The actual forbidden behavior is "requiring licensees to license their own IP to the licensor for free (free grant backs)". No one has suggested that Samsung wanted a free grant back, only to negotiate terms for cross licensing.
All you iTards seriously need to drink less Kool-Aid...
No one should ever rely on the network layer for security, because networks are by nature insecure. Run traceroute sometime if you're curious to see how many nodes are located between your computer and your bank/stock broker/webmail. Every one of those nodes can see every one of your packets. The only solution is to use application layer encryption, and once you've done that, it doesn't matter who is spying on your traffic.
You'll notice that this study was done by "AirTight Networks, a wireless security company." In other words, they are fear-mongering in order to try to sell more of their products. No matter how secure you make your wireless network, it still won't stop anyone even 1 hop away from seeing all of your traffic. As security professionals, the researchers from AirTight Networks know this, which makes their study all the more stupid and despicable.
Such delicious idiocy... I feel a flame coming on.
If that post were in a moderated environment it would be modded to -1 for troll.
When you say, "it would be modded", what you
really mean is "I would mod it to -1 for troll." I'd personally go with 5, with a nice mixture of insightful and funny.
You see (or, more importantly, you probably don't
see), different people have different viewpoints,
especially when it comes to the intersection of legislation, morality, and freedom. Personally,
I think DEA agents are more deserving of jail time than drug dealers/users, but that's just me. Unlike you, I don't make the mistake of thinking that everyone agrees with me.
It's hardly worthy of a Slashdot story.
After a casual reading, I see no glaring grammatical or logical flaws, but I do see a funny, thought provoking essay satirizing the current state of the drug war. In what way, other
than offending your sense of morality, does this qualify as "hardly worthy of a Slashdot story"?
If anything needs revamping it's the US Durg Schedules stating 'how bad' each drug is.
They say nothing of the sort. They attempt to balance abuse potential against medical usefulness (the degree to which they bungle this is a topic for another rant). Your personal concept of "bad" has nothing to do with it.
But more interesting to me is the fact that you seem to be completely accepting the rest of the drug war. Do you have a problem with the erosion
of the 4th amendment? How about having people shot in their beds by DEA agents who went to the wrong house? What about having your car seized because one of your friends smoked a joint in there and left the roach in the ashtray?
Oh yeah, as long as it doesn't happen to you, it's okay.
This is a political document, fueling most of the problems in the drug war.
This is a political document? What about the rest of the drug war? Do you actually believe that the rest of it is somehow medically/socially justifiable?
While I'd agree that several items on the list need to be examined (marijuana for one) and several not on the list (tobacco) should be considered in an environment not tainted by politics or economics,
So, what you're saying is that congress should examine a political document in the absense of economics or politics. Sit back and think about this for a minute, and when you realize how abysmally moronic it sounds then you can read on.
But even worse than that, you seem to like the idea of placing tobacco onto the list of regulated
drugs. Let's think about this for a minute. Tobacco has no medical uses, and it kills a significant percentage of its users. It should clearly be classified as a schedule 1 drug, which means it should be completely outlawed. We should spray the fields of North Carolina with carcinogenic herbicides (fuck the redneck farmers! if they don't want the US gov't to give them cancer, they shouldn't be growing that damn tobacco to start with!). We should execute anyone who lets his little brother bum a cigarette; anyone caught smoking within 100 yards of a school should be publicly tortured to death.
Personally, I'm looking forward to the crime wave this will generate when cigarettes cost $100 per pack. I want my law abiding friends turning to theft and prostitution to support their $300/day
cigarette habits. If they end up killing me for the cigarette buts in my ashtray, well, that's the price we have to pay to keep our country great.
I'm under no illusion that drugs like cocaine, heroin, and PCP are extremely dangerous,
Great! I'm not under that illusion either.... wait a minute. You think they are dangerous, don't you? Then you said the exact opposite of what you meant. Congrats.
and should be kept out of the hands of children.
"Won't someone please think of the children!?!"
- Moe Sizlak
So you think the drug war is justified because of some unnamed fear of some child doing some drug? Did you read this on the DARE website, or were you
indoctrinated in some kind school program?
Kids have always had access to drugs, and always will. I had no problems getting weed when I was 13, and I don't think kids 50 years from now will either. Society hasn't collapsed from the last 6000 years of kids trying drugs when their parents weren't looking, and it's not going to collapse tomorrow.
More importantly, it doesn't matter how many manatory minimums are enacted, or how many "get tough" legislators ride a wave of fear and loathing into political power. Drugs will still be here, and totalitarian fuckheads will still use "the children" as an excuse to control the behavior of others.
Also, to everyone who's saying "Drugs kill? Funny, I'm still alive." Well, those that have died can't very well speak out, can they? It's the same game that big tobacco plays so well.
Wow, that's some rich irony. The tobacco companies have survived by manipulating the scientific community such that any research that supports their view is exalted while any research that disagrees is suppressed and maligned. The drug war has done the same. Aren't you a little backwards on this one?
In conclusion, I just wasted the last hour of my life writing this. The parent post wasn't, by any objective measure, worth my time or my energy. But that's why the drug war continues. Because it's not worth my time to write my congressman. It's not worth my time to fight against idiocy in government. It's not worth my time to respond to idiots on slashdot. It's better to sit back and idly watch while my country becomes a police state dominated by repressive drug warriors and their spawn.
After all, won't someone please think of the children?
I don't think I have ever recieved a spam from uu.net (at least, not one that admits it in the header).
That depends on what you mean by "admits". If you look through the Received: headers, specifically the last non-forged one, it's extremely frequent to find the uu.net IP addrs. For example:
Return-Path: <jcrand1975@implus.at>
Delivered-To: no@spam.com
Received: from ntserver.kvadro.ee (mail.kvadro.ee [213.168.23.75])
by shackman.divisionbyzero.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CEAABB9F48
for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 12:12:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bungee5 (unverified [63.24.141.248]) by ntserver.kvadro.ee
(EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ;
Sat, 18 Nov 2000 21:25:45 +0200
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 21:25:45 +0200
To: jcrand1975@implus.at
From: jcrand1975@implus.at
Comments: Authenticated sender is <jcrand1975@implus.at>
Reply-To: jcrand1975@implus.at
Subject: New - 15-Million Fresh E-Mail Addresses
Message-Id:
You'll notice the last Received: header points to a 63.* addr. Hello uu.net.
