This guy has so many axes to grind that I think he forgot he was reviewing a movie halfway through.
And for those of you who aren't pretentious, my review is: good movie. The only baggage it has is that which you bring with you. One big "suspension of disbelief" hole and one big plot hole, but very enjoyable to watch.
I've wanted to drop 50 pounds for months, and if they'd take me, I could get rid of them all!
Unfortunately, all you'd lose is muscle; your fat stores wouldn't be affected as long as you're adequately fed. So, you'd walk - or crawl - out of there with all the bad weight you currently have, and none of the muscle that is necessary to burn it off.
That's one reason this experiment seems bogus. Without any body activity, how can you compare the experiment to space-based weightlessness? They'd be better off sticking these people in a swimming pool with perfectly balanced weights for 3 months.
Re:English, please
on
ICANN Updates
·
· Score: 3, Informative
RIR - Regional Internet Registry - org that maps IP blocks to their owners.
ARIN - American Registry for Internet Numbers, an RIR.
APNIC - Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre, an RIR.
RIPE - Reseaux IP Europeens, an RIR.
All except the first can be found at www.----.net. An IP is attacking you, and you want to find out who it is registered to? Look it up at the various RIRs.
Unfortunately, the link provided now just points to some pictures of someone's kid.
There. That big fuzzy thing made of trees. That's a forest.
The pictures of someone's kid IS the easter egg. If a random employee can snarf web space off the corporate web server to post his baby pics, don't you think there's a wee little problem with their security/version control? It doesn't look like approved corporate content to me...
Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
Consider the alternative... a few years ago they were making a film in Boston, and they blew something large up for the special effects. Several hundred windows and countless 911 calls later, the city decided maybe it should be a little more strict about how it allows filming to happen...
Still, the transportation industry is heavily dependent on petroleum, and if we switched from petroleum to hydrogen-based or electric, we would need to bump the power generation correspondingly - which still means nukes, because all of the others above are limited.
Ok, one is always smarter afterwards, but also in this case it might have been somewhat ironic that the US were outfitting the Iraqis to fight the Mullahs in Iran while almost in parallel arming muslim extremists in neighbouring Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union.
In both cases, the goal was achieved:
Afghanistan - USSR unable to push a land corridor down to a warm-water port on the Indian Ocean
Iraq - Iran checked from extending to the western side of the Persian Gulf.
Was it worth the cost? So far, yes, but personally I think the US would be a lot better off sinking 20 years of money into nuclear plants and electric infrastructure and letting the middle east go to hell on their own. Fighting for oil is necessary today (what do you think powers Slashdot and your PC?) but that's a dead-end game eventually, and the winners will be the ones willing to make the jump (while the losers will be oil-based welfare states with population explosion and repressive social and political structures. Again, let's get out before they explode).
Well, Iraq got along without any revolutions. First they were the good guys and got a lot of nice toys (first gulf war), then - omygod - they suddendly were very bad boys and invaded Kuwait.
The enemy of my enemy is only my friend as long as he doesn't turn around and beat up my other friends.
If the US only allied ourselves with good guys, it would be us and Canada. And, quite frankly, that's only assuming Canada would have us.
I just find it funny.. the US must have sold them the planes in the first place.. and now that Iran falls into an area under the Axis Of Evil moniker, its suddenly a serious problem that they try and obtain parts? Perhaps you should have thought of that...
I hate to have to bring up actual history, but you do realize there was some revolution thingy between us selling the planes to the Iran and them currently seeking parts for them?
No shit - look it up. Or maybe the 1979 Iranian Embassy Hostage Crisis rings a bell? You know, 1.5 years of American hostages, rescue mission gone horribly awry?
So you're saying the fact that IBM allied itself with this little known company called microsoft didn't have any effect?
Arguably, that wasn't an alliance, that was a purchasing decision. If, however, you want to call it an alliance, I'll call it the exception that proves the rule.
The X Consortium is probably a better example of an exception, but note that it never led to the sort of innovation that X on Linux did - I mean, c'mon, CDE? Is there anything that screams "This is not your a desktop system" more than CDE?
