This subclause makes me really question the truth of the whole post. Why on earth would a cannon that is "rendered incapable of firing" be considered a destructive device? I suppose you could use it as a battering ram, but then it's functionally no different from a big steel I-beam.
It's probably a clause to attempt preventing anyone from refurbishing an old cannon and rendering "re-capable" of firing.
I'm hoping that any of the smaller less lawyer-friendly companies suffering from SCO's claims can hold in long enough for this to blow over . It seems that nothing but time is going to get rid of SCO and their outrageous claims, which this current claim confirms.
Basically, SCO is asserting that "you're f**ked no matter what you do", which for anyone who is thinking of at least trying to remove possible infringments is stating "why bother."
Nothing is going to stop SCO but time. For every legitimate counter-action and counter-claim, they'll simply come up with more and more unbelievable and unreasonable rebuttals. Until SCO gets taken down in court, there's not much anyone can do about this unfortunately. The fact that SCO execs are dumping stock like hot potatoes proves that they don't believe they have a chance... but that won't stop them from maintaining their current stance of idiocy and oppressiveness.
Interesting note on the credit-card thing, as I've known people to be flagged on similar issues and notified by their CC company. Did fraud-protection backcharge and refund your bill, they should have.
I wonder how easy it is to tag in some fashion the use of stolen CC #'s to fund opening new spam accounts. I suppose if an account was opening in one area by a person living in another, it might raise a red flag.
I meant that there are not RFC's to cover the abuse that is occurring, which, as per your comment was not forseen that a high-level registrar would base the system in such a fashion.
Worms, trojans, etc don't often come as software that is toted out on major geek websites with file-deleting functionality built in. I would expect to find them in my inbox, but not on a popular geeksite or an oft-visited website - at least not without some form of profiteering in them (and file deletion functionality hardly seems profitable).
First of all, the geekiest stuff is often home-build... have about contracting out to build something? I've always wanted to make one of these.... VP's are good at messing up computers so why not make it easy and geeky too!
Of course, much of my geeky pipedreams have involved cool places to put a flat panel display. How about something rigged up with a USB-flat-panel that looks like a desktop picture (but can change, or is animated). I know I've seen support for usb-flat-panel in my recent kernel version, so I'd assume the hardware is out there. Better yet, if you could fit it into a real picture frame so that it looks realistic, and enable it as default output for video-conferencing software: functional+geeky.
And of course, if you wanted to go outside the office (I doubt this would fly in most companies), replacing the ol' car stereo with a custom-wired miniPC (don't forget voltage-backing capacitors or a failsafe for when spikes/ignition), and perhaps an LCD that pops out of the glove?
Wireless is always cool. Go with the picture frame, but set it up wireless somehow so that it's as hard-to-figure as possible. You might even be able to do something with an old ebay laptop and a little wiring of the video connector through the desk. Anyhoo, just suggestions, and personal preference, but I'm sure there are lots of cool things one could do with miniturized PC components and a little time, and the custom-job is often much more unique/cool/geeky than stuff you find in even semi-geeky retail stores.
Failure to comply with this demand by that time will leave ICANN with no choice but to seek promptly to enforce VeriSign's contractual obligations.
What are these obligations, and what exactly got into VeriScam's mind that they could overlook these, and the general obligations to their customers (mainly, those on the internet, and those running servers that depend on the service in particular).
We have here a service which has, to some extend, broken how many of the tried-and-true mechanisms work. While it might be true that there are no RFC's to cover this, when something has been function for a long duration and a change, in effects, damages that functionality, I think there are greater considerations. If VeriSign doesn't rm/theirass/head, then perhaps a class action suit of all those whose mail-servers are being bogged by the new "service" should be put into effect?
While I would definately agree that from an operational (and non-crashing) perspective, 2000 and XP are noticibly improving on previous versions, from a security perspective more recent windows versions have been abymal. One of the problems is the practice of having internet-accessible server daemons (or whatever MS calls them) as part of the OS, and turned on by default.
This especially comes with what seems to be poor testing before initial releases, and other plagues of problems. We're not debating as to whether 2000/XP are nicer from a usability standpoint, but that usability becomes moot when your system decides that it's going to sponstaneously reboot, or clog your network/internet due to the latest virus based on a dumb exploit.
