Allegedly a new music player. Granted, it'll presumably be another USB MP3/WMV hard drive based player (flash memory players don't really match the idea of getting people to download gigs of music from you and are sooo 1999) with few features to make it significantly different from Dell's, Rio's, or even Apple's offerings, but that's not that bad. It'll at least drive down pricing, perhaps.
I asked about setuid, though. In Linux, BSD, and SysV Unix, an exploitable overflow in a user mode program with setuid root (or any escalated priviledges) allows code execution, often the spawning of a shell, at that priviledge level. This is true for servers, user programs like passwd, and so forth. Unix is better than Windows for security, in my opinion, but it is hardly invulnerable.
The GM did point out, somewhat correctly, that buffer overflows and the like are industry-wide issues. And I'm not entirely sure how, if at all, Windows does things like setuid, but in Unix OSes, at least, poor coding by third-party vendors can be exploited even in a perfectly coded OS. The trick to avoiding these is to come up with some way to avoid buffer overflows, regardless of who wrote the code (like ProPolice, etc).
Oops, my bad. I misread (I was wondering why it was even in a state court). Regardless, the ruling was still founded on valid diversity jurisdiction, I assume, and not some desire to pass the buck (in theory, at least).
Yep. Dumb cliche. Aside from that, though, I'm a little curious.
Do you do more to contribute than just post things this sorta thing on Slashdot? Are you a member of some local organization, for example? Do you call your representatives? Have you donated to the EFF?
It's not a case of passing the buck. It's a case of jurisdictional integrity, which you should appreciate that the court had. The law being contested here is a federal law, and therefore is under federal jurisdiction.
South Korea is probably who you're thinking of. I've never seen North Korean spam. As the article points out, most North Koreans probably don't own computers.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that when you get mail from a `Korean' country code, the registry means South Korea. I, personally, can't remember ever seeing North Korean spam.
I think for the most part you are right, but I'm not convinced that this is just a move to be able to snoop on all e-mail. In communist countries like North Korea or Cuba, many services are provided by the government or by government subcontracters, as is the case in the States with public utilities. The reach, though, is far broader than of our public utilities, covering media like TV and radio, telecom and telephones, etc.
It may very well be that Kim Jonh Il feels that Internet access is critical to his nation's development (as many Americans feel about promoting third-world development in general--teach a man to fish versus simply giving a handout) and is trying to promote it through government sponsorship in the form familiar in his economy.
I'm not defending him, but there may very well be more here than you suggest.
That's not really that germane, I don't think. I can see that you would make the case as, he didn't do this for a significant non-infringing use, he did it with the express point to infringe (I'm not familiar with the Johansen case specifically). But regardless, there is a significant non-infringing use of even Windows-only decoders (ripping for backup or legal copies, for example) and the legality of banning all reverse engineering or unexpected use is suspect, in my opinion. But then, I'm speaking US law, as well.
Right. And I wouldn't be able to watch DVD's I have legally purchased, on a machine I legally own, on a DVD-ROM which came with a royalty-paid, licensed version of a CSS descrambler, without running an operating system which I don't like but for which I have a fully paid, legal license to.
In other words, nobody is hurt, financially, by me using Linux and DeCSS instead of Windows and WinDVD. I've paid all my licenses, including my Microsoft tax (actually, I got a free license from a site-license, but somebody paid it, which is really all that matters).
I'm thinking you were trolling, but I wanted to bring this up anyway.
Yes, let's look at the Linux camp. Despite BSD's far longer history, far greater spread among those first on the Internet, including major corporations, government contracters, federal agencies, and education, despite, in my and many others' opinions, being more technologically advanced, BSD hasn't got nearly the adoption that Linux has.
Fracturing per se is not good. But wider adoption is. Being `cool' is. If people want a new distro, so be it. I honestly don't see how it can hurt. If it sucks, no one will talk about it; if it's good, it can only help. I would, personally, make any changes I wanted to in one of the mainstream projects, but only because I wouldn't want to take the time to write a whole new branch myself. Some may, and that's cool.
As for `predictable consistency', RedHat and SuSE provide that for Linux. For BSD, most corporate users know enough to know what they want (a simple result of the more esoteric nature of the BSDs). But if you had to guess, wouldn't you say Free is pretty much the standard-bearer?
A number of people pointed out that code is excluded from the bill, but they miss the point. The court ruled that they can't be copyrighted prior to the proposed bill. The bill has nothing to do with it. grub's point is that copyright law would, in this case, not extend to code. But that's still a tough sell.
