The article itself is very light on information and does not offer anything other than pure speculation: "A micro-wave weapon may be under development... This weapon may be completely harmless to humans", yadda, yadda, yadda.
I think the United States are kind of pushing up one notch the "psychological warfare" and disinformation on Iraq.
This is not a troll: if you were going to launch a war soon, you'd want your enemies to believe you have several new, exotic and deadly weapons in your arsenal.
In the first Gulf War, Some Iraqi soldiers surrendered as soon as they saw unarmed drones. Drones are now armed, and dangerous, and some Yemenis terrorists learned this the hard way (meaning they were blown to smithereens by a Predator-launched missile.
Add some rumors -- before the conflict -- on how some drones may now carry some super duper microwave weapons and watch even more Iraqi soldiers surrender real quick when a drone flies over them...
Well, OK, so Mickey Mouse (tm) wins and the american consumers lose. Big time.
But if enough people break the copyright, will the other courts of the land (not to mention the law enforcement agencies) really apply the law? That seems doubtful. Any thoughts on that?
1. Create portable RFID-Destroyer, that kills all RFID transmitters embedded in a product. 2. Market product created on step (1) to paranoid geeks (such as me) 3. ??? 4. Profit!
Easy, don't you think? A little bit like the some Neal Stephenson novel on nanotechnology.
Do you think Palladium is a good thing? Whether your answer is "yes" or "no", please explain.
Knowing that Palladium is a Microsoft Technology, do you think AMI is making a smart move by adopting it? Again, please explain your position.
Are you afraid that Microsoft may use its position to control, not just 90% of the software used on PC, but also the overall architecture of modern machines?
Porting to other flavours of UNIX should not be too hard: this scheme is based on pf, which is the packet filter for OpenBSD. Port pf to your flavour of UNIX, and the rest should be trivial.
If you don't want it used freely like this, then don't use this license.
It's not a question of license. As far as I am concerned, it's a question of attitude.
It's one thing to use BSD-licensed software and contribute back to the community (code, support, hardware, whatever). It's quite another thing to use BSD-licensed code and try to actively stifle innovation by supporting the DMCA and using a license (APSL) which is incompatible with most open source projetcs out there. Read what the Darwin maintainer had to say before accusing me of political posturing.
I don't think even Microsoft, who has openly admitted using BSD code in Windows -- TCP/IP stack, for instance, has stooped so low.
I never really liked Apple OS X before (too much eye candy). Now, I have an even better reason to stick to Linux or true-blood BSDs. If Apple supports the DMCA, as far as I am concerned, they are not a friend of open source. If Microsoft supports Palladium, as far as I am concerned, they are not a friend of open source/GPL/BSD operating systems.
I think I'll go and put on that asbestos suit now...;-)
Like other posters have noted before, Darwin/Mac OS X is actually based on BSD-licensed software, not GPL-licensed software. If you want Linux on PPC, there are other alternatives.
However, that kind of problems only points at a much greater problem. Namely, the fact that a commercial entity (Apple) is heavily using open source in their latest software offering, even though their behaviour clearly indicates they are not interested in the philosophy of open source.
Finally, honestly, what's the point of Darwin only on x86? If I want BSD-style operating system on Intel x86, I'll use FreeBSD, or one of the othertwo, not some sort of bastardized version, which does not offer the reliability, security, or portability for which the other versions are well-known.
David Brin explains very well what makes LOTR so great, and I tend to agree with his conclusions. One of the very first thing that you learn in Political Science 101 is that, in any group of people, leaders will appear pretty quickly.
In fact, this leadership mechanism, as well as the (very human) desire to be able to identify to groups or characters that are 100% good, is probably the undercurrent to 99.9% of all novels.
I do have a couple of gripes:
not every country has a large, educated middle-class. As a matter of fact, the lack of a middle-class is one of the most serious problems in thrid-world countries today.
Brin goes over how JRR Tolkien was a snobby, romantic anglo-saxon elitist, writing about WII. OK... Now tell me something I don't know!
Overall, interesting article. Not his best, though.
Let's face it: the only attraction of UCE for spammers is its cost: sending the same message to thousands, or even millions, of people costs them close to nothing.
Which is why spammers will never adopt a solution such as this one: it would reduce the pool of potential clients (read: complete idiots) willing to receive UCE and it would raise their costs in an unacceptable way.