Part of what is scary is that, to lawmakers and average individuals alike, hacking hack somewhat of a mystique which makes it not overly well-defined.
Gaining unauthorized access to a computer? Hell, I've seen everything from root exploits to a kid guessing a teacher's password that qualify as this. While the first may require some expertise and the afteraffects are more-or-less quite different, in law and common opinion they sometimes seem to fall in the same boat.What about if the teacher hid his paper gradebook in an obvious place and a kid pencilled something in, is that hacking?
I think, what we really need, is a clearer definition of the crime, the penalties, and moreover the steps leading to catching and positively identifying the perpetrator.
The malaise of ignorance surrounding computers is astounding, and as GUI takes over most people find that my text console is an uber-hacking-tool. Ignorance is breeding fear, and in so leading to consequences quite often above and beyond the scope of the act committed.
That being said however, I have little problem with nailing somebody who hacks a CC system or something similar and steals money, but really you should be able to prosecute under the non-digital equivilents: vandalism, b&e, theft, malicious mischief, and for major cases I'm sure there are other equivilients (somebody running amok through your system being the same penalties as if a bulldozer had been taken to the office/servers).
I don't really see how the RIAA calling and saying "We're gonna sue you unless you hand over $3,000" is any different from "We're gonna proceed with our suit unless you so hand over $3,000"
I don't see how this is much different from them saying "Vinny here gonna be very sad if you don'ta paya us da money. And when Vinny gets sad, he likea to break things".
I mean, threatening somebody with a completely illogical sum of money in the form of a lawsuit unless they pay out isn't much more than extortion, albeit legalese extortion.
Who benefits from deleting the hard-drives of music swappers? I hate to go all conspiracy theory, but I really can't think of anyone other than the RIAA/MPAA who would find use in baiting mp3 traders with a new "safe" trading system, only to have it begin nuking their computers...
Make up a spreadsheet of features the clients want, and estimate out the time it would cost for each, and as most do, add a little flex for unexpected details (which, luckily if you are the developer of the initial code, you shouldn't run across too much of).
Then, once you've got that down, you can either estimate your charges based on:
a) Per-unit basis (charge per X feature)
b) Per-hour basis
c) Overall project basis
You can't really expect/. to estimate how much you should charge, without knowing more about the project itself, so the best I can give is this rough estimate. Try to keep in mind that hourly is the easiest as far as getting paid for any extra things that crop up, but the timelogging can be a real pain in the butt, and justifying time over an initial estimate can be too.
For myself, I rarely work straight-through hours on contract projects, but usually stop to grab coffee, check/. etc etc, so really a per-unit basis might be the best bet.
That way, anything extra they suddenly think of that they want (and if you have ever developed corporate software before, this is more common than not) can be tagged in later, and you can also set cut-offs for various functionality/features. Also, get paid in installments because sometimes good projects get cancelled by bad budgeting. Thankfully an open-source project at least doesn't die in this scenario, as nothing is worse than watching your "baby" project die at 80% before reaching fruition.
Still... it would sound like a good deal for them. No fears of losing the code to the masses (already happened), less costs in devel (let the linux dudes handle the porting), and in the end the linusers get games. For an official mod, they could even have the full game available online to download, but without any art files (one would have to buy the CD for that) - and a quick installer to copy art files from a valid/legal CD.
I can't see either end losing out in this scenario, granted that it does make some assumptions that people won't copy the artwork to run the game, but then they could just crack the game for windows anyhow.
Perhaps enough that, after big blue knocks a few teeth out of SCO's mouth, they can come and pick the carcass for whatever is left to be aquired in damages?
Really, a lot of it depends on whether or not the parent purchased the original iBook, but beyond that:
Actually "destroying" the iBook is an extreme measure. Confiscating it, perhaps selling it, would be more productive. Destruction is indicating a certain amount of unstable anger coming from the part of the parent.
Now, if the kid paid for the ibook himself, as the parent semi-indicates: By the time he saves enough to buy another laptop
Now if you've destroyed the iBook that the kid bought himself, you've destroyed the property of another person. I don't know how property laws work in the states (I know there are some legal niggles about ownership if you are under a certain age), but this is still basically an act of vandalism. Even if the laptop were a gift it would still fall in the this category.
