Yes, and it costs a lot of money to keep these people in prison too. Let's see, I'll keep my share of the taxes to keep this guy in prison and run the risk that he might spam me. I'm ok with that.
ICQ allowed this at some point (but I don't remember if it was before or after msnMessenger), and obviously AOL allows this now on AIM after you "directly connect" to someone.
But besides all that, do patent laws require that the *thing* not have existed before? I thought it was whoever was the first one to register a patent that got it.
And of course, as it seems happens too often these days: this patent is WAY too general and basic to not cause future trouble.
Sorry, I was referring to the people who write the email clients... putting the responsibility for writing a client that doesn't propagate worms in their laps...
And I guess you're saying this is the same as saying "email clients shouldn't be able to execute anything"... so I guess yes, that's what I'm saying
(I THOUGHT there were some worms for Outlook which didn't even need the user to execute for tho...)
"You are absolutely right! I am now petitioning Linus to modify Linux so that only root can make an outbound connection to port 25 on another server. That way, we can make sure that only the user can send email."
That's not what I said or implied. I only mean that "things from within an email cannot instruct the mail client to send out mail." Hence, users must click send (as an example) on the GUI. Hello? What's wrong with that?
also... I wanted to mention that the viruses may be more clever than just destroying files. You're totally right that for a desktop computer your home directory is maybe "just as important" but I don't like the idea of someone setting up a backdoor on my computer to distribute kiddie porn.;)
Even without the Internet with the common user, you'd still get Word viruses on floppy. Why? Because someone at Microsoft thought "wouldn't it be great if Word didn't just do plain word processing? Wouldn't it be great if Word could also do OTHER THINGS?" So they give Word some executable power on the system... and always running essentially as the super-user means it can do pretty much what it pleases.
So these are two lessons:
1) FORCE the user/admin consciously choose to become the super-user BEFORE making any system changes 2) Make programs conceptually simple which accomplish useful tasks. And if you do give programs some kind of executable power, restrict it.
I disagree with an earlier post that said UNIX's and Windows are opposite because in UNIX the exploits are in the apps and in Windows the exploits are in the OS. Windows exploits are in the apps too. Sure there is ANOTHER LAYER of protection (the OS) which Windows also is deficient--but basically Windows is worse on both sides of the equation.
On another note: the mention of Lindows making root password optional--all I can say is I hope they disable ssh.
Yes, I think it can be "fair" to force them (and maybe provide compensation) IF there are laws (legal or physical) prohibiting competitors from laying lines, connecting, etc.
I'm not sure if it's just "very difficult" to lay new lines everywhere, or if they just have laws restricting more than one company to maintain lines.
I agree $1 per song sounds too much to me too, but some people may argue that $1 per song is a "good deal" because often you have to buy an entire album just to get one or two good songs that you want. (But then again who is ripping who off here?)
But even though it may be a testament to your ethics, I would say people like you are in a minority. I doubt many people would go out and buy the album after they already have a copy due to either morality or wanting a keepsake. Maybe most slashdotters would, maybe most open sourcers would (have you noticed that often open source people have good morals?), but I seriously doubt the general public would....unless of course there were some kind of publicity for "doing the right thing."
And one of the reasons why that era is over is because the recording companies didn't decide to switch over. Do they even know what kind of an impact they could have had on the way people THOUGHT about copying music if they hadn't tried to shut them down? If they would have pleaded with sensibility, sure there'd still be people who copy, but a lot more people would feel it would be the "right thing to do" to obtain it legally. Futhermore, they could have spent their time and energy trying to find ways of enforcing this instead of wasting all this time and effort making people hate them.
"ATA believes the current federal do-not-call list requirement adequately protects consumers from unwanted telephone solicitations. The ATA opposes blanket state do-not-call lists while supporting the federal company-specific approach."
Wasn't one of the features of freenet that you didn't know where things came from because nodes lied to each other about who has what? Also, things are cached all over the place when they're popular.
In Gnutella, don't you connect directly to the person who has your file after you find it? If so, I don't think merely *searching* for a file will provide for damages! And in order to actually connect the sender must know your IP address... but I guess that's between you and the sender at that point.
Yes the RIAA has to make a good case for who they prosecute, but I think in order to use "someone could have framed me" as a defense, they'd have to provide a motive for why this person would have wanted to frame them.
In civil cases (for damages) I *think* judgement is by proponderance of the evidence which means this will probably not be a good defense at all. A lot of things in court are decided on which cannot be proven 100%.
