Is it worth enforcing Draconian laws, eliminating the right to privacy of the common man, spending millions of taxpayer dollars, etc. in order to enforce an unpopular law so that film studios can make even more money on something so non-essential to life, all the while abusing their position of power to overcharge consumers?
Very succinctly put.
You are the anchor that gives my spirit license to soar.
Oh yeah? Delete a file when there's a read-lock on it.:o)
for those who don't get it, this is a fundamental problem with Windows - a file that's locked can't be modified or deleted. It's why you have to reboot after installing a service pack, or sometimes removing a virus.
mount/tmp and/var with the noexec option - if you have developers who don't understand security, this can save your bacon. (someone used a hole in a PHP script to upload and execute a file to/var/tmp - the upload happened, the execute didn't. I ended up with a copy of the rootkit (fairly new at the time) as well as how he got in, which was shown to the web developer responsible in an attempt to get him to take security more seriously.)
use a separate account for each daemon (some distros I've seen run apache as 'nobody', for example - don't use 'nobody', create a separate user for each daemon) This prevents your daemons from overwriting each others data, and allows the following:
use --uid-owner and/or --gid-owner in iptables to restrict your daemons from opening *outgoing* connections, or listening on random ports. If one of your daemons is compromised, it makes it harder for an attacker to connect to take over complete control.
Never have executables or data owned by the same user that the daemon runs as. I've seen this done mostly on game servers (the docs recommend running the game as 'unreal', and have all the game files owned by 'unreal') but some others (squidGuard comes to mind) also recommend (or even require!!?!?) having data files owned by the daemon. If there was a hole in the daemon, an attacker could theoretically use it to gain higher priveleges (such as the UID of the account used to start the daemon - frequently root) the next time the daemon is started.
OK, Daredevil is the only thing I've seen Colin Ferrell in, and I gotta say - WTF!??!
I thought he was supposed to be some A-list actor.. is he really that bad an actor, or was he doing a Jeremy-Irons-D&D "I've decided I hate this movie, so I'm gonna be *SO* bad that the studio will can it and burn the negatives?"
He was so godawful it's beyond description. When I watched him, all I could think of was wanting to engage in something less painful, like sticking a glass rod in my urethra and smashing it with a hammer.
Did he feel sorry for Shane Brolly's performance in Underworld, and decide that he'd do something that made that idiot look like Sir Lawrence Olivier?
I'd like to know if he's that bad in everything, or if Daredevil was something special, but I can't bring myself to watch something else he's in.
genetic engineering is the current boogeyman in Spiderman
Actually, it's science that's the current bogeyman.
Note that in the early comics (and TV show, for that matter), Peter Parker was a scientist, and most of his villains were either scientists themselves, or used the scientific discoveries of others. Spiderman used science to augment his natural abilities (webbing, etc.) When he encountered someone he couldn't beat, he used science to defeat them.
Science was displayed as a neutral force, something noble, capable of being used for good or for evil, depending on the will of the person weilding it.
That's all changed: the recent movies show Peter Parker as a victim of science - science made him a freak. He gave up science for the arts (phototgraphy.) The villains are all scientists, their goodness corrupted by science, leaving them hollow and evil.
The moral of the movies is that science is evil, and must be avoided at all costs.
Don't say something is the Worst Movie Ever Made until you've seen this stinker.
It's about a guy who's murdered, and his brain is transplanted into a dinosaur (by the people who murdered him), and his quest to win back his girlfriend.
Are you aware that the LKM team puts out a stable subversion of each release? I.E. 2.6.11 is released, then 2.6.11.1, 2.6.11.2, 2.6.11.3, etc?
I'm aware of it, but I'm also aware that it's not actually stable.
2.6.12.5 is more stable for me than 2.6.13, which actually locks up (emphasized because in my 10 years of using Linux, I've never, ever, seen it happen.)
I'm still using 2.4 on most of my machines. My desktops are running 2.6.12.5 (2.6.13 gives me intermittant lockups)
of my 4 Linux systems here, only one uses 2.6.x. The others run 2.4.x. Upgrading the kernel on some of my systems is a real pain (my firewall, for example, is a 100MHz processor w/32MB RAM.
I've installed 2.6 on a couple of firewalls (a P75 and a P133, each with 32MB RAM) and it runs fine.
Recompiling the kernel to my specifications is a real pain.
