I use debian extensivly, mainly because its a no frills linux distro, i get exactly what it says on the tin. That said, it may not be the right distro for everyone, but once you get used to using a text editor to configure things, your a master at using debian.
The main reason i changed in the beginning was because of apt, which i saw demonstrated. It rocked me, when i saw how easy it was to install a whole bunch of apps. Funny thing is, these days for big things like apache, mysql, exim etc i tend to build from source to get it EXACTLY how i want it. But then theres distros out there that do exactly that, maybe its time for a change.....
Isn't Canada still a British Colony under UK Crypto laws? I Mean as long as we are dealing with out of date information why not use real out of date info.
Actually they are a member of the British Common Wealth, and altho they recognise the British Queen as their head of state, in exactly the same way Australia do, they have a individual government, and ruling body, which makes their own laws.
They can have laws which contradict UK law, in exactly the same way that every state in teh US seems to have different laws:) The British Empire no longer exists in case you missed something, we recognise countries have the right to rule themselves, which also causes problems (IE India, Pakistan, Zimbabewae)
Limiting the use of crypto is all very good and well (from the single view that it helps stop terrorism -- devils advocate here!!) but what about situations that the government doesnt have any control over.
Take for instance September 11th in the US, they blamed the poliferation of free email accounts and internet access for the planning of this atrocity, untill it was admitted that 95% of the planning was done face to face by the perps.
In the UK, where the new RIP bill has legislated about crypto keys, we have terrorism in the form of the IRA, and other paramilitary groups. All of their planning takes place face to face, and this is know because our MI5 has managed to cover some with surveilance. These groups already know conventional technological means of contact are not safe, and these new laws wont hurt them.
With this in mind, the current course of action would be to either ban private conversations, or be required to record them. Or allow someone into your home/hotel/place of work to insert surveilance equipment.
The sad thing is, the vast majority out there dont care, because they feel it doesnt affect them. This will continue to be the case untill its way to late to fight the laws, and we get jailed for even thinking they are bad.
When i was in highschool, doing physics, my teacher once said something that interested me. He sid that tho atoms got unstable the larger they became, there was a magic atom ~120 or something that theoretically was stable, hung around for as long as atoms br
Has this proved so? Was my teacher talking out of his ass?
Sorry, by summons i meant the bit of paper that says "you are fined blah for speeding". It also has on it a option of going to court. This is what they did. Sorry, should have been more specific.
Actually yes i think you are right, mostly. the link i was trying to find was one of a husband and wife, whoes car was photo`d speeding. When they got the summons 2 months later (yes, the uk police are that slow) neither could remember who it was driving, so they said that in court. And they got off scott free. It was in some national newspapers at the time, specifically the daily mail but i cant get to that site atm.
All cameras in the UK are positioned in such a way that they take a picture of the car from behind, due to the law stating that the rear number plate HAS to be reflective, while the front plate doesnt have to be. Therefor this situation has hardly ever risen in the UK. And if it does, so long as you havent stated catagorically that your WERENT the driver, jsut you cant remember if you were, then all you have to do is accept the evidence that it was you, and pay the fine.
In the UK, we have laws, protected by UK law and European law that is basically the same as the US 5th amendment, saying theres no way i can be forced to incriminate myself.
The bill is sent to the owner of the car, but only the driver of the car is liable, not the car itself. These fines have to ask you to disclose who was driving at the time, same as speeding offences. Just say you do not know who was driving at the time, that a number of people could have been driving. This has been used a number of times, and has been upheld in a court of law on several occasions (due to the UKs abysmal online record keeping, i cant find a link).
There ya go. Dont deny the car was there, cause its not the cars fault, jsut claim you cant tell who the driver was.
This wont work in total. Here in the UK we have digital cameras that can process the picture, and come up with all data that is registered on that number plate. If the registered details dont fit the car, ie wrong type, then the police are contacted immediatly and they know the area you are in, what car ure driving and the fact it has a false number plate. Then you get a far greater penalty than jsut drving with normal plates and either paying thetoll/driving under the speed limit, or standing up for the crime like an adult.
except most of the possible solutions are privacy-invasive in one way or another.
So, what DO we have number plates for exactly? I thought it was to identify cars. How is taking a picture of you driving around in a public place an invasion of privacy? Oh, i know, im not allowed to know waht ure doing!! Well guess what, these people dont care WHAT you are doing, no matter how many conspiracy theories you put together. All they are interested in is finding nonpayers, same as the police are interested in finding speeding moterists with speed cameras.
