Unless IPv6 is very different, the only way I'm going to be able to set up my own personal network (and secure it) is with NAT. I'll take 'hard to diagnose' over pwn3d any day.
You can't secure your network (IPv6 or v4) very well at all with NAT alone. A firewall will secure your network just as well with or without NAT.
Conceptually, NAT just changes the addresses and port numbers on packets. The firewall is what decides wether or not a given packet can pass. They are two different things and can be separated (both in theory and practice).
And if our buildings and public places were built securely, we wouldn't need police, right?
It isn't possible to build buildings that are completely impenetrable to human attack on their own. It is possible to build software that is, assuming no physical attacks involved.
So if you have a problem its the local serivce shop thats to blame, talk to your rep and get that fixed. I like dell because i can call one person/team to order, ask questions or get support. Try that with IBM.
I did. Worked out pretty well. I bought a thinkpad in 2004 and it didn't come with windows reinstall/restore discs. I called up IBM's support number, spoke to someone who actually speaks english in a matter of minutes, and they sent me the restore discs via overnight shipping for free.
Now not only was this machine bought used and refurbed, it was bought off of ebay from a mom & pop shop.
Sadly with Lenovo running the show these days I'm betting that would not happen again. So moot point maybe...
The only things actually wrong with your scneario are the fact that the wives are 13 years old and someone was smuggled out of their country, since those things involve non-consenting persons (assuming 13 year olds should not be able to consent to that).
Their only other option is simply not to allow the file to be played back.
Aside from the DMCA, there is no reason digital outputs should ever have to be disabled to play back any kind of content. The content is just data, it doesn't have any control over the machine - nor should it and nor should an operating system you paid for give said control away.
No, those ways don't say 'this is private' or 'this is public', they say 'this is visible' or 'this is invisible'.
The presence of wifi will be visible regardless, even if encrypted, because the network's traffic is being broadcast on public frequencies.
Don't equate protocol-level advertisements with human-level advertisements, because they're not at all the same.
The protocol-level advertisements are a direct result of human activities. Those protocol-level advertisements aren't being made because an AP sprang up from nothingness... some human intentionally set that AP up. Now that human may be incompetent and may have configured the AP to communicate the owner's intentions incorrectly... but we shouldn't be throwing users of such APs in jail because of the owner's incompetence.
Just because somebody leaves their front door open isn't an invitation into their home, even though if they were competent they would have closed and locked it.
That's not a valid analogy. Leaving a door unlocked in and of itself is not an active advertisement to enter, like an open AP broadcasts its status and offers network access to anyone in RF range. It would be more correct to say the door was left unlocked and there was an "open house today" sign left on the front lawn. Would you fault a stranger for entering in that situation?
When it comes to technical equipment thrust into the hands of inexperienced mass consumers
Well first, nothing was "thrust into the hands" of anyone. People willingly, actively went out and bought the equipment.
it's not reasonable for anybody to expect them to be able to configure it much,
Why not? Is it reasonable to expect them to know how to drive a car comptetently before trying to do so on a public road? Is it reasonable to expect them to be able to read and comprehend instructions on a bottle of sleeping pills before using them? How about any number of power tools in a hardware store? There are all kinds of things in the world that people are expected to become comptetent with before they attempt to use. Computers are another. If they are not willing to learn how to use them correctly, they should either not use them or find someone to help them. In any case, the consequences of their ignorance are their own responsibility, not anyone else's. The information and help is available.
It's like he just walked into their yard to use their garden hose to wash his car, as it was there just spread 'invitingly' across the front yard from the morning's watering.
Well if the owner of the garden hose posted (accidentally or otherwise) a giant sign in their front yard that says "free car washing facilities" - just like they did with their AP - then no there would be no reason to fault anyone for using the hose.
You miss the point: the technical protocol-level details are completely irrelevant.
They are completely relevant. Those technical protocol-level details that you're dismissing with a hand-wave are the standard way to advertise a network's availability (or lack thereof). There are numerous ways to say "this is a private network" or "this is a public network" in those details. If the owner of the AP through their incompetence is telling the world "this is a public network" it is no fault of the user if they heed such notice.
So your father was in on the heist. Should you too go to jail?
In on what, the heist that I conducted?
though frankly I think it's ore the case the board does not realize just how large a blunder that was
After all the bad press, recalling all of the CDs, at least five lawsuits, settling with the FTC and admitting their actions violated federal law, having to pay each victim of their discs up to $150, you honestly believe that the leadership of the company does not understand how big of a blunder that was?
Do you think the Board of Directors approved the rootkit? Or even the president? Hell no. That was up to the division. That division made a bad call, and the Board is responsible insofar as they hired the doofus that made that choice for Sony Music. But they are not directly responsible
And I wonder, after the rootkit scandal broke, did the board of directors or the president use their vast power to do anything, so as to discourage their other subordinates from making equally bad decisions in the future? Nope:
The uninstaller for the DRM had security problems of its own.
