You think that's great? Check out the Smoking Gun's pick of 2003 Legal Document of the Year, about a kid who was punished for saying "fuck" in school. The lawyer who wrote this deserves some sort of award...
Item #6 has the best sentence in the whole thing: "Literally millions of Fucking records have been destributed..."
"So sure, he's not in charge. But if Ballmer et. al. were to ignore the threat, I would bet that Gates would be hounding them about it even though he can't do anything personally."
Even though he has no direct say in what/when/how, he would still be pressing those people who do if he felt they were on the wrong direction. I gurantee it. He has too much at stake with MS to sit back and let the others run the show even if he thinks it's the wrong direction.
Bull. Fox is significantly further right than CNN is to the left. CNN is owned by AOL/TW. As with almost all large companies, most of the people who have a significant say in AOL/TW are republicans. Pressure filters down the paths from high up to keep the news reporting mostly moderate.
Did you see the one time, I forget what they were covering, think it may have been a British royal scandal, and both Colbert and Stewart just broke down laughing?
There was also a time they had a "live" segment from Washington and Stewart started laughing because it was light out at 11pm. Steven Colbert came up with a good retort for that one, but I forget what it was.
Then there're the occasional time they continually change the background. Like the other night when Colbert was covering the G-8 summit and got moved from Savannah, GA to St. Louis, MO in about 3 seconds during a cut to Stewart. Or the time Steve Correll (sp?) left Bagdad because he didn't realize the scope of our impending invasion, and successive cuts showed him packing up his stuff in a hotel room, in an aiport, on a plane, etc. They have a lot of fun with that thing...
Somehow I have doubts that Gates is sitting back idle, only leading the programming team. Balmer is a good friend of Gates, and I'm sure they still talk about ideas for the company to take. MS is Gates's company, and I'm sure he's not going "oh, IE is losing market share to Mozilla, but since I'm not in a top administrative position now I'm going to ignore it and not express my concerns with the people who I know well and are friends of mine."
So sure, he's not in charge. But if Ballmer et. al. were to ignore the threat, I would bet that Gates would be hounding them about it even though he can't do anything personally.
What was really good was for a while ZDNet had a site up that was based off of the MS Update site and exploited the IE bug that let you change the URL in the address bar, so it looked like you were going to windowsupdate.com and getting a page telling you to download and install Mozilla.
And actually, the job descriptions at MS are quite interesting. Turns out it's only the CEO that actually does anything; no one else has any say in the direction of the company, especially the chairman and chief software architect.
Would this CD be an audio CD though? It certainly runs non-audio code when inserted. I'm not saying you're wrong, but just wondering if you or someone else has tried this, because without other information I would suspect that turning off autoplay would work...
Other factors include such things as the TYPE of person using the platform in question. While this is purely anectedotal, Most of the Mac users I run into have one of several attitudes that make them less likely to be virus writers. Many are proffessional/serious hobbiest audio/visual people and preffer to spend thier time on that. Most Mac owners are very pro Apple and Evangelize the apple heavilly, writing Mac viruses would counter productive.
This goes hand-in-hand with the market share argument; with the bigger market share would come typical users.
Another is the anger issue. I would wager comparatively few Mac users hate apple compared to the number who hate Microsoft.
I doubt many people release viruses because they don't like MS; It just doesn't make much sense. Punish the users, many of whom don't know any better? It's at best a very, very indirect means to an end.
And Finally there is inherent differences in the platforms themselves. Windows security model and codebase seems very exploit friendly to my mind, and with OSX being bsd at the core is most likely less malware friendly (I couldn't comment on previous mac os's, but bsd seems to be widly held as doing well in this regard).
While I'm sure that there is quite a bit of improvement room in the Windows codebase, I have a feeling that a lot of people here overestimate the security of *nix when put into the hands of Joe User. "Don't run as root" (or administrator when Windows is the subject) people scream. But really, I suspect you'd see most people running as root anyway.
I run FreeBSD, read/. regularily, am aware of the problems of running as root, and still usually have a virtual terminal open as root. I run almost all normal apps as a normal user, and rarely go into X as root, but a simple alt-ctrl-f1 then alt-f1/2 by someone who comes up to my computer would get them a root prompt. I don't really worry about this because I am either living at home (when really only family is around and they have better things to do than try to hack me) or in a dorm (in which case either I'm there or no one is).
(Why do I have root open? I need to use it a somewhat fair amount; install this program, give read permissions for this device I just discovered I have a use for, load the NVidia module that I still haven't gotten around to making load automatically because there's only motivation to do so when I boot the computer, which is not that often...)
I'd be curious to see how such an argument would hold up in court.
