So what your saying is. It's costing the company THAT HIRED the spammer and makes his line of work feasible double, once for the overseas phone charges and again to pay the spammer this time.
Basically insuring they get a return well below their investment and never pay for this form of advertising again.
ok i'll bite, although this was a mono device, you could easily adapt this to be stereo.
Just make two speakers from a copper coils, magnets and stickers (btw in a proper case this doesn't make a bad speaker, those HD magnets are VERY strong, they will destroy a floppy from 6 inches away... not erase, DESTROY.) When you connect the plug, instead of joining the right and left channel wires, take a small breadboard, run two leads off the ground wire and run that to each of the speakers, then run the left and right to speakers respectively.
Voila instant stereo speaker set. When plugged into a computer, which gives you cd audio, mp3 audio, any digital format, PLUS analog from a cassete player on the input then you have what isn't too far of a stretch to call a stereo.
Of course to really say you built a WHOLE stereo you need to build the pc yourself as well, which takes less than an hour.;)
"So this is really only relevant if you want to protect against somebody with physical access"
While it's true this requires you to have had physical access to the machine at some point, it's the time and level of access that are the issue.
For instance while it is fairly rare to get the level of physical access you need to employ other attacks on a bank terminal, it's a breeze to get the level of access you need to do this.
You don't need to login, you don't need to open the case/bypass locks on it/damage it/etc. You don't need to be able to move the drives into another system or get boot access. You don't need to depend on any particular device being installed (floppy for instance).
This could successfully be employed on a system with a padlocked case, an armed guard 10ft away, and the latest greatest filesystem encryption/authentication etc.
Just walk by, brush the case with a bug coated in "stick my ass to case"(R) TM 2004. And continue on your way unnoticed.
Physical access and knowledge alone arent a guarantee you'll get into a system, there are levels of physical access (something commonly ignored in statements indicating that if you have physical access you own the system).
For instance, 99.9% of the time, physical access to a terminal is secured to the point that you couldn't successfully short the CMOS or boot off a floppy or open the case and fiddle with the innards.
"The whole issue of spyware/adware really has nothing to do with Linux does it? NO! So to tell someone who knows absolutely nothing about Linux, to switch from what they do know (Windows) to it, really isn't helping."
It does in the sense that it has EVERYTHING to do with windows and Internet Explorer. Telling someone to use linux means getting away from the two things which bring on the spyware. It's not as if there is any troublesome spyware for linux. Switching to linux will in fact eradicate your spyware problem.
It will also alleviate your virus problem in the same stroke... despite what people say concerning usage numbers and that as linux gets more popular there will be more problems the opposite has been true. As time has gone on and linux has grown in popularity we've STOPPED seeing linux viruses (not that there were many to begin with and those exploited vulnerabilities in standard technology and affected other platforms as well).
"How do you know? Are you one of "them"? I can appreciate whats involved in creating some of this crap and in most cases its not trivial (sorry I'm not the "uber-geek" like yourself). There is a certain amount of knowledge that is required. Alot of typical developers don't necessarily know or have that knowledge."
I know due to this thing called common sense, spyware makers are commercial entities out to sell you their crap, they may not care if their spyware crashes your machine, but their goal is to get you see their ads, if your machine is tanked you can't.
As for the technical level, I don't think I've seen anything that would be impressive to a computer technician let alone a typical developer. Perhaps you mean a typical uninformed coder?
They write values to the registry, this is trivial, what they accomplish with this and the hooks they use to start apps is more about understanding the registry than programming.
They copy dlls into the system folder and register them, there aren't many programs that don't?
And they phone home, transmit data and initiate popups. None of this IE interaction is hard to find information on. The active X exploits that most use to install are well documented on the web, the best place to find infromation on it is MSDN where they show you how to perform this great feat. The socket programming of course is VERY well documented.
Armed with the correct information, the actual programming involved is trivial (compared to your average windows application). That it's written with so many bugs and problems show that those developing it are either unskilled, don't care, or both.
"They do indeed own Windows... when you "buy a copy" of Windows, you are simply buying a license to use it (and incidentally getting a distribution of it)."
Where on earth did YOU come up with such a silly idea? They own a copyright for Windows, not windows itself. Their copyright allows them control over distribution. Most of their EULA is invalid and unenforcable.
They have no rights or authority regarding use whatsoever, they do have rights and authority under their copyright (which is like a contract between the government and Microsoft giving them limited control of distribution of a PUBLICALLY OWNED ASSET, or more properly than that, an unownable asset).
