>I'd destroy my hard drive too if I got word the government was coming. Are you saying you have any drives that are not full-disk encrypted yet? Amazing. Seriously, just amazing.
>There is nothing intrinsic to Windows which makes client software more susceptible to these things
Let's look at your own points.
>It's far more common for a modern virus to be spread by an infected email
Infected email. There is no such thing at my Mac. One can send some bad thing to me by email, but then what? What do you mean "infected"? Looks pretty much Windows-intrinsic to me.
>drive-by download exploiting either the browser or a plugin
Again no such thing exists on my Mac. Well, probably Safari can be tricked to download an app or a disk image. But then what? It will not be started automatically and it can't do much without my explicit permission anyway. Windows-intrinsic No 2.
>to account for running under an account with reduced privileges
There is no such thing as "reduced privileges" in MacOS. There are "normal privileges". Everyone even an admin account runs with normal privileges. To do something dangerous even an admin account needs to ask for permission. Windows-intrinsic No 3. No, I am not nit-picking here. One thing is to recommend to "reduce privileges" for the enhanced security, the other - is to not having an easy way to run an account without these "reduced privileges".
>you don't need an enormous number of privileges to scan through a user's home directory and forward anything that looks interesting to a remote server
Anything interesting? Like passwords? Passwords are in the Keychain. You can't access the Keychain from an application that is not authorized to access the Keychain. The concept that you can harvest "many interesting things" just by scanning a home dir is definetely a Windows-intrinsic. No 4.
>But what in the world gives you the right to posses a work just because it exists if the creator/owner prefers that you not see it or own it?
Now, let's make the record straight once and forever: 1. I am the owner of any song, not the song's creator. My ancestors invented words "I", "love" and "you" - and all other words and musical tones. It is impossible to create any human art without using something that my ancestors created. 2. Why do I agree that the creator gets money for the work that he creates, but which I do own as soon as he creates it anyway? Simple: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause 3. If the creator is not selling the song, his exclusive right to sell the song does not promote the progress of useful arts. Indeed: those songs that are on sale now - are they the progress or the regress? are they useful art or are they useless art? If even a single one of previously created songs is unavailable to the public, then you can't say that newly created songs are better than that old song, right? That means you can't say there is a progress in arts. That means: 4. If the creator is not selling the song, his exclusive right is void.
>>With Google Voice, you have one Google phone number that callers use to reach you, and you pick up whichever phone--office, home or cellular--rings. You can screen calls, listen in before answering, record calls, read transcripts of your voicemails, and do free conference calls. Domestic calls and texting are free, and international calls to Europe are two cents a minute. In other words, a unified voice system, something a real phone company should have offered years ago.'>>
Funny thing - Skype App allows much of the same, and it's not blocked. AT&T does not suffer much from it - I'll still pay my monthly fee. Probably just one more glitch in approval process.
>Anyone with any common sense, including a judge, would immediately note that you're supposed to use text from the article you're claiming to be taking excerpts from.
Yes, the original article just makes fun of AP. But this brain dead software can easily be exploited for profit, too. Here's an outline.
Many real (not fake) parts of AP articles are uncopyrightable. > 6 words, $17.50. But do they own a copyright for these 6 words? And who owns: politician? NBC? Doubt it: political speech. I've already paid the congressmen to pronounce it, haven't I? One thing sure: these words do not belong to AP.
They sold it to me anyway? Nice. If California law sticks, they own me $500: false advertising, deceptive business practices. Under NY law - up to 3 times damages. Just make this quote long enough. NY had some online small claims filing services, $14 per case...
>I like parent post's concept, but suggest that slashdotters with a little extra pocket change license some RIAA protected lyrics from AP.
Their screwed up software is charging per word. Word is counted by blank. So: paste any lyrics, replace blanks with "-" and you will be charged for 5 words only ($12) no matter how long the song...
>You can, however, relicense something that's in the public domain. You're not even obliged to tell them it's public domain.
It will be a deception (if not an outright fraud). New York (AP is in NY, right?) General Business Law #349 prohibits deceptive business practices. Up to 3 times damages.
>These industry groups lobby for strong copyright protections to...guess what...make money! Which does...guess what...increase the tax base! Which leads to...guess what...
Huh? Your reasoning will be correct, if for each song I downloaded for free, my bank balance increased by $1. But it does not! Each month's end there is the same amount in my account: $0 - not matter has I downloaded something or not.
That means: downloading has absolutely no impact on taxes. No social services or programs are damaged by it. Hey, even police are not damaged, bastards.
>Cox -> submits code which apparently caused a bug >User -> Reports breakage >Cox -> Can't replicate breakage and asks user for debug info so he can fix it. >User -> Says they don't know what to debug for, but is willing to work with Cox.
