This is a great idea.
He would have had to have had permission to enter NBS's computer (after all the recent storieds of people getting arrested after a news story about their security audits of other peoples systems). If he would have had written permission that was open ended, then he could have gotten an ABC crew there after (or before) and filmed it also.
He couldn't have gotten in trouble. He had permission (assuming he did).
What a great idea. Wished he'd thought of it before hand.
I like that line. It is pretty funny.
Even the roms interpret Pascal in real time I guess.
That is too damn funny.
You may have hacked, but I don't think you ever learned about the internals of a computer.
as long as PSP has Gif support, Unisys still makes a per license royalty.
What people don't realize, is that the user doesn't pay the price, so they don't know what they are buying licenses for.
Unisys wasn't hurt by the zelous pursuit of patent royalties. It wasn't making any money off of the GIF patent before it started enforcing it, so any check is a success in their book. If everyone stopped using it, it doesn't hurt them at all. They weren't paying anything before. Contrary to popular belief, I dont' get anything out of you using my software unless you pay me. If you aren't paying me, I don't care if you know I exist or not.
Another "get a clue" post that doesn't have a clue. By using PNG, JPG or anything else, we havn't hurt Unisys, and that wasn't the point. We just aren't allowing them to get stronger.
Once again, they haven't lost any money on the deal. They only made money. They would have liked to have made more, but they still made lots of money.
But the whole idea of salaried employees blur this. If I am a salaried employee, my private time and work time start to become blurred. I am expected to work at home at times, and so I should be able to do private things while at the office.
An hourly employee is being paid for everything they do at the company, and that time does explicitly belong to the employer.
A salaried employee gets paid for the work they do, more than their specific time at the office.
Combine this law, with the liberal dollar amounts figured by the one state school where the guy got sued for SETI or whatever he put on the computers, and you are a federal felon.
Especially with the inclusion of paragraph b, the attempt to break anything in a is also illegal. Doing it, or attempting it are indistinguishable.
I appreciate all the concern about my readin abilities, but I did read the main article linked, and it didn't delve into the finer technical aspects. I will also point out that the windows machine he was using isn't limited to IP traffic, so not having the IP stack installed is irrelevant to whether he intruded on the network.
You might be perfectly comfortable stating that WarStomper, or whatever the name of the program was didn't try to otherwise communicate with the network, but I haven't looked at the source.
If it did simply listen to public airwaves, then I stand corrected.
In the US it is explicitly illegal to use the computer services of a system that you do not have permission to be in.
That he entered by accident doesn't make him innocent of the crime.
the fact that he documented his crimeS pretty much removes that defense anyway. So what we have here is a guy that just admitted on the web to a lot of computer crime (or terrorist, if your name is Ashcroft) activities.
The sole purpose of this activity is to facilitate the stealing of services. He is breaking a law to help others break laws. Even if he doesn't agree with the law, he still broke it, and deserves to be punished accordingly.
I hope I don't read another story about how he got arrested, and all the little thieves on/. clammoring about how unjust it is.
i had a friend that was a contract sound engineer that ran into the same problem. He charged time and material about half of what his competition. He had a hard time getting work that way.
The mentality isn't that they need or want to spend more money. The general mentality is that if you charge less than the competition (a lot less in both the original posters question (1/3 of the other) and mine (1/2 of the competition), that the potential customer questions whether or not you are compitent.
If you bid a lot less hours, they think you are going to cut corners on their project. If company A says it will take 100 hours, and they have a good reputation, and Joe Blow bids 20 hours, a company is going to have a real hard time believing Joe Blow can give them a solid product in 20 hours.
The trick isn't to low ball the estimate, or the hourly rate. The trick is to be the lowest on the block, but on the same block as everyone else.
The business model they employed was to sell a product that looked like it might be a competitor to MS, then sue MS.
DR-DOS and Novell were both purchases of Caldera, and tried to use them both as a basis for anti-competitive lawsuits.
I thought it was a nice touch to buy them for a song when they were already run into the ground. That really demonstrated that they had no interest in making money the old fashioned way. They just wanted to sue for it.
John Carmack doesn't buy a whole lot of computers. Doom 3 doesn't buy ANY computers.
If no one really cared about Doom3, no new hardware would be sold.
It is the gamers that buy the games, then the new hardware to make it run smoother. The consumer drives the market, not other consumed goods.
