I think you are confused about the nature of terrorism.
According to dictionary.com terrorism is "The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation."
People don't have to blow themselves up or blow up buildings to terrorize. You can make their friends disappear without a trace, you can drive by their house and shoot them, you can blow up their car. These are things that happened and were done by the alcohol vendors of the prohibition era.
I believe I said "practically invented", which I meant as "it gained popularity as a tool for terror during that time", not that the first ever drive-by shootings were committed by prohibition-era gangs.
It is my understanding that drive-by shootings were practically invented by prohibition era gangs. It is this and these type of activities that I am referring to as terrorism in my assertion.
Organized crime often uses terrorism to achieve its goals. They terrorize the population to keep people from testifying or to encourage them to pay their bills.
They are whatever they decide will make them money today.
NEWS FLASH! All black market activities fund terrorism in one way or another. That is how the black market works. Alcohol sales funded terrorism in the US during prohibition. Cocaine, stolen art, fake Levi jeans, ivory, all contribute to terrorism.
If we had a black market in Barbie dolls the money would be used to fund terrorism.
x "is used to fund terrorism" isn't really an effective argument for more controls over x. It is a better argument for making x freely available so that there will be no black market for it.
Obviously the MPAA and MS wouldn't go for the idea but they are the ones creating the black market with their licensing requirements. If they really cared about avoiding the funding of terrorism they would let whoever wanted to copy their stuff copy it freely.
Anyhow, why are they spending their energy harassing p2p users when they have the real hardcore criminal gangs to go after? Could it be because the average p2p user don't have bombs?
I have 2 machines with the 2.2 kernel with 634 days of uptime
but even if Netcraft could see them instead of the load balancer
it couldn't tell what their uptimes were because of there is an upper limit of 497 for detecting uptimes for several operating systems. (I get their uptime by doing "ls -ald/proc" and subtracting proc's date from today's date)
There is no reason to reboot a machine when re-compiling to plug a security hole.
I do need back doors on ocassion but I try to put them inside an if statement so they only work on my dev machine and only on a certain day (so I don't forget to take them out and end up with a security hole).
Re-read the post. The term "network-capable kvm" refers to a remotely accessible piece of hardware that does indeed allow you to use VNC to access the BIOS.
The Kaveman product appears to be a nice network-capable kvm. Last I checked they were in the $2500 to $3500 range. You can conveniently sit at home and watch your machine reboot and alter BIOS settings just as if you were sitting in front of it.
Actually as the one coming up with the great idea or simply as the one that is the backbone of the company I certainly believe it is only fair that I be compensated.
The most important people at Ford are the engineers. They make the product. The most important part of Intel is the chip designer. The most important part of the music business is the musician. etc etc.
But the problem here is that the people that are the expert negotiators for the company (those that set up the deals and market the product) are also the most adept at getting themselves a good deal and marketing themselves.
If engineers were as good at marketing themselves we would see superstar engineers with bidding wars going on all the time.
I understand how SecurID works. My point is that if you have remote control of a machine that is logged in and not disconnected then it doesn't matter how secure SecurID is. It is much the same principle as logging into a machine with your SecurID and then going for coffee.
I am not claiming at all that the article is actually accurate as it offers no proof and no reliable sources. But, it is theoretically possible to take over a machine where the SecurID has already been entered and cause havoc.
You are correct. But the real return address should be exposed somewhere in the message and in many cases it is exposed now.
The mail server (MTA) should be setting a header "Sender" to the smtp from address (I'm not sure how many mail servers do this properly.) and the mail reader (MUA) should expose this header in an understandable way. Outlook uses the phrase "sent by xx on behalf of yy"
So getting a message from "bob@myspam.com on behalf of free_sex@yahoo.com" could be a valid message but it exposes that the message is actually from bob@myspam.com and bounce messages will go back to there. If myspam.com is being abusive you can block their domain altogether also.
