Why is it that the people who do not speak English as their primary language, and who apologize for their poor written grammar and typos, do a much better job of putting their thoughts to words IN ENGLISH better than many of those who call English their native tongue?
Probably because some people take their understanding of english for granted. People who know that their grasp of english is questionable also know that they have to work to be understood. It's not actually that different for the rest of us, we just sometimes presume that people will be happy to read our everyday blather.
--
Even if, (in fact -- especially if) Adobe really wanted Dmitry to stay in jail, Asking for his release is a perfectly safe thing to do.
For those of you who saw "Anna and The King", there is a scene where Anna has a tirade in front of the court about how what is going on is a farce, and she'll talk to the king and get her friend, and her friend's would-be lover freed.
The King berates her, in turn, for her public outburst and explains to how it has sealed the fate of her friends. He says that he was originally going to have the two publicly caned, and then released, but now he has to allow them to be executed. He explains to her that he can't be seen as being wrapped around the finger of a foreigner.
The US justice system faces the same dilemma. If they were to free Dmitry at the public request of Adobe -- in the same way that they arrested him at Adobe's request -- they would be seen as wrapped around the finger of a large corporation. This would vanquish the appearances, if not the reality, of the independence of the judicial system.
Thus it is that, by asking for his release, Adobe -- if they really want him prosecuted -- has managed to have their cake and eat it to. They get to make it look like they've seen the light. At the same time they have managed to paint the Justice Department into a corner where it will be harder than ever for them to release the man.
Not quite. Rosa Parks was selected by the NAACP to challenge the segregation laws
I'm going to quote, here from the book "Martin Luther King, Jr. -- Civil Rights Leader, by Robert Jakoubek.
(I thought that I had King's own autobiography, but I can't find it, right now).
.... Thursday evening, December 1, 1955, a small, neatly dressed black woman in Montggomery left work at quitting time, walkd across the street to do some shopping at a pharmacy, and then boarded a bus for the ride home. She took a seat toward the rear, in the row just behind the section marked
Whites Only. Holding her packages, she was glad to sit down. After a long day, her feet hurt.
As the bus wound its way through Montgomery, it steadily filled with passengers, and soon every seat was taken. When two white men boarded and paid their fares, the bus driver called over his shoulder for the first row of blacks to move back. After some delay, three blacks rose and stood in the aisle. But Mrs. Rosa Parks, her feet aching, her lap covered with packages, did not budge. The driver shouted, "Look woman, I told you I wanted the seat. Are you going to stand up?"
Gently but firmly, Rosa Parks said, "No," and for that she was arrested and thrown in jail....
. . . .
The next morning, King was warking at the Dexter Avenue church when his telephone rang. It was E.D. Nixon, a plainspoken Pullman sleeping-car porter and a leader in the Mongomery NAACP. "We got it," he cried. "We got our case!" He explained to King about Parks' arrest and said that this was what they were looking for: an incident that could be used to mount a legal challenge to Montgomery's segregation laws.
Rosa's decision to not stand up was, by all accounts that I've seen an impulsive one. What was notable about it was that it was at a time when leaders of the community were looking for an incident to rally around, and they chose her arrest. It was a synergy of need and opportunity.
This is not to say, however, that she was a country bumpkin who didn't know what she was getting into when she "quietly but firmly said 'No.'". She was an active and respected member of the NAACP who would do things like take the stairs rather than ride a 'blacks only' elevator. So when she stayed seated because her feet were tired, she wasn't just thinking of the next 60 seconds, or even the next 60 days. She looked years into the future and decided to take a stand for her feet by staying seated. The rest, as they say, became history.
Dmitry's case may end up being the spark for a similar historic synergy, or it may turn out to be a flash in the pan. We shal see where it goes.
--
I don't think you can get charged for theft for taking what's legally yours.
You CAN, however, be charged with Break and Enter for getting in to take what's legally yours.