Thomas Hesse, president of that division, who said "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?" still has his job today.
It is their responsibility of those people to keep the company in line and fix quickly when it isn't. That's why they have so much power get paid tens of millions of dollars a year (supposedly). By continuing to delegate their power to somone who wonders why people would care that their machine had been rooted, they clearly approve of those actions.
Again I ask, if your brother rob a bank should you go to jail? Your father raised both of you, why shouldn't he go to jail? You talked to your brother at some point, surely you are to blame.
And I ask, are you given power to control your brother's actions? Are you his legal guardian? Is he under 18 or mentally retarded? If so, yes, you might in fact go to jail. With power comes responsibility.
I also wouldn't tolerate the government watching every aspect of my life but when I freely and openly provide something to people that allows them to violate laws/rules then I think I should be held liable for providing that service (but not liable for the actions of others using what I provide).
Such is your opinion, but I liken the right to write software to the right to free speech. It should simply not be possible for a company to say what kinds of software other people can and cannot write, regardless of what other people use it for. If people use that software to violate a contract, those who did so should be held liable for breach of the contract.
The guilty act here is the breach of ToS contract between Blizzard and the cheater. The guilty party here is the cheater.
I can agree that the freedom to distribute land mines should be restricted, but only because there is a huge risk to society of their misuse. It is an exceptional situation. Cheating in a video game just doesn't meet the same standard. Situations where we spread guilt beyond the person who actually committed the guilty act should be exceedingly rare in order to keep society as free as possible as a general principle. Excuse the cliche, but "slippery slope" comes to mind.
There's nothing new or abusive about the idea of contributory infringement or interference with a contract.
Well, since wowglider isn't copying or providing a way to copy Blizzard's software, this can't be contributory copyright infringement. wowglider isn't "interfering" with the ToS contract between blizzard and the subscriber - the subscribers are breaking the contract by their own free will.
But that's not really the "shock and horror" about this... the horror is the simple concept of a software company trying to gain the right to tell other people (who have no contracts with blizzard) what kind of software they can and cannot create. The whole issue of cheating between blizzard and the subscriber. The guilty party is here is the cheater.
It is unfortunate that people produce software for cheating, but it would be far more unfortunate if Blizzard gained right to tell people what they could and could not create. I see it kind of like the right of neo-NAZI groups to produce and distribute racist literature. It is unfortunate that they do, but that's just one of the side effects of an absolute (or nearly and sadly decreasingly so) right to free speech. I'll take the hate speech over any slippery slopes into censorship.
A landmine is made for the sole purpose of killing people and it serves no other purpose.
That's true, but ultimately the person that would actually do the killing would bear most of the responsibility, unlike in this case.
Also, this precedent they're going for is much too far reaching. We may tolerate laws against selling land mines, but most of us wouldn't tolerate government surveilance in every aspect of our lives to prevent the sale of landmines. We'll take the freedom, live with the risks, and place responsibility on the free individuals.
The only way this wouldn't be a gross abuse of the law would be if Blizzard were actually suing the people that violated a contract with them, rather than this assault on computing to try and stop all cheaters.
Then again, I suppose it is the DMCA itself that is the gross abuse here.
Basically they say that using WoWglider is a violation of the EULA and TOS and anyone doing so has their license revoked.
Yes, USING wowglider may be a violation of the TOS. But Blizzard isn't suing anyone for USING wowglider.
The makers of WoWglider know or should know that using their program causes people to violate Blizzard's EULA and commit copyright infringement and are liable for that
Why would the makers of wowglider be liable for someone else's breach of contract? The people who use wowglider have their own free will and responsibility for their actions. Wowglider didn't cause anyone to violate the ToS, the person using it made a consious choice to do so. What tool they used to do it is irrelevant. If I stab someone to death with a steak knife, would you say the maker of the steak knife caused me to murder someone?
World of Warcraft is not general purpose computing.
Sure it is. "General purpose computing" by definition encompasses games.
But that's not the point. If Blizzard gets their way here it will set a precedent which will have negative effects on far more than cheating in their games.
This is not gross abuse of the law. Copyright law broadly assumes that owners can attach contractual terms to the sale of copies, and contract law broadly assumes that people can make whatever contracts they like.
And you are broadly assuming that the people being sued here entered in to a contract with Blizzard.
so my guess is that the courts will look at this contract and say it's just fine.
