but who says grandpa and grandma need to move to longhorn as soon as it comes out, when MS is just nowending support for WINNT4.0, as reported recently here on/.?
Grandpa and grandma will be just fine on 2000 or xp, or...and here's the crazy part...even 98. My father in law still uses win3.freaking-1 on a 486, for Christ's sake. Grandpa and grandma will be just fine.
how many people did Al Capone actually pull the trigger and kill?
Same bit. I wouldn't be suprized to find some of these VC's are not just VC's, but sepecifically search out people to put up these little shops. That way, they are protected, as merely being someone who loaned the person money. Get most of the profits, with few of the liabilities.
It would be beautiful to change that - to increase their liability. Like I already said in this post, its like going into a gun store and asking to borrow a gun so you can rob a bank, and promising most of the profits in return. The gun store, if they agreed to that, most certainly should be held liable.
its not the same logic. If you walk into a gun store and say "I'm going to go rob a bank - if you give me a gun, I'll give you 60% of the profits" THEN it would be the same logic.
Without seed money, almost none of these little shops would pop up. A venture capitalist is WELL aware of what the business practices will be. They know more about your company than you do, sometimes...that's not just a cliche' saying, its often a reality.
So if I went into that gun store and asked them to loan me a gun so I could rob a bank, and promised them a large split of the proceeds...and the gun store gave me the money...should they be held partially liable? They didn't actually rob the bank, after all...
if its translated to something readable by the user at their request, then that is done by a a tool on the system. The user merely has pop/whatever access . Its not like they're going to do much that is special (since we're talking Joe-Blow user here, not the DoD)
So, armed with root, you just run that tool yourself. Wow, that was difficult.
..this effects the other person's email in any way? The only way to know would be for them to email the people whose email addresses they've cencored, and ask them to check those particular emails. I wonder if they may have gotten corrupted too due to this, before the buffers were flushed?
I know you think I'm just kicking a dead horse, but...
There was a vulnerability, not an exploit. He wrote something to exploit the vulerability. He then published it. That remains the legal "problem" in what he did. Its not just that he found a problem - he published a way to exploit the problem.
And I know it looks like I'm saying he did a bad thing, when I don't repeat 100 times in each post that I think its dumb that it works that way, but...I think its dumb that it works that way.
Spreadsheets? Those have been around for hundreds of years. The phoenix bios bit? Predates the DMCA, and a pluthera of other statutory laws (and countless court rulings) by a good long while. We, unfortunately, live in a different world now.
what the study didn't bother to check...
on
Sleep Less, Eat More?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
people with more free time are able to do a number of things that others can't do; exercise, spend more time cooking healthy dinners, and above all - sleep. On the other hand, those with less free time (due to having less income, higher stress, more problems to deal with, etc) have less time for exercise, cooking healthy dinners, and above all - sleep.
Good thing I forced my middle-classed self to cook healthy organic dinners, exercise, and etc - despite the free time. Pays off, really.
But writing an exploit from reverse-engineering something, and then publishing said exploit, is a violation of the derivative works clauses. That is the law (however unjust) he broke, that he is being charged with.
at the end of the day, it doesn't end up mattering to me - because I do not use non-free software (or at least nearly-free). So if I am utterly wrong, the impact on me will still be small.
If my comparison to movie theatres isn't perfect, then...blame that on me not being anywhere near the entertainment industry anymore (sans the silly "band" thing, which I refuse to let be anything other than fun).
It was a bad idea to make an example about an example, though...there's been too much digression. Back to the initial thing, its illegal because (among other things) its a derivative work. He made an exploit (derived from the product, and his reverse-engineering of said product), and then *published* it. He published this derivative work without the consent of the copyright holder.
If he had merely figured out how it worked, and just sat smug in that knowledge, he would not have broken any laws. Its by publishing derived [creative] works, that he gets in trouble. If I write a book that is a continuation of the Matrix universe, references all the same characters, and just goes where Matrix3 left off...and did this without getting permission...I'd be conceptually doing the same thing -> publishing a derived work.
But then, by that rationale, *everything* is a derivative work since *nothing* is developed in a void. See Lessig's arguments for this.