Of course, if you grab the wrong hot computer, you're in double doo-doo. Best to let the cops handle it for you. 4 times out of 5, the crook will cop a plea bargin and your stuff will be available to you before the CPU is completely obsolete.
If you want the data off of the laptop, it may be possible to get permission from the police to make a backup. (this is a guess. I've never tried it).
--
And they have denied it if where it looked like they could get away with it.
Some time ago a friend of mine, 'mike*' who supported enough people that he had an MS rep assigned to him, was beating his head against the wall trying to solve a bug that was causing excel files to be corrupted just by opening them.
His MS support rep kept on telling him, "nope it's a unique problem" you seem to be the only one suffering from this. What are you doing wrong. One day he found out that 'bob', a counterpart at another large company, had been dealing with the same problem for a number of months. He decided to mention this to his MS Rep.
I was talking to Bob at OtherCorp yesterday, and...
Oh, Bob.. Bob Plimton? I talk to him all the time! I'm his support rep too!
So then, you know about the problems that he's been having?
(guilty silence).
*(names have been changed to protect the innocent) --
As far as I know, they refer to the same thing. Probably got tired of patients jokingly (or, worse yet, seriously), complaining that they're alergic to cats. --
It's not just a saying any more.
on
BYO Battlebot
·
· Score: 2
Now when someone says, "My laptop can blow yours out of the water", they may not be exagerating.
She was writing a dissenting opinion. The purpose of a dissenting opinion is not to set legal presedence, but to espouse your viewpoint.
The comment about the Rodney King video was what's known as 'obiter' (I THINK I spelled the word right). -- It's, more or less, an aside to the larger argument. It doesn't have the effect of creating any sort of precedent, but coming from the chief justice of the state, I would be inclined to believe that she knew what she was talking about.
Even dissenting opinions have some real value in the legal world. They often describe the issues that the majority decision is either opening up or leaving unresolved. These issues often need to be addressed later -- whether by future decisions or future legislation.
(That having being said: If the person describing her comment as flat out wrong was Thurgood Marshall, then I'd say we had a real legal disagreement on our hands).
--
Not all police are assholes... In fact MOST police are not assholes. The problem is that the police system often allows the assholes to continue to do their dirty work.
As an example, most RCMP are fine people, but I had a run-in with a Sgt. Bruce Waite. Mr. Waite has a history of beating up prisoners -- especially natives. The RCMP has settled a number of times out of court after he was sued for beating up prisoners. (One, for example, had to be medivaced to hospital after the beating he recieved).
After one such lawsuit, they then gave him a Promotion and put him in charge of a detatchment... near yet another native reserve.
And you wonder why minorities sometimes hate police?
--
>> The laws on the books say you can record public places on videotape, but you can not retain copies of audio.
> What's the purpose behind laws like that?
Most surveilance-type tapes are made without audio. Most consumer video devices have builtin microphones that are often difficult to disconnect (i.e. requiring [warranty-voiding] disassembly).
In other words it allows professional surveillance videos of public places, while making it hard for the public to do the same on an ad-hock basis.
Well, they're getting 100% blockage now -- Of course they're also blocking 100% of everything else. I would have been very disappointed if they didn't appeal this obscene ruling.
As far as I remember it, the copyright laws require the copyright holders to inform the ISP of the names (fingerprints) of the offending files. This ruling seem to be putting the onus on Napster to figure out what files are being traded....
I think that I can understand blocking 100% of files explicitly noted, but predicting all permutations is asking for the eye of the needle. If the RIAA were asked to provide this information, without impinging too much on non-copyright material, they'd just throw up their hands and walk away. --
Perhaps the best way to send a message to these people is through death and violence. If a CEO knows that allowing his
workers to defile the world around them could result in him waking up with his home gone, or a bullet in his wife's head,
might be the only way to really stop these people.
