That would indicate that the default is "yes", so if you want to disable it, you need to uncomment it and set ChallengeResponseAuthentication to "no". Then restart sshd.
Re:Good lord, what will they think of next?!
on
P2P Television?
·
· Score: 1
Ah, but if Congress and the HDTV standards groups get their way, people won't have the VCR for too long...
I have an application written in Perl/Tk, and would love to be able to port it to OS X without either A) rewriting in ObjectiveC, or B) requiring an X server on the client machines.
I'll grant you that. Unfortunately, the problem with that law (like lots of others on the books), is exactly THAT it's not practical to enforce it. Thus, you get selective enforcement. So while the odds are good that if you crack your new HD-VCR to record "protected" content nobody will come get you, they could if they wanted to. Remember, they got Al Capone on tax evasion - just add "recording protected material" to the laundry list of other things that you could conceivably be busted for.
So you're right. Much like the satellite dish "black boxes" in the 80s or so, odds are that if the laws stand you'll just see a few token arrests in order to keep people in line. Even though the odds are it won't be you getting arrested, do you want to risk the criminal record (or see someone like you hauled off to jail) so that Michael Eisner can buy another yacht?
But the question we as a country need to ask ourselves is if we really want or need a Congress that passes hundreds of new laws every year, with a net result only of making more people into criminals.
If the plaintiffs win or lose, some good could come out of this suit.
WIN: Reinforces a person's right to use their own technology as they see fit, within the bounds of the law. Skipping commercials is NOT a copyright violation.
LOSS: Gets an admission from the governments and the courts that "You have no rights to the media that you see or own. The owner can dictate terms even after it has left their control." If we get an admission like that, it could be used as a rallying cry to get nontechnical folks concerned about the issue.
This variant of D-VHS, D-Theater, includes an encrpytion, to stop the pre-recorded movies from being copied (much like CSS was supposed to do with DVD's). That is the only restriction that this format has, which is a welcome change from all the other attempts to control HD content.
That may be true, but it seems like with the way that Hollywood is going, that we need to make a stand and say "No, we are not going to adopt any new technology that undermines our fair-use right. Don't give us technology that only takes away some of what we've enjoyed for years and call it a gift. You've made billions in a world with cassette tapes, CD burners, and VCRs, figure out a way to do the same in the HDTV world without screwing us over."
True, you may miss out on some stuff, but it's either that or become more of a digital criminal than we already are.
And every time someone posts about how there's better things to do with your time than playing right into Hollywood's hands, you'll get a mewling, mealy-mouthed comment of "Nobody asked you for your opinion. Nanny nanny boo boo." And thus the great circle of life continues.
As far as contributing, I've been calling and meeting with my Congressional representatives, and attempting to drum up public awareness of this issue.
If the media companies don't like the copyright violations, they're more than welcome to use current copyright law to prosecute violators. There is no justification or precident for Hollywood gaining control or veto power over new technologies simply because they don't like the way people use them.
Sounds like you're still mad that consumers have the ability to use a VCR, which made poor Hollywood "change their business model." After all, Jack Valenti said that the VCR would destroy Hollywood, so it must be true!
I pay much more attention to the vivid, full-color picture outside in my garden than I do to anything on TV.
In fact, the longer this rights-trampling crap from Hollywood goes on, the more I realize what a waste of time television is, and find that I can get much more rewarding stuff accomplished when it's off.
I need a more rewarding TV experience like a need a more rewarding hole in my head.
This may be cynical, but this is how I look at most of the "Wah wah, Red Hat is Microsoft" talk.
A sizable portion of the "computer elite" get a great deal of self-worth from how obscure the software they use is. So back several years ago when your choices were Microsoft and Apple, they could crow about "You're using those toy operating systems? Hah - I'm using Linux." And it really didn't matter what distro you were using (even thought most people were on Red Hat or Slackware), because Linux was so small and off-the-radar that Linux was Linux.
Now, however, with Linux becoming mainstream (preinstalled on servers, available in Wal-Mart, etc.), you can't be "cool" just by using Linux any more. If you run Red Hat, there's the chance that you might (gasp!) be running the same OS as the neophyte computer kid down the street. Can't have that happen and keep the cool-points. So you see the kiddies running to the other Red Hat-like distributions (can't be too complicated or different) such as Mandrake and SuSE, so they can still keep that air of superiority on Slashdot ("You use Red Hat? Hah - I'm using Mandrake. They're not sellouts.")
