Quite simple: Microsoft can't get what they want in Europe. In Europe there are laws that prevent Microsoft from seeing third-party documents. What Microsoft is hoping is that it can get the documents in the United States when the EU specifically prohbits it. What is even more interesting is that Microsoft actually thinks that some Federal Judge is stupid enough to grant the request. If Microsoft was to get the documents I would wonder if Microsoft would be in trouble with the EU. I know if I was on the commission, I would punish Microsoft for such back-handed ways.
I am thinking of the guy with a dual-head video card installing two of these...does that mean that using a dual-head monitor and two of these triple-head adapters, you can run six screens together? That would have to be one heck of a desk to have it all, but I could see the need for this. Better yet, if you hooked this thing up to a Quattro that supports four monitors, do you get 12 monitors for a resolution of 7680x2048? Or would you get 15360x1024?
Better yet, why would Larry want to buy Novell when he owns 33% of Redhat stock?
It doesn't make since. Would the FTC let him buy Novell when he is the principle in Oracle and yet he owns a 1/3 of another, competing Linux distrubtion?
So the real question is why does Larry want to own Novell and at the same time have his hands in the cookie jar with Redhat?
If he makes SuSE Linux Enterprise the best version to run Oracle on then he is going against his financial interests in Redhat. But if he just wants to compete with MS then having SuSE and making it only available for the desktop would make sense. But he doesn't really do it in the sense of Redhat. Also, to make things more interesting, Oracle runs a Redhat support center.
I don't think that Larry is telling us everything or what he has in mind. We all assume that Larry is doing this to make a Linux distro that will support the features of Oracle well, but the Redhat thing is really difficult to figure out.
I would guess that RedHat would be the choice. It is interesting to note that other places are reporting that Larry might buy Redhat first, and then Novell second.
Better yet, just imagine how this would have some serious impact on our friends at SCO? They thought they were taking on IBM, and Novell got into the mix, but with an acquistian by Oracle you would have SCO up against IBM and Oracle -- two heavy weights. To really make it painful, Larry Ellision is not known for being a nice business man.
This will work until some island nation that could care less, has a company open a VPN server using some serious encryption (like AES-256 or 512). Since the island nation would not have the laws people who want to use the internet in devious ways, privacy nuts and those who want annonimity would connect and pay some money for it. These servers wouldn't even use logs. Under some models, like IPSec/L2TP, you could encrypt the traffic once for IPSec and then again for L2TP. Additioanlly, OpenSWAN, FreeSWAN and the like have options that circulate keys to make sure that even when a government has the preshared key or certificate, the data is still secret.
Most of the laws that Congress passes fall under the "Nessasary and Proper Clause" and the Commerce clause.
The nessasary and proper clause reads: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." This has some wide interpetation with conservaitve (NOT republicans) reading it mean that it only applies to the execution of the enumerated powers of the constituons, wiht liberals (NOT Democrats) meaning that they can make any law needs to be made. It has been interpeted by the courts to mean that Congress can make all sorts of laws following the liberal definition.
The Commerce Clause reads: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." What it means is that Congress can pass laws governing interstate commerce. Under Chief Reinquest, it the commerce clause is interpetted to mean that Congress can regulate interstate commerce, anything which affects interstate commerce and the methods of that commerce. It has been interpeted that when anything exchange of money, goods or services crosses statelines then it becomes interstate commerce. This is why Congress put the moritoruim on internet taxes, and why criminals that commit a crime(s) in two states are subject to federal juristion.
This law would fit very well under the Commerce Clause. Since internet service has to cross state and in many cases statelines, then it is clearly under the purvue of Congress. States can pass laws regarding servers in that state, but cannot require data to be retained by a company doing business in another state. But this whole issue actually gets more neabulus because an action done over the internet can actually be in two locations at once.
Anyway, I hope that sheds some light on the subject. MOST laws are either under the Nessasary and Proper or Commerce clause.
Why is it bad? Because when Microsoft claims that Linux is more vulnerable then it is bad. Also, it is bad when Microsoft claims that there have been less bugs in MS than in Linux or any other operating system. It seems more like a marketing attempt than anything else. With MS getting beat up over security, they can look good by simply not telling people that it has been patched.
