"When a human being is gently stroking someones body, sooner or later tiredness and slackening will appear. Therefore we developed Tickle Salon: a robotic installation based on the concept of automated stroking. A machine that is able to stroke you with an indefatigable attention and subtleness. Automated stroking is an exciting topic, because it brings together our interests in meta creativity, biology and artificial intelligence, and of course the pleasure of being stroked."
as someone mentioned, they have lots of oil. Its very easy to get from the ground there (as compared to oil in texas, alaska, etc) and Iraqi oil is even very low in sulphites as compared to its neighboring countries, making it very cheap to refine.
They don't need our money to build an isp or some such thing. There really are, you know, more important things than the internet. They need food, medicine, and a little help rebuilding a government. Once that's done, they need to be left alone, and they need us as far away from them as possible. And I say that, having been in support of our actions from even before we started;)
gosh! so does a kvm switch! cause the originator of those bytes is, in part (the data part, versus the headers part) a keyboard. So...if you conceal your keyboard via a kvm (when the keyboard isn't switched to a particular unit, the signal is kept hot by the kvm) then you're in violation! CRAP!
/sarcasm
They don't care which computer it came from. They just care that there is more than one computer. But even that isn't the intent of this bill.
conceal from a communication service provider, or from any lawful authority, the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication
Is the origin concealed? Its coming from your house. No craziness there. Is the destination concealed? If the ISP is the one servicing your transimition, they HAVE to know where its going, otherwise your packet won't get there. They are, after all, routing it.
Unless you're spoofing something, poisoning a table, etc., you're ok. OR...if you've modified a cell phone to look like you're calling from someone else's phone, and then making a phone call. Which is, after all, the very point of this bill.
my point is that the "concealing the origin of the communication" isn't in the bill that I saw...its in a post. Now...where, in the bills is that said? And as soon as you show me that, I'll show you where that section is defined, and how it doesn't have anything to do with a VPN. Give me links, and section numbers.
damn pdf crap. Makes it a littletougher to cut and paste.
Start with section 1, part 1. The purpose of this act...[is to address] the phenomenon of maliscious 'hacking.' This act is not intended to punish innoscent users.
Section 2 is just definitions, and deals with defining "cloned cellular equiptment" and "cloning equiptment." Section 2, parts 1.d and 1.e are the parts that probably are causing the most confusion. Note though that these things are for "obtaining service." Its for people who make it look like they're coming from somewhere so that a communications provider will give them service. That is NOT what you're doing with ssh, vpn, posting anonymously, etc.
Then there's section 2.j: to "intercept signals" means to...without the permission of the communications service OR the person receiving OR initiating the signal. (empasis mine)
GUESS what. You are ALWAYS either receiving or initiating the signal, unless you're capturing someone else's traffic (spoofing, sniffing, etc - which is, after all, one of the things they're trying to outlaw). Do you have your own permission to start a VPN connection to work? Do you have your own permission to start an ssh connection? Do you have your own permission to post anonymously? Well, then you're perfectly ok.
Like I said though...I haven't the time to do this to all the bills(or even all of this one), especially ones that are pdfs. Gota get back to working. Just read them. This bill is for spoofing cell phone calls! Its not for making NATS, firewalls, vpns, etc illegal. Those are all legal, "innoscent" activities.
Just having a firewall that does nat translation is a violation of these bills
OH REALLY. Mind quoting the section of what bill that says, or suggests, or whatever, this? A bill that even BEGINS to HINT at making it illegal to have a firewall? Please, I'd love to see some links. It certainly wasn't in bills in the links in the post.
Does anyone actually read things anymore? From the texas bill
(a) A person commits an offense if, with the intent to harm or defraud a communication service provider, the person:
(1) obtains or uses a communication service without:
(A) obtaining the authorization of the provider; or
(B) making a payment to the provider in the amount normally charged by the provider for the service; or
[(3)] tampers with, modifies, or maintains a modification to a communication device provided by or installed by the provider
That is the entirity of the definition of a bad guy in this bill, as it is currently proposed as of the time I'm writing this.
So, you have to, with "intent to harm or defraud," "[use] a communication service without""obtaining the authorization of the provider; or making a payment to the provider in the amount normally charged by the provider for the service; or tampers with, modifies, or maintains a modification to a communication device provided by or installed by the provider." I put it all together for ye who don't want to link.
So, to be even MORE clear, this only effects people who are trying to harm or defraud an ISP, etc, by using service without authorization.
