If you're going to do this, make sure you put two interfaces (or use 802.1q) in the box so you can monitor it via a management network. The importance of knowing your IDS is working is more valuable than its being undetectable to intruders. Two interfaces also obviates the need for the tortured fake IP traffic syslogging mentioned in the article. Oh, and one more thing - management network != general LAN.
As compelling as your argument for the necessity and value of having created Britney Spears is, I remain unconvinced as to your ideas about the legitimacy of licensing.
Entertainment, like any other marketable good or service, has producers and consumers. The RIAA does NOT produce entertainment. Artists produce entertainment. The RIAA (in theory) finds artists with good stuff, markets them, and distributes their work. The RIAA are brokers of entertainment services. The RIAA's desperation with regard to P2P is proof that it directly threatens a critical leg of their business model - distribution. Therefore, their business model, indeed - their function in society, is obsolete.
I ripped this line off a great rant about the "great spork conspiracy". The author contended that we were all deceived into thinking this was a legitimate utensil when in fact it was a defective spoon.
If the market for CD's was about licensing the use of the material, then CD's would not have been invented. The reality is that the market is for delivery of the material. Therefore, the vendor of that delivery service must provide a compelling reason for me to purchase that service. Content providers very much want the market to be built around the concept of licensing, because that allows them to charge money for things they do not do (such as charging incremental fees for the continued use of the material they already distributed).
The modern problem is that advances in the exchange of information has obviated the need for the service they provide. All they can do now is function as a talent selection and content production service. Rather than attempt to operate in this environment, they are desperately trying to reduce the free exchange of information. This brings us to the DMCA.
The DMCA is about artificially applying pressure to the market in order to transform it to the benefit of content providers. The idea is to create a condition where the vendor can dictate the price for a service which has no incremental expense.
That's like saying that a company can't force you to take a company administered colonoscopy unless you fart. (Assuming farting is against company policy.)
I don't really buy the "the company can do whatever the hell they want" argument. There are certain recognized freedoms, such as freedom from sexual harassment, to which an employee is entitled. Certain of these freedoms extend into the arena of privacy. A company can't for example, monitor your personal telephone calls (Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co., 704 F.2d 577, 583 (11th Cir. 1983). The basic point here is that if a company operates in such a way as to require your presence at a staffed facility, certain human provisions must be made for your occupation. Everything from exit marking to bathrooms and building codes revolve around this fundamental understanding. As evidenced in the above citation, this understanding extends, at least in part, to your privacy rights.
Therefore, a company's insistence upon intruding into your private communications can and should be resisted.
hmm... another Christian bashing troll, which doesn't even have a good analogy, rewarded by a meteoric application of + moderation.
Are there really *that* many moderators running around who harbor childhood religious repression to the point of pathology?
to haiku, or not to haiku...
on
Haiku vs Spam
·
· Score: 1, Troll
This is my troll Shakespearean sonnet.
Boldly here I break the haiku rule.
Karma; excellent; I have to waste upon it.
So let good flames, this writ here fuel.
A haiku's beauty is surely found
In crystallizing; beautiful, an essence.
In reducing an experience to the profound
Surely this ignores Spam's putrescence.
Entropic mass, with nothing there discreet:
Is such that comprises Spam's nature
For whether the missive or the meat,
It surely defies any essence of character.
For be well warned o ye who would haiku,
and look for this poem in my messages to you.
Luckily on a broad scale they probably couldn't track us all, simply too much data.
Ah, yes. Freedom through obscurity. We're not as lucky as you think, however. Technology currently exists not only to automatically do facial recognition via camera, but to do probability analysis on your mannerisms and notify police that you look suspicious.
Is it just me, or are there a lot of AC Microsoft apologists running around these days?
Re:And if they didn't?
on
More MS EULA Fun
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Nowhere did I see the Eula state "with or without your consent" either. Stop making stuff up.
Following is an excerpt from the Win2ksp3 supplemental EULA: (text bolded by post author)
The OS Product or OS Components contain components that enable and facilitate the use of certain Internet-based services. You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may
automatically check the version of the OS Product and/or its components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades or fixes to the OS Product that will be automatically downloaded to your computer.
I don't know what "automatic" means to you, but according to my understanding of English, it seems to preclude consent.
Yes, it DOES have to do with the Windows Automatic Updates.
Then why is it not a supplemental EULA for auto-update, rather than the operating system patch? That this EULA change was made to the operating system service pack suggests that your interpretation of M$'s intentions are incorrect.
Further interesting is that the excerpt quoted above does NOT appear in the EULA to which you must agree to begin the download, but only in the EULA click box that comes up when you begin installing sp3. The preambles of both statements are identical, clearly demonstrating the intent to deceive the user.
Re:If linux is really not pro-terrorist, why the G
on
Linux 2.4.19 Released
·
· Score: 1
Your comment is very interesting. Can you provide an e-mail address or web link where I could learn more?
Slashdot Mirror
If you're going to do this, make sure you put two interfaces (or use 802.1q) in the box so you can monitor it via a management network. The importance of knowing your IDS is working is more valuable than its being undetectable to intruders. Two interfaces also obviates the need for the tortured fake IP traffic syslogging mentioned in the article. Oh, and one more thing - management network != general LAN.
Simple, you connect your firewall to a hub on each interface.
Which would be a great idea, except that hubs are half-duplex.
As compelling as your argument for the necessity and value of having created Britney Spears is, I remain unconvinced as to your ideas about the legitimacy of licensing.