By "major isp's", I was referring to ISP's that serve a lot of private cutomers... AOL, Juno, Qwest, MSN, etc. etc. not spine providers and business-centered ISP's like uu.net and mr.net
Plenty of spam can be traced back to AOL dialup IP addrs, and uu.net owns many of the IP addrs that small ISPs use.
This is not to mention the proliferation of non IP logging relaying SMTP servers from major ISPs, most notably @home. Or all the people running relaying sendmail on their redhat boxen.
Since most real spam originates from some ".backwater" national domain
Huh. Most of my spam comes from uu.net.
and spoofs the recipient's ID into the From: field,
What's to stop this software from doing the same?
it seems to me that the fake spam would be fairly easy to spot.
It would look just like real spam unless you specifically checked for the
type of mangling done by this program (assuming it does leave some kind
of fingerprint).
If it looks like spam, but comes from a major ISP, and is delivered to only one person, it is a fairly good guess that it is really a coded message.
No, it's not a good guess. Major ISPs (especially uu.net) send out
massive amounts of spam. As for delivered to only one person,
most spam forges the To: header, so there isn't any clue in the email itself
as to how many people are receiving it. Unless the sniffing system kept a
queryable database across all it's nodes, it wouldn't be able to detect the
multiple connections from the originating mailserver to it's target
mailservers.
Even if there was such a database, the whole point was to make
carnivore/echelon apply more logic than just "basic" spam detection.
If you make the FBI/NSA have a queryable database of all active tcp
connections on the entire internet at all times, then you're achieved your
goal.
I guess my point is that email providers have been blocking their trademarks from use for years, and some even block potentially offensive words altogether. I wouldn't have even gotten "sucks" past some webmail providers. No one seems to have gotten upset over intellectual freedom in these cases, at least not enough to post a story on/. Considering email usernames constitute a large part of people's identities on the net, why shouldn't we be able to use any username we please so long as it's not already in use? I've heard all the arguments for potential abuse (I work for a webmail provider) but I'm still not convinced.
The reason why no one cares is that no one has to use Hotmail, or any other webmail shite. You can easily register your own domains and give yourself any email addr you want.
DNS, though, is a different beast alltogether. While it is possible to set up your own root DNS servers, it's kind of pointless since no one will use them. Thus, we are stuck using the current DNS system, which means that domain dispute resolution policies affect us all.
That's right, ATT was facing growing competition, so they had the government declare them a "natural monopoly." In 1984, the government was just trying to undue the mistake it had made 60 years earlier.
This has to be one of the most asinine conclusions I've ever seen. Did you even read the rest of the Britannica entry? Specifically, the part you left out in the middle of your quote. I assume you did, since it tells a very different story than the selective quote you provided.
For those who are too lazy to read for themselves, here's the part tylerh left out:
Vail was brought back into the company as president in 1907, and from then until his retirement in 1919 he molded AT&T into virtually the organization that lasted until 1984. Vail set about trying to achieve a monopoly for AT&T over the American telecommunications industry. He consolidated the Bell associated companies into state and regional organizations, acquired many previously independent companies, and achieved control over Western Union in 1910.
In other words, AT&T used standard laissez faire capitalist techniques to achieve their monopoly. But what about the Graham-Willis Act of 1921? It didn't create the monopoly; ATT had done that themselves. Do a google search on it, and you'll find that (essentially) all it did was exempt telcos from the Sherman Antitrust Act.
So what's the moral of the story? Aside from the fact that tylerh has no problem using selective quoting to deceive the lazy, what we see is that ATT basically bought a law that gave them (temporary) immunity from antitrust prosecution. The gov't didn't create ATT, or do anything to create it's monopoly. They simply refused to use federal law to restrain ATT in 1921. To imply that ATT used a gov't granted monopoly to put down their "growing competition" is sheer intellectual dishonesty.
As an enourmous fan of the Dune novels (I've read each of them more than 20 times each), I had high hopes for this series. I though the first Dune movie was a horrible travesty, since it kept the original dialogue yet perverted the entire meaning of the story. So I approached this series with zero expectations, and a reasonable degree of hope.
I wasn't let down in the least.
Before I go any further, let explain why I found the original movie so distubing. The main theme of the first two Dune books was that Paul Atreides, the Mentat Emperor, was not a god, but a man. It was his godhead which lead directly to his downfall. The later Dune books were not much more than a detailed analysis of power and it's consequences, both to those who wield it and those they control.
The first movie, though, completely threw all that away. Paul was able to shatter stone by the power of his voice, and bring rain to a desert planet. These powers were supposed to be figurative, not literal, and by granting them to Muad'dib, the director of the original movie showed a complete lack of understanding of the inner meaning of the books.
So when I heard that a new series was coming out, I didn't care if they kept the original dialogue. I didn't care if they played around with some of the characters' personas. I didn't care if the timeline was the exact same, or if the political manuverings were different. All I wanted were two things:
Keep the original meaning and message
Have some cool CG imagery
I think part I did a reasonable job of these goals. I could whine and bitch about the collapse of the terms "Lisan Al Gaib", "Kwisatz Haderach", and "Muad'dib" into one phrase, with none of the distinctions. However, a movie is not a novel, and I don't expect such subtle distinctions to be made. I could also whinge about the Lady Jessica being a whimpering fool, or Duke Leto looking like an insurance salesman, but these things don't change the meaning of the story.