C code is no more a set of facts than poetry is a set of facts. C does more than generate hashes, for one thing (at least the Linux code does more than that, else there'd be a lot of coders who've wasted a lot of time). Code is a set of instructions, which are together part of a process. It's creative, in the sense that you put together programs in a language the same way a writer puts together a book. A collection of, say, reserved names in Java may be merely a collection of facts; an original creation is not. It's also inventive, in the patentable sense (`look-and-feel' patents, of course, raise some big controversy). But it's not simply a collection of facts.
You are largely correct, but in a case where the dispute is not over the facts of the alleged infringement, i.e. whether or not the defendent actually is using Linux (which will presumably not be contested), but rather over whether use is infringement, I believe the decision from one case would be useful in the next, no? I may be incorrect.
No, you didn't listen to me. Any one of the infringement cases can set the facts on the infringement allegations. There is no legal reason, as far as I know, that it has to be the IBM case (correct me if I'm wrong). They do have to prove copyright, but is there any reason why the infringement case against, say, some Fortune 500 wouldn't prove that as well as the case against IBM? The same facts would probably be disputed by the defense in either case. And while this does seem sort of silly, since the first case isn't over, each case is independent of the other, and either one is perfectly legal.
What do you mean? The entire point of the lawsuit (any of them) is to determine whether or not any IP rights were violated. SCO claims that they were, the defendents claim they were not.That's what the proof will be (if the court were to rule with SCO).
Well, the trial involves determining facts (some of which are disputed, some of which aren't). In this case, Google would dispute the validity of the IP rights, and the trial would determine that legal backing. You don't need a trial to initially prove you own the IP; who would the other litigating party be?
As much as I can remember, Google has a pretty good history of litigating rather than paying off those who have challenged them in the past (think SearchKing v. Google, if I remember the name right). So I guess this falls into place in SCO's plan of attacking those who are bigger and mightier first, rather than doing the smart (though equally evil) thing of suing small guys to raise money and set precedent before going after the big guys. So, yeah. To sum it all up, SCO are idiots.
A price tag constitutes and offer. If you walk into Gap and see a leather jacket for $120 when it's supposed to be $220 (I had a professor in a legal studies class who used this exact example), and you take it to the counter and say, `I'll take it,' that alone constitues offer/acceptance. No further acceptance is necessary, since the nature of the contract agreement by a price-tag is such that merely by accepting the posted price, a customer can complete the contract. IANAL, etc, but this is how I was taught by someone who is.
Regardless, as the prior poster commented, the Dell Online Store completed the contract, in what is surely a binding form.
They actually are required to abide by that, by the law (and if you said this, they probably wouldn't argue, since the legal fees are hardly worth it).
In order for a contract to be binding, you must have proper consideration (i.e., both sides must do or pay something) and `offer and acceptance.' In the case of a retailer, the offer and acceptance is really just the offer; it is taken as a given that the retailer accepts your offer to buy something for a stated price, if that price is listed. In other words, if a retailer offers something for a mistaken price and you accept, he must accept as well, since that acceptance was understood prior. There are similar situations, such as where I say, `I'll pay $50 to anyone who can cure my foot itch,' etc.
It should be noted that if the bargain is not reasonable, i.e. will not be believed by a normal, reasonable person, it isn't binding. But this was entirely believable and in-keeping with Dell's claim of having good deals;)
You should threaten legal action and see what they say.
The argument by SCO, to be fair, is that given that their SysV code is in Linux, Novell was distributing SysV code, against the non-compete. But as you said, given also that SCO is not the original SCO, the clause is meaningless. I sorta doubt they'll sue. But you never know.
Lessig's point, as tends to be the case with him, is not that fiber is good because its fast. He's not a technologist first and foremost (thankfully). His point is that shared-ownership is far better than corporate competition or limited monopolies (as is the current state in telecom).
He argues that the reasons to support limited monopolies (which clearly defeat straight competition) are limited, because they still result in monopolistic pricing, but that shared ownership by the consumer gives all the benefits of competition without all the reasons it's unfeasable for telecom.
Wow. You know, I usually avoid arguing with strangers on the Internet, especially at forums filled with trolls and imbeciles, as Slashdot so unfortunately tends to be. But really, I had to reply to your comment here. It's just so eloquent and moving.
So the whole system is fucked, I agree. I can't figure out a better system of governance, and I doubt you can. But that doesn't mean this is acceptible or good. More to the point, the undeniable pattern of human history seems to be one of suffering and misery. The most valued human ideas--religion, patriotism, even the idea of self--are nothing more than shams ridden with contradictions and meaningless nonsense. What do you live for, orpx? Why do you get up in the morning, load Slashdot, and reply to posts like mine?
I know the system is broken, and I do what I can to fix it. I don't agree with the actions of my supposed representatives, but I think it's dishonest to characterize stealing or lying or petty greed and gambling--and, no, I have no moral hangups with gambling--as some sort of idealistic, courageous act of rebellion against an evil government. This guy can say he'd be getting paid three times as much in legitimate industry, but he wouldn't be. He's an idiot. He does this because its the best-paying job he could get, and, perhaps, because the hours, the people, and so forth suit him more than a 9-5.
