Or you could just do it anyway. What are they going to do, kick you out of the store? *gasp*...
They might. I got asked to leave a Best Buy once. I was looking for their loss leader and overheard a salesman (in the computer department) giving some other customers a load of crap. I couldn't stand it any more and jumped in and embarrassed the salesman. During this a manager apparently overheard me and asked me to leave. No big deal.
Because it doesn't matter - life + 50 or life + 70, either way, I'll be dead by then, so why should I care? Which is, of course, exactly the point, but oh well.
Actually, as bad as an extra 20 years is, what was really bad is the 20 years is retroactive. That means stuff that would have entered the public domain in your lifetime won't.
Re:SCO only getting 1 paragraph understandable...
on
The Year In Tech Law
·
· Score: 2, Informative
...blocking all popups can be inconvenient. Invisionfree forums uses popups for its private messages, for instance...
You do know, with Mozilla, you can exempt some sites from pop-up blocking right??
...Anyone wanting my personal data that badly can get it a lot easier than searching my garbage for paper mush.
And there lies the answer. You don't have to perfectly destroy the papers. Just make it cost more to get the data than the data's worth. Even the most basic methods (straight shredder) will deter most thieves. Unless you're being specifically targeted, there's always the idiot down the street (or next door) that's an easier target.
[Not showing the code]...suck any less for the rest of us who want to see the code for ourselves...
Well, us seeing the code isn't that important. IBM's lawyers WILL get to see it, and they aren't idiots. I expect them to rip SCO's case to shreds and then the court throws out the case. If the case is thrown out, then the how important was the masses actually seeing the code?
You are correct. However, I was referring to the location bar. In fact, if you look at this example, you'll see that for buttons, the status bar doesn't say anything about the destination of the link. In any case, I almost never pay attention to the status bar. That can be manipulated by the website, especially in that other browser.
[links such as http://www.yahoo.com @www.0wnz0red.com/0wn-j00.html]...It fools it in mozilla too, but you see a nice little unprintable ascii char block after the URL.
Actually, it isn't fooling Mozilla. Part of the HTML spec allows for usernames and passwords as part of the url. The domain/web site name is separated from the username (and password) by a @ sign. Mozilla is actually just following the spec, as it should. In the case above, "www.yahoo.com" is treated as a username.
I tested it on both Firebird 0.7 and Mozilla 1.6beta and both (linux versions; windows versions not tested, but probably safe too) were not vulnerable. For anyone who wants to test for themselves, a test/demo is available online.
...Browsers don't prompt usually so long as the cert is up to date, and from an official cert authority. Who's going to inspect and notice it wasn't issued to the right corporation?...
Sadly, very few users. I don't use IE, but I always check. The last time I bumped into this, I emailed the site owner (he has a very well known address), and he replied I was the first person to notice (that he knows of) in the 2 years the site has been up. It's fixed now, so the names match, but this just goes to show, most people don't check.
...The *only* nice thing about FAT is that all the Windows machines in the world can read it without installing drivers...
Yes, but how hard is it to implement a windows DLL which allows reading ext2 (for example)? At http://uranus.it.swin.edu.au/~jn/linux/explore2fs. htm there is such a program. Have whatever program/DLL included with the digital device install program. End of problem and paying M$ royalties. After all, ext2 is fully documented and (to the best of my knowledge) patent free.
And for those who will claim, "But that is an extra step!": Yes, but the drivers only need be installed once, and the ability to save about $250,000 per license term (a year maybe???) will be hard to resist for manufacturers. I've seen manufacturers skimp on things which cost a lot less.
... The congress has just passed a law which violates the fourth amendment. Somebody needs to sue to have it overturned, and quick...
What we need even more is some kind of amendment to the Constitution providing some kind of punishment for doing this sort of thing. Right now, Congress can pass all the unconstitutial laws it wants with, at worst, some negative ads during election time. Others (like the ACLU, EFF, etc) get to foot the bill to overturn these laws. Oh yes, we, the taxpayers, get to pay to defend these laws in court too. Rules without punishment and enforcement are worthless.
Now what the punishment should be is another issue. One suggestion I've seen is after voting 3 times for a law later ruled unconstitional, the person is kicked out of office, stripped of benefits, and barred from running again for any federal office (or working for the federal government). If no votes are recorded, everyone in office at that time is considered to have voted for it. The 3 times is necessary because sometimes, the constitional issues are as clear as mud.