Sure, maybe the contract between blizzard and a cheater (whatever one must agree to to play WoW), but Blizzard isn't suing a cheater.
checkpoint is ok, but don't flush your time and money down the toilet running it on nokia hardware. The nokia "appliances" are just standard X86 hardware in a different case for 10X the price. They may be in a fancy case, but inside they're just standard multi-year-old CPUs (Intel, AMD or Cyrix on the lowest end ones) with standard intel (or ServerWorks) chipsets and regular non-RAID western digital ATA hard disks. They are even less reliable than PCs from other vendors in my experience. Plus with Nokia you get to run it all on Nokia's IPSO operating system, which is a stripped down, barely updated fork of FreeBSD 2.2.6.
Font size has nothing to do with resolution or screen size. A 12 point font is one that is 1/6th of an inch high. The definition of the word "point" here is 1/72nd of an inch. It doesn't indicate a certain number of pixels. Assuming no zoom, if you hold resolution constant and decrease screen size, the font should be rendered with an increasing number of pixels, however many it takes to be 1/6th of an inch high... if your software knows how to draw fonts correctly, that is.
A legal notice was placed on a document which defined the rights to use that document. The rights were ignored or were otherwise violated.
The lack of a robots.txt file, which is the standard and widely accepted way of conveying such rights, said something different that what she posted on the site. Her ignorance and miscommunication of her intentions is not archive.org's fault.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't secure your network (IPv6 or v4) very well at all with NAT alone. A firewall will secure your network just as well with or without NAT.
Conceptually, NAT just changes the addresses and port numbers on packets. The firewall is what decides wether or not a given packet can pass. They are two different things and can be separated (both in theory and practice).
It isn't possible to build buildings that are completely impenetrable to human attack on their own. It is possible to build software that is, assuming no physical attacks involved.
How do you know if the logs are lying to you unless you try restoring?
rm -rf /
You tell me.
I did. Worked out pretty well. I bought a thinkpad in 2004 and it didn't come with windows reinstall/restore discs. I called up IBM's support number, spoke to someone who actually speaks english in a matter of minutes, and they sent me the restore discs via overnight shipping for free.
Now not only was this machine bought used and refurbed, it was bought off of ebay from a mom & pop shop.
Sadly with Lenovo running the show these days I'm betting that would not happen again. So moot point maybe...
The only things actually wrong with your scneario are the fact that the wives are 13 years old and someone was smuggled out of their country, since those things involve non-consenting persons (assuming 13 year olds should not be able to consent to that).
Aside from the DMCA, there is no reason digital outputs should ever have to be disabled to play back any kind of content. The content is just data, it doesn't have any control over the machine - nor should it and nor should an operating system you paid for give said control away.
The presence of wifi will be visible regardless, even if encrypted, because the network's traffic is being broadcast on public frequencies.
The protocol-level advertisements are a direct result of human activities. Those protocol-level advertisements aren't being made because an AP sprang up from nothingness... some human intentionally set that AP up. Now that human may be incompetent and may have configured the AP to communicate the owner's intentions incorrectly... but we shouldn't be throwing users of such APs in jail because of the owner's incompetence.
That's not a valid analogy. Leaving a door unlocked in and of itself is not an active advertisement to enter, like an open AP broadcasts its status and offers network access to anyone in RF range. It would be more correct to say the door was left unlocked and there was an "open house today" sign left on the front lawn. Would you fault a stranger for entering in that situation?
Well first, nothing was "thrust into the hands" of anyone. People willingly, actively went out and bought the equipment.
Why not? Is it reasonable to expect them to know how to drive a car comptetently before trying to do so on a public road? Is it reasonable to expect them to be able to read and comprehend instructions on a bottle of sleeping pills before using them? How about any number of power tools in a hardware store? There are all kinds of things in the world that people are expected to become comptetent with before they attempt to use. Computers are another. If they are not willing to learn how to use them correctly, they should either not use them or find someone to help them. In any case, the consequences of their ignorance are their own responsibility, not anyone else's. The information and help is available.
Nope. This one had a sign saying "OPEN" on it.
Well if the owner of the garden hose posted (accidentally or otherwise) a giant sign in their front yard that says "free car washing facilities" - just like they did with their AP - then no there would be no reason to fault anyone for using the hose.
They are completely relevant. Those technical protocol-level details that you're dismissing with a hand-wave are the standard way to advertise a network's availability (or lack thereof). There are numerous ways to say "this is a private network" or "this is a public network" in those details. If the owner of the AP through their incompetence is telling the world "this is a public network" it is no fault of the user if they heed such notice.
In on what, the heist that I conducted?
After all the bad press, recalling all of the CDs, at least five lawsuits, settling with the FTC and admitting their actions violated federal law, having to pay each victim of their discs up to $150, you honestly believe that the leadership of the company does not understand how big of a blunder that was?
Spiderman the movie? That quote predates that...
And I wonder, after the rootkit scandal broke, did the board of directors or the president use their vast power to do anything, so as to discourage their other subordinates from making equally bad decisions in the future? Nope:
The uninstaller for the DRM had security problems of its own.
