I think the main problem is, Lucas is a terrible director and a terrible writer. The original (ep. IV) is the only film that he directed that is any good. In that movie, the basic story line is his, but the actual script lines are not - and that is a reasonable division of responsibilities IMHO. Same as writing code - the person who designs the interface is typically not the same person who engineers the program structure.
Almost all of his famous movies (Indiana Jones etc) he produced not directed. Even Speilberg, seeing the disaster he made of episode I, offered to direct the remainder but acknowledged that it was Lucas' baby and the chances of him doing that were zero.
Thanks, I vaguely remember both those cases but I wasn't sure when I posted. The mantra "the GPL has never been tested in court" is often stated, but is wrong!
But what do you treat as "hard evidence" ? The evidence in these cases is usually very plain and obvious, the only possible legal question is whether the GPL (or some other right, such as fair use) actually granted them the right to do the copying or modifications.
Ignoring the legal technicalities, the spirit of the GPL is pretty clear. And that is more important than the letter of the law, IMO. After all, most corporate crime is based around dodging the spirit in favour of exploiting loopholes and technicalities.
Ok, I completely agree that the legal system of the USA is completely fucked and many people have to settle out of court just because they can't afford it. But GPL disputes are almost without exception the other way around!
Think about it: the FSF suvives on donations from members, of which they have (IIRC) around 5000, each paying $100 or so a year. That is not much money to fight court battles! It is considerably less than the salary of SCO's legal team, for example.
Maybe true, but they may well be guilty of fraud for claiming multiple times that it was a completely independent code base, and also for the 80% native speed claim.
At a minimum, in any country with consumer protection laws they would be guilty of violating trade practices.
The legality of that EULA would be a much more interesting court case IMHO.
It may be true that no GPL cases have come to court (although I'm not sure about that either). But there has been a very large number of infringement claims that never made it to court, becuase the guilty party gave in. In summary, to win against the GPL, you cannot argue that it is invalid: if it were invalid then normal copyright law would mean that any copying or distribution was illegal - so that approach would be the lawyer equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot. Instead you would need to convince the judge that it is both valid but allows more than it appears to allow. But that is a difficult case to argue;)
At least for code copyright by the FSF, at least. If not, then someone with enough money to pay the lawyers has to step up, but I would think it would not be too hard in this case. If any of the Mac magazines that published glowing articles about CherryOS had any credibility they would fund the lawsuit themselves.
The USA doesn't, but thats about the only one I think.
Even so, Australia (and maybe UK) are probably the only countries with a "special" enough relationship with the USA to extradite someone who has never been to the country. I would imagine if he is found guilty he would serve his time in an Australian jail - that has been done quite often in the past.
Not decriminalized, but its treated more as a medical/social problem than a criminal problem. Addicts are unlikely to go to jail, but if they want to give it up there is assistance available.
Marijuana and (I think) some forms of mushrooms are fine.
I think it isn't completely insane. The energy required to get a 7.5x10^5 kg mass to 1000m/s is 3.75x10^11 J, or 1.35x10^12 KWh. But you wouldn't need a mass anything like that big, because most of Airane is fuel that isn't needed if the starting velocity is Mach3. 10^11 KWh is still big, but I think it would be achievable. After all we would only require one for the whole planet.
Why not use a railgun, no reason why that couldn't be several kilometers long if need be. Of course aiming it in an upwards direction would be harder, but I guess that is optional?
Ok, but you can achieve most of those things with hosts.allow/deny and tcpwrappers.
In the environment you describe, I would not trust a firewall running on the end-user machines. I would have a separate machine dedicated to the task. But that is a different issue to using a 'personal firewall' simply to get the machine to the state it should have been in the beginning - which is all the firewall on most home machines does.
That analogy is useless, it just doesn't match how how TCP/IP actually works. Unless you want to do some special packet routing or logging, a firewall should be completely unnecessary.
To accept a connection on a IP port, you need a service running. If you have no such service running, no connections are possible. Having such services running but then blocking them with another layer of software is pointless and adds more potential failure modes to the system. If you want a stupid car analogy, it is somewhat like putting a large spike on the steering wheel aimed at the driver, and 'compensating' by adding an airbag in the hope of stopping you from impaling yourself on the spike in case of an accident.
Granted, this is the way Microsoft forces you to act, but that isn't the point.
Gandhi had his moments of pettiness and just plain tom-foolishness, but the sum of his efforts changed the way people gain power back from those who would usurp it for their own.
The ID requirement is a rule imposed on the airlines by the TSA. But the TSA are saying that they cannot and will not disclose the text of the regulation because it is 'sensitive security information'.
The regulation under which the Transportation Safety Administration, an arm of the Department of Homeland Security, instructs the airlines to collect such identification is classified as "Sensitive Security Information."