I think you could accomplish your signed message goals with pgp or gpg. Unless your key is stolen (or someone figures out how to break pgp/gpg) you can be sure that the message came from the sender that signed it.
If you can convince all those sending you mail to use a pgp/gpg signature then you can reject all non-signed messages and accomplish what you are looking for.
What about this? Query the DNS server of the sending domain to determine if the connection comes from an IP address that the admin of the sending domain has approved.
-- Connect from 10.1.2.3 Sender: HELO valid.mailserver.example.com Receiver: 250 Sender: MAIL FROM:<someone@example.org> -- HINFO "OUTGOING MAIL" DNS query to 3.2.1.10.example.org -- (the IP in reverse format) -- Response "OK" Receiver: 250 sender is valid complete the mail transaction
-- Connect from 10.1.2.3 Sender: HELO valid.mailserver.example.com Receiver: 250 Sender: MAIL FROM:<someone@example.org> -- HINFO "OUTGOING MAIL" DNS query to 3.2.1.10.example.org -- (the IP in reverse format) -- Response Timed Out or No Such DNS Entry Receiver: 250 DNS unavailable or administrator of this domain has not yet configured this feature complete the mail transaction
-- Connect from 10.5.4.2 Sender: HELO valid.mailserver.example.com Receiver: 250 Sender: MAIL FROM:<someone@example.org> -- HINFO "OUTGOING MAIL" DNS query to 2.4.5.10.example.org -- (the IP in reverse format) -- Response "Denied" Receiver: 50x (some 500 error code) end the mail transaction
What about this? Query the DNS server of the sending domain to determine if the connection comes from an IP address that the admin of the sending domain has approved.
-- Connect from 10.1.2.3 Sender: HELO valid.mailserver.example.com Receiver: 250 Sender: MAIL FROM: -- HINFO "OUTGOING MAIL" DNS query to 3.2.1.10.example.org -- (the IP in reverse format) -- Response "OK" Receiver: 250 sender is valid complete the mail transaction
-- Connect from 10.1.2.3 Sender: HELO valid.mailserver.example.com Receiver: 250 Sender: MAIL FROM: -- HINFO "OUTGOING MAIL" DNS query to 3.2.1.10.example.org -- (the IP in reverse format) -- Response Timed Out or No Such DNS Entry Receiver: 250 DNS unavailable or administrator of this domain has not yet configured this feature complete the mail transaction
-- Connect from 10.5.4.2 Sender: HELO valid.mailserver.example.com Receiver: 250 Sender: MAIL FROM: -- HINFO "OUTGOING MAIL" DNS query to 2.4.5.10.example.org -- (the IP in reverse format) -- Response "Denied" Receiver: 50x (some 500 error code) end the mail transaction
Use DNS to indicate who is trusted to send mail from any particular domain. Let the admins of each domain decide who is trusted to send mail using their return address (see this)
First you prevent them from forging their e-mail headers with the DNS lookup method described above and then you block their domain(s) if you are not interested in receiving their messages.
Now that would be logical. However, with this ruling the supreme court has ruled that you can alter the terms of an existing copyright. This ruling defeats grandfathering.
Even though a copyright holder and the public expect a specific set of rules to apply (the rules in existence when the material was created) the supreme court has ruled that congress may later change them at their discretion.
If congress has the right to increase copyright lengths on existing works whenever they feel like it then does this mean the reverse is also true?
If someday we get a consumer friendly congress (one not purchased at least in part with illicit copyright funds) couldn't they shorten the copyright length to something appropriate since the supreme court has now ruled that congress can do whatever they feel like in this arena?
I realize how unlikely this is. Consumer groups don't have the funds to pay for something like this, in part because consumers are still having to fund the campaign of the anti-consumer copyright holders.
Perhaps you don't buy CDs but some people believe that RIAA illegally used their monopoly power in a price fixing scam. That could have affected you.
