If you notice, you'll see that they posted the "Gamespy Installer Spreads Nimda" story on the front page, yet not this.
Yeah, and it appears that a Windows Media EULA "revelation" regarding a change (that has been in effect for a while from what I understand) is also front page news.
So in slashdot's opinion, more "Nerds" are interested in the EULA of an app they probably don't even use than a major security issue with the web server the vast majority of them do use.
The thing is, anti-MS posts generate more comments, i.e. ad views which equals $$$, while the truth about rampant open source vulnerabilities (in all OS's and major services) only hurt this site overall since when it's proven that open source is just as bad as proprietary software in this regard, all the slashdot rank and file will stop drinking the koolaid.
The stories you cite are regarding the a DoS with Apache, NOT a worm that is now known to exist. There is a big difference between some packet monkey making apache restart and someone rooting your box and executing arbitrary code.
And to add insult to injury, there is a front page story about some OS X security items with no mention of this apache worm, just that Apache has been upgraded.
Now tell me this, are there more Apache admins reading the front page or Apple users?
Having this story here and NOT on the front page is laughable and does not frame the "open source community", one of which slashdot is a corner stone, in a positive light. It shows that they are just as willing to obscure security problems and flaws in their preferred products as those who they despise for using MS products.
How odd... a site that caters to those who use open source software are continually bombarded with reports of how IIS is swiss cheese on the front page, yet when critical OPEN SOURCE security issue comes about, it comes out regarding one of the most, if not THE most used open source application in the world, it is a day late and not published on the front page.
It would appear that the posting security advisories on this site are not to HELP admins, but instead to bash those you don't like.
Wow, at first I thought you were being genuine in your reply, then you resorted to petty personal attacks and you lost all credibility.
My oh so humble point was simply this, while yes, there are many intelligent people in this world who did not go to college, to suggest that someone who did in fact graduate from Yale AND Harvard as well as govern one of the largest states in this country has the "head of a lettuce" is a farce, especially when your favor is for a college drop out.
Instead of being disgusted by me and my opinion, why not focus your angst towards the true root of your displeasure, which I think we all can see clear as day. It's quite telling that an opinion such as mine can cut so deep, isn't it?
(I'll go ahead and drop the +1 bonus on this one since it is of little value to anyone other than the person I'm replying to.)
And I assume you forwarded that to Mr. Gore thanking him for making the whole thing possible since he did "take the initiative to create the Internet" right?
(CNN, March 1999: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." - Al Gore.)
Also, ever seen Steven Hawking form sentence? It's not a pretty sight and takes a excruciatingly long time, so I guess that puts him in the same garden as Bush? Funny, Mr. Hawking is considered one the brightest minds to ever inhabit this rock, ever.
In the past everyone in the european world knew, not believed, knew that the world was flat. Were they wrong? Yes, but they believed themselves to be right. If they had stated that the world was round then they would have been "wrong" according to their time and the beliefs of everyone around them.
Cute.. but I think comparing scientific facts questioned by those in the 1300th century to the correctness of political idealism is a bit of a stretch, even for slashdot. Apples and oranges sir.
I'm not saying that the fifty million people that voted for Bush are wrong. He might in fact be a great president. I'm just saying that it is possible that even fifty million people can be wrong.
Well if that is the case, regardless of who wins, ~50,000,000 people ARE wrong since the popular vote split down the middle.
My point was that certainly 50,000,000 would NOT vote for a person with the intellect of a head of lettuce, and to say so is a very lame attempt to cast dispersions on a candidate that you (Taco) do not like. The same could be said about Al Gore and his resemblance to a tree. I would not support such a statement either since he OBVIOUSLY is a very intelligent man and has the support of just as many, if not more people in this country as Bush does.
On the dropping out of college thing. College doesn't stand for as much as it used to.
I could not agree more, I did not go to college myself but do very well for myself in the IT industry.
But if you consider the time these guys DID go to college, it does stand for a bit more than it does now and it's utterly silly to question the intellect of a Harvard/Yale graduate in comparison to someone who dropped out of college all together. If one had to put money on the IQ of one over the other, the smart money goes with the graduate, that's just common sense. For every Bill Gates success story in this world, there are 1,000,000 college drop outs in this country who can't balance their check book.
