The MSFreePC site is still accepting applications for their "instant settlement" and they say that they will be honoring claims even if they ultimately lose in court: "We will fully honor all of the terms of the MSfreePC.com web site and will not be asking you for money or taking back product that has been made available to qualifying consumers, even if we do not receive payment from the Settlement Administrator" This means that you can get your $100 worth of free Lindows software AND file a legitimate claim to get your $100 from the settlement! Woo hoo!
Aren't most COBOL applications deployed on big iron?
I doubt any Microsoft solution could honestly compete with the scalability and reliability of a true mainframe
Not all mainframe applications run on mainframes because they need the power and scalability - a whole lot run there because they were written when the mainframe was the only game in town. I'd bet that a vast majority of legacy applications running on mainframes could easily run on Intel servers without breaking a sweat.
The odds of a mutation creating all parts simultaneously are astronomical, and consequently, the only accepted theory that can sanely describe such a thing is intelligent design
Intelligent Design is an "accepted" theory?! I think you've been smoking too many tomacco leaves...
You know the process, you take in a huge amount in bribes from corporate controlled PACs and special interest lobbies. Then you buy TV ad time to trash your opponent with attack ads
Once they convert everything to digital signals, there will be excess bandwith that can be auctioned off to the highest bidder. This could provide enough incentive to override the normal money-grubbing that goes on in DC. Or not.
For instance if your tires were spinning, it could record you going a lot faster than you actually were, but the blackbox has no way of telling that, it will just simply record the speed your tires were spinning at...regardless of how fast you were going...
The black boxes use accelerometers to determine the rate of deceleration at the time of impact. This is used by the computer to determine whether or not to deploy the airbags. You can also use this information to determine how fast you were going before the crash, completely independently of how fast your wheels were spinning. If you're hit hard enough from behind, the airbags will deploy even though your wheels are not turning at all.
Agree'd. The only thing that the shuttle can do that a traditional rocket can't is fly around in orbit and repair things.
I don't see why a capsule couldn't fly around and repair things - after all, capsules made it to the moon and back. They're not big enough to carry a robotic arm like the shuttle can - I'm not sure what kind of problems that would present. They're also not big enough to return a satellite from orbit to Earth safely for repairs (which the shuttle was designed to do), but as far as I know there has never been a need for that - it's cheaper to just put a new satellite into orbit.
Here's a nice opinion piece suggesting that we go back to using capsules, like the Russians and now the Chinese are using. It doesn't sound like a bad idea to me - if a "reusable" craft like the shuttle costs orders of magnitude more than one-time-use capsules, why not just make a bunch of capsules instead? You wouldn't have to worry about retrofits, upgrades, wear and tear, etc.
As I understand that clause, if I sell you a license to use a copy of my program, then I have to sell you (or give to you or whatever) all of the rights to the program also.
This section of the law is referring to the rights of the person buying the copyrighted work, not the author. It is saying that the buyer can resell the copyrighted work only if all copies and rights are transferred as part of the sale. The GPL gives the buyer more leeway to make copies, which SCO says violates the law.
What on earth? IANAL, but isn't the whole basis of copyright law that the copyright holder can do whatever the hell he wants to with his material?
IANAL either, but this isn't really true. Once the author sells copies of his or her work, there are hundreds of pages of restrictions that come into effect. For example, "first sale" law says that once you buy a copy of a product, you're allowed to loan it or sell it to somebody else regardless of what the copyright owner says. If the MPAA were able to set any restrictions that it wanted to, Blockbuster would be out of business in a heartbeat. "Fair use" law also gives you the right to do things like tape TV programs and watch them later, even if the copyright holders don't want you to.
SCO is trying to say that the GPL is invalid because it grants rights beyond what is allowable by copyright law. One section says that "copies...may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which
such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all
rights in the program." The GPL lets you sell copies without giving up the original, violating the rule in this section. SCO says that the GPL can't claim copyright protection if they're going to change the rules, even if it is a change that may be a benefit to the consumer.
"Foreign terrorists" is a favorite term of U.S. administration officials, used to describe foreigners who have entered Iraq to oppose the occupation. This Reuters report has one example. The term is also frequently used in White House press briefings in the same context.
A freedom fighter or a rebel will take up arms against the government, and the military. A terrorist, however, takes up arms against the people, and against civilians.
I completely agree with you here, but if you look at reports from Iraq, attacks on U.S. soldiers are being carried out by "terrorists". The "t" word has lost most of its meaning these days, and is being used to describe guerilla tactics as well as attacks on civilian targets.
95% of the Linux systems out there don't share 99% of their configuration. 99% of the Windows out there share 99% of their DNA. They are clones. There is a build... and there is precious little ability to deviate from that build.