... It was less than 50%, but it gets lower every election year so we'll reach 30% soon enough I'm sure...
Actually, I prefer low voter turnout. All this means is my vote is more important. If 100 people vote, I represent 1%. But if only 5 people vote, I represent 20%. This makes my views have a greater voice. It also means a small group of determined people could swing an election. Besides, most people will vote party regardless of who's running. Voting with such blind loyalty is really a waste of your right to vote, and a slap in the face of all those who have suffered and died to give us that right.
I do, but the chance of an incumbent senator or congressperson being defeated is very small. Of course, depending on the electronic voting machines used, voting may not matter much any more either way.
...Find me a linux app that integrates with the most popular and widespread office suite in the world, that allows me to assign tasks, share calendars, keep track of documents/revisions, and has a zero learning curve for the entire office staff that's already standardized on an existing product?...
One could argue that the only reason the staff is standardized on the office suite is M$ abused their monopoly...Yes, yes, I know. We have to make business decisions, etc. Well, there are two ways to do anything: the easy (and often cheap) way, and the right way.
...i can think of a several reasons why mirroring it would piss them off or make them afraid to post more: the sponsors have logos they expect to be seen by people who go to the site;
there's no link to buy the book or dvd on a mirror site...
You might have a point if the facts didn't contradict you. I looked around on the official site, and didn't see any sponsor logos (other than the PBS and Nova logo). The only link I could find that might lead to a book or DVD was a very small "shop nova" link, something many, perhaps most, people would miss except if they were actively looking for it. This link just points to another site you have to click on. Overall, I think the money they save by having free mirrors (lower bandwidth charges) more than makes up for the small amount they would make off that link.
...the mirrors make it harder to know how poular something is and popularity might help them know what to make next...
Here you have a small point. But the fact is, most people who watch it will either watch on TV or from the main site. The fact people would bother to mirror it gives some indication of its popularity however. Perhaps the next release might even have an offical bit torrent link if they become aware of what bit torrent is. There are lots of people out there that have still never heard of it.
...save an NTFS partition if system files are not very fragmented, and if system files are not compressed...
I've heard the same about ghost (which I don't use). I'm told it's a problem with the NTFS file system, not partimage (or ghost).
I've used partimage more than once for NTFS and it works fine (when I had identical hardware). The biggest problem I've found is the partition sizes much match exactly or you're going to lose space. Yes, it can be recovered, but time wise, it's not worth it.
Until I find a better way, for now, I just use Knoppix and create a tar gz file of every file on the HD. Knoppix can read NTFS, which is all you need to create the image. I use either ssh or (rarely) NFS to move it over the network. For NTFS machines receiving the "image", I create the partition manually as FAT32, ssh the tar.gz file over, untar, then reboot and convert it to NTFS. The conversion is optional of course. More work, but faster than recovering the lost space unless I'm missing something. If so, PLEASE enlighten me!
...The bandwidth doesn't cost them, the latest trick (or didn't you read this thread) is to use MANY hacked windoze boxes to spread the load.
Assuming the spammer "owns" the boxes, it would still have an impact, just not as much. If the real owner of the box gets knocked off-line by the flood, it will attract his (or her) attention that something is very wrong. Probably get more than a few boxes cleaned (not all, but at least some). Now the spammer has less bandwidth available and has to create a new virus. There go more $$$'s out of the spammers pockets. It also heightens the chance that someone with the muscle (political or otherwise) might decide that the spammer needs to be taught a lessen for hijacking their box upclose and personal.
... like Bayesion filtering as well, though it needs to be smarter about the insertion of HTML comments in the middle of words (Viagra), punctuation (V'i'a'g'r'a), additional spacing (V i a g r a), etc. to get around the latest bag of tricks.
I'm seeing a different tactic to get around the bayesian filtering. I've noticed large sections of text, totally unrelated to the product being sold in the body of the spam message, i.e. parts of books (I recongnized Dracula in one), space shuttle reports, etc. The spammers are trying to flood the message with non-spam text in order to slip by the filtering. It's most certainly an arms race out there, and there's no end in sight.
That's why I feel the next step should be creating filters that automatically follow the links. Let's DDOS the web sites. This costs the spammer more money in bandwidth (it's not free; perhaps the monthly limit could be hit real quick and the website taken down for a month), and perhaps will prevent someone who would buy (which just encourages them) from being able to get to the site. Of course, this wouldn't stop joe jobs.:(
...but I don't believe it is wrong for me to maintain the same speed as other drivers, even though it is usually about 10 mph over the speed limit...