The Third Geneva Convention defines who is subject to the Convention. Interestingly enough, in order for soliders to be protected by the Convention, several factors must be met: 1) the party to the conflict MUST be a sign the conventions, 2.) the parties in conflict must recognize each other a legitmate government or authority.
Interestingly enough terrorist have not signed the conventions nor do they recognize the United States as a legitmate government or authority.
And even if you do grant them POW status, they can be held until the hostilies end. So even if the US is picking and choosing which aspects of the Geneva Convention to apply, the fact of the matter is that asside from the accusations of tortue, it is legal. Interestingly enough, I think that part of the criticisms of Gitmo is that observers like Amnesty International are not allowed in. Besides that Amnesty International has an anti-US slant anyways.
Why? I wouldn't want his job or any job like it. The guy has a job that carries social stigmas. FTA, he said that he had to move his family when peopel found out about his job, and he generally only associates with people that are in the business. Sure he may get to look at porn, but when he has practically isolated himself and his family from the real world is it really worth it? In fact his daughters have no clue what their Dad does. Why on earth would you want to work in an industry that carries such a cost? Sure he may be financially secure, but sometimes the costs of wealth are too much.
The other thing that really made me wonder is that Mr. Jones shields his daughters from his business. It makes me wonder why he shields them? What exactly does that mean?
I do exactly that. I run virtual machines to make sure that the computer runs well. I use VMware for the main reason that it offers some serious benefits, like support, virtual lan segments, and its flexability.
One of the main reason that I use VM's is that it allows me to dink around with malicious programs with hosing the host. I have even found that I don't worry if I install a malicious program or even for that matter a suspect program since I can rollback or run it under a non-persistant disk. I have a different VM for each set of programs that I run. For example, I have an Oracle environment for developing Oracle programs (I know, not the brightest idea, but I can run Oracle when I need to without breaking it with another program), a work, school, a playgrouind(or sandbox), and even a personal Windows enviroment, and various Linux distributions. My wife even has her own VM. It has proven a stable way to enjoy and play around with programs an not have to worry about a lot of things.
With VMware's ACE product you can exaclty that for an organization and lock 'em down.
I run Linux as my host with VMware. Frankly, I love it. I have probably a dozen Windows images that I use each with a slatted purpouse. I even run Oracle (and it runs quite well at that) in it's own VM. The best part about doing this approach is that I am able to isolate programs that I really don't want running together, like keeping Oracle seperate from my host. Also, I have a clean enviorment where I can play with malicious programs or run programs that I think might be suspect. I can honestly say that I have never enjoyed that stability of Windows like I do right now in a VM.
LOL...if only a TV progam had the balls to do it. But it would be rather funny. You wouldn't even have to use real information. You ought to tell Comedy Central, I am sure that the Daily Show could enjoy that one.
Wow, that NetIntercept is pretty slick. I can see a company using it to catch someone looking at porn. It's pretty much a hardware Ethereal that stores off eveything. Any company using that had better have a clearly defined Internet Usage Policy that states, "We can and do monitor the internet.".
Also, it could be extrodinary uselefull for collecting forensic evidence against a hacker or even an employee.
I think that Slashdot has enough people who have lived through the hell of being the butt of someone's jokes, the one that is tormented and the one that is excluded from everything. Just because the entire internet enjoyed an edited version of what may be termed a lapse in judgment does not mean that he did not take the right course. WIth out us knowing what torment he endured on a day-to-day basis it is not our place to judge. We can say that it should be a learning experience, but we don't know the details.
I would suspect that the experience that he had after the leak of the video was probably extremely embaressing. An adult might just laugh it off and maybe make some friendly jesting. But in the twisted world of high school, I doubt that happened. With out knowing the social effects of what happened as a result, I can't say I don't blame him for filing suit.
Making arguments that in the real world you have to endure that sort of thing doesn't really work. In the real world you have options. In the real world you can leave a hostile environment by changing jobs, moving, etc. But the sad reality is when you're being tormented by a bunch of immature dorks who think it is cool to do, and you have no way of changing that reality, it will get to you. If the administrators don't do anything, and from experience and watching others I can say they don't, it should not come as a suprise that he lashed back.
Leaving it in at the school may have been a poor choice. However, it is Machiavellian (sp?) to say that it was Raza's fault. Those tormentors made the choice to exploit it. But he should not be held liable or be blamed for the actions of those that made the exploitation. They could have watched it, had their "fun," but they decided to post it to the internet for the purposes of tormenting him; at that point, no matter how innocent the posting was, it became malicious. And if they passed the link around it became more ugly.