Also. People have a right to express their views, even if someone else thinks they're wrong. It doesn't matter if that someone is one person or fifty million. If you don't agree, fine, state your view but do not suggest that they add something that would only be of use to one person.
No where did I suggest that Taco's jab at Bush was of use to only one person. I'm sure that a large number of/.'ers loved the crack. That's fine, for an editorial/opinion piece, not tucked away nicely in a news article.
This is the exact reason that FoxNews is KILLING CNN and network news sources for fair and accurate reporting. It's about the NEWS to them, not their personal spin on the news to validate their own ideals and help them sleep at night.
And yes I know, I should not come to/. for anything resembling legitimate reporting, but one can hope can't they?
Interesting. He dislikes Bush, so he must be a liberal.
If memory serves, many of Taco's political ramblings are pro-Gore/Democratic party. To me, that makes him a liberal just as being a Bush supporter or Republican makes most people a conservative comparitively speaking.
All this time I thought I was a moderate, but according to you I must be a liberal.
You are nothing according to me since I was not addressing comments (current and past) made by you. If you wish to classify yourself one way or another, that is your choice, not mine.
closure with a President with the qualifications of a head of lettuce is still closure
Certainly 49,819,600 people can't be all that wrong now can they? This is more votes than CLINTON got so I guess that means good 'ol Billy Boy has the head of a rotten squash?
I've also yet to see a head of lettuce graduate from Harvard AND Yale. Didn't Gore drop out of college at one point? I think yes.
And with this I suggest a new filter option in my profile, as well as giving me the ability to filter out Jon Katz, I suggest we also now have the option to filter out bleeding heart liberal editorializing that only goes to show why almost 50,000,000 people in this country DO NOT agree with you and your views.
Isn't it interesting that Gore's Campaign Chairman and KEY TALKING HEAD, Mr. Daly's home county (Cooke County Chicago) uses the same "Butterfly" ballot that is so confusing to those in Palm Beach County?
Isn't it also interesting that in this election, 19,000 voters voted for two presidents hence having their ballots deemed invalid (having the Dems cry foul) yet in 1996, 16,000 people from the SAME COUNTY did the exact same thing?
I see a pattern here folks, and unfortunately it points to the folks in Palm Beach county not knowing what the hell they are doing which was the case in 1996 as well.
It's a shame that such a large number of ignorant people are allowed to vote, but that is our system folks, right or wrong, good or bad, Bush or Gore, we should accept it. It's an even BIGGER shame that those who want to RUN this country will use this ignorance as a reason to drag our election system through the mud.
Whomever the recount shows the loser in Florida to be, they should concede defeat IMMEDIATELY so the business of the country can go forward.
1. It was approved IN ADVANCE by an election official that just happened to be a democrat. You would think if the ballot was unfavorable to Gore, this person would have noticed it.
2. This ballot was available for PUBLIC INSPECTION many weeks before the actual vote was taken.
3. All voters have 3 chances to vote correctly. If at first, you punch the wrong holes, you SHOULD NOT submit your ballot, instead you go to the marshal at the polling place, explain the problem, and request another vote. Any voter can request a new ballot up to two times.
4. If the ballot was confusing, there were poll workings READY AND WILLING to answer any and all questions about the ballot itself.
Now, with all that said, I think it's a shame that people may have inadvertently voted for the wrong person (or voted twice which should be a no-no for anyone with an IQ over 10) but the sad fact is that they did so due to their own ignorance or unwillingness to ask for help.
19,000 people in Palm Beach County voted for TWO PEOPLE for President. TWO PEOPLE!?! How can anyone with half a brain think their vote will be valid by voting for two people for the same office? If these 19,000 people had asked for help, a new ballot, or simply taken their time to READ the ballot, this certainly would not have happened.
While I agree that the ballot could have been constructed better, its design is certainly not overly confusing for anyone willing to take the time to read and understand it. That is called BEING INFORMED people. Those who decide to be ignorant do not deserve the right to complain after the fact.
