I wouldn't imagine that security is a major problem, at least for the proposed Alaskan reactor. Afterall, the thing is huge and heavy and buried in a hole in a remote Alaskan locale where diesel is apparently shipped in on river boats.
You can be pretty sure that just about everyone would notice if someone was trying to steal the reactor or core. In towns like that, every stranger is noticed. And, being Alaskans, they probably all have high-powered rifles (for hunting big game) and ammo.
And, frankly, I doubt anyone would settle and build a town in a permafrost area. Most towns in Alaska are in wooded areas near rivers. When so much of Alaska is so beautiful, why would anyone choose to settle in a place covered in permafrost?
I don't know exactly where this town is, latitude-wise, but the days are pretty short in Alaska in the winter. In the far north (where, admittedly, not many poeple live) it is dark continuously for much of the winter.
Also, I imagine that most villages are in wooded areas. So solar might not be a good choice.
Do terms "eminent domain" and "national security" mean anything to you?
Develop an algorithm that would totally compromise the US crypto. Watch how fast the government would use its right to declare it in its eminent domain and prevent you from publishing it. Freedom of speech has limits even in the USA, no matter how much you'd like to believe otherwise.
A better example might be this: Try publishing a book which explains how to build an H-bomb. See how far you get. Be sure to say goodbye to your friends and families before you start.
Also, I don't think eminent domain comes into it at all. Eminent domain, AFAIK, is for real property only, and requires the government to compensate the owner at market value (whatever that means). What is the market value of an unpublished book?
I think these reposts of the whole article should only be modded up when the original site is likely to be slashdotted. In this case, since the site is pure text, that is MOST UNLIKELY.
In fact, I propose that the parent to this post be moderated down as redundant.
Yeah, it's clear from that listing that there is no hardware signal in that system. But you say it's an AT, right? Things may have changed.
The reason I say that is that two years ago I used to work for a large company that made Intel architecture single board computers. I actually designed two SBC's. I am pretty sure that the keyboard controller (in the PIIX4E Southbridge) could cause an SMI in response to control-alt-delete. I mean, I know the Southbridge could launch an SMI, but there's a lot of stuff in that Southbridge, and I can't remember for sure. I'm too lazy to dig through the 200+ page datasheet.;-)
The BIOS guy would know, but I'm not really in touch with him anymore.
I believe ctrl-alt-del raises a hardware signal, so I don't think messing with the keyboard drivers would allow you to intercept it.
I don't think there is any way to keep the hardware signal from being asserted, although you could certainly install a handler for the signal. To do this under nt/2k/xp-pro you would need to have priveledge.
I guess what they mean when they say it can't be hijacked is that it can't be hijacked by normal software running on your computer. Any attacker who could install a new interrupt handler already basically owns the box anyway.
Don't be in such a hurry to post. Slow down. Try to say something coherrent. I'm not that clear on what you are trying to say.
The linux community bit was clear. However, there is no linux community worthy of analogy to an organism. For some people, linux is just a way of saying "Screw you" to microsoft. For some it is Unix nostalgia. For others it is good because it is cheap. There is no real community, at least in user land. The developers might be more of a community.
Personally I have long since given up on linux boosterism. If people ask me about it, I answer, otherwise I never bring it up.
Anyway, moving on, how can "outbursts of flames come from the fact that... commercial companies" control key developers? Are you saying that commercial companies instruct their developers to "stir up the rabble" by posting stuff to usenet? This may be true, I don't know.
And how can a company be coerced into cooperating for free? Are you saying that e.g., Linksys cannot use the linux kernel unless it stays true to the GPL? If so, I agree with you. But that is not coercion. It's just the terms of the license agreement. They should have used some other kernel if they didn't like it. QNX might be a good choice. Or one of the BSD's.
Anyway, I sense that you have an interesting point, but I don't quite get it.
But I am not with you. I don't support downloading of music, and I don't do it. And I don't "pirate" software either. I either use paid-for software or free software. I suspect that respect for copyright is much higher among real free software developers than you seem to believe.
