Or you could have your filtering proxy (like Proxomitron or Privoxy) insert the JavaScript code on every page. Though personally, I'd just use a browser that suppots it.
His excuse for not paying taxes is he doesn't agree with everything the US does. Hell, I don't agree with most of what the US does right now, but I still pay my taxes. Somehow, I doubt GWB is saying, `Gosh, some guy in Manhattan stopped paying his taxes. I must be on the wrong track.' But is it just me, or does this sound like a phony excuse?
`The fact remains that I could be pulling in $150,000 as a programmer on the open market.' Yeah. Right. He must be a much better coder than he sounds if he could be making that right now with no college degree and no formal training. Maybe during the dotcoms, but now? And even if he could, I find it hard to imagine he'd give that all up because he `like[s] living below the radar.' Kudos to the poster for seeing through this self-aggrandizing fabrication.
I see no issues with that, per se. Linux advocates often prioritize popularity or acceptance or some sort of odd ideological goal above technical superiority. The so-called Death of Unix, that is, the breakup of standards in favor of seperate commercial distributions, does effect the technical side insofar as it hurts interoperability, but little more. And in many ways, it was probably inevitable.
Each distributor made changes specifically to differentiate itself in a crowded market. This was not by accident. Had BSD not been licensed open source, it's unlikely it would have been adopted so widely in education or research labs, and therefore not in industry. Had it been open source with a GPL-style license, I wonder if it would have even been used commercially or not. Regardless, as you correctly pointed out, those who funded it--the government, corporate interests, etc--probably would not have been interested in funding something GPL'ed (or similar).
And so long as corporations are going to make sure their products are distinguishable, there are going to be interoperability issues. Yes, Linux is different, but only because the entire business model is different. That is, RedHat, SuSE, etc, differentiate each other with configurations and things like patch-management services, but these are not technological secrets. RedHat could take SuSE's technology easily. The difference is service-wise, in that RedHat and SuSE are self-proclaimed service companies. And the idea of software as a service industry rather than a manufacturing industry was pretty far off in the early days, when software was just something needed to make hardware run right.
They have no reason to go after you or I. They won't. It's ridiculous. Even for SCO.
Think about it. Yes, this has been stupid, but they clearly believe that they can make up for lost profits by inflating their stock prices with promises of a huge settlement with IBM et al. They claim, again, the possibility of huge settlements and/or licenses sold to various Fortune 500 companies. So who are they going to go after next looking for huge settlements? Oh. Right. Joe Shmoe in his basement running a Linux desktop. Because after the multi-billion-dollar, international mega-corporation, the big-time multi-million-dollar top Linux distributor, and the multi-million-dollar Fortune 500 firms, you go after individual citizens known to be using Linux and sitting on fat, fat bank accounts.
Cut me a break. They wouldn't get back anything near the cost of litigation. Even if they thought, like the RIAA, that they could scare people into becoming customers...well, they'd be really stupid. Even they know they wouldn't scare individuals into being customers. Only the big companies. Which is the goal.
I had the fortune to hear the CTO of RedHat give a speech. Afterwords, over refreshments (mmm...donuts), I asked him about this. `Why isn't it RedHat BSD?'
He said partly it was historical accident, but that there is also a good reason. He said something like, `Well, look at it this way. IBM recently pledged $1,000,000 to Linux (though where that money is I can't say). With Linux, we know that whatever they put into it will come back out. But if it were BSD, nothing would stop IBM from putting that money into BSD and making ``BSD+'' and not releasing the code. Here, we know we can benefit from what others put in without them closing it off.' I had to admit this was a pretty good point. To guys like you and me, it seems as if the companies get nothing out of it. But to the companies, the hard work of independent developers is just as important as their hard work is to us.
Why is this marked Interesting? It should be marked Inane or Silly.
SCO won't be doing address sweeps. The information gained from a TCp/IP fingerprint isn't nearly reliable enough to use to subpeona information on software usage. Doing the fingerprints, however, is arguably illegal in some states and violates the AUPs of many ISPs (though I don't personally think it should).
More to the point, as SCO themselves have said, they will be going after big companies known to have large Linux deployments. In other words, Fortune 500 customers of RedHat and SuSE. They said themselves they won't be suing private users.