If you had read the article you would notice a whole list of other things that may or may not have affected you directly but certainly they affected you indirectly. If you have never had the interest in playing a foreign video game or watching a foreign dvd movie you might not have noticed the price-fixing scam they call either "copy protection" or "regional encoding". (CSS does not prevent copying. All it does is enable a regional encoding scheme that gives movie studios the power to control when their movies are released in certain countries and at what price.)
Ever tried to copy a Macrovision encoded movie? The DMCA makes sales of VCRs that do not respect Macrovision illegal unless they are commercial VCRs. (Anyone know of a good $100 commercial VCR that can copy Macrovision encoding?)
While some people contend that one can only have bad motives for copying those movies there are some that recognize that we should have the fair use rights to do so. Perhaps we want to watch the movie repeatedly without risking damaging the original. Perhaps we want to skip the commercials or the nude scenes. Perhaps we only want to watch the nude scenes. Whatever the reason I do not think the a movie studio should have the power to dictate how I watch a movie that I paid for. DVD gives them this power until DVD players are built that give the power back to the watcher where it belongs, but the DMCA gives the studios the power to prevent that from happening.
For one thing it means that no medical research company is going to waste time researching whether proper diet or some cheaply available herb will cure any given malady. "Oh. We found the cure for cancer. It is strawberry-banana smoothies." They wouldn't make a dime.
What does this mean for the public? On the good side there is a someone out there looking for ways to test for and cure diseases and make things better for sick people. On the bad side it means that they will only look for the hard way to do it because they cannot collect payment for giving you an easy cure.
the copyright holder retaining the copyright doesn't remove the idea from the public
Yes. It does. Not in the cases mentioned because they were immensely popular but in other less popular cases creations will be lost before they clear copyright leaving us that much poorer culturally.
Elvis is dead. It makes no sense to continually pay his heirs for his creations. He and his creations are now a part of history. His heirs din't create these songs. He did. (Aren't Elvis's songs commercialistic in nature with their connection to Graceland?)
Most of us have to work for a living. We work each day for each day's pay. We don't get residuals from previous day's work. Why should an artist continue getting paid for one day's (or even one year's) work for the next 100 years?
Absolutely not. That is simply robbing future generations of their culture and history. Elvis, Buddy Holly, I Love Lucy, Steamboat Willie. These things are beyond supporting their creators and have entered the realm of of US history and culture.
We have no right to charge students generations later for their study of history and culture and no reason to prevent them from using the works in their own creative endeavors.
I'm not denying the severity of the problem caused by Dow Chemical. Assuming the facts quoted here and on the Greenpeace site to be accurate I believe the Dow Chemical Company should be brought up on felony murder charges and put to death (corporate charter revoked and assets sold at auction. Some previous cases have shown that corporations have some of the same rights as individuals, it follows that they also have the same responsibilities.) in addition to certain responsible individuals also being brought up on murder charges.
Given the magnitude of the problem I am certain that US jurisdiction can be claimed for some charges, possibly conspiracy to commit murder (not to mention existing charges that exist in India) and the corporation and certain decision makers should be tried for their crimes.
I am fully in favor to satire and parody but it must be marked as such. Somewhere on the page it should say "This is parody site. Not endorsed by Dow Chemical Company"
Their site says "Copyright The Dow Company". They've basically turned over ownership of their parody to Dow and now they deserve whatever Dow wants to do to them.
I do not, however, approve of how the situation was handled with respect to pulling the entire internet connection.
Re:Another vote against "The Yes Men"
on
Dow vs. Parody
·
· Score: 1
by putting Copyright The Dow Company haven't they turned over their rights to the "parody" to Dow, who I assume would want to exercise those rights by taking it offline?
Slashdot Mirror
I think you are confused about the nature of terrorism.
According to dictionary.com terrorism is
"The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation."
People don't have to blow themselves up or blow up buildings to terrorize. You can make their friends disappear without a trace, you can drive by their house and shoot them, you can blow up their car. These are things that happened and were done by the alcohol vendors of the prohibition era.