I can't speak for other states, but in Texas, you may not be speeding, even if you are going over the posted limit (but not over 70; that's federal). IANAL, but basically, Texas law requires that you go a reasonable and prudent speed. That is defined as the speed at which 85 percentile of all drivers go on that section of road (or only 15% of all drivers speed). The posted speed limit is assumed to be that speed automatically. However, that is only an assumption, and not proof. If you are ticketed, the burden of proving the speed limit is higher than the posted limits falls on you, the defendent, however, and that is usually (99%+) more costly than the ticket.
---
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
One thing to do, then, would be to change the behavior of the traffic lights so that on receiving this signal, they go to four-way red. Since emergency vehicles can run red lights, it doesn't stop them, while simultaneously deterring civilians from using them...
Nice except you forgot the traffic that might be in front of the emergency vehicle. Can they run the red light to get out of the way?
Well, my father was on a jury where that issue came up (don't remember why it came up). The judge told the non-emergency vehicle driver who ran the red that he was not driving an emergency vehicle and therefore was not authorized to run red lights, period. Personally, I think the judge was being an ass, but he did have a point.
Since then, when that situation comes up (only once in many years so far), I will not run the red. At worst (and unlikely), some cop may harrass me about it, and try to give me a "failure to yield" or some such ticket, but that's doubtful. I just ask the cop (nicely!), "I'm not in an emergency vehicle, so as far I know, I'm not authorized to run red lights. Are you now saying, in writing (by giving me the ticket), that I am authorized to run red lights?...etc."
...If you press the button more than 256 times (playing with the remote button for example) when you're not around the sensor, none of the precompute codes will match the next time the remote is used and it will be useless until re-paired...
And that is the achille's heel. Let's say I have a MIRT and the city uses the above method (or something similar). All it will take is some geek to make a device that, when triggered, blasts 257 (or more) codes. Now the light changer is disabled and someone must come out and reset it. Assuming the city can figure out that someone is intentially doing it and not just the device(s) malfunctioning (big assumption!), how long before they decide it's just too costly to keep fixing, and disable the security?
Now don't get me wrong. I believe, overall, this is a tool that should be only used by true emergency vehicles and not available to anyone else, but even then, it would be abused. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen a police car pull up to an intersection with a red light, turn on his lights, run the red, and after he was through the intersection, turn the lights off. I've had a cop behind me do something similar to that. I was going exactly the speed limit (with a cop behind me, I'm definately NOT going to be speeding!), turn on his lights, and soon as I pull over, he turns them off and flys on by me.
...Microsoft has them too - they overlook a lot of pirating so that people use their stuff and get the word out...
I agree. In many ways, pirating is actually M$'s best friend. Lots of people I've offered OpenOffice too, say "No, I just borrow my friend's copy of M$ Office." If M$ could come up with a way to prevent pirating of MS Office 97 and up, OpenOffice's market share would shoot through the roof. And it looks M$ is trying to stop home pirating with manditory activation. Feels funny to say it, but in this, I wish M$ the best of luck.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you could just do it anyway. What are they going to do, kick you out of the store? *gasp* ...
They might. I got asked to leave a Best Buy once. I was looking for their loss leader and overheard a salesman (in the computer department) giving some other customers a load of crap. I couldn't stand it any more and jumped in and embarrassed the salesman. During this a manager apparently overheard me and asked me to leave. No big deal.
Because it doesn't matter - life + 50 or life + 70, either way, I'll be dead by then, so why should I care? Which is, of course, exactly the point, but oh well.
Actually, as bad as an extra 20 years is, what was really bad is the 20 years is retroactive. That means stuff that would have entered the public domain in your lifetime won't.
You do know, with Mozilla, you can exempt some sites from pop-up blocking right??
And there lies the answer. You don't have to perfectly destroy the papers. Just make it cost more to get the data than the data's worth. Even the most basic methods (straight shredder) will deter most thieves. Unless you're being specifically targeted, there's always the idiot down the street (or next door) that's an easier target.
[Not showing the code]...suck any less for the rest of us who want to see the code for ourselves...
Well, us seeing the code isn't that important. IBM's lawyers WILL get to see it, and they aren't idiots. I expect them to rip SCO's case to shreds and then the court throws out the case. If the case is thrown out, then the how important was the masses actually seeing the code?
