Checked the ftp site and I don't see it. RC3 is the most recent. The release schedule doesn't have it out until tomorrow and even then it isn't announced until the 26th after the mirrors have been updated.
That information was on the very pages this story linked to. Can anybody link to something I ain't seeing 'cause right now this seems a little premature.
Well then, we just move it into another genre. Imagine...
Indy looks at his son and snorts. "Austin is what we named the dog!" Pan to close up as Indy eyes widen, realizing he has become just like his father. Camera zooms to his eye and we display a flashback to the last Indy movie.
Cut to wild, wacky scene of Austin surrounded by go-go dancers. Cue 60's music and get close-up of Austin
Taking the article at face value, a business has had to close because it was being deliberately assaulted by vandals. I can point out people who are now out of work, customers who have lost a service they wanted, resources wasted, etc., etc.. This wasn't "our" stuff that was being abused. It was a bunch of regular Joes and Janes out their being deprived of a service they purchased.
Compare this to stuff like DeCSS, Felton's work on SDMI and the rest. Showing why something doesn't work or getting additional functionality out of a product just isn't the same as maliciously depriving a business of the resources it requires to survive.
It isn't hard to explain but what is hard is getting the message out when Disney and the like are spouting their propaganda at 11 and with the simple fact that this isn't a bullet issue for the proverbial Joe Average.
I'd like a cite on where you got the info that giving tracks to a friend is fair-use. AFAIK that is infringement.
I'll add one thing to your snail mail idea. Send a letter to the artist and let them know you aren't buying their music because of this. Let them know how this is affecting your ability to enjoy their work. But do please keep the sharing with friends bit out. You distributing a copy of the CD to a friend equals a lost sale for the artist.
Of course you have the right to utter an incorrect program. And due to the nature of free speech other people can call you on the flaws of what you've said.
But, if you have been reading some of the latest decisions in the courts, software also has a functional aspect that can be litigated. You package that program into a binary and start selling it the issue is less of the code being free speech and more of the executable being a product.
These are companies that hire programmers, go through source code and make distros that people pay money for. I would consider them software firms that would fall under this proposal and I also consider them critical for the success of Open Source software.
Now what happens to these comapanies when some project they have little control over but include in their distribution has a critical flaw that gets exploited? How vulnerable to litigation do they become? Guess we'll have to wait and see.
The ability to run multiple Apaches on same machine.
True. afaik, you can only run one inetinfo.exe process on a server.
The ability to run buggy modules with relative impunity.
Process Isolation in IIS 5.0
Useable owner/group/world file permissions
NTFS permissions aren't that bad.
Ability to have user and group with same name.
Somebody with more experience running a web site is going to have to inform me on why this is important.
Ability to soft-link so that logical structures do not have to reflect physical disk layout.
What the heck is a virtual directory then? Have you even used IIS?
Oh and somebody else mentioned having to reboot everytime you make an update. With IIS 5.0 I haven't required a reboot after applying a hotfix for it yet.
If the developers need IIS or if management wants it on IIS I'm installing IIS.
Work paid for my cert and the training. Just like my Solaris and Cisco training. Because upper management has decided that we're primarily a MS shop that cert got me a better raise and, when the department reorg'd, helped get me in the position I wanted.
Does my cert mean anything important? Not really. I think the experience I've gotten over the years means a hell of a lot more. But it does mean something to my employer and I would have been an idiot not to get it under the circumstances. And if it keeps me gainfully employed what's a few evenings of study and a test taken on company time paid for by a company credit card?
In my case it's because that is what CiscoWorks serves up web pages with.
Re:Apache AND IIS are good..
on
Apache 2.0 vs. IIS
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Could you imagine having to patch a large hosting facility (I dunno...500-1000 IIS servers)? No thanks. And that's why it doesn't get done.
Doable if you are using AD. We discussed it while I attended the SANS class on securing IIS. You have one server that hosts the patches and you configure your IIS servers to periodically check that server to update themselves. The same is true of IIS settings in this circumstance. Let's say you have WebDev enabled on all of your IIS servers and you get an alert from SANS about an exploit in which there is no fix atm. You can update one template that all the servers are using and then send that out.
Would I want to admin a bunch of IIS 4.0 servers? No. But IIS 5.0 isn't as bad as people make it out to be.
If you'd take the time to secure the web server you might as well take the time to secure the OS. Or as an MCSE are you forgetting about Win2K having IPSec and the work done by the NSA in providing guidelines on how to secure Win2K?