Restated, computer manufacturers don't build a machine because a game will run on it better, unless a lot of people want to play that game.
More over, the games generally run on what is out today, but they run better on what comes out tomorrow. So it isn't even that to play a game a consumer needs better hardware. It is simply the comfort level of the gamer that dictates the manufacturing of newer, better equipment.
I think the GPL license is really not at all good for developers choice, and obviously not for business.
But, I think publicly funded research is the clearest and most obvious place to put the GPL. Some people might argue for BSD in pulic research, and I might tend to agree, but the GPL is also a strong candidate, or maybe LGPL, and section off the public stuff in libraries.
We already paid for it once. Why should we pay a company to impliment a technology they didn't pay to create.
R&D is an expensive process that people like RMS tend to forget, since he works for an institution. A company should be able to recoup these costs, and profit from them. However, if I already paid for the R&D, they really don't need or deserve more of my money to package it.
(And obviously I am not a big fan of logging in, damn HTML format by default)
I think the license is really not at all good for developers choice, and obviously not for business. And don't even start with the service argument, because if you write good software, it shouldn't need service, either in support, or training. It should be fault tolerant, and intuitive. These are lofty goals, but I would rather buy software that made an attempt to reach them, than software that was cheap, and intended to rape me because I wasn't willing to pour through copious FM's.
But, I think publicly funded research is the clearest and most obvious place to put the GPL. Some people might argue for BSD in pulic research, and I might tend to agree, but the GPL is also a strong candidate, or maybe LGPL, and section off the public stuff in libraries.
We already paid for it once. Why should we pay a company to impliment a technology they didn't pay to create.
R&D is an expensive process that people like RMS tend to forget, since he works for an institution. A company should be able to recoup these costs, and profit from them. However, if I already paid for the R&D, they really don't need or deserve more of my money to package it.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a great idea. He would have had to have had permission to enter NBS's computer (after all the recent storieds of people getting arrested after a news story about their security audits of other peoples systems). If he would have had written permission that was open ended, then he could have gotten an ABC crew there after (or before) and filmed it also. He couldn't have gotten in trouble. He had permission (assuming he did). What a great idea. Wished he'd thought of it before hand.
I like that line. It is pretty funny. Even the roms interpret Pascal in real time I guess. That is too damn funny. You may have hacked, but I don't think you ever learned about the internals of a computer.
I thought they were primarily used to author and diseminate "Melissa" and other fine viri.
as long as PSP has Gif support, Unisys still makes a per license royalty.
What people don't realize, is that the user doesn't pay the price, so they don't know what they are buying licenses for.
Unisys wasn't hurt by the zelous pursuit of patent royalties. It wasn't making any money off of the GIF patent before it started enforcing it, so any check is a success in their book. If everyone stopped using it, it doesn't hurt them at all. They weren't paying anything before. Contrary to popular belief, I dont' get anything out of you using my software unless you pay me. If you aren't paying me, I don't care if you know I exist or not.
Another "get a clue" post that doesn't have a clue. By using PNG, JPG or anything else, we havn't hurt Unisys, and that wasn't the point. We just aren't allowing them to get stronger.
Once again, they haven't lost any money on the deal. They only made money. They would have liked to have made more, but they still made lots of money.
But the whole idea of salaried employees blur this. If I am a salaried employee, my private time and work time start to become blurred. I am expected to work at home at times, and so I should be able to do private things while at the office.
An hourly employee is being paid for everything they do at the company, and that time does explicitly belong to the employer.
A salaried employee gets paid for the work they do, more than their specific time at the office.
I can be on a MS network without an IP stack enabled. I can communicate with my ethernet card, and I assume a WiFi card without an IP stack.
I don't get your point, and no it isn't in the main (first) article linked.
And if there was network communication (which I am more than willing to admit there wasn't now), it would most certainly be illegal.
Proved
Combine this law, with the liberal dollar amounts figured by the one state school where the guy got sued for SETI or whatever he put on the computers, and you are a federal felon.
Especially with the inclusion of paragraph b, the attempt to break anything in a is also illegal. Doing it, or attempting it are indistinguishable.
I appreciate all the concern about my readin abilities, but I did read the main article linked, and it didn't delve into the finer technical aspects. I will also point out that the windows machine he was using isn't limited to IP traffic, so not having the IP stack installed is irrelevant to whether he intruded on the network.
