Strike that. After RTFA I see that they didn't actually make an anti-$CO change to the GPL. They just used one of its existing clauses to terminate SCO's license. A fork won't help in this case since $CO apparently violated the GPL in general. I've never read the GPL so I didn't know that. It would be nice is more GPLed projects would recognize this and do something similar. It would be nice if Linus revoked $CO's Linux Kernel lincense.:)
Well... actually I think they can. The license change can't be applied retroactively to past public releases. It can (and has I believe) only applied to the newest releases. Someone could very easily fork nmap at the point right before the license change and distribute nmap-ng with support and all with no worries as long as they stay within the licensing provisions of the GPL at that point and time in the codebase. Never forget forks.
Yes and no. They'd have to terminate their contract on the basis of a contract violation. They didn't necessarily "hire" Verisign to do the job. Verisign was the contractor and contractors are bound to contracts. If they don't adhear to the contract then they can be terminated. Just basic contract law stuff.
MS DOS 6 lacked widespread network access. All Microsoft has to do is make Windows Update provide the latest virus definitions.
I just had a scary thought. Remember a while back when Microsoft was talking about how they want the ability to force users to apply patches to their systems remotely? They said this after another round of worms exploiting well-known vulnerabilities. Remember the outcry after they said that? I took a cursory look at the older articles on/. and didn't find the one I'm referring to but I know it's there.
I find it sad that so many people hold MS so incompetent as to not be able to write a simple anti-virus program without creating security holes.
We can speak quite effectively and accurately from experience. Microsoft still manages to produce some of the most insecure operating systems after being in the biz for how many years now. They still manage to bork installations during minor little updates to things like Microsoft Office. Outlook, IE, and Exchange are still some of the most insecure pieces of software available for purchase today. We as IT professionals can speak from experience when we say that Microsoft will not be able to do this without borking something else.
They aren't fixing security wholes created by poor programming practices. They aren't even correcting thise poor programming practices. All they are doing by embedding an AV client into the OS is extending their monopoly further. What do you think a monopoly is? If they were fixing the problems then we'd be happy. They aren't. They are extending their monopoly, simple as that.
Based on your logic I hereby challenge you and the FBI to confiscate every single poorly maintained personal computer running Microsoft Windows of all vulnerable versions. There are only millions out there. Best of you to you.
I can't disagree more. If I don't lock my car will the city PD confiscate it? No. If I leave the windows of my house open, will the zoning commision sieze it? Of course not. What gives any government agency the right to permanently steal (there's no other word for it) my property based on their opinion of my (the lab admin's) ability to adequately maintain the security of such system? I'm a staunch anti-spammer so my next sentence may shock you. It's my right to configure my mail system to be an open-relay if I so desire. I can't of course prevent you from blacklisting it. My provider might have a policy that requires me to secure my system and might cut off my service if I don't. Still it's my right to configure the system in that manner. They can cut off my connection and you can blacklist me (both expected) but that wouldn't change my opinion. The FBI has no right to continue with the confiscation beyond the period of time necessary to glean the information from the machine as specified in the warrant used to sieze it. Simple as that. What they did at this Unv was essentially theft of state property.
That might work. Some sort of authentication system needs to be devised. I hate to suggest it but a bio auth system would probably be the best. Of course the next thing you know we'll hear about people stealing DNA samples from other people to use in bio auth interfaces. I can see it now: identity theft by disposing of your McDonalds cup and straw in a public trash can; urine harvesting device hidden in urinals (like the ATM card readers and cameras). I don't know what the fix is for that. It would be nice if there was a way though. Thanks for the reply.
I've been wondering why the hell we have parties at all. What purpose to they serve, honestly? Can one of two parties be used to describe the viewpoints of all the citizens in all the different social economical classes, in all corners of all 50 states? I seriously doubt it. Republican constituents from Kansas don't have the same viewpoint as Republican constituents from New York. How can an elective representative serve the people he was elected by and still support his defunct party? He can't do it, or at least he can't do it honestly.
What the hell is this crap about toeing party lines? I never have understood it. It's utter bullshit from no matter what angle you look at it. Voters who vote for a candidate just because they are Democrats are fools. They aren't voting on the issues or for the man/woman. They're voting with a word. A single fscking meaningless, pointless, worthless word. Elected official who toe party lines and vote against a bill or resolution simply because it was introduced by the other defunct party is a damned dishonest fool. He/she isn't there voting for the issues that his constituents elected him/her for. They are voting to maintain their party's power and to keep their own job. That's as dishonest as it gets.
