The machine that I work on day-to-day is my personal laptop. I purchased it with my hard-earned $$$...
Now... if MS ever decided to audit the company that I work for, I would tell them (in the immortal (paraphrased) words of Bender) that they can "kiss my shiny white ass".
If they don't like it, too bad. Get a court order.
Or... if I don't feel particularly feisty that day, I may just work at the other office... or at home.
Could Microsoft get a court order to allow their audit teams to search (especially if the school sent a statement to the effect of "we won't be using your software anymore, so don't bother with the audit")?
IANAL... but probably not. The reason cops DO get court orders, is because of the investigation of the cops, it is believed that there is enough evidence to convict the person in question.
In Microsoft's case, they are on a fishing expedition, and as such, probably would be denied a court order, unless they could prove that the person they want to audit is committing a crime.
Of course, they could just bill the school system, and then offer to reduce the bill by the actual number of machines legally licensed. The problem with this, is that the school system gives up several rights that are (should) be protected by the Constitution.
Until it gets simpler, easier, better integrated with email systems, it won't be widely accepted.
Come out with a local system proxy that resides on the local machine, and have all email route through there. Have IT check to see if there is a public key for the email address, and let IT encrypt and forward onto the "real" email server. Have it handle simple text mail... and voila... you have a simple system that EVERY email system could use (POP3/IMAP servers in the proxy)... and it would be simple, since regardless, it gets sent out encrypted.
BTW, I came up with this system a couple of years ago... company folded... I wouldn't want to work on this again since I'm "tainted"... but ideas are free...
Linking to another site is ok. Unfortunately, the MPAA v 2600 was bad for this one
Linking to another site absolves the linking site from liability of the content to the linked site. This would be where Google would be protected
Fair Use is not limited, however, possibly a limit of the amount of material may need to be implemented. IOW, don't paste all 144 pages up to make your point, take selected phrases.. this may keep the copyright lawyers at bay.
Another problem is the current Copyright / Fair use debate. This one is much larger than any of the aforemented possible solutions to the problem.
This isn't a exhaustive, comprehensive fix for all of the woes... just my thoughts on the issue.
The fact that the DMCA *IS* most definately being used to stifle free speech, in the terms of POLITICAL speech (as $cientology IS a religious lobby), should ALONE merit review....
While I agree that the DMCA should be shot down...
How will cases that the plaintiff claiming violate the DMCA actually get to court with the apparent collusion of keeping cases using the DMCA out of the court?
I believe that the case that Blizzard had initially claimed DMCA violations, but when the actual case was filed, there wasn't a mention of the DMCA.
If Scientology actually does go through with suing Google (which Google is attempting to avoid), will there be actual reference to the DMCA? Or will they pull those arguements and replace them with trademark/copyright infingements?
In otherwords, Google has shuffled responsibility for the fight onto someone else. If they believe it should be listed, they should have the courage to list it themselves.
Are you going to financially back a lawsuit if one is filed?
THIS is what Google is attempting to avoid.
They may be the best search engine around, but like everyone (sans Microsoft) they have very limited "off-topic" funds to fight "pointless" lawsuits.
Just a little venom being spit around here... so I guess I'll jump in the frey...
IT'S A T.V. SHOW!... get a grip...
Sure chrisd messed up... our lives WILL go on... trust me. I've stopped watching it ever since Alias came on... now that's a cool show. (plus Jennifer is pretty hot)
Once a company is confident enough in its product to offer a warranty, the rest will follow.
One small problem. The security of the software is directly tied to the OS that it runs on.
If you write Windows software, you have to use Windows APIs (either directly or indirectly), and the security of YOUR application is then dependant upon the OS.
If you write on a more secure OS, then your application would be inherently more secure, and you could probably offer a warranty.
Likewise, if you write a module to add-on to an application, then your module would be at the same security level as the application... and so forth.
While a car manufacturer has certain responsibilities, not everything that can go wrong is their responsibility. Only things they claim or are required by law to claim have to be backed up by their product. If you hit a tree because you don't know how to drive or if you start sliding on ice, that is certainly not the manufacturer's fault.
Interesting points...
So... basically, every company that operates a MS Server (or Advanced Server) that does not have a MCSE running it would not be able to sue Microsoft because of the "seeming incompetance" of the administrator... due to him not setting up the server correctly?
I don't think this would fly, since even if you DO setup applications "according to spec", there are security holes. Even with the latest patches installed.
This would be one of the points, in a lawsuit, that the defendant would have to prove... that the operator was incompetant to run the machine. IF they were able to prove this, the plaintiff would lose. If they were unable to prove this, then the defendant would lose.
My opinion on this... is that commercial vendors (any and ALL of them), should be liable.
This means that Microsoft (the company that you picked at random) WOULD be held responsible for bugs/security holes. Joe Sixpack, if he does even shareware would be liable, to a limited degree (maybe a cap?). A possible formula for this would be like the graduated income tax brackets. The more you sell a product, the more you should have tested, the more you will be liable... etc.
