You missed the point, the issue is that a perfectly stable software is released by its creator, but there is simply no easy way to install it for the normal user
Why do you think that it's a sensible idea for users to be installing software in the first place? Do you refuse to buy electrical appliances which have a "No user servicable parts" sticker on them...
Nope, all distros have pretty much the same problem. They all expect software to be centrally packaged and distributed.
The great thing about open source is that if you don't like they way something is done you can change it. Unlike proprietary software, where it's a case of "like it or lump it".
The point is that I don't want to become root AT ALL to install a piece of software, its my home dir, so why can't I dump the software there?
In which case you can simply build the software to work in that environment.
First of you can't install a application as a user, now how stupid is that?
A very sensible one. In the vast majority of cases users are there to use a computer, not play at being sysadmins.
If *I* want to install a bleeding edge version of Gimp, I neither want to bother the admin with it nor do I want to force it an all the others users, yet Debian requires me todo exactly that.
This is only an issue if you are trying to install the software on someone else's machine. If it is actually part of your job to evaluate "bleeding edge" software then you will either have access to a computer specifically for that purpose or know how to install the software somewhere you have write acess to. If you are trying to install software on your employer's computer(s) without authorisation then they are perfectly entitled to fire you. Since this is also against criminal law in many parts of the world you could face a difficult time getting another job too.
However, we are straying a long way from the original point of this thread. Whether you download XP Pro or you hack the XP Home CD, you are using software beyond the rights that were licensed to you with respect to that software.
You'd need to consult a local lawyer to find out which parts of the EULA, if any, are actually applicable to you.
In the XP Pro case, you are using the software without any license to do so;
The EULA, the "certificate" and the media are all separate entities. It has always been possible to buy "licenceless" copies of Microsoft software. Intended for use with various corporate volume licence systems.
while in the XP Home case you are using it in a way that you aren't licensed to.
The thing to remember is that an EULA does not supercede the "law of the land". Be it copyright law, contract law or even anti-hacking law.
Just to be pedantic, a license is a contract, so breaking it is a tort, not a crime.
EULAs claim to be contracts. Whilst denying the usual attributes of contracts like allowing both parties to negotiate terms. Lacking exchange of "consideration". Containing clauses which are voided by pre-existing statute and case laws. Allowing one party to change the terms without notice. All the sorts of things which are likely to have any attempt to sue for "breach of contract" sumarily dismissed.
I'm loading mine with Barbera Striesland outtakes, Yoko Ono, Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music, Melt Banana, Whitney Houston, some Pia Zadora, and as much Tiny Tim as I can find! Then I'm taking over the highways and freeways like Max before me!
The RIAA announces that they are supporting the development of a new form of roadside camera. Instead of photographing cars travelling to fast or ignoring traffic lights this one will photograph "roadcasters". They hope that future legislation will allow them to directly bill the relevent drivers.
The point is that the level that security is increased isn't matched by the level of privacy lost.
It's by no means clear that such a system will increase actual security at all. Security is hard it's perfectly possible to put huge effort into something which at best makes no difference, at worst makes things less secure.If this technology would make it possible to never ever have another plane attacked again, then it might be worth the risk,
Terrorism isn't a "technical" problem in the first place. Nor is it an aviation problem. If you make it impossible for them to crash airliners full of fuel into buildings they could instead drive trucks full of fuel into buildings.
It's not a black and white question of life or death we're dealing with here. Increased airport screening doesn't actually increase your life expectancy very directly. It might (but might not) decrease the chance of attacks. However, that's not an easy game;
Security itself is not an "easy game". Effective security requires a lot of calm and levelheadedness. Whereas directly after the September 11th attacks there was a lot of panic and calls to "do something". Resulting in all sorts of expensive technical "solutions" which were at best useless. Security is not really a technical issue it's a human issue. With the "bad guys" looking for the loopholes. e.g. slecting people for extra examination on a non random basis makes things easier for potential terrorists.
It would be way too expensive to have an armed guard on every flight.
