You are correct, Sir, sort've. Gold used to refer to the color (and I believe also materials) of the CD master that was sent off for duplication. However, other higher performing and longer lasting materials have become available, and, as such, Gold cds are no longer gold. But the term has stuck.
There's also, of course, the joke that once it's gone gold, you can finally start making money off it, or brining in the gold.
Actually, what we want to do is post an acceptable use policy on our mail servers and have that be legally enforceable. Right now, I'm trying to convince my local district attorney to file obscenetiy charges against porn-spammers. It's not free speech when it intrudes on my privacy.
Exactly, Linux is a server OS. That's what the whole article really fails to mention. Most developers write server based software. Linux competes very well with Windows at the server level. On the desktop, Windows reigns supreme, and will for the forseeable future.
Let's not forget movies based on Mortal Kombat, Final Fantasy, Wing Commander, Tomb Raider, Double Dragon, and so many others. No, on second thought, let's please try to forget all of them.
Lawyers are neither programmers nor Unix historians. Most of the lawyers I've met can use Word, Excel, read email, but that's about it. Furthermore, much of the work (and especially fact-checking) is done by paralegals making $12/hour who try and look this stuff up on Lexis-Nexis, Westlaw, or the like. Most of their information comes from the mainstream press and prior cases. Stating that AT&T didn't know what to do with Unix at first is lousy reading (for a mainstream audiance) and practically begging for a defamation lawsuit.
But they do make a pill for it! It's manufactured by Placebo Industries. While some sufferers find themselves cured after a month or two on Placebo, others must take this pill for the remainder of their lives.
Karma whoring as such will be sort've unnecessary. Earlier posts are more likely to get modded up. So if you have 10 minutes to edit your post before the leeches (non-subscribers) get to the page, you'll have a double edge.
Well, at least they didn't give the iBooks to high school students. That was tried around here, and there were dozens of suspensions for hacking, distributing porn, cheating, etc.
Subd. 5. Blocking receipt or transmission. Permits an interactive computer service to block commercial e-mails that it reasonably believes are being sent or will be sent in violation of this section. The blocking service is not liable in an action by a recipient for good faith blocking.
Seems an ISP isn't liable if they accidentaly delete some false positives.
I'll answer this one for you: what you'll see over the long run if this takes off is what's going on with Hotmail and Yahoo where you have to decipher the image or whatever to gain access. You'll get a circular problem will become inordinately complex and tedious. Then spammers will proceed from there and try to guess names on your white list. Spam lists will evolve into address pairs. Permissions based email will slow spam down for a while, but the problem will come back as strong as ever.
What is really needed is a standard method of reporting mail acceptance policies during SMTP handshaking and the legal standing to take violators to court. If the system reports only "opt-in" email is allowed, bulk senders must be prepared to document that the specific user has in fact agreed to receive mail from that sender.
And by violators, I mean the Spammer and the business that ordered up the Spam run in the first place. Suing the company that initiated the spam run is really crucial, they supply the money and the demand.
I remember back to about '97 or so, at the height of the browser wars, every time I went to the Microsoft web site with Navigator 3.0, Navigator would GPF. Of course, the same thing would happen if I went to the Netscape site with IE 3.0. Which was ironic, because I was going there to download Navigator.
Furthermore, {flame} Homer vs. the Eighteenth Amendment Season 8, Episode 818 is obviously the best episode ever. How it got left off the top 25 is a mystery to me{/flame}
Don't try this argument with Mike Eisner or the Disney cartel. They deliberately take movies out of print so they can charge a premium when they do release them and pressure people into buying for fear that they'll have to wait 10 years for their next chance.
And you better believe we'll have the hippest military on the planet. Including:
Glowing neon tanks that can stand up vertically to survey the battlefield.
Fighter jets with kickin' sound and 802.11g so you can easily upload all your iTunes
Assault rifles that can provide extra bass by firing in synch with your iPod.
And that's just what my feeble imagination comes up with. Imagine Steve-0 with the trillion dollar military budget. Jobs for president? I'd enlist.
How could this "harm large corporate users". I know Microsoft are just stalling, but what argument did they put forward to the judge? Clearly it wasn't that convincing...
The problem is that the MS JVM is not 100% compatible with the Sun JVM (hence the source of the lawsuit). Because of that, there are a slew of applications that only work correctly on the MS JVM (embrace, extend, extinguish). I know, I happen to support one (unfortunately). So if the Sun JVM were forced down on users, this would be bad. Sun is also objecting to Microsoft's plan to distribute the JVM: For download as a "recommended update" and as a separate CD to OEMs. Frankly, if they're forced to distribute Sun's JVM, that's the only reasonable method I can think of.
