...The legislators see that as "hijacking a trademark".
I see it as contextual advertising. Someone interested in one game system might be interested in other game systems. This is not a situation that requires any new regulation.
Search engine use is voluntary. I am not required to use Google, MSN, Yahoo or any other particular search engine. I can choose to use one or more as I see fit. If my search for PS3 on MSN leads me only to XBOX links, I'll likely go elsewhere for my search. This is the free market in action. Years ago, I used altavista, but it became less likely to return relevant results, so I switched. It didn't take a state legislature to show me the way. If I find myself troubled with the results returned by Google, I can complain to Google or leave. Both could be effective.
It the state officials of Utah feel that a regulated search engine is vital to the public interest, and the people of Utah agree, let them create and fund their own search engine which they can control at their own whims. This is far preferable to passing unenforceable legislation attempting to regulate problems which are already the province of existing law. There is no law in the USA that broadly prohibits the mention of a competing product in advertising. Consider the automotive commercials, "gets better mileage than a..." or "cost 1000's less than a..." There are however trademark laws, and courts which can interpret and enforce them. Worth noting is that these laws are federal, not state. With this move, Utah is making itself a target for lawsuits by entering into an area where they lack clear jurisdiction. If they really feel the issue is so important, the public's money would be better spent on a workable solution than on escalating litigation. But, if it were my tax dollars being spent, I'd be on the side of staying out of it completely.
...the onus for repair is on the customer / victim...
I find it quite telling that for a breach of more than 45 million card, they have, so far, spent 5 million dollars. To put this in another light, the value of each customer's data to TJX is slightly more than a dime? If that isn't a credibility gap...
I agree that it is absurd, but how about countering the absurd with absurdity?
What if everyone with Hepatitis C were to sue the 'owner of the genome for Hepatitis C'? A patent would imply the invention, and the unauthorized infection would imply a failure to control and contain said invention adequately. If I 'own' a dog, and it bites someone, I am responsible. If you 'own' a disease and it infects someone, you are responsible. It doesn't sound like much of a leap, if the system allows such absurd ownership in the first place. A dose of liability to go with that ownership would make such ownership much less attractive.
...ads based on the content of the page you are *currently* looking at...
That is a major distinction, and my chief concern. Persistence over sessions can be a pain. People are not, despite the marketers' opinions, single mode entities. One can be privately looking for bare boobs at 10 PM, even though at 6 PM, in the company of a wide eyed 3 year old, you were looking for pooh bear. Same computer, same account, but not at ALL the same marketing opportunity.
I remember an old adage that said "Turn About is Fair Play."
As much as I'd like to suggest tar and feathers as a fitting punishment for e360, I believe that is generally frowned on these days, so I doubt it would work. However, I doubt that a class action would really amount to much more than some attorney chest thumping of motion, counter motion. Perhaps a different tact is needed?
Maybe we could take a lesson from the spammer. They cause lots of small problems that add up to a huge drain, and maybe they get really lucky, and make a score. Adopt the same strategy. Consider a coordinated, but arguable separate, set of law suits in multiple jurisdictions against e360insight for the damage they cause. No class actions, as that would give one single point to defend. For this to have the desired effect, it must drain the resources in many small pieces. Imagine if, say for example, on March 16, 2007, there were 50,000 independent suits filed across the country by the victims of the e360 spam. Each one could be for a small amount of damages. The important point is make them all independent, and resist a class designation. Imagine the burden of defending these. Imagine the default judgements if any got lost in the shuffle. Imagine the statement that would make to those who abuse not only the email systems, but our courts as well...
But can you expect a judge to be as technically savvy as anyone in IT, given the broad range of cases they must try?
No, I wouldn't expect a judge to be well versed on all of the technical details, however, it is totally reasonable for me to expect a judge to be aware of his own limitations in such matters. The ability to see the picture beyond the details is the very wisdom that a judge is expected to bring to the matter.
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
...Indexing...has... a clear, negative effect upon the value of the copyrighted work.
So, allowing me to find a work has a clear, negative effect on the value of the work? The dozen or so local news sites I have registered with while following Google news links, and wholly and precisely because the links were available via Google News, didn't get a value from the exposure? I thought they liked that juicy reader demographic data they asked for. I don't remember any of them saying, "You are not welcome here because you used Google to find us."
"clear" it is definitely not, and "negative" is quite doubtful.