There are plenty of sites dealing with W2K security. Go to the Sans Reading Room for a start.
Yeah, you're right. I didn't remember those remarks. My brain has been elsewhere. For that, I apologize.
But I have to ask. What is the difference between controlling the network or controlling the end device in this model? The key to e2e is that the end device is "smart" or more to the point flexible in it's ability to be configured.
Disney would much rather see devices like the PC be lobotomized and I'm sorry but, while I agree with Lessig that MS isn't the Great Satan, MS is a convicted monopolist that is currently getting what I can only consider positive reinforcement for its anti-competitive behavior. Unlike the people at Ximian, I don't have much faith that.Net will be open enough to accommodate non-MS platforms. It makes sound business sense to leverage proprietary extensions on.Net desktops which 95+ percent of the population will use to get MS.Net servers into the ISPs.
We then get left with a "Do it the MS way or the highway" commons not an innovation commons imho. Add to that, Disney's desire to make it illegal to bypass any hardware or software controls on the PC and now you don't get to try things which are out of the box. I'm not saying that the end result wouldn't be useful for people but I do think it would curtail the commons he initially describes in his book.
I guess what I'm arguing is while MS and Disney don't control the backbone they can control the front-end. Under those circumstances, what's the difference?
I think this was meant as a joke. I've just started reading Lessig's latest book where he talks about how the Internet having an e2e architecture makes it an innovation commons. Microsoft and especially Disney would like to put restrictions on that e2e design by limiting what an attached device could do.
Either that or our favorite legal scholar has become addicted to crack and we then need to quickly get an intervention meeting in order. Anybody have the number to Betty Ford?:)
Third, the Appellants argue that an individual who buys a DVD has the "authority of the copyright owner" to view the DVD, and therefore is exempted from the DMCA pursuant to subsection 1201(a)(3)(A) when the buyer circumvents an encryption technology in order to view the DVD on a competing platform (such as Linux). The basic flaw in this argument is that it misreads subsection 1201(a)(3)(A). That provision exempts from liability those who would "decrypt" an encrypted DVD with the authority of a copyright owner, not those who would "view" a DVD with the authority of a copyright owner.15 In any event, the Defendants offered no evidence that the Plaintiffs have either explicitly or implicitly authorized DVD buyers to circumvent encryption technology to support use on multiple platforms.16
While it is obvious that the disc is owed by the consumer it seems that the encrypted data is not and providing a license for the work is not required. IMHO, accepting the fact that I am not a legal expert, this is the second most damning paragraph in the entire decision with the opinion on Fair Use being the first.
While this may not be applicable in other countries at the moment I do see it as something to look out for down the road. People really should read the decision.
Nope. Read the recent court decision in the 2600 case. The Appellate court dismantles the defence's right to view argument and specifically states that with the DMCA it is the right to decrypt the work that is at issue.
Furthermore, it is the copyright holder who retains the right to give permission to decrypt. So if the MPAA thinks their isn't a legitimate DVD player for linux they are perfectly in their rights to say you can't play a CSS encrypted DVD using software like LiViD.
Boy did you misinterpret that article. As loathe as I am to do this, the current administration is the one pushing for adoption of fuel cells. The previous administration was pushing for fuel efficient vehicles capable of 80mpg. Currently, car makers can get as high as 70mpg.
The complaint is the fuel cell technology is still 10-20 years away from being commercially viable and people are wondering what is going to happen to technologies that can make vehicles more fuel efficient which can be implemented rather quickly. As in 2004-2007. The counter argument is that any regulations passed now to make even more fuel efficient cars will take so long to be implemented that we'll be seeing the first fuel cell vehicles on the market.
But saying Bush isn't supporting the fuel cell initiative is completely inaccurate.
If constitutional law can't resolve this then we are fubared because it is obvious that as a societal entity "Americans" don't give a rip about these issues. For now, I'll stick with the DMCA and skip the USA act.
Big media has a coherent, easy to digest mantra that they have unified behind. The Internet without controls threatens our business and we need legal backing to protect our investments (aka property.) It is a compelling interest that the courts and government have bought into.
We, as geeks/IT professionals/what-have-you, can't even agree to whether code is speech. We have no mantra and our arguments are not easily digestable for the masses. I have yet to find one co-worker/family member/man on the street who gave a damn that DVDs can't be viewed under linux, that Dmitry was arrested, or that computer security researchers feel that they have to think twice before publishing.