Had I been in a simular situation I am not sure that I wouldn't have sued myself.
At the very least he could have owned them for copyright infringement. I know that the Slashdot crowd is anti-copyrights, but as the photographer, he the copyright holder. And they violated the implicit copyright. If he took the copyright route, he could have gone after them for RICO violations (since RICO does cover copyright violations. Granted they weren't a criminal enterprise.) So legally, they violated copyrights. They broke the law when they posted his video.
You, know, part of me is wondering whether this part of there attempt to satisfy the EU. After all, the EU demanded that MS play nice with competitors. By 'supporting' Linux in the sense of helping people to integrate other solutions with MS, they might actually be helping their case in the EU. MS could claim that they have documented stuff and that they now are offering support via a website to help people integrate. Afterall, MS needs the EU to calm down before they get in some serious trouble with Vista; the EU has already expressed concerns with Vista to begin with. So while we look at this with suspicion (and I defently do), I would argue that the reasons are a lot less sinsiter as we have presumed and may just be an attempt at propaganda to get the EU off their back. What we have to ask ourselves is what is the economic benefit of offering integration support? And with the EU about to charge them $2.4million a day ($864million a year), I would call that a serious economic benefit. Even if Microsoft loses some sales as a result of doing the support, I doubt that they are going to lose as much as they would by the EU ruling. Also, you'll notice that MS is offering Linux support now in their virtualization product.
The problem is that SCO is obligated to disclose the evidence. SCO has failed to illistrate the exact infringment. It is not the defendant's duty to illistrate the infringment. Requiring IBM to find the infringment would be like asking an accused rapist to find the evidence of the rape and defend against it. Throwing 45,000 pages of information to a person and saying the evidence is there, doesn't cut it, especially when it only 'shows' infringment in 3 out 201 issues. In court you are required to show each point of injury or they get tossed. That is what the discovery part is all about.
The algorithyms you suggested would better be used by SCO.
Re:::groan:: Please make this go away.
on
Hacker Boot Camp
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
How about the employability of having a cert saying your an ethical hacker? Depending on your level within a company, couldn't such a cert cause you employment problems? I am just thinking about the low network guy that gets the cert, and his boss firing him for security concerns.
Most of the problem with DRM's that people have is rooted in the fact that it restricts choice. If you have a DRM'ed song, then you can't use it certain devices, and you can't use it on a whole bunch of computers, and it make piracy harder.
For a legitimate customer, DRM isn't bad as long as they have the choice to play it however they would like. I would argue that part of the reason why Linux user's hate DRM is that it doesn't trust the user, and it is hard to get the content to play on Linux. DRM becomes burdensome when it starts to become inconvient. People really wouldn't care about DRM if it wouldn't interfer with their convience. Sadly, I think that one of the only ways to insure convience is from trusted computing. Or if you could tie a copy of the music to a piece of hardware and then have each song downloaded per that piece of hardware.
However, with all that said, an Open Source DRM is not bad, per se, if it allows consumer choice. If you can port your songs to wherever you want and listen to them without a losing quality would you use it? Also, by it being Open Source it will allow per review and you won't have to worry about the Sony Root Kit crap that went on. If you look at it, the whole filetrading fest that happened in the late 90's created the need for content providers to require DRM. Playing devil's advocate, I seriously doubt that anyone artist that is the target of heavy downloading, is going to be against DRM (with some notiable exceptions).
The way I see it, DRM should be implemented in such a way as to balance consumer choice AND protect the rights of artist. As long as there is piracy there will be need for it. But, any artist that is refusing to take a risk of piracy is an artist that shouldn't be in business (as all businesses have risks).
Do I like DRM? No. But do see the logical need for it.
Sure it may stop one from fornicating, but it does a whole lot of other things worse than that. I would argue IF it does prevent sex, that create issues that will have to be dealt with later, and may compromise the ability for a healthy, balanced, sex life later.
If you read the article it shows that some women have a huge problem when men look at porn. Call it whatever you may. I hate to say anything for the fear that someone won't understand what I want to say. But I'll give it a shot and hope that someone who is married or in a committed relationship will back me up.
