The best cop is somone who can't imagine ever stealing. He knows what is wrong, and what's right. Further, he's not sanctimonious about it. His momma, who taught him wrong from right, also taught him the virtues of modesty, politeness, and other social graces.
Anybody who has crossed over that 'but I can get away with xxxx if nobody catches me' divide is tainted. Not irreparably tainted, necessarily, but definitely NOT a candidate for 'best cop.'
C: All the memory bloat of a stack you don't have full control over. Little of the control you like to have over how your tools work. All of the expense of a C compiler instead of the free assembler provided by the vendor.
Now, for developing mere applications that sit on an operating system, it's a different matter, but C for small embedded platforms sucks. Badly.
It's my understanding that the reason Mitnick was held so long before his trial was that he was issued an original trial date, but then he fucked around and fucked up his legal team so much that he had to ask for a new trial date.
That means, to use an illustration, it's similar to the situation of a ticket line, where he stood in the long line, as is customary, but when he was right up near the front of the line he had to go take a dump, and he ended up back at the end of the line.
However, it's more condusive to making the case for a persecuted innocent victim to do a little hand waving and simply say 'he waited a long time in the slammer before his trial.'
Unless Mitnick continues to practice his little, er. hobby pursuit, the 'talk' he would give could be condensed into a presentation, he could be written up as a case history and published.
The hell with paying him as a 'consultant.'
'Consultants' get paid for being real live practitioners of the discipline they are involved in. They bring live knowledge of current-practices in their field of expertise to their clients. Unless Mitnick needs to be whisked back into the slammer for continuing to crack, he's not entitled to 'consulting fees.' At best he's entitled to some royalty payments for a book he might publish.
He is not a 'peer' of the computer security professionals. To make a metaphor to zoologists, he's one of the 'specimens' they study.
It's disappointing that the Jargon File is now thought of as 'ESR's Jargon Dictionary.'
It was originally an open document and not under any one person's control.
Similar things have happened to bands. Successful bands are often made up of four or five extremely talented musicians. At this stage in a band's history the band might be called 'The FooBars'.
Later on, many of the talented band members, whose talents are not only in music, move on to other, more lucrative and stable careers than playing music in a bar. The band's name 'The FooBars' is a known entity.
Often at this point, one of the original band members, often one of the members moderate talent (rarely the most talented), has brought in 'new talent' to keep what the public now thinks of as 'a band that plays tunes we remember nostalgically' as a going concern.
And often at this point the name of the band changes from 'The FooBars' to 'Joe Schmidt's FooBars' or 'Joe Schmidt and the FooBars' and rather than playing at the hottest new clubs, it performs at the busted up old biker bars on the edge of a town's industrial district.
It isn't formally known as 'ESR's Jargon File' but it's headed that way.
I think you're talking about a few people who publish a newsletter or two and have a few web sites. The computer field is a far bigger thing, and for the most part it's composed of people who both understand what Mitnick is and aren't using fancy terms to cover it up.
This happens all of the time with non-felons. Point?
His point is, it should only be allowed to happen once. Then the guy needs to find work doing something else.
People are always bemoaning the lack of a 'moral spine' in Law Enforcement, but then often the same people are loud advocates for people proven to not have a moral spine being placed in roles of authority within law enforcement. It just doesn't make sense.
It is common knowledge that law enforcement often uses ex-cons as 'consultants'.
It's not 'common knowledge' so much as it is 'popular belief.'
Criminals who collaborate with the police are known by other criminals as snitches. A snitch is somebody who will tell anybody anything they want to hear. Former criminals who have 'done the crime' might know what 'doing the crime' was like, but to a criminologist that makes them a 'research specimen' not a peer. They'll inteview such a person extensively, but they'll never be put in a position of trust. Such people have that 'sliding relativist ethical base' that disqualifies them.
A criminal is like a bent tiebar in a car's front-end. You can bend it back and continue using it, but the metal at the bend is stressed and will easily bend again. It really needs to be pitched in the scrap barrel and replaced.
There are plenty of uses for the third button, even essential uses in some programs, like xfig. But you're a PC guy, and don't use X I assume. Except maybe as a replacement for Microsoft. Pity.
It's really hard to keep 'war rooms' from becoming 'reserved' in any big company. The middle managers need to constantly expand their self importance by scheduling meetings, and they'll have a signup sheet on the door before you can blink your eyes.
Copyrights are merely an extension of the old idea that plagarism is wrong. The concept of plagarism has been around a long time.
Part of the reason copyright is a 'construct of the early 18th century' is that widespread copying technology wasn't available before then.
It's fine to oppose copyright and patents based on your Jeffersonian ideals. Do it in a principled fashion, though; try to make change in the laws. Commit some civil disobedience, i.e. be flagrant and be publicly caught, and try to bring the issue to a head. Don't just weasel away making copies, breaking the conventions of our modern economy purely because you're cheap.