True for the most part, but don't forget about all those RaQ servers at Yahoo and other hosting services...
Are there other reasons why the likelihood of a "Sobig" or an "ILUVYOU" would be lower for Linux than Windows?
I think the biggest reason that something like Sobig is unlikely is that there are so few Linux machines on the Internet as compared to Windows machines, and since a majority of Linux installations are on servers an awful lot of them are behind firewalls. Worms like this spread by seeking out more systems to infect. If 95% of the systems are running Windows, a worm can spread a lot faster than if it is looking for a fraction of that other 5%. A similar worm on Linux would take a _lot_ longer to spread and would give us more time to react and put a stop to it.
I'm really wondering what inner changes there are, other than the ones above that give the impression of security
Besides the default-lockdown mode, they supposedly did a review of the entire operating system looking potential security holes like buffer overruns. There's an awful lot of code in Windows though, and it's hard to know exactly how thorough that review was - especially since they missed this one. Time will tell.
I know there'll be dozens of "they shouldda been using un*x" posts, but in defense of Windows, there has been a patch for this on Windows Update since July 16. Even I had enough time to test the patch on a non-production system between then and now. Every platform gets its 'sploits throughout its lifetime, it's just a matter of learning about them and applying the proper patches in a resonable amount of time... especially on mission-critical machines. (DMV computers, etc...)
Yeah, but it's not like the Department of Homeland Security put out a notice telling people they should install the patch. Oh wait, yes they did. Maybe that's why a group of us worked late on Friday 8/1 making sure the patch was installed on all of our servers and workstations.
With more examples of this (without hiding behind AC), if this can be documented, it opens SCO up to all kinds of civil liability. Especially if SCO ever loses any of their claims in court, which civil suits can in turn point to as proof of their misleading or false claims.
SCO doesn't have much cash, so that's really a moot point. The only thing they have of value is the System V code, and if they lose this lawsuit that's pretty much worthless anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
The MSFreePC site is still accepting applications for their "instant settlement" and they say that they will be honoring claims even if they ultimately lose in court: "We will fully honor all of the terms of the MSfreePC.com web site and will not be asking you for money or taking back product that has been made available to qualifying consumers, even if we do not receive payment from the Settlement Administrator" This means that you can get your $100 worth of free Lindows software AND file a legitimate claim to get your $100 from the settlement! Woo hoo!
Aren't most COBOL applications deployed on big iron? I doubt any Microsoft solution could honestly compete with the scalability and reliability of a true mainframe
Not all mainframe applications run on mainframes because they need the power and scalability - a whole lot run there because they were written when the mainframe was the only game in town. I'd bet that a vast majority of legacy applications running on mainframes could easily run on Intel servers without breaking a sweat.
The odds of a mutation creating all parts simultaneously are astronomical, and consequently, the only accepted theory that can sanely describe such a thing is intelligent design
Intelligent Design is an "accepted" theory?! I think you've been smoking too many tomacco leaves...
That's just wrong.
16,000,000,000K should be enough for anybody. But don't quote me on that!
You know the process, you take in a huge amount in bribes from corporate controlled PACs and special interest lobbies. Then you buy TV ad time to trash your opponent with attack ads
Once they convert everything to digital signals, there will be excess bandwith that can be auctioned off to the highest bidder. This could provide enough incentive to override the normal money-grubbing that goes on in DC. Or not.
For instance if your tires were spinning, it could record you going a lot faster than you actually were, but the blackbox has no way of telling that, it will just simply record the speed your tires were spinning at...regardless of how fast you were going...
The black boxes use accelerometers to determine the rate of deceleration at the time of impact. This is used by the computer to determine whether or not to deploy the airbags. You can also use this information to determine how fast you were going before the crash, completely independently of how fast your wheels were spinning. If you're hit hard enough from behind, the airbags will deploy even though your wheels are not turning at all.
Agree'd. The only thing that the shuttle can do that a traditional rocket can't is fly around in orbit and repair things.
I don't see why a capsule couldn't fly around and repair things - after all, capsules made it to the moon and back. They're not big enough to carry a robotic arm like the shuttle can - I'm not sure what kind of problems that would present. They're also not big enough to return a satellite from orbit to Earth safely for repairs (which the shuttle was designed to do), but as far as I know there has never been a need for that - it's cheaper to just put a new satellite into orbit.
Here's a nice opinion piece suggesting that we go back to using capsules, like the Russians and now the Chinese are using. It doesn't sound like a bad idea to me - if a "reusable" craft like the shuttle costs orders of magnitude more than one-time-use capsules, why not just make a bunch of capsules instead? You wouldn't have to worry about retrofits, upgrades, wear and tear, etc.