It seemed harsh at the time, but I cannot deny that it was also fair.
How about if I see you riding your bike late without proper reflectors, or a helmet. In some places that's illegal too... should that give me the right to dismantle your bicycle... should it give a parent that right?
How about your car. I know you've been speeding with it. Rather than taking away your keys, I'm going to drop a match in your gas-filled engine. How does that sound? Not very fair either... even if I were your parent.
(no, I'm not going to do the above but) hasty actions taken based on "anger-impulses" are rarely fair. Destructive tendencies run parallel to these actions: why destroy when you can remove, or disable? This is a case of venting one's own idiocy and frustration, not fair in the least. The parent who wrote the initial comment should probably seek some counselling.
A USB memory card? Works much the same way for consoles... the only catch being that a lot of PC's don't have frontal USB ports (but they would, if demand came about).
If you consider the time it takes to boot into windows just to play a game, it's not such a big deal... though an "install" option (a-la-morphix) would be nice as well.
However, your grousing seems pointless. There are lots of successful systems that boot a game straight from BIOS to CD/DVD, and are hugely popular: They're called consoles.
While this might not be the tried-and-true way of gaming on PC's, it works fine on other platforms, and if we could get games that booted happily on most systems a liveCD would definately be a way to promote linux gaming to those afraid to nuke/reduce their windows partitions in order to make room for 'nix.
Of course, it had better be a trusted company, because they don't want their source code getting out.
And really, with a well-known security corp, trust should be semi-inherent to the name. no well-known company would want the bad reputation associated with illegally distribution MS's source code, and they definately wouldn't want the pounding-into-bankrupty that would follow being hammered into the ground by MS lawyers should the do such a thing.
You might worry about rogue employees, but I think a reputation for the ruination it would cause a company would pretty much damper future job prospects, making it unlikely (besides, a security company should have good security from unauthorized workers sniffing the code, correct?).
Really, what surprises me though is that if MS allows the code to be viewable via its webpage, that somebody hasn't yet hacked the page and acquired the code. It is probably on an MS server, right (although the irony if it wasn't would be wonderful).
a) Unless the actually catch the spammer or trace to the distribution source, how do you tell what is bought from a spammer VS not (there's also legit sources, ebay, etc
b) You may argue fining the company for whom the spam is soliciting a product... but if you look up the term "Joe Job" you'll see why this isn't a great idea either.
You know, it's oen thing to accept trolls on paid places like slashdot. It's another to accept it on a service that you paid for the software to use. I've had serious issues with players who exist on b-net for no other reasons than to annoy others. They join a game, verbally abuse both sides, and basically do nothing all game or even attack their own allies.
In light of bigger things you might not consider it a huge problem, but it does detract from the quality of the experience so it might be worth finding a solution to.
Try instead setting an "automatic login" to a default user... count your time period up to the point where everything has stopped loading (your hard-drive will stop ticking, heh) and all your tray icons etc etc are in place. Significant difference between that and booting just to the initial user-selection/login screen
For linux, you can try a few hard-disk tricks. Also, your filesystem might be slow... try reiser as it seems to run quite nicely. For swap partitions, put them at the end of your hard disk. Just before the swap partitions, if you have any always-loading speed-required files, try making a partition there where you can stick 'em.
There are lots of things you could tweak... being able to stick "/lib/modules" or "/usr/bin" at the end of a hard-disk could actually save you some time if you're loading a lot of stuff from there on bootup, as files on the outer rim of the HDD would load faster...
Yup, sounds like slashdot Karma for sure. You can adjust the threshhold that various ratings have... for example you may want a Troll to be -1, whereas you could ignore somebody rated for say "Foul Language" with a rating 0 = Neutral.
In the end, you set a threshold as to preferred ratings, and perhaps the point at which you ignore the really bad trolls.
Slashdot Mirror
This subclause makes me really question the truth of the whole post. Why on earth would a cannon that is "rendered incapable of firing" be considered a destructive device? I suppose you could use it as a battering ram, but then it's functionally no different from a big steel I-beam.
It's probably a clause to attempt preventing anyone from refurbishing an old cannon and rendering "re-capable" of firing.