This is not to mention that part I had some great things, like the casting of Duncan and Gurney. In the books, Duncan was a cat-like killer and lover of women. In the original movie, he looked like a Sunday school teacher; in the series, he fit the mold exactly. Ditto for Gurney; he was supposed to be a "great ugly lump of a man", yet he was played by Patrick Stewart in the original movie. WTF?
For those of you who are now noticing that I'm holding the two movies to a double standard, you're entirely correct. The series is making no effort to stay precisely true to every nuance of the books, so I'm not going to castigate it as long as it stays true to the meaning. The original movie, though, went so far as to include, verbatim, the inner monologues, so I think it's entirely fair to blast it for poor casting.
Given my two goals above, there was one very serious place where the new series disappointed me: ornithopters. WHY THE FUCK CAN'T SOMEONE COME UP WITH A GOOD CGI ORNITHOPTER? Did they try and fail, or did they fail to try?
In closing, though I'll have to wait for the conclusion to part III, I'm very optimistic about the outcome. If they plan on making DM and CoD, I'll be curious to see how the recharacterization of Princess Irulan pans out, since she plays a fairly large role in those two books that is not consistent with her current characterization. But I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.
To get off-track a bit, I'm curious as to why RMS has not waged a campaign against Gnutella. It's not GNU is any sense whatsoever. What is Gnutella's license, anyway. It better not be GPL.
gtk-gnutella (the gtk+ linux gnutella client) is GPL.
Why on earth would anyone try and teach a newcommer to programming something like C++? It's my view that any langage based on the C syntax is not suitable for beginners.
Why, exactly? The C syntax is used by C, C++, Java, and Perl, which are arguably the most common languages in use today. Why would you teach beginners something that they would never use, rather then something they would use everyday as programmers? What syntax do you find easier to understand?
Pascal, Python, maybe Java are all great languages for a beginning programmer.
Umm... Java is pure C/C++ syntax.
C/C++ syntax is too weird for a beginner, and you need to understand too much about memory & pointer to do anything useful.
This is simply not true. I worked as a TA for an intro programming class taught in C++, and they never even mentioned pointers. The only discussion of memory was when I would explain to the students why their programs crashed when they went beyond the bounds of an array. Otherwise, they were perfectly functional without any such knowledge.
Of course, to be competent in C++ requires a thorough understanding of memory issues, but we're talking about beginners here.
I mean... no native string type in C? How stupid is that when you think about it?
You're absolutely correct, it is stupid. However, since the topic here is C++, and C++ does have a native string type, what the hell is your point?
First, let me say that for someone who "thoroughly disagree[s] with the very negative and aggressive means of disparaging and attacking", you show a remarkable aptitude for it.
Now for a point by point rebuttal:
KDE attempted from the very beginning to become the standard desktop of Linux by using a non-free toolkit.
Apologies for the strong language, but that is an outright lie. How, in the name of Linus, can one attempt to become the standard Linux desktop by using a non-free toolkit?
Geez, are you really this obtuse? Give the guy a break for having less than perfect english. By 'by', he obviously means 'while', or simply ','. His gripe is that it's kind of lame to build a free desktop on top of a non-free library. Can you really not grok this, or are you just being an asshole?
KDE unfortunately has a long tradition in violating the free software spirit
This starts out as an outright flame. Using the shield of the 'free software spirit' isn't the best way to begin an argument.
And calling something an 'outright flame' is a good way to start an argument? Regardless, if you'd taken the time to really read this you'd realize that his 5 points are delineating exactly in what way he thinks KDE has violated the 'free software spirit'. Thus he's not using this as a 'shield', it's his entire argument.
Quite a few people (BP, JWZ, ESR, RMS, etc) would wildly differ on what that spirit is, and how it's best interpreted.
Given that we're talking about free software (not open source or some other bastardization), I think RMS' interpretation would be the only relevant.
Quoting it as your main point of thrust to put the KDE project in a bad light will just evoke hatred and disgust from many.
Well, it definitely invoked hatred and disgust from you. As for me, I think it's a completely valid beef to have with a project.
When the free QT replacement Harmony was still in development (it achieved a rather advanced state!) the KDE project refused to agree to switch to this toolkit in the future
Of course they refused to switch to it at some later undisclosed point in time...
You seem a little confused as to what Dr. Bechley wanted here. He wanted something along the lines of "Yes, we (KDE) care enough about licensing issues to switch to Harmony if/when it becomes ready. In the meantime, we'll try to limit our usage of new Qt features, in order to make the Harmony people's lives easier." From what I've read here and elsewhere, the KDE people refused to even consider switching, regardless of the state of Harmony. And KDE's insistence on using new Qt features meant that Harmony would be in a state of permanent 'catch up'.
I will say goodbye to all KDE stuff and will now only use Gnome which is rapidly evolving into a comparably mature desktop environment
You see, this is how major flamewars start. You criticise the ATTITUDE and debatably also the LEGALITY of KDE maintainers and licenses, and follow it up by, quite frankly, only thinly veiling 'GNOME ROCKS! KDE SUX!'.
First, I think it's perfectly valid to criticize both the 'ATTITUDE' and 'LEGALITY' of people who consistently violate the GPL. How else do you think such violations should be criticized?
Secondly, there was no 'GNOME ROCKS! KDE SUX!', either explicit or implicit, in his closing. Dr. Blechly claims not only to have used KDE since the early betas, but also to have gotten into a flame war with Bruce Perens for supporting them. No where did he claim that GNOME was in any way superior to KDE in technical terms; he simply said that GNOME was the equal of KDE (or would be soon). This hardly qualifies as 'GNOME ROCKS! KDE SUX!'.
Keep cool. I'm not sure I've managed to do so myself, and there's certainly a lot of finger-pointing in the lines above, but let's try to keep calm.
Well, I've made no effort to keep calm, nor have I made any effort to hide my flaming and finger-pointing. I think it's the height of absurdity to ask for calm while flaming away madly, but that's just me.
This thread received many more replies than I anticipated. Yours struck me with both its mischaracterization and its condescending tone.