Here in the UK, among motorists there is a growing feeling of being "picked on" by the police or government. We have traffic problems all over the place, and one of the governments manifestoes was to get people off the roads in private transportation, and onto public transportation. They are not doing this by improving public transportation, but by making it easier to penalise the motorist. Guess why? Cause theres so many motorists, a lot of them are bound to either speed, travel in bus lanes, or go places without paying tolls. And what can u get off these people? yep, fines. And that means more money to the government.
Schemes like this are not designed to reduce the number of cars as a primary concern, they are there as a money making revenue for the UK government. Oh, and considering their recent RIP bill and stuff, i wouldnt worry about privacy, its already taken care of..
Wouldnt this be akin to a shop keeper shooting an armed theif? i aint even evil enough to be a lawyer, but i think thats a nice analogy. Besides, they could jsut get the FEDs to do it. So who do you want? MPAA or feds?
If it was taken to court, i bet anyones ass that the EULA would be declared invalid due to its use to protect criminals.
Would a clause in the softwares EULA work, that states that you can't install nor use the software if you're in some way associated with the MPAA/RIAA/..., and that by using this software you agree to not take any action (legal or other) that could harm other users of this software, no matter what they are using the software for...
What, you mean like the clauses in the EULA or licenses of the stuff being shared that basically says you can only use the item if you have payed for it? Auww come on, grow up. If people want to expose themselves by illegally allowing protected items to be shared from their pc, then they should stand up and face the consequences when they get caught.
What you are saying is akin to a bunch of kids saying "but i didnt know i wasnt sposed to do it....."
If people want something with no risk, then buy it, yes pay real money for it. Look, no risk involved!! Its a fantastic method of avoiding prosecution.
Buying Xboxes for purposes other than playing games (without buying any games) hurts microsoft
and how long would it be until this infantile course of action would hurt the people who bought the xbox for the proper reason? quite quickly when MS stops production, and games companies stops producing games for the now dead platform.
And how long do you reckon it would be untill MS mods the xbox itself so this cant happen? And dont moan then about MS being tight, as all you want to do is kill them, and all they want to do is survive.
One of the major points of this is that 2600 was under no obligation to ask Ford. Freedom of speech allows them to point it to them if they so desire.
Bollocks, does this mean i can redirect a porn chat line to your home phone number? can i redirect all my spam email or junk mail to your house? i dont think so. Get a life and stop hiding behind freedom of speech.
No. It's because for the most part, older people didn't grow up using computers.
Hell, not one of them grew up using pushbutton phones.
Just one thought: they all grew up with cars, why arent they all well versed and abled to fix my car on demand? Just cause i grew up with computers doesnt make me special, i jsut learnt to use them. They should too.
i can see where your coming from, and accept the validity of your point. Thing is, the message you are presented with moans about the license, and only the license. It says nothing about stability or what not, jsut that the license may taint the kernel. Also one more little thing, if as you say, the GPL doesnt like letting other licenses have a free ride, that in what way is that any different to MS denying you from adding stuff to their kernel unless you abide by their licenses? I thought the general idea of the GPL was that if i altered the code, and distributed it i would have to release the modifications as src. Now kernel modules are a bit different, cause they dont modify the origional code, yet still work with it. Now if this is true, then what u were saying is basically GPL zealots syaing "everyone who adds stuff should use the license we tell them to use" which totally negates the point of the GPL, which is choice.
At least the driver signing is based on more than "oohhhh we dont like your license". Driver signing is there for stability reasons, and it actually does a good job. I use all signed drivers, and my system is as stable as my linux or openbsd box. Driver signing doesnt take offence to the license the code is under, just the fact that it may not be as stable as it could be.
ok i got that wrong, i meant to say ipchains. The thing i hate, is yes it may be in the kernel code itself, but if i do it as a module and load it, it warns me that the license is going to taint the kernel. Like its as if i care. I chose to use that software, i dont want to be "warned" every time i load it like im a kid. I find that worse than some of the stuff MS do, like product activation. At least MS doesnt warn me every time i load a peice of software that they dont approve of it.
Slashdot Mirror
hmmm, yeah only dictionaries for over 21 major languages for ispell.
;)
Hmmmm apparently none for my language tho
I use debian extensivly, mainly because its a no frills linux distro, i get exactly what it says on the tin. That said, it may not be the right distro for everyone, but once you get used to using a text editor to configure things, your a master at using debian.