I'm hoping that any of the smaller less lawyer-friendly companies suffering from SCO's claims can hold in long enough for this to blow over . It seems that nothing but time is going to get rid of SCO and their outrageous claims, which this current claim confirms.
Basically, SCO is asserting that "you're f**ked no matter what you do", which for anyone who is thinking of at least trying to remove possible infringments is stating "why bother."
Nothing is going to stop SCO but time. For every legitimate counter-action and counter-claim, they'll simply come up with more and more unbelievable and unreasonable rebuttals. Until SCO gets taken down in court, there's not much anyone can do about this unfortunately. The fact that SCO execs are dumping stock like hot potatoes proves that they don't believe they have a chance... but that won't stop them from maintaining their current stance of idiocy and oppressiveness.
Interesting note on the credit-card thing, as I've known people to be flagged on similar issues and notified by their CC company. Did fraud-protection backcharge and refund your bill, they should have.
I wonder how easy it is to tag in some fashion the use of stolen CC #'s to fund opening new spam accounts. I suppose if an account was opening in one area by a person living in another, it might raise a red flag.
I meant that there are not RFC's to cover the abuse that is occurring, which, as per your comment was not forseen that a high-level registrar would base the system in such a fashion.
Worms, trojans, etc don't often come as software that is toted out on major geek websites with file-deleting functionality built in. I would expect to find them in my inbox, but not on a popular geeksite or an oft-visited website - at least not without some form of profiteering in them (and file deletion functionality hardly seems profitable).
First of all, the geekiest stuff is often home-build... have about contracting out to build something? I've always wanted to make one of these.... VP's are good at messing up computers so why not make it easy and geeky too!
Alternately, you can always shop at thinkgeek or compgeeks
Of course, much of my geeky pipedreams have involved cool places to put a flat panel display. How about something rigged up with a USB-flat-panel that looks like a desktop picture (but can change, or is animated). I know I've seen support for usb-flat-panel in my recent kernel version, so I'd assume the hardware is out there. Better yet, if you could fit it into a real picture frame so that it looks realistic, and enable it as default output for video-conferencing software: functional+geeky.
And of course, if you wanted to go outside the office (I doubt this would fly in most companies), replacing the ol' car stereo with a custom-wired miniPC (don't forget voltage-backing capacitors or a failsafe for when spikes/ignition), and perhaps an LCD that pops out of the glove?
Wireless is always cool. Go with the picture frame, but set it up wireless somehow so that it's as hard-to-figure as possible. You might even be able to do something with an old ebay laptop and a little wiring of the video connector through the desk. Anyhoo, just suggestions, and personal preference, but I'm sure there are lots of cool things one could do with miniturized PC components and a little time, and the custom-job is often much more unique/cool/geeky than stuff you find in even semi-geeky retail stores.
Failure to comply with this demand by that time will leave ICANN with no choice but to seek promptly to enforce VeriSign's contractual obligations.
/theirass/head, then perhaps a class action suit of all those whose mail-servers are being bogged by the new "service" should be put into effect?
What are these obligations, and what exactly got into VeriScam's mind that they could overlook these, and the general obligations to their customers (mainly, those on the internet, and those running servers that depend on the service in particular).
We have here a service which has, to some extend, broken how many of the tried-and-true mechanisms work. While it might be true that there are no RFC's to cover this, when something has been function for a long duration and a change, in effects, damages that functionality, I think there are greater considerations. If VeriSign doesn't rm
While I would definately agree that from an operational (and non-crashing) perspective, 2000 and XP are noticibly improving on previous versions, from a security perspective more recent windows versions have been abymal. One of the problems is the practice of having internet-accessible server daemons (or whatever MS calls them) as part of the OS, and turned on by default.
This especially comes with what seems to be poor testing before initial releases, and other plagues of problems. We're not debating as to whether 2000/XP are nicer from a usability standpoint, but that usability becomes moot when your system decides that it's going to sponstaneously reboot, or clog your network/internet due to the latest virus based on a dumb exploit.
Part of what is scary is that, to lawmakers and average individuals alike, hacking hack somewhat of a mystique which makes it not overly well-defined.