There is a lot more to sex than just the physical act. There is the emotional connection that takes place. If porn alters that which is normal and acceptable than, yes, porn is bad. If it places physical demands on of the partners that he or she is unconfortable with, then yes, porn is bad. If porn removes the emotional connection from a couple, then yes porn is bad. The probelm with porn is that the actors are not in committed relationships, but are fake and are acting out the physical acts. So they do things that people want to act out in real life, which one partner may not be comfortable with, and one that one partner may feel is degrading. As a result sex no longer is fulfilling emotionaly, and maybe not physically, while the other party is satisfied physically. Do you see the problem?
So justifying porn for the sole reason that it keeps people from engaging in sex earlier is not all that great. Sure, teen pregnancies might go down. STD's may be lower, but there is no indication that it is the case. When that young man that has been looking at porn since he was 11 or 12 gets to his first sexual relationship and finds that real life sex is not like the porn, and that all woman don't want to have oral or anal sex or other things seen on porn, he is going to have issues. And what of the emotional state of the woman when she sees that her guy won't accept her because she won't have anal sex with him? The language of porn is not even real. But when porn uses degrading comments like "Bitch" or whatever porn says and an unexperienced man uses that, the boy will have real issues.
The answer is quite simple: in this case it is a civil matter in which the United States does not have an interest or juristiction. Microsoft was attempting to use US Courts to get what they couldn't get in European Courts. The best analogy would be having your Mom tell you can't get into the cookie jar so you turn around and ask Dad (at least in my house, we learned that you don't do that because bad things happen) Also, the matter is in European Courts. If Microsoft was attempting to compel an order from a European Court it would be a whole different matter. But Microsoft wants to get into the cookie jar, and so it is asking a US Court to help when European Courts won't allow it. Frankly, I would love to see the European Commision have a hayday with it. While the Commision may not be able to do anything since the attempt happened on US soil and hence the Commision does not have jurisition, it goes to speak rather strongly about Microsofts attitudes and behaviors.
But as another poster said, your orginional post is a straw-man argument. This is a civil matter that deals with the business laws internationally. It has NOTHING to do with human rights, which by the way are protected by international law. As the world becomes more intermestic (the idea that domestic or international issues have internation or domestic implications, consquences and effects), nations respecting other nation's laws will become more and more important.
Yeah, just wait till some sort of open source decryption project opens that has the sole purpose of breaking DRM keys. Kind of like the SETI project. Sure it'll take forever for someone to break the codes, but if you use a distributed project that uses idle clock cycles, you could break DRM keys. And the more computers you get, the faster the break times.
Yeah, but there is no comparision between the products. Microsoft's sucks hard. You turn over control of your domain name to them -- so you have to use their stuff. You just can't point your mx records at them.
Google allows retention of domain control, you just point your mx record at them.
Microsoft is going for Joe Sixpack who wants to have branded email. Google is going for the bigger guys that really know what there doing and what they want.
Not so much about class and swagger as professionalism.
How many Slashdotters have tried to implement Open Source on an enterprise level? I have, and to be honest, it is a hell of a lot of work. Open Source is not user friendly when you have to start working off the desktop. KDE and Gnome make the desktop easy, but when you start playing with command-line stuff, things get hairy. Open Source will save acquistan(sp?) costs, but it won't save on labor.
What I can see is if a business which has a culture of suits and ties contracts with a company to provide open source solutions, has support people which are wearing sandals and jeans, then, yes, I think there will be a problem. Why would an organization that has suits have a bunched of sandeled-footed and pony-tailed people walking around their offices? Being presentable is half the equation. Knowing your stuff is the other half. If you know a lot, but you are unpresentable, unbathed, unshaven and slovenly, then no one will accept your solution. I learned this working in a retail shop. On a number of occassions, I had to come from something or go to something after work and I would be in a suit. I discovered that it is far easier to sell something when your in a suit (mind you I was a manager at the time). Your dress goes along way for creditability.
You can call it prejudices or whatever. But the fact remains that business has a culture. And being sucessful to your customers means dressing and playing a part of that culture. You have to sell yourself to make yourself sucessful.
Well I think that this section is going to be lost to people using the reply to selected text feature. But I am a big fan of the styling. I got really tired of the green look. But it could have been easier by just making it a user preference, since many of us are probably auto-logged in.