Yes. I know SCO are The Devil. But cut me a fucking break. This is why I read the comments on Slashdot less and less. I get to see a few insightful points, a lot of garbage along the lines of `see how much I know' and random, weird comments like this.
Spam is bad because it takes up time. It takes time away from users who have to filter their mailboxes and miss important emails or skim through the spam themselves. It takes time from sysadmins who have to deal with abuses of their services. Replying makes no sense. The time it takes to reply is far greater than the time it takes to click `delete.' But maybe this is just me talking. I'm careful, I use disposable e-mail addresses (spamgourmet.com), and I don't get spam. Who needs spamassasin and over-agressive blacklisting when you got common sense?
Not that I'm advocating not fighting spam. But I read this article a few days ago on kuro5hin, and it strikes me as stupid. If you want to go after the spammer business model, make laws that hold those who advertise for spam liable. Don't waste your own time with this. It's a losing battle.
I know its a shameless plug, but I did pretty much the same thing to one of these guys a while back. I even got him to tell me what kind of boxer shorts he wears (flannel multicolored). I logged it all here/
It's simply not worth it. I would assume that sort of detective work and court battle is far too pricey to make it worthwhile; ISPs get relatively little in return for stopping spam (more customers, less bandwidth used), which is why many clearly choose to tacitly allow spammers on their systems.
Doesn't really matter. My point was that most if not all spammers know enough to hide their identity. The ones that don't are the ones from countries where it won't matter. Try bringing a suit against a spammer in the Ukraine. They are also one of the largest outputters of pirate DVDs and software in the world (allegedly with whole pressing factories devoted to such piracy). I sorta doubt they'd give two shits about some patent violation .
It's a patent on filter-circumvention technology. Not filter technology. And its only for specific types of filters (duplicate detection filters). So the answer to that is `no,' possibly followed by `RTFA.'
See, that occurred to me. But I sorta doubt they'll use it to track down spammers and sue them for patent infringement, considering that spammers are already very often violating state laws, violating their ISP AUP, and peddling illegal scams and therefore make themselves hard to find.
But on the other hand, I doubt ATT will be selling circumvention technology. Now, a fair guess would be that they won't sue the spammers for infringement, but may sue those who sell software used for spamming (who are generally a bit more findable).
Well, but in your field, we can already see that trend you described. Mathematica, Maple, and other mathematical analysis packages provide natural-language coding (in the sense that its natural language for a mathematician).
But I don't really see why most white-collar jobs will require programming, and I think the author overstates it quite a bit. If by programming he means recording macros in Word, yeah, he may be somewhat right. But I don't see any reason to assume a large change from the current situation. What will be different in the business world in 100 years that will make programming more necessary than it is now?
You seem to assume there are only three types of jobs, those that could be done by a computer, those that involve programming computers to do the first, and those that are "wholly creative, and could be done without a computer at all."
In fact, only a small number of trained professional jobs could be done by computers. Computers extend the ability of a single person, such that fewer people are needed for the same job, occasionally, but they are not therefore replacable entirely.
Businessmen who make decisions on investments, business plans, etc, are not replacable. Salesmen are not replacable. Marketers are not replacable. Logistics executives are not replacable. Doctors, lawyers, and yes, even secretaries are not replacable.
Name a job that is truly only "entering data and running programs A, B, and C". Few jobs truly consist of only data entry because it can be done better by computers. But many jobs involve the use of computers as an implement, to communicate, to do word processing, to recieve information, to make trades, orders, etc, but could not be done by a machine. That is the distinction, that while plenty of jobs need a machine, they could not be done by the machine.
So I don't really think that most users need to understand how the machine works, so long as they udnerstand how to work it. See the distinction?
Nah, you miss the point. If you all could time travel and I couldn't, I could logically create a time machine using the information I learned from travelling back in time to tell myself how to create a time machine. This accounts for possibility I and II, because I would still be able to create a time machine right here right now (if it works that way, essentially--if it requires massive amounts of energy and wormholes and whatnot, then obviously I wouldn't be able to).
If there are multiple universes, it still doesn't explain your apparent assumption that we are in the `first' inverse and are not a product of someone travelling back in time.