Gaining unauthorized access to a computer? Hell, I've seen everything from root exploits to a kid guessing a teacher's password that qualify as this. While the first may require some expertise and the afteraffects are more-or-less quite different, in law and common opinion they sometimes seem to fall in the same boat.What about if the teacher hid his paper gradebook in an obvious place and a kid pencilled something in, is that hacking?
I think, what we really need, is a clearer definition of the crime, the penalties, and moreover the steps leading to catching and positively identifying the perpetrator.
The malaise of ignorance surrounding computers is astounding, and as GUI takes over most people find that my text console is an uber-hacking-tool. Ignorance is breeding fear, and in so leading to consequences quite often above and beyond the scope of the act committed.
That being said however, I have little problem with nailing somebody who hacks a CC system or something similar and steals money, but really you should be able to prosecute under the non-digital equivilents: vandalism, b&e, theft, malicious mischief, and for major cases I'm sure there are other equivilients (somebody running amok through your system being the same penalties as if a bulldozer had been taken to the office/servers).
I don't really see how the RIAA calling and saying "We're gonna sue you unless you hand over $3,000" is any different from "We're gonna proceed with our suit unless you so hand over $3,000"
I don't see how this is much different from them saying "Vinny here gonna be very sad if you don'ta paya us da money. And when Vinny gets sad, he likea to break things".
I mean, threatening somebody with a completely illogical sum of money in the form of a lawsuit unless they pay out isn't much more than extortion, albeit legalese extortion.
Who benefits from deleting the hard-drives of music swappers? I hate to go all conspiracy theory, but I really can't think of anyone other than the RIAA/MPAA who would find use in baiting mp3 traders with a new "safe" trading system, only to have it begin nuking their computers...
Make up a spreadsheet of features the clients want, and estimate out the time it would cost for each, and as most do, add a little flex for unexpected details (which, luckily if you are the developer of the initial code, you shouldn't run across too much of).
/. to estimate how much you should charge, without knowing more about the project itself, so the best I can give is this rough estimate. Try to keep in mind that hourly is the easiest as far as getting paid for any extra things that crop up, but the timelogging can be a real pain in the butt, and justifying time over an initial estimate can be too. /. etc etc, so really a per-unit basis might be the best bet.
Then, once you've got that down, you can either estimate your charges based on:
a) Per-unit basis (charge per X feature)
b) Per-hour basis
c) Overall project basis
You can't really expect
For myself, I rarely work straight-through hours on contract projects, but usually stop to grab coffee, check
That way, anything extra they suddenly think of that they want (and if you have ever developed corporate software before, this is more common than not) can be tagged in later, and you can also set cut-offs for various functionality/features.
Also, get paid in installments because sometimes good projects get cancelled by bad budgeting. Thankfully an open-source project at least doesn't die in this scenario, as nothing is worse than watching your "baby" project die at 80% before reaching fruition.
Still... it would sound like a good deal for them. No fears of losing the code to the masses (already happened), less costs in devel (let the linux dudes handle the porting), and in the end the linusers get games. For an official mod, they could even have the full game available online to download, but without any art files (one would have to buy the CD for that) - and a quick installer to copy art files from a valid/legal CD.
I can't see either end losing out in this scenario, granted that it does make some assumptions that people won't copy the artwork to run the game, but then they could just crack the game for windows anyhow.
Perhaps enough that, after big blue knocks a few teeth out of SCO's mouth, they can come and pick the carcass for whatever is left to be aquired in damages?
Since the code is out, Valve might allow for third-party assistance on developing a somewhat official linux port?
I mean, when the code is already wild, fears that it could be leaked by assisting developers become somewhat moot...
Really, a lot of it depends on whether or not the parent purchased the original iBook, but beyond that:
Actually "destroying" the iBook is an extreme measure. Confiscating it, perhaps selling it, would be more productive. Destruction is indicating a certain amount of unstable anger coming from the part of the parent.
Now, if the kid paid for the ibook himself, as the parent semi-indicates:
By the time he saves enough to buy another laptop
Now if you've destroyed the iBook that the kid bought himself, you've destroyed the property of another person. I don't know how property laws work in the states (I know there are some legal niggles about ownership if you are under a certain age), but this is still basically an act of vandalism. Even if the laptop were a gift it would still fall in the this category.