Slashdot Mirror
Quite simple: Microsoft can't get what they want in Europe. In Europe there are laws that prevent Microsoft from seeing third-party documents. What Microsoft is hoping is that it can get the documents in the United States when the EU specifically prohbits it. What is even more interesting is that Microsoft actually thinks that some Federal Judge is stupid enough to grant the request. If Microsoft was to get the documents I would wonder if Microsoft would be in trouble with the EU. I know if I was on the commission, I would punish Microsoft for such back-handed ways.
I am thinking of the guy with a dual-head video card installing two of these...does that mean that using a dual-head monitor and two of these triple-head adapters, you can run six screens together? That would have to be one heck of a desk to have it all, but I could see the need for this. Better yet, if you hooked this thing up to a Quattro that supports four monitors, do you get 12 monitors for a resolution of 7680x2048? Or would you get 15360x1024?
Better yet, why would Larry want to buy Novell when he owns 33% of Redhat stock?
It doesn't make since. Would the FTC let him buy Novell when he is the principle in Oracle and yet he owns a 1/3 of another, competing Linux distrubtion?
So the real question is why does Larry want to own Novell and at the same time have his hands in the cookie jar with Redhat?
If he makes SuSE Linux Enterprise the best version to run Oracle on then he is going against his financial interests in Redhat. But if he just wants to compete with MS then having SuSE and making it only available for the desktop would make sense. But he doesn't really do it in the sense of Redhat. Also, to make things more interesting, Oracle runs a Redhat support center.
I don't think that Larry is telling us everything or what he has in mind. We all assume that Larry is doing this to make a Linux distro that will support the features of Oracle well, but the Redhat thing is really difficult to figure out.
I would guess that RedHat would be the choice. It is interesting to note that other places are reporting that Larry might buy Redhat first, and then Novell second.
Better yet, just imagine how this would have some serious impact on our friends at SCO? They thought they were taking on IBM, and Novell got into the mix, but with an acquistian by Oracle you would have SCO up against IBM and Oracle -- two heavy weights. To really make it painful, Larry Ellision is not known for being a nice business man.
This will work until some island nation that could care less, has a company open a VPN server using some serious encryption (like AES-256 or 512). Since the island nation would not have the laws people who want to use the internet in devious ways, privacy nuts and those who want annonimity would connect and pay some money for it. These servers wouldn't even use logs. Under some models, like IPSec/L2TP, you could encrypt the traffic once for IPSec and then again for L2TP. Additioanlly, OpenSWAN, FreeSWAN and the like have options that circulate keys to make sure that even when a government has the preshared key or certificate, the data is still secret.
Most of the laws that Congress passes fall under the "Nessasary and Proper Clause" and the Commerce clause.
The nessasary and proper clause reads: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." This has some wide interpetation with conservaitve (NOT republicans) reading it mean that it only applies to the execution of the enumerated powers of the constituons, wiht liberals (NOT Democrats) meaning that they can make any law needs to be made. It has been interpeted by the courts to mean that Congress can make all sorts of laws following the liberal definition.
The Commerce Clause reads: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." What it means is that Congress can pass laws governing interstate commerce. Under Chief Reinquest, it the commerce clause is interpetted to mean that Congress can regulate interstate commerce, anything which affects interstate commerce and the methods of that commerce. It has been interpeted that when anything exchange of money, goods or services crosses statelines then it becomes interstate commerce. This is why Congress put the moritoruim on internet taxes, and why criminals that commit a crime(s) in two states are subject to federal juristion.
This law would fit very well under the Commerce Clause. Since internet service has to cross state and in many cases statelines, then it is clearly under the purvue of Congress. States can pass laws regarding servers in that state, but cannot require data to be retained by a company doing business in another state. But this whole issue actually gets more neabulus because an action done over the internet can actually be in two locations at once.
Anyway, I hope that sheds some light on the subject. MOST laws are either under the Nessasary and Proper or Commerce clause.
Why is it bad? Because when Microsoft claims that Linux is more vulnerable then it is bad. Also, it is bad when Microsoft claims that there have been less bugs in MS than in Linux or any other operating system. It seems more like a marketing attempt than anything else. With MS getting beat up over security, they can look good by simply not telling people that it has been patched.
The Third Geneva Convention defines who is subject to the Convention. Interestingly enough, in order for soliders to be protected by the Convention, several factors must be met: 1) the party to the conflict MUST be a sign the conventions, 2.) the parties in conflict must recognize each other a legitmate government or authority.