You might be perfectly comfortable stating that WarStomper, or whatever the name of the program was didn't try to otherwise communicate with the network, but I haven't looked at the source.
If it did simply listen to public airwaves, then I stand corrected.
Since he has to get on the network to know where and what is there, he has already used the internal servers of that network.
If he didn't have permission to use that network, he has already broken federal computer crime laws.
In the US it is explicitly illegal to use the computer services of a system that you do not have permission to be in.
/. clammoring about how unjust it is.
That he entered by accident doesn't make him innocent of the crime.
the fact that he documented his crimeS pretty much removes that defense anyway. So what we have here is a guy that just admitted on the web to a lot of computer crime (or terrorist, if your name is Ashcroft) activities.
The sole purpose of this activity is to facilitate the stealing of services. He is breaking a law to help others break laws. Even if he doesn't agree with the law, he still broke it, and deserves to be punished accordingly.
I hope I don't read another story about how he got arrested, and all the little thieves on
Any contract work is really the same way.
i had a friend that was a contract sound engineer that ran into the same problem. He charged time and material about half of what his competition. He had a hard time getting work that way.
The mentality isn't that they need or want to spend more money. The general mentality is that if you charge less than the competition (a lot less in both the original posters question (1/3 of the other) and mine (1/2 of the competition), that the potential customer questions whether or not you are compitent.
If you bid a lot less hours, they think you are going to cut corners on their project. If company A says it will take 100 hours, and they have a good reputation, and Joe Blow bids 20 hours, a company is going to have a real hard time believing Joe Blow can give them a solid product in 20 hours.
The trick isn't to low ball the estimate, or the hourly rate. The trick is to be the lowest on the block, but on the same block as everyone else.
They bought Novell.
The business model they employed was to sell a product that looked like it might be a competitor to MS, then sue MS.
DR-DOS and Novell were both purchases of Caldera, and tried to use them both as a basis for anti-competitive lawsuits.
I thought it was a nice touch to buy them for a song when they were already run into the ground. That really demonstrated that they had no interest in making money the old fashioned way. They just wanted to sue for it.
No, it would be the gamers.
John Carmack doesn't buy a whole lot of computers. Doom 3 doesn't buy ANY computers.
If no one really cared about Doom3, no new hardware would be sold.
It is the gamers that buy the games, then the new hardware to make it run smoother. The consumer drives the market, not other consumed goods.
Restated, computer manufacturers don't build a machine because a game will run on it better, unless a lot of people want to play that game.
More over, the games generally run on what is out today, but they run better on what comes out tomorrow. So it isn't even that to play a game a consumer needs better hardware. It is simply the comfort level of the gamer that dictates the manufacturing of newer, better equipment.
I think the GPL license is really not at all good for developers choice, and obviously not for business.
But, I think publicly funded research is the clearest and most obvious place to put the GPL. Some people might argue for BSD in pulic research, and I might tend to agree, but the GPL is also a strong candidate, or maybe LGPL, and section off the public stuff in libraries.
We already paid for it once. Why should we pay a company to impliment a technology they didn't pay to create.
R&D is an expensive process that people like RMS tend to forget, since he works for an institution. A company should be able to recoup these costs, and profit from them. However, if I already paid for the R&D, they really don't need or deserve more of my money to package it.
(And obviously I am not a big fan of logging in, damn HTML format by default)
I think the license is really not at all good for developers choice, and obviously not for business. And don't even start with the service argument, because if you write good software, it shouldn't need service, either in support, or training. It should be fault tolerant, and intuitive. These are lofty goals, but I would rather buy software that made an attempt to reach them, than software that was cheap, and intended to rape me because I wasn't willing to pour through copious FM's. But, I think publicly funded research is the clearest and most obvious place to put the GPL. Some people might argue for BSD in pulic research, and I might tend to agree, but the GPL is also a strong candidate, or maybe LGPL, and section off the public stuff in libraries. We already paid for it once. Why should we pay a company to impliment a technology they didn't pay to create. R&D is an expensive process that people like RMS tend to forget, since he works for an institution. A company should be able to recoup these costs, and profit from them. However, if I already paid for the R&D, they really don't need or deserve more of my money to package it.