Configure a serial console to a nearby machine. I use either partner machines (a pair of machines that control each other's serial consoles) or I set up a serial console machine with a large number of serial ports that I use to control their consoles.
This way you can do all manner of wild dangerous stuff remotely and greatly reduce your chances of having to run down to the colo. As long as the system boots without crashing and can access the serial port you're in.
And also make sure you have the number to the colo operator but you know about that already.
$32K/year is a good starting out salary but it you're getting $32K/month you might consider a nice place in the country as well as the city and a couple of nice cars.
There is no one solution to spam. Both of my suggestions above improve the current mail system and make it more usable for people.
The voluntary rules system removes the spammer argument that making spam illegal violates their free speech and that the ISP should not be blocking their attempts to communicate with the end users based on the content of the e-mail. And they are right. Why should an ISP be burdened with determining what messages their end users should or should not get?
If an end user wishes to receive these messages they should be able to express their consent to do so.
Some spammers may continue to abuse the system but they will no longer have any excuses to do so and lawsuits against them will be that much stronger.
I agree with that theory which is why I refuse to buy things based on spam I have received. and I agree that censoring is likely to cause too much collateral damage.
I believe we need to fix things so that A: people who want spam can receive it without bugging the rest of us and B: we need to eliminate fake headers.
The first item could be accomplished by adding a bulk mail preferences line to SMTP i.e.
220 Some Mail Server HELO: massmailer.example.com 250 Some success code MAIL FROM: <viagra@massmailer.example.com> 250 OK RCPT TO: <end_user@example.net> 250 OK its for <end_user@example.net> BULK MAIL: (one of <unsolicited>, <personal>,etc)
250 OK
or
5XX This user does not accept <unsolicited> messages
the second one can be accomplished via SPF or a similar scheme.
Yes but you die cheaper, quicker, and later when you eat right and exercise regularly. According to this article vegetarians (as an example of healthy eaters) live 4 years longer than non-vegetarians.
By quicker I mean that you are less likely to be sick for a long period of time. Personally I would prefer to die fairly quickly than to hang around with a barely functioning body for a long period of time.
Yes. It is called "healthy lifestyle". Eating right prevents many health problems and can cure others. But people don't want that. They want to eat junk and then fix the problems later with a magic potion.
Additionally no drug company who spent millions on research is going to want to come out and say "you could pay us thousands for our patented drug but eating oranges would work just as well."
I agree with you. We need more research done with an eye toward bettering mankind over forcing mankind to fork over the bucks.
Basically we have 2 sets of clocks that don't agree here. The atomic clock says one thing and the cosmos says another. Who decides what is the correct time? Heck, they can't even keep those damn atomic clocks synchronized when they fly them around the globe. How accurate can they be?
Your copies of Windows are already tax-deductable as a business expense.
Everyone here seems to be missing the point. It seems pretty silly to me to start charging for free software. Part of the idea of free software is that you pay once for the software to be written (or somebody writes it voluntarily) and then you can use and re-use it without having to pay for it again.
If you object to people using your free software without paying for it then you shouldn't be in the free software business.
I agree that it is an excellent idea to send money, pizza, beer, a "New Kids" sweatshirt, or a new computer to your favorite developer but it should not be mandatory unless you aren't interested in that whole free software thing. Perhaps we should replace the GPL with the PMIBPL (Pay Me In Beer Public License).
Money is great. I require all my customers to pay me in money. What sucks is having to re-invent the wheel each time a program needs to be written.
Software is easily duplicatable and it is horribly wasteful for each company that needs a program to pay separately for it that does the exact same things as a bunch of other programs.
You are making some pretty big assumptions with "whilst in school or living with mom and dad". Some of us work for a living and run our own profitable businesses.
I do agree with you that we must respect the author's right to not share if they decide not to, even if we don't particularly like it.
RIAA is a different story. RIAA is not innocent artists trying to make an honest buck from their recordings. RIAA is a group of businessmen perverting the legal system to squeeze every penny out of the consumers then using the squeezed money to fund political campaigns to make sure they remain favored in the law.
also Merriam-Webster defines theft as "the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it". Based on that definition copying software, music, or movies cannot be theft because no rightful owners are deprived of anything.
There would be monopoly issues with anyone implementing sitefinder. The implementation of sitefinder depends upon being able to abuse the.com database.