Interestingly enough terrorist have not signed the conventions nor do they recognize the United States as a legitmate government or authority.
And even if you do grant them POW status, they can be held until the hostilies end. So even if the US is picking and choosing which aspects of the Geneva Convention to apply, the fact of the matter is that asside from the accusations of tortue, it is legal. Interestingly enough, I think that part of the criticisms of Gitmo is that observers like Amnesty International are not allowed in. Besides that Amnesty International has an anti-US slant anyways.
Why? I wouldn't want his job or any job like it. The guy has a job that carries social stigmas. FTA, he said that he had to move his family when peopel found out about his job, and he generally only associates with people that are in the business. Sure he may get to look at porn, but when he has practically isolated himself and his family from the real world is it really worth it? In fact his daughters have no clue what their Dad does. Why on earth would you want to work in an industry that carries such a cost? Sure he may be financially secure, but sometimes the costs of wealth are too much.
The other thing that really made me wonder is that Mr. Jones shields his daughters from his business. It makes me wonder why he shields them? What exactly does that mean?
I do exactly that. I run virtual machines to make sure that the computer runs well. I use VMware for the main reason that it offers some serious benefits, like support, virtual lan segments, and its flexability.
One of the main reason that I use VM's is that it allows me to dink around with malicious programs with hosing the host. I have even found that I don't worry if I install a malicious program or even for that matter a suspect program since I can rollback or run it under a non-persistant disk. I have a different VM for each set of programs that I run. For example, I have an Oracle environment for developing Oracle programs (I know, not the brightest idea, but I can run Oracle when I need to without breaking it with another program), a work, school, a playgrouind(or sandbox), and even a personal Windows enviroment, and various Linux distributions. My wife even has her own VM. It has proven a stable way to enjoy and play around with programs an not have to worry about a lot of things.
With VMware's ACE product you can exaclty that for an organization and lock 'em down.
I run Linux as my host with VMware. Frankly, I love it. I have probably a dozen Windows images that I use each with a slatted purpouse. I even run Oracle (and it runs quite well at that) in it's own VM. The best part about doing this approach is that I am able to isolate programs that I really don't want running together, like keeping Oracle seperate from my host. Also, I have a clean enviorment where I can play with malicious programs or run programs that I think might be suspect. I can honestly say that I have never enjoyed that stability of Windows like I do right now in a VM.
LOL...if only a TV progam had the balls to do it. But it would be rather funny. You wouldn't even have to use real information. You ought to tell Comedy Central, I am sure that the Daily Show could enjoy that one.
Wow, that NetIntercept is pretty slick. I can see a company using it to catch someone looking at porn. It's pretty much a hardware Ethereal that stores off eveything. Any company using that had better have a clearly defined Internet Usage Policy that states, "We can and do monitor the internet.".
Also, it could be extrodinary uselefull for collecting forensic evidence against a hacker or even an employee.
I want one...
LOL. Don't worry, I think your safe. Running anti-virus might use up all 32K of RAM.
I think that Slashdot has enough people who have lived through the hell of being the butt of someone's jokes, the one that is tormented and the one that is excluded from everything. Just because the entire internet enjoyed an edited version of what may be termed a lapse in judgment does not mean that he did not take the right course. WIth out us knowing what torment he endured on a day-to-day basis it is not our place to judge. We can say that it should be a learning experience, but we don't know the details.
I would suspect that the experience that he had after the leak of the video was probably extremely embaressing. An adult might just laugh it off and maybe make some friendly jesting. But in the twisted world of high school, I doubt that happened. With out knowing the social effects of what happened as a result, I can't say I don't blame him for filing suit.
Making arguments that in the real world you have to endure that sort of thing doesn't really work. In the real world you have options. In the real world you can leave a hostile environment by changing jobs, moving, etc. But the sad reality is when you're being tormented by a bunch of immature dorks who think it is cool to do, and you have no way of changing that reality, it will get to you. If the administrators don't do anything, and from experience and watching others I can say they don't, it should not come as a suprise that he lashed back.
Leaving it in at the school may have been a poor choice. However, it is Machiavellian (sp?) to say that it was Raza's fault. Those tormentors made the choice to exploit it. But he should not be held liable or be blamed for the actions of those that made the exploitation. They could have watched it, had their "fun," but they decided to post it to the internet for the purposes of tormenting him; at that point, no matter how innocent the posting was, it became malicious. And if they passed the link around it became more ugly.