Interesting thought, whether you agree with it or not -- except for the fact that these actions aren't directed at the executives or their families. The low-level joes who carry out the orders are the ones who take the brunt of these actions. The high executives probably don't even get a cut in their bonuses as a result of this.
Don't shoot the messenger -- It doesn't change the message. --
I'm going to presume tht whomever is doing this is not just a firebug using the environment as an excuse.
I have a friend, who I have a lot of respect for. He and his wife (a lawyer) have looked at the path that this world set on and have decided to not have children. They feel that it would be quite unfair to bring children into the future that they see coming.
They are living for themselves and leaving the world to whatever it comes to.
I see this as an act of desperation. I'm sure that if they thought that there was a real possibility of changing our course such that the future would be livible for their (would-be) children, they would do so, and have children.
Likewise, the eco-vandalism is an act of desperation. I, like many other environmentalists, feel that it is counter - productive. It is also against my own personal ethics. Unfortunately, these people seem to see no other course of action open to them. My own thought is that -- if that is the best that is possible, then they might as well give up and go home. Do like my friend, and just don't have children. --
I that case, including IE in Mac OS is the price that Macintosh is paid -- nominally to keep MS Office for the Mac alive (read the recent Microsoft decision for more data). What that translates to on the monetary scale, I have no idea.
In the long run, it may 'cost' us the independance of the web.
I'm sure that Microsoft is going to get their money's worth out of customers for IE.. one way or the other. --
> > Just because it was made in the 60s, doesn't mean it was copyrighted.
> There is always a copyright. Always.
The original poster is correct. Up until the mid '70s, published works were required to have a copyright notice on them, or they weren't copyright. Two infamous examples of works not being copyright were Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech, and the early Star Trek episodes.
Martin Luther King's speech was the subject of a long battle by his family. It was apparently determined that, because copies of the text were
originally distributed without a copyright notice, it was not copyright.
I don't know if the Star Trek episodes were actually the subject of a court case, but the lack of copyright on the early episodes meant that fans could scam off of thos early episodes without any fear of prosecution. This may be part of the reason for the longevity (and popularity) of the original Startrek.
(Apparently, someone at Paramount didn't think that Star Trek was going to 'fly' and so they didn't worry about putting a copyright on the early episodes. I'm sure that somebody got the cat 'O Nine Tails treatment over that omission many years later. Fans, on the other hand, are eternally grateful (or at least for the next 100 years or so).)
--
What does the MS style proprietary license provide to a non-author company that the GPL doesn't? It's not like Apple has the right to steal, modify and sell a competing version of IE. Corel is never going to be able to use the code for MS office. Those people who do get the right to release modified code must do it at the beck and call of MS. Similarly, someone who wants to release a proprietary version of a GPL program would have to obtain the permission of the original authors.
On the other hand, if you want to modify the software for your own use, you'd pretty much need open source. You can set the options on MS code, but only the options the MS has deigned to let you set. For people who are unwilling to pay the 'price' of the GPL, how does it become more restrictive than a Microsoft license?
--
but the GPL does not make software free as it speech, only as in beer. which microsoft also does.
I strongly disagree. The GPL is free as in speech.. That is to say, you can't stifle people from being able to see, or distribute, the source to a GPL product. On the other hand, it is not free as in beer. It has a very real cost to it.
The cost of the GPL is that, if you modify the code, you can't keep it proprietary and sell only the object code. This is a cost that some companies (e.g. Microsoft) are not willing to pay. For people who are not willing to pay the GPL 'price', it sort-of reduces itself to a pseudo-closed source model, in that you can use the object code (in a free-beer way), but you can't modify it if you want to produce a proprietay version (what it really comes down to is that you can't steal the code).
If you start from the premise that the openness of any derivated code is the 'price' of GPL, then it becomes quite enforcable. If a commercial entity attempts to 'embrace and extend' a piece of GPL code, then you can demand both penalties, as well as payment of the 'price' (release of the priprietary wannabe code).
