamanated card, ready for display. This way the customer has the option of reading and agreeing to the EULA before they buy it.
Only if the customer takes some affirmative action to indicate consent. Without that affirmative action, you're back to square one ("Honest, I didn't see the EULA/I didn't know it applied to this software," etc.). "Making an effort" to make the EULA available prior to sale is insufficient.
I'm in retail and I make sure that before the person buys a copy of XP that they know that you are bound to one copy, one machine only BEFORE they sign the invoice. Many once told just shrug and buy it anyway, others scream, yell, bitch and complain and leave...But at least MY ass is covered
Do you also inform them that they are not allowed to resell or lease the software? Or that they are not allowed to "review" the software (which would include everything from a publication to just telling a couple of friends "it sucks!"). Do you tell them thay cannot reverse enginerr it in any way?
You say you are in retail; As an employee, or an owner? If as an owner, did you agree to act as an agent for these software companies and grant them the authority to impose EULA requirements on you? If not, how can you morally sell something that commits you to doing something that you know you will not honor?
If they have access to the License Agreement, don't read it and buy it anyway...I've no sympathy for them at all. However if they're dragooned into it because the agreement is not available until it is purchased (and most are assumed as agreed when purchased) then I feel sorry for them and stand behind them in a suit.
Those "Click to agree" buttons are there to indicate consent. (IMHO, they don't as anyone could have done it, including someone to young to be bound by a contract). The only way to have a legally enforcable contract is for the customer to sign a statement saying that he agrees before the transaction takes place. If s/he doesn't, the transaction has all the characteristics of a sale, and all the benefits thereof.