The tone wasn't meant to be condescending at all, but simply an expression of annoyance. I've had this same argument many times over the years, and every time I have it it gets more irritating. And yet I keep having it (hello, masochism).
Thank you for the review of the Bill of Rights. I simply did not read it enough times in all the law, government, and criminal justice courses I took en route to my diploma.
The arguments I made were very dependent on the exact wording of the Bill of Rights. Given that, I think it's entirely reasonable to quote them to preface my argument.
In the same manner, we may assume that these authors intended the Second Amendment to provide protection of an individual's life an liberty. Indeed, the concept may have been so self-evident that they would have found such a statement absurd -- like guaranteeing a right to breathe air.
This is the exact reason why I quoted the 2nd amendment. Nowhere does it mention an individual protecting his life or liberty. It only talks about "the security of a free State" (and it even goes so far as to say that these militias should be "well regulated").
But more generally, you are completely correct that the ACLU takes a very broad view of the 1st amendment, and a very narrow one of the 2nd. My post addressed that specifically in that the 1st amendment provides no caveats to the freedoms enumerated therein. The 2nd, though, spends half its time giving a caveat. Thus, the ACLU is completely justified in taking a much more narrow view.
The part of your reply which galls me the most, however, is your assertion that I am pining for bygone "good old" days of racism and intolerance.
Again, you missed my point. I was saying that when people make general statements about "what is wrong with America", there is an implicit assumption that things weren't always this way. Frequently, the 1950s is used (nowadays) as an example of such a time, when in fact I think the world was a much worse place back then with respect to common human decency.
I don't think I ever stated or insinuated that you personally preferred those days. In fact, the words I used were "common perception", which says nothing about you or your opinions.
What upsets me is that we continually choose to create scapegoats (drugs, television, or corporations) rather than attack the real problem.
I agree with you completely that we as a people would rather find scapegoats than deal with real problems. Where I disagree is the assertion that the world today is worse than in the past. I think that as a species, humans do a far better job today of being nice to each other than any other time in history.
I agree completely that there is no shame in supporting the efforts of the ACLU to preserve the freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights. However, the Second Amendment is one of those freedoms and the ACLU chooses to ignore or "interpret" it in a such a way that it becomes meaningless. Therefore, painting the ACLU as the Grand Defenders of the Bill of Rights omits a pretty important detail.
I hear this frequently from ACLU detractors, yet I've always found their positions on issues to be completely consistent and logical. Let's look at the First and Second Amendments:
AMENDMENT I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As you can see, there are no caveats here. No laws can be passed to supress speech, religion, assembly, or governmental petitions. Period.
AMENDMENT II A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
You'll notice that fully half of the second amendment is talking about why the right to keep arms should not be infringed. I think most of us will agree that today's militias are not necessary to the security of a free state; in fact, given the conduct of militias today they are anything but. Given this, it is entirely reasonable to accept restrictions on the second amendment, since the amendment itself provides a huge caveat.
Just for kicks, let's look at the Fourth amendment too:
AMENDMENT IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You notice that similar to the case of the 2nd, the 4th amendment doesn't say "no search and seizure". It provides numerous caveats as to when search and seizure is acceptable, and how it should be carried out. The ACLU only fights laws that go well beyond these boundaries (such as no-knock warrants).
Furthermore, the attacks on the "War on Drugs" and conservative politicians in general were completely unnecessary in this forum. The same drug policies have continued for eight years under Clinton's administration -- does that make them ok? The high rate of imprisonment in this country continues under a Democratic administration, yet the implication is that it's the fault of Republicans.
The implication is that it's the fault of authoritarian policies which are traditionally associated with conservative administrations. Clinton has shown numerous times that he's afraid of looking 'soft' on crime and other issues, and thus he supports many positions usually relegated to conservatives.
If you think Clinton is a liberal, then you obviously known nothing of left wing politics.
Yes, there is something wrong in America, but it is not a legislative problem as much as it is a social one. Parts of our collective culture have given up the Golden Rule.
Ahhh, nostalgia for a time that never existed. How obnoxious.
In every decade of this century (except possibly the late 1930s), there has been a common perception that "there is something wrong in America". The irony is that the time most usually associated with this "golden age" is the 1950s. In the 1950s, government was repressive, kids were in gangs, everyone was terrified of teenagers, men beat their wives, women were regarded as second class citizens, blacks were treated abominably, etc. I think that if anything, I prefer the world today.
It takes a certain amount of slime to market to people under age 13 anyway - since they don't have any money, you have to brainwash them to pester their parents. As someone who has worked extensively with young people I can tell you that statement has no merit. I can't tell you how often I've been amazed to find myself among a group of adolescents with more cash in their pockets than I had in my checking account. How can you say that this statement has no merit? You post didn't contradict the statement, it confirmed it. The whole point of the original statement was that the only way kids get money is from their parents, which is exactly the same thing you said.
Defining a way to send the e-mail attachments as pure 8-bit data (instead of fluffy encoded garbage that inflates the data size by one third for nothing) would be a good start...
Since you obviously know nothing about email, let me suggest that you read RFCs 821, 822, 1421, and 1521. There are very good reasons why pure 8-bit data is not allowed.
The simple fact is that 8-bit data would crash most mail servers/gateways. Base64 encoding allows 8-bit data to pass through any RFC 821/822 mailserver without doing anything evil. Do you really think that this is "for nothing"? Do you suggest that every mailserver/client be updated so you can make your attachments smaller?
"Due to the DVD standards being foolishly secret, this is not a full featured DVD player: you will not get any of the fancy interactive features, but you will be able to play the movies back."
I've been using this software for about 5 months now. The only thing it can't do is navigate menus, which is completely unnecessary for watching movies.
Let me tell you why nobody listens (besides the fact that it is for dxr2 only). We want a DVD player that is Free in every sense of the word. I can already play DVDs in Windows.
In what sense of the word is this not Free? You don't have to pay for it, and you get the source. Are you bitching about having to buy a decoder card? Unless you have a monstrously powerful system, hardware decoding is the only way to go.