Here they have found the bottom issue: emacs was expecting some reasonable behavior from the kernel: data delivery before notification of producer's termination. The behavior was broken.
>Linus -> Jumps in and calls Cox's code a buggy piece of shit before any debugging took place, and before it is established if the code is buggy or not.
Hello? The code broke a reasonable expectations of its users. Not buggy? That's technically is a DEFINITION of a bug.
>Cox -> Continues to troubleshoot the issue. >Linus -> Flames Cox personally and says Cox is unwilling to work on the issue.
Cox was proposing some strange solutions.
>Cox -> Takes his ball and goes home, except in this case, it is OSS so he doesn't really take any ball with him. He just leaves.
Then they had a technical discussion, and it appeared that Linus was right.
>It's not Windows vs Linux. >It's TradElect vs MarketPrizm, which happen to run on Windows vs Linux respectively.
Bank is having problems with its IVRs (strange slowdown in the software). The first thing they do in troubleshooting is... You can guess, don't be shy... R-r-right: they turn off their anti-virus! (Real problem was: logging system was adding 3 new files per minute, not per second! - into the same directory, Windows can't handle such an abuse for long).
But think about it: trouble? turn off antivirus, now!
Do you see the picture? You can't run mission critical applications WITHOUT anti-virus on Windows: too risky. And you can't run mission critical applications on Windows WITH anti-virus: the anti-virus will cause you problems sooner than later.
So, you can write a better application for Windows than some application for Linux, sure. But you will not have a platform to run it.
I am not that much interested if he is a criminal or not. Most probably he is. But his crime is definetely not worth $5M bail. This amount should be reserved for his boss(es).
Hello? You do not like living with someone? There is such thing as divorce, you know. D-I-V-O-R-C-E. In this century - you can get one pretty easily. Look it up at wikipedia, divorce the poor thing, forget about her forever - and live happily ever after.
What, you want something else from somebody who is no longer your husband/wife? She is not giving it to you? Why should she - she is a stranger to you after the divorce. What, you can't live without this (unimaginable to me) thing? Kill yourself. Where does killing *her* comes into the picture?
I understand your points. I almost agree with them. Problem is - prison is not a resort. Prison is a torture chamber. Torture is (relatively) mild there, but very prolonged. Everything you've written against tortures applies to putting convicts in prisons.
Well, we can probably outsource torturing. But not to other countries - to murderers themselves. Lock a dozen of them in one chamber - and do not open it again, ever...
Article: It was highly unlikely anyone else would have found the body, Du Bois said. "They never would have found it, ever," he said. "It was so obscure, but I admit it was also clever because it was not that far off the road." Reiser after conviction: After the verdict was read, the judge told deputies to remove Reiser from the courtroom. As he stood, he said, "I've been the best father that I know how." (http://www.sfgate.com/ZBLS)
It was most likely a first degree (premeditated) murder. Now he will get a second-degree conviction. Well...
Actually, on Mac - *all* users run with no admin privileges. Admin accounts can request an escalation to admin privileges when and if needed. Happens not that often.
And on Win I can't setup my kids' account as a non-Admin: Alpha Centauri would neither install nor run from a non-Admin account.
And I can't say that Win is in any way more handy... (checking ways) No, not one.
The ruling was actually a pretty narrow one. The answer it gave depends on whether the transaction was a sale or a license. If a sale - you can resale. If a license - you can not.
Now that question (sale or license) itself depends upon if the copyright owner has requested to get his created work back at some time in the future. Requested back - is a license, forgot to request back - is a sale. Some past 9th circuit precedent was settled this way. So it is binding now. But only for 9th circuit.
Cyber attacks are dangerous (impact on Estonia described). The are too easy to organize (Russian blogs described). We need draconian laws to punish offenders. Russia (and other poorly governed countries) can't be relied upon to establish draconian laws. We must lead the way! (and probably force everyone else to follow).
The ruling was actually a pretty narrow one. The answer it gave depends on whether the transaction was a sale or a license. If a sale - you can resale. If a license - you can not.
Now that question (sale or license) itself depends upon if the copyright owner has requested to get his created work back at some time in the future. Requested back - is a license, forgot to request back - is a sale. Some past 9th circuit precedent was settled this way. So it is binding now. But only for 9th circuit.
So, current XP licenses actually look like sales in the light of this ruling. But MS can easily fix it by requirement that all buyers should return their copies of software after, say, 25 years of use. Or 99...
Slashdot Mirror
>I'd destroy my hard drive too if I got word the government was coming.
Are you saying you have any drives that are not full-disk encrypted yet? Amazing. Seriously, just amazing.
Skype provides encrypted calls and SMS for how many years now? Oh, this is from Forbes...
