Re:forging sender address
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
No, my senders address is me@host.domain.tld when I send a message the addy is rewritten to me@domain.tld
Yes, and me@domain.tld is an address of yours, correct? You don't see the difference between this and somebody else rewriting their address to the same me@domain.tld?
Re:forging sender address
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
Spam with modified headers is like somebody calling you up and saying their in Oregon when they're really in Nevada. That's not illegal, nor should it be.
I give people access to my systems (in particular, my mail server) based upon a number of criteria. One of them is the sender's address. By forging this address, he gains illegitimate access to my systems.
Of course, he knows this. Why do you think he forges the information in the first place? The whole point is to gain access where he would otherwise be forbidden.
I could have sworn that, for some time, the W3C used to specificaly state that it did not produce standards, only reccomendations. That, apparently has changed, and I'm wondering just when that happened.
I'm certain of that too. Now you see the W3C website littered with references to their "standards". I have no idea when it happened, but I'm pretty sure it was in the last couple of years.
Who cares if Caldera distributed Linux before that point? It's the path of this allegedly infringing code that matters, not the entire history of the kernel.
They licensed their own code under the GPL by that logic.
No, they attempted to license a derivative work under the GPL. According to their version of events, Linus was unable to distribute this under the GPL in the first place, and so neither could they.
2: IBM, in discovery, demands a receives the source to SCO's flavors of Unix and finds evidence that SCO stole GPL'd source code to put into unixware / openserver. Sco is forced to release the whole shebang under the GPL.
No, they aren't forced to do anything in this situation. They've stopped distributing the infringing code now, if the copyright holders of the GPLed code want to sue for copyright infringement in the past, they can do so.
People are saying that since they released the whole Linux source under the GPL, that means that any claim they have over the alleged proprietary code is gone forever. I don't think this is true.
The timeline, according to SCO, goes like this:
SCO proprietary code -> IBM -> Linux kernel -> SCO -> release under the GPL.
Now, the point in which the infringing code is released without permission is from IBM to the Linux kernel. From that point on, all licenses are invalid - you cannot give licenses out if you don't have the copyright.
According to SCO's story, they cannot have released the Linux kernel under the GPL legitimately, since it was a derivative work of their own, unlicensed code, and other people's works. They didn't have the right to redistribute it under the GPL or any other license.
They have now stopped redistributing it; presumably because they have realised that they are infringing on copyrights if they continue.
As a matter of fact they do... I can setup a bot to spam Gnutella with names of all sorts of illegal files if I want to, they don't have to actually exist on the server. With HTTP/FTP there's always either a broken link, or access permissions. To verify that you have a file available, they would have to download it.
Firstly, they aren't verifying adequately, as this very story emphasises. Secondly, no, you don't have to download it to verify a file is there. HTTP HEAD will do the trick, or simply requesting the first few bytes.
Well, that would be adequate legal evidence that they have illegially downloaded YOUR copyrighted material, and YOU can sue them for damages.
Actually, even if you ignore the fact that you are offering the file for download yourself, their error clearly shows that they only looked at the filename, they didn't listen to it. You don't need to download something to see the filename.
Now, if somebody were to have, say, the first ten seconds of an Usher song as the start of an mp3, and then 20 minutes of somebody criticising that style of music, that would fall under fair use. It would also confuse them once they start to check that the music is actually infringing.
As much as I hate to make it personal...
on
How to Become A Spammer
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Shiels decided a spamming career wasn't worth the personal cost.
There you have it. I wonder if there is a way of applying this cost to every spammer.
Re: I've used genetic algorithms
on
Digital Darwin
·
· Score: 1
The first thought I had when I saw the article (presented on Space.com as "Darwin Proved Right...") was that simulating something in a computer does not necessarily prove anything about the physical world.
I completely agree. However, one of the most popular arguments against evolution is that complex, interdependent traits like the mechanism involved in poisonous snakebites, for example, cannot evolve through random mutation, since two "random" developments need to happen at once in the same individual.
Not only can this be refuted with examples from nature, genetic algorithms also count against this argument, as very complex behaviour can also arise here (and we can examine each step of the way).
Not all satellites are owned by the USA government. What about commercial satellites, like telecommunications? How cheap would it be to damage a competitor's satellites, what are the risks of being caught, and what laws would apply?
The problem with proactive auditing is that it takes time, and as well know, time is money.
15 months ago, Microsoft announced they were spending a whole month on nothing but security - code audits, developer training, you name it. They announced they were focussing much more on security issues.
This is after they have slowly built up a reputation as being incapable of writing anything securely. If there's one thing Microsoft has had an abundance of, it's time and money.
Personally I think its harsh to put the blame on the coders as I've been involved in alpha and beta testing quite a few apps over the years and almost without exception, the bean counters force the release of a product before the coders are happy with it.
Yes and no. Things like buffer overflows shouldn't even make it out of the office - it indicates a lack of training and coding standards. Other issues are often the result of bad development process, including, as you mention, premature release.
It's easy to mock, but at least Microsoft have ship dates and feature lists. That means decision makers - like CIOs and CTOs - can make at least tentative plans.