All of these are fairly stupid; I was being facetious earlier anyhow. If time travel is possible, there are many restructions (necessity of massive amounts of energy or matter, cannot travel back before the machine/event was created, etc). So most still seem to preserve a linear chronology of events that eliminates many, but not all, contradictions.
That doesn't make sense. First, on what cycle do you discard/retest? Extending that, why even discard any? After all, some may be on the downswing and later pick up. So your idea is a needlessly complex version of `how to win: register more than one account.'
Assuming you had an infinite amount of money/debt you could go into, there is a probabalistically certain way to win a given finite amount. Simply keep raising the bet (that amount + the sum of all your previous bets) each time you bet. As n->infinity, the sum of n of some finite value of the probability of winning will converge to 1, i.e. your probability of winning if you wait forever is nearly certain. So you will eventually win back that finite amount more than you've already bet.
Of course, this assumes an infinitely long competition and an infinite amount of debt you can go into before Fat Tony smashes in your kneecaps.
Well, it didn't make my head spin or implode. But if you like that, how about the question of why, if time machines are possible, I haven't invented one and moved back in time to teach myself how to invent one yet?
But Princeton uses Apache and Sendmail. And I'm willing to bet they have part-time student employees in their IT department, as well (most colleges do).
Maybe he just got scammed by one Nigerian too many and it pissed him off.
1) No. I can put my copyrighted intellectual property out in plain view for anyone to read and still retain ownership. That's the entire point of copyright. If I had to keep copyrighted material secret, I wouldn't bother to copyright it. Plus, where have you seen that little (c) before?
2) If you were a member of the mailing list, you retain copyright of the material, but there is probably an implicit grant of use. Other's could probably not republish for profit your work, but they could copy and show to others not on the mailing list.
3) News reporting falls under fair use. The media have a pretty much blanket grant to publish copyrighted works, so long as it is for a legitimate news reporting purpose and not simply copying someone else's work for profit.
As a few pointed out before me, the issue here is not whether the memos were copyrighted, but whether fair use extends over the distribution of these memos to discuss the issue of fair and secure electronic voting. And it almost certainly does. Diebold's use of the DMCA is also erroneous; they claim that they do not admit the memos are authentic but still retain the right to file DMCA C&D letters. In order, however, to file those letters under the DMCA, the violated material must be authentic. So Diebold is speaking out of both sides of their mouth.
My apologies for being at all snippy, but people often seem more inclined to ask questions on Slashdot than just Google copyright law.
I only see one security patch and two reliability patches. And all of these patches are for vulnerabilities affecting 3.3, which are so recent they simply had not been fixed in the 3.4 release. I don't see that as a very big deal. When you first install RedHat from CD, even if you just downloaded the ISO, you better well patch from the Internet.
The quote was that "running it over the source and ports trees revealed over a hundred" uses. Now, you may be right to criticize the source tree occurrences--after all, what about that long, long time spent reviewing and auditing all the existing code (three years, if I remember right)--but the ports tree is specifically described as often unaudited and out of date. The ports tree is entirely third-party applications, and the OpenBSD project takes no responsibility for them. Things are hit or miss, and this is just a case of them hitting the mark and fixing a problem that wasn't really theirs anyway.
OpenBSD makes a distinction between ports and packages; packages are recommended because they are maintained actively and more thoroughly audited; ports are sort of `use at your own risk'.
They claim that "... the fact that the company sent the cease-and-desist letters does not mean the documents are authentic -- or give credence to advocates who claim lax Diebold security could allow hackers to rig machines.
"We're cautioning anyone from drawing wrong or incomplete conclusions about any of those documents or files purporting to be authentic." Of course, this means that if they are not authentic, they have no DMCA claim. And if they are authentic, I still feel that they fall under fair use.
But I'll still remove them when I get my C&D letter.
Slashdot Mirror
What he said. Just make wrapper HTML.
Or you could have your filtering proxy (like Proxomitron or Privoxy) insert the JavaScript code on every page. Though personally, I'd just use a browser that suppots it.
`The fact remains that I could be pulling in $150,000 as a programmer on the open market.' Yeah. Right. He must be a much better coder than he sounds if he could be making that right now with no college degree and no formal training. Maybe during the dotcoms, but now? And even if he could, I find it hard to imagine he'd give that all up because he `like[s] living below the radar.' Kudos to the poster for seeing through this self-aggrandizing fabrication.
