Yes, *you* made it public. However, the aggregation of data about you and others who are privacy sloppy can impact others who are privacy aware. This is not unlike saying, "hey, it was my penis that was exposed, I don't see what she has to bitch about."
Sorry, I wasn't specific. I didn't mean the real defacto offical "right behavior", as an RFC would be, but rather the dejure microsoft offical right behavior. What you've shown is that the microsoft behavior doesn't meet the RFC. Like MS Java? MS JavaScript? Not surprised...
"you basically have to be directing their actions"...like telling them to us F5? and telling them to hit it repeatedly? is that not "directing their actions"?
I don't think you can make the leap from actively putting packets down a wire, and requesting that the world at large put packets down a wire. Although he perhaps incited the actions of all those people, he didn't actually push those F5 keys. If I were on his jury, I'd make let him go.
I think it is also illegal to incite a violent act. Inciting a riot is chargable for sure. Inciting murder would most likely be at least as chargable an offense.
What is interesting, if true, is that some smuck did something stupid and vendictive to a kid geek in Ohio, USA, and the response is almost immediate from literally around the world. Rally 'round and protect our younger bretheren! Wow!
If the kid is guilty of posting and thereby causing a denial of service, is their negligence somewhere in the curiosity of the public? Should we stop the media from publishing stupid acts for fear that people might go look and laugh? Could the negligence be a school that would rather have a student arrested than have their administrator block incoming requests refered from a single website? Sounds to me like an administrator is playing "now I've got you, you son of a bitch" which a child under their care. Can you say "fiduciary" ? I knew you could! But can they?
"More likely this will be used as "proof" of the extent and seriousness of the damage done when they argue for a harsh sentence."
Agreed. What we need are email addresses, and slashdot their mail server with polite, articulate, individual expressions of concern over their vapiditity.
Obviously the Feds don't need this. But what about that next job interview you go to? Or loan application? Your credit rating is used by insurance companies as a (usually) better indicator of your insurance risk than your driving record, so why shouldn't your insurance company also want to know what sorts of books and movies and video games you like?
"if someone gives their info freely", then perhaps a corporation should be required to have written permission to keep that information for more than 10 days? the written permission could have a federaly mandated expiration, so that a verified signature would be required every 30 days to keep continue holding the data? lets limit the ability of amazon to sell information to microsoft or nike or whoever, too...
Just because our system isn't designed to protect privacy doesn't mean we shouldn't be considering these legal options. Remember, if with 30% of the population tracked, an actuary can fill in the gaps...making it easy for them to track ya'll gives them information about all of us.
Obviously no terrorist is going to but "How to build WMD" on a public wishlist. However, what about people who whose name somehow ends up correlated to Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky or vegetarianism? This isn't about terroism, it is about population control. That is why it is a civil rights concern.
Go to the right agency and the field desk personnel had damn well better have read these. It isn't so much what you know, but whether your security clearance indicates you are one of "us" or one of "them".
Because empowering young girls is a part of civil rights? I know people who only rent DVDs with strong, empowered female role models. As well as powerpuff girls, I'd recommend Buffy the Vampire Slayer (for younger audiences) for this same reason.
But it wouldn't "take care of accidental links to the malicious images" because "someone makes one of these WMFs of something cute. Some granny with enough ability to upload images to a server" will upload the.gif, or.jpg, or whatever extension is used. How is she going to tell it is *not* a.gif, or.jpg? Hexedit?
"It's a Windows flaw, not a IE flaw." Agreed, you can trigger the code by entering a directory with File Explorer. Parsing to build thumbnails is enough. Clicking on the file (say to look at "properties", or to delete it) can also trigger it.
"The browser should obey the Content-type." That isn't the offical "right" behavior. Rename your bitmap containing.wmf as.jpeg and it looks and acts like a jpeg (with the ability to run code, unless patched.)
Lucky you to have the option. My university owns the rights to research done for a thesis. Likewise, anything you turn in for credit (an unusual solution to a homework problem, for instance).
Not such a problem if people still have to license from you to get into the game, and then have to license the "improvements" to be competitive. Just licensing the improvements will only get you the cupholder, and what good is that without the boarfix broken pixel remover? It is just a cupholder.
If entity (A) distributes "a copy of the software" to another entity (B), then what matters is did said distribution of "software" mean binaries, or binaries plus sourcecode. If you distribute sourcecode, then that ends it. If not, then you are required to make the source code available "to all third parties". So if A distributes to B (source and binaries), and B distributes to C (source and binaries), and C distributes to D *just* binaries, then persons E thru ZZ have the right to ask C for the sourcecode. If C doesn't make it available, then C violated the distribution to D, because the only thing that gave C the right to distribute to D was the GPL. The GPL is simple, just read it.
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
Now what is true is that person D only recieved binaries, and so person D only has to pass along the offer from person C. However, any third person has the right to sourcecode from person C, because they didn't ship sourcecode to person D. This means people who never even recieved the binaries have a right to ask person C for the sourcecode.
So if someone downloads ReallyCoolApplication in binary form, they can freely distribute it as long as they also distribute the information they recieved as to the location of the sourcecode. However, if someone downloads sourcecode and modifies it to make it EvenCoolerApplication, then at that point they can no longer just give information about how to get ReallyCoolApplication. They either distribute the EvenCoolerApplication source with the binary, or distribute binaries and make the sourcecode available to "any third party".