... I was present when an attempt was made, although the attempt was foiled.
Did, or would, the presence of an iris scanner change this outcome?
...and no price is too high to protect any one of them.
So, are you quiting your job and following one of them constantly, just to be on the look out for possible dangers? Did you at least take the time to contact your state legislature to pressure for improving the fraud resistance of those state issued id cards? My experience is that most people who say "no price is too high" are talking millions and spending dimes.
Bad people can have children, too, and thus legitimate access to schools, even if they require iris scans, dna testing and three forms of photo id. You can't eliminate risk, you have to manage it. That iris scanning strikes me as bad management, since less expenditure (i.e. careful screening of already issued id's, and more staff to watch what is really going on) can produce equivalent or better results.
Which price is higher, spending frivolously to get one partial solution to one potential problem, or spending wisely and getting better solutions to several problems? The issue here, as I see it, is much more complex that just controlling the keys to a door, and that is all this 'solution' does.
...but which provides more information and which is more easily faked: An iris scan or your driver's license?
Actually, a drivers license typically supplies a lot more information than an iris scan. Last time I checked, my retina didn't show my birthdate, address, or come to think of it, even my name. Also, with recent technology applied, the license can be made reasonably resistant to fraud, and using it is much less intrusive. You do have to train the people who are going to examine them to spot the fakes, but that shouldn't make too big of a dent in $120,000.
What I would want to know, is exactly how many cases you can point to where a child abductor directly engaged a school employee and presented a fake id to gain access? Similarly, what percentage of child abductions does that represent?
"For the children" is great, I have several, and safety has always been a concern. But getting the most value out of the effort is also "for the children," and would be even better.
Although I think you might be able to put that a little more eloquently, I have to agree. The ex-sysadmin was wrong to do what he did, but the company didn't do even the smallest part of what it should have. Consider this from the article:
But he kept an administrator-level SecureID card with him...
That alone should get someone (else) fired. He should have had the card confiscated prior to being let go. Not doing so is nothing short of negligence. Charging the ex-admin for the cost of not doing that seems illogical.
A few points before you jump on the "I hate the RIAA bandwagon."
1) They contract out their infringement-detection. This means that it's not the RIAA who isn't conforming to the law, it's the contractor. This is like getting mad at the telemarketer who calls you instead of the company that employs them, or the company which gave them the contract to sell their product.
No, actually this IS getting mad at the company that gave the contract. Your argument seems to clearly justify jumping on that bandwagon.
This is simply a variation on an ancient marketing problem.
Exactly! I fail to understand the whole "this data is essential" mentality. Somehow, real physical stores have judged the effectiveness of their layout, advertising and pricing without having to tag every customer. Granted, there are trends in that direction, but all the tracking that can be done will not compete with offering something worthwhile, treating your customers well and giving them a good deal. You can watch virtual customers through the logs as well as you can watch physical customers through the aisles. I'm sure someone would like to know I saw the same ad in two different magazines, too, but somehow the industry has survived without a way to automatically collect that data.
(At least this article reminded me I hadn't trashed the cookie folder in a while.)
I remember a program called, IIRC, Music360 that allowed one to write a program to describe a soundscape. You had to dump the data to a tape, send the tape to the site that had a DtoA converter, and then you got back a 1/4 inch reel to reel audio tape. Compared to today's click for instant gratification mentality, this might seem unthinkable, but in its day it was pure magic.
To relate this back to the question, it rather illustrates a point. The mainframe "culture" has developed over a long haul. When those "web" programmers start yapping about load balancing and ACID compliance, we laugh, not at the concept, but at the young ones who think it is new. Most have seen lots of technology come and go, and have seen most lasting concepts rediscovered several times. They're not as likely to get distracted by the shiny baubles.
Of course, this is a quite stereotypical outlook, and at the bottom line, we all are people. In general, most of us respond well to humane treatment, respect, and a little recognition of the different paths we followed to get to right now.
What does Firefox have to do with ending Spyware via WMP? Absolutely nothing.
Wrong. A more correct answer might be "absolutely everything." WMP uses IE to run the dialog that ultimately downloads and executes the trojan code. True, a simple Firefox install in itself is insufficient to break this union, but simple old IE exploits ARE the problem, just obscured with the WMP front end.
Quickly looking for WiFi where it should NOT be seems like a good application. With access points at a nearly trivial cost, even a well intentioned but clueless employee can potentially compromise a private LAN. Even the best thought out policies could fail due to $25 in equipment from Best Buy in a lunch sack.
