what probably happened is that your bank got r00ted, which is where someone got your CC#. Or, your ISP's billing system, some brick+mortar where you used your CC kept a database internet accessible, etc.
The _only_ sure-fire way to prevent getting your CC# stolen is to not have a CC to start with. But that still doesnt protect you from identity theft as someone can open a card in your name if they have your SSN from somewhere.
yeah, that's certainly an issue. IIRC, other articles I've read about this say that a company must email or snail mail, but if it costs more than D dollars or there are more than X customers to notify, then they can post a note or call the media. Of course, this suddenly makes emailing the 100 customers of a tiny shop cost a cool million.
interesting idea, except that a CA senator introduced a similar bill for national basis last week. (RTFA) Second paragraph happens to also mention that it dont matter where a company is physically located, they just have to have customers in CA.
chances are very good that someone in the press will notice the notice on a site like amazon's, or an amazon customer that does catch it will phone the press. hence, word will still get out that something happened.
i was thinking places like during local news shows, not necessarily prime time (which would probably be most expensive).
someone else mentioned radio - that might be a decent possibility.
eitehr way - you are right - it takes money. EFF isn't the only groups wishing to run such campaigns. Perhaps pooling of funds between various groups (like the ACLU, DigitalConsumer, maybe even the ALA) would work.
It would be in those companies best interest to _not_ censor those types of ads. Obviously, if they do, it'll confirm a hypocricy they've stated won't happen. They've made statements to the government that the FCC's recent deregulation won't create the notion of censorships. If they censor it, those statements will most certainly come back to haunt them.
EFF, ACLU, and other groups pooled together would easily take such an incident to the Suprement Court under equal access laws and first amendment concerns. Those groups that cant get their ads on tv should consider legal action.
IBM. They already build them into some ThinkPad laptops under Win2k, and have a driver for their TCPA chip available for Linux somewhere on their website. There was a story on/. some months ago about that driver.
it originally meant protecting user keys via a secured tcpa chip (not drm). then microsoft started their trustworthy campaign and included palladium's announcement and that somehow changed the definition to include drm. so please, keep that in mind. palladium and tcpa are not the same thing.
from the looks of this - it appears EFF is going to be running newspaper and magazine ads. wrong place. these need to be made into 30 second television commercials, where a much wider audience can be reached.
The CNN article contains a box of "Related Links" - one of them a Business 2.0 article about the Intuit TurboTax fiasco, another about Metallica offering MP3s on their website. Wonder if they're trying to send a message?
I'm not much into game theory, hence I'm a little lost on this ultimatum game described in the article. Could someone who knows something about it speak up?
but that was about selling games for Linux, which might in fact be tough thing to do for non-Windows OSs. I think the poster was asking about organizations choosing to build their datacenters and applications on Linux, doing so or significantly attempting to do so, and then switching to Windows for whatever reason.
read my other post in this thread. I have read the article. Several times. I'm still lost.
If it's both - the author of the bugtraq post did a very poor job of making that clear. Then again, he didnt make it clear he knows the basic difference between Java and JavaScript.
that's just it. I have. And I've gone back and read other posts. It's not clear. Some say bug in Javascript, others say bug in java's security manager implementation. It's confusing.
The article uses javascript code, calls up a window, but the discussion makes references Java. In the article opening, he says browsers with javascript enabled, but then says to disable java. Hence, confusion, even among slashdot posters.
Had javascript not have that name, this would not be a problem, but unfortunately there are those out there who fail to recognize the difference or explain it where warranted. Knowing whether the bugtraq poster is aware of the difference is unknown, especially given his appearance to use the two terms interchangably. He also makes himself harder to understand because of his annoying "I'm 1337 - you all are dumb" stance of writing.
Headline says Java, writeup says JavaScript, Hemos update references both. Turning off JavaScript does not affect the Java plugins. Turning off the Java plugin does not turn off JavaScript.
However, very few people in business are going to understand this. Management are scared idiots, American management doubly so.
You seem to have duped into a stereotypical line of thinking. Most people in business are very intelligent, yet your opinion is based on the anecdotes of a select few. Likewise for lawyers. Your opinion is based on anecdotes of a few. Most managers listen to their IT people and their lawyers do research when they dont understand something. This includes finding out things like the significance of 80 lines of code in relation to the rest of the product as a whole.
Additionally, any lawyer for a company receiving one of SCO's letters saying that through their use of [some-non-SCO] Linux distro, they're violating some law and should cease usage. Any lawyer will interpret that as the equivalent of Ford telling GM car owners their cars are illegal, and they should buy Ford cars. (If you wanna know how hard it is to be a lawyer, try some sample LSAT questions.)