If you start from the premise that GPL is beer-free then you may run into a legal quagmire when you try to enforce it in court. If you try to treat the GPL like a shrink-wrapped contract on software that is free, then someone like MS can ask you to produce proof of the contract (though this might lessen the strength of their own shrink-wrapped contracts).
As for MSIE being no-cost.. It is only no-cost if you have purchased a windows or Mac operating system -- then it's price is really hidden in the cost of the OS. By the same token, the program is not modifiable by you. Unless you sign away you r life to get access to the source code, you can't even see the source to see if it's worth editing. Once you do see it, my understanding ia that the MS license is look-don't touch. Even if it wasn't, they often hold back key pieces needed to compile a full product, anyways.
This is where the GPL shines. It is fully modifiable, and fully redistributable. The 'cost' is that it's not stealable. You can't close the source and only sell the object. You can't limit future distribution. If you're not willing to pay that price, then you're still free (beer) to use the object code for yourself as if it were an MS-like license.
--
They're not interested in provoking confrontation. They're interested in getting out news that is being self-censored by the media. If they were interested in provoking confrontation, they would have probably done something like post the court order before the gag was lifted.
Then again, spending the better part of a day removing posts about the (non)'raid' was a surprisingly effective way of igniting interest about the story while keeping with the spirit of the order.
In any event. The FBI probably dropped the case because they were almost sure to lose it on appeal. The sweeping nature of the court order was bound to be seriously questioned by any upper court, and given that the original order was for a non-existant IP address, they would need to ask for a material change to the order to be able to wrest any data from I.M..
On the other hand, if the intent of the order was to provoke disorder and chaos at I.M. in the middle of the summit, it has achieved it's purpose and outlived it's usefulness. Keeping it alive would cost the FBI lots (both money and PR), while gaining them little beyond the damage already done.
It really seems to me like the last was the real intent of the order. Consider that it was dumped on them in the middle of the Quebec conference, referenced an unused IP address, a foreign crime and non-existant posts, while demanding that a site dedicated to getting news out to the public to not tell anybody that everything that they had done for the last 48 hours might be handed over to an organization famous for previous anti-activist activity.
When I think about it, it's actually possible that the FBI was really probing the organization, and hoping that they would breach the gag order. If they had, then the FBI would have had an excuse to shut down the whole operation even though they had done nothing else illegal. This is not too far from a tactic often used in Canada (esp. BC). --
Hey, C'mon! Most large open source projects would probably take the better
part of a day -- maybe even two -- to prepare and test a fix to a buffer
overflow problem (mostly hunting down similare F*CK ups....
True Microsoft has its share of bugs but considering sheer number of installation running their software ( not to mention incredible amounts of
extremely varied input their software is subjected too)
Letting your paying customers find the bugs (and, in some cases, then denying the existence of bugs reported by multiple users), is not what I'd call 'testing'.. I'm not interested in paying big money to be part of an unofficial 'public beta' that never seems to end.
--
Yes, another big security problem with the world's second-most popular web server
For a second I thought./ had been compromised again.
I guess that nobody explained to you that Slashdot.org used to be a Microsoft website. Microsoft has simply been too embarassed about having their web sit so throroughly owned that they've never taken it back.
(There is no truth to the rumor that, once Linux was remotely installed on their IIS box, they were not able to bring the system down.)
Now all we need is a mini distro on a floppy that automatically wipes any harddisk it sees 10 times upon booting, and shows a happy penguin when done...
Probably worth putting together for government and non-government users -- although I would put a banner page on startup with a warning message and a request to hit ctrl-alt-space to continue....
Slashdot Mirror
Probably because some people take their understanding of english for granted. People who know that their grasp of english is questionable also know that they have to work to be understood. It's not actually that different for the rest of us, we just sometimes presume that people will be happy to read our everyday blather.