Part of the point of air marshals is that they are intended to appear top be ordinary passengers and/or crew members. (Given the recent publicity surrounding "air rage" it would be suprising if flight attendants are not trained in unarmed combat.) Thus the "bad guys" don't know if they are there or not.
What they should do is allow everyone to carry a gun, with bullets that won't penetrate the skin of the plane,
Bullets are not especially dangerous to planes. All a bullet is likely to do is make a bullet sized hole. Indeed the windows are the least vulnerable places. Since a hole in a window can be effectivly plugged by moving the sun visor. A few holes in the skin of the fuselage are very unlikely to endanger a plane or even seriously compromise it's pressurisation. The real risk with bullets in an aircraft is hitting bystanders. Bullets intended to shatter on impact with anything solid are likely to cause more injuries by creating shapnel or if they were to hit bone.
YES THEY DO HAVE TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE.
No need to shout, especially when you are mistaken.
The only way to avoid that is to ship the source with the binaries.
Not if they keep a record of who they have distributed the binary to.
Otherwise you have to give the source to anyone who asks ("any third party") for no more than a nominal fee.
It's perfectly possible for them to insist on name, address, customer number, etc. Note that their obligation is only to the parties they have directly distributed to. If you got the software from someone else that is the party you need to ask.
Thanks to the DMCA, how will we (those of us in the US, or countries willing to extradite) even know if GPL code is in closed source software? We can't reverse engineer to find out!
How long do you think the DMCA would stand if it became known it was being used to protect "software pirates".
When you comply with the conditions of the GPL. i.e. if you don't redistribute it to third parties or if you do you make the source available and don't dictate who they can and can't distribute the code to.
How long is it untill people start to use GPL code in closed source software and sue anyone who reversse engineers it?
Effectivly this would be commercial software piracy. That the code in question was GPL isn't relevent. Taking someone else's code and redistributing it is copyright infringement if you don't have the permission of the copyright holder to do so. Any company doing this would be foolish to draw attention to itself. Since doing so would mean that they would have a harder time using the "we didn't know" defence.
Do you really know what a "license" is? It's clearly written in the GPL that you HAVE to redistribute the source code that has been modified.
Where exactly?
The GPL says that if you distribute a binary to a third party you must make the source available to that party without additional cost. Also that you must clearly indicate any changes which you have made. It would be possible to have a licence requiring redistribution of modified code, but that licence would be something other than the GPL. Anyway such a licence might not be enforceable anyway.
Technically, if you follow this plan to its logical extreme, it will be successful. The downside is that the logical extreme will end up being better written as "Kill all followers of Islam."
Not all terrorists are followers of Islam. If you suspect that religion is part of the problem then Islam's two older siblings might be just as much a problem. Though even if you kill off all Moslems, Christians and Jews what do you intend to do about Sikh, Hindu and even atheist terrorists...
Deep down inside, I don't care if yousmoke dope or not a long as you do it on your own time. The dude who flips my burgers or sweeps my floor could be stoned out of his mind and not change his performance, but the anti drug folks always bring out the surgeon strawman (which is funny because I know a few doc's that are half in the bag most the time.
The difference is that doctors don't have to use black market products of dubious quality and contamination...
We can't remove alcohol and tobacco from our society, they are too much a part of it now. However, just because our great grandparents did a stupid thing, that doesn't mean we should start letting every man and his dog start shooting up.
What the US's experiment with alcohol prohibition proved is that the effects of prohibition are likely to be worst than the banned drugs themselves.
Note that no democratic state has such a large portion of it's citizens in prison than USA.
IIRC the US has the largest proportion of it's citizens in jail, regardless of being "democratic". Things like the "war on drugs" are rather indicative of a failure of democratic process.
Do you think the "Average Joe" cares whether the back-end http proto handlers are reused by every app or not? Heck, even if it is, the morons behind IE should have had the tiniest sense to ask themselves whether it should be that way...
Even if this is done do these applications need the entirity of a browser? As opposed some components.
And if you had any experience with some of these Browser Hijackers, you would know that spyware removal tools dont do shit. Both spybot and lavasoft did nada.
You need either "Hijack This" or to manually edit the registry.