...one will probably spend a good eight or ten hours getting the system into a state where the data can be extracted, prior to booting a Knoppix...
That's odd. That is one of the many things I use Knoppix for, extracting data from corrupted Windows systems.
Re:They HAVE modified it
on
P2P vs. The Clones
·
· Score: 2, Informative
There seems to be some fixation with a requirement to distribute source if it is modified. Just for clarity, it is the distribution, not the modification, that brings with it the source requirement as indicated in this quote from the GPL:
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
Anyone can sell a GPL'ed binary, or give it away, barter it, whatever. But the act of distributing it in any form requires the distributor to also provide access to the source on request.
The flaw with this concept is that it assumes that the Kansas AG was familiar enough with the various offerings to make a real value judgement. There is nothing at first glance to red flag Metal Machine Music. (Just for the record, no pun intended, I heard it on vinyl within months of its release. Let's just say failed experiments are important for progress, too.)
It seems far more likely that Lou's 'Heroin' or something similar was caught by some drone assigned the job of scanning the cd, to sort them into good and bad piles. Devo probably got caught with something like 'Gut Feeling/(Slap your Mammy)' rather than any political message. The people making the choices are unlikely to have the detailed knowledge of the music they are charged with judging. Cover art and track lists are the likely criteria.
Back in the 80's I was happily painting, composing and animating on an Amiga. The MS product of the day had a flashing cursor at an A:> prompt. The choice between a multitasking, multimedia capable GUI and a beep capable command prompt was really not that hard of a decision. As the 90's unfolded, I examined the good and bad elements of the Amiga experience. The best of the good side was the community. The worst of the bad side was the hard lesson of what happens to closed source proprietary systems when the controlling parties make bad decisions. Applying these learnings, I chose Linux, as it maintained the best elements and eliminated the worst. Oh, I've used virtually every OS MS has ever made, but I've never been impressed enough to choose it for my own use.
That would be the Navajo Code Talkers. It was definitely of the obscurity variety of encryption.
This is not to be confused with the Codetalkers which might be considered obscure, but despite the connection with Col. Bruce Hampton, have little military or encryption relevance, but can be quite cool to listen to.
I'm not a Doctor, and I don't play one on TV, however, my wife is an RN and is working on a FNP. As such, she has lots of wonderfully definitive medical reference books. According to both Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary, 19th edition and The Merck Manual, 17th edition, it is absolutely and without doubt "viruses." If the medical community says so, that trumps Webster's and/.'ers.
As far as being off track (not unlike this virus plural rot in a story about a worm) wouldn't it be funny to have someone claim SCO's $250,000 bounty for a worm that never would have caused them harm?
I don't really see how this relates to the latest SCO news, but I feel compelled to reply anyway.
Why does everyone keep repeating this urban legend? Please cite some factual evidence that this is what happened.
If you consider this and the multitude of similar stories from the same time period, you could find a pattern.
A senior White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Bush has been briefed regularly about the Microsoft case... but had not directed the Justice Department to take any action in the case.
and also
The about-face wasn't totally unexpected. At the time of his confirmation hearings, Ashcroft hedged when asked repeatedly by senators about the government's commitment to pursuing the lawsuit against Microsoft.
Now, this explicitly says Bush didn't give the directive, but it was very clear to all involved that Ashcroft had a predisposition that was established and known before he assumed his position. As Bush made the nomination, and if one gives him any credit as a leader, should have known this at the time, one could easily infer that the directive was not given officially because the desired state was already achived.
I could be wrong, but it looks like it doesn't even take a tinfoil hat to see this one, (but I'm sure that Darl could come up with an amusing spin if it suited his ambitions.)
If you made a simple change to your question, the answer might be more obvious.
Despite dire warnings, we've gone ahead and gotten each of our adolescent (11, 12, and 15-year-old) children an SUV.
The real issue is not that they have the access, but is have you taught them how to drive first? Seriously, you can't reasonably put kids in a new situation and expect them to 'behave.' I get asked very often by well meaning parents, "how do I protect my child on the internet?" They of course are hoping I'll say buy xyz censorware and you never will have to worry. Instead the get a rant more like this:
Start early. Don't set a magic age of maturity when they can use the computer. Start as soon as possible in life. Buy an an extra mouse just in case you get peanut-butter in the current one. Its worth it.