They are describing the terms under which they are distributing the software to you, all clauses regarding your use of that software are invalid and outside their authority. A EULA cannot be legally used to impose restrictions, the most it can legally do is give you some piece of authority that is granted to them under their copyright. They have no authority in regards to use, if you agree to the EULA which restricts use in ways you normally would be allowed to use it, it's not enforcable because they cannot deliver their end, they have no authority to allow or deny you the right to use the software.
That's great, what does stolen property have to do with anything?
A copied cd is NOT stolen property, there is nothing invalid or illegal about the cd. The act of distributing the cd is illegal but still not theft, it's called copyright infringment, the terms steal, stolen, theft, piracy, etc do not apply.
DUDE, your example kind of makes his point don't you think? It gives the strong implication you weren't running as root to begin with. Yes spyware could still piggyback on software (although it would be easy to find and remove on a linux system) but almost all spyware comes from ACTIVE X nonsense on the web.
On linux you have to be root to install, but not to run software (unless it's administrative software and even then careful users and permissions planning will allow you to run as a non-root user for what you need).
On windows the same theory applies, but in reality you have to be admin to RUN software. Yes root is needed to INSTALL but should never be needed to USE software. Software does not need to modify system files to run!
"complex programs"
Define complex, it's not as if a program can't read from dll's without admin privs. Aside from the actual install I can't think of any reason for non-administrative software (software which has the PURPOSE of modifying system files) to actually modify a system file.
Updates? regular users shouldn't be installing those anyway. Each user should have their own private preferences and storage for files the software needs to modify, individual users don't need to modify global settings.
Hell the only valid reason I can think of for storing information in the registry is that you have to during install in order for the app to show in add/remove otherwise there are these little things called files, they work pretty well. Text files work especially well for most things.
Which is where the termination policy comes into play.
When I was first hired at Sony they explained their policy on this. They calmly explained that they KNOW there are people in this group who could get around their security, and they explained that doing so will result in immediate termination, even it's for something as simple as a screensaver (they blocked screensaver installation because an employee had made a scrolling "I QUIT!!!" marquee).
"1 - Blocking spyware from being downloaded and installed EVER (aside from simply saying "Use Linux"), and"
I fail to see what's wrong with saying "Use Linux", it's a simple honest straightforward answer that is effective. Just because you don't like the solution doesn't invalidate it. And perhaps you should consider what that is the correct solution so often...
"It pisses me off knowing there are many hard-core intelligent software developers out there creating this crap!"
Intelligent hard-core developers? Surely you jest, the main reason this crap is such a problem is that it's so poorly written and buggy. Believe it or not they don't MEAN for the spyware to disable and render your pc damn near useless, kill your browser, etc. They actually want things functioning correctly with some extra pop-up's so that you view their advertising.
"Copying a CD (software or music) for someone else to use is NOT fair use because you buy the right to fair use by buying the product in the first place. This scenario, therefore, falls within the legal control of the copyright holder to enforce."
Mostly correct, but my anal self must correct one detail here. Most of things you mentioned aren't even fair use. Their simply your rights. Ownership of a copyrighted work belongs to the public even while the copyright still exists.
THAT is why you have the right to do anything that wasn't explicitly put into the copyright holders hands when granted the copyright.
Copyright grants control over distribution, most of the examples you mentioned are "use" which copyright grants no control over because copying WITHOUT distributing anything is within your domain.
Fair use on the other hand is a set of circumstances under which you have the right to distribute a copyright'd work (or a portion thereof) despite the holder of the copyright. For example you may quote a copyrighted work in a research paper giving credit. Because of fair use you may distribute that research paper far and wide.
Your rights and fair use apply regardless of whether you've purchased the material or not, they apply if you have it. It's distributing that is copyright infringment, not using.
At what point did someone steal something? You can't steal without taking something away from the owner... when did you take something away from Microsoft again?
Microsoft's copyright gives them control over how software is distributed, it gives them ZERO legal right to control how a copyrighted work is used. That right belongs to the public, since the public actually owns the work to which MS has the copyright.
Even those who illegally distribute a pirated windows copy aren't stealing. Their commiting copyright infringment, it's a different law being broken, and a different charge for a very good reason. Copyright infringment by definition means COPYING and distribution. By definition it cannot be theft since nothing is taken from the original owner, you've merely trespassed on the rights granted them by copyright.
"I bet you dont start bleating away when a flaw is found in Apache or sshd do you? Oh no...these products have been produced insecurely so they must be made to PAY, must they not? Why dont you bleat about Red Hat not providing support to those not on RHN? These people got a Red Hat product, they should be supported by Red Hat? No, of course not, different rules for FOSS isnt it?"