If it's corporation versus non-corporation, the corporation will always get the benefit of the doubt.
Not so. I dont where you got this opinion from. US Courts require evidence from the plaintiffs of a case, just as the defense has oppurtunity to refute and present counter evidence. I think you're basing your opinion on cases that get settled outside the courtroom, where the definition of the "law" can be easily ignored.
Recall the case of Victorias Secret vs. the mom-and-pop Victors Little Secret. The case was trademark related, Victorias Secret claimed VLS was hurting their profits and sales by having a similar name. I dont know what the intermediate rulings in the case were, but each hearing VLS asked evidence be presented of actual harm. The case eventually got before the Supreme Court, who ruled that in trademark cases, the victim (ie, plaintiff) must show evidence of actual harm being done.
Several years ago Apache had a function that ran in O(n^2) time, and a HTTP GET request was capable of throwing that function into taking a very long time to process, making it easy to DoS an Apache httpd. The interesting part is that the same function could have been done in O(n) time, but wasnt. The Apache team fixed this by substituting the O(n) algorithm.
i think slashdot needs a "retract comments" button or something. doesnt have to remove the comment - just attach a note to the original post saying the poster retracts statemnts in his post.
I was referring to this story, but noticed this thread in it. Hence the reason we need a "retract" button.
I dont know if you're actually gonna read this, but I'll give it a shot anyway.
SCO has made statements saying that they may sue people who use Linux, including those using their own distro (purchased or otherwise obtained before these shenanigans).
Is there possible groundings here for which a complaint may be filed with the FTC? That is - buy product P from company X, then get threatened by X because you're using P? You may not be the one to do this, but what about those companies that have purchased software from SCO? Thoughts/Comments?
Slashdot Mirror
what probably happened is that your bank got r00ted, which is where someone got your CC#. Or, your ISP's billing system, some brick+mortar where you used your CC kept a database internet accessible, etc.
The _only_ sure-fire way to prevent getting your CC# stolen is to not have a CC to start with. But that still doesnt protect you from identity theft as someone can open a card in your name if they have your SSN from somewhere.
yeah, that's certainly an issue. IIRC, other articles I've read about this say that a company must email or snail mail, but if it costs more than D dollars or there are more than X customers to notify, then they can post a note or call the media. Of course, this suddenly makes emailing the 100 customers of a tiny shop cost a cool million.
interesting idea, except that a CA senator introduced a similar bill for national basis last week. (RTFA) Second paragraph happens to also mention that it dont matter where a company is physically located, they just have to have customers in CA.
chances are very good that someone in the press will notice the notice on a site like amazon's, or an amazon customer that does catch it will phone the press. hence, word will still get out that something happened.
i was thinking places like during local news shows, not necessarily prime time (which would probably be most expensive).
someone else mentioned radio - that might be a decent possibility.
eitehr way - you are right - it takes money. EFF isn't the only groups wishing to run such campaigns. Perhaps pooling of funds between various groups (like the ACLU, DigitalConsumer, maybe even the ALA) would work.
It would be in those companies best interest to _not_ censor those types of ads. Obviously, if they do, it'll confirm a hypocricy they've stated won't happen. They've made statements to the government that the FCC's recent deregulation won't create the notion of censorships. If they censor it, those statements will most certainly come back to haunt them.
EFF, ACLU, and other groups pooled together would easily take such an incident to the Suprement Court under equal access laws and first amendment concerns. Those groups that cant get their ads on tv should consider legal action.
IBM. They already build them into some ThinkPad laptops under Win2k, and have a driver for their TCPA chip available for Linux somewhere on their website. There was a story on /. some months ago about that driver.
definition depends on who you ask.
it originally meant protecting user keys via a secured tcpa chip (not drm). then microsoft started their trustworthy campaign and included palladium's announcement and that somehow changed the definition to include drm. so please, keep that in mind. palladium and tcpa are not the same thing.
yeah, so? is there a price on your rights?
from the looks of this - it appears EFF is going to be running newspaper and magazine ads. wrong place. these need to be made into 30 second television commercials, where a much wider audience can be reached.
The CNN article contains a box of "Related Links" - one of them a Business 2.0 article about the Intuit TurboTax fiasco, another about Metallica offering MP3s on their website. Wonder if they're trying to send a message?