--
For those of you who saw "Anna and The King", there is a scene where Anna has a tirade in front of the court about how what is going on is a farce, and she'll talk to the king and get her friend, and her friend's would-be lover freed.
The King berates her, in turn, for her public outburst and explains to how it has sealed the fate of her friends. He says that he was originally going to have the two publicly caned, and then released, but now he has to allow them to be executed. He explains to her that he can't be seen as being wrapped around the finger of a foreigner.
The US justice system faces the same dilemma. If they were to free Dmitry at the public request of Adobe -- in the same way that they arrested him at Adobe's request -- they would be seen as wrapped around the finger of a large corporation. This would vanquish the appearances, if not the reality, of the independence of the judicial system.
Thus it is that, by asking for his release, Adobe -- if they really want him prosecuted -- has managed to have their cake and eat it to. They get to make it look like they've seen the light. At the same time they have managed to paint the Justice Department into a corner where it will be harder than ever for them to release the man.
Book anybody??? Borrow them while it's legal!
--
I'm going to quote, here from the book "Martin Luther King, Jr. -- Civil Rights Leader, by Robert Jakoubek. (I thought that I had King's own autobiography, but I can't find it, right now).
Rosa's decision to not stand up was, by all accounts that I've seen an impulsive one. What was notable about it was that it was at a time when leaders of the community were looking for an incident to rally around, and they chose her arrest. It was a synergy of need and opportunity.This is not to say, however, that she was a country bumpkin who didn't know what she was getting into when she "quietly but firmly said 'No.'". She was an active and respected member of the NAACP who would do things like take the stairs rather than ride a 'blacks only' elevator. So when she stayed seated because her feet were tired, she wasn't just thinking of the next 60 seconds, or even the next 60 days. She looked years into the future and decided to take a stand for her feet by staying seated. The rest, as they say, became history.
Dmitry's case may end up being the spark for a similar historic synergy, or it may turn out to be a flash in the pan. We shal see where it goes.
--
You know you're a hardcore slasdotter when:
17) You have two accounts with moderation points at the same time -- and you know about it.
--
You CAN, however, be charged with Break and Enter for getting in to take what's legally yours.
Of course, if you grab the wrong hot computer, you're in double doo-doo. Best to let the cops handle it for you. 4 times out of 5, the crook will cop a plea bargin and your stuff will be available to you before the CPU is completely obsolete.
If you want the data off of the laptop, it may be possible to get permission from the police to make a backup. (this is a guess. I've never tried it).
--
Some time ago a friend of mine, 'mike*' who supported enough people that he had an MS rep assigned to him, was beating his head against the wall trying to solve a bug that was causing excel files to be corrupted just by opening them.
His MS support rep kept on telling him, "nope it's a unique problem" you seem to be the only one suffering from this. What are you doing wrong. One day he found out that 'bob', a counterpart at another large company, had been dealing with the same problem for a number of months. He decided to mention this to his MS Rep.
*(names have been changed to protect the innocent)--
As far as I know, they refer to the same thing. Probably got tired of patients jokingly (or, worse yet, seriously), complaining that they're alergic to cats.
--
Bulletproof portable anyone?
--
The comment about the Rodney King video was what's known as 'obiter' (I THINK I spelled the word right). -- It's, more or less, an aside to the larger argument. It doesn't have the effect of creating any sort of precedent, but coming from the chief justice of the state, I would be inclined to believe that she knew what she was talking about.
Even dissenting opinions have some real value in the legal world. They often describe the issues that the majority decision is either opening up or leaving unresolved. These issues often need to be addressed later -- whether by future decisions or future legislation.
(That having being said: If the person describing her comment as flat out wrong was Thurgood Marshall, then I'd say we had a real legal disagreement on our hands).
--
As an example, most RCMP are fine people, but I had a run-in with a Sgt. Bruce Waite. Mr. Waite has a history of beating up prisoners -- especially natives. The RCMP has settled a number of times out of court after he was sued for beating up prisoners. (One, for example, had to be medivaced to hospital after the beating he recieved).