No, this is a bad thing. I (unfortunately) support a program that only works on the bastardized version of Java that Microsoft ships. If they start shipping the "proper" Sun JVM, I'm going to have no end of problems.
Since the owner of a system has no responsibility for the actions of a worm, or any malicious process, that runs without their knowledge, I submit that they also have no rights to the process. No responsibility means no rights.
So, if they have no rights to the process, there is no infringement against them when we neutralize it. If someone wants to claim that their rights were violated by our taking out the attacking process, then they should be held accountable for the actions of the process from its inception. They can't have it both ways.
That, actually, is quite wrong. In English common law, there is a concept called an "Attractive Nusiance." Meaning that if you hook up a system to the Internet and fail to take reasonable precautions to secure that system, it is reasonable and likely to expect the system will be compromised and you can be held accountable for damages caused once you are "owned". The pickle here is that in most cases it's far too difficult to prove resonable precautions were/weren't taken. There's a wide gulf between incompetence and negligance. But let the lawyers figure that one out. A good lawsuit, win or lose, will scare the amatures into learning how to protect their systems.
On the other hand, if you deliberately hack-back then you've gone and comitted a criminal act, and you can be held liable for any incidental damages.
And that's an open and shut case.
Yep, I remember being promised this a decade ago. Check out a cart at a time. Maybe, if they made the carts out of plastic. But no, you'd still need to unload and run things down the coveyer. Someone still needs to weigh my produce. Someone has to deal with the 3% failure rate and the 16 year old with the Anarchist's Cookbook (23rd Edition) who built a transmitter and fried half the RFIDs in the store. So here I am in the year 2031 still waiting in line for 15 minutes just so I can buy a box of Cheerios and a couple of bananas.
Wouldn't hurt to pick up a cheap SGI Indy either, or for that matter an earlier RS6000.
Free Indy: for the price of shipping. SGI Indy, R5000 cpu (166 mhz, I think) 2gb hd, 64mb ram, 17inch SGI monitor, mouse, keyboard. I have no use for it, and I'd rather give it away than throw it away.
No, the problem is the way they pre-install Windows(tm).
First, Microsoft now requires that OEMs no longer distribute fully functional copies of Windows(tm). They can only distribute "restore disks". These restore disks typically reformat and repartition your drives (wiping out any other OS you might have).
Second, if you decline the license agreement, you may return the software for a refund, but typically only if you also return the entire machine (pay shipping at your expense).
Thirdly, the license stipualtes that you are not allowed to move Windows(tm) to another machine. Note that the license agreement reads "the hardware" and as such, I circumvent this by moving 1 screw to the new machine and calling that the hardware. Nowhere in the license does it ever define "the hardware". (at least it didn't in the Win2k license. I haven't read the XP license)
And until the anti-trust settlement, Microsoft required vendors to include Windows(tm) and only Windows(tm). Personally, I only run Windows 2000(tm) and BSD. Microsoft is my bread-and-butter. I am a card carrying MS whore, but I won't list my actual certifications, because MS can revoke them if I use them in a statement critical of MS or their products.
but as Michael Moore pointed out in 'Bowling for Columbine' Canada has a much higher per capita gun ownership rate compared to the US and has nowhere near the amount of violent crime that the US has.
If you saw Bowling for Columbine then you should know that Chris Rock had a guaranteed solution: Make the bullets cost $5000 each. "I'd shoot your ass, if I could afford it."
Really, this appeals to the Libertarian in me, make bullets reflect the full cost of damages done and the free market will sort things out. It might kill marksmanship competitions and limit hunting, but it will dry up gun violence while preserving the second amendmant.
How can they 'sue' Kazaa when Kazaa is not based in the United States? What jurisdiction does the US (aside of political) have over other countries? Best as I remember, it's based out of Vanatu..(sp?)
Very easily. Courts will take any excuse to grant themselves jurisdiction. All they need to show is that in some form Kazaa is doing some sort of business in the US. They'll likely rule that marketing their product to US consumers combined with "harm" to the Record lables located here is sufficient. Injunctive relief would be completely unenforceable, but a monetary award is pretty easy to collect: A bank account in nearly any EU country can be frozen and liquidated with the proper paperwork. Any assets located in the US, Europe, and much of the rest of the world can be siezed.
What really amazes me is all the intelligent people who overlook the fact that if people started moving in large numbers to other platforms (Mozilla, Linux, Mac, BeOS) that a new hoarde of crappy insecure programs wouldn't spring up overnight. Are the makers of adware, spyware, and viruses going to say, "Well, looks like the market has shifted away from IE and Windows, I guess I'll have to take up golf instead"? I think not.
You're really only relatively safe and secure as long as you're in the minority. Security through obscurity.