These issues are too remote for 99% of the public to care about. And just as the courts decided in the Felton case and as can be read in the copyright office's report, most people don't see these concerns as being ripe. In the age of Napster where infringement is so common that music on the Internet has no worth what argument can you craft that can be heard over that of Big Media? When the RIAA can point to kids hording gigs of MP3s that no one, including the artist, has seen a dime on and then further point out that they are "sharing" these files what hypothetical is going to convince your congress-critter that something like the DMCA is a bad thing?
Please be aware that I am in full agreement that for those who care about these issues we need to be politically active. But I look at these issues and sorry to say I don't see the next civil rights movement here.
You make it sound like its ok to ignore a minority of people. You also ignore another fact. I buy a movie, i am allowed to watch it. How i choose to do so is (and should be) irrelevent. So what if i want to play in on my linux computer? Or a device of my own design? I bought the fucking thing, i will watch it any damn way i please.
Tell that to the copyright office and the courts because how you chose to watch that DVD is relevent. The DMCA doesn't give you, the consumer, the right to decrypt the DVD that right is given to you by the copyright holder and they can say you are SOL if you use linux.
Seriously. Go to openlaw, find the recent decision and read it.
I think Napster disproves that copying is a nonissue.
I think Napster proves that the music industry was slow in moving onto the web and that people love free stuff. After talking to too many co-workers and listening to other people talk about their kids downloading gigs of music I just can't buy this rose-colored view that Napster is used enough for legitimate purposes to mitigate it's use for rampant infringment.
Napster is "fair use" at it's worst. Oh, I only want to sample the music before I buy it but I'll archive it to a CD. "Just in case."
While the import market might be small, i'm sure it exists in suffient numbers that its there and operating. While many not many people buy movies from france, i think alot more do from Japan (anime comes to mind..).
You're missing the point. Even if you combined all of the people who want to buy non-Region 1 DVDs into one demographic and got them fired up enough to actually do something about it they are too small of a group to have any influence in the market. So what if a hundred thousand (imho a generous number) consumers don't buy into DVDs if millions of people will.
The thread wasn't about rights (and yes, I have a bleak look on that front also. I do read what comes out of the courts and the government), it was about consumers effecting change through the marketplace which is something I don't see happening anytime soon.
Explain to me why 99.999 percent of the consumers out there should give a rip and "wise up." What unreasonable strings are being attached to them? Let's look at DVDs for instance.
Region encoding? Big whoop. For the vast majority of people out there this is a non-issue. They aren't buying foreign films from France. People are buying stuff like Cat and Dogs or Planet of the Apes.
Can't play on alternative OSes. Again. The market inconveinenced is so small it effectively has no voice.
Can't copy. Most people don't do that anyway. If Joe Average doesn't feel the need to backup his financial data on his PC then why backup his video library? For the public in general this too is a non-issue.
Now let's look at what they get by using DVDs.
Better video and sound quality.
More features. Like different aspects. Abilty to add in deleted scenes. Different languages. Games. The list goes on and on.
So from the consumer's perspective, there aren't any strings attached. Just a better product. And just as it is extremely hard to convince the Copyright Office and the Courts to take into consideration hypothetical pitfalls and insignificant markets it is even harder to explain these issues to a consumer. Been there, done that.
So no, it isn't "simple." I refuse to buy those products just like you but after listening to my co-workers I realize they could give a rip about any of these issues. Even the one who got burned by the region encoding on a DVD he bought from the UK. Was he disappointed? Yes. Would he stop purchasing DVDs? Hell no.
The problem with consumers "calling the shots" in this battle is one of inertia and unless Big Media does something completely whacked like suddenly going straight to everything is copy controlled pay-per-view it will only be "radicals" who fight this on the consumer front.
So people like you will get incensed and rant going through 3 banner ads to do it which prompt people like me to quip back and generate another few impressions. Of course, that doesn't include the moderators and the meta-moderators.....
Going through this thread I can already see you've generated/. enough impressions to last them through the holiday season. Happy Holidays everyone!;)
Slashdot Mirror
Someone must be saying "Damn you Magic 8-ball! Damn you!"
That information was on the very pages this story linked to. Can anybody link to something I ain't seeing 'cause right now this seems a little premature.
Indy looks at his son and snorts. "Austin is what we named the dog!" Pan to close up as Indy eyes widen, realizing he has become just like his father. Camera zooms to his eye and we display a flashback to the last Indy movie.