The main reason i changed in the beginning was because of apt, which i saw demonstrated. It rocked me, when i saw how easy it was to install a whole bunch of apps. Funny thing is, these days for big things like apache, mysql, exim etc i tend to build from source to get it EXACTLY how i want it. But then theres distros out there that do exactly that, maybe its time for a change.....
Isn't Canada still a British Colony under UK Crypto laws? I Mean as long as we are dealing with out of date information why not use real out of date info.
:) The British Empire no longer exists in case you missed something, we recognise countries have the right to rule themselves, which also causes problems (IE India, Pakistan, Zimbabewae)
Actually they are a member of the British Common Wealth, and altho they recognise the British Queen as their head of state, in exactly the same way Australia do, they have a individual government, and ruling body, which makes their own laws.
They can have laws which contradict UK law, in exactly the same way that every state in teh US seems to have different laws
Limiting the use of crypto is all very good and well (from the single view that it helps stop terrorism -- devils advocate here!!) but what about situations that the government doesnt have any control over.
Take for instance September 11th in the US, they blamed the poliferation of free email accounts and internet access for the planning of this atrocity, untill it was admitted that 95% of the planning was done face to face by the perps.
In the UK, where the new RIP bill has legislated about crypto keys, we have terrorism in the form of the IRA, and other paramilitary groups. All of their planning takes place face to face, and this is know because our MI5 has managed to cover some with surveilance. These groups already know conventional technological means of contact are not safe, and these new laws wont hurt them.
With this in mind, the current course of action would be to either ban private conversations, or be required to record them. Or allow someone into your home/hotel/place of work to insert surveilance equipment.
The sad thing is, the vast majority out there dont care, because they feel it doesnt affect them. This will continue to be the case untill its way to late to fight the laws, and we get jailed for even thinking they are bad.
Live in fear, i do!
This about sums it up for the UK.
We`re all doomed!!! doomed i tells ya!!
We will jsut spank the "suspended" page then :)
When i was in highschool, doing physics, my teacher once said something that interested me. He sid that tho atoms got unstable the larger they became, there was a magic atom ~120 or something that theoretically was stable, hung around for as long as atoms br Has this proved so? Was my teacher talking out of his ass?
Sorry, by summons i meant the bit of paper that says "you are fined blah for speeding". It also has on it a option of going to court. This is what they did. Sorry, should have been more specific.
Actually yes i think you are right, mostly. the link i was trying to find was one of a husband and wife, whoes car was photo`d speeding. When they got the summons 2 months later (yes, the uk police are that slow) neither could remember who it was driving, so they said that in court. And they got off scott free. It was in some national newspapers at the time, specifically the daily mail but i cant get to that site atm.
All cameras in the UK are positioned in such a way that they take a picture of the car from behind, due to the law stating that the rear number plate HAS to be reflective, while the front plate doesnt have to be. Therefor this situation has hardly ever risen in the UK. And if it does, so long as you havent stated catagorically that your WERENT the driver, jsut you cant remember if you were, then all you have to do is accept the evidence that it was you, and pay the fine.
In the UK, we have laws, protected by UK law and European law that is basically the same as the US 5th amendment, saying theres no way i can be forced to incriminate myself.
The bill is sent to the owner of the car, but only the driver of the car is liable, not the car itself. These fines have to ask you to disclose who was driving at the time, same as speeding offences. Just say you do not know who was driving at the time, that a number of people could have been driving. This has been used a number of times, and has been upheld in a court of law on several occasions (due to the UKs abysmal online record keeping, i cant find a link).
There ya go. Dont deny the car was there, cause its not the cars fault, jsut claim you cant tell who the driver was.
This wont work in total. Here in the UK we have digital cameras that can process the picture, and come up with all data that is registered on that number plate. If the registered details dont fit the car, ie wrong type, then the police are contacted immediatly and they know the area you are in, what car ure driving and the fact it has a false number plate. Then you get a far greater penalty than jsut drving with normal plates and either paying thetoll/driving under the speed limit, or standing up for the crime like an adult.
except most of the possible solutions are privacy-invasive in one way or another.
So, what DO we have number plates for exactly? I thought it was to identify cars. How is taking a picture of you driving around in a public place an invasion of privacy? Oh, i know, im not allowed to know waht ure doing!! Well guess what, these people dont care WHAT you are doing, no matter how many conspiracy theories you put together. All they are interested in is finding nonpayers, same as the police are interested in finding speeding moterists with speed cameras.
