This problem is specific to one version of firmware.
I should correct this because some people with the 2.02.07 version that this guy claimed to be using are reporting they cannot reproduce the problem.
This could be basic user error. By the way, the remote admin function is disabled by default in the WRT54G firmware.
What gets me is that if you want to bitch about the WRT54G firmware, there are plenty of better reasons than this apparently bogus one. Only the hacked firmwares really make this hardware shine (and have all functions plus new ones work properly).
You cannot disable the SSID broadcast on the Linksys WRT54G? Funny. When I change the radio button in the admin page to "Disable SSID Broadcast", it stops broadcasting the SSID.
Please make sure you either clarify such statements or don't make them when they are false (as in the current situation).
1) This problem is specific to one version of firmware. I can guarantee it has not been there in many of the versions I have used.
2) It only affects units that have not had their default password changed.
I agree it is a security risk but it should be kept in perspective. If a user does not change the password, that is not a design problem of the firmware. The only real problem is that the function to turn off remote administration on the WAN port stopped working in the specific release of firmware.
The article does not mention which version of firmware this guy was using, so we cannot confirm it. I personally use a modified version of the Linksys firmware, of which there are now quite a few.
The government (in this case, the FBI and Secret Service agents) are not "damned if they do and damned if they don't". However, they are expected to use good sense when allocating resources.
In THIS particular situation, the mere questions they asked this student demonstrated that they should not have been investigating him.
Let's see. One question was "Are you an activist?" Another question was "Are you a member of the ACLU?" Those are questions which seek to determine whether you exercise your Constitutional rights, not whether you are intending to commit a crime.
From everything we have learned so far, no terrorists have been 1) a member of the ACLU or 2) joining open organizations that monitor government behavior.
Was the request "suspicious"? Even if you think it was, the administration process around the request could make a better determination. A blanket, back channel communication to the FBI or Secret Service is not the appropriate process. That's not how many of us want our government to function. He didn't have the information so there was no risk of actual damage. I am sure that the administration process would have revealed the innocuous nature of the request. Of course, they didn't bother with letting a normal procedure take place. Instead, they sent a couple of agents over to interrogate the guy.
and don't forget The Tick....
Except both Greg the Bunny and The Tick sucked. Such wasted potential.
Re:People more receptive to ads during search?
on
Speculating About Gmail
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Gmails targeted ads will potentially be magnitudes more accurate because they are based on your private conversations across email.
If you send an email to a friend recommending he buy a Dell computer, my guess is that your friend will start seeing some ads from Dell on his mail page.
That is a very simple example of what Google has in mind for targeted advertisements.
In order to have extradition, you have to have dual criminality in both countries <p> You just explained the US DOJ's legal argument. The alleged behavior, in their argument, is illegal in both countries. The decision by the Australian prosecutors not to prosecute is only the first step. They basically have the right of first prosecution. <p> One of the arguments that the judge accepted in Australia was that the USA charges were too vague for extradition, not that he was not charged in Australia. <p> I am a bit torn about this case. On the one hand, this guy never set foot in the USA and therefore there he never accepted physical jurisdiction from the US courts. On the other hand, people should not be able to hide out in countries while violating laws in other countries. <p> Consider a crime lord who directs US operations from Australia. Is he immune to US prosecution? I think an absolute no is unreasonable. <p> A combination of 1) an extradition treaty containing the terms to cover such a scenario and 2) the dual criminality requirement could provide a reasonable approach to these situations. But I think it is not enough to claim the local prosecutors chose not to prosecute and therefore he is immune from other prosecution.
That may be what you read into the GPL, but you cannot cite any text to that affect.
The GPL is pretty general about the issue of how to provide the source code. It primarily reinforces that 1) you have to provide it to those who ask for it and 2) it must be for a reasonable fee only to cover costs.
Netware is the product that contains the file and print services.
Novell is a company that has a whole range of products, including Netware.
And while I agree that file and print services are treated like a commodity now, Novell has kicked Microsoft's ass in innovation in that area.
Ever manage trustee rights on Netware versus NT? NT uses the same crap from the LAN Manager days, which is basically made up of hidden files which contain trustee information. Try blocking access to a single file three levels deep to a single user. With Netware, you can do it. With Microsoft's offerings, you cannot.
iFolder? Take a look at iFolder and tell me that Microsoft has kicked Novell's ass in file service innovation. It does BYTE level diff syncronization. So if you have a 20MB Powerpoint presentation and you change one word in one slide, it only syncronizes the small change. Microsoft's solution? Syncronize the whole file.
Print services are a commodity too. But compare NDPS with Microsoft's print services. NDPS has so much more administrative functionality.
Sorry, but to say Netware 6 (and 6.5 is the current release) is the same as 4.11 is a statement only made by someone who is ignorant on the topic. The Netware kernel may not have significant changes, but the services running on top of it are amazing. I recommend that you actually look into it before spreading such inaccurate information.