This is just one more example of how this country is turning into a society of victims. Nothing is ever the fault of the individual, it's always some larger social problem and we are all helpless. God forbid that voters actually READ the ballot, bother to ask questions, or UNDERSTAND the process they are participating in.
... regardless of what we have come to accept as true, parodies are NOT universally protected under copyright law, especially when it is financially expedient to bow down to a copyright holder just because their law firm is bigger than your own and they threaten you.
You misunderstood my point, it was not about why a kid would *want* to do (this is obvious), but why a kid *could* do it.
Your comment illustrated my point perfectly that people focus on the why "little Johnny" did whatever evil thing he did as opposed to why it was so easy for little Johnny to cause such havoc in the first place.
Its pretty terrible when a kid goes bananas and can damage the volunteer efforts of many people working really hard to create and support something so many of us use and enjoy. (Not an *exact* quote, my spellchecker fixed the "bananas" misspelling)
I think the fact that "a kid" can bring down such a system with relative ease is the real problem here.
I hate to say it, but people tend to ignore the root of the problem (ugh, a pun) and focus on the fall guys involved to draw attention away from the shortcomings of the system being discussed.
And this is not a slam of Debian, Linux, or any OS specifically, it is more a commentary on the overall lack of concern over the underlying reasons why "a kid" can do such things in the first place.
I spent almost two years working for one of the largest companies in the world (here's a hint, they *HATE* those truth.org commercials) and it was my understanding that every year, Microsoft would request an audit of the software licenses in use. With over 50,000 employees in the US alone, you can imagine how labor intensive this would be so instead of doing an audit or letting Microsoft snoop around, they simply used a formula where they took the amount of employees with PCs, double or tripled it, and then paid for that many copies of the main MS apps in use, like Office and the OS (80% Win9x, 20% WinNT).
This "true up" check was in the MILLIONS of dollars from what I understand and Microsoft was always happy with it. I wonder why. heh
And to think, Andover paid you guys over $6 million each for this site. You'd think a company willing to part with such a huge chunk of change would at least EVALUATE the site. Most companies would be all up IN your koolaid before writing such a check and their audit would have shown that this site is held together by band-aids and paperclips that are 3 years old.
It just goes to show that Andover had no interest in the *site* and it's validity or integrity... just the eyeballs it would deliver to their advertising group.
I can't believe that a site such as slashdot would keep our password information in such a reckless manner.
How many stories have we read about e-commerce sites getting cracked and all the people bitching about keeping personal data away from web accessible boxes? Obviously NOT enough since slashdot cannot even learn from others mistakes.
Hell, I know it's just my slashdot account at risk but I think this proves a bigger point, it's not longer about practicing what you preach around here... it's simply about preaching.
You're trying to connect the "right" to steal music with "rights" that people died for. I'm surprised you finished the sentence without realizing how one has ZERO to do with the other.
Next you'll say everyone who uses Napster is the Rosa Parks of the internet age... as if free music was your god given right.
It's irresponsible comparisons between music theft and slavery that makes this "movement" more about selfishness than about fixing the system if it is in fact broken.
I seriously hope you're not comparing people who freely distribute their software to the money grubbing corporations that we call the music industry.
No, but just as those who utilize the GPL to distribute their works chose a certain distribution requirement standard, those who use copyright law to distribute and protect their works should be allowed to do the same. You may not agree with copyright law, that's fine.. use copyleft, but don't deny those who DO agree with copyright law the ability to utilize it and protect their works just as you have done via the GPL.
What happens when someone takes your GPL'd tools and does something with them against the GPL's terms and justifies it by saying things like the GPL is draconian or obsolete and doesn't apply to the "new internet age"? You'd be in the same boat with Lars, will you help him paddle at that point or continue to deny him his right to stay afloat with the terms of use he chose to apply to his original works?
And regardless of one's beliefs in the GPL, it's one thing not to sanction illegal activity, it's quite another to punish legal activity in trying to root out illegal activity
How is blocking napster punishing those who are partaking in legal activity? If you're not trading/downloading copyrighted works without permission, you SURELY can find another way to get your legal MP3s. Napster is a tool that the majority of it's users use for illegal purposes. The legitimate uses (however small) are NOT specific to the Napster tool, they are simply facilitated by it. If you're getting legal MP3s, Napster is not your only outlet for such activities.