Not sure if it will work on IE (never tried, but I don't see why not), but I found that the equally annoying MSN messenger had an awfully hard time popping itself up unexpectely once I'd deleted all of its files.
Windows update likes to reinstall it, for some reason or other.
I can't speak for other places, but in New Hampshire, license 'numbers' follow a predicatable form -- if I know your first name, the first letter of your first name, and your DOB, I can tell you your license number.
Similarly you can work out someone's date of birth from this number. Which is information valuable to identity thieves. But isn't that much use for addressing the question of if you are qualified to operate the vehicle you are driving.
For goodness sake, anyone who's seen your driver's license -- say the bartender at whatever club or whatever -- can open a credit card under your name, and from that point on you're pretty much screwed.
The solution here is very simple. Use these documents only for there proper purpose. i.e. driving cars. Indeed producing such a document should ensure not being served alcohol, since the implication is that you intend to drive a car.
There is no reason that SSN should be legal proof-of-identity, because it's absurdly easy to steal.
Any legal proof of identity should have as few functions as possible.
I'm sure that many high school computer systems aren't secured properly, so I don't see how they were acomplishing much. However, there probably aren't a lot of real hackers out there that are interested in the SS#s of teenagers.
If they are used for purposes of "identity theft" it may be quite a while before anyone notices.
Isn't the list of seeders and sharers on btefnet.com or the like a more trackable indicator of a show's popularity than anything the networks have come up with? I suppose satellite companies and Tivo have the tech to measure viewership, but as far as cable and network television, the only way to measure viewership is through actively surveying people or using Nielsen set-top boxes.
Actually it's easier with cable than satellite. Satellite is a one way medium, in order to get data back from satellite boxes they need to be plugged into a telephone line. Whereas many cable systems, even those which do not support cable modems, have some ability for two way communication.
Slashdot Mirror
You missed the point, the issue is that a perfectly stable software is released by its creator, but there is simply no easy way to install it for the normal user
Why do you think that it's a sensible idea for users to be installing software in the first place? Do you refuse to buy electrical appliances which have a "No user servicable parts" sticker on them...
Nope, all distros have pretty much the same problem. They all expect software to be centrally packaged and distributed.
The great thing about open source is that if you don't like they way something is done you can change it. Unlike proprietary software, where it's a case of "like it or lump it".
The point is that I don't want to become root AT ALL to install a piece of software, its my home dir, so why can't I dump the software there?
In which case you can simply build the software to work in that environment.
First of you can't install a application as a user, now how stupid is that?
A very sensible one. In the vast majority of cases users are there to use a computer, not play at being sysadmins.
If *I* want to install a bleeding edge version of Gimp, I neither want to bother the admin with it nor do I want to force it an all the others users, yet Debian requires me todo exactly that.
This is only an issue if you are trying to install the software on someone else's machine. If it is actually part of your job to evaluate "bleeding edge" software then you will either have access to a computer specifically for that purpose or know how to install the software somewhere you have write acess to. If you are trying to install software on your employer's computer(s) without authorisation then they are perfectly entitled to fire you. Since this is also against criminal law in many parts of the world you could face a difficult time getting another job too.
However, we are straying a long way from the original point of this thread. Whether you download XP Pro or you hack the XP Home CD, you are using software beyond the rights that were licensed to you with respect to that software.
You'd need to consult a local lawyer to find out which parts of the EULA, if any, are actually applicable to you.
In the XP Pro case, you are using the software without any license to do so;
The EULA, the "certificate" and the media are all separate entities. It has always been possible to buy "licenceless" copies of Microsoft software. Intended for use with various corporate volume licence systems.
while in the XP Home case you are using it in a way that you aren't licensed to.
The thing to remember is that an EULA does not supercede the "law of the land". Be it copyright law, contract law or even anti-hacking law.
Just to be pedantic, a license is a contract, so breaking it is a tort, not a crime.
EULAs claim to be contracts. Whilst denying the usual attributes of contracts like allowing both parties to negotiate terms. Lacking exchange of "consideration". Containing clauses which are voided by pre-existing statute and case laws. Allowing one party to change the terms without notice.
