Unfortunately, they are a part of history, and history is something you cannot sweep
under a rug. As objectionable as this content is, it is historic.
Of course you can! Ever read 1984? If you control the media, the records, books, etc. you can in effect create your own history in a way that suits you. Past exists only in memories and records. Memories are short-lived. Thus, by altering the records you in effect alter the past. See also: "if you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes truth".
Yahoo should not be forced to remove their content on American soil. Period. If this was to go through,
and be ruled that this is a perfectly legit thing for other countries to force on us, then pretty soon, we
will be answering to more of this behavior. The free speech of the United States WILL be scrutinized
(such as in the parody cases)
While I agree with what you say, I fear for the future. Just wait until they pass the Hangue treaty. Then the US court will have a legal obligation to uphold the French court's decision. Interestingly enough, US is the main proponent of the Hague treaty. ___
The portscanning d00dz scan hundreds of ports on thousands of computers over a block of IP
addresses to find computers they can attack. Once they've attacked those computers, they use them to
attack other computers. That's what portscanning is all about.
Again you are trying to blur the issues. Port scanning != attacking. Breaking into a computer is illegal in and of itself regardless of whether port scanning is involved. You are trying to argue that a port scanner automatically attacks. Repeat after me: attacking a computer causes damage; port scanning does no harm. These are separate actions!
It reminds me of the argument MPAA lawers were making against DeCSS. They would have us believe that a ripped DVD automatically puts itself on the internet for everyone to download, and distributes itself to millions of people. But EFF successfuly (or so it seems...) showed that the two actions are separate. Distributing a movie is illegal in and of itself regardless of whether DeCSS is involved. Ripping a movie for the purpose of backup, or storage on different medium (aka "space shifting"), or making clips is not. (Though this has nothing to do with port scanning I couldn't help but notice the similarity in the line of reasoning).
And why should I be held to a higher standard than the other
posters who are talking about "rattling doors", "opening windows", "ringing doorbells", "crawling in attics",
etc, etc, etc?
I didn't say that. The same is applicable to anyone who attempts to win an argument with rhetoric instead of logic. ___
There is also a huge difference between "checking whether a port is open" and "checking every port on
thousands of computers, none of which you have any permission to use". That is the distinction a whole
bunch of other people here are trying to blur.
Who said anything about thousands of computers? I sure didn't. Please do not misrepresent what I said. Now regarding the permission, that is an interesting question. I do concede that this is not clear cut. You claim that I have no permission to port scan a compuer on a public network. Where did you get that idea? Do I have a permission to make http/ftp/whatever connection to the same computer? Who establishes these permissions? How can I know them in advance? If no one has permission to access that computer, why is it on a public network?
It's sort of like the difference between sending an email to your friend, or sending thousands of emails
to thousands of people you don't know asking them if they'd like to "MAKE THOUSANDS OF
DOLLARS A WEEK WORKING FROM HOME!!1!". Or do you think that spamming is ok too?
That is a very interesting argument, but what does it have to do with port scanning? Nothing! Clearly you have nothing intelligent to say on the subject so you decide to appeal to emotion instead. I would be glad to debate the subject of port scanning, but please do stick to it and use logic, not rhetoric to back up your claim. ___
Let's say I'm connecting my computer to the internet for private purposes. Why should I have to put up
with repeated port scans? Those people aren't trying to connect to ports 111, 161, etc to do me a favour
by testing my security. They're trying to break in!
And outlawing port scanning would help you how? This is a very flawed argument. Breaking into your computer is illegal in and of itself, port scanning notwithstanding. There is a huge difference between checking whether a port is open and actively trying to exploit a security hole. You are trying to blur the distinction between the two.
___
dd would only perform a single write, which is in no way enough to delete all traces. That would be like
erasing an audio tape; tiny vestiges of the original recording would still be present.
Uhh, no shit Einstein! And if you run dd twice it would perform two writes. What a concept! Amazingly, if you run dd 10 times, it will perform 10 writes. Wow! ___
Shoot, he contradicts himself so many times, it's incredible. But what's worse is that he will keep on selling
useless crap and dispensing useless theories and advice until someone stops him. (or people stop buying.)
If he should go back to China, he'd be prosecuted there. America's too friendly to alternative-non
therapies. But China could actually do something about him.
But what's really sad is the whole multi-billion dollar fraud-based industry in America.