Well yeah, I mean come on, we all know people pirating software which is completely free and downloadable and redistributable. After all, it just makes sense to hunt for hours to find a copy which in some way violates the license amidst the dozens of legally redistributed copies on the web and p2p networks!
Updates from redhat are freely downloadable and freely redistributable. As such you can get them dozens of places. Repsoitories like you'll find at apt.freshrpms.net are actually MORE convient to use for updating than RHN.
You have a highschool class of 30 students. All of them have computers at home, those pc's run windows, some pirated, some not, doesn't really matter.
They go to school and use computers, those computers run windows.
They graduate, their about to go to college and will need a computer, said student is probably going to buy a computer running.......!
Fill in the blank please, considering a pirated copy of windows costs Microsoft not a dime, and pirated copies help to ensure each of these 30 students is immersed in a windows world, I fail to see where it makes a single bit of difference to Microsoft if the copies running on the parents home pc's and school pc's are pirated. Even if half the students pirate windows themselves, the other half will purchase licenses.
It's not like windows has merit on it's own, it only propogates because of monopoly stature and the immersian that keeps it that way. Piracy helps to maintain this.
To a large degree piracy is merely the most effective advertising campaign ever devised.
Last I checked all the pirated XP users simply changed their key to another volume license after sp1. It's not like they can't download patches via windows update!
It's a little different than that. You DO have a right to use the software, that's something you have be default.
Microsoft doesn't own windows any more than a publisher does a book, it's public property, Microsoft merely holds the copyright. And copyright doesn't give them the right the restrict use, copyright only gives them the right to restrict distribution.
Every right which is not explicitly given to the copyright holder resides with the public, a copyrighted work is after all public property.
If another poster was accurate in saying the bush twins are currently attending the school...
Well all the sudden what seems like outrageous overkill (I'm not even sure I agree the request should be denied, although they should keep an eye on him for a bit afterward... depends on the tunnels) becomes quite clear. The bush twins are attending school, the whole place is crawling with secret service, and this dumbass asks for maps of the tunnels beneath the school.
If that's true, I doubt this has anything to do with what is or isn't school policy, I imagine it has more to do with what the secret service and the President felt appropriate.
I agree that's it's cumbersome to interact with text. You don't want anything with diagrams or pictures or reference information on a handheld I wouldn't think.
For good old fiction however which requires none of this I find reading on my sj22 to be ideal. If your extremely anal you may never get past the lack of formatting but most of us really don't care.
1. It's extremely light compared to even a small 200-300 page book
2. I can store the next 20 books I intend to read on it. If I add a 64mb memory stick that becomes more books than I can predict reading ahead of time!
3. Screen size really doesnt matter because page turning becomes automatic and unconscious anyway.
4. You don't lose your place, ever, tired fo reading? like to fall asleep reading a book? no big thing at all, if you fall asleep it will go on power saving and your book will still be there in the morning (the thing will hold a charge for 3 or 4 days). Want to do something else? no problem, when you go back into your reader you'll be right where you left of.
5. with mobipocket I never have to grab an external reference to look up a word or assume the meaning by breaking it apart and looking at context. I simply highly the word with the stylus and tap "definition" and there it is, straight from the oxford dictionary.
6. It is comfortably operated with one hand. You hold it in your hand and you can either use the up and down button with your thumb, or the jog dial with your forefinger to move back and forth between screenfuls of text. Want to smoke a cigerette or eat while reading? Not a problem with this puppy. With a paper book you have to use your other hand everytime you turn the page.
7. The SJ22 can be had for around $100 (or less) on ebay.
I personally use a sj22, you can now get them for about $100. It has a color screen, sync's via usb, and works fine with linux.
The internal 16mb memory is enough to hold about 20 books. If you get a 64mb memory stick to go with it, you can hold a veritable library on the thing.
There is a program called txt2pdb for linux which I've found very useful, it allows you to convert text files into palmdoc files you can read on your clie. I have to do this enough that I just put all the texts into a folder and sort by author.
I wrote a little perl script which uses the filename to file in the book title and author and basically just trees through the directories recursively and converts all the txts. (Not really worth passing around, it only took an hour to write and I'd have to find it). For project gutenberg this could be just the thing.
Although the sj22 has a decent res color screen (320x320) I still don't tend to look at pdf's on it as much. If it's fiction or other reading without graphics then I'll convert the pdf to a palmdoc. If there are lots of graphics then I find a handheld (any handheld) really has too small a screen.