Does a VPN "harm or defraud" an ISP? NO
Does ssh "harm or defraud" an ISP? NO
Does posting anonymously anywhere, or any of the other things being complained about, "harm or defraud" an ISP? NO
I don't have the time to quote and translate each and every bill out there, but I do certainly recommed actually reading them before deciding the bills will make it illegal to brush your teeth. Knee-jerk, anyone? Know what you're having an opinion about, before forming that opinion.
ahh...brand building. True, true. Grassroots is very powerful. The CEO, after all, takes to heart what the hacker punk kid at the candy machine has to say about what's cool. Long term effects therefore most likely will be bad in that respect. However, they're probably trying for *something*, so whatever that is, we'll see. I'm sure its not without some sort of purpose or point - the more you add, the more there is to fail.
Yeah, I haven't overclocked in years, myself. I don't find myself waiting on my CPU anymore, really. More waiting on my slow ass cablemodem, or...whatever else.
I mean, I guess I could overclock all the nodes in one of my clusters, see what impact it had...nah, I prefer stability;)
woot! and such a HUGE market share the "overclocking community" is, too!
Here in the real world though, every time something new comes out every director, assistant director, and upper end manager here immediately gets 2 of them purchased by the company (one for home, one for work) and their old one goes to someone down the totem pole. You'd think the economy would have stopped that, too...
again, you're not who they care about. Intel will gladly give up the "overclocking community."
do you think they care what you think? You aren't their market. The corporate world, where they are definately king, is who they care about.
If a 19 year old raver goes in to a mercedes dealership and buys a car, they don't turn him down. That doesn't mean they'll start marketting towards 19 year old ravers, though. Its about who they can sell the most to, at the higher price.
And I tell you, AMD has always had a heat issue, and still does. Heat will more and more be a really big deal with smaller and smaller things, too. I buy AMD when I feel generous, just to help the underdog. But of all the systems I have, the intel systems are FAR more stable.
I am *totally* with the anti-pantent bloat movement. But...what's the complaint on this one? That the technology is being used, or that its being patented? If its that its being used...wah. If its that its being patented - can someone explain why it isn't a valid patent?
Sure, crystals have been used to lock frequencies forever...but processes are what are generally patented, and the process of locking a processor speed with a crystal (versus locking a signal frequency, or whatever)...is it not new? Can someone explain prior art? Or is this just a case of complaining about any old patent that gets approved at all?
Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS Developer Edition n/a $60/yr
Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS Basic Edition n/a $179/yr
Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES Basic Edition n/a $349/yr
Note that if you have a bunch of servers at 7.2/7.3, not only do you have to have them offline for many hours each for the update/install process, you have to go from paying $60/96 a year, to paying $349 a year (yes, I called them to verify the $349 was the only option for ES to be on the RHN).
MY GOD. I asked what the option was to get just updates - there is none. You have to get support. I don't want support. Note that the $349 only covers installation and hardware support anyway, so...in subsequent years, its useless (cause what the hell hardware support are they going to give, esp beyond installation?).
Having RHN costs jump from 3.5-6 times as much as current, with no added value...that's a problem. Does M$ charge $349 a year to download updates? Nope. Note that its still the same set of tools, same everything. Redhat isn't reinventing the wheel here, they're just putting it in a different box.
Again, I'll just probably set up my own update server, or move to another service. Its just odd to be forced to do that.
for those who use RedHat Network, this move comes with another suprize beyond what might have been expected. Not only will all 7.x releases be EOL'd for RHN on Dec31, 2003, but 8.0 will be as well.
I submitted a story on this prior to this one, but the gyst is this: Due to this move, anyone who wants to use RHN still will have 3 options:
install RH9 on their systems, overwriting whatever OS was there. Problems: long downtime to install OS then re-set everything up, depending on a X.0 release for everything
"upgrade" current systems to RH9. In my experience, longer downtime than just doing a clean install - things break, get annoying, etc.
hack their systems to look, act, and talk like RH9 systems tothe RHN update software, so you can still update them through RHN
personally, I think I'll just let this year be the last year I'm subscribed to RHN, then either get my updates from someone else (redcarpet?) or I'll just mirror the ftp://updates.redhat.com server locally and run my own service. I don't see any of those 3 above options working for me. Has RedHat gone insane? Do they not realize people count on linux in an enterprise environment, where anything beyond a few minutes downtime is very bad??
did a kernel update a couple months ago that then bombed mysql. Could not for the life of me figure out what was wrong with mysql. Just wouldn't work. I then tried rebooting to the older kernel that had been in use the previous day...what the hell do ya know, mysql worked again. A whole freakin day wasted.
Recompiling mysql fixed the problem, oddly enough. Never quite got what was going on, either - was too busy to try to figure it out.
"This issue and a number of those before it show that Linux has as many opportunities for exploitation as any other OS."
That's some pretty interesting logic you have goin there. Might I suggest though that for there to be "as many opportunities for exploitation as any other OS" that there would have to be, in fact, the same #? I believe windows was at more than just a few major issues at last count, and even quite a few that are still unresolved. The fact that once something is discovered its fixed within hours also plays really heavy on the "opportunities" side, versus the fact that fixes take eons from some vendors after they are known...