I mean, I agree to receive all the spam you want to send me... as long as you are ready to pay one million dollars per email. How is that for a fair price?
This scheme is interesting, in a theoretical sort of way, but it has much of a chance of becoming a reality as, say, flying elephants.
Or, uh, a cold day in hell.
And, of course, my opinion is exactly worth what you paid to read it on Slashdot...;)
... And I am grateful for the Microsoft marketdroids, for spewing such ridiculous, transparent FUD.
The more they do this, the more exposure Open Source gains, and the more people are going to stop buying Microsoft products.
Seriously, though, imagine a PHB in those difficult times: you have to do more with less $$$. And right there and then, comes this PR FUD from Microsoft, saying: "Stop using this cheap Open Source! It's BAD for your health and for the environment!!".
PHB brain, of course, only registers the word cheap. He immediately goes to his techies and says: "Linux is cheap!! Start using it NOW to save money!".
*Collective sighs of relief from said techies*
Let us all give thanks for Microsoft Marketing, and for the FUD for which it stands. With upgrade paths and expensive licenses for all.
Amen.
(Yes, I am being sarcastic, people. Go back to your turkeys instead of pointing these flamethrowers at me now...);)
I can send them a copy of all the awesome, truly fantastic offers that arrive in my mailbox? =)
Oh, the joy! 300 copies of "make money fa$t", "enlarge the size of your penis" and "Amazing investment opportunities", delivered lovingly every day to this archive, to be preserved for the good of humanity forever more!
(Clicking hysterically on the "forward" button...);)
I know some people will probably moderate me down for this, but I don't care.
Like the title says: I am not surprised. Microsoft probably has the poorest security track record of any software publisher out there.
Maybe Bugtraq has not been very serious in its handling of this security hole, but, honestly using Microsoft operating systems or applications without a ton of additionnal security software (antivirus, firewalls, etc) is asking for trouble.
In my opinion, Bugtraq is not responsible: Microsoft is. If you use Microsoft products, do as I do: do not use IE (I use Opera or Mozilla), do not allow any application to have access to the Internet without authorization (I use Zone Alarm), do not use Outlook for email (I use Pegasus Mail) and install and update an antivirus program religiously (I actually use two).
Two, out of my 4 personal machines at my home, use either Linux or OpenBSD. One is a Windows 98 machine. The last is being rebuilt and will become a NetBSD workstation. And there is a reason for it: Microsoft security (or rather lack of).
Seriously, though, I think the ideal solution would be to do multiple checks of the RC5 signature of newest packages, over several mirrors. The advisory mentioned that tcpdump.org was compromised, while the mirror at ibiblio.org was OK.
Or use Gentoo Linux. Of course. I can't do that, since I don't have broadband at home... =(
What is the point of putting a high-end graphical card into a FreeBSD server, for instance?
As far as I am concerned, for whatever i386+ FreeBSD server I have, I would only use the lowest of the low-end graphical card, something just good enough to install FreeBSD in VGA text mode, and not some fancy-schmancy NVidia with unstable alpha binary-only drivers!
Once installed, there is no need for graphics anyway, and OpenSSH is your friend!
On the other hand, I could use such a card on a graphical workstation (no, this is not a production system, AFAIK) if I was to use, say, Blender or the Gimp on a FreeBSD desktop machine.
Even then, I'd rather have something well-supported by XFree86...
Slashdot Mirror
The article itself is very light on information and does not offer anything other than pure speculation: "A micro-wave weapon may be under development... This weapon may be completely harmless to humans", yadda, yadda, yadda.
I think the United States are kind of pushing up one notch the "psychological warfare" and disinformation on Iraq.
This is not a troll: if you were going to launch a war soon, you'd want your enemies to believe you have several new, exotic and deadly weapons in your arsenal.
In the first Gulf War, Some Iraqi soldiers surrendered as soon as they saw unarmed drones. Drones are now armed, and dangerous, and some Yemenis terrorists learned this the hard way (meaning they were blown to smithereens by a Predator-launched missile.
Add some rumors -- before the conflict -- on how some drones may now carry some super duper microwave weapons and watch even more Iraqi soldiers surrender real quick when a drone flies over them...