What the hell is the point of having political parties? Why can't our elected officials just vote on the issues? Why the hell do they have to play party games? Elected Offical A runs for office by taking a particular stance on Hot Issue Z. His constituents elect him to office because of his stance on Z (and other stances of course). A bill is introduced regarding issue Z. His party Pink doesn't actually like Z and wants to instead vote for Y. Who is Elected Official A loyal to? The people that elected him to office and that he's representing? Or the club Pink that he claims to be a member of? I never will understand the point of political parties.
I actually wrote both my state district senator and representative this week in support of a bill to legalize concealed carry of weapons in Kansas. I also was in contact with a rep I know personally. Today I'm writing the rep that introduced the bill to thank her for her efforts. All the people I spoke with were happy to talk about their position and genuinely seemed glad to hear from a constituent. It probably doesn't happen very often. That is very sad. I'd like to see a system where a rep puts up a poll on a website that asks what their constituents think that reps stance should be on a given bill/topic. The rep doesn't have to follow their opinions of course but it would at the very least give the constituents a speedy voice, something that doesn't exist today. There would of course have to be some sort of auth for this to work. I'll leave that as an exercise for the creative mind.
It is highly likely that by siezing all machines and data of a commercial data center, that they have deprived several customer of their due process of law (5th) and freedom from search and siezure (4th).
They'll probably it was terrorism-related (got to get he buzz words and catch phrases in there) and the Patriot Act will protect them. Very sad.
Second part untrue. What makes you think the Agents gives a flying fsck through a rolling doughnut about collateral damage to some business he's never heard of and isn't paid to protect?
Right on target. In my experience the FBI couldn't give a rats ass about causing the least amount of colateral damage or returning your siezed property. In 2001 (I believe that's right) the FBI siezed a Sun 20 from a lab at a University I worked for. The lab was less than maintained. It was full of SGIs that were vulnerable to every possible exploit for the last 5 or 6 years. It was a joke really. The Sun was also unmaintained. I pointed out to my super 10 months before the siezure that the Sun was an open relay and had services running that shouldn't be (I still have that email!). Nevertheless it wasn't touched for 10 months. Right about the time I volunteered to help the lab maintainer get everything up to date and secure again the FBI came in and siezed the Sun. It apparently was used for something bad. I haven't been with that University for a while now but last I knew it still hadn't been returned. The FBI couldn't give a rat's ass about causing the least amount of colateral damage. Their actions speak for themselves. What if the machine used for the attack (or probe for that matter) was the Unv's mail server? It was poorly maintained too and had been hacked before. What if an attacker used it as a launching pad for an attack. Would the FBI sieze that piece of state property, effecting bringing email on campus to a complete halt? It's sad really to think about it.
"Could this be a sign of the beginning of the end of spam?"
Certainly not. I do however predict it will be the beginning of the end of email. This is a perfect way to segment the email systems from one another; those that utilize this plugin and those that are discriminated against for not using this plugin. I for one will not use something that isn't a damned standard. You don't have to be an evil genius to recognize the evils of introducing non-standard requirements into such a critical system. It's just plain nuts.
I'm looking forward to see what the drones can do. I don't know if pilots will ever be removed from the cockpit though. I mean it makes sense but can you imagine the DoD doing that? Hard to say. Imagine a drone pulling a 20G loop to evade a SAM. Schweet.:-)
It's an election year and the Bush Administration needs to trim some spending fat ASAP. They've spent a helluva lot of money over the past 4 years, which is one thing the Democrats are attacking. Cutting a cold-war induced program that has and will cost a lot of money will give them something to show the public and say "see, we're cutting the fat." Elections years can be a time for excellent ground-breaking legislation to get passed or it can be a time for some of the stupidest moves in our government. Sucks.:-(
The Comanche's claim to fame wasn't its armament. It's wasn't its speed or maneuverability. The Comanche's claim to fame is it's stealth technology. I think it's worth continuing the program, albeit perhaps in a different form, just to continue expanding on the stealth technology. Ideally the stealth tech would then be applied to the Apache and Apache Longbow rather than a new bird. The stealth technology alone is worth the price IMHO. If the enemy can't see our birds, they can't shoot them down. If they can't shoot them down then we'll have fewer ("no" is impossible in reality) downed pilots. No lost crews. Fewer (again not "no") air crew POWs. Fewer families back home waiting for their sons, daughters, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers to come home. Stealth is worth it if for no other reason. There's no doubting that.