And I won't even go in to your "any other OS" part...*any*? yeahhh....
Keep in mind that samba is NOT "linux," its just a tool that people run on it. I'm willing to include in the umbrella tools that are needed to make the OS usable (a shell, for instance), but really...the OS team can't be expected to secure every freaking tool that anyone puts out, even if its as useful as the samba suite.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, the pleasure of being stroked. lol
Oh yeah! here!
And it was just this morning, too. Oh well, at least it was 13 hours between...
wouldn't a "anti-business longhair hippy communist" and a "anti-American religous fundamentalist" be members of two very different groups? ;)
They don't need our money to build an isp or some such thing. There really are, you know, more important things than the internet. They need food, medicine, and a little help rebuilding a government. Once that's done, they need to be left alone, and they need us as far away from them as possible. And I say that, having been in support of our actions from even before we started ;)
I did, and I also referenced why I wasn't going to cut and paste the whole damn bill here. The rest is just further definitions based on the first.
They don't care which computer it came from. They just care that there is more than one computer. But even that isn't the intent of this bill.
provider, or from any lawful authority, the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication
Is the origin concealed? Its coming from your house. No craziness there. Is the destination concealed? If the ISP is the one servicing your transimition, they HAVE to know where its going, otherwise your packet won't get there. They are, after all, routing it.
Unless you're spoofing something, poisoning a table, etc., you're ok. OR...if you've modified a cell phone to look like you're calling from someone else's phone, and then making a phone call. Which is, after all, the very point of this bill.
my point is that the "concealing the origin of the communication" isn't in the bill that I saw...its in a post. Now...where, in the bills is that said? And as soon as you show me that, I'll show you where that section is defined, and how it doesn't have anything to do with a VPN. Give me links, and section numbers.
I didn't ask for interpretations. I asked for you to quote actual portions of bills that actually *say* that. Please. I'd love to see it.
it can't.
Start with section 1, part 1. The purpose of this act...[is to address] the phenomenon of maliscious 'hacking.' This act is not intended to punish innoscent users.
Section 2 is just definitions, and deals with defining "cloned cellular equiptment" and "cloning equiptment." Section 2, parts 1.d and 1.e are the parts that probably are causing the most confusion. Note though that these things are for "obtaining service." Its for people who make it look like they're coming from somewhere so that a communications provider will give them service. That is NOT what you're doing with ssh, vpn, posting anonymously, etc.
Then there's section 2.j: to "intercept signals" means to...without the permission of the communications service OR the person receiving OR initiating the signal. (empasis mine)
GUESS what. You are ALWAYS either receiving or initiating the signal, unless you're capturing someone else's traffic (spoofing, sniffing, etc - which is, after all, one of the things they're trying to outlaw). Do you have your own permission to start a VPN connection to work? Do you have your own permission to start an ssh connection? Do you have your own permission to post anonymously? Well, then you're perfectly ok.
Like I said though...I haven't the time to do this to all the bills(or even all of this one), especially ones that are pdfs. Gota get back to working. Just read them. This bill is for spoofing cell phone calls! Its not for making NATS, firewalls, vpns, etc illegal. Those are all legal, "innoscent" activities.
OH REALLY. Mind quoting the section of what bill that says, or suggests, or whatever, this? A bill that even BEGINS to HINT at making it illegal to have a firewall? Please, I'd love to see some links. It certainly wasn't in bills in the links in the post.
From the texas bill
(a) A person commits an offense if, with the intent to harm or defraud a communication service provider, the person:
(1) obtains or uses a communication service without:
(A) obtaining the authorization of the provider; or
(B) making a payment to the provider in the
amount normally charged by the provider for the service; or
[(3)] tampers with, modifies, or maintains a
modification to a communication device provided by or installed by the provider
That is the entirity of the definition of a bad guy in this bill, as it is currently proposed as of the time I'm writing this.
So, you have to, with "intent to harm or defraud," "[use] a communication service without""obtaining the authorization of the provider; or making a payment to the provider in the amount normally charged by the provider for the service; or tampers with, modifies, or maintains a modification to a communication device provided by or installed by the provider." I put it all together for ye who don't want to link.
So, to be even MORE clear, this only effects people who are trying to harm or defraud an ISP, etc, by using service without authorization.
Does a VPN "harm or defraud" an ISP? NO
Does ssh "harm or defraud" an ISP? NO
Does posting anonymously anywhere, or any of the other things being complained about, "harm or defraud" an ISP? NO
I don't have the time to quote and translate each and every bill out there, but I do certainly recommed actually reading them before deciding the bills will make it illegal to brush your teeth. Knee-jerk, anyone? Know what you're having an opinion about, before forming that opinion.
they have done it in the past. Anyone else remember the 486sx chips that were really 486dx chips, with one of the pins cut off?
ahh...brand building. True, true. Grassroots is very powerful. The CEO, after all, takes to heart what the hacker punk kid at the candy machine has to say about what's cool. Long term effects therefore most likely will be bad in that respect. However, they're probably trying for *something*, so whatever that is, we'll see. I'm sure its not without some sort of purpose or point - the more you add, the more there is to fail.