Which is one of the major reasons I'm against copyrights protecting against derivative works. My being against it, however, does not change the fact that its *law*.
exploits are derivative because they are derived from the thing they are exploiting. They don't just *happen* to break the thing, they break it because someone reverse-engineered the product. With the knowledge that they gained from that, they created a derived work.
And in this person's case, they then published it.
if you're merely just figuring it out, you're not *engineering*. When you then do something like "publishing exploit codes for a number of vulnerabilities" you are creating a FREAKING DERIVATIVE WORK. The expoit itself is the reverse engineering...it is the derivative work. He published it. BOOM. Therein lies the problem with what he did. He didn't just figure out how it works - if that's all he did, then no one would have ever cared. He figured it out, CREATED an EXPLOIT, and PUBLISHED it.
We know you nitwit! I'm seriously starting to question whether you have a solid grasp of the English language
You know me? Crap! Oh, wait, maybe you meant "We know, you nitwit!" Oh well. Grasp on the English language, indeed.
reverse engineering is not just figuring out how something works. He didn't just figure out how it works. RTFA *nitwit*, or even just the article itself. He *broke* it. "publishing exploit codes for a number of vulnerabilities" is not just figuring something out. He composed derivative works - an exploit - that he then published.
Remove the plank first, man. I'll take care of my own splinter.
Case law is not law - only statutory law is law. Administrative law isn't law either.
one can reverse-engineer something without it being derived from the thing they are reverse engineering. Instead, it just happens to reverse engineer the product, without the engineer doing the reversing ever having looked at the product being reverse engineered. Completely non-derivative work, so...definately not relevant.
anything and everything is completely legal under "fair use." I can buy a gun and shoot everyone - that's a fair use of a gun, right? I can do whatever the hell I wish with whatever I pay money for. If I buy a single aspect of something (be it a license, a timeshare, or whatever) I then own the entire thing. Not just a part, ALL of it.
Good lord, people - I don't think the guy should go to jail. I think its stupid that he, or anyone else, should for pointing out a flaw in an application. I'm not talking about what is right, what is just, what is good...I'm just talking about what IS. In case, administrative, and even statutory law - its illegal. Wish that it weren't, but it is. Proof? there are people in jail already for doing the same thing.
I used to be a DJ for a popular morning show, so I gota say I have at least *some* background in this myself.
YOu don't have to ask for permission for each time you play it, no. YOu have to get license to play it at all. 99% of the time, that comes with no conditions. Sometimes, there are little things you have to do - to play it once, you have to play it 10 times. That sort of thing. Sortof like theatres that had to leave Episode 1 playing for weeks after people stopped watching, because it was part of the condition for being allowed to play it up front. There's more to a license than just a fee...there's the license. Licenses have terms. Some terms are simple. Some are complex.
"fair use" doesn't allow anything you want to put under it. I'm not the one declaring this so - judges are doing that.
Reverse engineering is not protected under fair use. Would that it were! People go to jail for such things, though...quite often, in fact.
And again with the IBM clone thing - there were IBM clones for 2 reasons. 1) IBM licensed some people to make clones. Bad move. 2) The US government stepped in and broke up their monopoly. This wasn't a single event, either - it started with a trickle.
This company doesn't have a monopoly on anti-virus software.
good lord people...look it up! I'm not making this up! Copyright protects derivative works!
The ibm-pc clone industry was able to happen for *one reason alone* - IBM started granting licenses to make clones to a select few people, and then the US government stepped in and declared that they had a monopoly! If the gov were to declare that MS had a monopoly, then that would open up all sorts of things as well. This one anti-virus software company definately didn't have a monopoly on anti-virus software, though.
Have ya not noticed there aren't a lot of mac clones out there? Any clue why? Because Apple doesn't do what IBM did when the IBM clone industry was born. Derivative works. Look it up.
what hole is it that I'm digging myself deeper into? Would that I were wrong. I'd love to be.
You should take another look at my comments. I've already mentioned that how courts handle things is ultimately important in this. Guess what - if a court rules a certain way in favor of EULA's, that *makes* it law. Statutory law is not the only form of law. There's also case law, and administrative law.
