imho, programming is a quite cerebral endeavour, and the types who are attracted to it (especially as a hobby) are also likely to be attracted to other intellectual pursuits.
Hence the correlation with RPGs. My initial thought would be that that correlation (ie take someone off the street[*] who likes RPGs, and they are relatively likely to like programming) is probably stronger than say enjoyment of computer games (ie take people off the street who like playing FPS games, there would probably be a lower percentage who like to program, but still a higher percentage than, say, that of random football fans. Because RPGs usually require more abstract visualisation than FPSs)
I expect you would find a similar correlation with things such as chess and puzzles, and traditionally geekly pursuits such as astronomy, rock/stamp/dinosaur collections, etc. (ie things where the attraction tends to be cerebral rather than visceral.)
The fun thing I found when I took up fencing long ago was that there was also a strong correlation between fencers and RPGs - wannabe hack'n'slashers, I assume.:-)
The above of course is highly generalised, but it's something I had previously wondered about.
fn *: Although in my experience most RPGers spend too little time outdoors to be accosted, even for the the purposes of idle thought experiments.
I think what's wrong is the election of judges. To any lawyer observer from another common law country (like me), it just seems unbelievably wrong.
If you have to put yourself up for election, you will be deciding cases with a view to what potential voters -- really, just people mobilised by issue organisations, given how uninterested the average member of public is about voting --might think. This is either playing to mob mentality, or playing to vested interest groups. Either way is a recipe for bad judging.
The whole point of judicial independence is that judges will only feel free to take courageous decisions, and to avoid knuckling under to the government in power at the time, in particular, if their jobs are secure. That is, they can't be fired, and they can't have their pay reduced so much that they have to quit. Having to be re-elected to office is very much a serious job insecurity.
I would hate to have any of my legal rights determined by a judge with an eye on the opinion polls, the lobbysists and the millions of dollars in the bank accounts of sleazy, smoke-filled backroom operators itching to replace them if they decide cases in a way of which they disapprove.
I know plenty of judges in a number of countries, and have been employed by one at a court. Invariably they are horrified by the system of election of judges. Basically: they cannot see how many elected judges would feel comfortable taking an unpopular decision. Unpopular decisions being ones that (i) are against the prevailing mob mentality at the time and (ii) invariably turn out to be correct when viewed after the event, when passion and emotion has cooled, and what is left is the objective facts.
We've seen what playing to voters does to politicians. Why inflict it upon the judges too -- who are usually the ones who have to keep the politicians in check?
Editorials are inherently unsuited to the wiki-type format. Wiki collaboration is good for setting out objective data. Where there isn't much heated disagreement as to its content, experience shows that the content will tend to be refined upon and not 'defaced'.
On the other hand, posting opinions -- especially on heated topics -- is likely to cause the exact effect the LATimes observed. It's the same effect you see on wiki pages on other controversial, opinion-heavy topics like abortion and Israel. You are often not going to have a happy middle, but two or more polarised camps each hating the other and 'defacing' the content they don't agree with. It's just human nature.
This is all the more so when the original slashdot story contained the line about the anti-war editorial being ''defaced by reactionaries'', basically tempting anyone who is pro-war and who does not consider themselves ''reactionary'' to go and edit the content.
If the Times had stuck to a wiki about the LA area, or some similar thing, I predict it would have worked. Choosing to make an editorial a wiki is IMHO simply stupid.
Only problem is that the very narrow 'fair dealing' defence in the copyright act might not even allow the sort of home copying allowed in the US under Betamax.
If that's the case, this thing could have an unfortunately short life...:(
I studied at Oxford some years ago, and found the computing service (OUCS) to be one of the better and more competent computing services when it came to running and maintaining the networks.
Relevantly, they managed to find and clamp down on compromised boxes (usually Win, or unpatched linux boxes) pretty quickly. They also had some very good techs (as well as some pretty nifty stuff, eg ADSM backup of private machines for all users).
Based on the info these guys say they got, it looks like at least partly what they were doing was just packet-sniffing. Not sure how the cctv stuff works, as I know the newest cctv gear has been installed since I left.
If it's just that, then there is at least one precedent at Oxford, as a number of passwords of POP users were captured by a compromised linux box (vanilla, unpatched RedHat 3 or 4, iirc) in about 98 or 99. OUCS detected the box, and then the sniffing, within one or two hours and froze all accounts, which I thought was pretty good going for such a huge place.