After one such lawsuit, they then gave him a Promotion and put him in charge of a detatchment... near yet another native reserve.
And you wonder why minorities sometimes hate police?
--
> What's the purpose behind laws like that?
Most surveilance-type tapes are made without audio. Most consumer video devices have builtin microphones that are often difficult to disconnect (i.e. requiring [warranty-voiding] disassembly).
In other words it allows professional surveillance videos of public places, while making it hard for the public to do the same on an ad-hock basis.
Ain't public protection nice?
--
As far as I remember it, the copyright laws require the copyright holders to inform the ISP of the names (fingerprints) of the offending files. This ruling seem to be putting the onus on Napster to figure out what files are being traded....
I think that I can understand blocking 100% of files explicitly noted, but predicting all permutations is asking for the eye of the needle. If the RIAA were asked to provide this information, without impinging too much on non-copyright material, they'd just throw up their hands and walk away.
--
Interesting thought, whether you agree with it or not -- except for the fact that these actions aren't directed at the executives or their families. The low-level joes who carry out the orders are the ones who take the brunt of these actions. The high executives probably don't even get a cut in their bonuses as a result of this.
Don't shoot the messenger -- It doesn't change the message.
--
I have a friend, who I have a lot of respect for. He and his wife (a lawyer) have looked at the path that this world set on and have decided to not have children. They feel that it would be quite unfair to bring children into the future that they see coming. They are living for themselves and leaving the world to whatever it comes to.
I see this as an act of desperation. I'm sure that if they thought that there was a real possibility of changing our course such that the future would be livible for their (would-be) children, they would do so, and have children.
Likewise, the eco-vandalism is an act of desperation. I, like many other environmentalists, feel that it is counter - productive. It is also against my own personal ethics. Unfortunately, these people seem to see no other course of action open to them. My own thought is that -- if that is the best that is possible, then they might as well give up and go home. Do like my friend, and just don't have children.
--
In the long run, it may 'cost' us the independance of the web.
I'm sure that Microsoft is going to get their money's worth out of customers for IE .. one way or the other.
--
> There is always a copyright. Always.
The original poster is correct. Up until the mid '70s, published works were required to have a copyright notice on them, or they weren't copyright. Two infamous examples of works not being copyright were Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech, and the early Star Trek episodes.
Martin Luther King's speech was the subject of a long battle by his family. It was apparently determined that, because copies of the text were originally distributed without a copyright notice, it was not copyright.
I don't know if the Star Trek episodes were actually the subject of a court case, but the lack of copyright on the early episodes meant that fans could scam off of thos early episodes without any fear of prosecution. This may be part of the reason for the longevity (and popularity) of the original Startrek.
(Apparently, someone at Paramount didn't think that Star Trek was going to 'fly' and so they didn't worry about putting a copyright on the early episodes. I'm sure that somebody got the cat 'O Nine Tails treatment over that omission many years later. Fans, on the other hand, are eternally grateful (or at least for the next 100 years or so).)
--
What does the MS style proprietary license provide to a non-author company that the GPL doesn't? It's not like Apple has the right to steal, modify and sell a competing version of IE. Corel is never going to be able to use the code for MS office. Those people who do get the right to release modified code must do it at the beck and call of MS. Similarly, someone who wants to release a proprietary version of a GPL program would have to obtain the permission of the original authors.
On the other hand, if you want to modify the software for your own use, you'd pretty much need open source. You can set the options on MS code, but only the options the MS has deigned to let you set. For people who are unwilling to pay the 'price' of the GPL, how does it become more restrictive than a Microsoft license?
--
I strongly disagree. The GPL is free as in speech.. That is to say, you can't stifle people from being able to see, or distribute, the source to a GPL product. On the other hand, it is not free as in beer. It has a very real cost to it.