Had I been in a simular situation I am not sure that I wouldn't have sued myself.
At the very least he could have owned them for copyright infringement. I know that the Slashdot crowd is anti-copyrights, but as the photographer, he the copyright holder. And they violated the implicit copyright. If he took the copyright route, he could have gone after them for RICO violations (since RICO does cover copyright violations. Granted they weren't a criminal enterprise.) So legally, they violated copyrights. They broke the law when they posted his video.
You, know, part of me is wondering whether this part of there attempt to satisfy the EU. After all, the EU demanded that MS play nice with competitors. By 'supporting' Linux in the sense of helping people to integrate other solutions with MS, they might actually be helping their case in the EU. MS could claim that they have documented stuff and that they now are offering support via a website to help people integrate. Afterall, MS needs the EU to calm down before they get in some serious trouble with Vista; the EU has already expressed concerns with Vista to begin with. So while we look at this with suspicion (and I defently do), I would argue that the reasons are a lot less sinsiter as we have presumed and may just be an attempt at propaganda to get the EU off their back. What we have to ask ourselves is what is the economic benefit of offering integration support? And with the EU about to charge them $2.4million a day ($864million a year), I would call that a serious economic benefit. Even if Microsoft loses some sales as a result of doing the support, I doubt that they are going to lose as much as they would by the EU ruling. Also, you'll notice that MS is offering Linux support now in their virtualization product.
The problem is that SCO is obligated to disclose the evidence. SCO has failed to illistrate the exact infringment. It is not the defendant's duty to illistrate the infringment. Requiring IBM to find the infringment would be like asking an accused rapist to find the evidence of the rape and defend against it. Throwing 45,000 pages of information to a person and saying the evidence is there, doesn't cut it, especially when it only 'shows' infringment in 3 out 201 issues. In court you are required to show each point of injury or they get tossed. That is what the discovery part is all about.
The algorithyms you suggested would better be used by SCO.
How about the employability of having a cert saying your an ethical hacker? Depending on your level within a company, couldn't such a cert cause you employment problems? I am just thinking about the low network guy that gets the cert, and his boss firing him for security concerns.
Most of the problem with DRM's that people have is rooted in the fact that it restricts choice. If you have a DRM'ed song, then you can't use it certain devices, and you can't use it on a whole bunch of computers, and it make piracy harder.
For a legitimate customer, DRM isn't bad as long as they have the choice to play it however they would like. I would argue that part of the reason why Linux user's hate DRM is that it doesn't trust the user, and it is hard to get the content to play on Linux. DRM becomes burdensome when it starts to become inconvient. People really wouldn't care about DRM if it wouldn't interfer with their convience. Sadly, I think that one of the only ways to insure convience is from trusted computing. Or if you could tie a copy of the music to a piece of hardware and then have each song downloaded per that piece of hardware.
However, with all that said, an Open Source DRM is not bad, per se, if it allows consumer choice. If you can port your songs to wherever you want and listen to them without a losing quality would you use it? Also, by it being Open Source it will allow per review and you won't have to worry about the Sony Root Kit crap that went on. If you look at it, the whole filetrading fest that happened in the late 90's created the need for content providers to require DRM. Playing devil's advocate, I seriously doubt that anyone artist that is the target of heavy downloading, is going to be against DRM (with some notiable exceptions).
The way I see it, DRM should be implemented in such a way as to balance consumer choice AND protect the rights of artist. As long as there is piracy there will be need for it. But, any artist that is refusing to take a risk of piracy is an artist that shouldn't be in business (as all businesses have risks).
Do I like DRM? No. But do see the logical need for it.
Sure it may stop one from fornicating, but it does a whole lot of other things worse than that. I would argue IF it does prevent sex, that create issues that will have to be dealt with later, and may compromise the ability for a healthy, balanced, sex life later.
If you read the article it shows that some women have a huge problem when men look at porn. Call it whatever you may. I hate to say anything for the fear that someone won't understand what I want to say. But I'll give it a shot and hope that someone who is married or in a committed relationship will back me up.