And please, don't be confused - I would most definately prefer none of this to be the case, and for stupid things like this to not land people in jail. I am very against that. I'm not digging the hole myself, though - I do what I can to fill it back in, if anything.
a brown dwarf, versus something 5 tiems the size of jupiter? Further appart than our sun and Pluto?
Anyone know where estimates for the actual sizes of these bodies are? Almost sounds like its not entirely fair to call it a star/planet relationship, but instead a small star and tiny dead star...maybe?
a very sucky situation. I completely agree that there is nothing fair or just about that. I am not in disagreement.
Unfortunately, derivative works for copyrights have gone wild (and have been supported by courts in their insanity) in comparison to derivative works of patented products.
go look up derivative works, and just how much that restricts you.
Additionally, you can't do anything you want. To say such is silly. I want to have sex for the next 80 years, while being fed organic vegan cheesecake, and have my own personal string quartette playing for me. Copyright doesn't keep that from happening, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Grandpa and grandma will be just fine on 2000 or xp, or...and here's the crazy part...even 98. My father in law still uses win3.freaking-1 on a 486, for Christ's sake. Grandpa and grandma will be just fine.
Same bit. I wouldn't be suprized to find some of these VC's are not just VC's, but sepecifically search out people to put up these little shops. That way, they are protected, as merely being someone who loaned the person money. Get most of the profits, with few of the liabilities.
It would be beautiful to change that - to increase their liability. Like I already said in this post, its like going into a gun store and asking to borrow a gun so you can rob a bank, and promising most of the profits in return. The gun store, if they agreed to that, most certainly should be held liable.
Without seed money, almost none of these little shops would pop up. A venture capitalist is WELL aware of what the business practices will be. They know more about your company than you do, sometimes...that's not just a cliche' saying, its often a reality.
So if I went into that gun store and asked them to loan me a gun so I could rob a bank, and promised them a large split of the proceeds...and the gun store gave me the money...should they be held partially liable? They didn't actually rob the bank, after all...
So, armed with root, you just run that tool yourself. Wow, that was difficult.
..this effects the other person's email in any way? The only way to know would be for them to email the people whose email addresses they've cencored, and ask them to check those particular emails. I wonder if they may have gotten corrupted too due to this, before the buffers were flushed?
which is where a huge chunk of the more amazing innovations and ideas come from lately (boredom). Scary, eh?
There was a vulnerability, not an exploit. He wrote something to exploit the vulerability. He then published it. That remains the legal "problem" in what he did. Its not just that he found a problem - he published a way to exploit the problem.
And I know it looks like I'm saying he did a bad thing, when I don't repeat 100 times in each post that I think its dumb that it works that way, but...I think its dumb that it works that way.
Spreadsheets? Those have been around for hundreds of years. The phoenix bios bit? Predates the DMCA, and a pluthera of other statutory laws (and countless court rulings) by a good long while. We, unfortunately, live in a different world now.
Good thing I forced my middle-classed self to cook healthy organic dinners, exercise, and etc - despite the free time. Pays off, really.
But writing an exploit from reverse-engineering something, and then publishing said exploit, is a violation of the derivative works clauses. That is the law (however unjust) he broke, that he is being charged with.
If my comparison to movie theatres isn't perfect, then...blame that on me not being anywhere near the entertainment industry anymore (sans the silly "band" thing, which I refuse to let be anything other than fun).
It was a bad idea to make an example about an example, though...there's been too much digression. Back to the initial thing, its illegal because (among other things) its a derivative work. He made an exploit (derived from the product, and his reverse-engineering of said product), and then *published* it. He published this derivative work without the consent of the copyright holder.
If he had merely figured out how it worked, and just sat smug in that knowledge, he would not have broken any laws. Its by publishing derived [creative] works, that he gets in trouble. If I write a book that is a continuation of the Matrix universe, references all the same characters, and just goes where Matrix3 left off...and did this without getting permission...I'd be conceptually doing the same thing -> publishing a derived work.
ummm...you're actually denying that there are people in jail for creating exploits, and then publishing them?
Which is one of the major reasons I'm against copyrights protecting against derivative works. My being against it, however, does not change the fact that its *law*.