Yep. Feeling lonely.
I've just bought OpenSUSE dvd from Novell's website - as a way to say "Thank you!"...
>There is nothing intrinsic to Windows which makes client software more susceptible to these things
Let's look at your own points.
>It's far more common for a modern virus to be spread by an infected email
Infected email. There is no such thing at my Mac. One can send some bad thing to me by email, but then what? What do you mean "infected"? Looks pretty much Windows-intrinsic to me.
>drive-by download exploiting either the browser or a plugin
Again no such thing exists on my Mac. Well, probably Safari can be tricked to download an app or a disk image. But then what? It will not be started automatically and it can't do much without my explicit permission anyway. Windows-intrinsic No 2.
>to account for running under an account with reduced privileges
There is no such thing as "reduced privileges" in MacOS. There are "normal privileges". Everyone even an admin account runs with normal privileges. To do something dangerous even an admin account needs to ask for permission. Windows-intrinsic No 3. No, I am not nit-picking here. One thing is to recommend to "reduce privileges" for the enhanced security, the other - is to not having an easy way to run an account without these "reduced privileges".
>you don't need an enormous number of privileges to scan through a user's home directory and forward anything that looks interesting to a remote server
Anything interesting? Like passwords? Passwords are in the Keychain. You can't access the Keychain from an application that is not authorized to access the Keychain. The concept that you can harvest "many interesting things" just by scanning a home dir is definetely a Windows-intrinsic. No 4.
Have I missed something?
Buy our Ad Blocking mini attack helicopter now!
>But what in the world gives you the right to posses a work just because it exists if the creator/owner prefers that you not see it or own it?
Now, let's make the record straight once and forever:
1. I am the owner of any song, not the song's creator. My ancestors invented words "I", "love" and "you" - and all other words and musical tones. It is impossible to create any human art without using something that my ancestors created.
2. Why do I agree that the creator gets money for the work that he creates, but which I do own as soon as he creates it anyway? Simple: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
3. If the creator is not selling the song, his exclusive right to sell the song does not promote the progress of useful arts. Indeed: those songs that are on sale now - are they the progress or the regress? are they useful art or are they useless art? If even a single one of previously created songs is unavailable to the public, then you can't say that newly created songs are better than that old song, right? That means you can't say there is a progress in arts. That means:
4. If the creator is not selling the song, his exclusive right is void.
>>With Google Voice, you have one Google phone number that callers use to reach you, and you pick up whichever phone--office, home or cellular--rings. You can screen calls, listen in before answering, record calls, read transcripts of your voicemails, and do free conference calls. Domestic calls and texting are free, and international calls to Europe are two cents a minute. In other words, a unified voice system, something a real phone company should have offered years ago.'>>
Funny thing - Skype App allows much of the same, and it's not blocked. AT&T does not suffer much from it - I'll still pay my monthly fee. Probably just one more glitch in approval process.
>Anyone with any common sense, including a judge, would immediately note that you're supposed to use text from the article you're claiming to be taking excerpts from.
Yes, the original article just makes fun of AP. But this brain dead software can easily be exploited for profit, too. Here's an outline.
Many real (not fake) parts of AP articles are uncopyrightable. > 6 words, $17.50. But do they own a copyright for these 6 words? And who owns: politician? NBC? Doubt it: political speech. I've already paid the congressmen to pronounce it, haven't I? One thing sure: these words do not belong to AP.
They sold it to me anyway? Nice. If California law sticks, they own me $500: false advertising, deceptive business practices. Under NY law - up to 3 times damages. Just make this quote long enough. NY had some online small claims filing services, $14 per case...
>I like parent post's concept, but suggest that slashdotters with a little extra pocket change license some RIAA protected lyrics from AP.
Their screwed up software is charging per word. Word is counted by blank. So: paste any lyrics, replace blanks with "-" and you will be charged for 5 words only ($12) no matter how long the song...
It's so stupid, I can't believe it.
>You can, however, relicense something that's in the public domain. You're not even obliged to tell them it's public domain.
It will be a deception (if not an outright fraud). New York (AP is in NY, right?) General Business Law #349 prohibits deceptive business practices. Up to 3 times damages.
>These industry groups lobby for strong copyright protections to...guess what...make money! Which does...guess what...increase the tax base! Which leads to...guess what...
Huh? Your reasoning will be correct, if for each song I downloaded for free, my bank balance increased by $1. But it does not! Each month's end there is the same amount in my account: $0 - not matter has I downloaded something or not.
That means: downloading has absolutely no impact on taxes. No social services or programs are damaged by it. Hey, even police are not damaged, bastards.
>Cox -> submits code which apparently caused a bug
>User -> Reports breakage
>Cox -> Can't replicate breakage and asks user for debug info so he can fix it.