The cost of the GPL is that, if you modify the code, you can't keep it proprietary and sell only the object code. This is a cost that some companies (e.g. Microsoft) are not willing to pay. For people who are not willing to pay the GPL 'price', it sort-of reduces itself to a pseudo-closed source model, in that you can use the object code (in a free-beer way), but you can't modify it if you want to produce a proprietay version (what it really comes down to is that you can't steal the code).
If you start from the premise that the openness of any derivated code is the 'price' of GPL, then it becomes quite enforcable. If a commercial entity attempts to 'embrace and extend' a piece of GPL code, then you can demand both penalties, as well as payment of the 'price' (release of the priprietary wannabe code).
If you start from the premise that GPL is beer-free then you may run into a legal quagmire when you try to enforce it in court. If you try to treat the GPL like a shrink-wrapped contract on software that is free, then someone like MS can ask you to produce proof of the contract (though this might lessen the strength of their own shrink-wrapped contracts).
As for MSIE being no-cost.. It is only no-cost if you have purchased a windows or Mac operating system -- then it's price is really hidden in the cost of the OS. By the same token, the program is not modifiable by you. Unless you sign away you r life to get access to the source code, you can't even see the source to see if it's worth editing. Once you do see it, my understanding ia that the MS license is look-don't touch. Even if it wasn't, they often hold back key pieces needed to compile a full product, anyways.
This is where the GPL shines. It is fully modifiable, and fully redistributable. The 'cost' is that it's not stealable. You can't close the source and only sell the object. You can't limit future distribution. If you're not willing to pay that price, then you're still free (beer) to use the object code for yourself as if it were an MS-like license.
--
Then again, spending the better part of a day removing posts about the (non)'raid' was a surprisingly effective way of igniting interest about the story while keeping with the spirit of the order.
In any event. The FBI probably dropped the case because they were almost sure to lose it on appeal. The sweeping nature of the court order was bound to be seriously questioned by any upper court, and given that the original order was for a non-existant IP address, they would need to ask for a material change to the order to be able to wrest any data from I.M..
On the other hand, if the intent of the order was to provoke disorder and chaos at I.M. in the middle of the summit, it has achieved it's purpose and outlived it's usefulness. Keeping it alive would cost the FBI lots (both money and PR), while gaining them little beyond the damage already done.
It really seems to me like the last was the real intent of the order. Consider that it was dumped on them in the middle of the Quebec conference, referenced an unused IP address, a foreign crime and non-existant posts, while demanding that a site dedicated to getting news out to the public to not tell anybody that everything that they had done for the last 48 hours might be handed over to an organization famous for previous anti-activist activity.
When I think about it, it's actually possible that the FBI was really probing the organization, and hoping that they would breach the gag order. If they had, then the FBI would have had an excuse to shut down the whole operation even though they had done nothing else illegal. This is not too far from a tactic often used in Canada (esp. BC).
--
Oh - MS was informed severeal weeks ago???
--
Captain: Frigin Script kiddies....
Weapons Control Specialist: I think they used a Microsoft back door to..
B O O M ! !
--
Letting your paying customers find the bugs (and, in some cases, then denying the existence of bugs reported by multiple users), is not what I'd call 'testing'.. I'm not interested in paying big money to be part of an unofficial 'public beta' that never seems to end.
--
If you don't specify an if= or of=, then dd is capable of being used as part of a pipe.
--
For a second I thought ./ had been compromised again.
I guess that nobody explained to you that Slashdot.org used to be a Microsoft website. Microsoft has simply been too embarassed about having their web sit so throroughly owned that they've never taken it back.
(There is no truth to the rumor that, once Linux was remotely installed on their IIS box, they were not able to bring the system down.)
--
Probably worth putting together for government and non-government users -- although I would put a banner page on startup with a warning message and a request to hit ctrl-alt-space to continue....
"You left WHICH floppy disk in my computer?"
--