A.K.A. vapourware. Announce nifty new features that you will be providing a year from now, and even though a competitor is offering the same feature now, they'll hang on just a bit longer so they don't have to switch platforms. And then realise how stupid they were when you release the product without the new features, and say they've slipped back to the next release. Lather, rinse, repeat as necessary.
Remember when Win95 was supposed to eliminate crashes forever because of its 32-bit memory protection (or something like that)? Remember when Win98 was released, and it was supposed to be far more stable than Win95? Remember when WinME was released...
Really? I mean, I personally think of automobiles as a huge technological breakthrough, the culmination of a lot of extremely signigicant technologies. It is one of the things that most impacted the 20th century. Do you REALLY think DRM is like that???
Way to miss the point. He didn't say he thought that any more than he said he thought that DRM had wheels on the bottom.
Get a grip, people. If you wanna use windows, keep using windows2000 or xp, then you'll be safe in your drm-free world.
You are also free to carry on using Windows 95 today... oh, but it's been EOLed, so no more security patches - hope you don't need to access an untrusted network, like, say, the Internet.
TIP: The world is revolving around the US less and less every day. There will be more than plenty of places you can get things from that do what you want to do, even if all of windows gets drm-locked-down. They're a whole world out there - check it out.
TIP: It's not just in the USA that Microsoft has a monopoly in computers.
I don't see how it is expensive or difficult to put your business online. Use FrontPage or Dreamweaver to build the web site.
Here in the UK, there is a law to prevent discrimination against disabled people, the DDA. It covers things like having ramps to access buildings, and so on. It also covers websites - do you expect the average Frontpage user to know the first thing about making a website accessible? The government are only in the process of assessing how bad the situation is - they aren't enforcing this law against websites - yet. There are similar laws in other countries; the website for the Olympic Games in Sydney was not accessible - they were successfully sued for $30,000 AUD, IIRC.
Ohh, and the last section of the book (actually and appendix) is all about the patent he filed for a device he came up with over the course of writing the book called a quantum well. It makes me a little nervous when someone's already trying to patent stuff that isn't realizable for years and years. Not a call to arms, but something to think about.
Well if it's years off, the patent will have expired by then - and the Patent Office will have no choice but see the prior art when somebody gets around to trying to patent it again.
The first thing that springs to mind is that Apple are doing it as a value-add for their customers. Apple computers would look far more attractive if you could only buy music online through them.
However, I've heard that Apple will be releasing iTunes for Windows, which blows that argument out of the water.
On the other hand, a steady revenue stream that is diverse from your main business is usually a good idea. Remember that this is only the USA, they'll be getting a lot more cash once it goes world-wide.
But, in contrast to Linux, MacOS X doesn't require root priviledges to change the clock or a number of other operations (many hardware related).
You don't have to be root to do that stuff in Linux either. That's just how lots of distributions are configured out of the box.
Changing the permissions so that users can alter clock settings is a hell of a lot better than making everyone root by default, so they are free to screw up the entire system.
I'm saying "it's not broken if you turn it off" is not all that helpful.
But that's not what I said. Presumably you aren't surfing merely to run some javascript, you are surfing for the content of websites. The technology is only a means to an end.
I'm merely pointing out that you can achieve the original goal (surfing without crashes) easier by disabling javascript.
Whether it's useful or not, it doesn't get a free pass because you can turn it off, because you *might* have a real need for it.
I do have a real need for javascript. It's disabled by default in my browser, and enabled for a couple of trusted domains. I pointed this all out already.
Re:X (and other Window systems) reduce productivit
on
Who Needs XFree86?
·
· Score: 1, Funny
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and me@domain.tld is an address of yours, correct? You don't see the difference between this and somebody else rewriting their address to the same me@domain.tld?
I give people access to my systems (in particular, my mail server) based upon a number of criteria. One of them is the sender's address. By forging this address, he gains illegitimate access to my systems.
Of course, he knows this. Why do you think he forges the information in the first place? The whole point is to gain access where he would otherwise be forbidden.
I'm certain of that too. Now you see the W3C website littered with references to their "standards". I have no idea when it happened, but I'm pretty sure it was in the last couple of years.
Who cares if Caldera distributed Linux before that point? It's the path of this allegedly infringing code that matters, not the entire history of the kernel.
No, they attempted to license a derivative work under the GPL. According to their version of events, Linus was unable to distribute this under the GPL in the first place, and so neither could they.
No, they aren't forced to do anything in this situation. They've stopped distributing the infringing code now, if the copyright holders of the GPLed code want to sue for copyright infringement in the past, they can do so.
People are saying that since they released the whole Linux source under the GPL, that means that any claim they have over the alleged proprietary code is gone forever. I don't think this is true.
The timeline, according to SCO, goes like this:
SCO proprietary code -> IBM -> Linux kernel -> SCO -> release under the GPL.
Now, the point in which the infringing code is released without permission is from IBM to the Linux kernel. From that point on, all licenses are invalid - you cannot give licenses out if you don't have the copyright.