I usually use mobipocket to read, if I remember right it's around $20 and you can get a pocket oxford dictionary for it, so that you can highlight words and instantly retrieve a definition without leaving the reader or losing your place. Actually you never lose your place as the program retains this even when you leave the app. It also has decent font support to make the screen look good. The jog dial can't be beat for turning "pages".
It's true there is a newer palmos out than what comes on the sj22, but there are plenty of apps that will run just fine on it, including all the readers I know of.
There are people who will tell you reading on a handheld is excruitiating torture or some such nonsense. That's absolutely ridiculus, I find it to be infinately more pleasant than reading a paper book.
As I said, it's lighter, you never lose your place, it requires the use of only one hand, and it's backlit. It will hold a charge for about 3 days and has an internal battery.
I'm fairly sure this meets ALL of the requirements you listed above at a great price, see ebay.
Since it's primarily just math and the rest would be rewritten in open source anyway I can't see why not. Math isn't copyright/patent-able, it's public domain. But then again, with the patents flying out these days...
"Actually the amazing this is that we CAN claim to be aware of the size of the universe! Since everything is accelerating away from us as the Universe apparently expands we can extrapolate this expansion back in time until all the matter in the observable Universe was at a point i.e. the Big Bang. Since we now have a time when the Universe began we now have a maximum size limit for the Universe ~ speed of light x age."
I said based on almost no facts, you haven't said anything here which challenges that. The big bang is a theory, that makes any facts determined based on when it happened a theory also. Your basing the starting point on pure theory. There are no facts in anything you've just said. And you certainly can't presume to impose proofs which rely on another contradictory theory on his theory.
"until all the matter in the observable Universe was at a point"
For a second let's pretend to give you the big bang. Now, you say we determine this from knowing when all matter we can presently observe was at a single point based on the rate of theoretical expansion that may or may not be happening. No matter how far we've looked, and been able to look, we've found more universe. So wouldn't it be fairly reasonable to believe it might just be a tad arrogant to believe that how far we can presently see is as far as can be seen?
And if so, what about the time it takes for the rest of the matter we CANNOT see yet to get back to this single point of yours? Ok, so now we've discovered that both the method by which you propose to gauge the size of the Universe and the Age are full of holes. And as you propose them are Paradoxically reliant upon one another. How can you determine the size of the universe by determining how long it would take for all of it to be retracted back to a single point, when you don't know the size and thus how far it stretches to begin with? Further how do you know the Universe expands at a constant rate (if it expands)?
If it accelerates, what makes you believe it accelerates at a constant rate. Unfortunately physics in the present day is full of these kinds of holes at almost every turn and is pretty shakey at best.
"Well that is not quite true. We can observe a tremendous amount of the Universe and we see no evidence for mass being created since creating mass from nothing would violate probably the most fundamental law of physics, namely conservation of energy. This conservation law is caused by invariance of all the physical laws (that we know of) under spatial translations. So in order to create matter/energy you would need to introduce a new physical law that does not hold the same for all spatial coordinates."
Yes, we have observed a tremendous amount of the Universe, relative to our perception of it. A field mouse on a hill might believe he's observed the entire world, or most of it, but that hardly makes it true. We have no way of knowing in fact the size of the Universe, and therefore have no way of knowing if that portion we know about constitutes a billionth of a percent of it, 50%, or even no percent in an infinite universe.
Further, nobody has proposed creating mass from nothing here, someone has however proposed that mass from another location is moved to this location. That in itself violates none of the fundemental laws of physics that I'm aware of.
"So while we cannot categorically rule out mass being created somewhere in the Universe it requires lots of new physics for which there is absoulely no evidence. Thus it is far more likely, given our current understanding, that mass is NOT being created and added to the Universe."
Odd, I was under the impression that about the only thing in physics we could be absolutely sure of was that mass was at one point created. After all it had to come from somewhere right?
Re:Someone please explain to me..
on
Pike 7.6 Released
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
First, a bittorrent library hardly is on the level with discovering a continent.
Second, Christopher Columbus didn't discover North America, this is a common Myth sadly propogated in the lower grades in school and then generally retaught in high school... yet another example of our piss poor educational system.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a good thing, people hang up, voicemail doesn't and it costs just as much!
So what your saying is. It's costing the company THAT HIRED the spammer and makes his line of work feasible double, once for the overseas phone charges and again to pay the spammer this time.
Basically insuring they get a return well below their investment and never pay for this form of advertising again.
ok i'll bite, although this was a mono device, you could easily adapt this to be stereo.