I'd have preferred if these guys had just told OUCS in private, instead of trumpeting about it in the papers. Wouldn't surprise me if they were charged... I wonder if Thames Valley Police will run the investigation?:)
The US government has plenty of jurisdiction outside its borders. The Sherman Act, for one, operates outside the US's borders.
What you are referring to is enforceability of those laws. True, the US may not be able to enforce its laws against those resident in other countries who do not have presence or assets in the USA.
But it means anyone connected with such an operation better not have assets in the US. Or even visit the US.
And, depending on how the law is drafted, perhaps no person in the US (or with assets there) better use such an operation to *send* spam, or face being prosecuted, or other consequences. Vide internet gambling.
So that US laws, alone, could stop (a) American spammers; and (b) anyone in or doing business with America or visiting America or with assets there (NYSE shares, anyone?) from *using* overseas spammers who do not comply with US law.
And for those that are left, the US can just lean on other countries to enact similar laws, either as part of international treaties (GATT and TRIPS, anyone?) or bilateral trade treaties, or just by leaning on them.
Methinks that would do a great deal to cut down on spam...
If you doubt this, see how effectively the US is able to export its copyright laws to other countries. Or Sarbanes-Oxley, as applied to foreign lawyers or accountants. And how it is now doing the same thing with bank secrecy laws (with an emphasis on terrorism; it has done the same previously with respect to evasion of US taxes). There are manyrelevantlinks.
I've worked with family in a small programming enterprise on the side. It all worked well because we have a good work ethic (ie no disputes over not pulling weight), and because we respected each other's expertise: I did the coding and documentation, and no-one messed with it. But I didn't do anything with the marketing or management unless I was asked to help. Otherwise, clash of territory can == clash of egos == friction == personal fallings out.
Your enterprise currently sounds like this, and if it's just employment/contracting your relatives, and not equity in the business, there's probably less at stake. Be fair, be impersonal (ie no "you're fired because you beat up on me in the 8th grade") and treat them like you would any other worker. If it comes to a close call, be prepared to have to work out whether the business or the person is more important to you, and sacrifice the other.
However, if there's any question that equity is or might be involved, then anything more than a trivial enterprise needs to be set up right from the start. Otherwise, there is a very good chance of a falling out, and if there aren't procedures in place to handle it, it can get very messy -- not just acrimonious, but litigious to a point where the business itself cannot operate and falls apart, and everyone scrabbles over the still-twitching corpse. Especially if someone senses $$$$ in it for them...
I'm a lawyer now, and it may sound self-serving, but if there's any chance your relatives might work for any serious amount of time, or this business might make a serious amount of money, get a lawyer to settle the basics, in a binding form. Now, *before* there may be big money at stake, and before any disagreements have arisen. Put in place a process to deal with disputes (eg one of you wants to expand, the other wants to consolidate). Put in place a mechanism to handle what happens if one person wants out, or if you all want to go your separate ways. Do they just get cash, or do they get to take a chunk of your assets out too?
If it's just employment, you may feel that even asking for an employment (or consulting/freelancing) contract might be considered offensive. But you may want to check with a lawyer about ownership of IP created by your brother or girlfriend, though, if that's relevant...
As a lawyer, I work with computer forensic people (mostly ex cops) in getting electronic material to use in lawsuits.
It's always been my experience that the guys are hot on Windows, pretty good on *nix, but very very few know anything about Macs -- my guess because of their law enforcement background, where they used and were trained on PCs.
A predominant amount of their work seems to be recreating or capturing MS Outlook mailboxes (looking for the smoking guns). They aren't as cluey on Eudora (presumably because most corporate enterprises don't use it).
Small market share means that the majority of people focus on the system(s) that form the majority of OS/apps used -- a trait which appears to extend to law enforcement and makers of forensic programs. But the really good professionals are always interested in asking "so just how does this work on a mac" and discussing the similarities/differences...
From what I recall (but can't substantiate by a link now) those keys were originally a good way apart on the keyboard, so they couldn't be hit accidentally.
Then, I believe, users clamoured for more convenience, so keyboard manufacturers started duplicating the ctrl and alt keys (and/or moved the del key) so that the salute could be performed one-handed.
Just think how much more time would be wasted if you had to perform a two-handed salute each time windows crashed... It certainly would add up (and I know I'm opening myself up regarding what constitutes a two-handed salute, but hey:-)
Actually, I'm an IP lawyer in a major Australian firm, which is why I raised the issue of s 202. (Note, these opinions/statements are not my employer's, just mine. And they're not legal advice to be relied on, either.)
