> There's not nearly enough digital signing, even from reputable sources, to make "No > signatrue? No execute" work. You can't get the things you want by applying this policy, > and because people don't apply the policy, nobody bothers to go through the effort of > signing.
I install only signed code and I get everything I want. I use Debian.
> The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this > month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are > "unauthorized copies" of copyrighted recordings.'"
They are. "Unautorized", however, is not a synonym for illegal. There are many things the owner of a copy of a music recording may legally do without authorization from the owner of the copyright. Making copies for private, noncommerical use is one example. Fair use is another.
> Engadget notes that the difference here is that the RIAA is deliberately describing > ripped MP3 backups as 'unauthorized copies'...
They are 'unauthorized copies'. So are copies made under fair use. Unauthorized is not a synonym for illegal. It just means that you don't have the copyright owner's permission. However, there are many things you can legally do with a copy without the copyright owner's permission.
> While there's a pretty good argument for the legality of ripping under the market > factor of fair use,...
You mean under the Audio Home Recording Act exception. "Fair use" is something else entirely (it is, though, an example of something you can legally do without the copyright owner's permission).
> But Riemannian manifolds are a mathematical abstraction used to model spacetime. It just > seems really bizarre that there isn't some actual concrete thing underlying it.
No more so than there is no string tying the moon to the Earth to keep it in orbit.
> Sure, they can pass the buck when the software breaks... but when the defense contractor > has the source (and hires a competent enough software engineer (not too common)) then > they can make the changes themselves.
Since the DoD has the source and a Free license to it, it can hire someone else to make the changes it needs even if the contractor goes out of business.
> This is what the person is talking about. It doesnt matter that a Chinaman makes the > changes to the code, the DoD/military just needs to trust their vendors to authenticate > and take responsibility for their software solutions, in house developed, FOSS or closed > binary COTS.
With Free software they don't need to trust the vendors (though they may choose to do so for non-critical systems).
> Another issue depends on the licensing of the open-source code. Many licenses would *NOT* > allow the military (or whoever) to legitimately use the code in their closed source apps. > That's not all licenses, but there are ones that might legally force the military to > release their modifications to the original source code.
If you are thinking of the GPL here, no. They would only be required to provide source to those outside their organization to whom they distributed binaries. They would not have to make the source public and they would not have to distribute it at all if they used the binaries only inside their origanization.
> People always talk about the "fabric" of spacetime. GR says massive objects warp > spacetime, and that's what we see as gravity etc. So what is the actual "fabric" made of?
> Otherwise they should just sit there, riding along with the expansion of the universe as > a whole - no?
They do, pretty much. Here is a crude, oversimplified summation: Since there is less matter in the voids than there would be in a homogeneous universe time runs faster in them then it would in a such a universe. Therefor the universe is older seen from the voids and so they seem bigger than they should be. Meantime down here in the matter concentrations where contraction due to gravity dominates time runs slower due to all the mass than it would in a homogeneous universe. As a result contraction seems not to have progressed as it should have. Taken together these effects give the impression of a weak but all-pervading force trying to push everything apart: dark energy. When you redo the calculations taking into account the fact that the universe is older where there is less mass and younger where there is more the need to postulate dark energy vanishes.
He isn't saying that they didn't know about it: just that they didn't realize that they couldn't get away with simplifying their calculations by ignoring it.
> From the article, it seems like he believes that this lumpiness was always there, rather > than an earlier smooth distribution they've been assuming.
The assumption of uniformity was an approximation intended to ease computation. The lumpiness has to have always been there or it would not be there now. It is postulated that it originated as quantum fluctations in the inflaton field.
What you want to do is hit the domain frequently during the first five days so that they pay the fee to register it. It should be possible to set up an automated distributed system to handle the whole thing: generate plausible domain names, query all known whois sites for them, detect when they have been registered, give them lots of hits for the first five days, and then ignore them. The system could also generate statistics that might tell us a bit about who is involved.
> Once a domain is registered, it can be dropped from the list and never pinged again.
They have a five day grace period. If the domain doesn't get enough hits before the end of the grace period they can and will cancel the registration and pay nothing. You want to ping the hell out of the site for the first five days it is registered and then never hit it again.
Slashdot Mirror
> How long before the disgruntled sysadmin replaces the disgruntled postal worker in the
> zeitgeist?
Forever. "Going sysadmin" just doesn't trip off the tongue the way "going postal" does.
> There's not nearly enough digital signing, even from reputable sources, to make "No
> signatrue? No execute" work. You can't get the things you want by applying this policy,
> and because people don't apply the policy, nobody bothers to go through the effort of
> signing.
I install only signed code and I get everything I want. I use Debian.
There is something else that attracts flies which it more closely resembles...
The question is devoid of meaning. No one owns data.