I believe I said "practically invented", which I meant as "it gained popularity as a tool for terror during that time", not that the first ever drive-by shootings were committed by prohibition-era gangs.
m refers briefly to the problems of drive-by shootings during the prohibition era as a new problem to that time.
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/205/205lect04.ht
I love it when people read what they want instead of what is written.
It is my understanding that drive-by shootings were practically invented by prohibition era gangs. It is this and these type of activities that I am referring to as terrorism in my assertion.
Organized crime often uses terrorism to achieve its goals. They terrorize the population to keep people from testifying or to encourage them to pay their bills.
They are whatever they decide will make them money today.
NEWS FLASH!
All black market activities fund terrorism in one way or another. That is how the black market works. Alcohol sales funded terrorism in the US during prohibition. Cocaine, stolen art, fake Levi jeans, ivory, all contribute to terrorism.
If we had a black market in Barbie dolls the money would be used to fund terrorism.
x "is used to fund terrorism" isn't really an effective argument for more controls over x. It is a better argument for making x freely available so that there will be no black market for it.
Obviously the MPAA and MS wouldn't go for the idea but they are the ones creating the black market with their licensing requirements. If they really cared about avoiding the funding of terrorism they would let whoever wanted to copy their stuff copy it freely.
Anyhow, why are they spending their energy harassing p2p users when they have the real hardcore criminal gangs to go after? Could it be because the average p2p user don't have bombs?
I have 2 machines with the 2.2 kernel with 634 days of uptime /proc" and subtracting proc's date from today's date)
but even if Netcraft could see them instead of the load balancer
it couldn't tell what their uptimes were because of there is an upper limit of 497 for detecting uptimes for several operating systems.
(I get their uptime by doing "ls -ald
There is no reason to reboot a machine when re-compiling to plug a security hole.
I do need back doors on ocassion but I try to put them inside an if statement so they only work on my dev machine and only on a certain day (so I don't forget to take them out and end up with a security hole).
Re-read the post. The term "network-capable kvm" refers to a remotely accessible piece of hardware that does indeed allow you to use VNC to access the BIOS.
The Kaveman product appears to be a nice network-capable kvm. Last I checked they were in the $2500 to $3500 range. You can conveniently sit at home and watch your machine reboot and alter BIOS settings just as if you were sitting in front of it.
ACS (Arsdigita Community System) did this before Amazon.com filed their patent.
ACS has become OpenACS and Redhat CCM
Actually as the one coming up with the great idea or simply as the one that is the backbone of the company I certainly believe it is only fair that I be compensated.
The most important people at Ford are the engineers. They make the product. The most important part of Intel is the chip designer. The most important part of the music business is the musician. etc etc.
But the problem here is that the people that are the expert negotiators for the company (those that set up the deals and market the product) are also the most adept at getting themselves a good deal and marketing themselves.
If engineers were as good at marketing themselves we would see superstar engineers with bidding wars going on all the time.
I understand how SecurID works. My point is that if you have remote control of a machine that is logged in and not disconnected then it doesn't matter how secure SecurID is. It is much the same principle as logging into a machine with your SecurID and then going for coffee.
I am not claiming at all that the article is actually accurate as it offers no proof and no reliable sources. But, it is theoretically possible to take over a machine where the SecurID has already been entered and cause havoc.
- they were able to trick the AOL rep into installing some type of remote control software
- and AOL allows the rep's computers to make random outgoing connection
then they might be able to remotely control a machine that already had all the necessary passwords entered.You are correct. But the real return address should be exposed somewhere in the message and in many cases it is exposed now.
The mail server (MTA) should be setting a header "Sender" to the smtp from address (I'm not sure how many mail servers do this properly.)
and the mail reader (MUA) should expose this header in an understandable way. Outlook uses the phrase "sent by xx on behalf of yy"
So getting a message from "bob@myspam.com on behalf of free_sex@yahoo.com" could be a valid message but it exposes that the message is actually from bob@myspam.com and bounce messages will go back to there. If myspam.com is being abusive you can block their domain altogether also.