You'll an open source driver/player for creative dxr2 decoder cards. Even better, the player ignores region codes.
Re:CNN has a report on this.
on
Protesting DMCA
·
· Score: 1
Is this accurate? Can anyone provide a link to a commercial or non-commercial Linux player authorized by the DVD-CCA?
There is a driver/player using the Creative dxr2 card that works well under Linux. Since the CSS decoding is done in hardware, all the code is both legal and open source.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the wikipedia page on FRAND:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FRAND
The actual forbidden behavior is "requiring licensees to license their own IP to the licensor for free (free grant backs)". No one has suggested that Samsung wanted a free grant back, only to negotiate terms for cross licensing.
All you iTards seriously need to drink less Kool-Aid...
No one should ever rely on the network layer for security, because networks are by nature insecure. Run traceroute sometime if you're curious to see how many nodes are located between your computer and your bank/stock broker/webmail. Every one of those nodes can see every one of your packets. The only solution is to use application layer encryption, and once you've done that, it doesn't matter who is spying on your traffic.
You'll notice that this study was done by "AirTight Networks, a wireless security company." In other words, they are fear-mongering in order to try to sell more of their products. No matter how secure you make your wireless network, it still won't stop anyone even 1 hop away from seeing all of your traffic. As security professionals, the researchers from AirTight Networks know this, which makes their study all the more stupid and despicable.
If that post were in a moderated environment it would be modded to -1 for troll.
When you say, "it would be modded", what you really mean is "I would mod it to -1 for troll." I'd personally go with 5, with a nice mixture of insightful and funny.
You see (or, more importantly, you probably don't see), different people have different viewpoints, especially when it comes to the intersection of legislation, morality, and freedom. Personally, I think DEA agents are more deserving of jail time than drug dealers/users, but that's just me. Unlike you, I don't make the mistake of thinking that everyone agrees with me.
It's hardly worthy of a Slashdot story.
After a casual reading, I see no glaring grammatical or logical flaws, but I do see a funny, thought provoking essay satirizing the current state of the drug war. In what way, other than offending your sense of morality, does this qualify as "hardly worthy of a Slashdot story"?
If anything needs revamping it's the US Durg Schedules stating 'how bad' each drug is.
They say nothing of the sort. They attempt to balance abuse potential against medical usefulness (the degree to which they bungle this is a topic for another rant). Your personal concept of "bad" has nothing to do with it.
But more interesting to me is the fact that you seem to be completely accepting the rest of the drug war. Do you have a problem with the erosion of the 4th amendment? How about having people shot in their beds by DEA agents who went to the wrong house? What about having your car seized because one of your friends smoked a joint in there and left the roach in the ashtray?
Oh yeah, as long as it doesn't happen to you, it's okay.
This is a political document, fueling most of the problems in the drug war.
This is a political document? What about the rest of the drug war? Do you actually believe that the rest of it is somehow medically/socially justifiable?
While I'd agree that several items on the list need to be examined (marijuana for one) and several not on the list (tobacco) should be considered in an environment not tainted by politics or economics,
So, what you're saying is that congress should examine a political document in the absense of economics or politics. Sit back and think about this for a minute, and when you realize how abysmally moronic it sounds then you can read on.
But even worse than that, you seem to like the idea of placing tobacco onto the list of regulated drugs. Let's think about this for a minute. Tobacco has no medical uses, and it kills a significant percentage of its users. It should clearly be classified as a schedule 1 drug, which means it should be completely outlawed. We should spray the fields of North Carolina with carcinogenic herbicides (fuck the redneck farmers! if they don't want the US gov't to give them cancer, they shouldn't be growing that damn tobacco to start with!). We should execute anyone who lets his little brother bum a cigarette; anyone caught smoking within 100 yards of a school should be publicly tortured to death.
Personally, I'm looking forward to the crime wave this will generate when cigarettes cost $100 per pack. I want my law abiding friends turning to theft and prostitution to support their $300/day cigarette habits. If they end up killing me for the cigarette buts in my ashtray, well, that's the price we have to pay to keep our country great.
I'm under no illusion that drugs like cocaine, heroin, and PCP are extremely dangerous,
Great! I'm not under that illusion either.... wait a minute. You think they are dangerous, don't you? Then you said the exact opposite of what you meant. Congrats.
and should be kept out of the hands of children.
"Won't someone please think of the children!?!" - Moe Sizlak
So you think the drug war is justified because of some unnamed fear of some child doing some drug? Did you read this on the DARE website, or were you indoctrinated in some kind school program?
Kids have always had access to drugs, and always will. I had no problems getting weed when I was 13, and I don't think kids 50 years from now will either. Society hasn't collapsed from the last 6000 years of kids trying drugs when their parents weren't looking, and it's not going to collapse tomorrow.
More importantly, it doesn't matter how many manatory minimums are enacted, or how many "get tough" legislators ride a wave of fear and loathing into political power. Drugs will still be here, and totalitarian fuckheads will still use "the children" as an excuse to control the behavior of others.
Also, to everyone who's saying "Drugs kill? Funny, I'm still alive." Well, those that have died can't very well speak out, can they? It's the same game that big tobacco plays so well.
Wow, that's some rich irony. The tobacco companies have survived by manipulating the scientific community such that any research that supports their view is exalted while any research that disagrees is suppressed and maligned. The drug war has done the same. Aren't you a little backwards on this one?
In conclusion, I just wasted the last hour of my life writing this. The parent post wasn't, by any objective measure, worth my time or my energy. But that's why the drug war continues. Because it's not worth my time to write my congressman. It's not worth my time to fight against idiocy in government. It's not worth my time to respond to idiots on slashdot. It's better to sit back and idly watch while my country becomes a police state dominated by repressive drug warriors and their spawn.
After all, won't someone please think of the children?
I disagree.
What the kid did was wrong.
How exactly is making fun of a public figure wrong? Does your moral outrage extend to every sketch comedy skit ever done about any politician?