As for myself, the more the RIAA uses a highly targeted approach to catching people who actually are comitting copyright violation, the more likely I am to support them. I was against them when they were trying to shut down all file sharing because to me, that was over broad, and I was afraid that it would end with ftp being banned. Now they are getting closer to the right track.
In short, just because you are experiencing remorse, or perhaps feeling hypocritical, do not assume everyone else is with you.
The GPL is not just a raised middle finger to the closed software companies. And free software is not just about free MP3's. In fact, free software isn't about free MP3's at all, as far as I can see.
"Linksys is giving an effort to comply. Publicly attacking them instead of going through approprate channels at Linksys accomplishes nothing."
There is very little evidence in the article that Linksys is making a good-faith effort to comply with the terms of the GPL. Perhaps you know something I don't know. If so, post it with a link to corroborate.
"At a time when SCO and Microsoft are trying to show that the GPL is bad for business, slashdot users keep giving them more proof."
This makes no sense. Slashdot is not giving proof to anything as far as I can see. Besides, the GPL was not designed to be good for business. It is what it is. And it speaks for itself. But, without enforcement, it doesn't mean anything.
Don't worry. I'm sure Linksys will eventually work something out. If not, then they will have to re-design their firmware.
"...under the contractual premise that it would be redistributed for free."
Freely, as in without restraint, but not necessarily for free. Hence, Linksys can charge for their routers without violating the GPL. What they can't do (but are doing anyway) is create and distribute binary-only releases of kernel derivatives.
People license their code under the GPL because it protects their code from being commercialized. Nobody sells GPL code...
Hogwash. Red Hat, to name just one example, sells GPL code. Furthermore, if Red Hat code isn't "commercialized" then I don't know what is.
There is nothing whatsoever in the GPL to stop me (or anyone) from opening up a business selling GPL code. In fact, it might even be a viable business. You could offer a huge variety of GPL (and other permissively licensed) code, burned onto CD or DVD and shipped within 24 hours for a reasonable price. People with dialup might be interested.
They misspell words so that they can trademark them. You can't get trademark protection for ordinary english words. But if you cleverly misspell them, then they are not ordinary english words.
Starbucks claims trademark protection for the word "venti," which they use to specify the size of their drinks, even though "venti" just means twenty in Italian. (It's a twenty-ounce cup. This is ironic because in Italy they use milliliters and deciliters, not fluid ounces.)
I'm not sure whether Starbucks also claims that "grande" is a trademark or not. Might be a tough claim to make.
I got my first unix account near the end of the bang path days in 1985.
I was the first person I know to get an email address. Most people didn't have any idea what email was. I convinced a few of my friends at universities to get email.
There was no such thing as an ISP or microsoft windows. I had a compaq PC (8086 or 8088-based) with a 10 megabyte hard drive and a 300 baud modem. I used terminal emulation to connect to the campus network over the phone line. And I spent HOURS on line. In those days you could freely telnet and rsh across the internet. You could finger people on remote machines.
Wow. Red Hat 5.2 was the first version of linux I ever ran.
I was SO stoked when I finally booted the machine and was able to compile hello world.
I didn't even know about X at the time. Eventually I got x configured properly for my video card, and figured out how to make linux talk to my metricom wireless modem. The next major milestone was checking my hotmail email for the first time under linux. Pretty cool.
Then I installed samba and diald, and set the linux box up as a nat box/firewall, print and file server for my housemates, and we shared the slow-ass metricom connection. Heh. To download anything big (like a new kernel) I had to start it up before I went to bed, and the next day it would still be going.
Over time I upgraded my libc, my gcc, my Xserver, the kernel. Until it eventually wasn't really a redhat 5.2 box anymore, because I did all my upgrades from sources, not packages.
Around that time I tried linux from scratch, and that was fun. (by this time I had DSL, or I never would have done linux from scratch). I learned how to build pretty much everything on a typical linux system that way. I installed X and gtk and the enlightenment window manager (which has a ton of dependencies).