In reality, I see this as something IBM might jump on to, and if they do this could be one of the best things to happen to linux since apache.
I'm sure IBM will endorse it. And RedHat. And if IBM starts shipping UnitedLinux, then RedHat will become LSB and Li18nux compliant and become UnitedLinux, at which point we're back to step 1.
This just seems to me like a whole lot of marketing around compliance to existing standards, and like any multi-company marketing event, it will sooner or later collapse for lack of substantiality.
If you actually took the time to check the website before asking the question, that is actually explained there
Took the time. Couldn't wade past the marketing.
Given what you've quoted above, I predict that this effort will end up a minor footnote in the history of Linux that lasts for maybe a year and then disintegrates.
Do they all start selling the same CDs, or is this just a lot of hoopla around them standardizing on LSB and (presumably) packages from which their distributions are built?
Forgive me if I'm leary, but alliances in the computer business never turn out to be more than spit in the wind...
Sounds great, but a research lab doesn't help us today. Does anyone know what the current maximum size for a commercially available optical drive is? I know some people who would love to be able to archive 30gig data segments onto a single medium, but I don't know of any that go that large (and no tape, it has to be front-line storage).
In this day and age we need to be thinking about things like making sure there is enough money going into welfare, war on drugs, war on terrorism, enforcement of gun laws, etc and not on crazy stuff like going to mars.
In this day and age we need to concentrate on working hard toward the day we can distribute the human population among multiple planets and eventually solar systems, so that when all the problems you mention boil over and result in global thermonuclear war or global biological war, our genetics will survive somewhere.
So, I say, let's go to Mars and leave the welfare/drugs/gun law crap to sort itself out. Once you've got a decent mirror, why worry so much about the individual disks?
I personally think IANAL tags are stupid anyway, because if you aren't paying someone then you shouldn't be trusting their legal advice under any circumstances (and even then...), but posting anything vaguely legalize on/. without IANAL tends to rouse the hounds, and the bees, and the hounds that when they bark bees shoot out,...
Civillians shouldn't be given so much power over the conduct of a search. The police like to give them that power, because they aren't held to the same standards.
Not true - when a civilian is conducting a search in response to a search warrant, they are held to the same standards as law enforcement because they are a law enforcement proxy. An ISP's legal right to monitor traffic is actually reduced when law enforcement presents a formal request, because they have to start monitoring by the (stricter) rules that the government lives under.
This is just stupid. If the ISP wants to cooperate with law enforcement, they could do so even without a search warrant. Once the search warrant has been drawn up, if the ISP wants to cooperate in the manner most convenient for them, and the law enforcement folks agree, there's no problem.
It's even better than that - if the ISP wants to gather evidence of wrongdoing related to their computer resources (say, someone hacking from their dialups) they have much greater leeway in their search, for they aren't bound by the fourth amendment. Once law enforcement becomes involved, it actually places limits upon what the ISP could do on its own.
Now, once law enforcement requests the cooperation of the ISP, then the ISP IS bound by the fourth amendment, because they are an agent of the government. So, as I understand this case, the defense should be attacking whether the data was gatherable under 4th amendment and under the particular warrant used, not whether there was a policeman there or not. Evidence gathered by an ISP in response to a warrant is held to fourth amendment rules, no matter who executes the search.
Consider this: You walk in on a convenience store shooting. Should you not be able to go up on the witness stand and testify because you aren't a law enforcement officer? As long as the defense can't prove the search was conducted in excess of fourth amendment rights, it should make no difference whether it was carried out by someone with a badge or not (assuming search was in accordance with warrant parameters, chain of custody was kept, etc. etc.)
This doesn't really have to do with due process, it has to do with chain of evidence.
Oversimplification - Due process means that you get your trial, and that the trial follows certain rules. One of those rules is that evidence presented against you has to meet certain standards, such as chain of custody.
Chain of custody says that the evidence, once gathered, is kept track of in a way that ensures it is genuine. The original case here was trying to cast aspersions on the chain for certain evidence since it hadn't been initially gathered by law enforcement.