I mean, I guess I could overclock all the nodes in one of my clusters, see what impact it had...nah, I prefer stability ;)
My opinion is that its #3 - they are trying to deal with bad restamping, and other issues they've had.
Here in the real world though, every time something new comes out every director, assistant director, and upper end manager here immediately gets 2 of them purchased by the company (one for home, one for work) and their old one goes to someone down the totem pole. You'd think the economy would have stopped that, too...
again, you're not who they care about. Intel will gladly give up the "overclocking community."
If a 19 year old raver goes in to a mercedes dealership and buys a car, they don't turn him down. That doesn't mean they'll start marketting towards 19 year old ravers, though. Its about who they can sell the most to, at the higher price.
And I tell you, AMD has always had a heat issue, and still does. Heat will more and more be a really big deal with smaller and smaller things, too. I buy AMD when I feel generous, just to help the underdog. But of all the systems I have, the intel systems are FAR more stable.
Sure, crystals have been used to lock frequencies forever...but processes are what are generally patented, and the process of locking a processor speed with a crystal (versus locking a signal frequency, or whatever)...is it not new? Can someone explain prior art? Or is this just a case of complaining about any old patent that gets approved at all?
Enterprise Service Entitlement 10 $96/yr
Basic Service Entitlement 0 $60/yr
Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS Developer Edition n/a $60/yr
Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS Basic Edition n/a $179/yr
Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES Basic Edition n/a $349/yr
Note that if you have a bunch of servers at 7.2/7.3, not only do you have to have them offline for many hours each for the update/install process, you have to go from paying $60/96 a year, to paying $349 a year (yes, I called them to verify the $349 was the only option for ES to be on the RHN).
MY GOD. I asked what the option was to get just updates - there is none. You have to get support. I don't want support. Note that the $349 only covers installation and hardware support anyway, so...in subsequent years, its useless (cause what the hell hardware support are they going to give, esp beyond installation?).
Having RHN costs jump from 3.5-6 times as much as current, with no added value...that's a problem. Does M$ charge $349 a year to download updates? Nope. Note that its still the same set of tools, same everything. Redhat isn't reinventing the wheel here, they're just putting it in a different box.
Again, I'll just probably set up my own update server, or move to another service. Its just odd to be forced to do that.
I submitted a story on this prior to this one, but the gyst is this: Due to this move, anyone who wants to use RHN still will have 3 options:
install RH9 on their systems, overwriting whatever OS was there. Problems: long downtime to install OS then re-set everything up, depending on a X.0 release for everything
"upgrade" current systems to RH9. In my experience, longer downtime than just doing a clean install - things break, get annoying, etc.
hack their systems to look, act, and talk like RH9 systems tothe RHN update software, so you can still update them through RHN
personally, I think I'll just let this year be the last year I'm subscribed to RHN, then either get my updates from someone else (redcarpet?) or I'll just mirror the ftp://updates.redhat.com server locally and run my own service. I don't see any of those 3 above options working for me. Has RedHat gone insane? Do they not realize people count on linux in an enterprise environment, where anything beyond a few minutes downtime is very bad??
did a kernel update a couple months ago that then bombed mysql. Could not for the life of me figure out what was wrong with mysql. Just wouldn't work. I then tried rebooting to the older kernel that had been in use the previous day...what the hell do ya know, mysql worked again. A whole freakin day wasted.
Recompiling mysql fixed the problem, oddly enough. Never quite got what was going on, either - was too busy to try to figure it out.
That's some pretty interesting logic you have goin there. Might I suggest though that for there to be "as many opportunities for exploitation as any other OS" that there would have to be, in fact, the same #? I believe windows was at more than just a few major issues at last count, and even quite a few that are still unresolved. The fact that once something is discovered its fixed within hours also plays really heavy on the "opportunities" side, versus the fact that fixes take eons from some vendors after they are known...
And I won't even go in to your "any other OS" part...*any*? yeahhh....
Keep in mind that samba is NOT "linux," its just a tool that people run on it. I'm willing to include in the umbrella tools that are needed to make the OS usable (a shell, for instance), but really...the OS team can't be expected to secure every freaking tool that anyone puts out, even if its as useful as the samba suite.
"Better yet, be a real geek and type ftp updates.redhat.com and then use get."
I dunno, I like the automatic md5 checksuming rhn does, I like that I can manage everything from a single place...
true, I could do that myself as well, but...for $60 a year, is it worth my time? Even with a couple dozen servers? Maybe, maybe not.