Surely if I have the right to use something, without needing an explicit licence, then the "few rare software products that come with a licence to install copies on more than one computer" are providing me with rights I already have...
Why do I need a licence to install on more than one computer, if I already own the specific copy, and can use it as I see fit???
Assuming that your response is going to be that I need the licence because installing on multiple computers requrires making new copies, a right which IS reserved under t17s106 then surely I would need such a licence to install any software product, even on a single machine - wouldn't I?
As I see it, what the "LICENCE" that people speak of is actually the conditions of sale - that is, since the copyright holder has exclusive right to distribute said materials, they decide to pnly distribute copies to entities which agree to a contract of sale. That contract of sale, otherwise known as a "licence", "end user licence agreement" or "EULA" may prescribe any conditions which it chooses, without compelling one into illegal behaviour. Since the copyright holder is not compelled to distribute any materials to me, they can freely say "We will not distribute materials to you unless you agree to this contract". It is my understanding (and of course, IANAL) that this is what people talk about when we say "licenced to use".
So you are probably right to say that I do not *NEED* a licence to play a CD. But if I acquire a CD under licence, then the terms of the licence as a legal contract are probably binding...
(The other question of whether the contract of sale survives destruction of the media on which said content was provided is left as an exercise for the reader.)
PS: I agree with you on the last couple of paragraphs, I am just not 100% sure on the first few...
And so will just about any other SMTP-aware client... It's in the spec, after all... Are there really any viruses out there that attempt to send mail without attempting a HELO? FWIW, I didn't know that you could choose to NOT require HELOs - what purpose would it serve?
SMTP, huh, as opposed to what? CDMA/GSM? POTS? USPS?
Which would be different from the current problem how exactly?
Surely there is some stage when the message notification must be transmitted, as well as some metadata about the message which must accompany it... That metadata would tell you where to retrieve the message from, at the very least... So the spammers would simply send out millions of notifications...
Now, I don't know about you, but the majority of spam that I see is (relatively) short, letting me know that some website I have never heard off has a special offer, just for me! This is essentially a message notification...
I simply go to the website, and find out about the product (receive the message).
I'm not sure that there would be a huge cost to the spammers above what there currently is now... Even the required bandwidth to transmit all the messages is approximately the same...
I'd love to see it evolve, but I'm not sure what it can evolve into...
Agreed - but blocking SMTP outbound (whether at the port 25 level, or using some other IETF-sponsored scheme) would prevent me from using the servers which I am authorized to use...
The solution which denies me the ability to use my servers of choice ultimately reduces the utility of the medium.
Nonetheless, I accept your point that allowing the incoming SMTP connexions eases spam flow. I haven't got it figured out yet, but we'll get there...
So what happens then when I want to send mail on behalf of another organisation - I currently represent 4 different organisations, as well as having a personal email address...
My ISP's SMTP server is fine for my personal email, but my University mail is sent (via an authenticated SMTP over TLS link) via the Uni's mail server. Two of the companies I represent run on the same mail server (which I maintain) and those emails are sent via that server (SSH port forwarded). The last company has it's outbound email sent via yet another mail server (again via authenticated SMTP - no TLS tho')
Preventing outside access is probably unnecessary, but authenticated sending is more crucial.
Actually, the real story goes that with months left before shipping Win 95, Gates decided that "The Internet" was the killer app. So the entire company turned on the spot and integrated "The Internet" into the OS.
Going from a non-networked, single-user OS to the hyperconnected Internet client that Win 95 was supposed to be in just a few months must have been difficult... Probably not a lot of time for all those paradigms to be re-thought...
But if the trojans are sufficiently capable of reading an Outlook mail folder and extracting email addresses, surely they could easily look up the SMTP servers configured?
That's fine as long as your IP address hasn't changed... think work -> home...
Ideally you would have some (dare I call it intelligent?) way of determining when to disconnect ssh sessions on suspend. I simply cannot think of one, short of using different suspend buttons for "Sleep during lunch" and "I'm going home".
Since yahoo is a directory, and not a search engine, I'd assume that that means they don't have a weekly update cycle for their links (Inktomi/Overture search services excluded.)
I saw this before it was commercialized, (at a research organization's productline expo). The techique is designed to help you find "introduced" bugs.
The process is to take a previously working copy of the program, as well as the current, buggy copy, and run them simultaneously, with the same inputs. Then you simply watch the internal state until it differs between the two copies.
Wherever an alternative execution path is followed for a given set of inputs, that is the source of the problem.
Note that it is of no help if you do not have a pre-existing, working copy of the program. (Or at least, it did not when I last saw it some years back... YMMV)
Over-simplistic: probably. Limited usefulness: definitely. Value in the few cases where it works: priceless!
