we need to bring in as many people as possible to show how fragmented and uncontrolled Linux Development is.. and to that end, we are going to subpoena people who have nothing to do with Linux kernel development.
Of course, if you look at it crosseyed enough, it starts to make a little sense.. by bringing to the stand people who have nothing to do with it, you make them seem even more fragmented and uncontrolled...
"Mr Stallman, let's talk about the Linux kernel code you contributed.."
"I've never made any contributions to the Linux kernel."
"Ahh - so then let's talk about the code that you didn't contribute, then."
"What?!?!"
"Your Honor, see how fragmented and uncontrolled they are!"
The definition is in the relevant section of the law, which you can read for yourself. Although the DMCA is vague, it is not that vague.
I visited the link you provided. There was no definition of "technological measure." The only two things (which don't define 'technological measure') are here:
to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and
(B)
a technological measure ''effectively controls access to a work'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
Software is technological, and if part of it prevents you from using another part of it, then it 'effectively controls access'. I don't see how you can claim otherwise.
They think that you're saying that MS is liable because someone can use all your resources (which is ridiculous, of course.)
What I think you're saying is that it's MS that allows the security holes in their software, which allows these gangs to take control of other people's computers and launch the DDoS.
Your analogy is wrong - perhaps a better one might be that an automobile manufacturer makes a car that can be easily stolen (say by jiggling the door handle, and a key is not required to start it) if someone steals this car, and drives it through a business's window, should the car manufacturer be liable?
That's because you're using what's known as "common sense", a technique that's alien to PHB's (possibly caused by the ties they wear, which restricts the blood supply to the brain.)
To help you out, here's some PHB-logic.
They don't look at it as "saving money" - as they never would have spent the money to begin with.. they look at it as loss of control.
In the event of a paid security audit (which they wouldn't have done anyway) they would have been able to control the information - the company that would have been contracted (or the internal employees doing the audit) would have signed an NDA, saying that they would never release the details to anyone other than management.
Letters such as these are an attempt to excersise leverage over independant researchers.. not only haven't they saved any money, but this guy doing what he's doing could actually cost them money, because now they have to pay someone to fix their software.
I know, it completely misses the point that the software was broken before anyone looked at it, and that even though this person notified them, that others may not, and might use the vulnerabilities to break into their servers, but as I said, we're not dealing with people who have common sense, we're dealing with corporate executives.
HAM mode was great - if you liked going blind. It was Interlaced rendering it nearly useless.
Uh, no.
Interlacing is a method of increasing the vertical resolution of your screen without increasing the bandwidth - you draw even/odd lines on different passes, which doubles the number of lines you can display, at a cost of 'flickering' when you have high contrast on the even/odd lines on the screen. (An interesting note - some early S/VGA monitor manufacturers produced low-end interlaced monitors for the PC.)
HAM stands for Hold And Modify. It was a method of increasing the color depth (not the resolution) of the display, by allowing pixels to either be a color index, or as modification of part of the RGB value of the previous pixel.
Note that the two of these are completely independant, and while is possible to have an interlaced HAM image, it was also possible to have a non-interlaced HAM image, as well as an interlaced non-HAM image.
i f [ "x$1" = "x" ]; then
echo "Usage: $0 [ipaddress]"
exit else
n=`echo $1 |awk -F. '{print $4"."$3"."$2"."$1}'`
for j in ${doms}; do
host ${n}.${j}
done fi
No, it's a great idea, and the only technological response to what is a social problem. In the case of collateral damage, it lets the sender know that there is a problem with their network, so that they can do something about it.
Blacklisting gives one entity, such as an ISP, the ability to censor what others can read
Wrong. The fact that the ISP can do it means that they already have that ability (by definition.)
Rather than trying to eliminate spam, we should be trying to manage it.
Right, so by the same logic, instead of trying to prevent crime, we should just have the news media stop reporting it.
there is a fine line between what the governing body considers spam and what I do
No, spam is pretty well defined. It has nothing to do with the content of the message.