I don't believe you. At least I'm willing to admit things I don't know. But I KNOW you didn't use Easy CD Creator 4.whatever on Windows 2000 running wmp 9 final version with all the updates, because that's when I had my problem.
Sorry for jumping to the conclusion that MS wanted to start snuffing out Roxio... I still think that's what they were doing which is why Roxio decided to make a deal.
I wish I had a screen shot to show you, but unfortunately I'm not willing to reinstall windows just to prove it! And I never said "Windows Media Player sucks" I just kept it updated. I was originally using wmp 9 beta which was fine. It was after wmp 9 officially came out and had an update when I started having this problem:
1) Drag mp3 file over to CD layout (Easy CD Creator 4.05 to be exact--with patches)
2) System pauses (I discovered this pause depends on how big the mp3 file is because I have some personal recordings which are quite short)
3) Message window pops up saying something about "how to obtain a license" from some menu item (which didn't exist).
Of course I went through Roxio first to figure out why magically I was having this problem only after being able to burn CDs a couple months earlier. I still have no idea how to get rid of this problem AFTER installing wmp, so I really don't know what you mean when you say I shouldn't have to reinstall my operating system. It was the only way to replace or undo whatever wmp had done--uninstalling wmp did NOT fix the problem.
I can understand people getting upset about me posting a poorly thought-out reason behind why Microsoft would put this in their update... but believe me when I say I'm surprised about how people are reacting to this. I naturally assumed I wasn't alone.
Slashdot Mirror
Can we put this under "Comedy" too?
He is entitled to a jury of his peers, and it's going to take them forever to figure out where 12 spammers are.
Yes, and it costs a lot of money to keep these people in prison too. Let's see, I'll keep my share of the taxes to keep this guy in prison and run the risk that he might spam me. I'm ok with that.
FTP is a pretty universal tool... is there any significant headway on replacing FTP with something more secure?
ICQ allowed this at some point (but I don't remember if it was before or after msnMessenger), and obviously AOL allows this now on AIM after you "directly connect" to someone.
But besides all that, do patent laws require that the *thing* not have existed before? I thought it was whoever was the first one to register a patent that got it.
And of course, as it seems happens too often these days: this patent is WAY too general and basic to not cause future trouble.
I'd like to boycott ActiveX anyway... I don't want to encourage people to create ActiveX apps (Sidestep) which only run on IE.
Sorry, I was referring to the people who write the email clients... putting the responsibility for writing a client that doesn't propagate worms in their laps...
... so I guess yes, that's what I'm saying
And I guess you're saying this is the same as saying "email clients shouldn't be able to execute anything"
(I THOUGHT there were some worms for Outlook which didn't even need the user to execute for tho...)
"In order for Linux to become as popular and intuitive [shiver] as Windows, things like "setting execute permissions" need to be automatic."
Well Windows uses the extension to see if it should try to execute something... what would Linux use? How would it know if something is executable?
"You are absolutely right! I am now petitioning Linus to modify Linux so that only root can make an outbound connection to port 25 on another server. That way, we can make sure that only the user can send email."
That's not what I said or implied. I only mean that "things from within an email cannot instruct the mail client to send out mail." Hence, users must click send (as an example) on the GUI. Hello? What's wrong with that?
How about just a window that pops up and says "you're about to open a file that may contain a virus" ... without the "do not show this again" box
also... I wanted to mention that the viruses may be more clever than just destroying files. You're totally right that for a desktop computer your home directory is maybe "just as important" but I don't like the idea of someone setting up a backdoor on my computer to distribute kiddie porn. ;)
But...
the ability to "automatically forward or send email" without the user actually CLICKING SEND is a flaw in Outlook.
I agree with you that the article is weak in some regards, but we can expand "executable power" to "things only the user should do"
Even without the Internet with the common user, you'd still get Word viruses on floppy. Why? Because someone at Microsoft thought "wouldn't it be great if Word didn't just do plain word processing? Wouldn't it be great if Word could also do OTHER THINGS?" So they give Word some executable power on the system... and always running essentially as the super-user means it can do pretty much what it pleases.
So these are two lessons:
1) FORCE the user/admin consciously choose to become the super-user BEFORE making any system changes
2) Make programs conceptually simple which accomplish useful tasks. And if you do give programs some kind of executable power, restrict it.
I disagree with an earlier post that said UNIX's and Windows are opposite because in UNIX the exploits are in the apps and in Windows the exploits are in the OS. Windows exploits are in the apps too. Sure there is ANOTHER LAYER of protection (the OS) which Windows also is deficient--but basically Windows is worse on both sides of the equation.