Relax, man. I don't understand why everyone is complaining about this interview. I got a good laugh. And I have no sympathy for the suckers who actually bought this magic device (if there are any). I can't believe that some people actually tried to logically argue with this guy and prove him wrong. Here's a newsflash: you cannot persuade a moron that his conviction is flawed. That's why I think the best question that was asked was this:
If you were to end up dying someday, who should I contact for a refund
on my eternal life device?
That's absolutely hilarious! And it pretty well summarizes how I feel about the whole thing. ___
Your little "summary" seems to imply that *all* of the above tests are somehow included in the overall system performance. They are not. The overall system performance links to the SYSMark test which has nothing to do with any of the above tests. It is correct that Xeon does better on SYSMark because of Content Creation part of this benchmark (probably because of SSE optimizations and/or greater bandwidth of Rambus). But it is misleading to imply that 2 Athlon are slower than 2 Xeons overall. In fact, the benchmarks show the opposite picture. ___
This Tyan board is clearly targeted at the real high-end of the market. I mean 64 bit PCI slots, *dual channel* U160 card, dual port 3com 10/100 card,.... sounds yummy if you're building a big server. But what I'm looking for is a lower-end board, without the built-in SCSI, LAN, video, etc. so that I can build a really affordable SMP system for myself. Any info on when these things are coming? ___
DDR is not much more expensive. 256MB stick of PC2100 DDR cost $65.69, exactly the same as 256MB stick of PC133 SDRAM. (see here for example: http://www.crucial.com/store/ListModule.asp?module =184-pin+DIMM&x=8&y=15). Now, considering that DDR has the same latency and double the bandwidth of SDRAM, I'd call it a good deal. That said, you will not notice anywhere near 2x performance increase overall if you go with DDR. As it stands, memory bandwidth is not a bottleneck right now. Only very few applications will benefit significantly from increased bandwidth. ___
The OpenBSD team are on the verge of putting together an OpenIPF project, the domain has already been registered by Todd Fries. I sincerely hope that they succeed, and can produce something as flexible as IPFilter with a decent licence and consistant, intelligent, project management. It's a crying shame IPFilter will die a death because of this, it's a waste of code and a waste of good work, but in the current way its managed, it has to go.
Hang on. As I understand it, OpenBSD team would simply be able to fork the latest IPFilter code before the licence change (*), and continue from there.
(*) Despite what Reed claims, I don't see how this is a "clarification" of the license. It is, plain and simple, a retroactive change of the license. The original license clearly stated that you are allowed to use IPFilter in binary and in source, as long as you retain this notice and give credit to the author. I don't see how you can read the above as "you are not allowed to distribute modified versions".
Anyway, according to the old license, they can just take the latest free code and start the OpenIPF project with that. ___
Re:To see how this will go, look at drugs
on
Killing Video Games
·
· Score: 2
Or, as Orwell nicely put it "If you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes truth." ___
Say for example Linus decided to make
something proprietary with Linux. As the original author, he's got the right to relicense the code, right?
Ahem, I don't want to be insulting, but from the same page:
Can the developer of a program who distributed it under the GPL later license it to another party for exclusive use?
No, because the public already has the right to use the program under the GPL, and this right cannot be withdrawn. Can the developer of a program who distributed it under the GPL later license it to another party for exclusive use?
No, because the public already has the right to use the program under the GPL, and this right cannot be withdrawn.
So, to answer your question, no, Linus would not be able to release Linux under another license without asking permission from all the contributors. Also, the author of IPF cannot retroactively change the license, no matter what he would have you believe. (And make no mistake about it: this is not a clarification of the license, this is a retroactive change of the license). However, if he is the sole author and contributor of the code, he can release the *future* versions of the code under a different license without having to ask permission from anyone. He cannot, however, prevent FreeIPF from forking off of the latest free code. ___
very few people here like that idea, but then most of the people here are concerned with cost above all,
regardless of form. i think you'll find most people with a fair amount of disposable income will go with
these new Compaq boxes, for better or for worse
Exactly. What many in the/. audience fail to realize is that these toys are designed for people with more money than brains. ___
You might want to consider FreeBSD then. FreeBSD fans have long touted the superior NFS implementation. Not sure if it's still the case -- there were lots of improvements in 2.4, NFS being one of them. ___
2.It's the most common mail client
It's the 2nd point which is the most significant. So saying Linux is safe from viral attacks because not enough people use it, is a poor argument to get more people to use it.