Just as a handgun is a tool of crime, it also has legitimate uses. Are students allowed to carry guns on campus or keep them under their pillow at night? Hell no. Why should any other tool that is mostly used for criminal activity be allowed? (And I'm not a gun control freak either, there is a time and place for everything and when I'm on campus, I'm a visitor and if they deny me something I like to do, I can either accept it or leave. My "rights" do not extend past my own personal property in most cases.)
Think about it: copyright is about restricting copying, and GNU is fundamentally about promoting copying.
Wrong.
Copyright law is about controlling the copying process to ensure the artist's work is protected in the way they choose. The GPL is also about the copying process to ensure that the owner's wishes are kept intact. This means if the person wants their source always available, that's their copying REQUIREMENT. What if I want to use a GPL piece of code in my own product and NOT give out the source. Your GPL is RESTRICTING my right of copying the initial GPL'd product.
If a band wants their work only shared within local circles and NOT on the global scale that is Napster, that is their right as well.
You want rights via the GPL, but don't want other who don't agree with you to be afforded similar rights thru copyright law. That's both sides of the fence my friend, and you can't play on one without being a hypocrite on the other.
It simply prevents anybody else from copying somebody elses code, and THEN copyrighting and/or patenting it (read: buy their very own government sanctioned monopoly).
How is this far off from...
It simply prevents anybody else from copying somebody elses work, and THEN distributing and/or performing it in public.
You may not agree with copyright law and find IP law "draconian", but the law is the law... if you want to change it, change it through the proper channels, don't advocate the blatant violation of it.
If your position had validity, you would treat it as such and go about making change properly and not getting into a pissing match just for the sake of watching yourself pee.
It still amazes me that a group that worships the virtues of the GPL (which is a binding contractual agreement to which the originator of a work provides for it's exact usage, forcing the user into terms he may or may not agree with) are so quick to rally around the open violation of copyright laws.
Look at it this way. The GPL is your bible, it's your life and when someone breaks it, you're quick to jump down their throats... well for the recording industry and yes, the artists, copyright laws are their bible in a way, and when someone breaks them, they have the right to try and stop it.
What will you do when Napster/Gnutella becomes a trading ground for those who decide the GPL is obsolete and distribute programs that purposely violate it? You'll go ape shit and you know it.
Sure the RIAA is the devil, but hypocrisy on such a mass scale doesn't fall short of being satan himself.
Napster is not about freedom... it's about theft, plain and simple. If you don't believe it, read through the court documents describing how the original board characterized their application. Here's a hint, they made NO MENTION of independent artists... their main goal was to allow users to find ANY song they want and download it for free. Where do people hear songs they want? You guessed it, the radio. How many independent artists are played on the radio? You guessed it again, zero.
If you're so unhappy with the status of the commerce of art, stop buying it... make your own, but to blatantly break the law and then act like it's you're right, this just makes you look like a scolded child throwing a temper tantrum, not to mention the fact that at this point, any credibility your argument once had becomes negated.
There are plenty of worthy things to rally around folks... the "freedom" to rip someone off is not one of them, no matter how upset you are that CDs still cost $16.
While I'd love to see IM technology converge to a point where the user has the greatest flexibility, I don't see a 90% market share in the instant messaging market as a reason to force AOL to open their system.
I'd be happy seeing AOL voluntarily open up their protocol but I cannot agree with the FCC enacting any policy requiring AOL to open up their service or network to outside IM users.
If Microsoft, Yahoo!, or anyone else wants to run the AIM protocol, let them flip the infrastructure/bandwidth bill to do so for their users, just as it is today for an email service.
(This is coming from a guy who runs a dedicated messaging machine with ICQ, AIM, Yahoo! Messenger, and MSN Messenger running.)
Slashdot Mirror
If you notice, you'll see that they posted the "Gamespy Installer Spreads Nimda" story on the front page, yet not this.
Yeah, and it appears that a Windows Media EULA "revelation" regarding a change (that has been in effect for a while from what I understand) is also front page news.