On another note: the mention of Lindows making root password optional--all I can say is I hope they disable ssh.
I think Korea is first-world since they are a democracy using capitalism... (doesn't the definition have something to do with this?)
Yes, I think it can be "fair" to force them (and maybe provide compensation) IF there are laws (legal or physical) prohibiting competitors from laying lines, connecting, etc.
I'm not sure if it's just "very difficult" to lay new lines everywhere, or if they just have laws restricting more than one company to maintain lines.
... and I don't mean "publicity" for the person, but more like media support, public education, society looking down on song stealing, etc.
I agree $1 per song sounds too much to me too, but some people may argue that $1 per song is a "good deal" because often you have to buy an entire album just to get one or two good songs that you want. (But then again who is ripping who off here?)
...unless of course there were some kind of publicity for "doing the right thing."
But even though it may be a testament to your ethics, I would say people like you are in a minority. I doubt many people would go out and buy the album after they already have a copy due to either morality or wanting a keepsake. Maybe most slashdotters would, maybe most open sourcers would (have you noticed that often open source people have good morals?), but I seriously doubt the general public would.
And one of the reasons why that era is over is because the recording companies didn't decide to switch over. Do they even know what kind of an impact they could have had on the way people THOUGHT about copying music if they hadn't tried to shut them down? If they would have pleaded with sensibility, sure there'd still be people who copy, but a lot more people would feel it would be the "right thing to do" to obtain it legally. Futhermore, they could have spent their time and energy trying to find ways of enforcing this instead of wasting all this time and effort making people hate them.
I was looking at the ata website when I found:
. htm
"ATA believes the current federal do-not-call list requirement adequately protects consumers from unwanted telephone solicitations. The ATA opposes blanket state do-not-call lists while supporting the federal company-specific approach."
at:
http://www.ataconnect.org/issuesummaries/1
So does this mean that the ATA isn't contesting the federal do-not-call list... ? And in that case how can the argument be over the First Amendment?
I've always been a surplus to requirements... I'm really anxious to see how I will be fired if I ever get a job.
Wasn't one of the features of freenet that you didn't know where things came from because nodes lied to each other about who has what? Also, things are cached all over the place when they're popular.
In Gnutella, don't you connect directly to the person who has your file after you find it? If so, I don't think merely *searching* for a file will provide for damages! And in order to actually connect the sender must know your IP address... but I guess that's between you and the sender at that point.
Yes the RIAA has to make a good case for who they prosecute, but I think in order to use "someone could have framed me" as a defense, they'd have to provide a motive for why this person would have wanted to frame them.
In civil cases (for damages) I *think* judgement is by proponderance of the evidence which means this will probably not be a good defense at all. A lot of things in court are decided on which cannot be proven 100%.
I detailed what happened to me when I tried to burn a CD here:
t ml
http://angelo.freeshell.org/computer/docs/drm.h
And they called me a troll...
I don't believe you. At least I'm willing to admit things I don't know. But I KNOW you didn't use Easy CD Creator 4.whatever on Windows 2000 running wmp 9 final version with all the updates, because that's when I had my problem.
Sorry for jumping to the conclusion that MS wanted to start snuffing out Roxio... I still think that's what they were doing which is why Roxio decided to make a deal.
I wish I had a screen shot to show you, but unfortunately I'm not willing to reinstall windows just to prove it! And I never said "Windows Media Player sucks" I just kept it updated. I was originally using wmp 9 beta which was fine. It was after wmp 9 officially came out and had an update when I started having this problem:
1) Drag mp3 file over to CD layout (Easy CD Creator 4.05 to be exact--with patches)
2) System pauses (I discovered this pause depends on how big the mp3 file is because I have some personal recordings which are quite short)
3) Message window pops up saying something about "how to obtain a license" from some menu item (which didn't exist).
Of course I went through Roxio first to figure out why magically I was having this problem only after being able to burn CDs a couple months earlier. I still have no idea how to get rid of this problem AFTER installing wmp, so I really don't know what you mean when you say I shouldn't have to reinstall my operating system. It was the only way to replace or undo whatever wmp had done--uninstalling wmp did NOT fix the problem.
I can understand people getting upset about me posting a poorly thought-out reason behind why Microsoft would put this in their update... but believe me when I say I'm surprised about how people are reacting to this. I naturally assumed I wasn't alone.