This new ruling should be thrown out, though, because it's certainly going way beyond the standard for chain of custody. Anybody can be part of the chain of custody as long as they follow appropriate procedures - keep good notes, don't allow the evidence to pass out of your control, make sure that law enforcement signs for it, be able to truthfully testify that no one could have tampered with it while you had custody of it. Frankly, I'm suprised any defense attorney would WANT this - they'd rather that Joe Schmoe from the ISP, who only gathers evidence once a blue moon, gets called on the stand so they can twist his words, rather than a professional law enforcement officer who generally knows the rules of the game a lot better.
IANAL, but I'm working on my SANS GCFA certification and there's a lot of coverage of chain of custody in there that I'm pulling from.
Unfairly? Says who? I didn't know that business was about being "fair". Silly me. I thought it was about maknig a profit.
Sigh... I know American History is passe, but don't people understand "monopoly" anymore?
The idea of a monopoly is that when a company gains too much power, then those same practices which are perfectly legal for smaller companies become illegal because they are anti-competitive.
The U.S. is a free market system with certain controls. One of those controls is the anti-monopoly legislation. A free market, which you espouse above, involves everyone doing everything they can to make a buck and to stimulate the economy.
However, controls were put into place because someone noticed - suprise - that when a company grows to have too much power, then all the benefits of free trade go out the window. Once a company can use those same "unfair" tactics to thoroughly suppress any competition, then you no longer have any of the benefits - lower prices, greater quality, higher employment, and greater innovation - of a competitive free trade system. The next thing you know, you're a third-world country with huge debt and instable politics.
The difference between a business and a monopoly is the difference between competitive dirty tricks and anti-competitive dirty tricks. The former are legal; the latter are not. While both are about a company making money, the anti-monopoly legislation is about making sure that the system continues to allow other companies to make money as well.
I realize it's a tricky distinction, but it is a valid one.
I'm having a hard time imagining why the judge would have agreed to disallow this memo from being presented.
I have notices that Judge Kollar-Kotelly appears to be clearly giving Microsoft the benefit of the doubt on most evidentiary matters. Two possible reasons come to mind:
The hearings are a sham, and MS will be rubberstamped with a "Get out of jail free" card.
After seeing how Judge Jackson was discredited after the previous trial for being clearly opinionated, Kollar-Kotelly is being extremely careful that her objectivity cannot be questioned by Microsoft after the trial.
I'm actually leaning toward the latter. Nobody wants to pull an Ito, and (I'd like to believe) judges are a lot harder to buy or exert pressure on than politicians - there are plenty of examples of Judges quite happily making horrendously unpopular and, if one could be objective, perhaps unjust judgements without any real censure.
I'd imagine the internal letters between linux developers on crippling microsoft are 100x worse.
Of course, but the reason that monopoly law exists is that there's a huge difference between a bunch of - excuse me - small powerless people and a large corporation with domineering market segment. The large corporation might actually be in a position where they CAN cripple their opposition unfairly.
Note that Microsoft's defense is essentially, "Well, yeah, but that was just wishful thinking, no one actually DID anything about it." It only matters when it is done by someone large enough to have an unfair advantage.
Since when is the ammount of hacking attacks / attempts directly equivalent to the number of Windows boxen?
Well, we could argue about that, but we don't have to because you are misreading the lead topic.
The Microsoft comment in the lead topic is relevant to Microsoft's claims that pirated versions of Windows are a security risk because you can't trust the pirates not to backdoor it. Since China has an extremely active software pirating industry, if Microsoft's claim was true then China would be a higher source of hack attempts.
The weren't saying Windows leads to hacking attempts. They were saying that data fails to support Microsofts assertion that piracy is a security problem, not just a Microsoft sales problem.
Frankly, I suspect we'd do more for the developing world by adopting this sort of thing for ourselves
A quick Google search turns up The LED Light, and they have a collection of "bulbs" that fit into 120 Volt AC sockets (That would be them things in yer house, at least in the US)
Very expensive though - "36 LED bulb...comparable to a 30 watt incandescent bulb" costs $190.