Red Hat may not do the right thing 100% of the time, but they come as close as anyone. From the way some of the kids talk around here, though, you'd think they were skewering babies and switching the gas at the local BP with sugar. So I chalk most of it up to insecurity. But that may just be the cynic in me.
I'll certainly grant you that it's a sketchy law that won't solve the real problems in the government. I just find it odd that the only time these guys rush to defend the Constitution is when their back pockets might be threatened.
Y'know what amuses and disturbs me to no end? Politicians will go out and spit on the Constitution with no shame, as long as it pleases their corporate masters.
However, if you suggest reforming the campaign finance system, they'll all unite to rail against this "Unamerican suppression of 1st Amendment rights".
More people need to holler "bullshit" on stuff like this.
Doesn't look like Microsoft is hurting too bad. They still dominate the Intel desktop, and their antitrust trial is a joke. They can keep on doing stuff like this because, if a memo leaks out every now and again that they're behaving in an anticompetitive nature, there won't be any consequences.
I fully support AOL/TW's rights to make a PVR that doesn't do ad-skipping. Hell, I support their rights to make a PVR that replaces all programming with a picture of Bugs Bunny(tm) flipping off the viewer. If people want to buy that, they can.
But what's going to happen is that the media companies are going to buy enough Congressmen so as to make unauthorized PVR technology illegal, and then the media companies will only authorize non-ad-skipping PVRs, eliminating customer choice. And it'll happen, too, because few people will raise enough of a stink, and the money will keep flowing into the campaign coffers of the very representatives who are selling our freedoms for the proverbial 30 pieces of silver.
So, AOL/TW, by all means feel free to come out with your crippled PVR. But have enough respect for the citizens of this country, put your cowardace behind you, and let the people decide what technology they want to support.
I was referring more to the free publicity and "buzz" on the film. Especially since I feel certain that anyone who cared enough about Star Wars to download a crappy divx shot on a camcorder would probably also pay to see it on the big screen.
Just like Microsoft hates all that unauthorized copying that helped get their product onto everyone's desktop and them a monopoly on desktop operating systems, right?
That's right! Doesn't he know he's just a "consumer"? He shouldn't try to do anything on his own. Now hopefully the bum will go back to eating McDonalds and watching MTV. The bum!
Maybe Turner and the rest of the TV distributors will get mad at their customers and decide to withhold their precious "content" from us. I can't imagine anything nicer than turning on the TV, seeing nothing but 600 channels of no signal, and going outside to work in the garden.
Current copyright law (flawed though it may be) gives copyright holders all the legislative muscle they need to bring suit against potential infringers. Anything above that gets into the realm of presumed guilt and having copyright holders in control of stuff they don't need to touch.
Tell your Congressfolk that there are already existing laws that need to be applied before adding new ones. I don't see the MPAA/RIAA/etc. actually attempting to go after violators with copyright law - the issue is one of control of content and technology, and the copyright issue is just the smokescreen.
I've tried Mandrake and really don't see why everyone fawns over the distro so much. It's Red Hat with a different installer. It's been years since I ran across desktop hardware that wasn't supported in Red Hat right out of the box, and they provide the GUI tools just like anyone else.
I'm sure Mandrake is a fine little distro, but I fail to see the big gap that separates it from Red Hat, SuSE, or any other RPM-based distro.
That's correct - I meant "if a company used GPL'd software in their own commercial, closed-source product...".
It was the Benadryl talking.:-)
Interesting point
on
GPL's Strength
·
· Score: 3, Informative
That's an interesting point. Because if a company used GPL'd software, and declined to release the source, they'd have two options:
1) Challenge the GPL in court. If it failed, the best they could hope for is that the code would revert to existing copyright law, which means they can't use it at all, and thus would have to pull that code out of their product.
2) Bow to pressure and conform to the terms of the GPL, which is what the FSF, et al, wanted all along.
A very interesting observation, and one that gets to the heart of the "If you don't like the conditions we attach to our code, write your own" argument. Other people would not normally be able to use GPL'd code at all, under standard copyright law, but for some reason, the GPL seems to lead to more "I should be able to do whatever I want with your code" responses.
IRC! And the telephone! And email! And public meeting places! And printers! And the postal system! They all help those nefarious "hackers" do their evil work!
Jesus Christ on a bicycle. Communication is communication. They talk about IRC being hard to track, but I'm sure that at a cursory glance, most other forms of communication can be, too.
Sensationalism at its best. Take a subject that the common person may not be very familiar with, like IRC, and you can spin it into any kind of world you want.
Slashdot Mirror
That would indicate that the default is "yes", so if you want to disable it, you need to uncomment it and set ChallengeResponseAuthentication to "no". Then restart sshd.