Oh please! Name one other email client that automatically executes VBscript attachments. And where did you get this idea that Outlook is the most common email client? Care to point me to the data?
And don't fall for the "but *nix is too secure for viruses" - sure, if my "sparkz" account does
something weird, then the / filesystem is safe. But if I can write to my data, I can trash it. So
everyone's still vulnerable to viral attacks, Linux is currently pretty safe because it's such a
small part of the email and web user-base.
Uh-huh. It is much much easier to just restore the contents of your home directory from backup than to reinstall the entire OS, reinstall all the application, configure them the way they used to be, and then restore your data from backup. And not only that, since the amount of damage this supposed "virus" can do is so limited, there is a much smaller amount of data that needs to be backed up regularly.
Essentially what you're saying is that a car with a seat belt is no better than a car without one cause you can still get killed. Well, sure, but you are many times more likely to die in a car crash if you are not wearing a seat belt. ___
Probably not. I didn't say there wasn't much custom software, I just said that (IMHO) software isn't *required* to be custom
Actually, there is quite a bit. A lot of software is custom-made to fit a company's needs and it's simply not applicable in any other situation. There is also a lot of work in customization, integration, etc. etc.
How many companies have reinvented the wheel and developed their own [fill in the blank] system because they were just too lazy to figure out how an "off-the-shelf" system would fit into their buisness process?
Oh man... where do I begin?:-)... BTW, it doesn't help to provide a counter-example next to the argument you are trying to prove....
Very true, sorry for the bad example.
This is actually a great example. It ilustrates that selling software is not a sustainable business model unless you can find some way to force your customers to upgrade.
BTW, I just read 1984 a few weeks ago. It's really really impressive. And scary. ___
This is actually a very interesting question.
This is because what you decribe are mostly services. Software is mostly a product. The only way to get paid for a product is to sell it, thus to get money from it.
Microsoft disagrees with you here. They are actively pushing their software as a service initiative. In effect, they give away their software for free but charge you a monthly fee for using their servers where it is hosted. It is only logical for them to do that because there is only so much you can do with a word processor. Other than the funky gizmos (and incompatible file formats), there is no difference between Office 95, Office 97 and Office 2000. I will concede that Office XP is an improvement though -- apparently they killed the clippy;-) So, in effect, the only way Microsoft can "encourage" you to shell out more and more money for Office is by constantly changing the file formats so that you have to "upgrade" (oh, and you also need to "upgrade" the OS while you're at it. And the database. And...). Enter the services. Now you shell out money to Microsoft automatically if you want to use their services at all. Problem solved -- now Microsoft gets an infinite revenue stream without having to resort to dirty tricks like changing protocols.
Anyway, rantings aside, many business analysts do agree that software industry is a service industry in disguise.
this is because usually (there are exceptions) software isn't required to be custom
Well, you'd be surprised how much custom software there is.
Take a word processor. If it is available on the web for free (and legal), why would anyone
pay me to write one for them?
I can ask you a similar question: if I already have a word processor and it does everything I need, why would I want to pay for it again? (see above). ___
Actually, this is a very interesting tidbit. Apparently the RSA algorithm was patented long after it has been discovered and published. The patent was an afterthought. This was an academic research project at MIT. So in this case too IP played no role. ___
Slashdot Mirror
Of course you can! Ever read 1984? If you control the media, the records, books, etc. you can in effect create your own history in a way that suits you. Past exists only in memories and records. Memories are short-lived. Thus, by altering the records you in effect alter the past. See also: "if you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes truth".
Yahoo should not be forced to remove their content on American soil. Period. If this was to go through, and be ruled that this is a perfectly legit thing for other countries to force on us, then pretty soon, we will be answering to more of this behavior. The free speech of the United States WILL be scrutinized (such as in the parody cases)
While I agree with what you say, I fear for the future. Just wait until they pass the Hangue treaty. Then the US court will have a legal obligation to uphold the French court's decision. Interestingly enough, US is the main proponent of the Hague treaty.
___
And if you didn't want spam why do you have an email address in the first place?
___
In other news: cigarets do not cause cancer.
___
Again you are trying to blur the issues. Port scanning != attacking. Breaking into a computer is illegal in and of itself regardless of whether port scanning is involved. You are trying to argue that a port scanner automatically attacks. Repeat after me: attacking a computer causes damage; port scanning does no harm. These are separate actions!