If your point is only one about perception, I agree with you. File and print services are treated like a commodity. But don't start making statements about Microsoft innovating in those areas when, in fact, they haven't done anything since NT 3.5 came out and they support pushing print drivers to the client... but on only NT clients.
Whenever government employees defend such programs, they often use the argument that most of this data is available on the open market anyway.
Is it just me, or does that make it worse and not better?
And when did someone establish a link between convicted sex offenders and terrorists? The truth is, there is a wide range of people who are just using the events of 9/11 to do a secret power grab. And eventually (hopefully by January of 2004), there will be someone in the Presidency who wants to reveal all this crap to show what the hell these people were secretly doing.
For the former Governor of Utah to refuse to even discuss what he authorized with the current governor is so plainly obnoxious, I cannot believe more people are not outraged by it.
It's not quite the same. If I were the lawyer for CA and Canopy offered to include the licenses then I would immediately agree.
Why?
First, it creates no liability for CA. In a worst case situation, the licenses mean nothing.
Second, it costs nothing.
Having it in a settlement agreement is not comparable to purchasing the licenses, even for a penny.
The only slant you could put on this is that, as the lawyer for CA, you would not let them include meaningless content in the agreement even though it created no risk for CA. For example, I doubt CA would have allowed Canopy to include licenses or indemnification for Microsoft products.
Actually, maybe I am wrong about that. I think Canopy may be able to offer MS licenses considering they are a MS subsidiary.
If you want to know an advantage, how about Dish never sued any of their customers or started filing blanket lawsuits against anyone with a completely legal and legitimate ISO card programmer.
If you are not willing to vote with your dollars, what are you willing to do?
WordPerfect has specific functions directed at legal pleadings etc. Even though you can duplicate many of them in Word, it is not so simple.
It has little to do with law firms using old technology because they are cheap or too lazy to change.
For most of us who know both Word and WordPerfect, you would be hard pressed to convince someone that Word is an actual better word processor on the merits. It often decides how to format stuff and you have no way of "unformatting" it.
For example, the point about Tim Roberts being a Corporate Director of Medhire, not an employee - this is important because HardOCP implied he was lying on his resume. If what these guys are saying is true, he did not lie on his resume, and HardOCP is guilty of slander if they do not change this article (they will knowingly be leaving intact an article that is defamatory). They were also irresponsible for not researching the point properly to begin with.
First, the claim would be a libel case and not a slander case as the information was published.
Second, it is not enough to show the statement was inaccurate in a libel case. It is required that you show the statement was intentionally false AND that the person was damaged. In your cited example, Mr. Roberts would be hard pressed to establish any damages as a result of his title being wrong in the article or any of the other information.
The whole letter is crap. As soon as a lawyer starts describing the libel as being from innuendos and inferences, he just burned himself. If a legal case was filed based on this letter, any half-competent attorney defending HardOCP could have the case dismissed immediately based only on the pleadings.
The fact is, Mr. Roberts is a public figure and he is mad that someone published something about him that is unflattering. So what. Get over it.
After seeing this letter, it is my opinion that both Mr. Roberts and Mr. Aker are dickless asswipes. But just to protect myself from their scarey lawsuits, I want to state that this is only my opinion. However, I have never seen their dicks so perhaps it is only innuendo that they are dickless.
I always find it humorous when people defend blatant spelling and grammar mistakes, especially when they chalk it up to just being typos.
The fact is, a person's writing skills is almost a direct correlation to the quality of their education. It is not unreasonable to determine someone is less educated after reading material from them that is riddled with grammar and spelling mistakes.
Maybe he is intelligent but poorly educated. However, to suggest he adds some level of authenticity to his writings by making spelling and grammar mistakes is a bit silly. I also have real opinions and real feelings. I consider it more effective to share those opinions and feelings with others by doing it through proper spelling and grammar. It is also considerably more effective when you are writing something with the intention to convince others that you made a correct decision to use proper grammar and correct spellings.
When I read his open letter to the community, I immediately concluded that he just is not smart enough to understand the full consequences of his decision. He definately does not comprehend that, despite his protests, he gave SCO the full argument that there is now a company which accepts the validity of SCO's claims. Otherwise, he just paid them money for nothing.
Granted, he may have done the equivalent of an actuarial analysis in his head and decided that the SCO licenses were a cheap insurance against the possible legal exposure. But given the impression that he is not very educated, I suspect he is not very capable of doing a good analysis.
Slashdot Mirror
I should correct this because some people with the 2.02.07 version that this guy claimed to be using are reporting they cannot reproduce the problem.
This could be basic user error. By the way, the remote admin function is disabled by default in the WRT54G firmware.