Thus, by not considering "in-house" distribution to be distribution, it is possible for the binaries of in-house modified GPLed software to be distriubted "in-house", and people like me (a "third party") don't get their modified sourcecode.
Slashdot Mirror
"targeted for the late-high school to college age crowd", which is what I meant by recommending it for "younger audiences".
Yes, *you* made it public. However, the aggregation of data about you and others who are privacy sloppy can impact others who are privacy aware. This is not unlike saying, "hey, it was my penis that was exposed, I don't see what she has to bitch about."
Sorry, I wasn't specific. I didn't mean the real defacto offical "right behavior", as an RFC would be, but rather the dejure microsoft offical right behavior. What you've shown is that the microsoft behavior doesn't meet the RFC. Like MS Java? MS JavaScript? Not surprised...
"you basically have to be directing their actions"...like telling them to us F5? and telling them to hit it repeatedly? is that not "directing their actions"?
I don't think you can make the leap from actively putting packets down a wire, and requesting that the world at large put packets down a wire. Although he perhaps incited the actions of all those people, he didn't actually push those F5 keys. If I were on his jury, I'd make let him go.
I think it is also illegal to incite a violent act. Inciting a riot is chargable for sure. Inciting murder would most likely be at least as chargable an offense.
What is interesting, if true, is that some smuck did something stupid and vendictive to a kid geek in Ohio, USA, and the response is almost immediate from literally around the world. Rally 'round and protect our younger bretheren! Wow!
Perhaps they will retroactively pass a city ordinance re: inciting virual DOS attacks. I'd love to see the ACLU get involved with this.
If the kid is guilty of posting and thereby causing a denial of service, is their negligence somewhere in the curiosity of the public? Should we stop the media from publishing stupid acts for fear that people might go look and laugh? Could the negligence be a school that would rather have a student arrested than have their administrator block incoming requests refered from a single website? Sounds to me like an administrator is playing "now I've got you, you son of a bitch" which a child under their care. Can you say "fiduciary" ? I knew you could! But can they?
You mean, "don't bend over if you drop your flashram".
"More likely this will be used as "proof" of the extent and seriousness of the damage done when they argue for a harsh sentence."
Agreed. What we need are email addresses, and slashdot their mail server with polite, articulate, individual expressions of concern over their vapiditity.
Obviously the Feds don't need this. But what about that next job interview you go to? Or loan application? Your credit rating is used by insurance companies as a (usually) better indicator of your insurance risk than your driving record, so why shouldn't your insurance company also want to know what sorts of books and movies and video games you like?
"if someone gives their info freely", then perhaps a corporation should be required to have written permission to keep that information for more than 10 days? the written permission could have a federaly mandated expiration, so that a verified signature would be required every 30 days to keep continue holding the data? lets limit the ability of amazon to sell information to microsoft or nike or whoever, too...
Just because our system isn't designed to protect privacy doesn't mean we shouldn't be considering these legal options. Remember, if with 30% of the population tracked, an actuary can fill in the gaps...making it easy for them to track ya'll gives them information about all of us.
Obviously no terrorist is going to but "How to build WMD" on a public wishlist. However, what about people who whose name somehow ends up correlated to Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky or vegetarianism? This isn't about terroism, it is about population control. That is why it is a civil rights concern.
The ACM (Assn of Computing Machinery) newsletter also had a posting suggesting we (ACM members) should apply. Not quite "Mac Rumour Site", dude.
Go to the right agency and the field desk personnel had damn well better have read these. It isn't so much what you know, but whether your security clearance indicates you are one of "us" or one of "them".
Because empowering young girls is a part of civil rights? I know people who only rent DVDs with strong, empowered female role models. As well as powerpuff girls, I'd recommend Buffy the Vampire Slayer (for younger audiences) for this same reason.
But it wouldn't "take care of accidental links to the malicious images" because "someone makes one of these WMFs of something cute. Some granny with enough ability to upload images to a server" will upload the .gif, or .jpg, or whatever extension is used. How is she going to tell it is *not* a .gif, or .jpg? Hexedit?
"It's a Windows flaw, not a IE flaw." Agreed, you can trigger the code by entering a directory with File Explorer. Parsing to build thumbnails is enough. Clicking on the file (say to look at "properties", or to delete it) can also trigger it.
"The browser should obey the Content-type." That isn't the offical "right" behavior. Rename your bitmap containing .wmf as .jpeg and it looks and acts like a jpeg (with the ability to run code, unless patched.)
When projecting project completion dates, literals are variable!
Lucky you to have the option. My university owns the rights to research done for a thesis. Likewise, anything you turn in for credit (an unusual solution to a homework problem, for instance).
Not such a problem if people still have to license from you to get into the game, and then have to license the "improvements" to be competitive. Just licensing the improvements will only get you the cupholder, and what good is that without the boarfix broken pixel remover? It is just a cupholder.
C(++09) isn't C10, C(09++) would be C10. However, don't expect it until 09 is ready to rollover into 10.
So if someone downloads ReallyCoolApplication in binary form, they can freely distribute it as long as they also distribute the information they recieved as to the location of the sourcecode. However, if someone downloads sourcecode and modifies it to make it EvenCoolerApplication, then at that point they can no longer just give information about how to get ReallyCoolApplication. They either distribute the EvenCoolerApplication source with the binary, or distribute binaries and make the sourcecode available to "any third party".
Thus, by not considering "in-house" distribution to be distribution, it is possible for the binaries of in-house modified GPLed software to be distriubted "in-house", and people like me (a "third party") don't get their modified sourcecode.