So in slashdot's opinion, more "Nerds" are interested in the EULA of an app they probably don't even use than a major security issue with the web server the vast majority of them do use.
The thing is, anti-MS posts generate more comments, i.e. ad views which equals $$$, while the truth about rampant open source vulnerabilities (in all OS's and major services) only hurt this site overall since when it's proven that open source is just as bad as proprietary software in this regard, all the slashdot rank and file will stop drinking the koolaid.
The stories you cite are regarding the a DoS with Apache, NOT a worm that is now known to exist. There is a big difference between some packet monkey making apache restart and someone rooting your box and executing arbitrary code.
And to add insult to injury, there is a front page story about some OS X security items with no mention of this apache worm, just that Apache has been upgraded.
Now tell me this, are there more Apache admins reading the front page or Apple users?
Having this story here and NOT on the front page is laughable and does not frame the "open source community", one of which slashdot is a corner stone, in a positive light. It shows that they are just as willing to obscure security problems and flaws in their preferred products as those who they despise for using MS products.
How odd ... a site that caters to those who use open source software are continually bombarded with reports of how IIS is swiss cheese on the front page, yet when critical OPEN SOURCE security issue comes about, it comes out regarding one of the most, if not THE most used open source application in the world, it is a day late and not published on the front page.
It would appear that the posting security advisories on this site are not to HELP admins, but instead to bash those you don't like.
Moderation Totals:Troll=3, Insightful=3, Interesting=2, Informative=1, Overrated=2, Total=11.
And people wonder why this place has become a wasteland of useless commentary and one sided, opinionated articles.
Stick a fork in me, I'm done with this place.
Wow, at first I thought you were being genuine in your reply, then you resorted to petty personal attacks and you lost all credibility.
My oh so humble point was simply this, while yes, there are many intelligent people in this world who did not go to college, to suggest that someone who did in fact graduate from Yale AND Harvard as well as govern one of the largest states in this country has the "head of a lettuce" is a farce, especially when your favor is for a college drop out.
Instead of being disgusted by me and my opinion, why not focus your angst towards the true root of your displeasure, which I think we all can see clear as day. It's quite telling that an opinion such as mine can cut so deep, isn't it?
(I'll go ahead and drop the +1 bonus on this one since it is of little value to anyone other than the person I'm replying to.)
And I assume you forwarded that to Mr. Gore thanking him for making the whole thing possible since he did "take the initiative to create the Internet" right?
(CNN, March 1999: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." - Al Gore.)
Also, ever seen Steven Hawking form sentence? It's not a pretty sight and takes a excruciatingly long time, so I guess that puts him in the same garden as Bush? Funny, Mr. Hawking is considered one the brightest minds to ever inhabit this rock, ever.
In the past everyone in the european world knew, not believed, knew that the world was flat. Were they wrong? Yes, but they believed themselves to be right. If they had stated that the world was round then they would have been "wrong" according to their time and the beliefs of everyone around them.
.. but I think comparing scientific facts questioned by those in the 1300th century to the correctness of political idealism is a bit of a stretch, even for slashdot. Apples and oranges sir.
/.'ers loved the crack. That's fine, for an editorial/opinion piece, not tucked away nicely in a news article.
/. for anything resembling legitimate reporting, but one can hope can't they?
Cute
I'm not saying that the fifty million people that voted for Bush are wrong. He might in fact be a great president. I'm just saying that it is possible that even fifty million people can be wrong.
Well if that is the case, regardless of who wins, ~50,000,000 people ARE wrong since the popular vote split down the middle.
My point was that certainly 50,000,000 would NOT vote for a person with the intellect of a head of lettuce, and to say so is a very lame attempt to cast dispersions on a candidate that you (Taco) do not like. The same could be said about Al Gore and his resemblance to a tree. I would not support such a statement either since he OBVIOUSLY is a very intelligent man and has the support of just as many, if not more people in this country as Bush does.
On the dropping out of college thing. College doesn't stand for as much as it used to.
I could not agree more, I did not go to college myself but do very well for myself in the IT industry.