If the sender had been blacklisted, it would have been equivalent to political censorship.
No, it most certainly wouldn't have. In order to be considered political censorship, the message would have to have been blocked because of it's content. As blacklists block all messages, regardless of whether they are political or not, it is (by definition) NOT political censorship.
How does this make sense from a business perspective?
Simple - they're using MPAA/RIAA math!
See, for every person who uses your IP for free, you lose money - so you figure out how much you're losing per unit, and offer people less money than that to not use your IP..
For example, if SCO determines that they're losing $100 per Linux server, and there are currently 100,000 people running Linux that would take them up on their offer, then all they have to do is offer people $50 to not run Linux.. then Viola! They've now made a positive difference of $50,000,000 to their bottom line!
Disclaimer: although I'm currently drunk, this makes perfect sense to me. I may or may not feel the same way once I've sobered up.
I'm sure that part of SCO's strategy behind not telling IBM where they've found infringing code ( apart from the possibility that the claim is complete bollocks) is to make IBM spend lots of money figuring out where it is.
I doubt it - not even SCO's lawyers are that stupid.
Any first-year law student knows that the first thing you have to do when you get before a judge is present your evidence. SCO can't possibly be hoping that the judge will throw a hundred years of legal procedure out the window. The only thing that will cause IBM to have to spend money to figure out where the alleged infringing code is would be if Darl passed the bar and became the presiding judge. (And if you think that could happen, I have a nice bridge to sell you.)
Smith hates humans, because he is programmed to hate humans. He wants the codes to Zions mainframe because he is part of the garbage collection routine that must find and destroy Zion to avoid the rebels from reaching critical mass and threatening their power supply.
This is the biggest plot hole, and the one I was most hoping would be addressed (sadly, it wasn't.)
humanity survives in Zion because the machines cannot create a perfect simulated reality, and so they've encoded an error handler and garbage collector to at least achieve stable power from 99.9% of their crop.
Now, the machines have no compunctions about killing humans - even if you're wrong about them never exhibiting mercy or compassion, they demonstrate that they have no issues with killing..
So, why do they let Zion exist at all?!?!?! Why not simply kill anyone who tries to 'wake up'?!?!?! We saw what happens when someone wakes up - a big machine comes and unhooks them, and lets them go free - why didn't that big damn thing just snap Neo's neck instead of disconnecting him?!?!?
It makes absolutely _NO_ sense to make millions of sentinels and diggers, send them to Zion, have machine casualties (I thought the machines have a sense of self-preservation?), have agents running around trying to kill people (why kill them? Why are the agents going around trying to kill the One, when they need him to start this thing all over again????) when they could just kill the people as they woke up, and never have to worry about all this.
If you read his email, he's saying exactly that - he DOESN'T WANT OR NEED a mail account with Bostream.
Why not relay all mail (regardless of domain) from your own server?
Maybe because "his own server" (like the University account he mentioned) won't relay for him when he's not connected to it's network, and (since it's a university server) he doesn't have the authority or ability to change it.
In 2000 the broadcast media claimed that Gore had won Florida nearly an hour before the polls closed in the panhandle area (in the Central, rather than Eastern, time zone.) Such a call can be expected to result in a lot of panhandle voters to have stayed home rather than vote.
Since the pahnandle area (unlike the urban areas of the peninsula) is heavily Republican, this no doubt selectively reduced Bush's vote count by a significant factor.
I'm unable to follow your logic..
If the media reported one candidate as the winner, wouldn't it do the exact opposite of what you're claiming?
Think about it: If you're going to vote, and you hear that your candidate is going to win, are you more or less likely to vote, or just say "I don't need to."?
Conversely, if you're going to vote, and you hear that your candidate is going to lose, you'll be more encouraged to vote, in an attempt to change the outcome.