Ah, but if Congress and the HDTV standards groups get their way, people won't have the VCR for too long...
Tcl/Tk is a good start, but Perl/Tk doesn't actually call Tcl/Tk - it's an entirely separate package.
Perl/Tk.org
I have an application written in Perl/Tk, and would love to be able to port it to OS X without either A) rewriting in ObjectiveC, or B) requiring an X server on the client machines.
I'll grant you that. Unfortunately, the problem with that law (like lots of others on the books), is exactly THAT it's not practical to enforce it. Thus, you get selective enforcement. So while the odds are good that if you crack your new HD-VCR to record "protected" content nobody will come get you, they could if they wanted to. Remember, they got Al Capone on tax evasion - just add "recording protected material" to the laundry list of other things that you could conceivably be busted for.
So you're right. Much like the satellite dish "black boxes" in the 80s or so, odds are that if the laws stand you'll just see a few token arrests in order to keep people in line. Even though the odds are it won't be you getting arrested, do you want to risk the criminal record (or see someone like you hauled off to jail) so that Michael Eisner can buy another yacht?
But the question we as a country need to ask ourselves is if we really want or need a Congress that passes hundreds of new laws every year, with a net result only of making more people into criminals.
If the plaintiffs win or lose, some good could come out of this suit.
WIN: Reinforces a person's right to use their own technology as they see fit, within the bounds of the law. Skipping commercials is NOT a copyright violation.
LOSS: Gets an admission from the governments and the courts that "You have no rights to the media that you see or own. The owner can dictate terms even after it has left their control." If we get an admission like that, it could be used as a rallying cry to get nontechnical folks concerned about the issue.
This variant of D-VHS, D-Theater, includes an encrpytion, to stop the pre-recorded movies from being copied (much like CSS was supposed to do with DVD's). That is the only restriction that this format has, which is a welcome change from all the other attempts to control HD content.
That may be true, but it seems like with the way that Hollywood is going, that we need to make a stand and say "No, we are not going to adopt any new technology that undermines our fair-use right. Don't give us technology that only takes away some of what we've enjoyed for years and call it a gift. You've made billions in a world with cassette tapes, CD burners, and VCRs, figure out a way to do the same in the HDTV world without screwing us over."
True, you may miss out on some stuff, but it's either that or become more of a digital criminal than we already are.
And every time someone posts about how there's better things to do with your time than playing right into Hollywood's hands, you'll get a mewling, mealy-mouthed comment of "Nobody asked you for your opinion. Nanny nanny boo boo." And thus the great circle of life continues.
As far as contributing, I've been calling and meeting with my Congressional representatives, and attempting to drum up public awareness of this issue.
If the media companies don't like the copyright violations, they're more than welcome to use current copyright law to prosecute violators. There is no justification or precident for Hollywood gaining control or veto power over new technologies simply because they don't like the way people use them.
Sounds like you're still mad that consumers have the ability to use a VCR, which made poor Hollywood "change their business model." After all, Jack Valenti said that the VCR would destroy Hollywood, so it must be true!
Spare me.
I pay much more attention to the vivid, full-color picture outside in my garden than I do to anything on TV.
In fact, the longer this rights-trampling crap from Hollywood goes on, the more I realize what a waste of time television is, and find that I can get much more rewarding stuff accomplished when it's off.
I need a more rewarding TV experience like a need a more rewarding hole in my head.
This may be cynical, but this is how I look at most of the "Wah wah, Red Hat is Microsoft" talk.
A sizable portion of the "computer elite" get a great deal of self-worth from how obscure the software they use is. So back several years ago when your choices were Microsoft and Apple, they could crow about "You're using those toy operating systems? Hah - I'm using Linux." And it really didn't matter what distro you were using (even thought most people were on Red Hat or Slackware), because Linux was so small and off-the-radar that Linux was Linux.
Now, however, with Linux becoming mainstream (preinstalled on servers, available in Wal-Mart, etc.), you can't be "cool" just by using Linux any more. If you run Red Hat, there's the chance that you might (gasp!) be running the same OS as the neophyte computer kid down the street. Can't have that happen and keep the cool-points. So you see the kiddies running to the other Red Hat-like distributions (can't be too complicated or different) such as Mandrake and SuSE, so they can still keep that air of superiority on Slashdot ("You use Red Hat? Hah - I'm using Mandrake. They're not sellouts.")