And there was much rejoicing in the land, for, verily, much Slack was given and received with praise and joy.
;)
And even the trolls were happy campers!
All Praise Bob! Hail Eris!
Well, OK, so Mickey Mouse (tm) wins and the american consumers lose. Big time.
But if enough people break the copyright, will the other courts of the land (not to mention the law enforcement agencies) really apply the law? That seems doubtful. Any thoughts on that?
Score another win for Corporate America.
1. Create portable RFID-Destroyer, that kills all RFID transmitters embedded in a product.
2. Market product created on step (1) to paranoid geeks (such as me)
3. ???
4. Profit!
Easy, don't you think? A little bit like the some Neal Stephenson novel on nanotechnology.
As the title says:
Do you think Palladium is a good thing? Whether your answer is "yes" or "no", please explain.
Knowing that Palladium is a Microsoft Technology, do you think AMI is making a smart move by adopting it? Again, please explain your position.
Are you afraid that Microsoft may use its position to control, not just 90% of the software used on PC, but also the overall architecture of modern machines?
Many thanks in advance.
I just want one!
Please, I did not have a nice present this year! Pretty please?
Porting to other flavours of UNIX should not be too hard: this scheme is based on pf, which is the packet filter for OpenBSD. Port pf to your flavour of UNIX, and the rest should be trivial.
If you don't want it used freely like this, then don't use this license.
;-)
It's not a question of license. As far as I am concerned, it's a question of attitude.
It's one thing to use BSD-licensed software and contribute back to the community (code, support, hardware, whatever). It's quite another thing to use BSD-licensed code and try to actively stifle innovation by supporting the DMCA and using a license (APSL) which is incompatible with most open source projetcs out there. Read what the Darwin maintainer had to say before accusing me of political posturing.
I don't think even Microsoft, who has openly admitted using BSD code in Windows -- TCP/IP stack, for instance, has stooped so low.
I never really liked Apple OS X before (too much eye candy). Now, I have an even better reason to stick to Linux or true-blood BSDs. If Apple supports the DMCA, as far as I am concerned, they are not a friend of open source. If Microsoft supports Palladium, as far as I am concerned, they are not a friend of open source/GPL/BSD operating systems.
I think I'll go and put on that asbestos suit now...
Like other posters have noted before, Darwin/Mac OS X is actually based on BSD-licensed software, not GPL-licensed software. If you want Linux on PPC, there are other alternatives.
However, that kind of problems only points at a much greater problem. Namely, the fact that a commercial entity (Apple) is heavily using open source in their latest software offering, even though their behaviour clearly indicates they are not interested in the philosophy of open source.
Finally, honestly, what's the point of Darwin only on x86? If I want BSD-style operating system on Intel x86, I'll use FreeBSD, or one of the other two, not some sort of bastardized version, which does not offer the reliability, security, or portability for which the other versions are well-known.
And his book is definitely on my "must buy ASAP" list!
:-)
For more info, refer to this interview on Linux Online and also to this article in UNIX Review.
I mean, the guy was already hacking UNIX systems when Bill Joy was his system administrator!!
I have received... about 100 spams from AOL throw-away accounts since September 1st, 2002.
Does that mean I can sue them for... er... US$ 3.5m?
This being said, I am glad they won. Did I just say that? OMG... What is the world coming to if the Slashdot crowd is actually cheering AOL?
In fact, this leadership mechanism, as well as the (very human) desire to be able to identify to groups or characters that are 100% good, is probably the undercurrent to 99.9% of all novels.
I do have a couple of gripes:
Overall, interesting article. Not his best, though.
Just my US$ 0.02, of course...
Let's face it: the only attraction of UCE for spammers is its cost: sending the same message to thousands, or even millions, of people costs them close to nothing.
;)
Which is why spammers will never adopt a solution such as this one: it would reduce the pool of potential clients (read: complete idiots) willing to receive UCE and it would raise their costs in an unacceptable way.
I mean, I agree to receive all the spam you want to send me... as long as you are ready to pay one million dollars per email. How is that for a fair price?
This scheme is interesting, in a theoretical sort of way, but it has much of a chance of becoming a reality as, say, flying elephants.
Or, uh, a cold day in hell.
And, of course, my opinion is exactly worth what you paid to read it on Slashdot...