The principal could have sued for slander,
No. Slander involves oral communication.
libel
No. For libel, you have to have written statements that are both untrue and believable. Parody doesn't count.
defamation of character, or whatever. (IANAL)
No. Thanks to Larry Flynt, we all have the right to make as much fun of any public official as we want.
But it should have been the principal as an individual, not the school.
There was nothing the principal could do legally, so he resorted to petty harassment. Welcome to the US Education system.
I'd love to see the principal turn around and do that now, and get the money back from the kid.
Yes, the kid should be sued for standing up to the system. Otherwise, how will we turn kids into the mindless drones society wants them to be?
Of course, only the lawyers are getting rich...
Yeah, those damn ACLU lawyers are so rich and greedy, they volunteer time defending people's first amendment rights.
Can you do us all a favor and at least try to remove your head from your ass?
That depends on what you mean by "admits". If you look through the Received: headers, specifically the last non-forged one, it's extremely frequent to find the uu.net IP addrs. For example:
Return-Path: <jcrand1975@implus.at>
Delivered-To: no@spam.com
Received: from ntserver.kvadro.ee (mail.kvadro.ee [213.168.23.75]) by shackman.divisionbyzero.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CEAABB9F48 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 12:12:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bungee5 (unverified [63.24.141.248]) by ntserver.kvadro.ee (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 21:25:45 +0200
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 21:25:45 +0200
To: jcrand1975@implus.at
From: jcrand1975@implus.at
Comments: Authenticated sender is <jcrand1975@implus.at>
Reply-To: jcrand1975@implus.at
Subject: New - 15-Million Fresh E-Mail Addresses
Message-Id:
You'll notice the last Received: header points to a 63.* addr. Hello uu.net.
By "major isp's", I was referring to ISP's that serve a lot of private cutomers... AOL, Juno, Qwest, MSN, etc. etc. not spine providers and business-centered ISP's like uu.net and mr.net
Plenty of spam can be traced back to AOL dialup IP addrs, and uu.net owns many of the IP addrs that small ISPs use.
This is not to mention the proliferation of non IP logging relaying SMTP servers from major ISPs, most notably @home. Or all the people running relaying sendmail on their redhat boxen.
Huh. Most of my spam comes from uu.net.
and spoofs the recipient's ID into the From: field,
What's to stop this software from doing the same?
it seems to me that the fake spam would be fairly easy to spot.
It would look just like real spam unless you specifically checked for the type of mangling done by this program (assuming it does leave some kind of fingerprint).
If it looks like spam, but comes from a major ISP, and is delivered to only one person, it is a fairly good guess that it is really a coded message.
No, it's not a good guess. Major ISPs (especially uu.net) send out massive amounts of spam. As for delivered to only one person, most spam forges the To: header, so there isn't any clue in the email itself as to how many people are receiving it. Unless the sniffing system kept a queryable database across all it's nodes, it wouldn't be able to detect the multiple connections from the originating mailserver to it's target mailservers.
Even if there was such a database, the whole point was to make carnivore/echelon apply more logic than just "basic" spam detection. If you make the FBI/NSA have a queryable database of all active tcp connections on the entire internet at all times, then you're achieved your goal.
The reason why no one cares is that no one has to use Hotmail, or any other webmail shite. You can easily register your own domains and give yourself any email addr you want.
DNS, though, is a different beast alltogether. While it is possible to set up your own root DNS servers, it's kind of pointless since no one will use them. Thus, we are stuck using the current DNS system, which means that domain dispute resolution policies affect us all.
This has to be one of the most asinine conclusions I've ever seen. Did you even read the rest of the Britannica entry? Specifically, the part you left out in the middle of your quote. I assume you did, since it tells a very different story than the selective quote you provided.
For those who are too lazy to read for themselves, here's the part tylerh left out:
Vail was brought back into the company as president in 1907, and from then until his retirement in 1919 he molded AT&T into virtually the organization that lasted until 1984. Vail set about trying to achieve a monopoly for AT&T over the American telecommunications industry. He consolidated the Bell associated companies into state and regional organizations, acquired many previously independent companies, and achieved control over Western Union in 1910.
In other words, AT&T used standard laissez faire capitalist techniques to achieve their monopoly. But what about the Graham-Willis Act of 1921? It didn't create the monopoly; ATT had done that themselves. Do a google search on it, and you'll find that (essentially) all it did was exempt telcos from the Sherman Antitrust Act.
So what's the moral of the story? Aside from the fact that tylerh has no problem using selective quoting to deceive the lazy, what we see is that ATT basically bought a law that gave them (temporary) immunity from antitrust prosecution. The gov't didn't create ATT, or do anything to create it's monopoly. They simply refused to use federal law to restrain ATT in 1921. To imply that ATT used a gov't granted monopoly to put down their "growing competition" is sheer intellectual dishonesty.
Ha. I didn't realize what I'd written until after I wrote it... then I started wondering if anyone would pick up on it. Congrats.
I wasn't let down in the least.
Before I go any further, let explain why I found the original movie so distubing. The main theme of the first two Dune books was that Paul Atreides, the Mentat Emperor, was not a god, but a man. It was his godhead which lead directly to his downfall. The later Dune books were not much more than a detailed analysis of power and it's consequences, both to those who wield it and those they control.
The first movie, though, completely threw all that away. Paul was able to shatter stone by the power of his voice, and bring rain to a desert planet. These powers were supposed to be figurative, not literal, and by granting them to Muad'dib, the director of the original movie showed a complete lack of understanding of the inner meaning of the books.
So when I heard that a new series was coming out, I didn't care if they kept the original dialogue. I didn't care if they played around with some of the characters' personas. I didn't care if the timeline was the exact same, or if the political manuverings were different. All I wanted were two things:
I think part I did a reasonable job of these goals. I could whine and bitch about the collapse of the terms "Lisan Al Gaib", "Kwisatz Haderach", and "Muad'dib" into one phrase, with none of the distinctions. However, a movie is not a novel, and I don't expect such subtle distinctions to be made. I could also whinge about the Lady Jessica being a whimpering fool, or Duke Leto looking like an insurance salesman, but these things don't change the meaning of the story.