Now I am using slackware 8, although my firewall system is still running linux from scratch. No web server, no ftp, no telnet, no services of any kind, except a cache-only dns server for the LAN side.
It sure has been fun. Thanks for taking me down memory road.
"all it takes is for some guy to open Outlook," meaning that the minimum user interaction level would be if you open Outlook, and the worm is the topmost message, bam, it gets previewed and executed if you're not all patched up.
Except for those of us who disable the preview pane. I'm pretty sure I would delete any message like this without ever opening it. But at my work, I can't convince my co-workers to turn off preview, so I would guess that most people leave it on unless there is some kind of IT enforcement. (BTW, I'm not an IT guy or anything).
The "Swen" worm arrives in an official-looking e-mail message that appears to be from Microsoft.
Users whose PCs are not patched against the Microsoft flaw this worm exploits will be infected just by viewing the message, as will protected users who click on the e-mail attachment. [Emphasis added]
So I'm not sure that blocking the attachment is enough.
... I still find it hard to believe that 1.5 million people would run the "update".
RTFA. It's the SECOND SENTENCE:
The "Swen" worm arrives in an official-looking e-mail message that appears to be from Microsoft.
Users whose PCs are not patched against the Microsoft flaw this worm exploits will be infected just by viewing the message, as will protected users who click on the e-mail attachment.
[emphasis added]
Another poster mentioned that it used to be possible for either house to issue a "legislative veto" with a simple majority.
But the courts ruled this process unconstitutional, so now both houses will have to vote to rescind the FCC's legislation.
I guess the supreme court considers the FCC (and other similar regulatory bodies) to be essentially an arm of congress. So if the FCC passes a law (assuming the law doesn't exceed the FCC's mandate), then congress can only undo that law by passing another one.
So, the will of congress is enough, but they need to express that will in the form of an actual law which directly undoes the FCC's actions. And this does give the president an opportunity to veto the action.
Congress could also do a lot of other things to the FCC if they desired, including not funding them, or punishing them in a variety of ways.
The FCC was created by congress, and could be disintegrated completely by a single act of congress. The FCC is not really part of the executive branch, but part of the legislative branch. Congress has delegated power to it.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't imagine that security is a major problem, at least for the proposed Alaskan reactor. Afterall, the thing is huge and heavy and buried in a hole in a remote Alaskan locale where diesel is apparently shipped in on river boats.
You can be pretty sure that just about everyone would notice if someone was trying to steal the reactor or core. In towns like that, every stranger is noticed. And, being Alaskans, they probably all have high-powered rifles (for hunting big game) and ammo.
MM
--
Not all of Alaska is permafrost.
And, frankly, I doubt anyone would settle and build a town in a permafrost area. Most towns in Alaska are in wooded areas near rivers. When so much of Alaska is so beautiful, why would anyone choose to settle in a place covered in permafrost?
MM
--
I don't know exactly where this town is, latitude-wise, but the days are pretty short in Alaska in the winter. In the far north (where, admittedly, not many poeple live) it is dark continuously for much of the winter.
Also, I imagine that most villages are in wooded areas. So solar might not be a good choice.
MM
--
A better example might be this: Try publishing a book which explains how to build an H-bomb. See how far you get. Be sure to say goodbye to your friends and families before you start.
Also, I don't think eminent domain comes into it at all. Eminent domain, AFAIK, is for real property only, and requires the government to compensate the owner at market value (whatever that means). What is the market value of an unpublished book?
MM
--
You certainly have a point.
Still, if I were moderating, I wouldn't mod the repost up. Or maybe I would if it were posted anonymously in the first place.
MM
--
I think these reposts of the whole article should only be modded up when the original site is likely to be slashdotted. In this case, since the site is pure text, that is MOST UNLIKELY.
In fact, I propose that the parent to this post be moderated down as redundant.
MM
--
"Long live air poisoning and parking that blocks roads and endangers life."
If a car is parked in such a way that it blocks a road, you'd be daft to boot it now wouldn't you?
Daft bugger.