But if you consider the time these guys DID go to college, it does stand for a bit more than it does now and it's utterly silly to question the intellect of a Harvard/Yale graduate in comparison to someone who dropped out of college all together. If one had to put money on the IQ of one over the other, the smart money goes with the graduate, that's just common sense. For every Bill Gates success story in this world, there are 1,000,000 college drop outs in this country who can't balance their check book.
Also. People have a right to express their views, even if someone else thinks they're wrong. It doesn't matter if that someone is one person or fifty million. If you don't agree, fine, state your view but do not suggest that they add something that would only be of use to one person.
No where did I suggest that Taco's jab at Bush was of use to only one person. I'm sure that a large number of
This is the exact reason that FoxNews is KILLING CNN and network news sources for fair and accurate reporting. It's about the NEWS to them, not their personal spin on the news to validate their own ideals and help them sleep at night.
And yes I know, I should not come to
Interesting. He dislikes Bush, so he must be a liberal.
If memory serves, many of Taco's political ramblings are pro-Gore/Democratic party. To me, that makes him a liberal just as being a Bush supporter or Republican makes most people a conservative comparitively speaking.
All this time I thought I was a moderate, but according to you I must be a liberal.
You are nothing according to me since I was not addressing comments (current and past) made by you. If you wish to classify yourself one way or another, that is your choice, not mine.
closure with a President with the qualifications of a head of lettuce is still closure
Certainly 49,819,600 people can't be all that wrong now can they? This is more votes than CLINTON got so I guess that means good 'ol Billy Boy has the head of a rotten squash?
I've also yet to see a head of lettuce graduate from Harvard AND Yale. Didn't Gore drop out of college at one point? I think yes.
And with this I suggest a new filter option in my profile, as well as giving me the ability to filter out Jon Katz, I suggest we also now have the option to filter out bleeding heart liberal editorializing that only goes to show why almost 50,000,000 people in this country DO NOT agree with you and your views.
Isn't it interesting that Gore's Campaign Chairman and KEY TALKING HEAD, Mr. Daly's home county (Cooke County Chicago) uses the same "Butterfly" ballot that is so confusing to those in Palm Beach County?
Isn't it also interesting that in this election, 19,000 voters voted for two presidents hence having their ballots deemed invalid (having the Dems cry foul) yet in 1996, 16,000 people from the SAME COUNTY did the exact same thing?
I see a pattern here folks, and unfortunately it points to the folks in Palm Beach county not knowing what the hell they are doing which was the case in 1996 as well.
It's a shame that such a large number of ignorant people are allowed to vote, but that is our system folks, right or wrong, good or bad, Bush or Gore, we should accept it. It's an even BIGGER shame that those who want to RUN this country will use this ignorance as a reason to drag our election system through the mud.
Whomever the recount shows the loser in Florida to be, they should concede defeat IMMEDIATELY so the business of the country can go forward.
In regards to the Palm Beach county ballot.
1. It was approved IN ADVANCE by an election official that just happened to be a democrat. You would think if the ballot was unfavorable to Gore, this person would have noticed it.
2. This ballot was available for PUBLIC INSPECTION many weeks before the actual vote was taken.
3. All voters have 3 chances to vote correctly. If at first, you punch the wrong holes, you SHOULD NOT submit your ballot, instead you go to the marshal at the polling place, explain the problem, and request another vote. Any voter can request a new ballot up to two times.
4. If the ballot was confusing, there were poll workings READY AND WILLING to answer any and all questions about the ballot itself.
Now, with all that said, I think it's a shame that people may have inadvertently voted for the wrong person (or voted twice which should be a no-no for anyone with an IQ over 10) but the sad fact is that they did so due to their own ignorance or unwillingness to ask for help.
19,000 people in Palm Beach County voted for TWO PEOPLE for President. TWO PEOPLE!?! How can anyone with half a brain think their vote will be valid by voting for two people for the same office? If these 19,000 people had asked for help, a new ballot, or simply taken their time to READ the ballot, this certainly would not have happened.
While I agree that the ballot could have been constructed better, its design is certainly not overly confusing for anyone willing to take the time to read and understand it. That is called BEING INFORMED people. Those who decide to be ignorant do not deserve the right to complain after the fact.