Don't hide the computer in a corner or back room. Put it in the main living area, with the screen facing the room. Encourage the children to use it, but be available for questions and supervision. You wouldn't turn them loose on the streets without some guidance, the internet is no different.
Talk openly about the dangers you are concerned about. For example we had a no chat room policy until everyone understood and could discuss the need for skepticisim and the importance of not revealing identifying information.
After you are confident that they have the skills to be good citizens, then start giving them more freedom, just like you would with any other situation.
I've followed this system, and in the 10 years of net access in the house with 3 children, we've never had significant problems.
Slashdot Mirror
I see it as contextual advertising. Someone interested in one game system might be interested in other game systems. This is not a situation that requires any new regulation.
Search engine use is voluntary. I am not required to use Google, MSN, Yahoo or any other particular search engine. I can choose to use one or more as I see fit. If my search for PS3 on MSN leads me only to XBOX links, I'll likely go elsewhere for my search. This is the free market in action. Years ago, I used altavista, but it became less likely to return relevant results, so I switched. It didn't take a state legislature to show me the way. If I find myself troubled with the results returned by Google, I can complain to Google or leave. Both could be effective.
It the state officials of Utah feel that a regulated search engine is vital to the public interest, and the people of Utah agree, let them create and fund their own search engine which they can control at their own whims. This is far preferable to passing unenforceable legislation attempting to regulate problems which are already the province of existing law. There is no law in the USA that broadly prohibits the mention of a competing product in advertising. Consider the automotive commercials, "gets better mileage than a ..." or "cost 1000's less than a ..." There are however trademark laws, and courts which can interpret and enforce them. Worth noting is that these laws are federal, not state. With this move, Utah is making itself a target for lawsuits by entering into an area where they lack clear jurisdiction. If they really feel the issue is so important, the public's money would be better spent on a workable solution than on escalating litigation. But, if it were my tax dollars being spent, I'd be on the side of staying out of it completely.
What if everyone with Hepatitis C were to sue the 'owner of the genome for Hepatitis C'? A patent would imply the invention, and the unauthorized infection would imply a failure to control and contain said invention adequately. If I 'own' a dog, and it bites someone, I am responsible. If you 'own' a disease and it infects someone, you are responsible. It doesn't sound like much of a leap, if the system allows such absurd ownership in the first place. A dose of liability to go with that ownership would make such ownership much less attractive.
That is a major distinction, and my chief concern. Persistence over sessions can be a pain. People are not, despite the marketers' opinions, single mode entities. One can be privately looking for bare boobs at 10 PM, even though at 6 PM, in the company of a wide eyed 3 year old, you were looking for pooh bear. Same computer, same account, but not at ALL the same marketing opportunity.
As much as I'd like to suggest tar and feathers as a fitting punishment for e360, I believe that is generally frowned on these days, so I doubt it would work. However, I doubt that a class action would really amount to much more than some attorney chest thumping of motion, counter motion. Perhaps a different tact is needed?
Maybe we could take a lesson from the spammer. They cause lots of small problems that add up to a huge drain, and maybe they get really lucky, and make a score. Adopt the same strategy. Consider a coordinated, but arguable separate, set of law suits in multiple jurisdictions against e360insight for the damage they cause. No class actions, as that would give one single point to defend. For this to have the desired effect, it must drain the resources in many small pieces. Imagine if, say for example, on March 16, 2007, there were 50,000 independent suits filed across the country by the victims of the e360 spam. Each one could be for a small amount of damages. The important point is make them all independent, and resist a class designation. Imagine the burden of defending these. Imagine the default judgements if any got lost in the shuffle. Imagine the statement that would make to those who abuse not only the email systems, but our courts as well...
No, I wouldn't expect a judge to be well versed on all of the technical details, however, it is totally reasonable for me to expect a judge to be aware of his own limitations in such matters. The ability to see the picture beyond the details is the very wisdom that a judge is expected to bring to the matter.
Limiting MS could be a motive, but I can't help but recall that SCO was a trusted participant in an open source alliance not all that long ago.
"clear" it is definitely not, and "negative" is quite doubtful.
Bad people can have children, too, and thus legitimate access to schools, even if they require iris scans, dna testing and three forms of photo id. You can't eliminate risk, you have to manage it. That iris scanning strikes me as bad management, since less expenditure (i.e. careful screening of already issued id's, and more staff to watch what is really going on) can produce equivalent or better results.