However, ANY software that also released it source would be free from this liablilty, since the person installing the application has the source to recompile it if necessary. If they don't have a developer staff/friend to modify the source, they should contact the author and plead to fix it. If the author refuses, too bad, fix it yourself.
Then I think it would be acceptable to have software liability.
From his speech part...
[talking about generating jobs and commercializing it] There's a faction against that, the so-called general GPL source license free software foundation, that says that these other countries other than the U.S. should devote R&D dollars in the so-called open approach, that means you can never commercialize that software.
Hey Bill... NO THERE ISN'T... even in the US, we can devote R&D to software.
AND you CAN commercialize it... the best example is SUSE. Yes, the do give the sources (GPL), but they don't give their distribution of Linux away for free. You must purchase at least 1 copy. However, they do create a demonstration for free.
Red Hat? Ever hear of these guys? They make a distribution of Linux, and they will give it away for free, including sources (GPL). The portion they charge for is support.
You, Mr. Bill, get downright nasty if there is just 1 license out of order. And you're company makes false law claims about the licenses as well. You (and Windows) is the insidious virus that needs to be controlled.
[too bad BG doesn't read/.... my comments go to the choir]
Yep... you're correct on that... didn't think about it...
However, for digital systems, I can call another digital phone, and I believe that hop towers instead of going through POTS... though, I don't work for the phone company.
But you wouldn't need it to the homes. So, the current telcos would be a middleman for different cell companies.
The legal burden is on the owner of an encrypted file to prove that they never had the key.
Since I live in the US, I'm not up to speed on forgien laws and such...
But how do you prove a negative? Last time I checked it was impossible. Though I haven't been through that new math that they're teaching in schools now...
So just by receiving an encrypted email... either you show it, or go to jail. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Too bad you're posting AC... you made some really good points...
Capitalism (economic) is the opposite of Communism (economic)
Whereas Democracy (government) is the opposite of Dictatorship (government)
Often people confuse Democracy with Communism... which is wrong. However, how do you think a government form of Democracy would work with Communism? I think it would self-implode. However, a Capitalistic Dictatorship MAY work... as long as the dictator doesn't interfere too much with the market forces.
This is starting to get off-topic... so I will stop.
Re:Ummm...
on
On Hacktivism
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I believe what they were trying to get at, is that companies are getting or trying to get their products into China so badly (the market opportunity is huge), that they will help the Chinese government understand the product.
Once the product is in China, then the reverse engineering can start. This has happened with a couple of rocket launches a few years ago. Also, it is purported that the former US administration allowed classified technologies into China.
Unfortunately, I cannot provide links to help prove this post... and that appears what you wanted in the first place...
Slashdot Mirror
HEHEHE ... the OS is the same thing every few years with "enhancements" that make it crash easier.
Hell .. Windows 2000 = Windows NT 5.0 ...
Windows XP = Windows NT 5.1
Here in the upper Midwest, we normally don't get huge cultural events like this.
Even if it happened to be in Minneapolis, I'd be a happy camper ...
The machine that I work on day-to-day is my personal laptop. I purchased it with my hard-earned $$$ ...
Now ... if MS ever decided to audit the company that I work for, I would tell them (in the immortal (paraphrased) words of Bender) that they can "kiss my shiny white ass".
If they don't like it, too bad. Get a court order.
Or ... if I don't feel particularly feisty that day, I may just work at the other office ... or at home.
IANAL ... but probably not. The reason cops DO get court orders, is because of the investigation of the cops, it is believed that there is enough evidence to convict the person in question.
In Microsoft's case, they are on a fishing expedition, and as such, probably would be denied a court order, unless they could prove that the person they want to audit is committing a crime.
Of course, they could just bill the school system, and then offer to reduce the bill by the actual number of machines legally licensed. The problem with this, is that the school system gives up several rights that are (should) be protected by the Constitution.
Until it gets simpler, easier, better integrated with email systems, it won't be widely accepted.
Come out with a local system proxy that resides on the local machine, and have all email route through there. Have IT check to see if there is a public key for the email address, and let IT encrypt and forward onto the "real" email server. Have it handle simple text mail ... and voila ... you have a simple system that EVERY email system could use (POP3/IMAP servers in the proxy) ... and it would be simple, since regardless, it gets sent out encrypted.
BTW, I came up with this system a couple of years ago ... company folded ... I wouldn't want to work on this again since I'm "tainted" ... but ideas are free ...
$0.70 a day, you too can join in the millions to help out the poor, starving /. editors.
- Linking to another site is ok. Unfortunately, the MPAA v 2600 was bad for this one
- Linking to another site absolves the linking site from liability of the content to the linked site. This would be where Google would be protected
- Fair Use is not limited, however, possibly a limit of the amount of material may need to be implemented. IOW, don't paste all 144 pages up to make your point, take selected phrases
.. this may keep the copyright lawyers at bay.
Another problem is the current Copyright / Fair use debate. This one is much larger than any of the aforemented possible solutions to the problem.This isn't a exhaustive, comprehensive fix for all of the woes ... just my thoughts on the issue.