;)
Just make two speakers from a copper coils, magnets and stickers (btw in a proper case this doesn't make a bad speaker, those HD magnets are VERY strong, they will destroy a floppy from 6 inches away... not erase, DESTROY.) When you connect the plug, instead of joining the right and left channel wires, take a small breadboard, run two leads off the ground wire and run that to each of the speakers, then run the left and right to speakers respectively.
Voila instant stereo speaker set. When plugged into a computer, which gives you cd audio, mp3 audio, any digital format, PLUS analog from a cassete player on the input then you have what isn't too far of a stretch to call a stereo.
Of course to really say you built a WHOLE stereo you need to build the pc yourself as well, which takes less than an hour.
lol, it takes 5 mins just for them to tell you the authentication key after you've given them prod key and waited for 20minutes minimum on hold.
You also know they won't do this more than 3 times? 3 upgrades or new pc and your winXP is effectively worthless.
ok, now compare those stats to say WMP6 and consider that no actual functionality has been added.
"So this is really only relevant if you want to protect against somebody with physical access"
While it's true this requires you to have had physical access to the machine at some point, it's the time and level of access that are the issue.
For instance while it is fairly rare to get the level of physical access you need to employ other attacks on a bank terminal, it's a breeze to get the level of access you need to do this.
You don't need to login, you don't need to open the case/bypass locks on it/damage it/etc. You don't need to be able to move the drives into another system or get boot access. You don't need to depend on any particular device being installed (floppy for instance).
This could successfully be employed on a system with a padlocked case, an armed guard 10ft away, and the latest greatest filesystem encryption/authentication etc.
Just walk by, brush the case with a bug coated in "stick my ass to case"(R) TM 2004. And continue on your way unnoticed.
Physical access and knowledge alone arent a guarantee you'll get into a system, there are levels of physical access (something commonly ignored in statements indicating that if you have physical access you own the system).
For instance, 99.9% of the time, physical access to a terminal is secured to the point that you couldn't successfully short the CMOS or boot off a floppy or open the case and fiddle with the innards.
"The whole issue of spyware/adware really has nothing to do with Linux does it? NO! So to tell someone who knows absolutely nothing about Linux, to switch from what they do know (Windows) to it, really isn't helping."
It does in the sense that it has EVERYTHING to do with windows and Internet Explorer. Telling someone to use linux means getting away from the two things which bring on the spyware. It's not as if there is any troublesome spyware for linux. Switching to linux will in fact eradicate your spyware problem.
It will also alleviate your virus problem in the same stroke... despite what people say concerning usage numbers and that as linux gets more popular there will be more problems the opposite has been true. As time has gone on and linux has grown in popularity we've STOPPED seeing linux viruses (not that there were many to begin with and those exploited vulnerabilities in standard technology and affected other platforms as well).
"How do you know? Are you one of "them"? I can appreciate whats involved in creating some of this crap and in most cases its not trivial (sorry I'm not the "uber-geek" like yourself). There is a certain amount of knowledge that is required. Alot of typical developers don't necessarily know or have that knowledge."
I know due to this thing called common sense, spyware makers are commercial entities out to sell you their crap, they may not care if their spyware crashes your machine, but their goal is to get you see their ads, if your machine is tanked you can't.
As for the technical level, I don't think I've seen anything that would be impressive to a computer technician let alone a typical developer. Perhaps you mean a typical uninformed coder?
They write values to the registry, this is trivial, what they accomplish with this and the hooks they use to start apps is more about understanding the registry than programming.
They copy dlls into the system folder and register them, there aren't many programs that don't?
And they phone home, transmit data and initiate popups. None of this IE interaction is hard to find information on. The active X exploits that most use to install are well documented on the web, the best place to find infromation on it is MSDN where they show you how to perform this great feat. The socket programming of course is VERY well documented.
Armed with the correct information, the actual programming involved is trivial (compared to your average windows application). That it's written with so many bugs and problems show that those developing it are either unskilled, don't care, or both.
"They do indeed own Windows... when you "buy a copy" of Windows, you are simply buying a license to use it (and incidentally getting a distribution of it)."
Where on earth did YOU come up with such a silly idea? They own a copyright for Windows, not windows itself. Their copyright allows them control over distribution. Most of their EULA is invalid and unenforcable.
They have no rights or authority regarding use whatsoever, they do have rights and authority under their copyright (which is like a contract between the government and Microsoft giving them limited control of distribution of a PUBLICALLY OWNED ASSET, or more properly than that, an unownable asset).