All the sorts of things which are likely to have any attempt to sue for "breach of contract" sumarily dismissed.
If you really belive that, I suggest you try it and then send a letter to MS telling them what you've done and see what happens.
Remember to include an EULA with your letter. Such that by opening the envelope they agree to modify all future copies of XP Home in the same way.
I'm loading mine with Barbera Striesland outtakes, Yoko Ono, Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music, Melt Banana, Whitney Houston, some Pia Zadora, and as much Tiny Tim as I can find! Then I'm taking over the highways and freeways like Max before me!
:)
How about Charlie McCoy
The RIAA announces that they are supporting the development of a new form of roadside camera. Instead of photographing cars travelling to fast or ignoring traffic lights this one will photograph "roadcasters". They hope that future legislation will allow them to directly bill the relevent drivers.
The point is that the level that security is increased isn't matched by the level of privacy lost.
It's by no means clear that such a system will increase actual security at all. Security is hard it's perfectly possible to put huge effort into something which at best makes no difference, at worst makes things less secure.If this technology would make it possible to never ever have another plane attacked again, then it might be worth the risk,
Terrorism isn't a "technical" problem in the first place. Nor is it an aviation problem. If you make it impossible for them to crash airliners full of fuel into buildings they could instead drive trucks full of fuel into buildings.
It's not a black and white question of life or death we're dealing with here. Increased airport screening doesn't actually increase your life expectancy very directly. It might (but might not) decrease the chance of attacks. However, that's not an easy game;
Security itself is not an "easy game". Effective security requires a lot of calm and levelheadedness. Whereas directly after the September 11th attacks there was a lot of panic and calls to "do something". Resulting in all sorts of expensive technical "solutions" which were at best useless.
Security is not really a technical issue it's a human issue. With the "bad guys" looking for the loopholes. e.g. slecting people for extra examination on a non random basis makes things easier for potential terrorists.
It would be way too expensive to have an armed guard on every flight.
Part of the point of air marshals is that they are intended to appear top be ordinary passengers and/or crew members. (Given the recent publicity surrounding "air rage" it would be suprising if flight attendants are not trained in unarmed combat.) Thus the "bad guys" don't know if they are there or not.
What they should do is allow everyone to carry a gun, with bullets that won't penetrate the skin of the plane,
Bullets are not especially dangerous to planes. All a bullet is likely to do is make a bullet sized hole. Indeed the windows are the least vulnerable places. Since a hole in a window can be effectivly plugged by moving the sun visor. A few holes in the skin of the fuselage are very unlikely to endanger a plane or even seriously compromise it's pressurisation.
The real risk with bullets in an aircraft is hitting bystanders. Bullets intended to shatter on impact with anything solid are likely to cause more injuries by creating shapnel or if they were to hit bone.
YES THEY DO HAVE TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE.
No need to shout, especially when you are mistaken.
The only way to avoid that is to ship the source with the binaries.
Not if they keep a record of who they have distributed the binary to.
Otherwise you have to give the source to anyone who asks ("any third party") for no more than a nominal fee.
It's perfectly possible for them to insist on name, address, customer number, etc.
Note that their obligation is only to the parties they have directly distributed to. If you got the software from someone else that is the party you need to ask.
Thanks to the DMCA, how will we (those of us in the US, or countries willing to extradite) even know if GPL code is in closed source software? We can't reverse engineer to find out!
How long do you think the DMCA would stand if it became known it was being used to protect "software pirates".
So when is it okay to use GPL code?
When you comply with the conditions of the GPL. i.e. if you don't redistribute it to third parties or if you do you make the source available and don't dictate who they can and can't distribute the code to.
How long is it untill people start to use GPL code in closed source software and sue anyone who reversse engineers it?
Effectivly this would be commercial software piracy. That the code in question was GPL isn't relevent. Taking someone else's code and redistributing it is copyright infringement if you don't have the permission of the copyright holder to do so. Any company doing this would be foolish to draw attention to itself. Since doing so would mean that they would have a harder time using the "we didn't know" defence.