So, if the media were truly attempting to swing the vote, they would have decalared Bush the winner, so that all of the republicans would have stayed home, and all the democrats would have been spurred to vote.
the 'from' address should match mail server(s) passed through (someone correct me if this is way out, i'm no mail expert)
Consider yourself corrected.
In many cases, the From: header won't match the servers - for example, if I send a work email from home, I'd need to know if it bounces. It would be bad form if the recipient's mail server decided to silently drop the email.
You get rated 'Insightful' for stating what OpenSource zealots hope.
And you get rated 'Insightful' for stating what MS zealots hope.
What if this shell actually knocks the socks off *sh?
Lets be realistic, shall we? First of all, we're talking about what is essentially vaporware - things like "what if it..." are just as speculative as "it probably won't." Secondly, when has MS ever been able to do something right on their first try?!?! It typically takes them 4 or 5 versions before things begin to acheive what they promised at the outset.
What if Longhorn does indeed provide more security, not only in default settings, but more inherently in the OpenSource?
Again, more vapour. And (again) what's MS's track record WRT security? I think the phrase "I'll believe it when I see it" sums this up appropriately.
Slashdot Mirror
it's obviously in someone's best financial interests to make sure it's not a problem
Yeah, and all those ISPs who pays for bandwidth don't have a financial incentive to make sure that spam is not a problem right?
Spam costs real money.
we need to bring in as many people as possible to show how fragmented and uncontrolled Linux Development is .. and to that end, we are going to subpoena people who have nothing to do with Linux kernel development.
Of course, if you look at it crosseyed enough, it starts to make a little sense.. by bringing to the stand people who have nothing to do with it, you make them seem even more fragmented and uncontrolled...
"Mr Stallman, let's talk about the Linux kernel code you contributed.."
"I've never made any contributions to the Linux kernel."
"Ahh - so then let's talk about the code that you didn't contribute, then."
"What?!?!"
"Your Honor, see how fragmented and uncontrolled they are!"
Quite a change in tone !
Maybe his last cheque from Darl & co. bounced..
I visited the link you provided. There was no definition of "technological measure." The only two things (which don't define 'technological measure') are here:
Software is technological, and if part of it prevents you from using another part of it, then it 'effectively controls access'. I don't see how you can claim otherwise.
The USA PATRIOT Act is as despotic as anything Hitler came up with -- even using much of the same language.
:o)
Really? The PATRIOT act was written in German?
That does not meet the definition of "technological measure."
Software is not a technological measure?
They are talking about decoding/decryption, not a branch instruction.
Sorry, but software does qualify as "a process."
The program code is already accessible.
No, not if it doesn't run it isn't.
A lot of people seem to misunderstand you..
They think that you're saying that MS is liable because someone can use all your resources (which is ridiculous, of course.)
What I think you're saying is that it's MS that allows the security holes in their software, which allows these gangs to take control of other people's computers and launch the DDoS.
Your analogy is wrong - perhaps a better one might be that an automobile manufacturer makes a car that can be easily stolen (say by jiggling the door handle, and a key is not required to start it) if someone steals this car, and drives it through a business's window, should the car manufacturer be liable?
Is there a site out there like a "Wall of Shame" where we can go to see a list of fuckheads who have C&D'd people using the DMCA as a threat?
Yes - chillingeffects.org
I'll never get it
That's because you're using what's known as "common sense", a technique that's alien to PHB's (possibly caused by the ties they wear, which restricts the blood supply to the brain.)
To help you out, here's some PHB-logic.
They don't look at it as "saving money" - as they never would have spent the money to begin with.. they look at it as loss of control.
In the event of a paid security audit (which they wouldn't have done anyway) they would have been able to control the information - the company that would have been contracted (or the internal employees doing the audit) would have signed an NDA, saying that they would never release the details to anyone other than management.
Letters such as these are an attempt to excersise leverage over independant researchers.. not only haven't they saved any money, but this guy doing what he's doing could actually cost them money, because now they have to pay someone to fix their software.