Each distributor made changes specifically to differentiate itself in a crowded market. This was not by accident. Had BSD not been licensed open source, it's unlikely it would have been adopted so widely in education or research labs, and therefore not in industry. Had it been open source with a GPL-style license, I wonder if it would have even been used commercially or not. Regardless, as you correctly pointed out, those who funded it--the government, corporate interests, etc--probably would not have been interested in funding something GPL'ed (or similar).
And so long as corporations are going to make sure their products are distinguishable, there are going to be interoperability issues. Yes, Linux is different, but only because the entire business model is different. That is, RedHat, SuSE, etc, differentiate each other with configurations and things like patch-management services, but these are not technological secrets. RedHat could take SuSE's technology easily. The difference is service-wise, in that RedHat and SuSE are self-proclaimed service companies. And the idea of software as a service industry rather than a manufacturing industry was pretty far off in the early days, when software was just something needed to make hardware run right.
Think about it. Yes, this has been stupid, but they clearly believe that they can make up for lost profits by inflating their stock prices with promises of a huge settlement with IBM et al. They claim, again, the possibility of huge settlements and/or licenses sold to various Fortune 500 companies. So who are they going to go after next looking for huge settlements? Oh. Right. Joe Shmoe in his basement running a Linux desktop. Because after the multi-billion-dollar, international mega-corporation, the big-time multi-million-dollar top Linux distributor, and the multi-million-dollar Fortune 500 firms, you go after individual citizens known to be using Linux and sitting on fat, fat bank accounts.
Cut me a break. They wouldn't get back anything near the cost of litigation. Even if they thought, like the RIAA, that they could scare people into becoming customers...well, they'd be really stupid. Even they know they wouldn't scare individuals into being customers. Only the big companies. Which is the goal.
He said partly it was historical accident, but that there is also a good reason. He said something like, `Well, look at it this way. IBM recently pledged $1,000,000 to Linux (though where that money is I can't say). With Linux, we know that whatever they put into it will come back out. But if it were BSD, nothing would stop IBM from putting that money into BSD and making ``BSD+'' and not releasing the code. Here, we know we can benefit from what others put in without them closing it off.' I had to admit this was a pretty good point. To guys like you and me, it seems as if the companies get nothing out of it. But to the companies, the hard work of independent developers is just as important as their hard work is to us.
SCO won't be doing address sweeps. The information gained from a TCp/IP fingerprint isn't nearly reliable enough to use to subpeona information on software usage. Doing the fingerprints, however, is arguably illegal in some states and violates the AUPs of many ISPs (though I don't personally think it should).
More to the point, as SCO themselves have said, they will be going after big companies known to have large Linux deployments. In other words, Fortune 500 customers of RedHat and SuSE. They said themselves they won't be suing private users.
Yes. I know SCO are The Devil. But cut me a fucking break. This is why I read the comments on Slashdot less and less. I get to see a few insightful points, a lot of garbage along the lines of `see how much I know' and random, weird comments like this.
I tried to get a guy I knew in Holland to go. He refused (probably rightfully, too).
Not that I'm advocating not fighting spam. But I read this article a few days ago on kuro5hin, and it strikes me as stupid. If you want to go after the spammer business model, make laws that hold those who advertise for spam liable. Don't waste your own time with this. It's a losing battle.
I know its a shameless plug, but I did pretty much the same thing to one of these guys a while back. I even got him to tell me what kind of boxer shorts he wears (flannel multicolored). I logged it all here/
It's simply not worth it. I would assume that sort of detective work and court battle is far too pricey to make it worthwhile; ISPs get relatively little in return for stopping spam (more customers, less bandwidth used), which is why many clearly choose to tacitly allow spammers on their systems.
Doesn't really matter. My point was that most if not all spammers know enough to hide their identity. The ones that don't are the ones from countries where it won't matter. Try bringing a suit against a spammer in the Ukraine. They are also one of the largest outputters of pirate DVDs and software in the world (allegedly with whole pressing factories devoted to such piracy). I sorta doubt they'd give two shits about some patent violation .
It's a patent on filter-circumvention technology. Not filter technology. And its only for specific types of filters (duplicate detection filters). So the answer to that is `no,' possibly followed by `RTFA.'