Artists don't inherently deserve copyrights. They are GRANTED by the beneficient and loving populace via the government. With strings attached.
Rights are not granted by the government. Anything not explicitly forbidden is a right. The 'Bill of Rights' is really a set of rules that establish things the government is not allowed to do. Rights they are not allowed to take away.
Any creative person deserves copyright on their creative output. Inherently.
Compulsory licensing violates freedom of association. If I record a work of music, I have the right to decide who it is distributed to. Nobody has the right to say 'You have to license it to so-and-so.'
That's like saying that because you have sex with your girlfriend, anybody else has the compulsory right to have sex with her.
However, these sorts of arguements are never about the freedom of individuals.
You must be a lot older than any of the rest of us, if you remember a time when every bar patron had to throw in a nickel, or he couldn't hear the juke box that somebody else had put a nickel in.
Were these juke boxes with headphones?
The 'nostalgia' around here is sort of amusing sometimes.
There is an implicit copyright in anything you produce and distribute copies of.
You don't have to 'renew' it in order for it to be copyright. However, copyright only lasts for a specific period of time.
Ted Turner 'renewed' the copyright on a lot of films by 'colorizing' them, and copyrighting the colorization. Then removing the original prints from the marketplace. However, if you find a copy of the original with lapsed copyright, you can copy it, because it's public domain.
A lot of this is a sticky matter, because recently, business interests have thrown as much gum into the works as possible to recapture their 'property.' But it used to be pretty clear cut.
Anyone is welcome to contradict and/or expand on what I just typed.
Slashdot Mirror
I bet the quilting and fishing enthusiasts didn't make pests of themselves.
Likewise, a drowning man is only a drowning man because that's the word used to describe him.
The water filling his lungs doesn't care much, of course.
Nope.
The best cop is somone who can't imagine ever stealing. He knows what is wrong, and what's right. Further, he's not sanctimonious about it. His momma, who taught him wrong from right, also taught him the virtues of modesty, politeness, and other social graces.
Anybody who has crossed over that 'but I can get away with xxxx if nobody catches me' divide is tainted. Not irreparably tainted, necessarily, but definitely NOT a candidate for 'best cop.'
The difference between these admitted hackers and Mitnick is that Mitnick didn't grow out of it. He continued, and made a criminal career out of it.
Being morally and ethically bankrupt, while also being clever with words, does not make you less of a troll, dude.
C: All the memory bloat of a stack you don't have full control over. Little of the control you like to have over how your tools work. All of the expense of a C compiler instead of the free assembler provided by the vendor.
Now, for developing mere applications that sit on an operating system, it's a different matter, but C for small embedded platforms sucks. Badly.
If a criminal is a criminal, does that not mean the whole point of prisons doesn't work?
It is common belief, if not established fact, that 'prison doesn't work.'
So it weakens your arguement to rhetorically make that assertion.
Just thought you should know.
It's my understanding that the reason Mitnick was held so long before his trial was that he was issued an original trial date, but then he fucked around and fucked up his legal team so much that he had to ask for a new trial date.
That means, to use an illustration, it's similar to the situation of a ticket line, where he stood in the long line, as is customary, but when he was right up near the front of the line he had to go take a dump, and he ended up back at the end of the line.
However, it's more condusive to making the case for a persecuted innocent victim to do a little hand waving and simply say 'he waited a long time in the slammer before his trial.'
Unless Mitnick continues to practice his little, er. hobby pursuit, the 'talk' he would give could be condensed into a presentation, he could be written up as a case history and published.
The hell with paying him as a 'consultant.'
'Consultants' get paid for being real live practitioners of the discipline they are involved in. They bring live knowledge of current-practices in their field of expertise to their clients. Unless Mitnick needs to be whisked back into the slammer for continuing to crack, he's not entitled to 'consulting fees.' At best he's entitled to some royalty payments for a book he might publish.
He is not a 'peer' of the computer security professionals. To make a metaphor to zoologists, he's one of the 'specimens' they study.
It's disappointing that the Jargon File is now thought of as 'ESR's Jargon Dictionary.'
It was originally an open document and not under any one person's control.
Similar things have happened to bands. Successful bands are often made up of four or five extremely talented musicians. At this stage in a band's history the band might be called 'The FooBars'.
Later on, many of the talented band members, whose talents are not only in music, move on to other, more lucrative and stable careers than playing music in a bar. The band's name 'The FooBars' is a known entity.
Often at this point, one of the original band members, often one of the members moderate talent (rarely the most talented), has brought in 'new talent' to keep what the public now thinks of as 'a band that plays tunes we remember nostalgically' as a going concern.