I know, it completely misses the point that the software was broken before anyone looked at it, and that even though this person notified them, that others may not, and might use the vulnerabilities to break into their servers, but as I said, we're not dealing with people who have common sense, we're dealing with corporate executives.
If you lost your dog and offered up a 100$ reward yet you made 100,000$ salary, would you not be serious about getting your dog back?
Well, if you spend all of that $100,000 on your other pets when they get lost, then I'd say no, you really wouldn't be that serious.
HAM mode was great - if you liked going blind. It was Interlaced rendering it nearly useless.
Uh, no.
Interlacing is a method of increasing the vertical resolution of your screen without increasing the bandwidth - you draw even/odd lines on different passes, which doubles the number of lines you can display, at a cost of 'flickering' when you have high contrast on the even/odd lines on the screen. (An interesting note - some early S/VGA monitor manufacturers produced low-end interlaced monitors for the PC.)
HAM stands for Hold And Modify. It was a method of increasing the color depth (not the resolution) of the display, by allowing pixels to either be a color index, or as modification of part of the RGB value of the previous pixel.
Note that the two of these are completely independant, and while is possible to have an interlaced HAM image, it was also possible to have a non-interlaced HAM image, as well as an interlaced non-HAM image.
Correction:
:o)
The ST's mono mode is 640x400 in 2-bit (b&w)
2-bit would be 4-color. B&W would be 1-bit.
Here's a quick bash script to do a lookup in various blacklists:
Blacklisting spammers is a bad idea.
No, it's a great idea, and the only technological response to what is a social problem. In the case of collateral damage, it lets the sender know that there is a problem with their network, so that they can do something about it.
Blacklisting gives one entity, such as an ISP, the ability to censor what others can read
Wrong. The fact that the ISP can do it means that they already have that ability (by definition.)
Rather than trying to eliminate spam, we should be trying to manage it.
Right, so by the same logic, instead of trying to prevent crime, we should just have the news media stop reporting it.
there is a fine line between what the governing body considers spam and what I do
No, spam is pretty well defined. It has nothing to do with the content of the message.
If the sender had been blacklisted, it would have been equivalent to political censorship.
No, it most certainly wouldn't have. In order to be considered political censorship, the message would have to have been blocked because of it's content. As blacklists block all messages, regardless of whether they are political or not, it is (by definition) NOT political censorship.
Didn't you guys start a revolution over this kind of shit?
What services will a government a thousand miles away offer my business in return for the taxes they are attempting to collect?
I thought that's "taxation without representation" - Isn't there something in your constitution that outlaws this?
How does this make sense from a business perspective?
Simple - they're using MPAA/RIAA math!
See, for every person who uses your IP for free, you lose money - so you figure out how much you're losing per unit, and offer people less money than that to not use your IP..
For example, if SCO determines that they're losing $100 per Linux server, and there are currently 100,000 people running Linux that would take them up on their offer, then all they have to do is offer people $50 to not run Linux.. then Viola! They've now made a positive difference of $50,000,000 to their bottom line!
Disclaimer: although I'm currently drunk, this makes perfect sense to me. I may or may not feel the same way once I've sobered up.
I'm sure that part of SCO's strategy behind not telling IBM where they've found infringing code ( apart from the possibility that the claim is complete bollocks) is to make IBM spend lots of money figuring out where it is.
I doubt it - not even SCO's lawyers are that stupid.
Any first-year law student knows that the first thing you have to do when you get before a judge is present your evidence. SCO can't possibly be hoping that the judge will throw a hundred years of legal procedure out the window. The only thing that will cause IBM to have to spend money to figure out where the alleged infringing code is would be if Darl passed the bar and became the presiding judge. (And if you think that could happen, I have a nice bridge to sell you.)
Smith hates humans, because he is programmed to hate humans. He wants the codes to Zions mainframe because he is part of the garbage collection routine that must find and destroy Zion to avoid the rebels from reaching critical mass and threatening their power supply.
