Sorry, I don't see how that "rm -rf *" is going to execute. If you are sent some sort of email attachment and you open it, the worm's files will either be stored in your home directory or in some other temp directory. If these locations are mounted with noexec, it is not possible to execute the worm's files. Did I miss something here ?
Don't files on Linux default to non-executable ? Your point is well taken though. And I would say it's the Linux distro's fault if it enabled all these useless services by default and left me vunerable.
Actually, I thought about it, and the digital camera kiosk-type thing would probably be the best totally-legit application. A lot of non-technical people now own digital cameras. Suppose they could plug their camera into an Xbox and it would display them on the TV. They could do some basic modifications (rotation, cropping, etc) and save them to the hard disc, as well as delete photos from the camera. Meanwhile, a webserver starts up, and they can give their relatives a URL to view the images also. Killer.
Those are some good suggestions. Here's my (ordered) list of Xbox Linux Killer Apps: Tivo / media server MAME/Console emulator Region Free DVD player highly portable internet game server video phone (with a USB camera and broadband) digital camera / MP3 player software (so you don't need a PC)
I've never seen this licence you keep referring to. Software is sold under licence, since otherwise you could run multiple copies of the program (note : this has nothing to do with distributing the program to others, which would be copyright infringement). I can't think of any physical goods offhand that come with a licence. I think you get to "own" them.
I'm of the opinion that if you need a professional to do something, it's best not to second guess their judgment with an automation. If the technology is really so perfect, then you shouldn't need a person at all.
Thank you for a great reply. I very much appreciate the subtleties of insurance and stock options, etc. My point was that copyright law, patents, etc all exist to impose artificial constraints on ideas, so that they work like physical property. Your example of museum admission seems to offer the greatest challenge to my theory, so I will address it.
Most museums contain physical objects which can not be duplicated. In this sense, when the museum sells you the right to view the objects, it is a bit like a car rentalship selling you the right to drive their car. The fact that multiple people can view the artifacts simultaneously doesn't really change the business model. If we had the technology to duplicate the museum's artifacts for free, the analogy to copyright law would be to say that "the museum containing the original artifacts (whatever that means anymore) controls who gets a copy of the artifacts, and they alone may make copies". It is in this sense that copyright really is an arbitrary restriction.
What I'm wondering is this: why would we accept these controls at all ? If duplication of the artifacts is free, why not let everybody have their own copies ? Would society really benefit more by allowing the original museum a monopoly (as was the case before this type of copying was possible), or should we adapt our laws to what is possible today ? My opinion is that laws have to adapt to our society and technology, not the other way around.
I don't know if this sort of idea is all it's cracked up to be. Are there any situations where a real pilot would have a valid reason to override these controls ?
Your first example is flawed. The "come claim a prize" trick is legal because the police are not playing a role in the actual offence (the people have outstanding warrents, etc, so the crime has already been committed). Whether or not your first example is entrapment is debatable.
An independent review board is too susceptible to lobbying and political interference. We need a large pool of scientists, and some sort of fair method of selecting them on a per case basis.
How can they have an article about "ripping holes in your walls to deploy gigabit ethernet in the home" without a chapter on "convincing the wife" ? What combination of fighting, pleading, and nagging does Tom's Hardware reccomend ? Where are the benchmarks ? I demand to see a bar graph.
For most of those 20 years, free software slipped in under the radar. Now that it has become a competing force, there will be war. I suggest we write free software, patents be damned. My rationale : this whole situtation is going to get a LOT worse before it gets better, and we are simply not going to win on their terms.
Slashdot Mirror
Did I miss something ? What was the "???" ?
10 billion won't buy shit these days, stupid kids.
"Nothing beats the taste of a Cuban cigar, except maybe a Cuban cigar lit with a $100 bill."
You must be the only guy who's never heard of Windows 98.
Couldn't you use a USB capture device (although I admit, these are currenty crap) ?