It reminds me of the argument MPAA lawers were making against DeCSS. They would have us believe that a ripped DVD automatically puts itself on the internet for everyone to download, and distributes itself to millions of people. But EFF successfuly (or so it seems...) showed that the two actions are separate. Distributing a movie is illegal in and of itself regardless of whether DeCSS is involved. Ripping a movie for the purpose of backup, or storage on different medium (aka "space shifting"), or making clips is not. (Though this has nothing to do with port scanning I couldn't help but notice the similarity in the line of reasoning).
And why should I be held to a higher standard than the other posters who are talking about "rattling doors", "opening windows", "ringing doorbells", "crawling in attics", etc, etc, etc?
I didn't say that. The same is applicable to anyone who attempts to win an argument with rhetoric instead of logic.
___
Who said anything about thousands of computers? I sure didn't. Please do not misrepresent what I said. Now regarding the permission, that is an interesting question. I do concede that this is not clear cut. You claim that I have no permission to port scan a compuer on a public network. Where did you get that idea? Do I have a permission to make http/ftp/whatever connection to the same computer? Who establishes these permissions? How can I know them in advance? If no one has permission to access that computer, why is it on a public network?
It's sort of like the difference between sending an email to your friend, or sending thousands of emails to thousands of people you don't know asking them if they'd like to "MAKE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS A WEEK WORKING FROM HOME!!1!". Or do you think that spamming is ok too?
That is a very interesting argument, but what does it have to do with port scanning? Nothing! Clearly you have nothing intelligent to say on the subject so you decide to appeal to emotion instead. I would be glad to debate the subject of port scanning, but please do stick to it and use logic, not rhetoric to back up your claim.
___
And outlawing port scanning would help you how? This is a very flawed argument. Breaking into your computer is illegal in and of itself, port scanning notwithstanding. There is a huge difference between checking whether a port is open and actively trying to exploit a security hole. You are trying to blur the distinction between the two.
___
Uhh, no shit Einstein! And if you run dd twice it would perform two writes. What a concept! Amazingly, if you run dd 10 times, it will perform 10 writes. Wow!
___
Relax, man. I don't understand why everyone is complaining about this interview. I got a good laugh. And I have no sympathy for the suckers who actually bought this magic device (if there are any). I can't believe that some people actually tried to logically argue with this guy and prove him wrong. Here's a newsflash: you cannot persuade a moron that his conviction is flawed. That's why I think the best question that was asked was this:
If you were to end up dying someday, who should I contact for a refund on my eternal life device?
That's absolutely hilarious! And it pretty well summarizes how I feel about the whole thing.
___
You can achieve eternal life in the form of procreation.
___
Was that sarcasm or is this guy serious?
___
Your little "summary" seems to imply that *all* of the above tests are somehow included in the overall system performance. They are not. The overall system performance links to the SYSMark test which has nothing to do with any of the above tests. It is correct that Xeon does better on SYSMark because of Content Creation part of this benchmark (probably because of SSE optimizations and/or greater bandwidth of Rambus). But it is misleading to imply that 2 Athlon are slower than 2 Xeons overall. In fact, the benchmarks show the opposite picture.
___
This Tyan board is clearly targeted at the real high-end of the market. I mean 64 bit PCI slots, *dual channel* U160 card, dual port 3com 10/100 card, .... sounds yummy if you're building a big server. But what I'm looking for is a lower-end board, without the built-in SCSI, LAN, video, etc. so that I can build a really affordable SMP system for myself. Any info on when these things are coming?
___
DDR is not much more expensive. 256MB stick of PC2100 DDR cost $65.69, exactly the same as 256MB stick of PC133 SDRAM. (see here for example: http://www.crucial.com/store/ListModule.asp?module =184-pin+DIMM&x=8&y=15). Now, considering that DDR has the same latency and double the bandwidth of SDRAM, I'd call it a good deal. That said, you will not notice anywhere near 2x performance increase overall if you go with DDR. As it stands, memory bandwidth is not a bottleneck right now. Only very few applications will benefit significantly from increased bandwidth.
___
Hang on. As I understand it, OpenBSD team would simply be able to fork the latest IPFilter code before the licence change (*), and continue from there.