The way it works is that a person who receives a groundless threat can bring an action for a declaration that the threats are unjustified, and the burden of proof in that action is on the threatening party to show that the threat was justified--ie that "the acts in respect of which the action or proceeding was threatened constituted, or, if done, would constitute, an infringement of copyright".
However, you can't evaluate whether SCO could be in trouble under the section without knowing exactly what they said to the person who would bring the action under it. I'm not sure that the SMH article taken alone would be enough (or at least, I wouldn't rely on it, as it is sufficiently vague on whether legal action is threatened against a particular person).
Hence why I was wondering out loud if (being ignorant of this provision of Australian law, or just gung-ho) SCO might have tripped up over the section--I couldn't say for sure unless anyone can supply a copy of everything sent or said to Cyber Knights (or anyone else for that matter).
As for defamation, it varies a great deal by state, but generally you have to say/imply things to lower a natural person's reputation in the eyes of others. Nothing in the article suggested that to me. Ditto a claim for common law fraud--it's hard to prove at the best of times. No chance here.
Me, I'd be looking hard at section 52 of the Trade Practices Act, which prohibits corporations engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct. Based on the "evidence" I've seen so far, an assertion that SCO has the entitlement to require anyone to take a licence from them would have to be questionable at best, or outright false at worst. Best part is for this context, even innocent deception (eg maker honestly mistaken about what they say) is caught, let alone reckless indifference to the truth. A section 52 action would probably stand or fall depending on whether SCO loses or wins in the USA.
"(1) Where a person, by means of circulars, advertisements or otherwise, threatens a person with an action or proceeding in respect of an infringement of copyright, then, whether the person making the threats is or is not the owner of the copyright or an exclusive licensee, a person aggrieved may bring an action against the first-mentioned person and may obtain a declaration to the effect that the threats are unjustifiable, and an injunction against the continuance of the threats, and may recover such damages (if any) as he or she has sustained, unless the first-mentioned person satisfies the court that the acts in respect of which the action or proceeding was threatened constituted, or, if done, would constitute, an infringement of copyright."
What I'd like to know is, are there any forced lock-ins -- such as "you only get these nice security patches which you need to avoid worms if you also install our new version of DRM, which locks you out of things you could previously do".
Not something you could easily tell in a first review -- but it's what I suspect will be more and more common, especially as MS loses the digital battle with ITMS/ITMS-wannabes
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine a Beowulf ... oh wait ...
Yes. I'd also like to see what's in Crate #8675309.
err, I think he means AAK firmware, which most definitely was a Seagate issue (I had one): http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/28/2031234
MySpace? For /.'rs, it'd be more like [ EmptySpace ] Nothing to see here, move along...
Hence the correlation with RPGs. My initial thought would be that that correlation (ie take someone off the street[*] who likes RPGs, and they are relatively likely to like programming) is probably stronger than say enjoyment of computer games (ie take people off the street who like playing FPS games, there would probably be a lower percentage who like to program, but still a higher percentage than, say, that of random football fans. Because RPGs usually require more abstract visualisation than FPSs)
I expect you would find a similar correlation with things such as chess and puzzles, and traditionally geekly pursuits such as astronomy, rock/stamp/dinosaur collections, etc. (ie things where the attraction tends to be cerebral rather than visceral.)
The fun thing I found when I took up fencing long ago was that there was also a strong correlation between fencers and RPGs - wannabe hack'n'slashers, I assume. :-)
The above of course is highly generalised, but it's something I had previously wondered about.
fn *: Although in my experience most RPGers spend too little time outdoors to be accosted, even for the the purposes of idle thought experiments.
If you have to put yourself up for election, you will be deciding cases with a view to what potential voters -- really, just people mobilised by issue organisations, given how uninterested the average member of public is about voting --might think. This is either playing to mob mentality, or playing to vested interest groups. Either way is a recipe for bad judging.
The whole point of judicial independence is that judges will only feel free to take courageous decisions, and to avoid knuckling under to the government in power at the time, in particular, if their jobs are secure. That is, they can't be fired, and they can't have their pay reduced so much that they have to quit. Having to be re-elected to office is very much a serious job insecurity.
I would hate to have any of my legal rights determined by a judge with an eye on the opinion polls, the lobbysists and the millions of dollars in the bank accounts of sleazy, smoke-filled backroom operators itching to replace them if they decide cases in a way of which they disapprove.