It seemed harsh at the time, but I cannot deny that it was also fair.
How about if I see you riding your bike late without proper reflectors, or a helmet. In some places that's illegal too... should that give me the right to dismantle your bicycle... should it give a parent that right?
How about your car. I know you've been speeding with it. Rather than taking away your keys, I'm going to drop a match in your gas-filled engine. How does that sound? Not very fair either... even if I were your parent.
(no, I'm not going to do the above but) hasty actions taken based on "anger-impulses" are rarely fair. Destructive tendencies run parallel to these actions: why destroy when you can remove, or disable? This is a case of venting one's own idiocy and frustration, not fair in the least. The parent who wrote the initial comment should probably seek some counselling.
A USB memory card? Works much the same way for consoles... the only catch being that a lot of PC's don't have frontal USB ports (but they would, if demand came about).
Ya know...
If you consider the time it takes to boot into windows just to play a game, it's not such a big deal... though an "install" option (a-la-morphix) would be nice as well.
However, your grousing seems pointless. There are lots of successful systems that boot a game straight from BIOS to CD/DVD, and are hugely popular: They're called consoles.
While this might not be the tried-and-true way of gaming on PC's, it works fine on other platforms, and if we could get games that booted happily on most systems a liveCD would definately be a way to promote linux gaming to those afraid to nuke/reduce their windows partitions in order to make room for 'nix.
laptop:/home# man drinking
No manual entry found for drinking
laptop:/home# apt-get install drinking
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
E: Couldn't find package drinking
Hmmm... I could find that manpage... perhaps it's not yet included in stable?
Of course, it had better be a trusted company, because they don't want their source code getting out.
And really, with a well-known security corp, trust should be semi-inherent to the name. no well-known company would want the bad reputation associated with illegally distribution MS's source code, and they definately wouldn't want the pounding-into-bankrupty that would follow being hammered into the ground by MS lawyers should the do such a thing.
You might worry about rogue employees, but I think a reputation for the ruination it would cause a company would pretty much damper future job prospects, making it unlikely (besides, a security company should have good security from unauthorized workers sniffing the code, correct?).
Really, what surprises me though is that if MS allows the code to be viewable via its webpage, that somebody hasn't yet hacked the page and acquired the code. It is probably on an MS server, right (although the irony if it wasn't would be wonderful).
a) Unless the actually catch the spammer or trace to the distribution source, how do you tell what is bought from a spammer VS not (there's also legit sources, ebay, etc
b) You may argue fining the company for whom the spam is soliciting a product... but if you look up the term "Joe Job" you'll see why this isn't a great idea either.
The beginning of a drive is the RIM? So this would be pretty much the reverse of a CD-ROM then?
Seems I've been somewhat mislead previously.
You know, it's oen thing to accept trolls on paid places like slashdot. It's another to accept it on a service that you paid for the software to use. I've had serious issues with players who exist on b-net for no other reasons than to annoy others. They join a game, verbally abuse both sides, and basically do nothing all game or even attack their own allies.
In light of bigger things you might not consider it a huge problem, but it does detract from the quality of the experience so it might be worth finding a solution to.
Try instead setting an "automatic login" to a default user... count your time period up to the point where everything has stopped loading (your hard-drive will stop ticking, heh) and all your tray icons etc etc are in place. Significant difference between that and booting just to the initial user-selection/login screen
For linux, you can try a few hard-disk tricks. Also, your filesystem might be slow... try reiser as it seems to run quite nicely. For swap partitions, put them at the end of your hard disk. Just before the swap partitions, if you have any always-loading speed-required files, try making a partition there where you can stick 'em.
There are lots of things you could tweak... being able to stick "/lib/modules" or "/usr/bin" at the end of a hard-disk could actually save you some time if you're loading a lot of stuff from there on bootup, as files on the outer rim of the HDD would load faster...
Yup, sounds like slashdot Karma for sure. You can adjust the threshhold that various ratings have... for example you may want a Troll to be -1, whereas you could ignore somebody rated for say "Foul Language" with a rating 0 = Neutral.
In the end, you set a threshold as to preferred ratings, and perhaps the point at which you ignore the really bad trolls.