What gets me is that if you want to bitch about the WRT54G firmware, there are plenty of better reasons than this apparently bogus one. Only the hacked firmwares really make this hardware shine (and have all functions plus new ones work properly).
You cannot disable the SSID broadcast on the Linksys WRT54G? Funny. When I change the radio button in the admin page to "Disable SSID Broadcast", it stops broadcasting the SSID.
Please make sure you either clarify such statements or don't make them when they are false (as in the current situation).
1) This problem is specific to one version of firmware. I can guarantee it has not been there in many of the versions I have used. 2) It only affects units that have not had their default password changed. I agree it is a security risk but it should be kept in perspective. If a user does not change the password, that is not a design problem of the firmware. The only real problem is that the function to turn off remote administration on the WAN port stopped working in the specific release of firmware. The article does not mention which version of firmware this guy was using, so we cannot confirm it. I personally use a modified version of the Linksys firmware, of which there are now quite a few.
The government (in this case, the FBI and Secret Service agents) are not "damned if they do and damned if they don't". However, they are expected to use good sense when allocating resources.
In THIS particular situation, the mere questions they asked this student demonstrated that they should not have been investigating him.
Let's see. One question was "Are you an activist?" Another question was "Are you a member of the ACLU?" Those are questions which seek to determine whether you exercise your Constitutional rights, not whether you are intending to commit a crime.
From everything we have learned so far, no terrorists have been 1) a member of the ACLU or 2) joining open organizations that monitor government behavior.
Was the request "suspicious"? Even if you think it was, the administration process around the request could make a better determination. A blanket, back channel communication to the FBI or Secret Service is not the appropriate process. That's not how many of us want our government to function. He didn't have the information so there was no risk of actual damage. I am sure that the administration process would have revealed the innocuous nature of the request. Of course, they didn't bother with letting a normal procedure take place. Instead, they sent a couple of agents over to interrogate the guy.
She is one of those girls you see from behind and think she is cute but when she turns around you have to look away really quick.
and don't forget The Tick.... Except both Greg the Bunny and The Tick sucked. Such wasted potential.
Gmails targeted ads will potentially be magnitudes more accurate because they are based on your private conversations across email. If you send an email to a friend recommending he buy a Dell computer, my guess is that your friend will start seeing some ads from Dell on his mail page. That is a very simple example of what Google has in mind for targeted advertisements.
You wouldn't stick them into dedicated machines. You would build a storage area network and connect any other devices either over fiber or even IP.
Huh? On Windows, it is as easy as:
Step 1: Plug iPod into FireWire or USB port.
Step 2: Copy folders onto iPod into the Notes folder.
Done.
Hey! Don't mod if you do not know what you are doing.
The line is from the movie.
In order to have extradition, you have to have dual criminality in both countries
<p>
You just explained the US DOJ's legal argument. The alleged behavior, in their argument, is illegal in both countries. The decision by the Australian prosecutors not to prosecute is only the first step. They basically have the right of first prosecution.
<p>
One of the arguments that the judge accepted in Australia was that the USA charges were too vague for extradition, not that he was not charged in Australia.
<p>
I am a bit torn about this case. On the one hand, this guy never set foot in the USA and therefore there he never accepted physical jurisdiction from the US courts. On the other hand, people should not be able to hide out in countries while violating laws in other countries.
<p>
Consider a crime lord who directs US operations from Australia. Is he immune to US prosecution? I think an absolute no is unreasonable.
<p>
A combination of 1) an extradition treaty containing the terms to cover such a scenario and 2) the dual criminality requirement could provide a reasonable approach to these situations. But I think it is not enough to claim the local prosecutors chose not to prosecute and therefore he is immune from other prosecution.
That may be what you read into the GPL, but you cannot cite any text to that affect.
The GPL is pretty general about the issue of how to provide the source code. It primarily reinforces that 1) you have to provide it to those who ask for it and 2) it must be for a reasonable fee only to cover costs.
now I have to put some lame text here because I cannot post an empty message
No one has posted it yet, so I am missing the obligatory "Novell is dead" message.
Novell's technology is old and no one uses Netware anymore.
Novell is dead. Long live Novell.
Netware is the product that contains the file and print services.
... but on only NT clients.
Novell is a company that has a whole range of products, including Netware.
And while I agree that file and print services are treated like a commodity now, Novell has kicked Microsoft's ass in innovation in that area.
Ever manage trustee rights on Netware versus NT? NT uses the same crap from the LAN Manager days, which is basically made up of hidden files which contain trustee information. Try blocking access to a single file three levels deep to a single user. With Netware, you can do it. With Microsoft's offerings, you cannot.
iFolder? Take a look at iFolder and tell me that Microsoft has kicked Novell's ass in file service innovation. It does BYTE level diff syncronization. So if you have a 20MB Powerpoint presentation and you change one word in one slide, it only syncronizes the small change. Microsoft's solution? Syncronize the whole file.