Me? I know that the `whole system is fucked'. I don't defend it. I don't see how I was defending it in the post you were replying to. But I don't see what he does as making a single bit of effort to improve it.
What I do doesn't matter, either. My vote, my protest, my standing in the cold with an anti-war sign--none of that changed a thing. I do what I do, just as we all do what we do. It wouldn't matter one bit if I never existed, would it? But then, it doesn't matter if I go on, either.
And really, I'd take you a lot more seriously if you try to phrase your argument a little better and proofread your posts. Ta.
Slashdot Mirror
Allegedly a new music player. Granted, it'll presumably be another USB MP3/WMV hard drive based player (flash memory players don't really match the idea of getting people to download gigs of music from you and are sooo 1999) with few features to make it significantly different from Dell's, Rio's, or even Apple's offerings, but that's not that bad. It'll at least drive down pricing, perhaps.
I asked about setuid, though. In Linux, BSD, and SysV Unix, an exploitable overflow in a user mode program with setuid root (or any escalated priviledges) allows code execution, often the spawning of a shell, at that priviledge level. This is true for servers, user programs like passwd, and so forth. Unix is better than Windows for security, in my opinion, but it is hardly invulnerable.
The GM did point out, somewhat correctly, that buffer overflows and the like are industry-wide issues. And I'm not entirely sure how, if at all, Windows does things like setuid, but in Unix OSes, at least, poor coding by third-party vendors can be exploited even in a perfectly coded OS. The trick to avoiding these is to come up with some way to avoid buffer overflows, regardless of who wrote the code (like ProPolice, etc).
Oops, my bad. I misread (I was wondering why it was even in a state court). Regardless, the ruling was still founded on valid diversity jurisdiction, I assume, and not some desire to pass the buck (in theory, at least).
Do you do more to contribute than just post things this sorta thing on Slashdot? Are you a member of some local organization, for example? Do you call your representatives? Have you donated to the EFF?
Just wondering.
Informed decision? Try that yourself ;)
South Korea is probably who you're thinking of. I've never seen North Korean spam. As the article points out, most North Koreans probably don't own computers.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that when you get mail from a `Korean' country code, the registry means South Korea. I, personally, can't remember ever seeing North Korean spam.
It may very well be that Kim Jonh Il feels that Internet access is critical to his nation's development (as many Americans feel about promoting third-world development in general--teach a man to fish versus simply giving a handout) and is trying to promote it through government sponsorship in the form familiar in his economy.
I'm not defending him, but there may very well be more here than you suggest.
That's not really that germane, I don't think. I can see that you would make the case as, he didn't do this for a significant non-infringing use, he did it with the express point to infringe (I'm not familiar with the Johansen case specifically). But regardless, there is a significant non-infringing use of even Windows-only decoders (ripping for backup or legal copies, for example) and the legality of banning all reverse engineering or unexpected use is suspect, in my opinion. But then, I'm speaking US law, as well.
In other words, nobody is hurt, financially, by me using Linux and DeCSS instead of Windows and WinDVD. I've paid all my licenses, including my Microsoft tax (actually, I got a free license from a site-license, but somebody paid it, which is really all that matters).
I'm thinking you were trolling, but I wanted to bring this up anyway.
Yes.
Fracturing per se is not good. But wider adoption is. Being `cool' is. If people want a new distro, so be it. I honestly don't see how it can hurt. If it sucks, no one will talk about it; if it's good, it can only help. I would, personally, make any changes I wanted to in one of the mainstream projects, but only because I wouldn't want to take the time to write a whole new branch myself. Some may, and that's cool.
As for `predictable consistency', RedHat and SuSE provide that for Linux. For BSD, most corporate users know enough to know what they want (a simple result of the more esoteric nature of the BSDs). But if you had to guess, wouldn't you say Free is pretty much the standard-bearer?
C code is no more a set of facts than poetry is a set of facts. C does more than generate hashes, for one thing (at least the Linux code does more than that, else there'd be a lot of coders who've wasted a lot of time). Code is a set of instructions, which are together part of a process. It's creative, in the sense that you put together programs in a language the same way a writer puts together a book. A collection of, say, reserved names in Java may be merely a collection of facts; an original creation is not. It's also inventive, in the patentable sense (`look-and-feel' patents, of course, raise some big controversy). But it's not simply a collection of facts.
I don't know. I'm too tired to research this :P
You are largely correct, but in a case where the dispute is not over the facts of the alleged infringement, i.e. whether or not the defendent actually is using Linux (which will presumably not be contested), but rather over whether use is infringement, I believe the decision from one case would be useful in the next, no? I may be incorrect.