I would guess quite well. The law cannot put you essentially between a rock and a hard place. If there are two laws that conflict, and no matter what you do you must break one of them, you can't be held responsible for it. (At least if you got to the position where there were conflicting laws by legal means.) You are also not held responsible for most things when done under duress; if someone has a gun to your back and tells you to rob a store, you probably wouldn't be held responsible. I would think that removing spyware, especially if Congress passes a relevant bill and the software you're removing fits the definition of spyware in the bill, would be considered as acting under duress.
However, this comes with a bigass IANAL disclaimer (that is, bigger than most such disclaimers), because I have no clue where I heard most of this information, so don't know in what situations exactly you could break a law under duress and not be held responsible.
Gaim won't even do file transfers for me, let alone voice chat or webcam. (True, I'm behind some sort of funky pesudo-firewallish thing, but AIM under Windows worked out of the box.)
Betamax was a Supreme Court decision, and it cannot be overturned by an Act of Congress unless Congress retracts the right of Judicial Review.
Not true. As others have said in other threads, the SCOTUS explicitly said in their decision that the ruling was based on the US Code and Statutes that had passed at the time. In other words, they had not decided that Congress couldn't prevent VCRs from being made, only that they had not done so. They could have passed a law prohibiting their manufacture the following day if they had felt like it.
By a Republican congress! Though actually it was passed 99-0 in the Senate and with very little opposition in the house (votes were not recorded nor even officially tallied; it was a voice call of yay nay). So both parties are equally at fault for this bill.
(And this makes the fact that Clinton was pres irrelevant even if he hated the bill because he wouldn't have been able to block its passage since there was well over the 2/3 supermajority needed for overriding a veto)
At least in the past. I don't know if they are relenting, or if people have ignored them anyway, or if any suits have been filed, or if this CD has the CDDA logo.
But really, are most people gonna notice if the CD doesn't have the CDDA logo on it? I don't think even I would...
Actually, I have an interesting observation. I run FreeBSD and Gnome 2.6. I used the Gnome keyboard prefs window panel to swap my caps lock and control key to the "proper" locations as many people would say.;-) Caps lock now works like shift lock... punctuation, numbers, everything types as if shift was down...
Slashdot Mirror
You think that's great? Check out the Smoking Gun's pick of 2003 Legal Document of the Year, about a kid who was punished for saying "fuck" in school. The lawyer who wrote this deserves some sort of award...
Item #6 has the best sentence in the whole thing: "Literally millions of Fucking records have been destributed..."
Read
See this comment. Six seconds to blaster.
RMFC (read my fing comment):
"So sure, he's not in charge. But if Ballmer et. al. were to ignore the threat, I would bet that Gates would be hounding them about it even though he can't do anything personally."
Even though he has no direct say in what/when/how, he would still be pressing those people who do if he felt they were on the wrong direction. I gurantee it. He has too much at stake with MS to sit back and let the others run the show even if he thinks it's the wrong direction.
Bull. Fox is significantly further right than CNN is to the left. CNN is owned by AOL/TW. As with almost all large companies, most of the people who have a significant say in AOL/TW are republicans. Pressure filters down the paths from high up to keep the news reporting mostly moderate.
Did you see the one time, I forget what they were covering, think it may have been a British royal scandal, and both Colbert and Stewart just broke down laughing?
There was also a time they had a "live" segment from Washington and Stewart started laughing because it was light out at 11pm. Steven Colbert came up with a good retort for that one, but I forget what it was.
Then there're the occasional time they continually change the background. Like the other night when Colbert was covering the G-8 summit and got moved from Savannah, GA to St. Louis, MO in about 3 seconds during a cut to Stewart. Or the time Steve Correll (sp?) left Bagdad because he didn't realize the scope of our impending invasion, and successive cuts showed him packing up his stuff in a hotel room, in an aiport, on a plane, etc. They have a lot of fun with that thing...
Somehow I have doubts that Gates is sitting back idle, only leading the programming team. Balmer is a good friend of Gates, and I'm sure they still talk about ideas for the company to take. MS is Gates's company, and I'm sure he's not going "oh, IE is losing market share to Mozilla, but since I'm not in a top administrative position now I'm going to ignore it and not express my concerns with the people who I know well and are friends of mine."
So sure, he's not in charge. But if Ballmer et. al. were to ignore the threat, I would bet that Gates would be hounding them about it even though he can't do anything personally.
What was really good was for a while ZDNet had a site up that was based off of the MS Update site and exploited the IE bug that let you change the URL in the address bar, so it looked like you were going to windowsupdate.com and getting a page telling you to download and install Mozilla.
And actually, the job descriptions at MS are quite interesting. Turns out it's only the CEO that actually does anything; no one else has any say in the direction of the company, especially the chairman and chief software architect.
Would this CD be an audio CD though? It certainly runs non-audio code when inserted. I'm not saying you're wrong, but just wondering if you or someone else has tried this, because without other information I would suspect that turning off autoplay would work...