This is just one more example of how this country is turning into a society of victims. Nothing is ever the fault of the individual, it's always some larger social problem and we are all helpless. God forbid that voters actually READ the ballot, bother to ask questions, or UNDERSTAND the process they are participating in.
... regardless of what we have come to accept as true, parodies are NOT universally protected under copyright law, especially when it is financially expedient to bow down to a copyright holder just because their law firm is bigger than your own and they threaten you.
What a shame.
You misunderstood my point, it was not about why a kid would *want* to do (this is obvious), but why a kid *could* do it.
Your comment illustrated my point perfectly that people focus on the why "little Johnny" did whatever evil thing he did as opposed to why it was so easy for little Johnny to cause such havoc in the first place.
Its pretty terrible when a kid goes bananas and can damage the volunteer efforts of many people working really hard to create and support something so many of us use and enjoy. (Not an *exact* quote, my spellchecker fixed the "bananas" misspelling)
I think the fact that "a kid" can bring down such a system with relative ease is the real problem here.
I hate to say it, but people tend to ignore the root of the problem (ugh, a pun) and focus on the fall guys involved to draw attention away from the shortcomings of the system being discussed.
And this is not a slam of Debian, Linux, or any OS specifically, it is more a commentary on the overall lack of concern over the underlying reasons why "a kid" can do such things in the first place.
I spent almost two years working for one of the largest companies in the world (here's a hint, they *HATE* those truth.org commercials) and it was my understanding that every year, Microsoft would request an audit of the software licenses in use. With over 50,000 employees in the US alone, you can imagine how labor intensive this would be so instead of doing an audit or letting Microsoft snoop around, they simply used a formula where they took the amount of employees with PCs, double or tripled it, and then paid for that many copies of the main MS apps in use, like Office and the OS (80% Win9x, 20% WinNT).
This "true up" check was in the MILLIONS of dollars from what I understand and Microsoft was always happy with it. I wonder why. heh
And to think, Andover paid you guys over $6 million each for this site. You'd think a company willing to part with such a huge chunk of change would at least EVALUATE the site. Most companies would be all up IN your koolaid before writing such a check and their audit would have shown that this site is held together by band-aids and paperclips that are 3 years old.
... just the eyeballs it would deliver to their advertising group.
It just goes to show that Andover had no interest in the *site* and it's validity or integrity
I can't say I'm surprised one bit.
you should at least change your password
... it's simply about preaching.
I can't believe that a site such as slashdot would keep our password information in such a reckless manner.
How many stories have we read about e-commerce sites getting cracked and all the people bitching about keeping personal data away from web accessible boxes? Obviously NOT enough since slashdot cannot even learn from others mistakes.
Hell, I know it's just my slashdot account at risk but I think this proves a bigger point, it's not longer about practicing what you preach around here
Hahahaha, not even Taco has grammar that bad!
You're trying to connect the "right" to steal music with "rights" that people died for. I'm surprised you finished the sentence without realizing how one has ZERO to do with the other.
... as if free music was your god given right.
Next you'll say everyone who uses Napster is the Rosa Parks of the internet age
It's irresponsible comparisons between music theft and slavery that makes this "movement" more about selfishness than about fixing the system if it is in fact broken.
I seriously hope you're not comparing people who freely distribute their software to the money grubbing corporations that we call the music industry.
.. use copyleft, but don't deny those who DO agree with copyright law the ability to utilize it and protect their works just as you have done via the GPL.
No, but just as those who utilize the GPL to distribute their works chose a certain distribution requirement standard, those who use copyright law to distribute and protect their works should be allowed to do the same. You may not agree with copyright law, that's fine
What happens when someone takes your GPL'd tools and does something with them against the GPL's terms and justifies it by saying things like the GPL is draconian or obsolete and doesn't apply to the "new internet age"? You'd be in the same boat with Lars, will you help him paddle at that point or continue to deny him his right to stay afloat with the terms of use he chose to apply to his original works?