... And I am grateful for the Microsoft marketdroids, for spewing such ridiculous, transparent FUD.
;)
The more they do this, the more exposure Open Source gains, and the more people are going to stop buying Microsoft products.
Seriously, though, imagine a PHB in those difficult times: you have to do more with less $$$. And right there and then, comes this PR FUD from Microsoft, saying: "Stop using this cheap Open Source! It's BAD for your health and for the environment!!".
PHB brain, of course, only registers the word cheap. He immediately goes to his techies and says: "Linux is cheap!! Start using it NOW to save money!".
*Collective sighs of relief from said techies*
Let us all give thanks for Microsoft Marketing, and for the FUD for which it stands. With upgrade paths and expensive licenses for all.
Amen.
(Yes, I am being sarcastic, people. Go back to your turkeys instead of pointing these flamethrowers at me now...)
You mean... You mean... That instead of paying for Win2000, I could have installed FreeBSD instead?
Oh, the humanity!
(Yes, this was sarcastic!)
I can send them a copy of all the awesome, truly fantastic offers that arrive in my mailbox? =)
;)
Oh, the joy! 300 copies of "make money fa$t", "enlarge the size of your penis" and "Amazing investment opportunities", delivered lovingly every day to this archive, to be preserved for the good of humanity forever more!
(Clicking hysterically on the "forward" button...)
I know some people will probably moderate me down for this, but I don't care.
Like the title says: I am not surprised. Microsoft probably has the poorest security track record of any software publisher out there.
Maybe Bugtraq has not been very serious in its handling of this security hole, but, honestly using Microsoft operating systems or applications without a ton of additionnal security software (antivirus, firewalls, etc) is asking for trouble.
In my opinion, Bugtraq is not responsible: Microsoft is. If you use Microsoft products, do as I do: do not use IE (I use Opera or Mozilla), do not allow any application to have access to the Internet without authorization (I use Zone Alarm), do not use Outlook for email (I use Pegasus Mail) and install and update an antivirus program religiously (I actually use two).
Two, out of my 4 personal machines at my home, use either Linux or OpenBSD. One is a Windows 98 machine. The last is being rebuilt and will become a NetBSD workstation. And there is a reason for it: Microsoft security (or rather lack of).
Now, flame all you want. =)
And I wrote all about it in my journal... [gratuitous plug]
Sorry, I can't really give a lot more details than this... =(
Actually, on my Linux workstation, SpamAssassin sends the spam straight to the 'trash'.
So I guess that (a) it's possible to hook them up to gether and (b) get a good sample of rejected emails... =)
Mwahahahahahaha!!
Well, most of my spam is already sent to /dev/null by the SpamAssassin ninja.
But, for those that make it past the email shadow warrior, I guess Bayesian filters are a double whammy they'll never survive... Mwahahahaha!
Kudos to the Mozilla programmers!
As far as you web server is concerned, getting slashdotted ranks way up there, along with using IIS (gratuitous MS baching). =)
Amen.
There is a god after all.
Now, if only Linus could release 2.6 as soon as possible, I would be a happy man.
Seriously, though, I think the ideal solution would be to do multiple checks of the RC5 signature of newest packages, over several mirrors. The advisory mentioned that tcpdump.org was compromised, while the mirror at ibiblio.org was OK.
Or use Gentoo Linux. Of course. I can't do that, since I don't have broadband at home... =(
... Hello?
What is the point of putting a high-end graphical card into a FreeBSD server, for instance?
As far as I am concerned, for whatever i386+ FreeBSD server I have, I would only use the lowest of the low-end graphical card, something just good enough to install FreeBSD in VGA text mode, and not some fancy-schmancy NVidia with unstable alpha binary-only drivers!
Once installed, there is no need for graphics anyway, and OpenSSH is your friend!
On the other hand, I could use such a card on a graphical workstation (no, this is not a production system, AFAIK) if I was to use, say, Blender or the Gimp on a FreeBSD desktop machine.
Even then, I'd rather have something well-supported by XFree86...
Complex chemical compounds can be harmful to your health and to the environment! (Wow!)
And, in related news, Bill Gates is incredibly rich and Saddam Hussein may not be such a nice guy after all! (Amazing!)
More information in our next news program... Film at 11.