This is not to mention that part I had some great things, like the casting of Duncan and Gurney. In the books, Duncan was a cat-like killer and lover of women. In the original movie, he looked like a Sunday school teacher; in the series, he fit the mold exactly. Ditto for Gurney; he was supposed to be a "great ugly lump of a man", yet he was played by Patrick Stewart in the original movie. WTF?
For those of you who are now noticing that I'm holding the two movies to a double standard, you're entirely correct. The series is making no effort to stay precisely true to every nuance of the books, so I'm not going to castigate it as long as it stays true to the meaning. The original movie, though, went so far as to include, verbatim, the inner monologues, so I think it's entirely fair to blast it for poor casting.
Given my two goals above, there was one very serious place where the new series disappointed me: ornithopters. WHY THE FUCK CAN'T SOMEONE COME UP WITH A GOOD CGI ORNITHOPTER? Did they try and fail, or did they fail to try?
In closing, though I'll have to wait for the conclusion to part III, I'm very optimistic about the outcome. If they plan on making DM and CoD, I'll be curious to see how the recharacterization of Princess Irulan pans out, since she plays a fairly large role in those two books that is not consistent with her current characterization. But I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.
gtk-gnutella (the gtk+ linux gnutella client) is GPL.
Why, exactly? The C syntax is used by C, C++, Java, and Perl, which are arguably the most common languages in use today. Why would you teach beginners something that they would never use, rather then something they would use everyday as programmers? What syntax do you find easier to understand?
Pascal, Python, maybe Java are all great languages for a beginning programmer.
Umm... Java is pure C/C++ syntax.
C/C++ syntax is too weird for a beginner, and you need to understand too much about memory & pointer to do anything useful.
This is simply not true. I worked as a TA for an intro programming class taught in C++, and they never even mentioned pointers. The only discussion of memory was when I would explain to the students why their programs crashed when they went beyond the bounds of an array. Otherwise, they were perfectly functional without any such knowledge.
Of course, to be competent in C++ requires a thorough understanding of memory issues, but we're talking about beginners here.
I mean... no native string type in C? How stupid is that when you think about it?
You're absolutely correct, it is stupid. However, since the topic here is C++, and C++ does have a native string type, what the hell is your point?
Now for a point by point rebuttal:
KDE attempted from the very beginning to become the standard desktop of Linux by using a non-free toolkit.
Apologies for the strong language, but that is an outright lie. How, in the name of Linus, can one attempt to become the standard Linux desktop by using a non-free toolkit?
Geez, are you really this obtuse? Give the guy a break for having less than perfect english. By 'by', he obviously means 'while', or simply ','. His gripe is that it's kind of lame to build a free desktop on top of a non-free library. Can you really not grok this, or are you just being an asshole?
KDE unfortunately has a long tradition in violating the free software spirit
This starts out as an outright flame. Using the shield of the 'free software spirit' isn't the best way to begin an argument.
And calling something an 'outright flame' is a good way to start an argument? Regardless, if you'd taken the time to really read this you'd realize that his 5 points are delineating exactly in what way he thinks KDE has violated the 'free software spirit'. Thus he's not using this as a 'shield', it's his entire argument.
Quite a few people (BP, JWZ, ESR, RMS, etc) would wildly differ on what that spirit is, and how it's best interpreted.
Given that we're talking about free software (not open source or some other bastardization), I think RMS' interpretation would be the only relevant.
Quoting it as your main point of thrust to put the KDE project in a bad light will just evoke hatred and disgust from many.
Well, it definitely invoked hatred and disgust from you. As for me, I think it's a completely valid beef to have with a project.
When the free QT replacement Harmony was still in development (it achieved a rather advanced state!) the KDE project refused to agree to switch to this toolkit in the future
Of course they refused to switch to it at some later undisclosed point in time...
You seem a little confused as to what Dr. Bechley wanted here. He wanted something along the lines of "Yes, we (KDE) care enough about licensing issues to switch to Harmony if/when it becomes ready. In the meantime, we'll try to limit our usage of new Qt features, in order to make the Harmony people's lives easier." From what I've read here and elsewhere, the KDE people refused to even consider switching, regardless of the state of Harmony. And KDE's insistence on using new Qt features meant that Harmony would be in a state of permanent 'catch up'.
I will say goodbye to all KDE stuff and will now only use Gnome which is rapidly evolving into a comparably mature desktop environment
You see, this is how major flamewars start. You criticise the ATTITUDE and debatably also the LEGALITY of KDE maintainers and licenses, and follow it up by, quite frankly, only thinly veiling 'GNOME ROCKS! KDE SUX!'.
First, I think it's perfectly valid to criticize both the 'ATTITUDE' and 'LEGALITY' of people who consistently violate the GPL. How else do you think such violations should be criticized?
Secondly, there was no 'GNOME ROCKS! KDE SUX!', either explicit or implicit, in his closing. Dr. Blechly claims not only to have used KDE since the early betas, but also to have gotten into a flame war with Bruce Perens for supporting them. No where did he claim that GNOME was in any way superior to KDE in technical terms; he simply said that GNOME was the equal of KDE (or would be soon). This hardly qualifies as 'GNOME ROCKS! KDE SUX!'.
Keep cool. I'm not sure I've managed to do so myself, and there's certainly a lot of finger-pointing in the lines above, but let's try to keep calm.
Well, I've made no effort to keep calm, nor have I made any effort to hide my flaming and finger-pointing. I think it's the height of absurdity to ask for calm while flaming away madly, but that's just me.
Well, check out what Theo de Raadt's post to bugtraq after a FreeBSD buffer overflow was discovered.
The tone wasn't meant to be condescending at all, but simply an expression of annoyance. I've had this same argument many times over the years, and every time I have it it gets more irritating. And yet I keep having it (hello, masochism).