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct, Sir, sort've. Gold used to refer to the color (and I believe also materials) of the CD master that was sent off for duplication. However, other higher performing and longer lasting materials have become available, and, as such, Gold cds are no longer gold. But the term has stuck.
There's also, of course, the joke that once it's gone gold, you can finally start making money off it, or brining in the gold.
Actually, what we want to do is post an acceptable use policy on our mail servers and have that be legally enforceable. Right now, I'm trying to convince my local district attorney to file obscenetiy charges against porn-spammers. It's not free speech when it intrudes on my privacy.
Exactly, Linux is a server OS. That's what the whole article really fails to mention. Most developers write server based software. Linux competes very well with Windows at the server level. On the desktop, Windows reigns supreme, and will for the forseeable future.
Let's not forget movies based on Mortal Kombat, Final Fantasy, Wing Commander, Tomb Raider, Double Dragon, and so many others. No, on second thought, let's please try to forget all of them.
Lawyers are neither programmers nor Unix historians. Most of the lawyers I've met can use Word, Excel, read email, but that's about it. Furthermore, much of the work (and especially fact-checking) is done by paralegals making $12/hour who try and look this stuff up on Lexis-Nexis, Westlaw, or the like. Most of their information comes from the mainstream press and prior cases. Stating that AT&T didn't know what to do with Unix at first is lousy reading (for a mainstream audiance) and practically begging for a defamation lawsuit.
But they do make a pill for it! It's manufactured by Placebo Industries. While some sufferers find themselves cured after a month or two on Placebo, others must take this pill for the remainder of their lives.
Karma whoring as such will be sort've unnecessary. Earlier posts are more likely to get modded up. So if you have 10 minutes to edit your post before the leeches (non-subscribers) get to the page, you'll have a double edge.
Well, at least they didn't give the iBooks to high school students. That was tried around here, and there were dozens of suspensions for hacking, distributing porn, cheating, etc.
Subd. 5. Blocking receipt or transmission. Permits an interactive computer service to block commercial e-mails that it reasonably believes are being sent or will be sent in violation of this section. The blocking service is not liable in an action by a recipient for good faith blocking.
Seems an ISP isn't liable if they accidentaly delete some false positives.
Insert obligatory response of "anything over 75 fps is a waste because that's my monitor's refresh rate."
I'll answer this one for you: what you'll see over the long run if this takes off is what's going on with Hotmail and Yahoo where you have to decipher the image or whatever to gain access. You'll get a circular problem will become inordinately complex and tedious. Then spammers will proceed from there and try to guess names on your white list. Spam lists will evolve into address pairs. Permissions based email will slow spam down for a while, but the problem will come back as strong as ever.
What is really needed is a standard method of reporting mail acceptance policies during SMTP handshaking and the legal standing to take violators to court. If the system reports only "opt-in" email is allowed, bulk senders must be prepared to document that the specific user has in fact agreed to receive mail from that sender.
And by violators, I mean the Spammer and the business that ordered up the Spam run in the first place. Suing the company that initiated the spam run is really crucial, they supply the money and the demand.
I remember back to about '97 or so, at the height of the browser wars, every time I went to the Microsoft web site with Navigator 3.0, Navigator would GPF. Of course, the same thing would happen if I went to the Netscape site with IE 3.0. Which was ironic, because I was going there to download Navigator.
What Badgers Eat.com
I love it when TV extends itself into reality.
Furthermore, {flame} Homer vs. the Eighteenth Amendment Season 8, Episode 818 is obviously the best episode ever. How it got left off the top 25 is a mystery to me{/flame}
Don't try this argument with Mike Eisner or the Disney cartel. They deliberately take movies out of print so they can charge a premium when they do release them and pressure people into buying for fear that they'll have to wait 10 years for their next chance.
And that's just what my feeble imagination comes up with. Imagine Steve-0 with the trillion dollar military budget. Jobs for president? I'd enlist.
How could this "harm large corporate users". I know Microsoft are just stalling, but what argument did they put forward to the judge? Clearly it wasn't that convincing...
The problem is that the MS JVM is not 100% compatible with the Sun JVM (hence the source of the lawsuit). Because of that, there are a slew of applications that only work correctly on the MS JVM (embrace, extend, extinguish). I know, I happen to support one (unfortunately). So if the Sun JVM were forced down on users, this would be bad. Sun is also objecting to Microsoft's plan to distribute the JVM: For download as a "recommended update" and as a separate CD to OEMs. Frankly, if they're forced to distribute Sun's JVM, that's the only reasonable method I can think of.
No, this is a bad thing. I (unfortunately) support a program that only works on the bastardized version of Java that Microsoft ships. If they start shipping the "proper" Sun JVM, I'm going to have no end of problems.