Another site I've run into in the past is LEDTronics which looks more in line with the geek need for way too much information, and component-level purchasing. I can just see the mod case now...
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm... You make a good point. I had thought of the Cer-pbtf as more limited than an Benpyr, but I will certainly buy your version.
This guy has so many axes to grind that I think he forgot he was reviewing a movie halfway through.
And for those of you who aren't pretentious, my review is: good movie. The only baggage it has is that which you bring with you. One big "suspension of disbelief" hole and one big plot hole, but very enjoyable to watch.
Holes listed here, but since they're spoilers:
I've wanted to drop 50 pounds for months, and if they'd take me, I could get rid of them all!
Unfortunately, all you'd lose is muscle; your fat stores wouldn't be affected as long as you're adequately fed. So, you'd walk - or crawl - out of there with all the bad weight you currently have, and none of the muscle that is necessary to burn it off.
That's one reason this experiment seems bogus. Without any body activity, how can you compare the experiment to space-based weightlessness? They'd be better off sticking these people in a swimming pool with perfectly balanced weights for 3 months.
All except the first can be found at www.----.net. An IP is attacking you, and you want to find out who it is registered to? Look it up at the various RIRs.
Unfortunately, the link provided now just points to some pictures of someone's kid.
There. That big fuzzy thing made of trees. That's a forest.
The pictures of someone's kid IS the easter egg. If a random employee can snarf web space off the corporate web server to post his baby pics, don't you think there's a wee little problem with their security/version control? It doesn't look like approved corporate content to me...
General Public License
From the license preamble:
Consider the alternative... a few years ago they were making a film in Boston, and they blew something large up for the special effects. Several hundred windows and countless 911 calls later, the city decided maybe it should be a little more strict about how it allows filming to happen...
Oil isn't really used any more in the U.S. for Electricity generation.
You are correct! I was suprised to note that:
(DOE)Still, the transportation industry is heavily dependent on petroleum, and if we switched from petroleum to hydrogen-based or electric, we would need to bump the power generation correspondingly - which still means nukes, because all of the others above are limited.
Ok, one is always smarter afterwards, but also in this case it might have been somewhat ironic that the US were outfitting the Iraqis to fight the Mullahs in Iran while almost in parallel arming muslim extremists in neighbouring Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union.
In both cases, the goal was achieved:
Was it worth the cost? So far, yes, but personally I think the US would be a lot better off sinking 20 years of money into nuclear plants and electric infrastructure and letting the middle east go to hell on their own. Fighting for oil is necessary today (what do you think powers Slashdot and your PC?) but that's a dead-end game eventually, and the winners will be the ones willing to make the jump (while the losers will be oil-based welfare states with population explosion and repressive social and political structures. Again, let's get out before they explode).
Well, Iraq got along without any revolutions. First they were the good guys and got a lot of nice toys (first gulf war), then - omygod - they suddendly were very bad boys and invaded Kuwait.
The enemy of my enemy is only my friend as long as he doesn't turn around and beat up my other friends.
If the US only allied ourselves with good guys, it would be us and Canada. And, quite frankly, that's only assuming Canada would have us.
I just find it funny.. the US must have sold them the planes in the first place.. and now that Iran falls into an area under the Axis Of Evil moniker, its suddenly a serious problem that they try and obtain parts? Perhaps you should have thought of that...
I hate to have to bring up actual history, but you do realize there was some revolution thingy between us selling the planes to the Iran and them currently seeking parts for them?
No shit - look it up. Or maybe the 1979 Iranian Embassy Hostage Crisis rings a bell? You know, 1.5 years of American hostages, rescue mission gone horribly awry?
So you're saying the fact that IBM allied itself with this little known company called microsoft didn't have any effect?
Arguably, that wasn't an alliance, that was a purchasing decision. If, however, you want to call it an alliance, I'll call it the exception that proves the rule.
The X Consortium is probably a better example of an exception, but note that it never led to the sort of innovation that X on Linux did - I mean, c'mon, CDE? Is there anything that screams "This is not your a desktop system" more than CDE?