I know plenty of judges in a number of countries, and have been employed by one at a court. Invariably they are horrified by the system of election of judges. Basically: they cannot see how many elected judges would feel comfortable taking an unpopular decision. Unpopular decisions being ones that (i) are against the prevailing mob mentality at the time and (ii) invariably turn out to be correct when viewed after the event, when passion and emotion has cooled, and what is left is the objective facts.
We've seen what playing to voters does to politicians. Why inflict it upon the judges too -- who are usually the ones who have to keep the politicians in check?
Editorials are inherently unsuited to the wiki-type format. Wiki collaboration is good for setting out objective data. Where there isn't much heated disagreement as to its content, experience shows that the content will tend to be refined upon and not 'defaced'.
On the other hand, posting opinions -- especially on heated topics -- is likely to cause the exact effect the LATimes observed. It's the same effect you see on wiki pages on other controversial, opinion-heavy topics like abortion and Israel. You are often not going to have a happy middle, but two or more polarised camps each hating the other and 'defacing' the content they don't agree with. It's just human nature.
This is all the more so when the original slashdot story contained the line about the anti-war editorial being ''defaced by reactionaries'', basically tempting anyone who is pro-war and who does not consider themselves ''reactionary'' to go and edit the content.
If the Times had stuck to a wiki about the LA area, or some similar thing, I predict it would have worked. Choosing to make an editorial a wiki is IMHO simply stupid.
Damned networked cars... Back to the Ford Adama for me ... :-)
Only problem is that the very narrow 'fair dealing' defence in the copyright act might not even allow the sort of home copying allowed in the US under Betamax.
If that's the case, this thing could have an unfortunately short life... :(
Relevantly, they managed to find and clamp down on compromised boxes (usually Win, or unpatched linux boxes) pretty quickly. They also had some very good techs (as well as some pretty nifty stuff, eg ADSM backup of private machines for all users).
Based on the info these guys say they got, it looks like at least partly what they were doing was just packet-sniffing. Not sure how the cctv stuff works, as I know the newest cctv gear has been installed since I left.
If it's just that, then there is at least one precedent at Oxford, as a number of passwords of POP users were captured by a compromised linux box (vanilla, unpatched RedHat 3 or 4, iirc) in about 98 or 99. OUCS detected the box, and then the sniffing, within one or two hours and froze all accounts, which I thought was pretty good going for such a huge place.
I'd have preferred if these guys had just told OUCS in private, instead of trumpeting about it in the papers. Wouldn't surprise me if they were charged ... I wonder if Thames Valley Police will run the investigation? :)
according to my phrasebook
Was it a "what does this little red button do?", or a misconfiguration somewhere by a sleep-deprived sysop at 3am?
What you are referring to is enforceability of those laws. True, the US may not be able to enforce its laws against those resident in other countries who do not have presence or assets in the USA.
But it means anyone connected with such an operation better not have assets in the US. Or even visit the US.
And, depending on how the law is drafted, perhaps no person in the US (or with assets there) better use such an operation to *send* spam, or face being prosecuted, or other consequences. Vide internet gambling.
So that US laws, alone, could stop (a) American spammers; and (b) anyone in or doing business with America or visiting America or with assets there (NYSE shares, anyone?) from *using* overseas spammers who do not comply with US law.
And for those that are left, the US can just lean on other countries to enact similar laws, either as part of international treaties (GATT and TRIPS, anyone?) or bilateral trade treaties, or just by leaning on them.
Methinks that would do a great deal to cut down on spam...
If you doubt this, see how effectively the US is able to export its copyright laws to other countries. Or Sarbanes-Oxley, as applied to foreign lawyers or accountants. And how it is now doing the same thing with bank secrecy laws (with an emphasis on terrorism; it has done the same previously with respect to evasion of US taxes). There are many relevant links.
That is *exactly* what I was thinking...
Set up a .spam level, and we can block everything from that if we want.
Your enterprise currently sounds like this, and if it's just employment/contracting your relatives, and not equity in the business, there's probably less at stake. Be fair, be impersonal (ie no "you're fired because you beat up on me in the 8th grade") and treat them like you would any other worker. If it comes to a close call, be prepared to have to work out whether the business or the person is more important to you, and sacrifice the other.
However, if there's any question that equity is or might be involved, then anything more than a trivial enterprise needs to be set up right from the start. Otherwise, there is a very good chance of a falling out, and if there aren't procedures in place to handle it, it can get very messy -- not just acrimonious, but litigious to a point where the business itself cannot operate and falls apart, and everyone scrabbles over the still-twitching corpse. Especially if someone senses $$$$ in it for them...
