He should be made to do community service work without personal gain, i would say writing code to be released under a BSD license or similar with the copyright assigned to the state would fall under this category. It benefits the community as a whole, and is of less benefit to the convicted criminal doing it.
ZFS would do that, but it's not being ported to linux due to licensing issues... Licenses really do stifle a lot. ADVFS could do that, and the source is available for porting, but not sure if anyone is bothered.
Luckily not, what with the popularity of all these small laptops and mobile phones, i think the days of browsing with a small window will soon get better. What i do hate tho are fixed width sites, sometimes i want to browse using a small window, sometimes i want to browse using a wide screen...
Other than that, proprietary unixes are not picked up anywhere near as often for new deployments, but as you said existing deployments are rock solid and it would be foolish to rip them out to replace them with something new and untested without good reason.
Aside from AIX and HPUX, what other proprietary unixes are still being developed? OSX is only partly proprietary, Solaris is now open source. IRIX, BSDi and Tru64 used to be popular, now they're discontinued.
Speaking of which, you can already see where a more level market has worked... Proprietary unixes, especially on x86, are all but dead...
BSDi - discontinued SCO - as good as Solaris - now open source
Tru64 - discontinued in favour of HPUX and Linux IRIX - discontinued in favour of Linux HPUX - relegated to a niche market, HP now offer Linux on a lot of their hardware AIX - Linux is now offered alongside AIX on Power hardware
MacOSX - based on an open source kernel and userland, only some parts are proprietary
There were also some other unixes, like DG/UX that are pretty much dead and buried.
Open source unixes, primary Linux, have had a huge impact on the unix market, and customers are better off as a result.
Unfortunately that's not the case... People are locked in to windows because of proprietary formats and services, regardless of the superiority of anything else. Were this not the case, use of Linux as well as various other systems would be much higher.
What most people want is an open playing field where everyone is free to choose what they use, without having their choice dictated by others, nor their choice having an impact on other people.
People don't so much push linux, as push people away from systems that aren't open... If people you deal with are locked into proprietary formats or protocols, it puts pressure on you to also get locked in. But if people moved to open systems, then they would be free to make their own choices without affecting, or being affected by, anyone else. Linux is pushed because it's the most likely to succeed in those goals right now.
Personally I'd be very happy to see people using a mix of BSD, Linux and OpenSolaris, with it purely being a matter of personal preference as to what someone used.
// Google, though, is permitted to use data only with a resolution of 50 cm because of the terms of GeoEye's license with the US government.'"
Surely this only applies to US territory, and they can use higher resolution images of other places... Come to think of it, the US takes pictures of other countries without their permission all the time, why shouldn't google take any pictures it pleases? If something is out in the open you can hardly claim it's private anyway.
If you use it for email, you could possibly request that they forward mail to your username for a certain period of time, as part of the sale agreement.
They never focused on rendering correctly... In the early days, they focused on copying netscape and implementing their own proprietary features to lock users in.
No software filter will stop the bandwidth being used... by the time the traffic hits your machine, it's already counted against your usage for the month.
Vendor provided certifications are useless because there's a conflict of interest... It's not in their interest for the certification to be hard, it's in their interest for it to be as easy as possible to increase the pool of "certified" staff for their product. Be it Microsoft, Cisco, or any other vendor sponsored certification. They are all designed to promote the product, not train staff.
On the other hand, proper academic certifications as well as those sponsored by vendor-neutral organisations can carry somewhat more value.
No, it doesn't... I am well within my rights to deny you access. However requiring a password would be an unreasonable burden assuming i wanted to allow everyone else. By telling you that you're not permitted access, and blocking the address you access it from should be enough. If you access it from a new address intentionally to evade the technical measure in place (the ban) while you have knowingly been denied access then it's illegal.
It's all down to intent, if you intentionally access something which you know the owner does not permit you access to, then you are breaking the law.
I still get a letter every month from one particular utility that demands a check... I have explained to them over and over again that i don't have a check book, and that it is now the year 2004..2005..2006..2007..2008 etc... They still persist. I have to chase them every month for their bank account so i can transfer the money and then i have to chase them again to make them verify that the money has actually been received because they don't expect payments that way.
Well, as someone who has never incurred bank charges, i'm quite happy to continue paying nothing and be subsidised by those who can't keep their finances in order.