Here in the UK, among motorists there is a growing feeling of being "picked on" by the police or government. We have traffic problems all over the place, and one of the governments manifestoes was to get people off the roads in private transportation, and onto public transportation. They are not doing this by improving public transportation, but by making it easier to penalise the motorist. Guess why? Cause theres so many motorists, a lot of them are bound to either speed, travel in bus lanes, or go places without paying tolls. And what can u get off these people? yep, fines. And that means more money to the government.
Schemes like this are not designed to reduce the number of cars as a primary concern, they are there as a money making revenue for the UK government. Oh, and considering their recent RIP bill and stuff, i wouldnt worry about privacy, its already taken care of..
i wish manufacturers would supply drivers for the internet, i get so many problems with this thing. Conflicts, illegal operations..... jeez.
Wouldnt this be akin to a shop keeper shooting an armed theif? i aint even evil enough to be a lawyer, but i think thats a nice analogy. Besides, they could jsut get the FEDs to do it. So who do you want? MPAA or feds?
If it was taken to court, i bet anyones ass that the EULA would be declared invalid due to its use to protect criminals.
Would a clause in the softwares EULA work, that states that you can't install nor use the software if you're in some way associated with the MPAA/RIAA/..., and that by using this software you agree to not take any action (legal or other) that could harm other users of this software, no matter what they are using the software for...
What, you mean like the clauses in the EULA or licenses of the stuff being shared that basically says you can only use the item if you have payed for it? Auww come on, grow up. If people want to expose themselves by illegally allowing protected items to be shared from their pc, then they should stand up and face the consequences when they get caught.
What you are saying is akin to a bunch of kids saying "but i didnt know i wasnt sposed to do it....."
If people want something with no risk, then buy it, yes pay real money for it. Look, no risk involved!! Its a fantastic method of avoiding prosecution.
uuuuhhhhh i think IBM have a patent on that method of income.
t won't take much long until they'll take your credit cards info for 'verification' and who knows what they'll do with it.. sigh..
:)
Heh, like porn sites dont do EXACTLY this already
Buying Xboxes for purposes other than playing games (without buying any games) hurts microsoft
and how long would it be until this infantile course of action would hurt the people who bought the xbox for the proper reason? quite quickly when MS stops production, and games companies stops producing games for the now dead platform.
And how long do you reckon it would be untill MS mods the xbox itself so this cant happen? And dont moan then about MS being tight, as all you want to do is kill them, and all they want to do is survive.
One of the major points of this is that 2600 was under no obligation to ask Ford. Freedom of speech allows them to point it to them if they so desire.
Bollocks, does this mean i can redirect a porn chat line to your home phone number? can i redirect all my spam email or junk mail to your house? i dont think so. Get a life and stop hiding behind freedom of speech.
No. It's because for the most part, older people didn't grow up using computers. Hell, not one of them grew up using pushbutton phones.
Just one thought: they all grew up with cars, why arent they all well versed and abled to fix my car on demand? Just cause i grew up with computers doesnt make me special, i jsut learnt to use them. They should too.
i can see where your coming from, and accept the validity of your point. Thing is, the message you are presented with moans about the license, and only the license. It says nothing about stability or what not, jsut that the license may taint the kernel.
Also one more little thing, if as you say, the GPL doesnt like letting other licenses have a free ride, that in what way is that any different to MS denying you from adding stuff to their kernel unless you abide by their licenses? I thought the general idea of the GPL was that if i altered the code, and distributed it i would have to release the modifications as src. Now kernel modules are a bit different, cause they dont modify the origional code, yet still work with it. Now if this is true, then what u were saying is basically GPL zealots syaing "everyone who adds stuff should use the license we tell them to use" which totally negates the point of the GPL, which is choice.
At least the driver signing is based on more than "oohhhh we dont like your license". Driver signing is there for stability reasons, and it actually does a good job. I use all signed drivers, and my system is as stable as my linux or openbsd box. Driver signing doesnt take offence to the license the code is under, just the fact that it may not be as stable as it could be.
ok i got that wrong, i meant to say ipchains. The thing i hate, is yes it may be in the kernel code itself, but if i do it as a module and load it, it warns me that the license is going to taint the kernel. Like its as if i care. I chose to use that software, i dont want to be "warned" every time i load it like im a kid. I find that worse than some of the stuff MS do, like product activation. At least MS doesnt warn me every time i load a peice of software that they dont approve of it.