Red Hat may not do the right thing 100% of the time, but they come as close as anyone. From the way some of the kids talk around here, though, you'd think they were skewering babies and switching the gas at the local BP with sugar. So I chalk most of it up to insecurity. But that may just be the cynic in me.
I'll certainly grant you that it's a sketchy law that won't solve the real problems in the government. I just find it odd that the only time these guys rush to defend the Constitution is when their back pockets might be threatened.
Y'know what amuses and disturbs me to no end? Politicians will go out and spit on the Constitution with no shame, as long as it pleases their corporate masters.
However, if you suggest reforming the campaign finance system, they'll all unite to rail against this "Unamerican suppression of 1st Amendment rights".
More people need to holler "bullshit" on stuff like this.
Doesn't look like Microsoft is hurting too bad. They still dominate the Intel desktop, and their antitrust trial is a joke. They can keep on doing stuff like this because, if a memo leaks out every now and again that they're behaving in an anticompetitive nature, there won't be any consequences.
I fully support AOL/TW's rights to make a PVR that doesn't do ad-skipping. Hell, I support their rights to make a PVR that replaces all programming with a picture of Bugs Bunny(tm) flipping off the viewer. If people want to buy that, they can.
But what's going to happen is that the media companies are going to buy enough Congressmen so as to make unauthorized PVR technology illegal, and then the media companies will only authorize non-ad-skipping PVRs, eliminating customer choice. And it'll happen, too, because few people will raise enough of a stink, and the money will keep flowing into the campaign coffers of the very representatives who are selling our freedoms for the proverbial 30 pieces of silver.
So, AOL/TW, by all means feel free to come out with your crippled PVR. But have enough respect for the citizens of this country, put your cowardace behind you, and let the people decide what technology they want to support.
That'd be a hoot. :-)
I was referring more to the free publicity and "buzz" on the film. Especially since I feel certain that anyone who cared enough about Star Wars to download a crappy divx shot on a camcorder would probably also pay to see it on the big screen.
Just like Microsoft hates all that unauthorized copying that helped get their product onto everyone's desktop and them a monopoly on desktop operating systems, right?
That's right! Doesn't he know he's just a "consumer"? He shouldn't try to do anything on his own. Now hopefully the bum will go back to eating McDonalds and watching MTV. The bum!
Maybe Turner and the rest of the TV distributors will get mad at their customers and decide to withhold their precious "content" from us. I can't imagine anything nicer than turning on the TV, seeing nothing but 600 channels of no signal, and going outside to work in the garden.
Current copyright law (flawed though it may be) gives copyright holders all the legislative muscle they need to bring suit against potential infringers. Anything above that gets into the realm of presumed guilt and having copyright holders in control of stuff they don't need to touch.
Tell your Congressfolk that there are already existing laws that need to be applied before adding new ones. I don't see the MPAA/RIAA/etc. actually attempting to go after violators with copyright law - the issue is one of control of content and technology, and the copyright issue is just the smokescreen.
I've tried Mandrake and really don't see why everyone fawns over the distro so much. It's Red Hat with a different installer. It's been years since I ran across desktop hardware that wasn't supported in Red Hat right out of the box, and they provide the GUI tools just like anyone else.
I'm sure Mandrake is a fine little distro, but I fail to see the big gap that separates it from Red Hat, SuSE, or any other RPM-based distro.
$.02
Sen. Hollings represents Disney and SOUTH Carolina, not North Carolina. We've got our own cranky old white guy, but he's retiring after this term. :-)
That's correct - I meant "if a company used GPL'd software in their own commercial, closed-source product...".
:-)
It was the Benadryl talking.
That's an interesting point. Because if a company used GPL'd software, and declined to release the source, they'd have two options:
1) Challenge the GPL in court. If it failed, the best they could hope for is that the code would revert to existing copyright law, which means they can't use it at all, and thus would have to pull that code out of their product.
2) Bow to pressure and conform to the terms of the GPL, which is what the FSF, et al, wanted all along.
A very interesting observation, and one that gets to the heart of the "If you don't like the conditions we attach to our code, write your own" argument. Other people would not normally be able to use GPL'd code at all, under standard copyright law, but for some reason, the GPL seems to lead to more "I should be able to do whatever I want with your code" responses.
IRC! And the telephone! And email! And public meeting places! And printers! And the postal system! They all help those nefarious "hackers" do their evil work!
Jesus Christ on a bicycle. Communication is communication. They talk about IRC being hard to track, but I'm sure that at a cursory glance, most other forms of communication can be, too.
Sensationalism at its best. Take a subject that the common person may not be very familiar with, like IRC, and you can spin it into any kind of world you want.