As I understand that clause, if I sell you a license to use a copy of my program, then I have to sell you (or give to you or whatever) all of the rights to the program also.
This section of the law is referring to the rights of the person buying the copyrighted work, not the author. It is saying that the buyer can resell the copyrighted work only if all copies and rights are transferred as part of the sale. The GPL gives the buyer more leeway to make copies, which SCO says violates the law.
What on earth? IANAL, but isn't the whole basis of copyright law that the copyright holder can do whatever the hell he wants to with his material?
IANAL either, but this isn't really true. Once the author sells copies of his or her work, there are hundreds of pages of restrictions that come into effect. For example, "first sale" law says that once you buy a copy of a product, you're allowed to loan it or sell it to somebody else regardless of what the copyright owner says. If the MPAA were able to set any restrictions that it wanted to, Blockbuster would be out of business in a heartbeat. "Fair use" law also gives you the right to do things like tape TV programs and watch them later, even if the copyright holders don't want you to.
SCO is trying to say that the GPL is invalid because it grants rights beyond what is allowable by copyright law. One section says that "copies...may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program." The GPL lets you sell copies without giving up the original, violating the rule in this section. SCO says that the GPL can't claim copyright protection if they're going to change the rules, even if it is a change that may be a benefit to the consumer.
You don't need weapons-grade uranium for a dirty bomb.
I don't see anyone walking in and plucking the core out of the plant...not without a serious case of death that is
Since when has that stopped a determined terrorist?
"Foreign terrorists" is a favorite term of U.S. administration officials, used to describe foreigners who have entered Iraq to oppose the occupation. This Reuters report has one example. The term is also frequently used in White House press briefings in the same context.
A freedom fighter or a rebel will take up arms against the government, and the military. A terrorist, however, takes up arms against the people, and against civilians.
I completely agree with you here, but if you look at reports from Iraq, attacks on U.S. soldiers are being carried out by "terrorists". The "t" word has lost most of its meaning these days, and is being used to describe guerilla tactics as well as attacks on civilian targets.
How about the Grotesque Gulp from one of the Leisure Suit Larry games?
Run TCP/IP over a cowbell and I'll be impressed.
All cubicle tables should have a notch cut out for this purpose.
A power drill with a 1" bit can work wonders.
95% of the Linux systems out there don't share 99% of their configuration. 99% of the Windows out there share 99% of their DNA. They are clones. There is a build... and there is precious little ability to deviate from that build.
True for the most part, but don't forget about all those RaQ servers at Yahoo and other hosting services...
Are there other reasons why the likelihood of a "Sobig" or an "ILUVYOU" would be lower for Linux than Windows?
I think the biggest reason that something like Sobig is unlikely is that there are so few Linux machines on the Internet as compared to Windows machines, and since a majority of Linux installations are on servers an awful lot of them are behind firewalls. Worms like this spread by seeking out more systems to infect. If 95% of the systems are running Windows, a worm can spread a lot faster than if it is looking for a fraction of that other 5%. A similar worm on Linux would take a _lot_ longer to spread and would give us more time to react and put a stop to it.
But nobody with a Mac or a Linux PC has had to lose a moment of sleep over these outbreaks
Yet.
Cheaper version (still fun I guess): What if they put just a flat mirror in front of it?!
That would never work. All those metal balls banging into the back of the mirror would probably shatter it.
I'm really wondering what inner changes there are, other than the ones above that give the impression of security
Besides the default-lockdown mode, they supposedly did a review of the entire operating system looking potential security holes like buffer overruns. There's an awful lot of code in Windows though, and it's hard to know exactly how thorough that review was - especially since they missed this one. Time will tell.
I know there'll be dozens of "they shouldda been using un*x" posts, but in defense of Windows, there has been a patch for this on Windows Update since July 16. Even I had enough time to test the patch on a non-production system between then and now. Every platform gets its 'sploits throughout its lifetime, it's just a matter of learning about them and applying the proper patches in a resonable amount of time... especially on mission-critical machines. (DMV computers, etc...)
Yeah, but it's not like the Department of Homeland Security put out a notice telling people they should install the patch. Oh wait, yes they did. Maybe that's why a group of us worked late on Friday 8/1 making sure the patch was installed on all of our servers and workstations.
With more examples of this (without hiding behind AC), if this can be documented, it opens SCO up to all kinds of civil liability. Especially if SCO ever loses any of their claims in court, which civil suits can in turn point to as proof of their misleading or false claims.
SCO doesn't have much cash, so that's really a moot point. The only thing they have of value is the System V code, and if they lose this lawsuit that's pretty much worthless anyway.