Why? One kernel tree on a dev machine, keep a separate.config for each type of kernel (I have two - desktop and server/firewall.) When a new kernel comes out, compile as a package, install it to a test machine to make sure its stable, then roll the packages out to the field during the scheduled maintenance window. I maintain a few dozen machines, and this keeps things very simple.
you may have received 98% of actually copyrighted data. So it's copyright infringement nonetheless even if the product turns out to be useless.
No, it's not actually copyright infringement.
When you download something from itunes, is it copyright infringement?
Why not? because it's not copyright infringement if you have permission from the copyright holder, right?
Now, here's where this example ties into this discussion:
If the copyright holder puts their work up on a P2P service, with full knowledge that the file will be downloaded and uploaded, how can they claim infringement? They know how the protocol works, they know that copying will occur. By putting the file up, with knowledge of how the protocol works, they are implicitly giving permission for the copying to take place.
It's not copyright infringement if you have permission.
The greatest humor in this, of course, is that Banky turned out to be gay.
Or at least bisexual.
The biggest problem I had with that movie (those movies? Banky wasn't "outed" until the end of J&SBSB, and even then only in the deleted scenes) is that the Smith kept using the word "gay" (and "lesbian"), when he obviously meant "bi".
Alyssa was bi - she enjoyed sex with men and women. She chose women because they were easier to deal with, but she wasn't lesbian. (Although she might have been a closet-bisexual, it doesn't change the fact that after she was outed it was obvious that she wasn't a lesbian, but bisexual.) Kevin Smith keeps referring to the character as gay, even though she clearly wasn't.
The other problem I had was that Holden was upset because she had 'more experience', and not because she lied to him about who she was. That whole scene on the swings, were his interest begins turning from infatuation to love, was based on a lie (and a whopper of a lie.) Why wasn't he upset about that?
It was a good movie, but it could have been much better.
1. It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
In other words, being celibate is "good" but you shouldn't do it.
No, no, no... The two are not contradictory.
What it says is that nobody should have sex, and to ensure this, everybody should get married... (I guess in biblical times, married people didn't have sex?:o)
Before patents, many innovations and improvements died with their inventor, because they were kept as jealously guarded secrets.
List them, please. And show why they couldn't be reverse-engineered.
Patents were invented as a way of stopping the loss of new technology, while at the same time affording the inventor the same benefits as a trade secret, albeit for a limited time.
Yes, and they're failing to do that.
WE ALL benefit from patents
No. In theory we all benefit from patents. But you know what they say about the difference between theory and reality: In theory there is no difference between theory and reality, but in reality there is.
No, they didn't. The problem was that the person who filed the application was incompetant.
Besides the fact that the application referred to Wikipedia (which has been discussed to death,) the reference described "Linux" as a generic phrase for an operating system kernel - which is precisely your argument.
Now, you and I know what Linux referrs to, but the trademark examiners don't, and it shows from their response:
"The entry from the Wikipedia encyclopaedia indicates 'Linux is a computer operating system and its kernel'... demonstrating generic use rather than trademark use."
So, the way the application was written, it sounded (to the examiners) that the term "Linux" was in fact a generic term, rather than refering to what you and I know as Linux. If the application pointed to a source that said "Linux is the computer operating system originally developed by Linus Torvalds, and currently being maintained by millions of volunteers around the world", then things might have turned out differently.
Interestingly enough, running Tidy gives *no* errors on the third-party content - it's all in the original code:
HTML Validation Result ---------------------- http://slashdot.or g/comments.pl?sid=163040&threshold=0&commentsort=0 &tid=124&mode=thread&pid=13621356#13621412
line 370 column 37 - Warning: <nobr> is not approved by W3C line 370 column 44 - Warning: <wbr> is not approved by W3C line 366 column 6 - Warning: trimming empty <small> line 384 column 6 - Warning: trimming empty <small> line 402 column 7 - Warning: trimming empty <legend>
Not really a valid comparison as both of those had to play inside of Microsoft's monopoly. Google does not.
Why not?
What's to stop MS from having IE add an invisible <BASE HREF="search.msn.com"> into the page every time you go to google? (And if you say "antitrust law", you've already lost your argument. Remember what happened last time MS was found guilty of violating anti-trust law?)
Slashdot Mirror
Is it worth enforcing Draconian laws, eliminating the right to privacy of the common man, spending millions of taxpayer dollars, etc. in order to enforce an unpopular law so that film studios can make even more money on something so non-essential to life, all the while abusing their position of power to overcharge consumers?
Very succinctly put.
You are the anchor that gives my spirit license to soar.
There's nothing that System can't do.