Most "Filtering" techniques fall into the same trap you've outlined - namely that they require pre-determined bins to sort data into. This is the nature of the beast.
There are "clustering" techniques which attempt to identify similar bunches of data, without respect to any pre-determined bins, but the are not as useful for programmatically dealing with information. This is simply because you don't know what the clusters will contain, so you cannot make assumptions about what you will want to do with each cluster.
Classification systems are used when you WANT to fit things into one of a number of bins that you already have decided what to do with (e.g. SPAM - delete, From Mistress - show now, From Boss - file for later, From Debt collector - return "Deceased", etc.) Bayesian filtering is simply one form of classification.
For more information and ideas, check out KD Nuggets
I'm not sure what the DMCA actually has to say about this, but I'm not sure that DESTROYING encrypted data is the same as CIRCUMVENTING the encryption in order to utilize the contents...
for the hardcore out there, a Win32 Assembly Tetris Clone how-to guide, with full source code and commentary...
A programming language called Euphoria which is so unlike "real" programming languages, that it might just be easy enough for a kid to pick up and learn in a couple of days... (I got into it a few years ago, well after I learnt to program)
XBasic - a decent BASIC for graphics support... (Win32 graphics... I got it because it was a step up from QuickBASIC!) There's a linux version, and it's all GPL these days...
That's all I can find in a quick scan of my bookmarks from way back when...
returns the top n lines of the message numbered mgsnum... I use it to "preview" messages via an ssh connection when I'm at a friends house, or on a low-bandwidth connection...
FM sucks because it forces broadcasters to deal with the lowest commmon denominator. With digital, they can pump out a better signal for you to do with as you will.
It's not FM that forces the lowest common denominator, it's the ubiquity of cheap-o systems. Expect the same behaviour from digital radio/TV broadcasters in ~5-10 years, when Tonichkiwa Systems $10 HDFM receivers become popular...
What happens is that initially only expensive "High-Quality" units are available, and the broadcasts are optimised to those systems... As cheaper devices come on the market, the "enhancement" process is adjusted to produce adequate response from ubiquitous inferior devices, to the detriment of the superior device listeners.
Then the all-new, high-quality, superior format comes out, with a handful of expensive receivers available, and good broadcasts...
Slashdot Mirror
Surely if I have the right to use something, without needing an explicit licence, then the "few rare software products that come with a licence to install copies on more than one computer" are providing me with rights I already have...
Why do I need a licence to install on more than one computer, if I already own the specific copy, and can use it as I see fit???
Assuming that your response is going to be that I need the licence because installing on multiple computers requrires making new copies, a right which IS reserved under t17s106 then surely I would need such a licence to install any software product, even on a single machine - wouldn't I?
As I see it, what the "LICENCE" that people speak of is actually the conditions of sale - that is, since the copyright holder has exclusive right to distribute said materials, they decide to pnly distribute copies to entities which agree to a contract of sale. That contract of sale, otherwise known as a "licence", "end user licence agreement" or "EULA" may prescribe any conditions which it chooses, without compelling one into illegal behaviour. Since the copyright holder is not compelled to distribute any materials to me, they can freely say "We will not distribute materials to you unless you agree to this contract". It is my understanding (and of course, IANAL) that this is what people talk about when we say "licenced to use".
So you are probably right to say that I do not *NEED* a licence to play a CD. But if I acquire a CD under licence, then the terms of the licence as a legal contract are probably binding...
(The other question of whether the contract of sale survives destruction of the media on which said content was provided is left as an exercise for the reader.)
PS: I agree with you on the last couple of paragraphs, I am just not 100% sure on the first few...
And so will just about any other SMTP-aware client... It's in the spec, after all... Are there really any viruses out there that attempt to send mail without attempting a HELO? FWIW, I didn't know that you could choose to NOT require HELOs - what purpose would it serve?
It's a Switched Telephone Network for Public use... as opposed to Private Automatic Branch eXchange...
"Public Switching"... Heh!
it's somewhat trivial to forge the EHLO line... What checks is it actually doing?
SMTP, huh, as opposed to what? CDMA/GSM? POTS? USPS?
Which would be different from the current problem how exactly?
Surely there is some stage when the message notification must be transmitted, as well as some metadata about the message which must accompany it... That metadata would tell you where to retrieve the message from, at the very least... So the spammers would simply send out millions of notifications...
Now, I don't know about you, but the majority of spam that I see is (relatively) short, letting me know that some website I have never heard off has a special offer, just for me! This is essentially a message notification...
I simply go to the website, and find out about the product (receive the message).
I'm not sure that there would be a huge cost to the spammers above what there currently is now... Even the required bandwidth to transmit all the messages is approximately the same...
I'd love to see it evolve, but I'm not sure what it can evolve into...