Cut to wild, wacky scene of Austin surrounded by go-go dancers. Cue 60's music and get close-up of Austin
Austin: YEAH BABY!
Compare this to stuff like DeCSS, Felton's work on SDMI and the rest. Showing why something doesn't work or getting additional functionality out of a product just isn't the same as maliciously depriving a business of the resources it requires to survive.
It isn't hard to explain but what is hard is getting the message out when Disney and the like are spouting their propaganda at 11 and with the simple fact that this isn't a bullet issue for the proverbial Joe Average.
I'll add one thing to your snail mail idea. Send a letter to the artist and let them know you aren't buying their music because of this. Let them know how this is affecting your ability to enjoy their work. But do please keep the sharing with friends bit out. You distributing a copy of the CD to a friend equals a lost sale for the artist.
But, if you have been reading some of the latest decisions in the courts, software also has a functional aspect that can be litigated. You package that program into a binary and start selling it the issue is less of the code being free speech and more of the executable being a product.
These are companies that hire programmers, go through source code and make distros that people pay money for. I would consider them software firms that would fall under this proposal and I also consider them critical for the success of Open Source software.
Now what happens to these comapanies when some project they have little control over but include in their distribution has a critical flaw that gets exploited? How vulnerable to litigation do they become? Guess we'll have to wait and see.
True. afaik, you can only run one inetinfo.exe process on a server.
The ability to run buggy modules with relative impunity.
Process Isolation in IIS 5.0
Useable owner/group/world file permissions
NTFS permissions aren't that bad.
Ability to have user and group with same name.
Somebody with more experience running a web site is going to have to inform me on why this is important.
Ability to soft-link so that logical structures do not have to reflect physical disk layout.
What the heck is a virtual directory then? Have you even used IIS?
Oh and somebody else mentioned having to reboot everytime you make an update. With IIS 5.0 I haven't required a reboot after applying a hotfix for it yet.
If the developers need IIS or if management wants it on IIS I'm installing IIS.
Does my cert mean anything important? Not really. I think the experience I've gotten over the years means a hell of a lot more. But it does mean something to my employer and I would have been an idiot not to get it under the circumstances. And if it keeps me gainfully employed what's a few evenings of study and a test taken on company time paid for by a company credit card?
In my case it's because that is what CiscoWorks serves up web pages with.
Doable if you are using AD. We discussed it while I attended the SANS class on securing IIS. You have one server that hosts the patches and you configure your IIS servers to periodically check that server to update themselves. The same is true of IIS settings in this circumstance. Let's say you have WebDev enabled on all of your IIS servers and you get an alert from SANS about an exploit in which there is no fix atm. You can update one template that all the servers are using and then send that out.
Would I want to admin a bunch of IIS 4.0 servers? No. But IIS 5.0 isn't as bad as people make it out to be.
There are plenty of sites dealing with W2K security. Go to the Sans Reading Room for a start.
This coming to you from a MCP.
Yeah, freak about it on Monday, calm down on Tuesday, and forget about it on Wednesday. Kinda like /. except we're talking days instead of hours.
But I have to ask. What is the difference between controlling the network or controlling the end device in this model? The key to e2e is that the end device is "smart" or more to the point flexible in it's ability to be configured.
Disney would much rather see devices like the PC be lobotomized and I'm sorry but, while I agree with Lessig that MS isn't the Great Satan, MS is a convicted monopolist that is currently getting what I can only consider positive reinforcement for its anti-competitive behavior. Unlike the people at Ximian, I don't have much faith that .Net will be open enough to accommodate non-MS platforms. It makes sound business sense to leverage proprietary extensions on .Net desktops which 95+ percent of the population will use to get MS .Net servers into the ISPs.
We then get left with a "Do it the MS way or the highway" commons not an innovation commons imho. Add to that, Disney's desire to make it illegal to bypass any hardware or software controls on the PC and now you don't get to try things which are out of the box. I'm not saying that the end result wouldn't be useful for people but I do think it would curtail the commons he initially describes in his book.
I guess what I'm arguing is while MS and Disney don't control the backbone they can control the front-end. Under those circumstances, what's the difference?