I've got a friend that reloads those things in the field. He was in Iraq last I heard. What an awesome plane. The Warthog is like the B-52. It's old but does its job so well nothing else can compare.
I think the ACLU is trying to appeal more to the sensible majority that 1) want to support to the 2nd Amendment, but 2) recognize that it was written at a time when powerful weapons like RPGs, patriot missiles, and WMD didn't exist. They are trying to play a balancing act between the extremist view of 'any regulation on what's written in the 2nd infringes on my rights' and the sensible view of 'weapons should be allowed but to the the ultimate extent of anyone having a nuke in their garage.' The former will never succeed. The latter will appease the majority. Which would you expect them to support?
Now I whole-heartedly believe the ACLU should support gay rights including the right to have a marriage between a homosexual couple be recognized by the state. Why is it that we as a 1st-world nation still feel the need to discriminate against race, religion, and sexual preference? Why aren't we above that by now? If two homosexual individuals want to get married why the hell should we stop them? What does it really matter to us? Does it really hurt us or infringe on our rights somehow? I can't possibly see how it could. They aren't trying to convince you to become gay. They aren't trying to sell your children on the notion of growing up to be gay. I live in the rural Midwest where for some odd reason many people are against homosexual marriages. I liken the viewpoints of these individuals to that of the racist self-serving southerners from the 60s. The only thing we're lacking this time around is riots. I mean that literally.
I also support the ACLU on correcting the Pledge of Allegiance. I whole-heartedly support that action. "Why?" you might ask? Because it's current form infringes on my 1st Amendment right of Freedom of Religion. My beef with the POA can be summed up in two words: Under God. That's it. Many people upon hearing you say that will jumped at the chance to call you unpatriotic (hell nowadays they might just call you a terrorist) for wanting to change their sacred document. However there's nothing unpatriotic about asserting your Freedom of Religion rights. Hell that's actually quite "American." We are the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, aren't we? Didn't our forefathers come to this land to escape religious persecution? I could have sworn I read that once. Here in the "Bible Belt" you'd most likely be assaulted if you publicly stated that the words "under God" were not part of the original POA but were added after political pressure. You would probably be stoned if you described how the Knights of Columbus campaigned to add the words "under God" to the POA in 1954. Why would others not like you stating the truth about the POA? Perhaps they feel it threatens their religious views. Perhaps they simply fear change, that is after all human nature. I sympathize with those fearful people but I can not deny that the words "under God" cross the line in the separation of church and state. Does someone else's religious beliefs negate my own?
It's been fun chatting (no, really. I enjoy these discussions!) but I need to get back to work. I mentioned earlier that I hadn't heard of any other groups that defend out rights. I stumbled across one tonight. It's the Cato Institute. I noticed that they'd submitted an Amicus Brief for the Hiibel case that SCOTUS agreed to hear. Their website is pretty good. I haven't done any other research on them yet but they *seem* to be a decent group. YMMV. Have a good one.
Well they aren'te perfect. Then again can you think of any other organizations that stands up for our rights, all our rights? I can't. It would be nice if there were more ACLU-like organizations out there but I sure can't think of any. Even though they don't have the cojones that they used to, they are at least doing something. It would be nice if they did more though; that's for sure.