According to SCO's story, they cannot have released the Linux kernel under the GPL legitimately, since it was a derivative work of their own, unlicensed code, and other people's works. They didn't have the right to redistribute it under the GPL or any other license.
They have now stopped redistributing it; presumably because they have realised that they are infringing on copyrights if they continue.
Firstly, they aren't verifying adequately, as this very story emphasises. Secondly, no, you don't have to download it to verify a file is there. HTTP HEAD will do the trick, or simply requesting the first few bytes.
Well, that would be adequate legal evidence that they have illegially downloaded YOUR copyrighted material, and YOU can sue them for damages.
Actually, even if you ignore the fact that you are offering the file for download yourself, their error clearly shows that they only looked at the filename, they didn't listen to it. You don't need to download something to see the filename.
Now, if somebody were to have, say, the first ten seconds of an Usher song as the start of an mp3, and then 20 minutes of somebody criticising that style of music, that would fall under fair use. It would also confuse them once they start to check that the music is actually infringing.
There you have it. I wonder if there is a way of applying this cost to every spammer.
I completely agree. However, one of the most popular arguments against evolution is that complex, interdependent traits like the mechanism involved in poisonous snakebites, for example, cannot evolve through random mutation, since two "random" developments need to happen at once in the same individual.
Not only can this be refuted with examples from nature, genetic algorithms also count against this argument, as very complex behaviour can also arise here (and we can examine each step of the way).
Not all satellites are owned by the USA government. What about commercial satellites, like telecommunications? How cheap would it be to damage a competitor's satellites, what are the risks of being caught, and what laws would apply?
15 months ago, Microsoft announced they were spending a whole month on nothing but security - code audits, developer training, you name it. They announced they were focussing much more on security issues.
This is after they have slowly built up a reputation as being incapable of writing anything securely. If there's one thing Microsoft has had an abundance of, it's time and money.
Yes and no. Things like buffer overflows shouldn't even make it out of the office - it indicates a lack of training and coding standards. Other issues are often the result of bad development process, including, as you mention, premature release.
A.K.A. vapourware. Announce nifty new features that you will be providing a year from now, and even though a competitor is offering the same feature now, they'll hang on just a bit longer so they don't have to switch platforms. And then realise how stupid they were when you release the product without the new features, and say they've slipped back to the next release. Lather, rinse, repeat as necessary.
Remember when Win95 was supposed to eliminate crashes forever because of its 32-bit memory protection (or something like that)? Remember when Win98 was released, and it was supposed to be far more stable than Win95? Remember when WinME was released...
Yeah, 'cause everybody has a BSD firewall, don't they? And firewalls stop all kinds of attacks, don't they?
Way to miss the point. He didn't say he thought that any more than he said he thought that DRM had wheels on the bottom.
You are also free to carry on using Windows 95 today... oh, but it's been EOLed, so no more security patches - hope you don't need to access an untrusted network, like, say, the Internet.
TIP: It's not just in the USA that Microsoft has a monopoly in computers.
Here in the UK, there is a law to prevent discrimination against disabled people, the DDA. It covers things like having ramps to access buildings, and so on. It also covers websites - do you expect the average Frontpage user to know the first thing about making a website accessible? The government are only in the process of assessing how bad the situation is - they aren't enforcing this law against websites - yet. There are similar laws in other countries; the website for the Olympic Games in Sydney was not accessible - they were successfully sued for $30,000 AUD, IIRC.
Peeball!
Basically, it's who can dissolve the ball of dodgy chemicals int the fastest time/most stylish way. I'm a Master Blaster :)
Isn't this necessary to support double-opt in?
Well if it's years off, the patent will have expired by then - and the Patent Office will have no choice but see the prior art when somebody gets around to trying to patent it again.
You mean like copyrighting and licensing software in order to make it Free Software? :)
The first thing that springs to mind is that Apple are doing it as a value-add for their customers. Apple computers would look far more attractive if you could only buy music online through them.
However, I've heard that Apple will be releasing iTunes for Windows, which blows that argument out of the water.
On the other hand, a steady revenue stream that is diverse from your main business is usually a good idea. Remember that this is only the USA, they'll be getting a lot more cash once it goes world-wide.
You don't have to be root to do that stuff in Linux either. That's just how lots of distributions are configured out of the box.
Changing the permissions so that users can alter clock settings is a hell of a lot better than making everyone root by default, so they are free to screw up the entire system.
Bye-bye mailing lists.
Bye-bye opt-in lists (hey, believe it or not, there are some products I am interested in).
Bye-bye email notifications whenever anybody replies to one of your comments on slashdot.
Bye-bye a million other valid uses of bulk mailings.
But that's not what I said. Presumably you aren't surfing merely to run some javascript, you are surfing for the content of websites. The technology is only a means to an end.
I'm merely pointing out that you can achieve the original goal (surfing without crashes) easier by disabling javascript.
I do have a real need for javascript. It's disabled by default in my browser, and enabled for a couple of trusted domains. I pointed this all out already.
Are you kidding? There's a great editor for EMACS!