:o)
Oh yeah? Delete a file when there's a read-lock on it.
for those who don't get it, this is a fundamental problem with Windows - a file that's locked can't be modified or deleted. It's why you have to reboot after installing a service pack, or sometimes removing a virus.
Great advice... some other things you can do:
/tmp and /var with the noexec option - if you have developers who don't understand security, this can save your bacon. (someone used a hole in a PHP script to upload and execute a file to /var/tmp - the upload happened, the execute didn't. I ended up with a copy of the rootkit (fairly new at the time) as well as how he got in, which was shown to the web developer responsible in an attempt to get him to take security more seriously.)
mount
use a separate account for each daemon (some distros I've seen run apache as 'nobody', for example - don't use 'nobody', create a separate user for each daemon) This prevents your daemons from overwriting each others data, and allows the following:
use --uid-owner and/or --gid-owner in iptables to restrict your daemons from opening *outgoing* connections, or listening on random ports. If one of your daemons is compromised, it makes it harder for an attacker to connect to take over complete control.
Never have executables or data owned by the same user that the daemon runs as. I've seen this done mostly on game servers (the docs recommend running the game as 'unreal', and have all the game files owned by 'unreal') but some others (squidGuard comes to mind) also recommend (or even require!!?!?) having data files owned by the daemon. If there was a hole in the daemon, an attacker could theoretically use it to gain higher priveleges (such as the UID of the account used to start the daemon - frequently root) the next time the daemon is started.
there is a completely different cute redhead with precocious personality traits
:o)
Yeah, but she was only in the series. She's not in the movie.
OK, Daredevil is the only thing I've seen Colin Ferrell in, and I gotta say - WTF!??!
I thought he was supposed to be some A-list actor.. is he really that bad an actor, or was he doing a Jeremy-Irons-D&D "I've decided I hate this movie, so I'm gonna be *SO* bad that the studio will can it and burn the negatives?"
He was so godawful it's beyond description. When I watched him, all I could think of was wanting to engage in something less painful, like sticking a glass rod in my urethra and smashing it with a hammer.
Did he feel sorry for Shane Brolly's performance in Underworld, and decide that he'd do something that made that idiot look like Sir Lawrence Olivier?
I'd like to know if he's that bad in everything, or if Daredevil was something special, but I can't bring myself to watch something else he's in.
Jake Gyllenhaal.
Wasn't that the Federal Wildlife Marshall from Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back?
I can just see Spidey calling him "dumbass" somewhere during the movie...
Burn!
genetic engineering is the current boogeyman in Spiderman
Actually, it's science that's the current bogeyman.
Note that in the early comics (and TV show, for that matter), Peter Parker was a scientist, and most of his villains were either scientists themselves, or used the scientific discoveries of others. Spiderman used science to augment his natural abilities (webbing, etc.) When he encountered someone he couldn't beat, he used science to defeat them.
Science was displayed as a neutral force, something noble, capable of being used for good or for evil, depending on the will of the person weilding it.
That's all changed: the recent movies show Peter Parker as a victim of science - science made him a freak. He gave up science for the arts (phototgraphy.) The villains are all scientists, their goodness corrupted by science, leaving them hollow and evil.
The moral of the movies is that science is evil, and must be avoided at all costs.
I used to think Toby McGuire and Elijah Wood were the same actor.
You mean they're not?
I thought it was like Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro - one guy who uses multiple names for tax purposes.
Don't say something is the Worst Movie Ever Made until you've seen this stinker.
It's about a guy who's murdered, and his brain is transplanted into a dinosaur (by the people who murdered him), and his quest to win back his girlfriend.
Even the premise screams "WHO LET ONE RIP?"
Correct. If you're measuring performance, then you *can't* include Oracle.
Are you aware that the LKM team puts out a stable subversion of each release? I.E. 2.6.11 is released, then 2.6.11.1, 2.6.11.2, 2.6.11.3, etc?
I'm aware of it, but I'm also aware that it's not actually stable.
2.6.12.5 is more stable for me than 2.6.13, which actually locks up (emphasized because in my 10 years of using Linux, I've never, ever, seen it happen.)
/. switches to CSS /. pulls a dupe.
Then MS admits that Windows is broken
And now
I think next we'll hear about Satan firing up his snowblower.
I'm still using 2.4 on most of my machines. My desktops are running 2.6.12.5 (2.6.13 gives me intermittant lockups)
.config for each type of kernel (I have two - desktop and server/firewall.) When a new kernel comes out, compile as a package, install it to a test machine to make sure its stable, then roll the packages out to the field during the scheduled maintenance window. I maintain a few dozen machines, and this keeps things very simple.
of my 4 Linux systems here, only one uses 2.6.x. The others run 2.4.x. Upgrading the kernel on some of my systems is a real pain (my firewall, for example, is a 100MHz processor w/32MB RAM.