They are describing the terms under which they are distributing the software to you, all clauses regarding your use of that software are invalid and outside their authority. A EULA cannot be legally used to impose restrictions, the most it can legally do is give you some piece of authority that is granted to them under their copyright. They have no authority in regards to use, if you agree to the EULA which restricts use in ways you normally would be allowed to use it, it's not enforcable because they cannot deliver their end, they have no authority to allow or deny you the right to use the software.
That's great, what does stolen property have to do with anything?
A copied cd is NOT stolen property, there is nothing invalid or illegal about the cd. The act of distributing the cd is illegal but still not theft, it's called copyright infringment, the terms steal, stolen, theft, piracy, etc do not apply.
"And it would be easy to slippery-slope one's way into a situation where Windows or BIOSes would only run code signed by a central authority"
yeah because that's not where we are going as is after all.
"./configure
make
su
make install"
DUDE, your example kind of makes his point don't you think? It gives the strong implication you weren't running as root to begin with. Yes spyware could still piggyback on software (although it would be easy to find and remove on a linux system) but almost all spyware comes from ACTIVE X nonsense on the web.
On linux you have to be root to install, but not to run software (unless it's administrative software and even then careful users and permissions planning will allow you to run as a non-root user for what you need).
On windows the same theory applies, but in reality you have to be admin to RUN software. Yes root is needed to INSTALL but should never be needed to USE software. Software does not need to modify system files to run!
"complex programs"
Define complex, it's not as if a program can't read from dll's without admin privs. Aside from the actual install I can't think of any reason for non-administrative software (software which has the PURPOSE of modifying system files) to actually modify a system file.
Updates? regular users shouldn't be installing those anyway. Each user should have their own private preferences and storage for files the software needs to modify, individual users don't need to modify global settings.
Hell the only valid reason I can think of for storing information in the registry is that you have to during install in order for the app to show in add/remove otherwise there are these little things called files, they work pretty well. Text files work especially well for most things.
Which is where the termination policy comes into play.
When I was first hired at Sony they explained their policy on this. They calmly explained that they KNOW there are people in this group who could get around their security, and they explained that doing so will result in immediate termination, even it's for something as simple as a screensaver (they blocked screensaver installation because an employee had made a scrolling "I QUIT!!!" marquee).
"1 - Blocking spyware from being downloaded and installed EVER (aside from simply saying "Use Linux"), and"
I fail to see what's wrong with saying "Use Linux", it's a simple honest straightforward answer that is effective. Just because you don't like the solution doesn't invalidate it. And perhaps you should consider what that is the correct solution so often...
"It pisses me off knowing there are many hard-core intelligent software developers out there creating this crap!"
Intelligent hard-core developers? Surely you jest, the main reason this crap is such a problem is that it's so poorly written and buggy. Believe it or not they don't MEAN for the spyware to disable and render your pc damn near useless, kill your browser, etc. They actually want things functioning correctly with some extra pop-up's so that you view their advertising.
"Copying a CD (software or music) for someone else to use is NOT fair use because you buy the right to fair use by buying the product in the first place. This scenario, therefore, falls within the legal control of the copyright holder to enforce."
Mostly correct, but my anal self must correct one detail here. Most of things you mentioned aren't even fair use. Their simply your rights. Ownership of a copyrighted work belongs to the public even while the copyright still exists.
THAT is why you have the right to do anything that wasn't explicitly put into the copyright holders hands when granted the copyright.
Copyright grants control over distribution, most of the examples you mentioned are "use" which copyright grants no control over because copying WITHOUT distributing anything is within your domain.
Fair use on the other hand is a set of circumstances under which you have the right to distribute a copyright'd work (or a portion thereof) despite the holder of the copyright. For example you may quote a copyrighted work in a research paper giving credit. Because of fair use you may distribute that research paper far and wide.
Your rights and fair use apply regardless of whether you've purchased the material or not, they apply if you have it. It's distributing that is copyright infringment, not using.
"this software is STOLEN"
At what point did someone steal something? You can't steal without taking something away from the owner... when did you take something away from Microsoft again?
Microsoft's copyright gives them control over how software is distributed, it gives them ZERO legal right to control how a copyrighted work is used. That right belongs to the public, since the public actually owns the work to which MS has the copyright.
Even those who illegally distribute a pirated windows copy aren't stealing. Their commiting copyright infringment, it's a different law being broken, and a different charge for a very good reason. Copyright infringment by definition means COPYING and distribution. By definition it cannot be theft since nothing is taken from the original owner, you've merely trespassed on the rights granted them by copyright.