And often at this point the name of the band changes from 'The FooBars' to 'Joe Schmidt's FooBars' or 'Joe Schmidt and the FooBars' and rather than playing at the hottest new clubs, it performs at the busted up old biker bars on the edge of a town's industrial district.
It isn't formally known as 'ESR's Jargon File' but it's headed that way.
'we in the computer field'?
I think you're talking about a few people who publish a newsletter or two and have a few web sites. The computer field is a far bigger thing, and for the most part it's composed of people who both understand what Mitnick is and aren't using fancy terms to cover it up.
Is the gist of your argument that there's no such thing as 'evil'?
sure they can hold that felony thing over his head forever.
Well, yeah. That's sort of the idea. He proved he has no moral base. He's unqualified to help defend a moral base he's incapable of understanding.
I think if you siphoned money out of Bill Gate's bank account to fund Linux development a bunch of people would buy you beer.
They probably would be hesitant to tell you where they do their banking, though.
This happens all of the time with non-felons. Point?
His point is, it should only be allowed to happen once. Then the guy needs to find work doing something else.
People are always bemoaning the lack of a 'moral spine' in Law Enforcement, but then often the same people are loud advocates for people proven to not have a moral spine being placed in roles of authority within law enforcement. It just doesn't make sense.
It's fine to spend time observing cockroaches, to learn how they behave so you can exterminate cockroaches more easily.
Only a fool would try to enlist the help of a cockroach to work toward exterminating the other cockroaches.
It is common knowledge that law enforcement often uses ex-cons as 'consultants'.
It's not 'common knowledge' so much as it is 'popular belief.'
Criminals who collaborate with the police are known by other criminals as snitches. A snitch is somebody who will tell anybody anything they want to hear. Former criminals who have 'done the crime' might know what 'doing the crime' was like, but to a criminologist that makes them a 'research specimen' not a peer. They'll inteview such a person extensively, but they'll never be put in a position of trust. Such people have that 'sliding relativist ethical base' that disqualifies them.
A criminal is like a bent tiebar in a car's front-end. You can bend it back and continue using it, but the metal at the bend is stressed and will easily bend again. It really needs to be pitched in the scrap barrel and replaced.
Huh? Only Solaris users need three buttons?
There are plenty of uses for the third button, even essential uses in some programs, like xfig. But you're a PC guy, and don't use X I assume. Except maybe as a replacement for Microsoft. Pity.
It's really hard to keep 'war rooms' from becoming 'reserved' in any big company. The middle managers need to constantly expand their self importance by scheduling meetings, and they'll have a signup sheet on the door before you can blink your eyes.
Copyrights are merely an extension of the old idea that plagarism is wrong. The concept of plagarism has been around a long time.
Part of the reason copyright is a 'construct of the early 18th century' is that widespread copying technology wasn't available before then.
It's fine to oppose copyright and patents based on your Jeffersonian ideals. Do it in a principled fashion, though; try to make change in the laws. Commit some civil disobedience, i.e. be flagrant and be publicly caught, and try to bring the issue to a head. Don't just weasel away making copies, breaking the conventions of our modern economy purely because you're cheap.
Linux/UNIX buffs like dumb terminals that are Wyse 50's or VT-220's. Not any of this new fangled stuff that doesn't have a termcap entry!
Artists don't inherently deserve copyrights. They are GRANTED by the beneficient and loving populace via the government. With strings attached.
Rights are not granted by the government. Anything not explicitly forbidden is a right. The 'Bill of Rights' is really a set of rules that establish things the government is not allowed to do. Rights they are not allowed to take away.
Any creative person deserves copyright on their creative output. Inherently.
Compulsory licensing violates freedom of association. If I record a work of music, I have the right to decide who it is distributed to. Nobody has the right to say 'You have to license it to so-and-so.'
That's like saying that because you have sex with your girlfriend, anybody else has the compulsory right to have sex with her.
However, these sorts of arguements are never about the freedom of individuals.
What days where those?
You must be a lot older than any of the rest of us, if you remember a time when every bar patron had to throw in a nickel, or he couldn't hear the juke box that somebody else had put a nickel in.
Were these juke boxes with headphones?
The 'nostalgia' around here is sort of amusing sometimes.
Is copyright something you 'renew'?
There is an implicit copyright in anything you produce and distribute copies of.
You don't have to 'renew' it in order for it to be copyright. However, copyright only lasts for a specific period of time.
Ted Turner 'renewed' the copyright on a lot of films by 'colorizing' them, and copyrighting the colorization. Then removing the original prints from the marketplace. However, if you find a copy of the original with lapsed copyright, you can copy it, because it's public domain.
A lot of this is a sticky matter, because recently, business interests have thrown as much gum into the works as possible to recapture their 'property.' But it used to be pretty clear cut.
Anyone is welcome to contradict and/or expand on what I just typed.