If company A is the registrar and company B is running sitefinder, company A would still have to be responsible for screwing everyone by putting the pieces in that company B needs to run sitefinder.
As best I can tell the way to accomplish this is have them flying in opposite directions but then to reach each other at the exact moment they go supersonic.
Of course there might be a boom when they collide but it won't be a sonic boom.
Honestly, sheesh, there is nothing wrong with threats of legal actions. It isn't like he is saying "pay me lots of money or I will sue you" (something SCO does say). He is simply saying that there are a lot of people with a stake in Open Source/Free Software and a lot of them/us will sue or pursue any and all legal means necessary to put a stop to SCO's ridiculous extortions.
As pointed out by another poster, a "high horse" is a fictional beast meaning "an arrogant and unyielding mood or attitude" (Merriam Webster Online). Shooting Mr McBride's "high horse" will do nothing more than get rid of his arrogant attitude, most likely by showing the total lack of merit of his case.
SCO claims they can sell a license for a product they don't own and they're using these claims to take money from innocent people. That is extortion, racketeering, and intellectual property theft. Eric didn't write the law and he won't be the own enforcing it. But SCO is subject to the law same as anyone and if they continue running their little racket it is only logical to think that they will be prosecuted and possibly serve prison time.
It is no more a threat than if I tell a bank robber they're likely to do time.
Please. If you feel it necessary to post such an allegation, include a link to the page in question. It is unfair to assume we all know what you are talking about.
I second that. Why in hell is Palm responsible for how their customers use the computers that Palm makes for them?
Once you remove the size limitation the patent affects all computers and can be applied against MS Money, Quicken, online banking, Notepad (when used to store credit card numbers), and just about anything else.
According to the article the decision states the patent may cover all handhelds but what makes a computer a handheld? I run many of the same programs on my Zaurus as I do on my desktop. Do I have to deal with people telling me which programs I can run on which computer now because they have a patent on running whatever program on whatever sized computer?
There should be plenty of other good reasons to throw out this case. I hope they don't waste much time tossing it out.
I don't get the impression these people are that sensitive to the color of a person's skin. I think they would be just as happy to exploit minors (and miners) of any skin color.
Bash interprets a "*" on the command line and substitutes in the names of all the files in the current directory so the actual command executed is "rm file1 file2 file3 etc".
For other silly tricks try "echo *" for a list of files in a directory and "./*" if the first file in the directory is executable and you want all the rest of the files in the directory as command line options.
In the case of your college campus you could try the yes command "yes | rm *"
I agree that the fact that I can download the kernel is not the important fact. The fact that someone, somewhere can is important. Even if the site was password protected for SCO customers only, the fact that they are continuing to distribute the kernel under the GPL license while claiming other rights to it is the violation.
Section 2b of the GPL states "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."
SCO is creating new modifications to the kernel and distributing the resulting binary to their clients. (The kernel src rpm contains SCO patches), therefore it is ludicrous for them to claim that the result is not protected by the GPL.
After they discovered the alleged violations they not only continue distributing the product under the GPL but they continue modifying the product. Each new SCO modification to the GPL kernel with distribution as binary or source affirms the GPL status of the kernel and since they are fully aware that the kernel contains the alleged violations they are willfully distributing the code under the GPL.
They can't have their cake and eat it too. They either must stop distributing the kernel containing both GPL code and code they allege is not GPL or they can, as they have done, release and distribute their code under the GPL.
No. The GPL does not permit them to do this. They cannot steal the intellectual property of the kernel authors and distribute it to their own customers while claiming everyone else should pay them a fee.
For their claim to be remotely valid they would have to stop distributing the kernel entirely or distribute separately the SCO code and the GPL code as separate projects. As the code sits now the alleged SCO code is a part of a GPL product and their continued distribution is in violation of the GPL.
If they succeed in showing that they own some part of the kernel code they would still need the approval of each and every kernel author before they could distribute the code under their SCO licensing model.
Since the Unix licenses they are selling are just protection money and there is no possible legal way they can license something they do not own fully (and probably not even partially) they may be subject to prison time for extortion and racketeering.
Slashdot Mirror
Configure a serial console to a nearby machine.
I use either partner machines (a pair of machines that control each other's serial consoles) or I set up a serial console machine with a large number of serial ports that I use to control their consoles.
