I suppose I'm missing what the big deal is about this issue. I understand that Verisign has a lock on the.net TLD but the company is really no different than any other business: what they can get away with is directly regulated by what people are willing to pay. When Verisign sees the slowing down of.net registrations and the increased registrations of non Versign controld TLD's then they will either have to stand their ground and lose revenue or lower their prices.
The decisions of what Verisign can charge and how long they can charge is are really up to YOU: the customer. Vote with your feet and start looking at some non Versign controlled TLD's!
Personally, I think this is a great time to assemble an ad-hoc group of crack programmers, put together a proposal for the government, and really push for this system to be based on open source software. Linux, PHP, Postgre, Python, Ruby, they could all be a good fit for a system like this.
Technically, yes, it would be. However, in order for you to get in any kind of trouble the copyright holder would have to prosecute. Something grandma isn't likely to do.
It's very easy to get into all of the silly "what if's" that this law could impose but that's all it would be: silly.
We're just starting to look into the open-source world. There are some great projects as well as some really lousy ones. The last thing the CIO wants to hear is that the people who write a core piece of software decided to stop maintaining it and left you hanging.
I think you might be missing one of the main plusses of using open source software: insurance. If a product it really useful there will always be a community that sprouts around it. Because the source is available to this community there will always be people who cozy up to it and learn it inside out. THESE people can take over where the original - and now dissappeared - developer(s) left off.
This insurance has proven to be a major selling point for me when selling open source solutions. Need a feature that's not in Microsoft Office? Wait until Microsoft implements it in the next version or so (if ever). Or, use Open Office and hire someone to implement the feature right away. The same for other OSS vs proprietary software.
To the home user this insurance means little: they probably can't program and don't have the funds to hire someone to do implement new features for them. But for corporate customers it's invaluable.
I would say that if your company is worried about the original OSS vendor going away I would dare say you (or they rather) don't really understand what OSS is all about.
I'm actually almost done writing exactly what you're looking for. I've got about another two weeks left of testing and it'll be ready to go. Central server software, simple web based admin interface, easy kiosk interface with security, cross platform, and simple to use.
Contact me at anthony@opensource-strategies.com for information and pricing.
Yes, what you are talking about is entirely possible and the technology has been available for several years. But it's not the solution to this problem. Radio transmission (that's what Wi-Fi is) can easily be jammed, blocked, intercepted, etc. An effort like this would be killed in 2 seconds by the government.
JA: What if your job requires you to use non-free software?
Richard Stallman: I would quit that job.
Stallman seems to be in the class of individuals that are in a position to make statements such as this because they don't have to ever face the reality of actually *doing* what they are advocating. He's worked for years, is fairly well off, and doesn't *have* to work for a living. It's very easy to say cling to high flung idealogies when you don't have to balance them against reality.
Stallman doesn't *have* to work for a living. Saying "I would quit that job" is very easy when he won't ever have to back the statement up with action. Personally, I have very little respect for RMS. Ivory tower decrees don't mean a damn thing when you don't have to balance them against reality.
Why do the terrorists need "dark alleys" to communicate with each other? Intelligence agents are taught from day one that one of the absolute best hiding places is right in plain sight.
Think about this: how much anti-american sentiment is expressed on Slashdot every day? If someone were to say "Tommorrow, we bomb the Pentegon at 15:30 EST" but wraps it in sarcasm, babble, etc how many here would really take it seriously? Maybe if they did it in humor?
The terrorists are better served if they don't hide in the dark alleys of the net -- that is where the feds are looking. Blend in and hide in plain sight. THAT is what we should fear.
Think I'm full of bull? Consider this: did I make the bombing the pentegon statement earlier in this message because I was making a point in the post or because I was communicating with terrorists? The point is you don't really know. If I were on some hidden radical islamic site saying it you'd be a bit more sure. Plain sight is where the FBI needs to look.
Why don't you TRY to install and run it on a Windows box, and IF it doesn't work, get back to us. I read yesterday that there are THOUSENDS of people that have been abducted by aliens. Doesn't make it so
Because most of the in the *real* world where people have *real* jobs they don't have time to tinker with stuff endlessly just for their own geek satisfaction.
Assuming that the experience of probably hundreds or thousands of people is norm when trying to install software isn't a bad thing. *Everything* doesn't have to be about continued education and gaining more experience. Sometimes, it's just about getting the freaking thing working.
What your system admin says is true. But consider this: with Firefox, one would probably have to have physical access to your machine to make any use of the information Firefox stores. With IE, one only needs to "reach out and touch you" using a malicious webpage or email.
IMHO, Firefox is more of a local security risk that could expose your sensitive data to others who use your computer. IE, OTOH, could expose your data to anyone on the internet.
While I am no fan of either Bill Gates or Microsoft I am very tired of seeing people trot out that old quote as proof that Gates' is a looney, untrustworthy, or someone who always miscalculates things. Yes, he said that. Yes, he was wrong. Yes, it seems silly today in an age where computers routinely come with 512MB of memory. But when this statement was made, it was a reasonable assumption.