"sudo apt-get install boinc-app-seti" takes care of everything on Debian/Sid.
When they return 700,000 results it is kind of nice when the proper, relevant and useful ones are near the top.
No, not fair use. Audio Home Recording Act use. Quite different.
> The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this
> month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are
> "unauthorized copies" of copyrighted recordings.'"
They are. "Unautorized", however, is not a synonym for illegal. There are many things the owner of a copy of a music recording may legally do without authorization from the owner of the copyright. Making copies for private, noncommerical use is one example. Fair use is another.
> Engadget notes that the difference here is that the RIAA is deliberately describing ...
> ripped MP3 backups as 'unauthorized copies'
They are 'unauthorized copies'. So are copies made under fair use. Unauthorized is not a synonym for illegal. It just means that you don't have the copyright owner's permission. However, there are many things you can legally do with a copy without the copyright owner's permission.
> While there's a pretty good argument for the legality of ripping under the market
> factor of fair use,...
You mean under the Audio Home Recording Act exception. "Fair use" is something else entirely (it is, though, an example of something you can legally do without the copyright owner's permission).
> But Riemannian manifolds are a mathematical abstraction used to model spacetime. It just
> seems really bizarre that there isn't some actual concrete thing underlying it.
No more so than there is no string tying the moon to the Earth to keep it in orbit.
> Sure, they can pass the buck when the software breaks... but when the defense contractor
> has the source (and hires a competent enough software engineer (not too common)) then
> they can make the changes themselves.
Since the DoD has the source and a Free license to it, it can hire someone else to make the changes it needs even if the contractor goes out of business.
> This is what the person is talking about. It doesnt matter that a Chinaman makes the
> changes to the code, the DoD/military just needs to trust their vendors to authenticate
> and take responsibility for their software solutions, in house developed, FOSS or closed
> binary COTS.
With Free software they don't need to trust the vendors (though they may choose to do so for non-critical systems).
> 99% of military purchasing guys haven't done a code inspection of anything.
Why would purchasing guys be doing code inspections?
> Haven't you [ever written a patch for a binary]?
Yes. A tedious and error-prone process.
> Another issue depends on the licensing of the open-source code. Many licenses would *NOT*
> allow the military (or whoever) to legitimately use the code in their closed source apps.
> That's not all licenses, but there are ones that might legally force the military to
> release their modifications to the original source code.
If you are thinking of the GPL here, no. They would only be required to provide source to those outside their organization to whom they distributed binaries. They would not have to make the source public and they would not have to distribute it at all if they used the binaries only inside their origanization.
> People always talk about the "fabric" of spacetime. GR says massive objects warp
> spacetime, and that's what we see as gravity etc. So what is the actual "fabric" made of?
Strained analogies.
Have you ever done a code inspection on a binary? Have you ever written a patch for one?
Didn't you mean to write "open-source"?
It probably obviates the "Great Rip".
Very helpful.
You confound dark energy with dark matter. They are very, very different concepts. This paper deals with dark energy.
> Otherwise they should just sit there, riding along with the expansion of the universe as
> a whole - no?
They do, pretty much. Here is a crude, oversimplified summation:
Since there is less matter in the voids than there would be in a homogeneous universe time runs faster in them then it would in a such a universe. Therefor the universe is older seen from the voids and so they seem bigger than they should be. Meantime down here in the matter concentrations where contraction due to gravity dominates time runs slower due to all the mass than it would in a homogeneous universe. As a result contraction seems not to have progressed as it should have. Taken together these effects give the impression of a weak but all-pervading force trying to push everything apart: dark energy. When you redo the calculations taking into account the fact that the universe is older where there is less mass and younger where there is more the need to postulate dark energy vanishes.
He isn't saying that they didn't know about it: just that they didn't realize that they couldn't get away with simplifying their calculations by ignoring it.
> From the article, it seems like he believes that this lumpiness was always there, rather
> than an earlier smooth distribution they've been assuming.
The assumption of uniformity was an approximation intended to ease computation. The lumpiness has to have always been there or it would not be there now. It is postulated that it originated as quantum fluctations in the inflaton field.
Blue Frog provided a target for the spammers to counterattack.
What you want to do is hit the domain frequently during the first five days so that they pay the fee to register it. It should be possible to set up an automated distributed system to handle the whole thing: generate plausible domain names, query all known whois sites for them, detect when they have been registered, give them lots of hits for the first five days, and then ignore them. The system could also generate statistics that might tell us a bit about who is involved.
> Once a domain is registered, it can be dropped from the list and never pinged again.
They have a five day grace period. If the domain doesn't get enough hits before the end of the grace period they can and will cancel the registration and pay nothing. You want to ping the hell out of the site for the first five days it is registered and then never hit it again.