Agreed - but blocking SMTP outbound (whether at the port 25 level, or using some other IETF-sponsored scheme) would prevent me from using the servers which I am authorized to use...
The solution which denies me the ability to use my servers of choice ultimately reduces the utility of the medium.
Nonetheless, I accept your point that allowing the incoming SMTP connexions eases spam flow. I haven't got it figured out yet, but we'll get there...
So what happens then when I want to send mail on behalf of another organisation - I currently represent 4 different organisations, as well as having a personal email address...
My ISP's SMTP server is fine for my personal email, but my University mail is sent (via an authenticated SMTP over TLS link) via the Uni's mail server.
Two of the companies I represent run on the same mail server (which I maintain) and those emails are sent via that server (SSH port forwarded).
The last company has it's outbound email sent via yet another mail server (again via authenticated SMTP - no TLS tho')
Preventing outside access is probably unnecessary, but authenticated sending is more crucial.
wasn't that bugbear? :-)
Actually, the real story goes that with months left before shipping Win 95, Gates decided that "The Internet" was the killer app. So the entire company turned on the spot and integrated "The Internet" into the OS.
Going from a non-networked, single-user OS to the hyperconnected Internet client that Win 95 was supposed to be in just a few months must have been difficult... Probably not a lot of time for all those paradigms to be re-thought...
But if the trojans are sufficiently capable of reading an Outlook mail folder and extracting email addresses, surely they could easily look up the SMTP servers configured?
Just wondering... how is Standby different from Suspend-to-RAM?
It occurs to me that they achieve the same thing...
Hibernate is the commonly used term for Suspend-to-disk, and I thought that Standby was the commonly used term for Suspend-to-RAM...
That's fine as long as your IP address hasn't changed... think work -> home...
Ideally you would have some (dare I call it intelligent?) way of determining when to disconnect ssh sessions on suspend. I simply cannot think of one, short of using different suspend buttons for "Sleep during lunch" and "I'm going home".
Just my $0.02...
Since yahoo is a directory, and not a search engine, I'd assume that that means they don't have a weekly update cycle for their links (Inktomi/Overture search services excluded.)
Am I mistaken?
I saw this before it was commercialized, (at a research organization's productline expo). The techique is designed to help you find "introduced" bugs.
The process is to take a previously working copy of the program, as well as the current, buggy copy, and run them simultaneously, with the same inputs. Then you simply watch the internal state until it differs between the two copies.
Wherever an alternative execution path is followed for a given set of inputs, that is the source of the problem.
Note that it is of no help if you do not have a pre-existing, working copy of the program. (Or at least, it did not when I last saw it some years back... YMMV)
Over-simplistic: probably.
Limited usefulness: definitely.
Value in the few cases where it works: priceless!
(they're in frames...)
There are "clustering" techniques which attempt to identify similar bunches of data, without respect to any pre-determined bins, but the are not as useful for programmatically dealing with information. This is simply because you don't know what the clusters will contain, so you cannot make assumptions about what you will want to do with each cluster.
Classification systems are used when you WANT to fit things into one of a number of bins that you already have decided what to do with (e.g. SPAM - delete, From Mistress - show now, From Boss - file for later, From Debt collector - return "Deceased", etc.) Bayesian filtering is simply one form of classification.
For more information and ideas, check out KD Nuggets
Nice work on the newsbot, BTW.
Point taken...
I'm not sure what the DMCA actually has to say about this, but I'm not sure that DESTROYING encrypted data is the same as CIRCUMVENTING the encryption in order to utilize the contents...
Just a thought....
The SoftAva Q12 is a prototype of just such a device.
Unfortunately, they don't produce the hardware, they simply licence it out, and I don't know if anyone is actually shipping it.
Might be worth following... I'm sure someone will find it useful someday....
That's all I can find in a quick scan of my bookmarks from way back when...
Definitely... and be sure to take a look at the SqueakLand kids site
try 'TOP '
returns the top n lines of the message numbered mgsnum... I use it to "preview" messages via an ssh connection when I'm at a friends house, or on a low-bandwidth connection...
That's the arguement that supports Stupid Security
I'm right with you, except for the line:
It's not FM that forces the lowest common denominator, it's the ubiquity of cheap-o systems. Expect the same behaviour from digital radio/TV broadcasters in ~5-10 years, when Tonichkiwa Systems $10 HDFM receivers become popular...
What happens is that initially only expensive "High-Quality" units are available, and the broadcasts are optimised to those systems... As cheaper devices come on the market, the "enhancement" process is adjusted to produce adequate response from ubiquitous inferior devices, to the detriment of the superior device listeners.
Then the all-new, high-quality, superior format comes out, with a handful of expensive receivers available, and good broadcasts...
I don't know... see for yourself, then come and tell us... The comment on this page suggests that you are right...