You are correct. However, I was referring to the location bar. In fact, if you look at this example, you'll see that for buttons, the status bar doesn't say anything about the destination of the link. In any case, I almost never pay attention to the status bar. That can be manipulated by the website, especially in that other browser.
[links such as http://www.yahoo.com @www.0wnz0red.com/0wn-j00.html]...It fools it in mozilla too, but you see a nice little unprintable ascii char block after the URL.
Actually, it isn't fooling Mozilla. Part of the HTML spec allows for usernames and passwords as part of the url. The domain/web site name is separated from the username (and password) by a @ sign. Mozilla is actually just following the spec, as it should. In the case above, "www.yahoo.com" is treated as a username.
I tested it on both Firebird 0.7 and Mozilla 1.6beta and both (linux versions; windows versions not tested, but probably safe too) were not vulnerable. For anyone who wants to test for themselves, a test/demo is available online.
Sadly, very few users. I don't use IE, but I always check. The last time I bumped into this, I emailed the site owner (he has a very well known address), and he replied I was the first person to notice (that he knows of) in the 2 years the site has been up. It's fixed now, so the names match, but this just goes to show, most people don't check.
Yes, but how hard is it to implement a windows DLL which allows reading ext2 (for example)? At http://uranus.it.swin.edu.au/~jn/linux/explore2fs. htm there is such a program. Have whatever program/DLL included with the digital device install program. End of problem and paying M$ royalties. After all, ext2 is fully documented and (to the best of my knowledge) patent free.
And for those who will claim, "But that is an extra step!": Yes, but the drivers only need be installed once, and the ability to save about $250,000 per license term (a year maybe???) will be hard to resist for manufacturers. I've seen manufacturers skimp on things which cost a lot less.
Ahhem. What do mean "if"? More like "when", and the when is often.
What we need even more is some kind of amendment to the Constitution providing some kind of punishment for doing this sort of thing. Right now, Congress can pass all the unconstitutial laws it wants with, at worst, some negative ads during election time. Others (like the ACLU, EFF, etc) get to foot the bill to overturn these laws. Oh yes, we, the taxpayers, get to pay to defend these laws in court too. Rules without punishment and enforcement are worthless.
Now what the punishment should be is another issue. One suggestion I've seen is after voting 3 times for a law later ruled unconstitional, the person is kicked out of office, stripped of benefits, and barred from running again for any federal office (or working for the federal government). If no votes are recorded, everyone in office at that time is considered to have voted for it. The 3 times is necessary because sometimes, the constitional issues are as clear as mud.
Actually, I prefer low voter turnout. All this means is my vote is more important. If 100 people vote, I represent 1%. But if only 5 people vote, I represent 20%. This makes my views have a greater voice. It also means a small group of determined people could swing an election. Besides, most people will vote party regardless of who's running. Voting with such blind loyalty is really a waste of your right to vote, and a slap in the face of all those who have suffered and died to give us that right.
I do, but the chance of an incumbent senator or congressperson being defeated is very small. Of course, depending on the electronic voting machines used, voting may not matter much any more either way.
One could argue that the only reason the staff is standardized on the office suite is M$ abused their monopoly...Yes, yes, I know. We have to make business decisions, etc. Well, there are two ways to do anything: the easy (and often cheap) way, and the right way.
You might have a point if the facts didn't contradict you. I looked around on the official site, and didn't see any sponsor logos (other than the PBS and Nova logo). The only link I could find that might lead to a book or DVD was a very small "shop nova" link, something many, perhaps most, people would miss except if they were actively looking for it. This link just points to another site you have to click on. Overall, I think the money they save by having free mirrors (lower bandwidth charges) more than makes up for the small amount they would make off that link.
Here you have a small point. But the fact is, most people who watch it will either watch on TV or from the main site. The fact people would bother to mirror it gives some indication of its popularity however. Perhaps the next release might even have an offical bit torrent link if they become aware of what bit torrent is. There are lots of people out there that have still never heard of it.
Does that include using any M$ software on an internet connected machine? After all, with their security, your network is pretty open.
I've heard the same about ghost (which I don't use). I'm told it's a problem with the NTFS file system, not partimage (or ghost).
I've used partimage more than once for NTFS and it works fine (when I had identical hardware). The biggest problem I've found is the partition sizes much match exactly or you're going to lose space. Yes, it can be recovered, but time wise, it's not worth it.