And in this person's case, they then published it.
if you're merely just figuring it out, you're not *engineering*. When you then do something like "publishing exploit codes for a number of vulnerabilities" you are creating a FREAKING DERIVATIVE WORK. The expoit itself is the reverse engineering...it is the derivative work. He published it. BOOM. Therein lies the problem with what he did. He didn't just figure out how it works - if that's all he did, then no one would have ever cared. He figured it out, CREATED an EXPLOIT, and PUBLISHED it.
You know me? Crap! Oh, wait, maybe you meant "We know, you nitwit!" Oh well. Grasp on the English language, indeed.
reverse engineering is not just figuring out how something works. He didn't just figure out how it works. RTFA *nitwit*, or even just the article itself. He *broke* it. "publishing exploit codes for a number of vulnerabilities" is not just figuring something out. He composed derivative works - an exploit - that he then published.
Remove the plank first, man. I'll take care of my own splinter.
You're all right, I'm wrong.
no one is going to jail over this sort of thing.
Case law is not law - only statutory law is law. Administrative law isn't law either.
one can reverse-engineer something without it being derived from the thing they are reverse engineering. Instead, it just happens to reverse engineer the product, without the engineer doing the reversing ever having looked at the product being reverse engineered. Completely non-derivative work, so...definately not relevant.
anything and everything is completely legal under "fair use." I can buy a gun and shoot everyone - that's a fair use of a gun, right? I can do whatever the hell I wish with whatever I pay money for. If I buy a single aspect of something (be it a license, a timeshare, or whatever) I then own the entire thing. Not just a part, ALL of it.
Good lord, people - I don't think the guy should go to jail. I think its stupid that he, or anyone else, should for pointing out a flaw in an application. I'm not talking about what is right, what is just, what is good...I'm just talking about what IS . In case, administrative, and even statutory law - its illegal. Wish that it weren't, but it is. Proof? there are people in jail already for doing the same thing.
maybe because reverse engineering is a derivative work? Ya know, that just might be the case...huh.
YOu don't have to ask for permission for each time you play it, no. YOu have to get license to play it at all. 99% of the time, that comes with no conditions. Sometimes, there are little things you have to do - to play it once, you have to play it 10 times. That sort of thing. Sortof like theatres that had to leave Episode 1 playing for weeks after people stopped watching, because it was part of the condition for being allowed to play it up front. There's more to a license than just a fee...there's the license. Licenses have terms. Some terms are simple. Some are complex.
Reverse engineering is not protected under fair use. Would that it were! People go to jail for such things, though...quite often, in fact.
And again with the IBM clone thing - there were IBM clones for 2 reasons. 1) IBM licensed some people to make clones. Bad move. 2) The US government stepped in and broke up their monopoly. This wasn't a single event, either - it started with a trickle.
This company doesn't have a monopoly on anti-virus software.
The ibm-pc clone industry was able to happen for *one reason alone* - IBM started granting licenses to make clones to a select few people, and then the US government stepped in and declared that they had a monopoly! If the gov were to declare that MS had a monopoly, then that would open up all sorts of things as well. This one anti-virus software company definately didn't have a monopoly on anti-virus software, though.
Have ya not noticed there aren't a lot of mac clones out there? Any clue why? Because Apple doesn't do what IBM did when the IBM clone industry was born. Derivative works. Look it up.
You should take another look at my comments. I've already mentioned that how courts handle things is ultimately important in this. Guess what - if a court rules a certain way in favor of EULA's, that *makes* it law. Statutory law is not the only form of law. There's also case law, and administrative law.
And please, don't be confused - I would most definately prefer none of this to be the case, and for stupid things like this to not land people in jail. I am very against that. I'm not digging the hole myself, though - I do what I can to fill it back in, if anything.
odd...thanks for the reference. I don't know why I assumed she originated the expression :)
Anyone know where estimates for the actual sizes of these bodies are? Almost sounds like its not entirely fair to call it a star/planet relationship, but instead a small star and tiny dead star...maybe?
Unfortunately, derivative works for copyrights have gone wild (and have been supported by courts in their insanity) in comparison to derivative works of patented products.
Additionally, you can't do anything you want. To say such is silly. I want to have sex for the next 80 years, while being fed organic vegan cheesecake, and have my own personal string quartette playing for me. Copyright doesn't keep that from happening, right?