Since the owner of a system has no responsibility for the actions of a worm, or any malicious process, that runs without their knowledge, I submit that they also have no rights to the process. No responsibility means no rights.
So, if they have no rights to the process, there is no infringement against them when we neutralize it. If someone wants to claim that their rights were violated by our taking out the attacking process, then they should be held accountable for the actions of the process from its inception. They can't have it both ways.
That, actually, is quite wrong. In English common law, there is a concept called an "Attractive Nusiance." Meaning that if you hook up a system to the Internet and fail to take reasonable precautions to secure that system, it is reasonable and likely to expect the system will be compromised and you can be held accountable for damages caused once you are "owned". The pickle here is that in most cases it's far too difficult to prove resonable precautions were/weren't taken. There's a wide gulf between incompetence and negligance. But let the lawyers figure that one out. A good lawsuit, win or lose, will scare the amatures into learning how to protect their systems.
On the other hand, if you deliberately hack-back then you've gone and comitted a criminal act, and you can be held liable for any incidental damages. And that's an open and shut case.
Yep, I remember being promised this a decade ago. Check out a cart at a time. Maybe, if they made the carts out of plastic. But no, you'd still need to unload and run things down the coveyer. Someone still needs to weigh my produce. Someone has to deal with the 3% failure rate and the 16 year old with the Anarchist's Cookbook (23rd Edition) who built a transmitter and fried half the RFIDs in the store. So here I am in the year 2031 still waiting in line for 15 minutes just so I can buy a box of Cheerios and a couple of bananas.
I hate technology.
Wouldn't hurt to pick up a cheap SGI Indy either, or for that matter an earlier RS6000.
Free Indy: for the price of shipping. SGI Indy, R5000 cpu (166 mhz, I think) 2gb hd, 64mb ram, 17inch SGI monitor, mouse, keyboard. I have no use for it, and I'd rather give it away than throw it away.
email drbance@vcu.edu
After reading just a few of Gail Cooke's reviews, I can to one unmistakeable conclusion: She is the real life incarnation of Jean Teasdale.
No, the problem is the way they pre-install Windows(tm).
First, Microsoft now requires that OEMs no longer distribute fully functional copies of Windows(tm). They can only distribute "restore disks". These restore disks typically reformat and repartition your drives (wiping out any other OS you might have).
Second, if you decline the license agreement, you may return the software for a refund, but typically only if you also return the entire machine (pay shipping at your expense).
Thirdly, the license stipualtes that you are not allowed to move Windows(tm) to another machine. Note that the license agreement reads "the hardware" and as such, I circumvent this by moving 1 screw to the new machine and calling that the hardware. Nowhere in the license does it ever define "the hardware". (at least it didn't in the Win2k license. I haven't read the XP license)
And until the anti-trust settlement, Microsoft required vendors to include Windows(tm) and only Windows(tm). Personally, I only run Windows 2000(tm) and BSD. Microsoft is my bread-and-butter. I am a card carrying MS whore, but I won't list my actual certifications, because MS can revoke them if I use them in a statement critical of MS or their products.
but as Michael Moore pointed out in 'Bowling for Columbine' Canada has a much higher per capita gun ownership rate compared to the US and has nowhere near the amount of violent crime that the US has.
If you saw Bowling for Columbine then you should know that Chris Rock had a guaranteed solution: Make the bullets cost $5000 each. "I'd shoot your ass, if I could afford it."
Really, this appeals to the Libertarian in me, make bullets reflect the full cost of damages done and the free market will sort things out. It might kill marksmanship competitions and limit hunting, but it will dry up gun violence while preserving the second amendmant.
How can they 'sue' Kazaa when Kazaa is not based in the United States? What jurisdiction does the US (aside of political) have over other countries? Best as I remember, it's based out of Vanatu..(sp?)
Very easily. Courts will take any excuse to grant themselves jurisdiction. All they need to show is that in some form Kazaa is doing some sort of business in the US. They'll likely rule that marketing their product to US consumers combined with "harm" to the Record lables located here is sufficient. Injunctive relief would be completely unenforceable, but a monetary award is pretty easy to collect: A bank account in nearly any EU country can be frozen and liquidated with the proper paperwork. Any assets located in the US, Europe, and much of the rest of the world can be siezed.
What really amazes me is all the intelligent people who overlook the fact that if people started moving in large numbers to other platforms (Mozilla, Linux, Mac, BeOS) that a new hoarde of crappy insecure programs wouldn't spring up overnight. Are the makers of adware, spyware, and viruses going to say, "Well, looks like the market has shifted away from IE and Windows, I guess I'll have to take up golf instead"? I think not.
You're really only relatively safe and secure as long as you're in the minority. Security through obscurity.