When Congress passes a law, it is as often as not up to some agency to decide what that law means and how to enforce it. Usually, those regulations are available for people to examine, even challenge if they conflict with the Constitution.
This wasn't the case when Congress passed the Air Transportation Security Act of 1974....
Slashdot Mirror
Almost all of his famous movies (Indiana Jones etc) he produced not directed. Even Speilberg, seeing the disaster he made of episode I, offered to direct the remainder but acknowledged that it was Lucas' baby and the chances of him doing that were zero.
Ok, the funny mod is, well, funny, but it is actually quite true!
With respect to your second point, The USA is a signatory of the Geneva Convention, and they are obligated to uphold it irrespective of the locality.
Thanks, I vaguely remember both those cases but I wasn't sure when I posted. The mantra "the GPL has never been tested in court" is often stated, but is wrong!
Ignoring the legal technicalities, the spirit of the GPL is pretty clear. And that is more important than the letter of the law, IMO. After all, most corporate crime is based around dodging the spirit in favour of exploiting loopholes and technicalities.
Think about it: the FSF suvives on donations from members, of which they have (IIRC) around 5000, each paying $100 or so a year. That is not much money to fight court battles! It is considerably less than the salary of SCO's legal team, for example.
At a minimum, in any country with consumer protection laws they would be guilty of violating trade practices.
It may be true that no GPL cases have come to court (although I'm not sure about that either). But there has been a very large number of infringement claims that never made it to court, becuase the guilty party gave in. In summary, to win against the GPL, you cannot argue that it is invalid: if it were invalid then normal copyright law would mean that any copying or distribution was illegal - so that approach would be the lawyer equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot. Instead you would need to convince the judge that it is both valid but allows more than it appears to allow. But that is a difficult case to argue ;)
At least for code copyright by the FSF, at least. If not, then someone with enough money to pay the lawyers has to step up, but I would think it would not be too hard in this case. If any of the Mac magazines that published glowing articles about CherryOS had any credibility they would fund the lawsuit themselves.
Ahh, I should go RTFA. That would make a difference in this case. Is he a US citizen?
Even so, Australia (and maybe UK) are probably the only countries with a "special" enough relationship with the USA to extradite someone who has never been to the country. I would imagine if he is found guilty he would serve his time in an Australian jail - that has been done quite often in the past.
Marijuana and (I think) some forms of mushrooms are fine.
I think it isn't completely insane. The energy required to get a 7.5x10^5 kg mass to 1000m/s is 3.75x10^11 J, or 1.35x10^12 KWh. But you wouldn't need a mass anything like that big, because most of Airane is fuel that isn't needed if the starting velocity is Mach3. 10^11 KWh is still big, but I think it would be achievable. After all we would only require one for the whole planet.
Is that to get it into orbit? I was thinking, just to enough speed to start a scramjet engine.
Why not use a railgun, no reason why that couldn't be several kilometers long if need be. Of course aiming it in an upwards direction would be harder, but I guess that is optional?
No, I'm asking how he knew about it ;-) He says he tried it a "few days ago", but the vulnerability became public knowledge exactly two days ago.
No prob, it was a dumb comment I replied to originally, but I should have clarified.
In the environment you describe, I would not trust a firewall running on the end-user machines. I would have a separate machine dedicated to the task. But that is a different issue to using a 'personal firewall' simply to get the machine to the state it should have been in the beginning - which is all the firewall on most home machines does.
When exactly did you do this? The vulnarability was only announced on Saturday.
To accept a connection on a IP port, you need a service running. If you have no such service running, no connections are possible. Having such services running but then blocking them with another layer of software is pointless and adds more potential failure modes to the system. If you want a stupid car analogy, it is somewhat like putting a large spike on the steering wheel aimed at the driver, and 'compensating' by adding an airbag in the hope of stopping you from impaling yourself on the spike in case of an accident.
Granted, this is the way Microsoft forces you to act, but that isn't the point.
No records at all, except longest distance in 24-hour solo flight, and maybe half-a-dozen others.
There are also very few thermal sources over water, and at the speed of even the highest performance sailplanes it would take about a month.
try here, for a start
I think, you don't know much about Gandhi.
The ID requirement is a rule imposed on the airlines by the TSA. But the TSA are saying that they cannot and will not disclose the text of the regulation because it is 'sensitive security information'.
The regulation under which the Transportation Safety Administration, an arm of the Department of Homeland Security, instructs the airlines to collect such identification is classified as "Sensitive Security Information."
When Congress passes a law, it is as often as not up to some agency to decide what that law means and how to enforce it. Usually, those regulations are available for people to examine, even challenge if they conflict with the Constitution.
This wasn't the case when Congress passed the Air Transportation Security Act of 1974. ...
Nothing to do with the airline.