> Richard Stallman has publicly stated that the deal is within the bounds of the > GPL [linux-watch.com], so I think it is fair and reasonable to state it as a > fact and not an opinion.
Richard Stallman is also not a lawyer (nor a judge) and neither he nor his organization own most of the copyrights in question. While his opinion carries a lot of weight I give it a great deal of respect, it remains an opinion.
To repeat (this _is_ Slashdot), In my opinion Novell is in full compliance with the GPL. However, one of the thousands of copyright owners could sue and surprise us all.
This specific material may have no practical applications at all. The knowledge gained from developing and studying it, however, may lead to many useful applications.
> Uh, the GP never made any claims about the substrate.
The article implies that hafnium is to supplant silicon entirely. The subject line " Silicon Valley will become K-Valley then?" implies something similar.
Bad analogy. He is not proposing to do anyone bodily harm.
Better, though, would be to disable the bot and notify both the owner of the computer and the ISP.
Another possibility: a worm that just detects bots and notifies a server. This would give you a list of IPs that you could do all sorts of interesting things with.
> If I leave my car unattended with all doors opened, engine running in front of > a bank. If this bank gets robbed, and my car is used by the robber as a > getaway car, I'm accountable in front of a judge..... right ??!?!
Not unless the prosecution can show that you were in on the robbery.
You assume that the scammers are putting large amounts into any one stock. I don't think they are. Their only expenses are commissions and the cost of having the spams sent, perhaps a few hundred dollars. If they restrain themselves and don't put much more into any one stock then does the average day-trader they can stay below the radar.
You don't understand how it works. The scammer buys a few tens of thousand dollars worth of the stock, something people do every day. He probably uses fronts to split the buy up into many small transactions. Then he has the spam sent. Greedy suckers are taken in by the spam and buy the stock, driving it up. When the spammer sees that the stock has gone up 5% or so he sells, again something many people do every day. He has no connection at all with the management of the company.
What about the people who never saw the spam but purchased the stock for their own reasons? You are assumming that all activity in the stock is related to the scam. This is not true. Many people buy and sell these stocks every day.
> It's the people who buy before the spam goes out...
A great many people buy each of these stocks every day. Besides, the scammers may have bought in months ago.
>...and sell right after (probably even same day) that you would target.
Lots of investors who have nothing to do with the scam are going to sell the stock when it goes up. Many are going to be people who bought in recently.
> Plus, anyone doing this is doing more than one, so there'll be a pattern of > this activity proving it can't be a fluke.
That's a possible approach, but it would require some sophisticated analysis.
While the illegalities should be investigated and prosecuted, I don't see why it's a big deal. Only greedy fools are losing money, and not very much at that. The spam itself is a much more serious problem. Eventually every stock will be being pumped by several spams at any given time and they'll cancel each other out, but the Net may collapse under the traffic (News at 11).
Slashdot Mirror
> It's open source. If you need a function for your business, hire someone to
> write it, then give it back to the project.
Specifically, one of the lead developers. Several are in the business of doing just that.
> The upside is that it is perfectly legal for Canadians to share their music
> with each other...
So it's just like the US (hint: Audio Home Recording Act).
> ...an actual bombing of an attack source.
Wouldn't it be less messy to simply call out the Washington National Guard?
> ...how these fake blogs or 'flogs' are having a pernicious effect on our
> tendency to trust what seems genuine."
Sounds like healthy skepticism to me.
All attempts to contact Dell have failed.
Your insurance company's lawyers will have no trouble at all getting through.
No difference at all. HSUS is a PETA front. In the US humane societies are local organizations.
In the US human societies are local organizations. HSUS is a front for PETA.
> ...I keep logging in to phishing sites with the email address yeah@nice.try...
.invalid or example.com.
Please use either
> Richard Stallman has publicly stated that the deal is within the bounds of the
> GPL [linux-watch.com], so I think it is fair and reasonable to state it as a
> fact and not an opinion.