I had to explain my position on gun control very recently because my state House recently introduced a bill to allow CCW licenses to be issued (Kansas is one of 6 states that doesn't allow it). I also responded to the parent to you reply, although I won't rewrite it all again here. You can read my comment here if you want. My stance on gun control is that I don't think we need to go overboard with laws restricting guns. I certainly don't mind requiring that people prove their abilities in a certified class though. Does that make sense? I don't think convicted felons should have guns (depending on their crime and how long it's been since they were released, ever in some cases of course). I do think that law abiding citizens shouldn't be prevented from carrying one if they can show they are capable of handling it safely. I think most of the what Clinton passed was worthless and was just a ploy to improve his poll standings. I mean how much less dangerous is a handgun that carries 10 rounds instead of 13? Clinton's law was a good example of bad law. What we need is good gun control laws. I don't mind proving that I can use a firearm safely to get a license to carry one. I have to prove I can drive a car (although what the DMV requires if woefully inadequate IMHO). Does all this make sense? I don't take the stance of the NRA which says that all laws the restrict guns (even if they are allowed but with restrictions) are bad laws. I'm not that extreme. I'm sensible enough to recognize that some people are incapable of handling a firearm safely, just like how they are incapable of handling a motor vehicle. To mitigate this risk I vote for weapons training and safety certification for all those that want CCW licenses.
All this rambling is my hurried opinion. I can write it out better if needed. My opinion is pretty simple though. Make the gun control laws useful and eliminate the bad, worthless laws.
Did I misspell it? Son of a biatch; it looks like I did. Well, it's been a long time since I was in a Spelling B.:) Thanks for pointing that out.
I will not misspell Australia again.
I will not misspell Australia again.
I will not misspell Australia again.
I will not misspell Australia again.
I will not misspell Australia again.
I will not misspell Australia again.
I will not misspell Australia again.
I will not misspell Australia again.
I will not misspell Australia again.
I will not misspell Australia again.
ad infinitum
Slashdot Mirror
An AC found it for me. Here's the article. I'm reposting it cause the AC was modded down to nothing.
Thanks!
Strike that. After RTFA I see that they didn't actually make an anti-$CO change to the GPL. They just used one of its existing clauses to terminate SCO's license. A fork won't help in this case since $CO apparently violated the GPL in general. I've never read the GPL so I didn't know that. It would be nice is more GPLed projects would recognize this and do something similar. It would be nice if Linus revoked $CO's Linux Kernel lincense. :)
Well... actually I think they can. The license change can't be applied retroactively to past public releases. It can (and has I believe) only applied to the newest releases. Someone could very easily fork nmap at the point right before the license change and distribute nmap-ng with support and all with no worries as long as they stay within the licensing provisions of the GPL at that point and time in the codebase. Never forget forks.
Yes and no. They'd have to terminate their contract on the basis of a contract violation. They didn't necessarily "hire" Verisign to do the job. Verisign was the contractor and contractors are bound to contracts. If they don't adhear to the contract then they can be terminated. Just basic contract law stuff.
Dude, I'm glad they track when and where I get my suds because I can now ask them 'dude, where's my car?'
I just had a scary thought. Remember a while back when Microsoft was talking about how they want the ability to force users to apply patches to their systems remotely? They said this after another round of worms exploiting well-known vulnerabilities. Remember the outcry after they said that? I took a cursory look at the older articles on /. and didn't find the one I'm referring to but I know it's there.
We can speak quite effectively and accurately from experience. Microsoft still manages to produce some of the most insecure operating systems after being in the biz for how many years now. They still manage to bork installations during minor little updates to things like Microsoft Office. Outlook, IE, and Exchange are still some of the most insecure pieces of software available for purchase today. We as IT professionals can speak from experience when we say that Microsoft will not be able to do this without borking something else.
They aren't fixing security wholes created by poor programming practices. They aren't even correcting thise poor programming practices. All they are doing by embedding an AV client into the OS is extending their monopoly further. What do you think a monopoly is? If they were fixing the problems then we'd be happy. They aren't. They are extending their monopoly, simple as that.
I can't disagree more. If I don't lock my car will the city PD confiscate it? No. If I leave the windows of my house open, will the zoning commision sieze it? Of course not. What gives any government agency the right to permanently steal (there's no other word for it) my property based on their opinion of my (the lab admin's) ability to adequately maintain the security of such system? I'm a staunch anti-spammer so my next sentence may shock you. It's my right to configure my mail system to be an open-relay if I so desire. I can't of course prevent you from blacklisting it. My provider might have a policy that requires me to secure my system and might cut off my service if I don't. Still it's my right to configure the system in that manner. They can cut off my connection and you can blacklist me (both expected) but that wouldn't change my opinion. The FBI has no right to continue with the confiscation beyond the period of time necessary to glean the information from the machine as specified in the warrant used to sieze it. Simple as that. What they did at this Unv was essentially theft of state property.