Do you really know what a "license" is? It's clearly written in the GPL that you HAVE to redistribute the source code that has been modified.
Where exactly?
The GPL says that if you distribute a binary to a third party you must make the source available to that party without additional cost. Also that you must clearly indicate any changes which you have made.
It would be possible to have a licence requiring redistribution of modified code, but that licence would be something other than the GPL. Anyway such a licence might not be enforceable anyway.
Technically, if you follow this plan to its logical extreme, it will be successful. The downside is that the logical extreme will end up being better written as "Kill all followers of Islam."
Not all terrorists are followers of Islam. If you suspect that religion is part of the problem then Islam's two older siblings might be just as much a problem.
Though even if you kill off all Moslems, Christians and Jews what do you intend to do about Sikh, Hindu and even atheist terrorists...
Deep down inside, I don't care if yousmoke dope or not a long as you do it on your own time. The dude who flips my burgers or sweeps my floor could be stoned out of his mind and not change his performance, but the anti drug folks always bring out the surgeon strawman (which is funny because I know a few doc's that are half in the bag most the time.
The difference is that doctors don't have to use black market products of dubious quality and contamination...
We can't remove alcohol and tobacco from our society, they are too much a part of it now. However, just because our great grandparents did a stupid thing, that doesn't mean we should start letting every man and his dog start shooting up.
What the US's experiment with alcohol prohibition proved is that the effects of prohibition are likely to be worst than the banned drugs themselves.
Note that no democratic state has such a large portion of it's citizens in prison than USA.
IIRC the US has the largest proportion of it's citizens in jail, regardless of being "democratic". Things like the "war on drugs" are rather indicative of a failure of democratic process.
Do you think the "Average Joe" cares whether the back-end http proto handlers are reused by every app or not? Heck, even if it is, the morons behind IE should have had the tiniest sense to ask themselves whether it should be that way...
Even if this is done do these applications need the entirity of a browser? As opposed some components.
And if you had any experience with some of these Browser Hijackers, you would know that spyware removal tools dont do shit. Both spybot and lavasoft did nada.
You need either "Hijack This" or to manually edit the registry.
Not sure if it will work on IE (never tried, but I don't see why not), but I found that the equally annoying MSN messenger had an awfully hard time popping itself up unexpectely once I'd deleted all of its files.
Windows update likes to reinstall it, for some reason or other.
Basically, SSNs seem to have become the knee-jerk instant universal ID number for American firms and institutions of all sorts, which is a pity.
It's rather more than "a pity" it's a fundermentally bad idea from the POV of security.
I can't speak for other places, but in New Hampshire, license 'numbers' follow a predicatable form -- if I know your first name, the first letter of your first name, and your DOB, I can tell you your license number.
Similarly you can work out someone's date of birth from this number. Which is information valuable to identity thieves. But isn't that much use for addressing the question of if you are qualified to operate the vehicle you are driving.
For goodness sake, anyone who's seen your driver's license -- say the bartender at whatever club or whatever -- can open a credit card under your name, and from that point on you're pretty much screwed.
The solution here is very simple. Use these documents only for there proper purpose. i.e. driving cars. Indeed producing such a document should ensure not being served alcohol, since the implication is that you intend to drive a car.
There is no reason that SSN should be legal proof-of-identity, because it's absurdly easy to steal.
Any legal proof of identity should have as few functions as possible.
I'm sure that many high school computer systems aren't secured properly, so I don't see how they were acomplishing much. However, there probably aren't a lot of real hackers out there that are interested in the SS#s of teenagers.
If they are used for purposes of "identity theft" it may be quite a while before anyone notices.
Isn't the list of seeders and sharers on btefnet.com or the like a more trackable indicator of a show's popularity than anything the networks have come up with? I suppose satellite companies and Tivo have the tech to measure viewership, but as far as cable and network television, the only way to measure viewership is through actively surveying people or using Nielsen set-top boxes.
Actually it's easier with cable than satellite. Satellite is a one way medium, in order to get data back from satellite boxes they need to be plugged into a telephone line. Whereas many cable systems, even those which do not support cable modems, have some ability for two way communication.