I think you could accomplish your signed message goals with pgp or gpg. Unless your key is stolen (or someone figures out how to break pgp/gpg) you can be sure that the message came from the sender that signed it.
If you can convince all those sending you mail to use a pgp/gpg signature then you can reject all non-signed messages and accomplish what you are looking for.
(forgot to escape some characters)
What about this? Query the DNS server of the sending domain to determine if the connection comes from an IP address that the admin of the sending domain has approved.
-- Connect from 10.1.2.3
Sender: HELO valid.mailserver.example.com
Receiver: 250
Sender: MAIL FROM:<someone@example.org>
-- HINFO "OUTGOING MAIL" DNS query to 3.2.1.10.example.org
-- (the IP in reverse format)
-- Response "OK"
Receiver: 250
sender is valid
complete the mail transaction
-- Connect from 10.1.2.3
Sender: HELO valid.mailserver.example.com
Receiver: 250
Sender: MAIL FROM:<someone@example.org>
-- HINFO "OUTGOING MAIL" DNS query to 3.2.1.10.example.org
-- (the IP in reverse format)
-- Response Timed Out or No Such DNS Entry
Receiver: 250
DNS unavailable or administrator of this domain has not yet configured this feature
complete the mail transaction
-- Connect from 10.5.4.2
Sender: HELO valid.mailserver.example.com
Receiver: 250
Sender: MAIL FROM:<someone@example.org>
-- HINFO "OUTGOING MAIL" DNS query to 2.4.5.10.example.org
-- (the IP in reverse format)
-- Response "Denied"
Receiver: 50x (some 500 error code)
end the mail transaction
See this also.
What about this? Query the DNS server of the sending domain to determine if the connection comes from an IP address that the admin of the sending domain has approved.
-- Connect from 10.1.2.3
Sender: HELO valid.mailserver.example.com
Receiver: 250
Sender: MAIL FROM:
-- HINFO "OUTGOING MAIL" DNS query to 3.2.1.10.example.org
-- (the IP in reverse format)
-- Response "OK"
Receiver: 250
sender is valid
complete the mail transaction
-- Connect from 10.1.2.3
Sender: HELO valid.mailserver.example.com
Receiver: 250
Sender: MAIL FROM:
-- HINFO "OUTGOING MAIL" DNS query to 3.2.1.10.example.org
-- (the IP in reverse format)
-- Response Timed Out or No Such DNS Entry
Receiver: 250
DNS unavailable or administrator of this domain has not yet configured this feature
complete the mail transaction
-- Connect from 10.5.4.2
Sender: HELO valid.mailserver.example.com
Receiver: 250
Sender: MAIL FROM:
-- HINFO "OUTGOING MAIL" DNS query to 2.4.5.10.example.org
-- (the IP in reverse format)
-- Response "Denied"
Receiver: 50x (some 500 error code)
end the mail transaction
See this also.
Use DNS to indicate who is trusted to send mail from any particular domain. Let the admins of each domain decide who is trusted to send mail using their return address (see this)
First you prevent them from forging their e-mail headers with the DNS lookup method described above and then you block their domain(s) if you are not interested in receiving their messages.
Now that would be logical. However, with this ruling the supreme court has ruled that you can alter the terms of an existing copyright. This ruling defeats grandfathering.
Even though a copyright holder and the public expect a specific set of rules to apply (the rules in existence when the material was created) the supreme court has ruled that congress may later change them at their discretion.
If congress has the right to increase copyright lengths on existing works whenever they feel like it then does this mean the reverse is also true?
If someday we get a consumer friendly congress (one not purchased at least in part with illicit copyright funds) couldn't they shorten the copyright length to something appropriate since the supreme court has now ruled that congress can do whatever they feel like in this arena?