No, you didn't listen to me. Any one of the infringement cases can set the facts on the infringement allegations. There is no legal reason, as far as I know, that it has to be the IBM case (correct me if I'm wrong). They do have to prove copyright, but is there any reason why the infringement case against, say, some Fortune 500 wouldn't prove that as well as the case against IBM? The same facts would probably be disputed by the defense in either case. And while this does seem sort of silly, since the first case isn't over, each case is independent of the other, and either one is perfectly legal.
What do you mean? The entire point of the lawsuit (any of them) is to determine whether or not any IP rights were violated. SCO claims that they were, the defendents claim they were not.That's what the proof will be (if the court were to rule with SCO).
Well, the trial involves determining facts (some of which are disputed, some of which aren't). In this case, Google would dispute the validity of the IP rights, and the trial would determine that legal backing. You don't need a trial to initially prove you own the IP; who would the other litigating party be?
As much as I can remember, Google has a pretty good history of litigating rather than paying off those who have challenged them in the past (think SearchKing v. Google, if I remember the name right). So I guess this falls into place in SCO's plan of attacking those who are bigger and mightier first, rather than doing the smart (though equally evil) thing of suing small guys to raise money and set precedent before going after the big guys. So, yeah. To sum it all up, SCO are idiots.
A price tag constitutes and offer. If you walk into Gap and see a leather jacket for $120 when it's supposed to be $220 (I had a professor in a legal studies class who used this exact example), and you take it to the counter and say, `I'll take it,' that alone constitues offer/acceptance. No further acceptance is necessary, since the nature of the contract agreement by a price-tag is such that merely by accepting the posted price, a customer can complete the contract. IANAL, etc, but this is how I was taught by someone who is.
Regardless, as the prior poster commented, the Dell Online Store completed the contract, in what is surely a binding form.
In order for a contract to be binding, you must have proper consideration (i.e., both sides must do or pay something) and `offer and acceptance.' In the case of a retailer, the offer and acceptance is really just the offer; it is taken as a given that the retailer accepts your offer to buy something for a stated price, if that price is listed. In other words, if a retailer offers something for a mistaken price and you accept, he must accept as well, since that acceptance was understood prior. There are similar situations, such as where I say, `I'll pay $50 to anyone who can cure my foot itch,' etc.
It should be noted that if the bargain is not reasonable, i.e. will not be believed by a normal, reasonable person, it isn't binding. But this was entirely believable and in-keeping with Dell's claim of having good deals ;)
You should threaten legal action and see what they say.
The argument by SCO, to be fair, is that given that their SysV code is in Linux, Novell was distributing SysV code, against the non-compete. But as you said, given also that SCO is not the original SCO, the clause is meaningless. I sorta doubt they'll sue. But you never know.
Lessig's point, as tends to be the case with him, is not that fiber is good because its fast. He's not a technologist first and foremost (thankfully). His point is that shared-ownership is far better than corporate competition or limited monopolies (as is the current state in telecom).
He argues that the reasons to support limited monopolies (which clearly defeat straight competition) are limited, because they still result in monopolistic pricing, but that shared ownership by the consumer gives all the benefits of competition without all the reasons it's unfeasable for telecom.
RTFA.
So the whole system is fucked, I agree. I can't figure out a better system of governance, and I doubt you can. But that doesn't mean this is acceptible or good. More to the point, the undeniable pattern of human history seems to be one of suffering and misery. The most valued human ideas--religion, patriotism, even the idea of self--are nothing more than shams ridden with contradictions and meaningless nonsense. What do you live for, orpx? Why do you get up in the morning, load Slashdot, and reply to posts like mine?
I know the system is broken, and I do what I can to fix it. I don't agree with the actions of my supposed representatives, but I think it's dishonest to characterize stealing or lying or petty greed and gambling--and, no, I have no moral hangups with gambling--as some sort of idealistic, courageous act of rebellion against an evil government. This guy can say he'd be getting paid three times as much in legitimate industry, but he wouldn't be. He's an idiot. He does this because its the best-paying job he could get, and, perhaps, because the hours, the people, and so forth suit him more than a 9-5.
Me? I know that the `whole system is fucked'. I don't defend it. I don't see how I was defending it in the post you were replying to. But I don't see what he does as making a single bit of effort to improve it.
What I do doesn't matter, either. My vote, my protest, my standing in the cold with an anti-war sign--none of that changed a thing. I do what I do, just as we all do what we do. It wouldn't matter one bit if I never existed, would it? But then, it doesn't matter if I go on, either.
And really, I'd take you a lot more seriously if you try to phrase your argument a little better and proofread your posts. Ta.