Yes, masquerading as a legitimate client is completely underhanded... None of the big search engines do that, and they all honor robots.txt.
I did block the ip range, but note the original post where they just came back from a new range some time later. I have no idea how many ranges they have, and they seem to change their spidering ranges all the time.
Other people have already blacklisted cyveillance, and they know this, which is why they have connectivity through multiple ISPs and a number of different address ranges, which get changed on a regular basis.
Because they keep acquiring new address ranges to spider from. I had already blocked their original ranges after the first time, where they agreed not to continue spidering my sites. Then they came back with a new address range. So how would you propose i keep track of their ever changing address ranges?
Old versions will cease to be supported, and wont run on newer iterations of windows... Those stuck on IE6/7 are a captive market, there is nowhere else for them to go so microsoft can treat them however they please. If the only upgrade path is punishingly expensive then they simply have to pay those costs.
Running an old IE will become even more of a liability than it is now, no patches, and once people stop kludging sites to work with it then it will fail to render sites properly.
I get lots of hits from cyveillance addresses to my web servers, and the hits from the cyveilance robot are masquerading as IE users, and they don't even bother to try and retrieve robots.txt...
If you contact them about it they will offer to remove your address range from the spider, but this is also a lie, after contacting them and supplying address ranges for them to stop spidering they simply started spidering from a different source address, this time the whois record for the ipblock shows nothing unless you directly query cogent's whois server which again reveals the ranges are registered to cyveillance. This looks like a very poor attempt to hide their actions. Their spider also has a very recognizable pattern, so it would be easy to pick up anyway.
When i attempted to contact them again, they simply ignored all of my mails. Incidentally, after being explicitly told their company has no permission to access my web servers, their continued attempts amount to unauthorized access.
Slashdot Mirror
He should be made to do community service work without personal gain, i would say writing code to be released under a BSD license or similar with the copyright assigned to the state would fall under this category. It benefits the community as a whole, and is of less benefit to the convicted criminal doing it.
ZFS would do that, but it's not being ported to linux due to licensing issues... Licenses really do stifle a lot.
ADVFS could do that, and the source is available for porting, but not sure if anyone is bothered.
The Nokia n800 series seems to play flash, did adobe port it to ARM?
Luckily not, what with the popularity of all these small laptops and mobile phones, i think the days of browsing with a small window will soon get better. What i do hate tho are fixed width sites, sometimes i want to browse using a small window, sometimes i want to browse using a wide screen...
Solaris these days is open source tho...
Other than that, proprietary unixes are not picked up anywhere near as often for new deployments, but as you said existing deployments are rock solid and it would be foolish to rip them out to replace them with something new and untested without good reason.
Aside from AIX and HPUX, what other proprietary unixes are still being developed? OSX is only partly proprietary, Solaris is now open source. IRIX, BSDi and Tru64 used to be popular, now they're discontinued.
Speaking of which, you can already see where a more level market has worked...
Proprietary unixes, especially on x86, are all but dead...
BSDi - discontinued
SCO - as good as
Solaris - now open source
Tru64 - discontinued in favour of HPUX and Linux
IRIX - discontinued in favour of Linux
HPUX - relegated to a niche market, HP now offer Linux on a lot of their hardware
AIX - Linux is now offered alongside AIX on Power hardware
MacOSX - based on an open source kernel and userland, only some parts are proprietary
There were also some other unixes, like DG/UX that are pretty much dead and buried.
Open source unixes, primary Linux, have had a huge impact on the unix market, and customers are better off as a result.
Unfortunately that's not the case...
People are locked in to windows because of proprietary formats and services, regardless of the superiority of anything else.
Were this not the case, use of Linux as well as various other systems would be much higher.
What most people want is an open playing field where everyone is free to choose what they use, without having their choice dictated by others, nor their choice having an impact on other people.
People don't so much push linux, as push people away from systems that aren't open...
If people you deal with are locked into proprietary formats or protocols, it puts pressure on you to also get locked in. But if people moved to open systems, then they would be free to make their own choices without affecting, or being affected by, anyone else.
Linux is pushed because it's the most likely to succeed in those goals right now.
Personally I'd be very happy to see people using a mix of BSD, Linux and OpenSolaris, with it purely being a matter of personal preference as to what someone used.