I'm a lawyer now, and it may sound self-serving, but if there's any chance your relatives might work for any serious amount of time, or this business might make a serious amount of money, get a lawyer to settle the basics, in a binding form. Now, *before* there may be big money at stake, and before any disagreements have arisen. Put in place a process to deal with disputes (eg one of you wants to expand, the other wants to consolidate). Put in place a mechanism to handle what happens if one person wants out, or if you all want to go your separate ways. Do they just get cash, or do they get to take a chunk of your assets out too?
If it's just employment, you may feel that even asking for an employment (or consulting/freelancing) contract might be considered offensive. But you may want to check with a lawyer about ownership of IP created by your brother or girlfriend, though, if that's relevant...
Certainly not Ally McBeal, at least...
Saturn rang but no-one spoke?
It can if you own the copyright to the code.
It's always been my experience that the guys are hot on Windows, pretty good on *nix, but very very few know anything about Macs -- my guess because of their law enforcement background, where they used and were trained on PCs.
A predominant amount of their work seems to be recreating or capturing MS Outlook mailboxes (looking for the smoking guns). They aren't as cluey on Eudora (presumably because most corporate enterprises don't use it).
Small market share means that the majority of people focus on the system(s) that form the majority of OS/apps used -- a trait which appears to extend to law enforcement and makers of forensic programs. But the really good professionals are always interested in asking "so just how does this work on a mac" and discussing the similarities/differences...
Then, I believe, users clamoured for more convenience, so keyboard manufacturers started duplicating the ctrl and alt keys (and/or moved the del key) so that the salute could be performed one-handed.
Just think how much more time would be wasted if you had to perform a two-handed salute each time windows crashed... It certainly would add up (and I know I'm opening myself up regarding what constitutes a two-handed salute, but hey :-)
The way it works is that a person who receives a groundless threat can bring an action for a declaration that the threats are unjustified, and the burden of proof in that action is on the threatening party to show that the threat was justified--ie that "the acts in respect of which the action or proceeding was threatened constituted, or, if done, would constitute, an infringement of copyright".
However, you can't evaluate whether SCO could be in trouble under the section without knowing exactly what they said to the person who would bring the action under it. I'm not sure that the SMH article taken alone would be enough (or at least, I wouldn't rely on it, as it is sufficiently vague on whether legal action is threatened against a particular person).
Hence why I was wondering out loud if (being ignorant of this provision of Australian law, or just gung-ho) SCO might have tripped up over the section--I couldn't say for sure unless anyone can supply a copy of everything sent or said to Cyber Knights (or anyone else for that matter).
As for defamation, it varies a great deal by state, but generally you have to say/imply things to lower a natural person's reputation in the eyes of others. Nothing in the article suggested that to me. Ditto a claim for common law fraud--it's hard to prove at the best of times. No chance here.
Me, I'd be looking hard at section 52 of the Trade Practices Act, which prohibits corporations engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct. Based on the "evidence" I've seen so far, an assertion that SCO has the entitlement to require anyone to take a licence from them would have to be questionable at best, or outright false at worst. Best part is for this context, even innocent deception (eg maker honestly mistaken about what they say) is caught, let alone reckless indifference to the truth. A section 52 action would probably stand or fall depending on whether SCO loses or wins in the USA.
"(1) Where a person, by means of circulars, advertisements or otherwise, threatens a person with an action or proceeding in respect of an infringement of copyright, then, whether the person making the threats is or is not the owner of the copyright or an exclusive licensee, a person aggrieved may bring an action against the first-mentioned person and may obtain a declaration to the effect that the threats are unjustifiable, and an injunction against the continuance of the threats, and may recover such damages (if any) as he or she has sustained, unless the first-mentioned person satisfies the court that the acts in respect of which the action or proceeding was threatened constituted, or, if done, would constitute, an infringement of copyright."
I wonder whether SCO has fallen foul of it...
What I'd like to know is, are there any forced lock-ins -- such as "you only get these nice security patches which you need to avoid worms if you also install our new version of DRM, which locks you out of things you could previously do".
Not something you could easily tell in a first review -- but it's what I suspect will be more and more common, especially as MS loses the digital battle with ITMS/ITMS-wannabes
(and what's with the "wankerdesk" in the URL? :) )