And regardless of one's beliefs in the GPL, it's one thing not to sanction illegal activity, it's quite another to punish legal activity in trying to root out illegal activity
How is blocking napster punishing those who are partaking in legal activity? If you're not trading/downloading copyrighted works without permission, you SURELY can find another way to get your legal MP3s. Napster is a tool that the majority of it's users use for illegal purposes. The legitimate uses (however small) are NOT specific to the Napster tool, they are simply facilitated by it. If you're getting legal MP3s, Napster is not your only outlet for such activities.
Just as a handgun is a tool of crime, it also has legitimate uses. Are students allowed to carry guns on campus or keep them under their pillow at night? Hell no. Why should any other tool that is mostly used for criminal activity be allowed? (And I'm not a gun control freak either, there is a time and place for everything and when I'm on campus, I'm a visitor and if they deny me something I like to do, I can either accept it or leave. My "rights" do not extend past my own personal property in most cases.)
Think about it: copyright is about restricting copying, and GNU is fundamentally about promoting copying.
Wrong.
Copyright law is about controlling the copying process to ensure the artist's work is protected in the way they choose. The GPL is also about the copying process to ensure that the owner's wishes are kept intact. This means if the person wants their source always available, that's their copying REQUIREMENT. What if I want to use a GPL piece of code in my own product and NOT give out the source. Your GPL is RESTRICTING my right of copying the initial GPL'd product.
If a band wants their work only shared within local circles and NOT on the global scale that is Napster, that is their right as well.
You want rights via the GPL, but don't want other who don't agree with you to be afforded similar rights thru copyright law. That's both sides of the fence my friend, and you can't play on one without being a hypocrite on the other.
It simply prevents anybody else from copying somebody elses code, and THEN copyrighting and/or patenting it (read: buy their very own government sanctioned monopoly).
...
... if you want to change it, change it through the proper channels, don't advocate the blatant violation of it.
How is this far off from
It simply prevents anybody else from copying somebody elses work, and THEN distributing and/or performing it in public.
You may not agree with copyright law and find IP law "draconian", but the law is the law
If your position had validity, you would treat it as such and go about making change properly and not getting into a pissing match just for the sake of watching yourself pee.
It still amazes me that a group that worships the virtues of the GPL (which is a binding contractual agreement to which the originator of a work provides for it's exact usage, forcing the user into terms he may or may not agree with) are so quick to rally around the open violation of copyright laws.
... well for the recording industry and yes, the artists, copyright laws are their bible in a way, and when someone breaks them, they have the right to try and stop it.
... it's about theft, plain and simple. If you don't believe it, read through the court documents describing how the original board characterized their application. Here's a hint, they made NO MENTION of independent artists ... their main goal was to allow users to find ANY song they want and download it for free. Where do people hear songs they want? You guessed it, the radio. How many independent artists are played on the radio? You guessed it again, zero.
... make your own, but to blatantly break the law and then act like it's you're right, this just makes you look like a scolded child throwing a temper tantrum, not to mention the fact that at this point, any credibility your argument once had becomes negated.
... the "freedom" to rip someone off is not one of them, no matter how upset you are that CDs still cost $16.
Look at it this way. The GPL is your bible, it's your life and when someone breaks it, you're quick to jump down their throats
What will you do when Napster/Gnutella becomes a trading ground for those who decide the GPL is obsolete and distribute programs that purposely violate it? You'll go ape shit and you know it.
Sure the RIAA is the devil, but hypocrisy on such a mass scale doesn't fall short of being satan himself.
Napster is not about freedom
If you're so unhappy with the status of the commerce of art, stop buying it
There are plenty of worthy things to rally around folks
While I'd love to see IM technology converge to a point where the user has the greatest flexibility, I don't see a 90% market share in the instant messaging market as a reason to force AOL to open their system.
I'd be happy seeing AOL voluntarily open up their protocol but I cannot agree with the FCC enacting any policy requiring AOL to open up their service or network to outside IM users.
If Microsoft, Yahoo!, or anyone else wants to run the AIM protocol, let them flip the infrastructure/bandwidth bill to do so for their users, just as it is today for an email service.
(This is coming from a guy who runs a dedicated messaging machine with ICQ, AIM, Yahoo! Messenger, and MSN Messenger running.)