Richard Stallman is also not a lawyer (nor a judge) and neither he nor his organization own most of the copyrights in question. While his opinion carries a lot of weight I give it a great deal of respect, it remains an opinion.
To repeat (this _is_ Slashdot), In my opinion Novell is in full compliance with the GPL. However, one of the thousands of copyright owners could sue and surprise us all.
> Well, the Free Software Foundation has absolutely no control over Novell's
> distribution of Linux.
The FSF owns significant copyrights in the Linux kernel as well as in many utilities and applications.
> The Novell deal is completely within the bounds of the GPL...
While I agree that this is probably true, it is a legal opinion. I am not a lawyer. Are you?
> GPLv3 isn't even done yet, and even when it is the Linux kernel is unlikely
> to be covered by it.
True, but irrelevant.
I agree that the Reuters reporter is an ignorant doofus, but this is no reason to follow him off the deep end.
This specific material may have no practical applications at all. The knowledge gained from developing and studying it, however, may lead to many useful applications.
> Uh, the GP never made any claims about the substrate.
The article implies that hafnium is to supplant silicon entirely. The subject line " Silicon Valley will become K-Valley then?" implies something similar.
Again I forgot that this is Slashdot and omitted the sarcasm tags.
1) Asus' servers get "hacked".
2) The keys to all Asus motherboards get posted on the web
3) Those keys are revoked.
Bad analogy. He is not proposing to do anyone bodily harm.
Better, though, would be to disable the bot and notify both the owner of the computer and the ISP.
Another possibility: a worm that just detects bots and notifies a server. This would give you a list of IPs that you could do all sorts of interesting things with.
> If I leave my car unattended with all doors opened, engine running in front of ..... right ??!?!
> a bank. If this bank gets robbed, and my car is used by the robber as a
> getaway car, I'm accountable in front of a judge
Not unless the prosecution can show that you were in on the robbery.
> ...don't bother with/have never heard of antivirus software?
They have antivirus software. It came with the computer when they bought it four years ago.
As common as titanium dioxide is, this process is likely to make its price go up about as much as the Hall process made the price of clay go up.
> coming directly off their own ultracapacitors which are filling up off
> 120V@100-500A).
More likely 480V three-phase.
You assume that the scammers are putting large amounts into any one stock. I don't think they are. Their only expenses are commissions and the cost of having the spams sent, perhaps a few hundred dollars. If they restrain themselves and don't put much more into any one stock then does the average day-trader they can stay below the radar.
You don't understand how it works. The scammer buys a few tens of thousand dollars worth of the stock, something people do every day. He probably uses fronts to split the buy up into many small transactions. Then he has the spam sent. Greedy suckers are taken in by the spam and buy the stock, driving it up. When the spammer sees that the stock has gone up 5% or so he sells, again something many people do every day. He has no connection at all with the management of the company.
> Perhaps the public visibility of these schemes will lead to increased
> enforcement.
Or perhaps it will lead to decreased gullibility. I don't see much hope for either, though.
What about the people who never saw the spam but purchased the stock for their own reasons? You are assumming that all activity in the stock is related to the scam. This is not true. Many people buy and sell these stocks every day.
> It's the people who buy before the spam goes out...
...and sell right after (probably even same day) that you would target.
A great many people buy each of these stocks every day. Besides, the scammers may have bought in months ago.
>
Lots of investors who have nothing to do with the scam are going to sell the stock when it goes up. Many are going to be people who bought in recently.
> Plus, anyone doing this is doing more than one, so there'll be a pattern of
> this activity proving it can't be a fluke.
That's a possible approach, but it would require some sophisticated analysis.
While the illegalities should be investigated and prosecuted, I don't see why it's a big deal. Only greedy fools are losing money, and not very much at that. The spam itself is a much more serious problem. Eventually every stock will be being pumped by several spams at any given time and they'll cancel each other out, but the Net may collapse under the traffic (News at 11).
> The tax system in the United States is one of the best in the world.
Or in other words, most of the others are even worse, hard as that is to believe.