How about a pipe to the outside for the drive breather hole?
These countries appear closer to integrity than Western wealthy countries, interesting.
Because these countries have nothing to gain from supporting the entrenched suppliers, thus they are able to view the situation more objectively.
// Google, though, is permitted to use data only with a resolution of 50 cm because of the terms of GeoEye's license with the US government.'"
Surely this only applies to US territory, and they can use higher resolution images of other places...
Come to think of it, the US takes pictures of other countries without their permission all the time, why shouldn't google take any pictures it pleases? If something is out in the open you can hardly claim it's private anyway.
If you use it for email, you could possibly request that they forward mail to your username for a certain period of time, as part of the sale agreement.
They never focused on rendering correctly...
In the early days, they focused on copying netscape and implementing their own proprietary features to lock users in.
No software filter will stop the bandwidth being used... by the time the traffic hits your machine, it's already counted against your usage for the month.
Vendor provided certifications are useless because there's a conflict of interest...
It's not in their interest for the certification to be hard, it's in their interest for it to be as easy as possible to increase the pool of "certified" staff for their product. Be it Microsoft, Cisco, or any other vendor sponsored certification. They are all designed to promote the product, not train staff.
On the other hand, proper academic certifications as well as those sponsored by vendor-neutral organisations can carry somewhat more value.
Why would they filter your ports? unrestricted incoming means more of the background noise will hit you and eat into your cap.
No, it doesn't...
I am well within my rights to deny you access.
However requiring a password would be an unreasonable burden assuming i wanted to allow everyone else. By telling you that you're not permitted access, and blocking the address you access it from should be enough. If you access it from a new address intentionally to evade the technical measure in place (the ban) while you have knowingly been denied access then it's illegal.
It's all down to intent, if you intentionally access something which you know the owner does not permit you access to, then you are breaking the law.
I still get a letter every month from one particular utility that demands a check...
I have explained to them over and over again that i don't have a check book, and that it is now the year 2004..2005..2006..2007..2008 etc... They still persist. I have to chase them every month for their bank account so i can transfer the money and then i have to chase them again to make them verify that the money has actually been received because they don't expect payments that way.
Well, as someone who has never incurred bank charges, i'm quite happy to continue paying nothing and be subsidised by those who can't keep their finances in order.
The law doesn't work that way...
An unlocked door is not an invitation to trespass.
In this case, their original ranges were blocked, but they went to extra lengths (acquiring new addresses) to bypass this block.
Yes, masquerading as a legitimate client is completely underhanded... None of the big search engines do that, and they all honor robots.txt.
I did block the ip range, but note the original post where they just came back from a new range some time later. I have no idea how many ranges they have, and they seem to change their spidering ranges all the time.
Other people have already blacklisted cyveillance, and they know this, which is why they have connectivity through multiple ISPs and a number of different address ranges, which get changed on a regular basis.
Because they keep acquiring new address ranges to spider from.
I had already blocked their original ranges after the first time, where they agreed not to continue spidering my sites. Then they came back with a new address range.
So how would you propose i keep track of their ever changing address ranges?
They will have to sooner or later...
Old versions will cease to be supported, and wont run on newer iterations of windows... Those stuck on IE6/7 are a captive market, there is nowhere else for them to go so microsoft can treat them however they please. If the only upgrade path is punishingly expensive then they simply have to pay those costs.
Running an old IE will become even more of a liability than it is now, no patches, and once people stop kludging sites to work with it then it will fail to render sites properly.
I get lots of hits from cyveillance addresses to my web servers, and the hits from the cyveilance robot are masquerading as IE users, and they don't even bother to try and retrieve robots.txt...
If you contact them about it they will offer to remove your address range from the spider, but this is also a lie, after contacting them and supplying address ranges for them to stop spidering they simply started spidering from a different source address, this time the whois record for the ipblock shows nothing unless you directly query cogent's whois server which again reveals the ranges are registered to cyveillance. This looks like a very poor attempt to hide their actions. Their spider also has a very recognizable pattern, so it would be easy to pick up anyway.
When i attempted to contact them again, they simply ignored all of my mails.
Incidentally, after being explicitly told their company has no permission to access my web servers, their continued attempts amount to unauthorized access.