"I bet you dont start bleating away when a flaw is found in Apache or sshd do you? Oh no...these products have been produced insecurely so they must be made to PAY, must they not? Why dont you bleat about Red Hat not providing support to those not on RHN? These people got a Red Hat product, they should be supported by Red Hat? No, of course not, different rules for FOSS isnt it?"
Well yeah, I mean come on, we all know people pirating software which is completely free and downloadable and redistributable. After all, it just makes sense to hunt for hours to find a copy which in some way violates the license amidst the dozens of legally redistributed copies on the web and p2p networks!
Updates from redhat are freely downloadable and freely redistributable. As such you can get them dozens of places. Repsoitories like you'll find at apt.freshrpms.net are actually MORE convient to use for updating than RHN.
You have a highschool class of 30 students. All of them have computers at home, those pc's run windows, some pirated, some not, doesn't really matter.
.......!
They go to school and use computers, those computers run windows.
They graduate, their about to go to college and will need a computer, said student is probably going to buy a computer running
Fill in the blank please, considering a pirated copy of windows costs Microsoft not a dime, and pirated copies help to ensure each of these 30 students is immersed in a windows world, I fail to see where it makes a single bit of difference to Microsoft if the copies running on the parents home pc's and school pc's are pirated. Even if half the students pirate windows themselves, the other half will purchase licenses.
It's not like windows has merit on it's own, it only propogates because of monopoly stature and the immersian that keeps it that way. Piracy helps to maintain this.
To a large degree piracy is merely the most effective advertising campaign ever devised.
Last I checked all the pirated XP users simply changed their key to another volume license after sp1. It's not like they can't download patches via windows update!
It's a little different than that. You DO have a right to use the software, that's something you have be default.
Microsoft doesn't own windows any more than a publisher does a book, it's public property, Microsoft merely holds the copyright. And copyright doesn't give them the right the restrict use, copyright only gives them the right to restrict distribution.
Every right which is not explicitly given to the copyright holder resides with the public, a copyrighted work is after all public property.
If another poster was accurate in saying the bush twins are currently attending the school...
Well all the sudden what seems like outrageous overkill (I'm not even sure I agree the request should be denied, although they should keep an eye on him for a bit afterward... depends on the tunnels) becomes quite clear. The bush twins are attending school, the whole place is crawling with secret service, and this dumbass asks for maps of the tunnels beneath the school.
If that's true, I doubt this has anything to do with what is or isn't school policy, I imagine it has more to do with what the secret service and the President felt appropriate.
Like I said, it's not SUPPOSED to be copyright/patentable but there are alot of crazy patents going through.
I agree that's it's cumbersome to interact with text. You don't want anything with diagrams or pictures or reference information on a handheld I wouldn't think.
For good old fiction however which requires none of this I find reading on my sj22 to be ideal. If your extremely anal you may never get past the lack of formatting but most of us really don't care.
1. It's extremely light compared to even a small 200-300 page book
2. I can store the next 20 books I intend to read on it. If I add a 64mb memory stick that becomes more books than I can predict reading ahead of time!
3. Screen size really doesnt matter because page turning becomes automatic and unconscious anyway.
4. You don't lose your place, ever, tired fo reading? like to fall asleep reading a book? no big thing at all, if you fall asleep it will go on power saving and your book will still be there in the morning (the thing will hold a charge for 3 or 4 days). Want to do something else? no problem, when you go back into your reader you'll be right where you left of.
5. with mobipocket I never have to grab an external reference to look up a word or assume the meaning by breaking it apart and looking at context. I simply highly the word with the stylus and tap "definition" and there it is, straight from the oxford dictionary.
6. It is comfortably operated with one hand. You hold it in your hand and you can either use the up and down button with your thumb, or the jog dial with your forefinger to move back and forth between screenfuls of text. Want to smoke a cigerette or eat while reading? Not a problem with this puppy. With a paper book you have to use your other hand everytime you turn the page.
7. The SJ22 can be had for around $100 (or less) on ebay.
I personally use a sj22, you can now get them for about $100. It has a color screen, sync's via usb, and works fine with linux.
The internal 16mb memory is enough to hold about 20 books. If you get a 64mb memory stick to go with it, you can hold a veritable library on the thing.
There is a program called txt2pdb for linux which I've found very useful, it allows you to convert text files into palmdoc files you can read on your clie. I have to do this enough that I just put all the texts into a folder and sort by author.