MM
--
FYI,
There is no gaurantee that a pvc pipe won't blow up under those conditions.
It would be much safer to devise a remote detonation scheme.
MM
--
Do you have any idea how heavy a life-sized moose made out of steel must be? ;-)
MM
--
Heh heh.
;-)
Yeah, it's clear from that listing that there is no hardware signal in that system. But you say it's an AT, right? Things may have changed.
The reason I say that is that two years ago I used to work for a large company that made Intel architecture single board computers. I actually designed two SBC's. I am pretty sure that the keyboard controller (in the PIIX4E Southbridge) could cause an SMI in response to control-alt-delete. I mean, I know the Southbridge could launch an SMI, but there's a lot of stuff in that Southbridge, and I can't remember for sure. I'm too lazy to dig through the 200+ page datasheet.
The BIOS guy would know, but I'm not really in touch with him anymore.
MM
--
I believe ctrl-alt-del raises a hardware signal, so I don't think messing with the keyboard drivers would allow you to intercept it.
I don't think there is any way to keep the hardware signal from being asserted, although you could certainly install a handler for the signal. To do this under nt/2k/xp-pro you would need to have priveledge.
I guess what they mean when they say it can't be hijacked is that it can't be hijacked by normal software running on your computer. Any attacker who could install a new interrupt handler already basically owns the box anyway.
MM
--
Don't be in such a hurry to post. Slow down. Try to say something coherrent. I'm not that clear on what you are trying to say.
... commercial companies" control key developers? Are you saying that commercial companies instruct their developers to "stir up the rabble" by posting stuff to usenet? This may be true, I don't know.
The linux community bit was clear. However, there is no linux community worthy of analogy to an organism. For some people, linux is just a way of saying "Screw you" to microsoft. For some it is Unix nostalgia. For others it is good because it is cheap. There is no real community, at least in user land. The developers might be more of a community.
Personally I have long since given up on linux boosterism. If people ask me about it, I answer, otherwise I never bring it up.
Anyway, moving on, how can "outbursts of flames come from the fact that
And how can a company be coerced into cooperating for free? Are you saying that e.g., Linksys cannot use the linux kernel unless it stays true to the GPL? If so, I agree with you. But that is not coercion. It's just the terms of the license agreement. They should have used some other kernel if they didn't like it. QNX might be a good choice. Or one of the BSD's.
Anyway, I sense that you have an interesting point, but I don't quite get it.
MM
--
You use "we" freely.
But I am not with you. I don't support downloading of music, and I don't do it. And I don't "pirate" software either. I either use paid-for software or free software. I suspect that respect for copyright is much higher among real free software developers than you seem to believe.
As for myself, the more the RIAA uses a highly targeted approach to catching people who actually are comitting copyright violation, the more likely I am to support them. I was against them when they were trying to shut down all file sharing because to me, that was over broad, and I was afraid that it would end with ftp being banned. Now they are getting closer to the right track.
In short, just because you are experiencing remorse, or perhaps feeling hypocritical, do not assume everyone else is with you.
The GPL is not just a raised middle finger to the closed software companies. And free software is not just about free MP3's. In fact, free software isn't about free MP3's at all, as far as I can see.
MM
--
"Linksys is giving an effort to comply. Publicly attacking them instead of going through approprate channels at Linksys accomplishes nothing."
There is very little evidence in the article that Linksys is making a good-faith effort to comply with the terms of the GPL. Perhaps you know something I don't know. If so, post it with a link to corroborate.
"At a time when SCO and Microsoft are trying to show that the GPL is bad for business, slashdot users keep giving them more proof."
This makes no sense. Slashdot is not giving proof to anything as far as I can see. Besides, the GPL was not designed to be good for business. It is what it is. And it speaks for itself. But, without enforcement, it doesn't mean anything.
Don't worry. I'm sure Linksys will eventually work something out. If not, then they will have to re-design their firmware.
MM
--
"...under the contractual premise that it would be redistributed for free."