I remember when "state of the art" PC's came with 40 MB hard disks and 16MB memory. I also remember having *thousands* of applications and files on that PC. Now, a single application can take over 100 MB and require more than 128MB memory. And this isn't ancient history either; I'm 30 years old and actually *owned* a PC with those specs.
At the time when Gates made the statement it was nearly impossible to envision a situation where one *would* need more than 640k of memory. IBM once said that the reason they didn't enter the PC market earlier was because they didn't believe a personal computer would ever actually sell. Why don't we see constant quotes of that?
People are wrong sometimes - even smart people. Making one (or even a few) stupid or incorrect statements doesn't mean that *everything* they say is wrong even 20 years later. Get over it people. If this is the best you can come up with to refute what he is saying then you need to just leave it alone.
I could be wrong but, if I remember correctly, expressly illegal things aren't protected by law. For example, if I get cocaine from you on credit (or even steal it from you) I don't think you can actually sue me for theft. I believe the same is true of a virus.
Because, if I remember correctly, there is absolutely nothing illegal about *sending* spam. The problem comes from forged headers and not allowing recipients to remove themselves from the lists.
A "Fake" site similar to the above could be set up to draw unscrupulous businesses.
A database of those businesses could be created and posted on another website so people would know not to do business with them.
There is no need for a "blacklist" of disreputable businesses or businesses that treat their customers poorly. The market automatically takes care of those companies. Customers stop coming, sales slow down, competitors advance, and very soon that company either reforms its ways or goes away. The customer has the power.
Customers, on the other hand, are very different. Because few businesses ever refuse to do business with them they can keep getting away with unethical and otherwise questionable behaviour. There can be no financial recourse because the customer has the power.
Having worked in retail, I don't think there is anything wrong with a blacklist. People who constantly buy and return things can wreak havoc on a companies financials.
Boy, this seems like a fine example of journalists spinning something just to make it more interesting.
If you read the article, this really was a case about FRAUD. The sentences were handed down heavily because they defrauded people of almost $40k. Spam just happened to be the medium they chose to do it in.
I really doubt that, had these folks run a legit business and didn't defraud people, that they'd have gotten such heavy sentences..
hmm, would it be possible to upload a virus to an atm via a magnetic strip on a card?
While the easy answer would be "no", I'd have to say it *might* be possible:
1: Craft code to crash ATM software.
2: Craft a virus within the limits of cards mem
3: Flash both to mag cards in a format the reader understands
4: Use card 1 to crash ATM software
5: Use cart 2 to upload virus
I really don't see why this would be impossible for even a semi-determined individual.
While I'm not too sure I actually *have* a "favourite equation* I'd have to say that the simple one in my post subject would come very close.
Why is it my favourite while being so simple? Because its elagance lies in its very simplicity. There are not many other equations that have so much power yet are so simple that a child with very little formal education can quickly learn and understand it.
Slashdot Mirror
The decisions of what Verisign can charge and how long they can charge is are really up to YOU: the customer. Vote with your feet and start looking at some non Versign controlled TLD's!
Anthony
HELP AN OPEN SOURCE PROJECT:. 2005-07-08.3911172488/
https://www.fundable.org/groupactions/groupaction
Personally, I think this is a great time to assemble an ad-hoc group of crack programmers, put together a proposal for the government, and really push for this system to be based on open source software. Linux, PHP, Postgre, Python, Ruby, they could all be a good fit for a system like this.
It's very easy to get into all of the silly "what if's" that this law could impose but that's all it would be: silly.
You *do* realize that the whole Bonsai Kitten thing was a joke right?
Gee, you think that one of the three things you mentioned in the above paragraph *might* just be the reason you've looked for a job for so long?
Wild idea: try reading the entire post next time before posting a comment. Might work a little better for you.
You forgot the most logical of all (since it's Microsoft): X.NET
I think you might be missing one of the main plusses of using open source software: insurance. If a product it really useful there will always be a community that sprouts around it. Because the source is available to this community there will always be people who cozy up to it and learn it inside out. THESE people can take over where the original - and now dissappeared - developer(s) left off.
This insurance has proven to be a major selling point for me when selling open source solutions. Need a feature that's not in Microsoft Office? Wait until Microsoft implements it in the next version or so (if ever). Or, use Open Office and hire someone to implement the feature right away. The same for other OSS vs proprietary software.
To the home user this insurance means little: they probably can't program and don't have the funds to hire someone to do implement new features for them. But for corporate customers it's invaluable.
I would say that if your company is worried about the original OSS vendor going away I would dare say you (or they rather) don't really understand what OSS is all about.
Contact me at anthony@opensource-strategies.com for information and pricing.
Yes, what you are talking about is entirely possible and the technology has been available for several years. But it's not the solution to this problem. Radio transmission (that's what Wi-Fi is) can easily be jammed, blocked, intercepted, etc. An effort like this would be killed in 2 seconds by the government.
