This doesn't actually work. Much of the spam the mail server I maintain sees goes to the abuse@ address, because for about a two or three month period, that address was the only one "scrapable" from the website, on the privacy policy. As that was the only place the abuse address was published, and because the abuse address had been active forever, but only started seeing spam traffic after it was published in the policy page, I can assure you that spambots just don't care enough to filter out abuse@.
Think about it. You can't register a trademark or similarly "owned" name unless you own the trademark. If you do, the UDRP process will yank it away from you and give it over to the "real" owner. So any company can now file a claim against verisign for any trademark they haven't bothered to buy the domain for, or have let lapse, because now it resolves to verisign, and verisign is clearly using it to make money. Before you can say "corporate stooge arbitration", verisign will have to fork over any trademarks to the companies that own them.
The original point of the question, that OSS competes head on head (and often wins) with BigCo IP Software and deserves the same protection and attention from the law, was completely missed, either because these guys just don't get it or because they just don't care.
The implicit assumptions in the answer are that only commercial enterprise of whatever size are worthy. It does not address the position of OSS.
Now, go after SCO for their infringement of copyright in claiming they have the ability to license the Linux kernel for a fee, and I'll be convinced the DOJ 1) gets it and 2) cares.
The government is worthless in this. They're reactionary, not preventative, and even then will only give you the time of day if there's hard money or data loss involved.
Charter was woefully unconcerned, and as their customer, I'd raise hell, escalating up their corporate food chain.
To get at the actual attacker, go the next rung, look at who owns/controls the IPs that you're being redirected to.
CustName: C2 Media Ltd Address: P.O. Box 1113 City: Shalimar StateProv: FL PostalCode: 32579 Country: US
who are in turn a customer of Hurricane Electric
TechHandle: ZH17-ARIN TechName: Hurricane Electric TechPhone: +1-510-580-4100 TechEmail: hostmaster@he.net
OrgTechHandle: ZH17-ARIN OrgTechName: Hurricane Electric OrgTechPhone: +1-510-580-4100 OrgTechEmail: hostmaster@he.net
Go to Hurricane, and ask them why they're letting this go on. They'll be more concerned. You've indemnified Charter in your service agreement, most likely, and can't sue them. Hurricane has no such protection from you and will, ironically, be more responsive than your own ISP.
Folding and Genome have the same codebase as each other, which is separate and distinct from Seti's.
They may or may not have similar vulnerabilities, but since none are open source, there's no way for us to know. All the same, I wouldn't worry about Folding or Genome any more because of the seti exploit. I'm still genoming.
From the seti site: Note that to exploit this vulnerability, a potential attacker would have to trick the client into contacting a fake server rather than the actual SETI@home server. To our knowledge, no SETI@home client has ever been attacked in this manner.
So it's unlikely you're owned from this. Some general tips to check your box's health: On linux, run `lsof -i` as root to see what kind of connections your box is listening for/has established. On windows, run `netstat -an` to see much the same. As always, monitor log files and bandwidth usage for suspicious activity or traffic spikes you didn't initiate.
Two parties scrutinizing this decision very carefully are the Russian company (Skylarov) in the Adobe eBook case (which may be in Federal court, so not that affected), and the Kazaa, the Australian company fighting to keep itself out of California court.
This is a local decision, but it has global implications.
I feel your pain. I was in that kind of environment for a couple of years. The best method our office used was a crude but effective project box. Every project had archive time built into the budget and schedule, and at the end of a project the producer/project manager (uh, you *do* have some sort of project management? If not, start there, you've got bigger process problems...) would collect any paper documents or source materials, and archive onto cd any electronic source, documents, or other assets, and put it in a project box. The box is then labeled with the project name and stuck on a shelf until needed. Sometimes it worked well, sometimes it didn't, as it really depends on the team to collect and store the assets they use as they go along. For shorter projects, it worked better than the long, moving target type that started one place and ended up somewhere else a year later.
If your company is affected by much turnover, then it's critical also to organize the boxes. For example, the first project of 1999 is numbered 99-1, the second 99-2, and so on. The archive shelves are ordered by project number. Put accounting in charge of keeping track of project numbers, as they already do...
What to avoid:
each person responsible for keeping their own archives (no one remembers a year later if the guy who left did that....)
lack of centralized storage (no one remembers three months later where the cd with the source code is or who had it last)
depending on the client keeping the copy you send them. This is just stupid. They hired you for a reason, after all.
depending on the weekly server backups. Those aren't project oriented, may or may not be around for a given week a year later, and can be hopeless to use if you're not sure what you're looking for and where it was.