!won thgir sgniht eseht fo eno htiw todhsals ot gnitsop m'I
Sorry, I don't see how that "rm -rf *" is going to execute. If you are sent some sort of email attachment and you open it, the worm's files will either be stored in your home directory or in some other temp directory. If these locations are mounted with noexec, it is not possible to execute the worm's files. Did I miss something here ?
Put /home on a separate partition and mount it with noexec.
Don't files on Linux default to non-executable ? Your point is well taken though. And I would say it's the Linux distro's fault if it enabled all these useless services by default and left me vunerable.
Actually, I thought about it, and the digital camera kiosk-type thing would probably be the best totally-legit application. A lot of non-technical people now own digital cameras. Suppose they could plug their camera into an Xbox and it would display them on the TV. They could do some basic modifications (rotation, cropping, etc) and save them to the hard disc, as well as delete photos from the camera. Meanwhile, a webserver starts up, and they can give their relatives a URL to view the images also. Killer.
Those are some good suggestions. Here's my (ordered) list of Xbox Linux Killer Apps :
Tivo / media server
MAME/Console emulator
Region Free DVD player
highly portable internet game server
video phone (with a USB camera and broadband)
digital camera / MP3 player software (so you don't need a PC)
I've never seen this licence you keep referring to. Software is sold under licence, since otherwise you could run multiple copies of the program (note : this has nothing to do with distributing the program to others, which would be copyright infringement). I can't think of any physical goods offhand that come with a licence. I think you get to "own" them.
I'm of the opinion that if you need a professional to do something, it's best not to second guess their judgment with an automation. If the technology is really so perfect, then you shouldn't need a person at all.
Thank you for a great reply. I very much appreciate the subtleties of insurance and stock options, etc. My point was that copyright law, patents, etc all exist to impose artificial constraints on ideas, so that they work like physical property. Your example of museum admission seems to offer the greatest challenge to my theory, so I will address it.
Most museums contain physical objects which can not be duplicated. In this sense, when the museum sells you the right to view the objects, it is a bit like a car rentalship selling you the right to drive their car. The fact that multiple people can view the artifacts simultaneously doesn't really change the business model. If we had the technology to duplicate the museum's artifacts for free, the analogy to copyright law would be to say that "the museum containing the original artifacts (whatever that means anymore) controls who gets a copy of the artifacts, and they alone may make copies". It is in this sense that copyright really is an arbitrary restriction.
What I'm wondering is this: why would we accept these controls at all ? If duplication of the artifacts is free, why not let everybody have their own copies ? Would society really benefit more by allowing the original museum a monopoly (as was the case before this type of copying was possible), or should we adapt our laws to what is possible today ? My opinion is that laws have to adapt to our society and technology, not the other way around.
I don't know if this sort of idea is all it's cracked up to be. Are there any situations where a real pilot would have a valid reason to override these controls ?
It shows promise, but I wish they would offer authenticated email services.
You have a 512 meg video card ?! Holy crap !
Your first example is flawed. The "come claim a prize" trick is legal because the police are not playing a role in the actual offence (the people have outstanding warrents, etc, so the crime has already been committed). Whether or not your first example is entrapment is debatable.
An independent review board is too susceptible to lobbying and political interference. We need a large pool of scientists, and some sort of fair method of selecting them on a per case basis.
Sometimes I think the whole point of Slashdot is to confuse as many lazy people as possible.
please block outgoing smtp
How can they have an article about "ripping holes in your walls to deploy gigabit ethernet in the home" without a chapter on "convincing the wife" ? What combination of fighting, pleading, and nagging does Tom's Hardware reccomend ? Where are the benchmarks ? I demand to see a bar graph.
For most of those 20 years, free software slipped in under the radar. Now that it has become a competing force, there will be war. I suggest we write free software, patents be damned. My rationale : this whole situtation is going to get a LOT worse before it gets better, and we are simply not going to win on their terms.
Obligatory link to How The West Wasn't Won
The winner