Freely, as in without restraint, but not necessarily for free. Hence, Linksys can charge for their routers without violating the GPL. What they can't do (but are doing anyway) is create and distribute binary-only releases of kernel derivatives.
The GPL does not forbid renumeration.
MM
--
Hogwash. Red Hat, to name just one example, sells GPL code. Furthermore, if Red Hat code isn't "commercialized" then I don't know what is.
There is nothing whatsoever in the GPL to stop me (or anyone) from opening up a business selling GPL code. In fact, it might even be a viable business. You could offer a huge variety of GPL (and other permissively licensed) code, burned onto CD or DVD and shipped within 24 hours for a reasonable price. People with dialup might be interested.
MM
--
They misspell words so that they can trademark them. You can't get trademark protection for ordinary english words. But if you cleverly misspell them, then they are not ordinary english words.
Starbucks claims trademark protection for the word "venti," which they use to specify the size of their drinks, even though "venti" just means twenty in Italian. (It's a twenty-ounce cup. This is ironic because in Italy they use milliliters and deciliters, not fluid ounces.)
I'm not sure whether Starbucks also claims that "grande" is a trademark or not. Might be a tough claim to make.
MM
--
Heh.
I got my first unix account near the end of the bang path days in 1985.
I was the first person I know to get an email address. Most people didn't have any idea what email was. I convinced a few of my friends at universities to get email.
There was no such thing as an ISP or microsoft windows. I had a compaq PC (8086 or 8088-based) with a 10 megabyte hard drive and a 300 baud modem. I used terminal emulation to connect to the campus network over the phone line. And I spent HOURS on line. In those days you could freely telnet and rsh across the internet. You could finger people on remote machines.
Times have sure changed!
MM
--
Wow. Red Hat 5.2 was the first version of linux I ever ran.
I was SO stoked when I finally booted the machine and was able to compile hello world.
I didn't even know about X at the time. Eventually I got x configured properly for my video card, and figured out how to make linux talk to my metricom wireless modem. The next major milestone was checking my hotmail email for the first time under linux. Pretty cool.
Then I installed samba and diald, and set the linux box up as a nat box/firewall, print and file server for my housemates, and we shared the slow-ass metricom connection. Heh. To download anything big (like a new kernel) I had to start it up before I went to bed, and the next day it would still be going.
Over time I upgraded my libc, my gcc, my Xserver, the kernel. Until it eventually wasn't really a redhat 5.2 box anymore, because I did all my upgrades from sources, not packages.
Around that time I tried linux from scratch, and that was fun. (by this time I had DSL, or I never would have done linux from scratch). I learned how to build pretty much everything on a typical linux system that way. I installed X and gtk and the enlightenment window manager (which has a ton of dependencies).
Now I am using slackware 8, although my firewall system is still running linux from scratch. No web server, no ftp, no telnet, no services of any kind, except a cache-only dns server for the LAN side.
It sure has been fun. Thanks for taking me down memory road.
I'll probably try out gentoo next.
MM
--
MM
--
MM
--
--
Another poster mentioned that it used to be possible for either house to issue a "legislative veto" with a simple majority.
But the courts ruled this process unconstitutional, so now both houses will have to vote to rescind the FCC's legislation.
I guess the supreme court considers the FCC (and other similar regulatory bodies) to be essentially an arm of congress. So if the FCC passes a law (assuming the law doesn't exceed the FCC's mandate), then congress can only undo that law by passing another one.
So, the will of congress is enough, but they need to express that will in the form of an actual law which directly undoes the FCC's actions. And this does give the president an opportunity to veto the action.
Congress could also do a lot of other things to the FCC if they desired, including not funding them, or punishing them in a variety of ways.
MM
--
By the way, did you put that particular sig in place in light of the recent passing of the Man in Black?
My dad had an 8-track tape with that song on it, and we used to listen to it often on family trips.
MM
--
No.
The FCC was created by congress, and could be disintegrated completely by a single act of congress. The FCC is not really part of the executive branch, but part of the legislative branch. Congress has delegated power to it.
Check this URL:
http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html
MM
--