Richard Stallman: I would quit that job.
Stallman seems to be in the class of individuals that are in a position to make statements such as this because they don't have to ever face the reality of actually *doing* what they are advocating. He's worked for years, is fairly well off, and doesn't *have* to work for a living. It's very easy to say cling to high flung idealogies when you don't have to balance them against reality.
Stallman doesn't *have* to work for a living. Saying "I would quit that job" is very easy when he won't ever have to back the statement up with action. Personally, I have very little respect for RMS. Ivory tower decrees don't mean a damn thing when you don't have to balance them against reality.
Think about this: how much anti-american sentiment is expressed on Slashdot every day? If someone were to say "Tommorrow, we bomb the Pentegon at 15:30 EST" but wraps it in sarcasm, babble, etc how many here would really take it seriously? Maybe if they did it in humor?
The terrorists are better served if they don't hide in the dark alleys of the net -- that is where the feds are looking. Blend in and hide in plain sight. THAT is what we should fear.
Think I'm full of bull? Consider this: did I make the bombing the pentegon statement earlier in this message because I was making a point in the post or because I was communicating with terrorists? The point is you don't really know. If I were on some hidden radical islamic site saying it you'd be a bit more sure. Plain sight is where the FBI needs to look.
Because most of the in the *real* world where people have *real* jobs they don't have time to tinker with stuff endlessly just for their own geek satisfaction.
Assuming that the experience of probably hundreds or thousands of people is norm when trying to install software isn't a bad thing. *Everything* doesn't have to be about continued education and gaining more experience. Sometimes, it's just about getting the freaking thing working.
IMHO, Firefox is more of a local security risk that could expose your sensitive data to others who use your computer. IE, OTOH, could expose your data to anyone on the internet.
While I am no fan of either Bill Gates or Microsoft I am very tired of seeing people trot out that old quote as proof that Gates' is a looney, untrustworthy, or someone who always miscalculates things. Yes, he said that. Yes, he was wrong. Yes, it seems silly today in an age where computers routinely come with 512MB of memory. But when this statement was made, it was a reasonable assumption.
I remember when "state of the art" PC's came with 40 MB hard disks and 16MB memory. I also remember having *thousands* of applications and files on that PC. Now, a single application can take over 100 MB and require more than 128MB memory. And this isn't ancient history either; I'm 30 years old and actually *owned* a PC with those specs.
At the time when Gates made the statement it was nearly impossible to envision a situation where one *would* need more than 640k of memory. IBM once said that the reason they didn't enter the PC market earlier was because they didn't believe a personal computer would ever actually sell. Why don't we see constant quotes of that?
People are wrong sometimes - even smart people. Making one (or even a few) stupid or incorrect statements doesn't mean that *everything* they say is wrong even 20 years later. Get over it people. If this is the best you can come up with to refute what he is saying then you need to just leave it alone.
I could be wrong but, if I remember correctly, expressly illegal things aren't protected by law. For example, if I get cocaine from you on credit (or even steal it from you) I don't think you can actually sue me for theft. I believe the same is true of a virus.
Because, if I remember correctly, there is absolutely nothing illegal about *sending* spam. The problem comes from forged headers and not allowing recipients to remove themselves from the lists.
Check this press release out
I think most POP3 clients support this. Even Outlook Express.
A database of those businesses could be created and posted on another website so people would know not to do business with them.
There is no need for a "blacklist" of disreputable businesses or businesses that treat their customers poorly. The market automatically takes care of those companies. Customers stop coming, sales slow down, competitors advance, and very soon that company either reforms its ways or goes away. The customer has the power.
Customers, on the other hand, are very different. Because few businesses ever refuse to do business with them they can keep getting away with unethical and otherwise questionable behaviour. There can be no financial recourse because the customer has the power.
Having worked in retail, I don't think there is anything wrong with a blacklist. People who constantly buy and return things can wreak havoc on a companies financials.
You could try recompiling the app using cygwin on a Windows box. Most apps will compile and run with no problems.
If you read the article, this really was a case about FRAUD. The sentences were handed down heavily because they defrauded people of almost $40k. Spam just happened to be the medium they chose to do it in.
I really doubt that, had these folks run a legit business and didn't defraud people, that they'd have gotten such heavy sentences..
While the easy answer would be "no", I'd have to say it *might* be possible:
1: Craft code to crash ATM software.
2: Craft a virus within the limits of cards mem
3: Flash both to mag cards in a format the reader understands
4: Use card 1 to crash ATM software
5: Use cart 2 to upload virus
I really don't see why this would be impossible for even a semi-determined individual.
Why is it my favourite while being so simple? Because its elagance lies in its very simplicity. There are not many other equations that have so much power yet are so simple that a child with very little formal education can quickly learn and understand it.
Here's a wild idea: if you can't afford to buy it then don't. Contrary to popular belief, music and software aren't essentials to life.