But on the other hand, I doubt ATT will be selling circumvention technology. Now, a fair guess would be that they won't sue the spammers for infringement, but may sue those who sell software used for spamming (who are generally a bit more findable).
But I don't really see why most white-collar jobs will require programming, and I think the author overstates it quite a bit. If by programming he means recording macros in Word, yeah, he may be somewhat right. But I don't see any reason to assume a large change from the current situation. What will be different in the business world in 100 years that will make programming more necessary than it is now?
In fact, only a small number of trained professional jobs could be done by computers. Computers extend the ability of a single person, such that fewer people are needed for the same job, occasionally, but they are not therefore replacable entirely.
Businessmen who make decisions on investments, business plans, etc, are not replacable. Salesmen are not replacable. Marketers are not replacable. Logistics executives are not replacable. Doctors, lawyers, and yes, even secretaries are not replacable.
Name a job that is truly only "entering data and running programs A, B, and C". Few jobs truly consist of only data entry because it can be done better by computers. But many jobs involve the use of computers as an implement, to communicate, to do word processing, to recieve information, to make trades, orders, etc, but could not be done by a machine. That is the distinction, that while plenty of jobs need a machine, they could not be done by the machine.
So I don't really think that most users need to understand how the machine works, so long as they udnerstand how to work it. See the distinction?
Nah. That's because of this (MIT kids who count cards and ruin the fun for the rest of us).
If there are multiple universes, it still doesn't explain your apparent assumption that we are in the `first' inverse and are not a product of someone travelling back in time.
All of these are fairly stupid; I was being facetious earlier anyhow. If time travel is possible, there are many restructions (necessity of massive amounts of energy or matter, cannot travel back before the machine/event was created, etc). So most still seem to preserve a linear chronology of events that eliminates many, but not all, contradictions.
Assuming you had an infinite amount of money/debt you could go into, there is a probabalistically certain way to win a given finite amount. Simply keep raising the bet (that amount + the sum of all your previous bets) each time you bet. As n->infinity, the sum of n of some finite value of the probability of winning will converge to 1, i.e. your probability of winning if you wait forever is nearly certain. So you will eventually win back that finite amount more than you've already bet.
Of course, this assumes an infinitely long competition and an infinite amount of debt you can go into before Fat Tony smashes in your kneecaps.
Just a thought.
Maybe he just got scammed by one Nigerian too many and it pissed him off.
1) No. I can put my copyrighted intellectual property out in plain view for anyone to read and still retain ownership. That's the entire point of copyright. If I had to keep copyrighted material secret, I wouldn't bother to copyright it. Plus, where have you seen that little (c) before?
2) If you were a member of the mailing list, you retain copyright of the material, but there is probably an implicit grant of use. Other's could probably not republish for profit your work, but they could copy and show to others not on the mailing list.
3) News reporting falls under fair use. The media have a pretty much blanket grant to publish copyrighted works, so long as it is for a legitimate news reporting purpose and not simply copying someone else's work for profit.
As a few pointed out before me, the issue here is not whether the memos were copyrighted, but whether fair use extends over the distribution of these memos to discuss the issue of fair and secure electronic voting. And it almost certainly does. Diebold's use of the DMCA is also erroneous; they claim that they do not admit the memos are authentic but still retain the right to file DMCA C&D letters. In order, however, to file those letters under the DMCA, the violated material must be authentic. So Diebold is speaking out of both sides of their mouth.
My apologies for being at all snippy, but people often seem more inclined to ask questions on Slashdot than just Google copyright law.
I only see one security patch and two reliability patches. And all of these patches are for vulnerabilities affecting 3.3, which are so recent they simply had not been fixed in the 3.4 release. I don't see that as a very big deal. When you first install RedHat from CD, even if you just downloaded the ISO, you better well patch from the Internet.
OpenBSD makes a distinction between ports and packages; packages are recommended because they are maintained actively and more thoroughly audited; ports are sort of `use at your own risk'.
"We're cautioning anyone from drawing wrong or incomplete conclusions about any of those documents or files purporting to be authentic." Of course, this means that if they are not authentic, they have no DMCA claim. And if they are authentic, I still feel that they fall under fair use.
But I'll still remove them when I get my C&D letter.