Thomas Hesse, president of that division, who said "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?" still has his job today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Sony_BMG_CD_cop
It is their responsibility of those people to keep the company in line and fix quickly when it isn't. That's why they have so much power get paid tens of millions of dollars a year (supposedly). By continuing to delegate their power to somone who wonders why people would care that their machine had been rooted, they clearly approve of those actions.
And I ask, are you given power to control your brother's actions? Are you his legal guardian? Is he under 18 or mentally retarded? If so, yes, you might in fact go to jail. With power comes responsibility.
You may be right after all... Blizzard may have some legal ground in this assault. I'm hardly a lawyer...
It will certainly be sad day when a software company may control what software other people create. Or at least another step in that direction...
Such is your opinion, but I liken the right to write software to the right to free speech. It should simply not be possible for a company to say what kinds of software other people can and cannot write, regardless of what other people use it for. If people use that software to violate a contract, those who did so should be held liable for breach of the contract.
The guilty act here is the breach of ToS contract between Blizzard and the cheater. The guilty party here is the cheater.
I can agree that the freedom to distribute land mines should be restricted, but only because there is a huge risk to society of their misuse. It is an exceptional situation. Cheating in a video game just doesn't meet the same standard. Situations where we spread guilt beyond the person who actually committed the guilty act should be exceedingly rare in order to keep society as free as possible as a general principle. Excuse the cliche, but "slippery slope" comes to mind.
Well, since wowglider isn't copying or providing a way to copy Blizzard's software, this can't be contributory copyright infringement. wowglider isn't "interfering" with the ToS contract between blizzard and the subscriber - the subscribers are breaking the contract by their own free will.
But that's not really the "shock and horror" about this... the horror is the simple concept of a software company trying to gain the right to tell other people (who have no contracts with blizzard) what kind of software they can and cannot create. The whole issue of cheating between blizzard and the subscriber. The guilty party is here is the cheater.
It is unfortunate that people produce software for cheating, but it would be far more unfortunate if Blizzard gained right to tell people what they could and could not create. I see it kind of like the right of neo-NAZI groups to produce and distribute racist literature. It is unfortunate that they do, but that's just one of the side effects of an absolute (or nearly and sadly decreasingly so) right to free speech. I'll take the hate speech over any slippery slopes into censorship.
That's true, but ultimately the person that would actually do the killing would bear most of the responsibility, unlike in this case.
Also, this precedent they're going for is much too far reaching. We may tolerate laws against selling land mines, but most of us wouldn't tolerate government surveilance in every aspect of our lives to prevent the sale of landmines. We'll take the freedom, live with the risks, and place responsibility on the free individuals.
"This is not gross abuse of the law."
The only way this wouldn't be a gross abuse of the law would be if Blizzard were actually suing the people that violated a contract with them, rather than this assault on computing to try and stop all cheaters.
Then again, I suppose it is the DMCA itself that is the gross abuse here.
Yes, USING wowglider may be a violation of the TOS. But Blizzard isn't suing anyone for USING wowglider.
Why would the makers of wowglider be liable for someone else's breach of contract? The people who use wowglider have their own free will and responsibility for their actions. Wowglider didn't cause anyone to violate the ToS, the person using it made a consious choice to do so. What tool they used to do it is irrelevant. If I stab someone to death with a steak knife, would you say the maker of the steak knife caused me to murder someone?
Sure it is. "General purpose computing" by definition encompasses games.
But that's not the point. If Blizzard gets their way here it will set a precedent which will have negative effects on far more than cheating in their games.
And you are broadly assuming that the people being sued here entered in to a contract with Blizzard.
Sure, maybe the contract between blizzard and a cheater (whatever one must agree to to play WoW), but Blizzard isn't suing a cheater.
checkpoint is ok, but don't flush your time and money down the toilet running it on nokia hardware. The nokia "appliances" are just standard X86 hardware in a different case for 10X the price. They may be in a fancy case, but inside they're just standard multi-year-old CPUs (Intel, AMD or Cyrix on the lowest end ones) with standard intel (or ServerWorks) chipsets and regular non-RAID western digital ATA hard disks. They are even less reliable than PCs from other vendors in my experience. Plus with Nokia you get to run it all on Nokia's IPSO operating system, which is a stripped down, barely updated fork of FreeBSD 2.2.6.
Font size has nothing to do with resolution or screen size. A 12 point font is one that is 1/6th of an inch high. The definition of the word "point" here is 1/72nd of an inch. It doesn't indicate a certain number of pixels. Assuming no zoom, if you hold resolution constant and decrease screen size, the font should be rendered with an increasing number of pixels, however many it takes to be 1/6th of an inch high... if your software knows how to draw fonts correctly, that is.
The lack of a robots.txt file, which is the standard and widely accepted way of conveying such rights, said something different that what she posted on the site. Her ignorance and miscommunication of her intentions is not archive.org's fault.