While I agree that the DMCA should be shot down ...
How will cases that the plaintiff claiming violate the DMCA actually get to court with the apparent collusion of keeping cases using the DMCA out of the court?
I believe that the case that Blizzard had initially claimed DMCA violations, but when the actual case was filed, there wasn't a mention of the DMCA.
If Scientology actually does go through with suing Google (which Google is attempting to avoid), will there be actual reference to the DMCA? Or will they pull those arguements and replace them with trademark/copyright infingements?
Are you going to financially back a lawsuit if one is filed?
THIS is what Google is attempting to avoid.
They may be the best search engine around, but like everyone (sans Microsoft) they have very limited "off-topic" funds to fight "pointless" lawsuits.
IT'S A T.V. SHOW! ... get a grip ...
Sure chrisd messed up ... our lives WILL go on ... trust me. I've stopped watching it ever since Alias came on ... now that's a cool show. (plus Jennifer is pretty hot)
One small problem. The security of the software is directly tied to the OS that it runs on.
If you write Windows software, you have to use Windows APIs (either directly or indirectly), and the security of YOUR application is then dependant upon the OS.
If you write on a more secure OS, then your application would be inherently more secure, and you could probably offer a warranty.
Likewise, if you write a module to add-on to an application, then your module would be at the same security level as the application ... and so forth.
Interesting points ...
So ... basically, every company that operates a MS Server (or Advanced Server) that does not have a MCSE running it would not be able to sue Microsoft because of the "seeming incompetance" of the administrator ... due to him not setting up the server correctly?
I don't think this would fly, since even if you DO setup applications "according to spec", there are security holes. Even with the latest patches installed.
This would be one of the points, in a lawsuit, that the defendant would have to prove ... that the operator was incompetant to run the machine. IF they were able to prove this, the plaintiff would lose. If they were unable to prove this, then the defendant would lose.
This means that Microsoft (the company that you picked at random) WOULD be held responsible for bugs/security holes. Joe Sixpack, if he does even shareware would be liable, to a limited degree (maybe a cap?). A possible formula for this would be like the graduated income tax brackets. The more you sell a product, the more you should have tested, the more you will be liable ... etc.
However, ANY software that also released it source would be free from this liablilty, since the person installing the application has the source to recompile it if necessary. If they don't have a developer staff/friend to modify the source, they should contact the author and plead to fix it. If the author refuses, too bad, fix it yourself.
Then I think it would be acceptable to have software liability.
Problem is ... it's against the 4th and 5th Amendment ...
I don't know ... you don't happen to teach shop class and have only 7 fingers do you?
Also, the counterbalance would have to move in/out at the same rate as the laser head, or it would get unbalanced.
Colecovision?
Curious ... is there a list around of the Top 10 case mods?
This guy should definately be entered.
BTW, you could even run MAME on it, it has a 2100+ AMD with a 40G hd ...
[talking about generating jobs and commercializing it] There's a faction against that, the so-called general GPL source license free software foundation, that says that these other countries other than the U.S. should devote R&D dollars in the so-called open approach, that means you can never commercialize that software.
Hey Bill ... NO THERE ISN'T ... even in the US, we can devote R&D to software.
AND you CAN commercialize it ... the best example is SUSE. Yes, the do give the sources (GPL), but they don't give their distribution of Linux away for free. You must purchase at least 1 copy. However, they do create a demonstration for free.
Red Hat? Ever hear of these guys? They make a distribution of Linux, and they will give it away for free, including sources (GPL). The portion they charge for is support.
You, Mr. Bill, get downright nasty if there is just 1 license out of order. And you're company makes false law claims about the licenses as well. You (and Windows) is the insidious virus that needs to be controlled.
[too bad BG doesn't read /. ... my comments go to the choir]
Actually ... it's BSoD ... it happened at a Windows 98 Press conference.
However, for digital systems, I can call another digital phone, and I believe that hop towers instead of going through POTS ... though, I don't work for the phone company.
But you wouldn't need it to the homes. So, the current telcos would be a middleman for different cell companies.
Since I live in the US, I'm not up to speed on forgien laws and such ...
But how do you prove a negative? Last time I checked it was impossible. Though I haven't been through that new math that they're teaching in schools now ...
So just by receiving an encrypted email ... either you show it, or go to jail. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Capitalism (economic) is the opposite of Communism (economic)
Whereas Democracy (government) is the opposite of Dictatorship (government)
Often people confuse Democracy with Communism ... which is wrong. However, how do you think a government form of Democracy would work with Communism? I think it would self-implode. However, a Capitalistic Dictatorship MAY work ... as long as the dictator doesn't interfere too much with the market forces.
This is starting to get off-topic ... so I will stop.
Once the product is in China, then the reverse engineering can start. This has happened with a couple of rocket launches a few years ago. Also, it is purported that the former US administration allowed classified technologies into China.
Unfortunately, I cannot provide links to help prove this post ... and that appears what you wanted in the first place ...