Print services are a commodity too. But compare NDPS with Microsoft's print services. NDPS has so much more administrative functionality.
Sorry, but to say Netware 6 (and 6.5 is the current release) is the same as 4.11 is a statement only made by someone who is ignorant on the topic. The Netware kernel may not have significant changes, but the services running on top of it are amazing. I recommend that you actually look into it before spreading such inaccurate information.
If your point is only one about perception, I agree with you. File and print services are treated like a commodity. But don't start making statements about Microsoft innovating in those areas when, in fact, they haven't done anything since NT 3.5 came out and they support pushing print drivers to the client
Whenever government employees defend such programs, they often use the argument that most of this data is available on the open market anyway.
Is it just me, or does that make it worse and not better?
And when did someone establish a link between convicted sex offenders and terrorists? The truth is, there is a wide range of people who are just using the events of 9/11 to do a secret power grab. And eventually (hopefully by January of 2004), there will be someone in the Presidency who wants to reveal all this crap to show what the hell these people were secretly doing.
For the former Governor of Utah to refuse to even discuss what he authorized with the current governor is so plainly obnoxious, I cannot believe more people are not outraged by it.
I think it is pretty clear why SWG requires daily reboots to maintain the stability of the servers.
What simulations our out there...
It's not quite the same. If I were the lawyer for CA and Canopy offered to include the licenses then I would immediately agree.
Why?
First, it creates no liability for CA. In a worst case situation, the licenses mean nothing.
Second, it costs nothing.
Having it in a settlement agreement is not comparable to purchasing the licenses, even for a penny.
The only slant you could put on this is that, as the lawyer for CA, you would not let them include meaningless content in the agreement even though it created no risk for CA. For example, I doubt CA would have allowed Canopy to include licenses or indemnification for Microsoft products.
Actually, maybe I am wrong about that. I think Canopy may be able to offer MS licenses considering they are a MS subsidiary.
If you want to know an advantage, how about Dish never sued any of their customers or started filing blanket lawsuits against anyone with a completely legal and legitimate ISO card programmer.
If you are not willing to vote with your dollars, what are you willing to do?
I look forward to the day when Jack Valenti dies.
I am looking forward to the day Jack Valenti dies.
WordPerfect has specific functions directed at legal pleadings etc. Even though you can duplicate many of them in Word, it is not so simple.
It has little to do with law firms using old technology because they are cheap or too lazy to change.
For most of us who know both Word and WordPerfect, you would be hard pressed to convince someone that Word is an actual better word processor on the merits. It often decides how to format stuff and you have no way of "unformatting" it.
First, the claim would be a libel case and not a slander case as the information was published.
Second, it is not enough to show the statement was inaccurate in a libel case. It is required that you show the statement was intentionally false AND that the person was damaged. In your cited example, Mr. Roberts would be hard pressed to establish any damages as a result of his title being wrong in the article or any of the other information.
The whole letter is crap. As soon as a lawyer starts describing the libel as being from innuendos and inferences, he just burned himself. If a legal case was filed based on this letter, any half-competent attorney defending HardOCP could have the case dismissed immediately based only on the pleadings.
The fact is, Mr. Roberts is a public figure and he is mad that someone published something about him that is unflattering. So what. Get over it.
After seeing this letter, it is my opinion that both Mr. Roberts and Mr. Aker are dickless asswipes. But just to protect myself from their scarey lawsuits, I want to state that this is only my opinion. However, I have never seen their dicks so perhaps it is only innuendo that they are dickless.
I always find it humorous when people defend blatant spelling and grammar mistakes, especially when they chalk it up to just being typos.
The fact is, a person's writing skills is almost a direct correlation to the quality of their education. It is not unreasonable to determine someone is less educated after reading material from them that is riddled with grammar and spelling mistakes.
Maybe he is intelligent but poorly educated. However, to suggest he adds some level of authenticity to his writings by making spelling and grammar mistakes is a bit silly. I also have real opinions and real feelings. I consider it more effective to share those opinions and feelings with others by doing it through proper spelling and grammar. It is also considerably more effective when you are writing something with the intention to convince others that you made a correct decision to use proper grammar and correct spellings.
When I read his open letter to the community, I immediately concluded that he just is not smart enough to understand the full consequences of his decision. He definately does not comprehend that, despite his protests, he gave SCO the full argument that there is now a company which accepts the validity of SCO's claims. Otherwise, he just paid them money for nothing.
Granted, he may have done the equivalent of an actuarial analysis in his head and decided that the SCO licenses were a cheap insurance against the possible legal exposure. But given the impression that he is not very educated, I suspect he is not very capable of doing a good analysis.