Either that or our favorite legal scholar has become addicted to crack and we then need to quickly get an intervention meeting in order. Anybody have the number to Betty Ford? :)
While it is obvious that the disc is owed by the consumer it seems that the encrypted data is not and providing a license for the work is not required. IMHO, accepting the fact that I am not a legal expert, this is the second most damning paragraph in the entire decision with the opinion on Fair Use being the first.
While this may not be applicable in other countries at the moment I do see it as something to look out for down the road. People really should read the decision.
Furthermore, it is the copyright holder who retains the right to give permission to decrypt. So if the MPAA thinks their isn't a legitimate DVD player for linux they are perfectly in their rights to say you can't play a CSS encrypted DVD using software like LiViD.
Someone hasn't read most of the comments in the -1 sewer I see.
The complaint is the fuel cell technology is still 10-20 years away from being commercially viable and people are wondering what is going to happen to technologies that can make vehicles more fuel efficient which can be implemented rather quickly. As in 2004-2007. The counter argument is that any regulations passed now to make even more fuel efficient cars will take so long to be implemented that we'll be seeing the first fuel cell vehicles on the market.
But saying Bush isn't supporting the fuel cell initiative is completely inaccurate.
quackquackquackquack
Duck!
quackquackquackquack
Duck!
All right I've had about enough of this....
BOOM!
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
Big media has a coherent, easy to digest mantra that they have unified behind. The Internet without controls threatens our business and we need legal backing to protect our investments (aka property.) It is a compelling interest that the courts and government have bought into.
We, as geeks/IT professionals/what-have-you, can't even agree to whether code is speech. We have no mantra and our arguments are not easily digestable for the masses. I have yet to find one co-worker/family member/man on the street who gave a damn that DVDs can't be viewed under linux, that Dmitry was arrested, or that computer security researchers feel that they have to think twice before publishing.
These issues are too remote for 99% of the public to care about. And just as the courts decided in the Felton case and as can be read in the copyright office's report, most people don't see these concerns as being ripe. In the age of Napster where infringement is so common that music on the Internet has no worth what argument can you craft that can be heard over that of Big Media? When the RIAA can point to kids hording gigs of MP3s that no one, including the artist, has seen a dime on and then further point out that they are "sharing" these files what hypothetical is going to convince your congress-critter that something like the DMCA is a bad thing?
Please be aware that I am in full agreement that for those who care about these issues we need to be politically active. But I look at these issues and sorry to say I don't see the next civil rights movement here.
FWIW, copyright lasts a bit longer than 75 years thanks to the Sonny Bono Act.
Tell that to the copyright office and the courts because how you chose to watch that DVD is relevent. The DMCA doesn't give you, the consumer, the right to decrypt the DVD that right is given to you by the copyright holder and they can say you are SOL if you use linux.
Seriously. Go to openlaw, find the recent decision and read it.
I think Napster proves that the music industry was slow in moving onto the web and that people love free stuff. After talking to too many co-workers and listening to other people talk about their kids downloading gigs of music I just can't buy this rose-colored view that Napster is used enough for legitimate purposes to mitigate it's use for rampant infringment.
Napster is "fair use" at it's worst. Oh, I only want to sample the music before I buy it but I'll archive it to a CD. "Just in case."
You're missing the point. Even if you combined all of the people who want to buy non-Region 1 DVDs into one demographic and got them fired up enough to actually do something about it they are too small of a group to have any influence in the market. So what if a hundred thousand (imho a generous number) consumers don't buy into DVDs if millions of people will.
The thread wasn't about rights (and yes, I have a bleak look on that front also. I do read what comes out of the courts and the government), it was about consumers effecting change through the marketplace which is something I don't see happening anytime soon.
Now let's look at what they get by using DVDs.
So from the consumer's perspective, there aren't any strings attached. Just a better product. And just as it is extremely hard to convince the Copyright Office and the Courts to take into consideration hypothetical pitfalls and insignificant markets it is even harder to explain these issues to a consumer. Been there, done that.
So no, it isn't "simple." I refuse to buy those products just like you but after listening to my co-workers I realize they could give a rip about any of these issues. Even the one who got burned by the region encoding on a DVD he bought from the UK. Was he disappointed? Yes. Would he stop purchasing DVDs? Hell no.
The problem with consumers "calling the shots" in this battle is one of inertia and unless Big Media does something completely whacked like suddenly going straight to everything is copy controlled pay-per-view it will only be "radicals" who fight this on the consumer front.
Going through this thread I can already see you've generated /. enough impressions to last them through the holiday season. Happy Holidays everyone! ;)