Entertainment, like any other marketable good or service, has producers and consumers. The RIAA does NOT produce entertainment. Artists produce entertainment. The RIAA (in theory) finds artists with good stuff, markets them, and distributes their work. The RIAA are brokers of entertainment services. The RIAA's desperation with regard to P2P is proof that it directly threatens a critical leg of their business model - distribution. Therefore, their business model, indeed - their function in society, is obsolete.
I kind of like "foast" for some reason.
I ripped this line off a great rant about the "great spork conspiracy". The author contended that we were all deceived into thinking this was a legitimate utensil when in fact it was a defective spoon.
I loved it.
There are a few problems with your theory.
If the market for CD's was about licensing the use of the material, then CD's would not have been invented. The reality is that the market is for delivery of the material. Therefore, the vendor of that delivery service must provide a compelling reason for me to purchase that service. Content providers very much want the market to be built around the concept of licensing, because that allows them to charge money for things they do not do (such as charging incremental fees for the continued use of the material they already distributed).
The modern problem is that advances in the exchange of information has obviated the need for the service they provide. All they can do now is function as a talent selection and content production service. Rather than attempt to operate in this environment, they are desperately trying to reduce the free exchange of information. This brings us to the DMCA.
The DMCA is about artificially applying pressure to the market in order to transform it to the benefit of content providers. The idea is to create a condition where the vendor can dictate the price for a service which has no incremental expense.
This isn't Capitalism. This is robbery.
Do people not understand that the law is there to protect them ?
I am an information consumer. Please explain how the DMCA protects me.
In this brave new age of patent ambushes, I need to be reminded...
Tell me again how using open source's evil viral licensing might one day affect your company's valuable IP and business processes at some future date?
That's like saying that a company can't force you to take a company administered colonoscopy unless you fart. (Assuming farting is against company policy.)
Fewer people, more work, less pay.
Welcome to the recession.
I don't really buy the "the company can do whatever the hell they want" argument. There are certain recognized freedoms, such as freedom from sexual harassment, to which an employee is entitled. Certain of these freedoms extend into the arena of privacy. A company can't for example, monitor your personal telephone calls (Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co., 704 F.2d 577, 583 (11th Cir. 1983). The basic point here is that if a company operates in such a way as to require your presence at a staffed facility, certain human provisions must be made for your occupation. Everything from exit marking to bathrooms and building codes revolve around this fundamental understanding. As evidenced in the above citation, this understanding extends, at least in part, to your privacy rights.
Therefore, a company's insistence upon intruding into your private communications can and should be resisted.
IANAL YMMV
Yeah, um, so I checked out your site, and found this claim:
Slashdot-free since Leap Day 2000
Do you know what day it is?
Ah, I get it.
Topic: Fraud and Spam
This is on topic.
And this is not.
Is hypocrisy considered fraud? Because if so, discussing the moderation of this thread is about to be on topic.
:)
That's what you get for losing the password and e-mail address to your old account.
Web Profits in the Gutter
I love it!
hmm... another Christian bashing troll, which doesn't even have a good analogy, rewarded by a meteoric application of + moderation.
Are there really *that* many moderators running around who harbor childhood religious repression to the point of pathology?
This is my troll Shakespearean sonnet.
Boldly here I break the haiku rule.
Karma; excellent; I have to waste upon it.
So let good flames, this writ here fuel.
A haiku's beauty is surely found
In crystallizing; beautiful, an essence.
In reducing an experience to the profound
Surely this ignores Spam's putrescence.
Entropic mass, with nothing there discreet:
Is such that comprises Spam's nature
For whether the missive or the meat,
It surely defies any essence of character.
For be well warned o ye who would haiku,
and look for this poem in my messages to you.
Luckily on a broad scale they probably couldn't track us all, simply too much data.
Ah, yes. Freedom through obscurity. We're not as lucky as you think, however. Technology currently exists not only to automatically do facial recognition via camera, but to do probability analysis on your mannerisms and notify police that you look suspicious.
Hmm... someone attempting to destroy that which is free so that they can sell it. I know I've heard this somewhere before.
Can everyone try to be somewhat mature in their responses, instead of just trying to flame everything said?
Is it the fundamental nature of maturity to take a moderate and reserved stance on any issue, regardless of the undergirding morality?
Do not try to to turn off the cellphone; that is impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth: there is no cellphone.
It's actually time to break out the tinfoil hat!
Yeah, it's all fun and games until you try to walk through the x-ray.
mod parent up.
Where are you people finding these chicks? Mine is already talking about a 10 year anniversary ring.
Is it just me, or are there a lot of AC Microsoft apologists running around these days?
Nowhere did I see the Eula state "with or without your consent" either. Stop making stuff up.
Following is an excerpt from the Win2ksp3 supplemental EULA: (text bolded by post author)
I don't know what "automatic" means to you, but according to my understanding of English, it seems to preclude consent.
Yes, it DOES have to do with the Windows Automatic Updates.
Then why is it not a supplemental EULA for auto-update, rather than the operating system patch? That this EULA change was made to the operating system service pack suggests that your interpretation of M$'s intentions are incorrect.
Further interesting is that the excerpt quoted above does NOT appear in the EULA to which you must agree to begin the download, but only in the EULA click box that comes up when you begin installing sp3. The preambles of both statements are identical, clearly demonstrating the intent to deceive the user.
Your comment is very interesting. Can you provide an e-mail address or web link where I could learn more?