Which price is higher, spending frivolously to get one partial solution to one potential problem, or spending wisely and getting better solutions to several problems? The issue here, as I see it, is much more complex that just controlling the keys to a door, and that is all this 'solution' does.
What I would want to know, is exactly how many cases you can point to where a child abductor directly engaged a school employee and presented a fake id to gain access? Similarly, what percentage of child abductions does that represent?
"For the children" is great, I have several, and safety has always been a concern. But getting the most value out of the effort is also "for the children," and would be even better.
(At least this article reminded me I hadn't trashed the cookie folder in a while.)
To relate this back to the question, it rather illustrates a point. The mainframe "culture" has developed over a long haul. When those "web" programmers start yapping about load balancing and ACID compliance, we laugh, not at the concept, but at the young ones who think it is new. Most have seen lots of technology come and go, and have seen most lasting concepts rediscovered several times. They're not as likely to get distracted by the shiny baubles.
Of course, this is a quite stereotypical outlook, and at the bottom line, we all are people. In general, most of us respond well to humane treatment, respect, and a little recognition of the different paths we followed to get to right now.
For that, no, I wouldn't give you an automatic fool rating.
On the other hand, for posing that question in Ask Slashdot, that could be an entirely different verdict...
Quickly looking for WiFi where it should NOT be seems like a good application. With access points at a nearly trivial cost, even a well intentioned but clueless employee can potentially compromise a private LAN. Even the best thought out policies could fail due to $25 in equipment from Best Buy in a lunch sack.
That's odd. That is one of the many things I use Knoppix for, extracting data from corrupted Windows systems.
It seems far more likely that Lou's 'Heroin' or something similar was caught by some drone assigned the job of scanning the cd, to sort them into good and bad piles. Devo probably got caught with something like 'Gut Feeling/(Slap your Mammy)' rather than any political message. The people making the choices are unlikely to have the detailed knowledge of the music they are charged with judging. Cover art and track lists are the likely criteria.
Back in the 80's I was happily painting, composing and animating on an Amiga. The MS product of the day had a flashing cursor at an A:> prompt. The choice between a multitasking, multimedia capable GUI and a beep capable command prompt was really not that hard of a decision. As the 90's unfolded, I examined the good and bad elements of the Amiga experience. The best of the good side was the community. The worst of the bad side was the hard lesson of what happens to closed source proprietary systems when the controlling parties make bad decisions. Applying these learnings, I chose Linux, as it maintained the best elements and eliminated the worst. Oh, I've used virtually every OS MS has ever made, but I've never been impressed enough to choose it for my own use.
That would be the Navajo Code Talkers. It was definitely of the obscurity variety of encryption.
This is not to be confused with the Codetalkers which might be considered obscure, but despite the connection with Col. Bruce Hampton, have little military or encryption relevance, but can be quite cool to listen to.
As far as being off track (not unlike this virus plural rot in a story about a worm) wouldn't it be funny to have someone claim SCO's $250,000 bounty for a worm that never would have caused them harm?
I could be wrong, but it looks like it doesn't even take a tinfoil hat to see this one, (but I'm sure that Darl could come up with an amusing spin if it suited his ambitions.)
Despite dire warnings, we've gone ahead and gotten each of our adolescent (11, 12, and 15-year-old) children an SUV.
The real issue is not that they have the access, but is have you taught them how to drive first? Seriously, you can't reasonably put kids in a new situation and expect them to 'behave.' I get asked very often by well meaning parents, "how do I protect my child on the internet?" They of course are hoping I'll say buy xyz censorware and you never will have to worry. Instead the get a rant more like this:
Start early. Don't set a magic age of maturity when they can use the computer. Start as soon as possible in life. Buy an an extra mouse just in case you get peanut-butter in the current one. Its worth it.
Don't hide the computer in a corner or back room. Put it in the main living area, with the screen facing the room. Encourage the children to use it, but be available for questions and supervision. You wouldn't turn them loose on the streets without some guidance, the internet is no different.
Talk openly about the dangers you are concerned about. For example we had a no chat room policy until everyone understood and could discuss the need for skepticisim and the importance of not revealing identifying information.
After you are confident that they have the skills to be good citizens, then start giving them more freedom, just like you would with any other situation.
I've followed this system, and in the 10 years of net access in the house with 3 children, we've never had significant problems.