Other factors include such things as the TYPE of person using the platform in question. While this is purely anectedotal, Most of the Mac users I run into have one of several attitudes that make them less likely to be virus writers. Many are proffessional/serious hobbiest audio/visual people and preffer to spend thier time on that. Most Mac owners are very pro Apple and Evangelize the apple heavilly, writing Mac viruses would counter productive.
/. regularily, am aware of the problems of running as root, and still usually have a virtual terminal open as root. I run almost all normal apps as a normal user, and rarely go into X as root, but a simple alt-ctrl-f1 then alt-f1/2 by someone who comes up to my computer would get them a root prompt. I don't really worry about this because I am either living at home (when really only family is around and they have better things to do than try to hack me) or in a dorm (in which case either I'm there or no one is).
This goes hand-in-hand with the market share argument; with the bigger market share would come typical users.
Another is the anger issue. I would wager comparatively few Mac users hate apple compared to the number who hate Microsoft.
I doubt many people release viruses because they don't like MS; It just doesn't make much sense. Punish the users, many of whom don't know any better? It's at best a very, very indirect means to an end.
And Finally there is inherent differences in the platforms themselves. Windows security model and codebase seems very exploit friendly to my mind, and with OSX being bsd at the core is most likely less malware friendly (I couldn't comment on previous mac os's, but bsd seems to be widly held as doing well in this regard).
While I'm sure that there is quite a bit of improvement room in the Windows codebase, I have a feeling that a lot of people here overestimate the security of *nix when put into the hands of Joe User. "Don't run as root" (or administrator when Windows is the subject) people scream. But really, I suspect you'd see most people running as root anyway.
I run FreeBSD, read
(Why do I have root open? I need to use it a somewhat fair amount; install this program, give read permissions for this device I just discovered I have a use for, load the NVidia module that I still haven't gotten around to making load automatically because there's only motivation to do so when I boot the computer, which is not that often...)
I'd be curious to see how such an argument would hold up in court.
I would guess quite well. The law cannot put you essentially between a rock and a hard place. If there are two laws that conflict, and no matter what you do you must break one of them, you can't be held responsible for it. (At least if you got to the position where there were conflicting laws by legal means.) You are also not held responsible for most things when done under duress; if someone has a gun to your back and tells you to rob a store, you probably wouldn't be held responsible. I would think that removing spyware, especially if Congress passes a relevant bill and the software you're removing fits the definition of spyware in the bill, would be considered as acting under duress.
However, this comes with a bigass IANAL disclaimer (that is, bigger than most such disclaimers), because I have no clue where I heard most of this information, so don't know in what situations exactly you could break a law under duress and not be held responsible.
"Gaim/Jabber/etc install very easily though."
Gaim won't even do file transfers for me, let alone voice chat or webcam. (True, I'm behind some sort of funky pesudo-firewallish thing, but AIM under Windows worked out of the box.)
It could have been opt-in, or even a conspicuous opt-out.
I bet you could trade a Beowulf cluster for a Gmail account...
He seems to not like the idea...
What kind of name is phpBB anyway?
And ignore the email I have this account registered to; I don't use it much. Checked it once in like the last year.
eed (one) (three) (two) at psu dot edu
;-)
Drop the spaces
(one) meas 1, etc.
Many thanks if you have enough
Um, you just confirmed what your parent said...
Betamax was a Supreme Court decision, and it cannot be overturned by an Act of Congress unless Congress retracts the right of Judicial Review.
Not true. As others have said in other threads, the SCOTUS explicitly said in their decision that the ruling was based on the US Code and Statutes that had passed at the time. In other words, they had not decided that Congress couldn't prevent VCRs from being made, only that they had not done so. They could have passed a law prohibiting their manufacture the following day if they had felt like it.
By a Republican congress! Though actually it was passed 99-0 in the Senate and with very little opposition in the house (votes were not recorded nor even officially tallied; it was a voice call of yay nay). So both parties are equally at fault for this bill.
(And this makes the fact that Clinton was pres irrelevant even if he hated the bill because he wouldn't have been able to block its passage since there was well over the 2/3 supermajority needed for overriding a veto)
Philips has stated that it is not allowed.
At least in the past. I don't know if they are relenting, or if people have ignored them anyway, or if any suits have been filed, or if this CD has the CDDA logo.
But really, are most people gonna notice if the CD doesn't have the CDDA logo on it? I don't think even I would...
Hey, Windows can turn off autorun, so it's illegal too...
YEAH! WE'VE SUCCESSFULY DECLARED ALL OPERATING SYSTEMS THAT READ CDS ILLEGAL! Yay congress!
(I'd actually love to get sued for holding down shift, if I could get a legal fund set up to pay for lawyers.)
Actually, I have an interesting observation. I run FreeBSD and Gnome 2.6. I used the Gnome keyboard prefs window panel to swap my caps lock and control key to the "proper" locations as many people would say. ;-) Caps lock now works like shift lock... punctuation, numbers, everything types as if shift was down...