Our company made some attempts to leverage work across projects. That usually didn't work so well. Each project, and each client, was just different enough. So you probably don't need everything from every project at your fingertips on the server all the time. The main goals for our archives was to be able to:
Prove it was client changes causing problems, as what we sent them worked, and we're happy to send it again.
Pick up where we left off when a client comes back wanting changes in six months.
Deal with a project that gets cut or goes on hold, and then comes back the next quarter with more money and wanting to "add it all back".
Provide documentation for any change orders or contract disputes that may arise, during or after a project.
A good PM will archive at various stages, external and internal: every client delivery (alpha, beta, RC1, final), at end of design phase, when you've got a working prototype, etc.
This is not a new legal nut. The essence of contract law is the agreement, and how that agreement is sealed, either verbally, digitally, or with pen and ink, is irrelevant.
It's the same basis as for ebay auctions, or any other contract.
US DVD Player manufacturers will either see this as a threat(because people will buy Aussie DVD players instead of American ones)... and start lobbying for the right to produce region-free players here as well.
OR, US manufacters or content distributers (MPAA) will lobby for an import ban on Aussie/region-free DVD players. It's not the manufacturers that want regional coding, it's the distributers, both as a way to control their copyright and for regional pricing flexibility.
With a mail in ballot, there's still a paper trail, and a real signature. It's an easier audit trail. So that the newspapers can figure out months later who really won.
G/PG/P signatures are too complicated for the average person. The technical aspects that would be required for internet-balloting are way too complicated for the average Joe.
Now, "smart card" balloting, that would be something....
What I don't get: Why is there need for a legal remedy here? Why didn't Kelly just use existing technology to block display of his images? He could've blocked off-site/null referrer tags, or used session handling.
Unless, of course, that's patented, like hyperlinks...
Yes, well, if Sony/EA/Microsoft care, they, or the game industry association they pull the strings of, will make themselves known as an intervenor or via an amicus curiae brief.
Slashdot Mirror
This doesn't actually work. Much of the spam the mail server I maintain sees goes to the abuse@ address, because for about a two or three month period, that address was the only one "scrapable" from the website, on the privacy policy. As that was the only place the abuse address was published, and because the abuse address had been active forever, but only started seeing spam traffic after it was published in the policy page, I can assure you that spambots just don't care enough to filter out abuse@.
No company will ever have to pay verisign again.
Think about it. You can't register a trademark or similarly "owned" name unless you own the trademark. If you do, the UDRP process will yank it away from you and give it over to the "real" owner. So any company can now file a claim against verisign for any trademark they haven't bothered to buy the domain for, or have let lapse, because now it resolves to verisign, and verisign is clearly using it to make money. Before you can say "corporate stooge arbitration", verisign will have to fork over any trademarks to the companies that own them.
Sure, because so many major commuting routes are tied by waterways...
Neat, yes. Useful, no.
The original point of the question, that OSS competes head on head (and often wins) with BigCo IP Software and deserves the same protection and attention from the law, was completely missed, either because these guys just don't get it or because they just don't care.
The implicit assumptions in the answer are that only commercial enterprise of whatever size are worthy. It does not address the position of OSS.
Now, go after SCO for their infringement of copyright in claiming they have the ability to license the Linux kernel for a fee, and I'll be convinced the DOJ 1) gets it and 2) cares.
The government is worthless in this. They're reactionary, not preventative, and even then will only give you the time of day if there's hard money or data loss involved.
! %2 0NET-66-220-17-0-1
Charter was woefully unconcerned, and as their customer, I'd raise hell, escalating up their corporate food chain.
To get at the actual attacker, go the next rung, look at who owns/controls the IPs that you're being redirected to.
http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=
CustName: C2 Media Ltd
Address: P.O. Box 1113
City: Shalimar
StateProv: FL
PostalCode: 32579
Country: US
who are in turn a customer of Hurricane Electric
TechHandle: ZH17-ARIN
TechName: Hurricane Electric
TechPhone: +1-510-580-4100
TechEmail: hostmaster@he.net
OrgTechHandle: ZH17-ARIN
OrgTechName: Hurricane Electric
OrgTechPhone: +1-510-580-4100
OrgTechEmail: hostmaster@he.net
Go to Hurricane, and ask them why they're letting this go on. They'll be more concerned. You've indemnified Charter in your service agreement, most likely, and can't sue them. Hurricane has no such protection from you and will, ironically, be more responsive than your own ISP.
Folding and Genome have the same codebase as each other, which is separate and distinct from Seti's.