I wrote a little perl script which uses the filename to file in the book title and author and basically just trees through the directories recursively and converts all the txts. (Not really worth passing around, it only took an hour to write and I'd have to find it). For project gutenberg this could be just the thing.
Although the sj22 has a decent res color screen (320x320) I still don't tend to look at pdf's on it as much. If it's fiction or other reading without graphics then I'll convert the pdf to a palmdoc. If there are lots of graphics then I find a handheld (any handheld) really has too small a screen.
I usually use mobipocket to read, if I remember right it's around $20 and you can get a pocket oxford dictionary for it, so that you can highlight words and instantly retrieve a definition without leaving the reader or losing your place. Actually you never lose your place as the program retains this even when you leave the app. It also has decent font support to make the screen look good. The jog dial can't be beat for turning "pages".
It's true there is a newer palmos out than what comes on the sj22, but there are plenty of apps that will run just fine on it, including all the readers I know of.
There are people who will tell you reading on a handheld is excruitiating torture or some such nonsense. That's absolutely ridiculus, I find it to be infinately more pleasant than reading a paper book.
As I said, it's lighter, you never lose your place, it requires the use of only one hand, and it's backlit. It will hold a charge for about 3 days and has an internal battery.
I'm fairly sure this meets ALL of the requirements you listed above at a great price, see ebay.
Since it's primarily just math and the rest would be rewritten in open source anyway I can't see why not. Math isn't copyright/patent-able, it's public domain. But then again, with the patents flying out these days...
"Actually the amazing this is that we CAN claim to be aware of the size of the universe! Since everything is accelerating away from us as the Universe apparently expands we can extrapolate this expansion back in time until all the matter in the observable Universe was at a point i.e. the Big Bang. Since we now have a time when the Universe began we now have a maximum size limit for the Universe ~ speed of light x age."
I said based on almost no facts, you haven't said anything here which challenges that. The big bang is a theory, that makes any facts determined based on when it happened a theory also. Your basing the starting point on pure theory. There are no facts in anything you've just said. And you certainly can't presume to impose proofs which rely on another contradictory theory on his theory.
"until all the matter in the observable Universe was at a point"
For a second let's pretend to give you the big bang. Now, you say we determine this from knowing when all matter we can presently observe was at a single point based on the rate of theoretical expansion that may or may not be happening. No matter how far we've looked, and been able to look, we've found more universe. So wouldn't it be fairly reasonable to believe it might just be a tad arrogant to believe that how far we can presently see is as far as can be seen?
And if so, what about the time it takes for the rest of the matter we CANNOT see yet to get back to this single point of yours? Ok, so now we've discovered that both the method by which you propose to gauge the size of the Universe and the Age are full of holes. And as you propose them are Paradoxically reliant upon one another. How can you determine the size of the universe by determining how long it would take for all of it to be retracted back to a single point, when you don't know the size and thus how far it stretches to begin with? Further how do you know the Universe expands at a constant rate (if it expands)?
If it accelerates, what makes you believe it accelerates at a constant rate. Unfortunately physics in the present day is full of these kinds of holes at almost every turn and is pretty shakey at best.
"Well that is not quite true. We can observe a tremendous amount of the Universe and we see no evidence for mass being created since creating mass from nothing would violate probably the most fundamental law of physics, namely conservation of energy. This conservation law is caused by invariance of all the physical laws (that we know of) under spatial translations. So in order to create matter/energy you would need to introduce a new physical law that does not hold the same for all spatial coordinates."
Yes, we have observed a tremendous amount of the Universe, relative to our perception of it. A field mouse on a hill might believe he's observed the entire world, or most of it, but that hardly makes it true. We have no way of knowing in fact the size of the Universe, and therefore have no way of knowing if that portion we know about constitutes a billionth of a percent of it, 50%, or even no percent in an infinite universe.
Further, nobody has proposed creating mass from nothing here, someone has however proposed that mass from another location is moved to this location. That in itself violates none of the fundemental laws of physics that I'm aware of.
"So while we cannot categorically rule out mass being created somewhere in the Universe it requires lots of new physics for which there is absoulely no evidence. Thus it is far more likely, given our current understanding, that mass is NOT being created and added to the Universe."
Odd, I was under the impression that about the only thing in physics we could be absolutely sure of was that mass was at one point created. After all it had to come from somewhere right?
First, a bittorrent library hardly is on the level with discovering a continent.
Second, Christopher Columbus didn't discover North America, this is a common Myth sadly propogated in the lower grades in school and then generally retaught in high school... yet another example of our piss poor educational system.