That might work. Some sort of authentication system needs to be devised. I hate to suggest it but a bio auth system would probably be the best. Of course the next thing you know we'll hear about people stealing DNA samples from other people to use in bio auth interfaces. I can see it now: identity theft by disposing of your McDonalds cup and straw in a public trash can; urine harvesting device hidden in urinals (like the ATM card readers and cameras). I don't know what the fix is for that. It would be nice if there was a way though. Thanks for the reply.
What the hell is this crap about toeing party lines? I never have understood it. It's utter bullshit from no matter what angle you look at it. Voters who vote for a candidate just because they are Democrats are fools. They aren't voting on the issues or for the man/woman. They're voting with a word. A single fscking meaningless, pointless, worthless word. Elected official who toe party lines and vote against a bill or resolution simply because it was introduced by the other defunct party is a damned dishonest fool. He/she isn't there voting for the issues that his constituents elected him/her for. They are voting to maintain their party's power and to keep their own job. That's as dishonest as it gets.
What the hell is the point of having political parties? Why can't our elected officials just vote on the issues? Why the hell do they have to play party games? Elected Offical A runs for office by taking a particular stance on Hot Issue Z. His constituents elect him to office because of his stance on Z (and other stances of course). A bill is introduced regarding issue Z. His party Pink doesn't actually like Z and wants to instead vote for Y. Who is Elected Official A loyal to? The people that elected him to office and that he's representing? Or the club Pink that he claims to be a member of? I never will understand the point of political parties.
I actually wrote both my state district senator and representative this week in support of a bill to legalize concealed carry of weapons in Kansas. I also was in contact with a rep I know personally. Today I'm writing the rep that introduced the bill to thank her for her efforts. All the people I spoke with were happy to talk about their position and genuinely seemed glad to hear from a constituent. It probably doesn't happen very often. That is very sad. I'd like to see a system where a rep puts up a poll on a website that asks what their constituents think that reps stance should be on a given bill/topic. The rep doesn't have to follow their opinions of course but it would at the very least give the constituents a speedy voice, something that doesn't exist today. There would of course have to be some sort of auth for this to work. I'll leave that as an exercise for the creative mind.
They'll probably it was terrorism-related (got to get he buzz words and catch phrases in there) and the Patriot Act will protect them. Very sad.
Right on target. In my experience the FBI couldn't give a rats ass about causing the least amount of colateral damage or returning your siezed property. In 2001 (I believe that's right) the FBI siezed a Sun 20 from a lab at a University I worked for. The lab was less than maintained. It was full of SGIs that were vulnerable to every possible exploit for the last 5 or 6 years. It was a joke really. The Sun was also unmaintained. I pointed out to my super 10 months before the siezure that the Sun was an open relay and had services running that shouldn't be (I still have that email!). Nevertheless it wasn't touched for 10 months. Right about the time I volunteered to help the lab maintainer get everything up to date and secure again the FBI came in and siezed the Sun. It apparently was used for something bad. I haven't been with that University for a while now but last I knew it still hadn't been returned. The FBI couldn't give a rat's ass about causing the least amount of colateral damage. Their actions speak for themselves. What if the machine used for the attack (or probe for that matter) was the Unv's mail server? It was poorly maintained too and had been hacked before. What if an attacker used it as a launching pad for an attack. Would the FBI sieze that piece of state property, effecting bringing email on campus to a complete halt? It's sad really to think about it.
Certainly not. I do however predict it will be the beginning of the end of email. This is a perfect way to segment the email systems from one another; those that utilize this plugin and those that are discriminated against for not using this plugin. I for one will not use something that isn't a damned standard. You don't have to be an evil genius to recognize the evils of introducing non-standard requirements into such a critical system. It's just plain nuts.
