> The museum is out of line. In a 'real world' they'd lose. They'll probably respond by > banning photography and forcing anyone that does want to do shots to sign a waiver.
No it isn't. While there are treaties that obligate the signatories to bring their copyright laws into conformance with some general principles the actual laws are national and are enforced only by national courts.
> The paintings may be in the public domain, but the photographs are copyright to the > photographer.
Under UK law. As the letter from the lawyer admits, they are probably not protected by copyright at all in the US. Unfortunately, the parties appear to be residents of the UK. Where are the Wikipedia servers on which the photos now reside located?
Um, the $100/hr is Frank's initial offer. Of *course* it's peanuts. I thought I made it clear that Sam rejected it. We're not saying what Sam's demand was: just that Frank felt that he had to talk to the CEO before meeting it.
Of course, Sam could have just laughed and hung up...
"Sam? Sam, this is Frank, CIO back at Engulf and Devour. How is the transition away from the mainframe going? Well, listen. That's what I'm calling about. Yes, yes, I know you're retired, but the cloud isn't working out quite as we'd planned, what with the economy and all, and the kids are having a bit of trouble keeping ol' Betsy going. Yes, I did read that memo you wrote, and it turns out you had some good points. Listen, would you be up for a bit of consulting? Say, $100/hr, 100 hours minimum? Oh. That much? And a car and driver? Well, I'm afraid my budget won't quite stretch that far...No! Please don't hang up! Let me talk to the CEO and get back to you, ok? Please?"
> To be honest, we haven't even seen the worst of it yet. Considering the deluge of FPGA > and EEPROM powered embedded devices out there you'd best be scared of the things that > are _hard_ to reprogram, not the ones with complete IDEs and API documentation available.
The latter are the ones that someone can reprogram remotely without your knowledge.
Wrong. The server runs on the machine you are sitting in front of and provides display and input services to the clients programs, which may each be running on a different machine.
> I'm not sure I grasp the concept of X Hosting, and how this non-SUID server would help > that.
It wouldn't. The author of the article hasn't the foggiest notion of how X works (well, he does have a foggy notion, but it's wrong). The machine(s) running the client(s) run only the client code and run it as the user.
> Some may remember when VeriSign tried this back in 2003, where it also failed.
Not the same at all. VeriSign tried to do it with the TLD servers, which nobody can avoid. These guys are just doing it with their own servers, which you can bypass unless they block you. Even if they do you can, at least in theory, switch ISPs. They aren't likely to bother with blocking, though, because the number of people who will bypass is tiny.
> As you have so insightfully put it "How much connectivity does NK have?"
That's irrelevant. The bots are not in North Korea and the goverment behind the attack could communicate with the controllers (who could be anywhwere) via short-wave radio. The attacker may not even have created the botnet: they may have purchased it on the open market.
I agree that there is no direct evidence of North Korean involvement, though.
Slashdot Mirror
> The museum is out of line. In a 'real world' they'd lose. They'll probably respond by
> banning photography and forcing anyone that does want to do shots to sign a waiver.
They do ban photography.
> Copyright law is international.
No it isn't. While there are treaties that obligate the signatories to bring their copyright laws into conformance with some general principles the actual laws are national and are enforced only by national courts.
> But when they are an attempt to represent just the original image, they should not be
> copyrightable.
And in the USA they aren't. Unfortunately these events are occuring in Europe.
> So TFS is misleading again.
How?
> The paintings may be in the public domain, but the photographs are copyright to the
> photographer.
Under UK law. As the letter from the lawyer admits, they are probably not protected by copyright at all in the US. Unfortunately, the parties appear to be residents of the UK. Where are the Wikipedia servers on which the photos now reside located?
Boy, that really tugs at my heartstrings. Poor helpless little children, trapped between generations. Sob.
Here's a suggestion: go to vo-tech and learn to weld. Or clean teeth.
Sam is going to get a *lot* more than $100/hr. He also is going to keep reminding the CEO of that memo he wrote.
Um, the $100/hr is Frank's initial offer. Of *course* it's peanuts. I thought I made it clear that Sam rejected it. We're not saying what Sam's demand was: just that Frank felt that he had to talk to the CEO before meeting it.
Of course, Sam could have just laughed and hung up...
A VAX is not a mainframe.
"Sam? Sam, this is Frank, CIO back at Engulf and Devour. How is the transition away from the mainframe going? Well, listen. That's what I'm calling about. Yes, yes, I know you're retired, but the cloud isn't working out quite as we'd planned, what with the economy and all, and the kids are having a bit of trouble keeping ol' Betsy going. Yes, I did read that memo you wrote, and it turns out you had some good points. Listen, would you be up for a bit of consulting? Say, $100/hr, 100 hours minimum? Oh. That much? And a car and driver? Well, I'm afraid my budget won't quite stretch that far...No! Please don't hang up! Let me talk to the CEO and get back to you, ok? Please?"
> To be honest, we haven't even seen the worst of it yet. Considering the deluge of FPGA
> and EEPROM powered embedded devices out there you'd best be scared of the things that
> are _hard_ to reprogram, not the ones with complete IDEs and API documentation available.
The latter are the ones that someone can reprogram remotely without your knowledge.
It looks like they have done this by pushing the hard parts into the kernel. I'm not sure this doesn't make security worse.
Wrong. The server runs on the machine you are sitting in front of and provides display and input services to the clients programs, which may each be running on a different machine.
> I'm not sure I grasp the concept of X Hosting, and how this non-SUID server would help
> that.
It wouldn't. The author of the article hasn't the foggiest notion of how X works (well, he does have a foggy notion, but it's wrong). The machine(s) running the client(s) run only the client code and run it as the user.
Since about ten years ago.
> How is this different from OpenDNS?
One actively chooses to use OpenDNS. You get your ISP's servers by default.
> Some may remember when VeriSign tried this back in 2003, where it also failed.
Not the same at all. VeriSign tried to do it with the TLD servers, which nobody can avoid. These guys are just doing it with their own servers, which you can bypass unless they block you. Even if they do you can, at least in theory, switch ISPs. They aren't likely to bother with blocking, though, because the number of people who will bypass is tiny.
> Why exactly does the ISP control DNS?
They don't.
Well, there you go. Get your left and right hemispheres working together properly and you're all set. Though the I/O channels are a bit slow...
n/t
They probably want an error rate lower than 10%.
Sure. Store it in a WOM chip. They only weigh a few grams, hold literally unlimited data, and are really fast.
Whatever gave you that idea?
> As you have so insightfully put it "How much connectivity does NK have?"
That's irrelevant. The bots are not in North Korea and the goverment behind the attack could communicate with the controllers (who could be anywhwere) via short-wave radio. The attacker may not even have created the botnet: they may have purchased it on the open market.
I agree that there is no direct evidence of North Korean involvement, though.
You plan to drop anchors on cables that cross from North Korea into China?