This way you can do all manner of wild dangerous stuff remotely and greatly reduce your chances of having to run down to the colo. As long as the system boots without crashing and can access the serial port you're in.
And also make sure you have the number to the colo operator but you know about that already.
In that case I recommend some self-image counseling. The federal guidelines say you are worth at least $5.15/hour.
Figure out how much you know you are worth. (Be reasonable)
Divide it by 2.
Don't accept less than that.
$32K/year is a good starting out salary but it you're getting $32K/month you might consider a nice place in the country as well as the city and a couple of nice cars.
There is no one solution to spam. Both of my suggestions above improve the current mail system and make it more usable for people.
The voluntary rules system removes the spammer argument that making spam illegal violates their free speech and that the ISP should not be blocking their attempts to communicate with the end users based on the content of the e-mail. And they are right. Why should an ISP be burdened with determining what messages their end users should or should not get?
If an end user wishes to receive these messages they should be able to express their consent to do so.
Some spammers may continue to abuse the system but they will no longer have any excuses to do so and lawsuits against them will be that much stronger.
I believe we need to fix things so that
A: people who want spam can receive it without bugging the rest of us and
B: we need to eliminate fake headers.
The first item could be accomplished by adding a bulk mail preferences line to SMTP i.e.
the second one can be accomplished via SPF or a similar scheme.
Yes but you die cheaper, quicker, and later when you eat right and exercise regularly. According to this article vegetarians (as an example of healthy eaters) live 4 years longer than non-vegetarians.
By quicker I mean that you are less likely to be sick for a long period of time. Personally I would prefer to die fairly quickly than to hang around with a barely functioning body for a long period of time.
Yes. It is called "healthy lifestyle". Eating right prevents many health problems and can cure others. But people don't want that. They want to eat junk and then fix the problems later with a magic potion.
Additionally no drug company who spent millions on research is going to want to come out and say "you could pay us thousands for our patented drug but eating oranges would work just as well."
I agree with you. We need more research done with an eye toward bettering mankind over forcing mankind to fork over the bucks.
Relative to what?
Basically we have 2 sets of clocks that don't agree here. The atomic clock says one thing and the cosmos says another. Who decides what is the correct time? Heck, they can't even keep those damn atomic clocks synchronized when they fly them around the globe. How accurate can they be?
Your copies of Windows are already tax-deductable as a business expense.
Everyone here seems to be missing the point. It seems pretty silly to me to start charging for free software. Part of the idea of free software is that you pay once for the software to be written (or somebody writes it voluntarily) and then you can use and re-use it without having to pay for it again.
If you object to people using your free software without paying for it then you shouldn't be in the free software business.
I agree that it is an excellent idea to send money, pizza, beer, a "New Kids" sweatshirt, or a new computer to your favorite developer but it should not be mandatory unless you aren't interested in that whole free software thing. Perhaps we should replace the GPL with the PMIBPL (Pay Me In Beer Public License).
Money is great. I require all my customers to pay me in money. What sucks is having to re-invent the wheel each time a program needs to be written.
Software is easily duplicatable and it is horribly wasteful for each company that needs a program to pay separately for it that does the exact same things as a bunch of other programs.
You are making some pretty big assumptions with "whilst in school or living with mom and dad". Some of us work for a living and run our own profitable businesses.
I do agree with you that we must respect the author's right to not share if they decide not to, even if we don't particularly like it.
RIAA is a different story. RIAA is not innocent artists trying to make an honest buck from their recordings. RIAA is a group of businessmen perverting the legal system to squeeze every penny out of the consumers then using the squeezed money to fund political campaigns to make sure they remain favored in the law.
also Merriam-Webster defines theft as "the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it". Based on that definition copying software, music, or movies cannot be theft because no rightful owners are deprived of anything.
There would be monopoly issues with anyone implementing sitefinder. The implementation of sitefinder depends upon being able to abuse the .com database.
If company A is the registrar and company B is running sitefinder, company A would still have to be responsible for screwing everyone by putting the pieces in that company B needs to run sitefinder.
As best I can tell the way to accomplish this is have them flying in opposite directions but then to reach each other at the exact moment they go supersonic.
Of course there might be a boom when they collide but it won't be a sonic boom.