They may or may not have similar vulnerabilities, but since none are open source, there's no way for us to know. All the same, I wouldn't worry about Folding or Genome any more because of the seti exploit. I'm still genoming.
From the seti site:
Note that to exploit this vulnerability, a potential attacker would have to trick the client into contacting a fake server rather than the actual SETI@home server. To our knowledge, no SETI@home client has ever been attacked in this manner.
So it's unlikely you're owned from this. Some general tips to check your box's health:
On linux, run `lsof -i` as root to see what kind of connections your box is listening for/has established.
On windows, run `netstat -an` to see much the same.
As always, monitor log files and bandwidth usage for suspicious activity or traffic spikes you didn't initiate.
It does not.
This is new.
I'm having trouble getting to Cryptome tonight as well. Can anyone else see it?
Two parties scrutinizing this decision very carefully are the Russian company (Skylarov) in the Adobe eBook case (which may be in Federal court, so not that affected), and the Kazaa, the Australian company fighting to keep itself out of California court.
This is a local decision, but it has global implications.
If your company is affected by much turnover, then it's critical also to organize the boxes. For example, the first project of 1999 is numbered 99-1, the second 99-2, and so on. The archive shelves are ordered by project number. Put accounting in charge of keeping track of project numbers, as they already do...
What to avoid:
- each person responsible for keeping their own archives (no one remembers a year later if the guy who left did that....)
- lack of centralized storage (no one remembers three months later where the cd with the source code is or who had it last)
- depending on the client keeping the copy you send them. This is just stupid. They hired you for a reason, after all.
- depending on the weekly server backups. Those aren't project oriented, may or may not be around for a given week a year later, and can be hopeless to use if you're not sure what you're looking for and where it was.
Our company made some attempts to leverage work across projects. That usually didn't work so well. Each project, and each client, was just different enough. So you probably don't need everything from every project at your fingertips on the server all the time. The main goals for our archives was to be able to:- Prove it was client changes causing problems, as what we sent them worked, and we're happy to send it again.
- Pick up where we left off when a client comes back wanting changes in six months.
- Deal with a project that gets cut or goes on hold, and then comes back the next quarter with more money and wanting to "add it all back".
- Provide documentation for any change orders or contract disputes that may arise, during or after a project.
A good PM will archive at various stages, external and internal: every client delivery (alpha, beta, RC1, final), at end of design phase, when you've got a working prototype, etc.Good luck!
This is not a new legal nut. The essence of contract law is the agreement, and how that agreement is sealed, either verbally, digitally, or with pen and ink, is irrelevant.
It's the same basis as for ebay auctions, or any other contract.
You can buy 'em in the US too. They also ship to Australia.
Shhh! Don't tell anyone, though. The facts always interfere with a lively discussion.
US DVD Player manufacturers will either see this as a threat(because people will buy Aussie DVD players instead of American ones) ... and start lobbying for the right to produce region-free players here as well.
OR, US manufacters or content distributers (MPAA) will lobby for an import ban on Aussie/region-free DVD players. It's not the manufacturers that want regional coding, it's the distributers, both as a way to control their copyright and for regional pricing flexibility.
nah, that's doa3. The shooter. I was talking about the racing simulator. Or was that humor? I injured my funny bone today. It hurts to laugh.
Hey, excuse my American ignorance: do they drive on the left or right side of the road down under?
In simulators like GT3, realism's important, after all...
Wow, good comments.
If you wanted to do this, why not go with the bridged firewall solution instead? Any advantage this has over that?
With a mail in ballot, there's still a paper trail, and a real signature. It's an easier audit trail. So that the newspapers can figure out months later who really won.
G/PG/P signatures are too complicated for the average person. The technical aspects that would be required for internet-balloting are way too complicated for the average Joe.
Now, "smart card" balloting, that would be something....
What I don't get: Why is there need for a legal remedy here? Why didn't Kelly just use existing technology to block display of his images? He could've blocked off-site/null referrer tags, or used session handling.
Unless, of course, that's patented, like hyperlinks...
You mean we can't use the Slashdot polling engine? I thought that was accurate to within .001%...
Read the patent if you like.
Nothing new here. Consumers rejected DivX, and this is no different for them. Will they be smart enough to reject it this time around?
Yes, well, if Sony/EA/Microsoft care, they, or the game industry association they pull the strings of, will make themselves known as an intervenor or via an amicus curiae brief.
The pockets may be deep enough after all.
So, like, the total I get for his parts is 4920, but his total is 5720.
$800 bucks buys a lot of skittles and coke...