In reality, I see this as something IBM might jump on to, and if they do this could be one of the best things to happen to linux since apache.
I'm sure IBM will endorse it. And RedHat. And if IBM starts shipping UnitedLinux, then RedHat will become LSB and Li18nux compliant and become UnitedLinux, at which point we're back to step 1.
This just seems to me like a whole lot of marketing around compliance to existing standards, and like any multi-company marketing event, it will sooner or later collapse for lack of substantiality.
If you actually took the time to check the website before asking the question, that is actually explained there
Took the time. Couldn't wade past the marketing.
Given what you've quoted above, I predict that this effort will end up a minor footnote in the history of Linux that lasts for maybe a year and then disintegrates.
Do they all start selling the same CDs, or is this just a lot of hoopla around them standardizing on LSB and (presumably) packages from which their distributions are built?
Forgive me if I'm leary, but alliances in the computer business never turn out to be more than spit in the wind...
Sounds great, but a research lab doesn't help us today. Does anyone know what the current maximum size for a commercially available optical drive is? I know some people who would love to be able to archive 30gig data segments onto a single medium, but I don't know of any that go that large (and no tape, it has to be front-line storage).
In this day and age we need to be thinking about things like making sure there is enough money going into welfare, war on drugs, war on terrorism, enforcement of gun laws, etc and not on crazy stuff like going to mars.
In this day and age we need to concentrate on working hard toward the day we can distribute the human population among multiple planets and eventually solar systems, so that when all the problems you mention boil over and result in global thermonuclear war or global biological war, our genetics will survive somewhere.
So, I say, let's go to Mars and leave the welfare/drugs/gun law crap to sort itself out. Once you've got a decent mirror, why worry so much about the individual disks?
But I play one on Slashdot?
Bingo!
I personally think IANAL tags are stupid anyway, because if you aren't paying someone then you shouldn't be trusting their legal advice under any circumstances (and even then...), but posting anything vaguely legalize on /. without IANAL tends to rouse the hounds, and the bees, and the hounds that when they bark bees shoot out, ...
Civillians shouldn't be given so much power over the conduct of a search. The police like to give them that power, because they aren't held to the same standards.
Not true - when a civilian is conducting a search in response to a search warrant, they are held to the same standards as law enforcement because they are a law enforcement proxy. An ISP's legal right to monitor traffic is actually reduced when law enforcement presents a formal request, because they have to start monitoring by the (stricter) rules that the government lives under.
IANAL BIPOOS
This is just stupid. If the ISP wants to cooperate with law enforcement, they could do so even without a search warrant. Once the search warrant has been drawn up, if the ISP wants to cooperate in the manner most convenient for them, and the law enforcement folks agree, there's no problem.
It's even better than that - if the ISP wants to gather evidence of wrongdoing related to their computer resources (say, someone hacking from their dialups) they have much greater leeway in their search, for they aren't bound by the fourth amendment. Once law enforcement becomes involved, it actually places limits upon what the ISP could do on its own.
Now, once law enforcement requests the cooperation of the ISP, then the ISP IS bound by the fourth amendment, because they are an agent of the government. So, as I understand this case, the defense should be attacking whether the data was gatherable under 4th amendment and under the particular warrant used, not whether there was a policeman there or not. Evidence gathered by an ISP in response to a warrant is held to fourth amendment rules, no matter who executes the search.
Consider this: You walk in on a convenience store shooting. Should you not be able to go up on the witness stand and testify because you aren't a law enforcement officer? As long as the defense can't prove the search was conducted in excess of fourth amendment rights, it should make no difference whether it was carried out by someone with a badge or not (assuming search was in accordance with warrant parameters, chain of custody was kept, etc. etc.)
IANAL - YANMM
This doesn't really have to do with due process, it has to do with chain of evidence.
Oversimplification - Due process means that you get your trial, and that the trial follows certain rules. One of those rules is that evidence presented against you has to meet certain standards, such as chain of custody.