>User -> Says they don't know what to debug for, but is willing to work with Cox.
Here they have found the bottom issue: emacs was expecting some reasonable behavior from the kernel: data delivery before notification of producer's termination. The behavior was broken.
>Linus -> Jumps in and calls Cox's code a buggy piece of shit before any debugging took place, and before it is established if the code is buggy or not.
Hello? The code broke a reasonable expectations of its users. Not buggy? That's technically is a DEFINITION of a bug.
>Cox -> Continues to troubleshoot the issue.
>Linus -> Flames Cox personally and says Cox is unwilling to work on the issue.
Cox was proposing some strange solutions.
>Cox -> Takes his ball and goes home, except in this case, it is OSS so he doesn't really take any ball with him. He just leaves.
Then they had a technical discussion, and it appeared that Linus was right.
>It's not Windows vs Linux.
>It's TradElect vs MarketPrizm, which happen to run on Windows vs Linux respectively.
Bank is having problems with its IVRs (strange slowdown in the software). The first thing they do in troubleshooting is... You can guess, don't be shy... R-r-right: they turn off their anti-virus! (Real problem was: logging system was adding 3 new files per minute, not per second! - into the same directory, Windows can't handle such an abuse for long).
But think about it: trouble? turn off antivirus, now!
Do you see the picture? You can't run mission critical applications WITHOUT anti-virus on Windows: too risky. And you can't run mission critical applications on Windows WITH anti-virus: the anti-virus will cause you problems sooner than later.
So, you can write a better application for Windows than some application for Linux, sure. But you will not have a platform to run it.
This worm spreads through laptops? My MacBook laughs at that.
Come on. Vagina is a nice thing, RIAA is not...
I am not that much interested if he is a criminal or not. Most probably he is. But his crime is definetely not worth $5M bail. This amount should be reserved for his boss(es).
Hello? You do not like living with someone? There is such thing as divorce, you know. D-I-V-O-R-C-E. In this century - you can get one pretty easily. Look it up at wikipedia, divorce the poor thing, forget about her forever - and live happily ever after.
What, you want something else from somebody who is no longer your husband/wife? She is not giving it to you? Why should she - she is a stranger to you after the divorce. What, you can't live without this (unimaginable to me) thing? Kill yourself. Where does killing *her* comes into the picture?
I understand your points. I almost agree with them. Problem is - prison is not a resort. Prison is a torture chamber. Torture is (relatively) mild there, but very prolonged. Everything you've written against tortures applies to putting convicts in prisons.
Well, we can probably outsource torturing. But not to other countries - to murderers themselves. Lock a dozen of them in one chamber - and do not open it again, ever...
Article: It was highly unlikely anyone else would have found the body, Du Bois said. "They never would have found it, ever," he said. "It was so obscure, but I admit it was also clever because it was not that far off the road."
Reiser after conviction: After the verdict was read, the judge told deputies to remove Reiser from the courtroom. As he stood, he said, "I've been the best father that I know how." (http://www.sfgate.com/ZBLS)
It was most likely a first degree (premeditated) murder. Now he will get a second-degree conviction. Well...
Actually, on Mac - *all* users run with no admin privileges. Admin accounts can request an escalation to admin privileges when and if needed. Happens not that often.
And on Win I can't setup my kids' account as a non-Admin: Alpha Centauri would neither install nor run from a non-Admin account.
And I can't say that Win is in any way more handy... (checking ways) No, not one.
I've heard that one RIAA lawyer became a judge in Colorado...
The ruling was actually a pretty narrow one. The answer it gave depends on whether the transaction was a sale or a license. If a sale - you can resale. If a license - you can not.
Now that question (sale or license) itself depends upon if the copyright owner has requested to get his created work back at some time in the future. Requested back - is a license, forgot to request back - is a sale. Some past 9th circuit precedent was settled this way. So it is binding now. But only for 9th circuit.
Cyber attacks are dangerous (impact on Estonia described). The are too easy to organize (Russian blogs described). We need draconian laws to punish offenders. Russia (and other poorly governed countries) can't be relied upon to establish draconian laws. We must lead the way! (and probably force everyone else to follow).
The ruling was actually a pretty narrow one. The answer it gave depends on whether the transaction was a sale or a license. If a sale - you can resale. If a license - you can not.
Now that question (sale or license) itself depends upon if the copyright owner has requested to get his created work back at some time in the future. Requested back - is a license, forgot to request back - is a sale. Some past 9th circuit precedent was settled this way. So it is binding now. But only for 9th circuit.
So, current XP licenses actually look like sales in the light of this ruling. But MS can easily fix it by requirement that all buyers should return their copies of software after, say, 25 years of use. Or 99...