There is a lot more to sex than just the physical act. There is the emotional connection that takes place. If porn alters that which is normal and acceptable than, yes, porn is bad. If it places physical demands on of the partners that he or she is unconfortable with, then yes, porn is bad. If porn removes the emotional connection from a couple, then yes porn is bad. The probelm with porn is that the actors are not in committed relationships, but are fake and are acting out the physical acts. So they do things that people want to act out in real life, which one partner may not be comfortable with, and one that one partner may feel is degrading. As a result sex no longer is fulfilling emotionaly, and maybe not physically, while the other party is satisfied physically. Do you see the problem?
So justifying porn for the sole reason that it keeps people from engaging in sex earlier is not all that great. Sure, teen pregnancies might go down. STD's may be lower, but there is no indication that it is the case. When that young man that has been looking at porn since he was 11 or 12 gets to his first sexual relationship and finds that real life sex is not like the porn, and that all woman don't want to have oral or anal sex or other things seen on porn, he is going to have issues. And what of the emotional state of the woman when she sees that her guy won't accept her because she won't have anal sex with him? The language of porn is not even real. But when porn uses degrading comments like "Bitch" or whatever porn says and an unexperienced man uses that, the boy will have real issues.
The answer is quite simple: in this case it is a civil matter in which the United States does not have an interest or juristiction. Microsoft was attempting to use US Courts to get what they couldn't get in European Courts. The best analogy would be having your Mom tell you can't get into the cookie jar so you turn around and ask Dad (at least in my house, we learned that you don't do that because bad things happen) Also, the matter is in European Courts. If Microsoft was attempting to compel an order from a European Court it would be a whole different matter. But Microsoft wants to get into the cookie jar, and so it is asking a US Court to help when European Courts won't allow it. Frankly, I would love to see the European Commision have a hayday with it. While the Commision may not be able to do anything since the attempt happened on US soil and hence the Commision does not have jurisition, it goes to speak rather strongly about Microsofts attitudes and behaviors.
But as another poster said, your orginional post is a straw-man argument. This is a civil matter that deals with the business laws internationally. It has NOTHING to do with human rights, which by the way are protected by international law. As the world becomes more intermestic (the idea that domestic or international issues have internation or domestic implications, consquences and effects), nations respecting other nation's laws will become more and more important.
Yeah, just wait till some sort of open source decryption project opens that has the sole purpose of breaking DRM keys. Kind of like the SETI project. Sure it'll take forever for someone to break the codes, but if you use a distributed project that uses idle clock cycles, you could break DRM keys. And the more computers you get, the faster the break times.
Yeah, but there is no comparision between the products. Microsoft's sucks hard. You turn over control of your domain name to them -- so you have to use their stuff. You just can't point your mx records at them.
Google allows retention of domain control, you just point your mx record at them.
Microsoft is going for Joe Sixpack who wants to have branded email. Google is going for the bigger guys that really know what there doing and what they want.
Slashdot accepted my review, just hasn't published it yet. Here it is: http://utlemming.blogstream.com/
To sum it up, two different services, one sucks hard and the other is pretty good.
Not so much about class and swagger as professionalism.
How many Slashdotters have tried to implement Open Source on an enterprise level? I have, and to be honest, it is a hell of a lot of work. Open Source is not user friendly when you have to start working off the desktop. KDE and Gnome make the desktop easy, but when you start playing with command-line stuff, things get hairy. Open Source will save acquistan(sp?) costs, but it won't save on labor.
What I can see is if a business which has a culture of suits and ties contracts with a company to provide open source solutions, has support people which are wearing sandals and jeans, then, yes, I think there will be a problem. Why would an organization that has suits have a bunched of sandeled-footed and pony-tailed people walking around their offices? Being presentable is half the equation. Knowing your stuff is the other half. If you know a lot, but you are unpresentable, unbathed, unshaven and slovenly, then no one will accept your solution. I learned this working in a retail shop. On a number of occassions, I had to come from something or go to something after work and I would be in a suit. I discovered that it is far easier to sell something when your in a suit (mind you I was a manager at the time). Your dress goes along way for creditability.
You can call it prejudices or whatever. But the fact remains that business has a culture. And being sucessful to your customers means dressing and playing a part of that culture. You have to sell yourself to make yourself sucessful.
Well I think that this section is going to be lost to people using the reply to selected text feature. But I am a big fan of the styling. I got really tired of the green look. But it could have been easier by just making it a user preference, since many of us are probably auto-logged in.