I'm looking forward to see what the drones can do. I don't know if pilots will ever be removed from the cockpit though. I mean it makes sense but can you imagine the DoD doing that? Hard to say. Imagine a drone pulling a 20G loop to evade a SAM. Schweet. :-)
It's an election year and the Bush Administration needs to trim some spending fat ASAP. They've spent a helluva lot of money over the past 4 years, which is one thing the Democrats are attacking. Cutting a cold-war induced program that has and will cost a lot of money will give them something to show the public and say "see, we're cutting the fat." Elections years can be a time for excellent ground-breaking legislation to get passed or it can be a time for some of the stupidest moves in our government. Sucks. :-(
The Comanche's claim to fame wasn't its armament. It's wasn't its speed or maneuverability. The Comanche's claim to fame is it's stealth technology. I think it's worth continuing the program, albeit perhaps in a different form, just to continue expanding on the stealth technology. Ideally the stealth tech would then be applied to the Apache and Apache Longbow rather than a new bird. The stealth technology alone is worth the price IMHO. If the enemy can't see our birds, they can't shoot them down. If they can't shoot them down then we'll have fewer ("no" is impossible in reality) downed pilots. No lost crews. Fewer (again not "no") air crew POWs. Fewer families back home waiting for their sons, daughters, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers to come home. Stealth is worth it if for no other reason. There's no doubting that.
I've got a friend that reloads those things in the field. He was in Iraq last I heard. What an awesome plane. The Warthog is like the B-52. It's old but does its job so well nothing else can compare.
Now I whole-heartedly believe the ACLU should support gay rights including the right to have a marriage between a homosexual couple be recognized by the state. Why is it that we as a 1st-world nation still feel the need to discriminate against race, religion, and sexual preference? Why aren't we above that by now? If two homosexual individuals want to get married why the hell should we stop them? What does it really matter to us? Does it really hurt us or infringe on our rights somehow? I can't possibly see how it could. They aren't trying to convince you to become gay. They aren't trying to sell your children on the notion of growing up to be gay. I live in the rural Midwest where for some odd reason many people are against homosexual marriages. I liken the viewpoints of these individuals to that of the racist self-serving southerners from the 60s. The only thing we're lacking this time around is riots. I mean that literally.
I also support the ACLU on correcting the Pledge of Allegiance. I whole-heartedly support that action. "Why?" you might ask? Because it's current form infringes on my 1st Amendment right of Freedom of Religion. My beef with the POA can be summed up in two words: Under God. That's it. Many people upon hearing you say that will jumped at the chance to call you unpatriotic (hell nowadays they might just call you a terrorist) for wanting to change their sacred document. However there's nothing unpatriotic about asserting your Freedom of Religion rights. Hell that's actually quite "American." We are the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, aren't we? Didn't our forefathers come to this land to escape religious persecution? I could have sworn I read that once. Here in the "Bible Belt" you'd most likely be assaulted if you publicly stated that the words "under God" were not part of the original POA but were added after political pressure. You would probably be stoned if you described how the Knights of Columbus campaigned to add the words "under God" to the POA in 1954. Why would others not like you stating the truth about the POA? Perhaps they feel it threatens their religious views. Perhaps they simply fear change, that is after all human nature. I sympathize with those fearful people but I can not deny that the words "under God" cross the line in the separation of church and state. Does someone else's religious beliefs negate my own?
It's been fun chatting (no, really. I enjoy these discussions!) but I need to get back to work. I mentioned earlier that I hadn't heard of any other groups that defend out rights. I stumbled across one tonight. It's the Cato Institute. I noticed that they'd submitted an Amicus Brief for the Hiibel case that SCOTUS agreed to hear. Their website is pretty good. I haven't done any other research on them yet but they *seem* to be a decent group. YMMV. Have a good one.
Well they aren'te perfect. Then again can you think of any other organizations that stands up for our rights, all our rights? I can't. It would be nice if there were more ACLU-like organizations out there but I sure can't think of any. Even though they don't have the cojones that they used to, they are at least doing something. It would be nice if they did more though; that's for sure.
All this rambling is my hurried opinion. I can write it out better if needed. My opinion is pretty simple though. Make the gun control laws useful and eliminate the bad, worthless laws.
I will not misspell Australia again.
I will not misspell Australia again.
I will not misspell Australia again.
I will not misspell Australia again.
I will not misspell Australia again.
I will not misspell Australia again.
I will not misspell Australia again.
I will not misspell Australia again.
I will not misspell Australia again.
I will not misspell Australia again.
ad infinitum
Good point. I wasn't aware of their stance on gun control. I'll have to make my trip a short one then. :) I'm heard it's a neat place.
Thanks. You'll probably like my response to another replier regarding my sig then.