Chain of custody says that the evidence, once gathered, is kept track of in a way that ensures it is genuine. The original case here was trying to cast aspersions on the chain for certain evidence since it hadn't been initially gathered by law enforcement.
This new ruling should be thrown out, though, because it's certainly going way beyond the standard for chain of custody. Anybody can be part of the chain of custody as long as they follow appropriate procedures - keep good notes, don't allow the evidence to pass out of your control, make sure that law enforcement signs for it, be able to truthfully testify that no one could have tampered with it while you had custody of it. Frankly, I'm suprised any defense attorney would WANT this - they'd rather that Joe Schmoe from the ISP, who only gathers evidence once a blue moon, gets called on the stand so they can twist his words, rather than a professional law enforcement officer who generally knows the rules of the game a lot better.
IANAL, but I'm working on my SANS GCFA certification and there's a lot of coverage of chain of custody in there that I'm pulling from.
Unfairly? Says who? I didn't know that business was about being "fair". Silly me. I thought it was about maknig a profit.
Sigh... I know American History is passe, but don't people understand "monopoly" anymore?
The idea of a monopoly is that when a company gains too much power, then those same practices which are perfectly legal for smaller companies become illegal because they are anti-competitive.
The U.S. is a free market system with certain controls. One of those controls is the anti-monopoly legislation. A free market, which you espouse above, involves everyone doing everything they can to make a buck and to stimulate the economy.
However, controls were put into place because someone noticed - suprise - that when a company grows to have too much power, then all the benefits of free trade go out the window. Once a company can use those same "unfair" tactics to thoroughly suppress any competition, then you no longer have any of the benefits - lower prices, greater quality, higher employment, and greater innovation - of a competitive free trade system. The next thing you know, you're a third-world country with huge debt and instable politics.
The difference between a business and a monopoly is the difference between competitive dirty tricks and anti-competitive dirty tricks. The former are legal; the latter are not. While both are about a company making money, the anti-monopoly legislation is about making sure that the system continues to allow other companies to make money as well.
I realize it's a tricky distinction, but it is a valid one.
I'm having a hard time imagining why the judge would have agreed to disallow this memo from being presented.
I have notices that Judge Kollar-Kotelly appears to be clearly giving Microsoft the benefit of the doubt on most evidentiary matters. Two possible reasons come to mind:
I'm actually leaning toward the latter. Nobody wants to pull an Ito, and (I'd like to believe) judges are a lot harder to buy or exert pressure on than politicians - there are plenty of examples of Judges quite happily making horrendously unpopular and, if one could be objective, perhaps unjust judgements without any real censure.
I'd imagine the internal letters between linux developers on crippling microsoft are 100x worse.
Of course, but the reason that monopoly law exists is that there's a huge difference between a bunch of - excuse me - small powerless people and a large corporation with domineering market segment. The large corporation might actually be in a position where they CAN cripple their opposition unfairly.
Note that Microsoft's defense is essentially, "Well, yeah, but that was just wishful thinking, no one actually DID anything about it." It only matters when it is done by someone large enough to have an unfair advantage.
Since when is the ammount of hacking attacks / attempts directly equivalent to the number of Windows boxen?
Well, we could argue about that, but we don't have to because you are misreading the lead topic.
The Microsoft comment in the lead topic is relevant to Microsoft's claims that pirated versions of Windows are a security risk because you can't trust the pirates not to backdoor it. Since China has an extremely active software pirating industry, if Microsoft's claim was true then China would be a higher source of hack attempts.
The weren't saying Windows leads to hacking attempts. They were saying that data fails to support Microsofts assertion that piracy is a security problem, not just a Microsoft sales problem.
Frankly, I suspect we'd do more for the developing world by adopting this sort of thing for ourselves
A quick Google search turns up The LED Light, and they have a collection of "bulbs" that fit into 120 Volt AC sockets (That would be them things in yer house, at least in the US)
Very expensive though - "36 LED bulb...comparable to a 30 watt incandescent bulb" costs $190.
Another site I've run into in the past is LEDTronics which looks more in line with the geek need for way too much information, and component-level purchasing. I can just see the mod case now...