Honestly, sheesh, there is nothing wrong with threats of legal actions. It isn't like he is saying "pay me lots of money or I will sue you" (something SCO does say). He is simply saying that there are a lot of people with a stake in Open Source/Free Software and a lot of them/us will sue or pursue any and all legal means necessary to put a stop to SCO's ridiculous extortions.
As pointed out by another poster, a "high horse" is a fictional beast meaning "an arrogant and unyielding mood or attitude" (Merriam Webster Online). Shooting Mr McBride's "high horse" will do nothing more than get rid of his arrogant attitude, most likely by showing the total lack of merit of his case.
That's just simple logic.
SCO claims they can sell a license for a product they don't own and they're using these claims to take money from innocent people. That is extortion, racketeering, and intellectual property theft. Eric didn't write the law and he won't be the own enforcing it. But SCO is subject to the law same as anyone and if they continue running their little racket it is only logical to think that they will be prosecuted and possibly serve prison time.
It is no more a threat than if I tell a bank robber they're likely to do time.
I found nothing in there threatening anything other than the use of all legal and lawful means necessary.
The ones they should be taking away are the SCO executives who are clearly attempting to extort money from innocent Linux users and authors.
(and who modded up the parent troll?)
Please. If you feel it necessary to post such an allegation, include a link to the page in question. It is unfair to assume we all know what you are talking about.
I second that. Why in hell is Palm responsible for how their customers use the computers that Palm makes for them?
Once you remove the size limitation the patent affects all computers and can be applied against MS Money, Quicken, online banking, Notepad (when used to store credit card numbers), and just about anything else.
According to the article the decision states the patent may cover all handhelds but what makes a computer a handheld? I run many of the same programs on my Zaurus as I do on my desktop. Do I have to deal with people telling me which programs I can run on which computer now because they have a patent on running whatever program on whatever sized computer?
There should be plenty of other good reasons to throw out this case. I hope they don't waste much time tossing it out.
That doesn't sound so bad. I might even get to have a whole weekend off of work.
"exploitation of black African minors"
I don't get the impression these people are that sensitive to the color of a person's skin. I think they would be just as happy to exploit minors (and miners) of any skin color.
Rumour has it Bill clips coupons. I guarantee he'd notice a missing 521 million dollars.
I still hate software patents, even if they're used against MS.
There is not actually a command "rm *".
Bash interprets a "*" on the command line and substitutes in the names of all the files in the current directory so the actual command executed is "rm file1 file2 file3 etc".
For other silly tricks try "echo *" for a list of files in a directory and "./*" if the first file in the directory is executable and you want all the rest of the files in the directory as command line options.
In the case of your college campus you could try the yes command "yes | rm *"
I agree that the fact that I can download the kernel is not the important fact. The fact that someone, somewhere can is important. Even if the site was password protected for SCO customers only, the fact that they are continuing to distribute the kernel under the GPL license while claiming other rights to it is the violation.
Section 2b of the GPL states "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."
SCO is creating new modifications to the kernel and distributing the resulting binary to their clients. (The kernel src rpm contains SCO patches), therefore it is ludicrous for them to claim that the result is not protected by the GPL.
After they discovered the alleged violations they not only continue distributing the product under the GPL but they continue modifying the product. Each new SCO modification to the GPL kernel with distribution as binary or source affirms the GPL status of the kernel and since they are fully aware that the kernel contains the alleged violations they are willfully distributing the code under the GPL.
They can't have their cake and eat it too. They either must stop distributing the kernel containing both GPL code and code they allege is not GPL or they can, as they have done, release and distribute their code under the GPL.
No. The GPL does not permit them to do this. They cannot steal the intellectual property of the kernel authors and distribute it to their own customers while claiming everyone else should pay them a fee.
For their claim to be remotely valid they would have to stop distributing the kernel entirely or distribute separately the SCO code and the GPL code as separate projects. As the code sits now the alleged SCO code is a part of a GPL product and their continued distribution is in violation of the GPL.
If they succeed in showing that they own some part of the kernel code they would still need the approval of each and every kernel author before they could distribute the code under their SCO licensing model.
Since the Unix licenses they are selling are just protection money and there is no possible legal way they can license something they do not own fully (and probably not even partially) they may be subject to prison time for extortion and racketeering.
It is silly. I included the instructions in my post and also submitted it as a story. But I guess we're not as cool as the K5 folks.