Until I find a better way, for now, I just use Knoppix and create a tar gz file of every file on the HD. Knoppix can read NTFS, which is all you need to create the image. I use either ssh or (rarely) NFS to move it over the network. For NTFS machines receiving the "image", I create the partition manually as FAT32, ssh the tar.gz file over, untar, then reboot and convert it to NTFS. The conversion is optional of course. More work, but faster than recovering the lost space unless I'm missing something. If so, PLEASE enlighten me!
Assuming the spammer "owns" the boxes, it would still have an impact, just not as much. If the real owner of the box gets knocked off-line by the flood, it will attract his (or her) attention that something is very wrong. Probably get more than a few boxes cleaned (not all, but at least some). Now the spammer has less bandwidth available and has to create a new virus. There go more $$$'s out of the spammers pockets. It also heightens the chance that someone with the muscle (political or otherwise) might decide that the spammer needs to be taught a lessen for hijacking their box upclose and personal.
I'm seeing a different tactic to get around the bayesian filtering. I've noticed large sections of text, totally unrelated to the product being sold in the body of the spam message, i.e. parts of books (I recongnized Dracula in one), space shuttle reports, etc. The spammers are trying to flood the message with non-spam text in order to slip by the filtering. It's most certainly an arms race out there, and there's no end in sight.
That's why I feel the next step should be creating filters that automatically follow the links. Let's DDOS the web sites. This costs the spammer more money in bandwidth (it's not free; perhaps the monthly limit could be hit real quick and the website taken down for a month), and perhaps will prevent someone who would buy (which just encourages them) from being able to get to the site. Of course, this wouldn't stop joe jobs. :(
Ok. But if you disable enough remotes, the effect would be the same. The security would be disabled.
I can't speak for other states, but in Texas, you may not be speeding, even if you are going over the posted limit (but not over 70; that's federal). IANAL, but basically, Texas law requires that you go a reasonable and prudent speed. That is defined as the speed at which 85 percentile of all drivers go on that section of road (or only 15% of all drivers speed). The posted speed limit is assumed to be that speed automatically. However, that is only an assumption, and not proof. If you are ticketed, the burden of proving the speed limit is higher than the posted limits falls on you, the defendent, however, and that is usually (99%+) more costly than the ticket.
---
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
One thing to do, then, would be to change the behavior of the traffic lights so that on receiving this signal, they go to four-way red. Since emergency vehicles can run red lights, it doesn't stop them, while simultaneously deterring civilians from using them...
Nice except you forgot the traffic that might be in front of the emergency vehicle. Can they run the red light to get out of the way?
Well, my father was on a jury where that issue came up (don't remember why it came up). The judge told the non-emergency vehicle driver who ran the red that he was not driving an emergency vehicle and therefore was not authorized to run red lights, period. Personally, I think the judge was being an ass, but he did have a point.
Since then, when that situation comes up (only once in many years so far), I will not run the red. At worst (and unlikely), some cop may harrass me about it, and try to give me a "failure to yield" or some such ticket, but that's doubtful. I just ask the cop (nicely!), "I'm not in an emergency vehicle, so as far I know, I'm not authorized to run red lights. Are you now saying, in writing (by giving me the ticket), that I am authorized to run red lights?...etc."
And that is the achille's heel. Let's say I have a MIRT and the city uses the above method (or something similar). All it will take is some geek to make a device that, when triggered, blasts 257 (or more) codes. Now the light changer is disabled and someone must come out and reset it. Assuming the city can figure out that someone is intentially doing it and not just the device(s) malfunctioning (big assumption!), how long before they decide it's just too costly to keep fixing, and disable the security?
Now don't get me wrong. I believe, overall, this is a tool that should be only used by true emergency vehicles and not available to anyone else, but even then, it would be abused. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen a police car pull up to an intersection with a red light, turn on his lights, run the red, and after he was through the intersection, turn the lights off. I've had a cop behind me do something similar to that. I was going exactly the speed limit (with a cop behind me, I'm definately NOT going to be speeding!), turn on his lights, and soon as I pull over, he turns them off and flys on by me.
I agree. In many ways, pirating is actually M$'s best friend. Lots of people I've offered OpenOffice too, say "No, I just borrow my friend's copy of M$ Office." If M$ could come up with a way to prevent pirating of MS Office 97 and up, OpenOffice's market share would shoot through the roof. And it looks M$ is trying to stop home pirating with manditory activation. Feels funny to say it, but in this, I wish M$ the best of luck.