This is the biggest plot hole, and the one I was most hoping would be addressed (sadly, it wasn't.)
humanity survives in Zion because the machines cannot create a perfect simulated reality, and so they've encoded an error handler and garbage collector to at least achieve stable power from 99.9% of their crop.
Now, the machines have no compunctions about killing humans - even if you're wrong about them never exhibiting mercy or compassion, they demonstrate that they have no issues with killing..
So, why do they let Zion exist at all?!?!?! Why not simply kill anyone who tries to 'wake up'?!?!?! We saw what happens when someone wakes up - a big machine comes and unhooks them, and lets them go free - why didn't that big damn thing just snap Neo's neck instead of disconnecting him?!?!?
It makes absolutely _NO_ sense to make millions of sentinels and diggers, send them to Zion, have machine casualties (I thought the machines have a sense of self-preservation?), have agents running around trying to kill people (why kill them? Why are the agents going around trying to kill the One, when they need him to start this thing all over again????) when they could just kill the people as they woke up, and never have to worry about all this.
Technophone = one who speaks tech jargon?
Wouldn't that be a techjargophone?
I think this is a technophone.
Would you really put down a book after 2/3rds, or stop watching a show after 2/3rds of the season?
Bad analogies - better would be "would you refuse to buy the third book in a trilogy, or stop watching a show after the second season?"
And the answer would (of course) be if it sucked, then hell yes!
why do you need a mail account with Bostream?
If you read his email, he's saying exactly that - he DOESN'T WANT OR NEED a mail account with Bostream.
Why not relay all mail (regardless of domain) from your own server?
Maybe because "his own server" (like the University account he mentioned) won't relay for him when he's not connected to it's network, and (since it's a university server) he doesn't have the authority or ability to change it.
In 2000 the broadcast media claimed that Gore had won Florida nearly an hour before the polls closed in the panhandle area (in the Central, rather than Eastern, time zone.) Such a call can be expected to result in a lot of panhandle voters to have stayed home rather than vote.
Since the pahnandle area (unlike the urban areas of the peninsula) is heavily Republican, this no doubt selectively reduced Bush's vote count by a significant factor.
I'm unable to follow your logic..
If the media reported one candidate as the winner, wouldn't it do the exact opposite of what you're claiming?
Think about it: If you're going to vote, and you hear that your candidate is going to win, are you more or less likely to vote, or just say "I don't need to."?
Conversely, if you're going to vote, and you hear that your candidate is going to lose, you'll be more encouraged to vote, in an attempt to change the outcome.
So, if the media were truly attempting to swing the vote, they would have decalared Bush the winner, so that all of the republicans would have stayed home, and all the democrats would have been spurred to vote.
the 'from' address should match mail server(s) passed through (someone correct me if this is way out, i'm no mail expert)
Consider yourself corrected.
In many cases, the From: header won't match the servers - for example, if I send a work email from home, I'd need to know if it bounces. It would be bad form if the recipient's mail server decided to silently drop the email.
It was good for a laugh, but it couldn't happen..
Since government documents are in the Public Domain, they're not covered by copyright, so the DMCA wouldn't apply.
You get rated 'Insightful' for stating what OpenSource zealots hope.
..." are just as speculative as "it probably won't." Secondly, when has MS ever been able to do something right on their first try?!?! It typically takes them 4 or 5 versions before things begin to acheive what they promised at the outset.
And you get rated 'Insightful' for stating what MS zealots hope.
What if this shell actually knocks the socks off *sh?
Lets be realistic, shall we? First of all, we're talking about what is essentially vaporware - things like "what if it
What if Longhorn does indeed provide more security, not only in default settings, but more inherently in the OpenSource?
Again, more vapour. And (again) what's MS's track record WRT security? I think the phrase "I'll believe it when I see it" sums this up appropriately.