I realize how unlikely this is. Consumer groups don't have the funds to pay for something like this, in part because consumers are still having to fund the campaign of the anti-consumer copyright holders.
Perhaps you don't buy CDs but some people believe that RIAA illegally used their monopoly power in a price fixing scam. That could have affected you.
If you had read the article you would notice a whole list of other things that may or may not have affected you directly but certainly they affected you indirectly. If you have never had the interest in playing a foreign video game or watching a foreign dvd movie you might not have noticed the price-fixing scam they call either "copy protection" or "regional encoding". (CSS does not prevent copying. All it does is enable a regional encoding scheme that gives movie studios the power to control when their movies are released in certain countries and at what price.)
Ever tried to copy a Macrovision encoded movie? The DMCA makes sales of VCRs that do not respect Macrovision illegal unless they are commercial VCRs. (Anyone know of a good $100 commercial VCR that can copy Macrovision encoding?)
While some people contend that one can only have bad motives for copying those movies there are some that recognize that we should have the fair use rights to do so. Perhaps we want to watch the movie repeatedly without risking damaging the original. Perhaps we want to skip the commercials or the nude scenes. Perhaps we only want to watch the nude scenes. Whatever the reason I do not think the a movie studio should have the power to dictate how I watch a movie that I paid for. DVD gives them this power until DVD players are built that give the power back to the watcher where it belongs, but the DMCA gives the studios the power to prevent that from happening.
What does this mean really?
For one thing it means that no medical research company is going to waste time researching whether proper diet or some cheaply available herb will cure any given malady. "Oh. We found the cure for cancer. It is strawberry-banana smoothies." They wouldn't make a dime.
What does this mean for the public?
On the good side there is a someone out there looking for ways to test for and cure diseases and make things better for sick people.
On the bad side it means that they will only look for the hard way to do it because they cannot collect payment for giving you an easy cure.
the copyright holder retaining the copyright doesn't remove the idea from the public
Yes. It does. Not in the cases mentioned because they were immensely popular but in other less popular cases creations will be lost before they clear copyright leaving us that much poorer culturally.
Elvis is dead. It makes no sense to continually pay his heirs for his creations. He and his creations are now a part of history. His heirs din't create these songs. He did. (Aren't Elvis's songs commercialistic in nature with their connection to Graceland?)
Most of us have to work for a living. We work each day for each day's pay. We don't get residuals from previous day's work. Why should an artist continue getting paid for one day's (or even one year's) work for the next 100 years?
woulnd't you do the same?
Absolutely not. That is simply robbing future generations of their culture and history. Elvis, Buddy Holly, I Love Lucy, Steamboat Willie. These things are beyond supporting their creators and have entered the realm of of US history and culture.
We have no right to charge students generations later for their study of history and culture and no reason to prevent them from using the works in their own creative endeavors.
I'm not denying the severity of the problem caused by Dow Chemical. Assuming the facts quoted here and on the Greenpeace site to be accurate I believe the Dow Chemical Company should be brought up on felony murder charges and put to death (corporate charter revoked and assets sold at auction. Some previous cases have shown that corporations have some of the same rights as individuals, it follows that they also have the same responsibilities.) in addition to certain responsible individuals also being brought up on murder charges.
Given the magnitude of the problem I am certain that US jurisdiction can be claimed for some charges, possibly conspiracy to commit murder (not to mention existing charges that exist in India) and the corporation and certain decision makers should be tried for their crimes.
(IANAL. I just watch Law and Order on ocassion.)
I am fully in favor to satire and parody but it must be marked as such. Somewhere on the page it should say "This is parody site. Not endorsed by Dow Chemical Company"
Their site says "Copyright The Dow Company". They've basically turned over ownership of their parody to Dow and now they deserve whatever Dow wants to do to them.
I do not, however, approve of how the situation was handled with respect to pulling the entire internet connection.
by putting Copyright The Dow Company haven't they turned over their rights to the "parody" to Dow, who I assume would want to exercise those rights by taking it offline?