I've installed 2.6 on a couple of firewalls (a P75 and a P133, each with 32MB RAM) and it runs fine.
Recompiling the kernel to my specifications is a real pain.
Why? One kernel tree on a dev machine, keep a separate
It sounds like they could benefit from a practice in Xtreme Programming.
Is that where they jump out of an airplane with only a laptop and a parachute, and see how much they can code on the way down?
you may have received 98% of actually copyrighted data. So it's copyright infringement nonetheless even if the product turns out to be useless.
No, it's not actually copyright infringement.
When you download something from itunes, is it copyright infringement?
Why not? because it's not copyright infringement if you have permission from the copyright holder, right?
Now, here's where this example ties into this discussion:
If the copyright holder puts their work up on a P2P service, with full knowledge that the file will be downloaded and uploaded, how can they claim infringement? They know how the protocol works, they know that copying will occur. By putting the file up, with knowledge of how the protocol works, they are implicitly giving permission for the copying to take place.
It's not copyright infringement if you have permission.
Well, I'm not going to commit a Federal crime for starters.
I think you missed the part where they can do it to you even if you're innocent..
That's the problem - it doesn't matter if you haven't comitted a crime, they still get to profile you.
The greatest humor in this, of course, is that Banky turned out to be gay.
Or at least bisexual.
The biggest problem I had with that movie (those movies? Banky wasn't "outed" until the end of J&SBSB, and even then only in the deleted scenes) is that the Smith kept using the word "gay" (and "lesbian"), when he obviously meant "bi".
Alyssa was bi - she enjoyed sex with men and women. She chose women because they were easier to deal with, but she wasn't lesbian. (Although she might have been a closet-bisexual, it doesn't change the fact that after she was outed it was obvious that she wasn't a lesbian, but bisexual.) Kevin Smith keeps referring to the character as gay, even though she clearly wasn't.
The other problem I had was that Holden was upset because she had 'more experience', and not because she lied to him about who she was. That whole scene on the swings, were his interest begins turning from infatuation to love, was based on a lie (and a whopper of a lie.) Why wasn't he upset about that?
It was a good movie, but it could have been much better.
1. It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
:o)
2. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
In other words, being celibate is "good" but you shouldn't do it.
No, no, no... The two are not contradictory.
What it says is that nobody should have sex, and to ensure this, everybody should get married... (I guess in biblical times, married people didn't have sex?
Before patents, many innovations and improvements died with their inventor, because they were kept as jealously guarded secrets.
List them, please. And show why they couldn't be reverse-engineered.
Patents were invented as a way of stopping the loss of new technology, while at the same time affording the inventor the same benefits as a trade secret, albeit for a limited time.
Yes, and they're failing to do that.
WE ALL benefit from patents
No. In theory we all benefit from patents. But you know what they say about the difference between theory and reality: In theory there is no difference between theory and reality, but in reality there is.
nobody resorts to trade secret anymore
Umm yea, right. Pull the other one.
the Australians called it wrong this time
... demonstrating generic use rather than trademark use."
No, they didn't. The problem was that the person who filed the application was incompetant.
Besides the fact that the application referred to Wikipedia (which has been discussed to death,) the reference described "Linux" as a generic phrase for an operating system kernel - which is precisely your argument.
Now, you and I know what Linux referrs to, but the trademark examiners don't, and it shows from their response:
"The entry from the Wikipedia encyclopaedia indicates 'Linux is a computer operating system and its kernel'
So, the way the application was written, it sounded (to the examiners) that the term "Linux" was in fact a generic term, rather than refering to what you and I know as Linux. If the application pointed to a source that said "Linux is the computer operating system originally developed by Linus Torvalds, and currently being maintained by millions of volunteers around the world", then things might have turned out differently.
Your blame is misplaced.
Not really a valid comparison as both of those had to play inside of Microsoft's monopoly. Google does not.
Why not?
What's to stop MS from having IE add an invisible <BASE HREF="search.msn.com"> into the page every time you go to google? (And if you say "antitrust law", you've already lost your argument. Remember what happened last time MS was found guilty of violating anti-trust law?)
Carne diem, dude. Carne diem.
Andromeda, a galaxy famous for its bad acting
Well thank god there's no Babylon5 galaxy, or we'd all be doomed!