(*) Despite what Reed claims, I don't see how this is a "clarification" of the license. It is, plain and simple, a retroactive change of the license. The original license clearly stated that you are allowed to use IPFilter in binary and in source, as long as you retain this notice and give credit to the author. I don't see how you can read the above as "you are not allowed to distribute modified versions".
Anyway, according to the old license, they can just take the latest free code and start the OpenIPF project with that.
___
Or, as Orwell nicely put it "If you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes truth."
___
Ahem, NASDAQ *website* runs on NT but not their back-end.
___
Ahem, I don't want to be insulting, but from the same page:
So, to answer your question, no, Linus would not be able to release Linux under another license without asking permission from all the contributors. Also, the author of IPF cannot retroactively change the license, no matter what he would have you believe. (And make no mistake about it: this is not a clarification of the license, this is a retroactive change of the license). However, if he is the sole author and contributor of the code, he can release the *future* versions of the code under a different license without having to ask permission from anyone. He cannot, however, prevent FreeIPF from forking off of the latest free code.
___
Perhaps, but do they try to retroactively change the license? This is the real issue here.
___
Exactly. What many in the /. audience fail to realize is that these toys are designed for people with more money than brains.
___
You might want to consider FreeBSD then. FreeBSD fans have long touted the superior NFS implementation. Not sure if it's still the case -- there were lots of improvements in 2.4, NFS being one of them.
___
Oh please! Name one other email client that automatically executes VBscript attachments. And where did you get this idea that Outlook is the most common email client? Care to point me to the data?
And don't fall for the "but *nix is too secure for viruses" - sure, if my "sparkz" account does something weird, then the / filesystem is safe. But if I can write to my data, I can trash it. So everyone's still vulnerable to viral attacks, Linux is currently pretty safe because it's such a small part of the email and web user-base.
Uh-huh. It is much much easier to just restore the contents of your home directory from backup than to reinstall the entire OS, reinstall all the application, configure them the way they used to be, and then restore your data from backup. And not only that, since the amount of damage this supposed "virus" can do is so limited, there is a much smaller amount of data that needs to be backed up regularly.
Essentially what you're saying is that a car with a seat belt is no better than a car without one cause you can still get killed. Well, sure, but you are many times more likely to die in a car crash if you are not wearing a seat belt.
___
Actually, there is quite a bit. A lot of software is custom-made to fit a company's needs and it's simply not applicable in any other situation. There is also a lot of work in customization, integration, etc. etc.
How many companies have reinvented the wheel and developed their own [fill in the blank] system because they were just too lazy to figure out how an "off-the-shelf" system would fit into their buisness process?
Oh man... where do I begin? :-) ... BTW, it doesn't help to provide a counter-example next to the argument you are trying to prove....
Very true, sorry for the bad example.
This is actually a great example. It ilustrates that selling software is not a sustainable business model unless you can find some way to force your customers to upgrade.
BTW, I just read 1984 a few weeks ago. It's really really impressive. And scary.
___
Microsoft disagrees with you here. They are actively pushing their software as a service initiative. In effect, they give away their software for free but charge you a monthly fee for using their servers where it is hosted. It is only logical for them to do that because there is only so much you can do with a word processor. Other than the funky gizmos (and incompatible file formats), there is no difference between Office 95, Office 97 and Office 2000. I will concede that Office XP is an improvement though -- apparently they killed the clippy ;-) So, in effect, the only way Microsoft can "encourage" you to shell out more and more money for Office is by constantly changing the file formats so that you have to "upgrade" (oh, and you also need to "upgrade" the OS while you're at it. And the database. And...). Enter the services. Now you shell out money to Microsoft automatically if you want to use their services at all. Problem solved -- now Microsoft gets an infinite revenue stream without having to resort to dirty tricks like changing protocols.
Anyway, rantings aside, many business analysts do agree that software industry is a service industry in disguise.
this is because usually (there are exceptions) software isn't required to be custom
Well, you'd be surprised how much custom software there is.
Take a word processor. If it is available on the web for free (and legal), why would anyone pay me to write one for them?
I can ask you a similar question: if I already have a word processor and it does everything I need, why would I want to pay for it again? (see above).
___
Actually, this is a very interesting tidbit. Apparently the RSA algorithm was patented long after it has been discovered and published. The patent was an afterthought. This was an academic research project at MIT. So in this case too IP played no role.
___
Let's just hope they don't recall it like Intel did :-)
___