Thank you for the review of the Bill of Rights. I simply did not read it enough times in all the law, government, and criminal justice courses I took en route to my diploma.
The arguments I made were very dependent on the exact wording of the Bill of Rights. Given that, I think it's entirely reasonable to quote them to preface my argument.
In the same manner, we may assume that these authors intended the Second Amendment to provide protection of an individual's life an liberty. Indeed, the concept may have been so self-evident that they would have found such a statement absurd -- like guaranteeing a right to breathe air.
This is the exact reason why I quoted the 2nd amendment. Nowhere does it mention an individual protecting his life or liberty. It only talks about "the security of a free State" (and it even goes so far as to say that these militias should be "well regulated").
But more generally, you are completely correct that the ACLU takes a very broad view of the 1st amendment, and a very narrow one of the 2nd. My post addressed that specifically in that the 1st amendment provides no caveats to the freedoms enumerated therein. The 2nd, though, spends half its time giving a caveat. Thus, the ACLU is completely justified in taking a much more narrow view.
The part of your reply which galls me the most, however, is your assertion that I am pining for bygone "good old" days of racism and intolerance.
Again, you missed my point. I was saying that when people make general statements about "what is wrong with America", there is an implicit assumption that things weren't always this way. Frequently, the 1950s is used (nowadays) as an example of such a time, when in fact I think the world was a much worse place back then with respect to common human decency.
I don't think I ever stated or insinuated that you personally preferred those days. In fact, the words I used were "common perception", which says nothing about you or your opinions.
What upsets me is that we continually choose to create scapegoats (drugs, television, or corporations) rather than attack the real problem.
I agree with you completely that we as a people would rather find scapegoats than deal with real problems. Where I disagree is the assertion that the world today is worse than in the past. I think that as a species, humans do a far better job today of being nice to each other than any other time in history.
I hear this frequently from ACLU detractors, yet I've always found their positions on issues to be completely consistent and logical. Let's look at the First and Second Amendments:
AMENDMENT I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As you can see, there are no caveats here. No laws can be passed to supress speech, religion, assembly, or governmental petitions. Period.
AMENDMENT II
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
You'll notice that fully half of the second amendment is talking about why the right to keep arms should not be infringed. I think most of us will agree that today's militias are not necessary to the security of a free state; in fact, given the conduct of militias today they are anything but. Given this, it is entirely reasonable to accept restrictions on the second amendment, since the amendment itself provides a huge caveat.
Just for kicks, let's look at the Fourth amendment too:
AMENDMENT IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You notice that similar to the case of the 2nd, the 4th amendment doesn't say "no search and seizure". It provides numerous caveats as to when search and seizure is acceptable, and how it should be carried out. The ACLU only fights laws that go well beyond these boundaries (such as no-knock warrants).
Furthermore, the attacks on the "War on Drugs" and conservative politicians in general were completely unnecessary in this forum. The same drug policies have continued for eight years under Clinton's administration -- does that make them ok? The high rate of imprisonment in this country continues under a Democratic administration, yet the implication is that it's the fault of Republicans.
The implication is that it's the fault of authoritarian policies which are traditionally associated with conservative administrations. Clinton has shown numerous times that he's afraid of looking 'soft' on crime and other issues, and thus he supports many positions usually relegated to conservatives.
If you think Clinton is a liberal, then you obviously known nothing of left wing politics.
Yes, there is something wrong in America, but it is not a legislative problem as much as it is a social one. Parts of our collective culture have given up the Golden Rule.
Ahhh, nostalgia for a time that never existed. How obnoxious.
In every decade of this century (except possibly the late 1930s), there has been a common perception that "there is something wrong in America". The irony is that the time most usually associated with this "golden age" is the 1950s. In the 1950s, government was repressive, kids were in gangs, everyone was terrified of teenagers, men beat their wives, women were regarded as second class citizens, blacks were treated abominably, etc. I think that if anything, I prefer the world today.
It takes a certain amount of slime to market to people under age 13 anyway - since they don't have any money, you have to brainwash them to pester their parents. As someone who has worked extensively with young people I can tell you that statement has no merit. I can't tell you how often I've been amazed to find myself among a group of adolescents with more cash in their pockets than I had in my checking account. How can you say that this statement has no merit? You post didn't contradict the statement, it confirmed it. The whole point of the original statement was that the only way kids get money is from their parents, which is exactly the same thing you said.
Since you obviously know nothing about email, let me suggest that you read RFCs 821, 822, 1421, and 1521. There are very good reasons why pure 8-bit data is not allowed.
The simple fact is that 8-bit data would crash most mail servers/gateways. Base64 encoding allows 8-bit data to pass through any RFC 821/822 mailserver without doing anything evil. Do you really think that this is "for nothing"? Do you suggest that every mailserver/client be updated so you can make your attachments smaller?
From the article:
"Heather Irwin, creative director of Chickclick (a highly navigable, user-friendly and colorfully-designed site)..."
Jon wasn't lumping anyone together under one name. He took the name of one of the websites he was talking about and made a funny title to his story.
But of course, since I'm sure you read the article before spouting off about it, you already knew that.
I've been using this software for about 5 months now. The only thing it can't do is navigate menus, which is completely unnecessary for watching movies.
Let me tell you why nobody listens (besides the fact that it is for dxr2 only). We want a DVD player that is Free in every sense of the word. I can already play DVDs in Windows.
In what sense of the word is this not Free? You don't have to pay for it, and you get the source. Are you bitching about having to buy a decoder card? Unless you have a monstrously powerful system, hardware decoding is the only way to go.
THERE IS AN OPEN SOURCE DVD PLAYER THAT IT LEGAL TO USE
Go to:
Creative's opensource page
You'll an open source driver/player for creative dxr2 decoder cards. Even better, the player ignores region codes.
There is a driver/player using the Creative dxr2 card that works well under Linux. Since the CSS decoding is done in hardware, all the code is both legal and open source.
You can find it at
http://opensource.creative.com/