I'm not much into game theory, hence I'm a little lost on this ultimatum game described in the article. Could someone who knows something about it speak up?
but that was about selling games for Linux, which might in fact be tough thing to do for non-Windows OSs. I think the poster was asking about organizations choosing to build their datacenters and applications on Linux, doing so or significantly attempting to do so, and then switching to Windows for whatever reason.
i mean, SCO hasn't even gotten IBM into a courtroom yet.
what states have? you ask? RTFA and find out for yourself.
ABC's 20/20 features a weekly segment by John Stossel (a very good journalist, IMO) called "Give me a break"
s tossel_gmabfilesharing030509.html
A few weeks ago this case of the four students and the RIAA was covered:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/GiveMeABreak/
read my other post in this thread. I have read the article. Several times. I'm still lost.
If it's both - the author of the bugtraq post did a very poor job of making that clear. Then again, he didnt make it clear he knows the basic difference between Java and JavaScript.
that's just it. I have. And I've gone back and read other posts. It's not clear. Some say bug in Javascript, others say bug in java's security manager implementation. It's confusing.
The article uses javascript code, calls up a window, but the discussion makes references Java. In the article opening, he says browsers with javascript enabled, but then says to disable java. Hence, confusion, even among slashdot posters.
Had javascript not have that name, this would not be a problem, but unfortunately there are those out there who fail to recognize the difference or explain it where warranted. Knowing whether the bugtraq poster is aware of the difference is unknown, especially given his appearance to use the two terms interchangably. He also makes himself harder to understand because of his annoying "I'm 1337 - you all are dumb" stance of writing.
Headline says Java, writeup says JavaScript, Hemos update references both. Turning off JavaScript does not affect the Java plugins. Turning off the Java plugin does not turn off JavaScript.
So which is it?
However, very few people in business are going to understand this. Management are scared idiots, American management doubly so.
You seem to have duped into a stereotypical line of thinking. Most people in business are very intelligent, yet your opinion is based on the anecdotes of a select few. Likewise for lawyers. Your opinion is based on anecdotes of a few. Most managers listen to their IT people and their lawyers do research when they dont understand something. This includes finding out things like the significance of 80 lines of code in relation to the rest of the product as a whole.
Additionally, any lawyer for a company receiving one of SCO's letters saying that through their use of [some-non-SCO] Linux distro, they're violating some law and should cease usage. Any lawyer will interpret that as the equivalent of Ford telling GM car owners their cars are illegal, and they should buy Ford cars. (If you wanna know how hard it is to be a lawyer, try some sample LSAT questions.)
If it's corporation versus non-corporation, the corporation will always get the benefit of the doubt.
Not so. I dont where you got this opinion from. US Courts require evidence from the plaintiffs of a case, just as the defense has oppurtunity to refute and present counter evidence. I think you're basing your opinion on cases that get settled outside the courtroom, where the definition of the "law" can be easily ignored.
Recall the case of Victorias Secret vs. the mom-and-pop Victors Little Secret. The case was trademark related, Victorias Secret claimed VLS was hurting their profits and sales by having a similar name. I dont know what the intermediate rulings in the case were, but each hearing VLS asked evidence be presented of actual harm. The case eventually got before the Supreme Court, who ruled that in trademark cases, the victim (ie, plaintiff) must show evidence of actual harm being done.
pair of Microsoft researchers .... advocate building cheap Linux-based Beowulf clusters
Not until Ballmer & Gates hear of it...
Several years ago Apache had a function that ran in O(n^2) time, and a HTTP GET request was capable of throwing that function into taking a very long time to process, making it easy to DoS an Apache httpd. The interesting part is that the same function could have been done in O(n) time, but wasnt. The Apache team fixed this by substituting the O(n) algorithm.
i think slashdot needs a "retract comments" button or something. doesnt have to remove the comment - just attach a note to the original post saying the poster retracts statemnts in his post.
I was referring to this story, but noticed this thread in it. Hence the reason we need a "retract" button.
I dont know if you're actually gonna read this, but I'll give it a shot anyway.
SCO has made statements saying that they may sue people who use Linux, including those using their own distro (purchased or otherwise obtained before these shenanigans).
Is there possible groundings here for which a complaint may be filed with the FTC? That is - buy product P from company X, then get threatened by X because you're using P? You may not be the one to do this, but what about those companies that have purchased software from SCO? Thoughts/Comments?
two ideas:
1) The Gates Foundation owns a chunk of phone numbers ending in 3xxx (look at the other numbers on that page), or something along those lines.
2) A Slashdot editor HBT.