They are certainly allowed to evolve! Unfortunatly, there are a set of well-known linits (I suppose) that govern how far a net can evolve.
It's not the machines, it's the huumans that designed them.. We're simply not smart enough to create a neural net capable of evolving past a certain point... The net stagnates on a set of variations and refuses to move..
I'm not an expert by any means, so any further explaination should be left to others.. . .
1. Introduce the idea of survival through predation. 2. Add some virtual physics. 3. Slap the simulation in the world's biggest cluster.
4. Sit back and see how long it takes the simulation to nuke itself!!
Now seriously.. All this amounts to is simple expansion of neural net evolution technique... We're still limited by the brains we can give the little virtual monsters..
According to the old Macromedia EULA in my hand, Macromedia claims right of use to anything generated by it. You retain ownership and copyright, however.
There may be a monkey clicking the mouse and stamping at the keys, but the code doesn't just magically appear without said monkey.
The company is bitter about losing the account with the advertising agency, that's for sure!! I'd say they're a first-year Mom and Pop with clueless morons behind the wheel. 'Gee, Bill. Let's get into this Internet thingie. We'll get a copy of some software and sell ourselves as web designers! They don't seem to have to know much!' I don't think they have a leg to stand on. Normally the fruits of paid labor belong to your employer. This includes work done on a conditional payment contract, as they probably were. (You don't get paid if you don't finish) Obviously the ad agency agrees with the two of us, and they're probably a pretty decent employer. They don't have to pay for a lawyer to defend you, after all!! Stick with them!
He works at Andover, so that would put him in Acton, Mass. Then again, the new servers are just outside of Boston, Mass, so he could be there.. Then again, he could be sitting on the couch with the Commander and Hemos. That would put him in Holland, Mi. Take your pick.. I don't know!!
2.2.12 and newer stacks get misinterpreted by fingerprinting proggies written before they were released.. Conversly, some of them written after the fact report AIX as Linux 2.2.x...
Hey!! You ruined it! I was going to drive over to the Geek Compound with a trunk full of the finest British exports to help them celebrate a successful server migration!!
Now that you went and fucked it up, what the hell am I going to do with a pony of Guinness and five sixers of Bass? Not to mention the case of Harp!!!
Judging from the 'test servers' a week or so ago, it's just a bigger cluster with badder hardware.. No major changes to the SW, except for the new SlashCode finally makes it into production on it's home site..
Perhaps we should help them with a more intelligent 'author filter', and a better FM source snagger. It's obvious that Mr. Matzigkeit didn't belong that high up on the list, and other entities like UCB are over represented as well. Most everything *BSD carries the Berkley name, regardless of author!!
Then we have FreeStandard, RedHatStandards, and SuSEStandards
Apache does a good job of following standards, as do all of the system daemons. What makes you think we wouldn't stick with one standard? Slap it in a RFC and say 'Ye shall use this' is all it takes!
Shrinkwrap/click-thru licences have been tested by a couple of states now. They are, to everyones great detriment, probably enforcable./. had a mention of the WA case a few days back. Entering into a contract with deliberate prior intent to violate it is fraud. If you sign the contract knowing you're going to violate it, and then violate it, not only can the other party void the contract but can sue you for damages based on the fact you knew you would violate it. If they want to be pricks about it, they could also push to see you prosecuted criminally.. Changing the license after the fact is something traditionally illegal. UCITA makes it legal, unfortunatly. I hope Verant gets a good slap..
There hasn't really been such a thing as SMP PPC Mac until now. Yeah, there were some early dual proc Macs, and IBM makes a slew of SMP PPC based systems, but you really can't make any comparison whatsoever to the hypothetical SMP G4 running the prototype OS/X. That said, you can rest assured it will prolly kill anything consumer market short of a quad Xeon.
No. The TOS should have those terms, and the fine clause, and here's an analogy:
I write a bit of software. The license I used granted some of my rights to my users. My users can do all sorts of wonderful things with my software. But so can BigEvilCorp. They decide to rip me off and exploit my license. I can't change BigEvilCorps license. They can screw me.
I write another bit of software. The license I use not only preserves all of my rights, it actually removes some of those normally granted my users. My users want to do wonderful things with my software, and I can let them, either by changing the license on a case-by-case basis or by choosing to not enforce some of it. But BiggEvilCorp can't screw me.
It's not the TOS or the license; It's the person enforcing it.
TOS or no TOS, breaking the law (however unjust it may be to/.) is still illegal.
The law says you must agree to the TOS to use the service. The law says you must also enter the agreement in good faith. By entering into the TOS with previous deliberate intent to violate it you have broken the law.
I don't care if you are a pedophiliac, a drug dealer, or a jaywalker; If the someone has to break the law to catch you, they should be the ones going to jail. No if's, and's, or but's.
For the rest of your argument: NetPD is not the police. They are a private company, with no right to search or seizure whatsoever. Napster, Inc., is not a pedophile. They are accused of the offense of copyright infringement, a victimless crime, in a civil suit. This is nothing more that a corporate dicksize war.
Of course I think they're ludicrous! But I also think that NetPD's collection of 335,000 usernames is ludicrous. A perfect match!! I personally could live with bots. You'll note I made no mention of levying a fine on them. Collection of information that is or could be personally identifiable is not acceptable under any circumstance, however. Reverse engineering, in the case of making a new client conforming to the specifications and rules laid out by Napster, Inc., is and has been deemed (by allowing said clients to connect) acceptable by said company. Reverse engineering with the express intent of violating the other terms of service (in this case, personally identifiable information) and in the process damage Napster, Inc., should deserve enforcement of the fine. And what if they did not collect IP addresses? I'd consider a list of the files stored in/home/jim/napster/shared/ a pretty good fingerprint.
This is AOL and Steve Case. They would not do anything that might undermine their strategic advantage, as purveyor of more newbies than any other ISP-alike, to crush NSI at a later date. We see it all the time in Microsoft's Embrace and Extend philosophy: Jump in bed with the enemy, and once you figure what makes him/her so stellar, jump right back out and offer your bastardized version for less. Perhaps after AOL figures the game out, they'll offer domains that can only be seen by AOL subscribers, and that walk over the outside DNS. Or they figure that they can con NSI into giving them enough of the buck off the newbie domain regs to run them into the ground with sheer volume. Or perhaps they just want to make an 'easy to use' domain registration proceedure for AOL users, in an effort to turn the rest of us into drooling sycophants and unable to use anything more complex than AOL.
What did I do with that bottle of Zanax?? Steve Case is coming for me!!!
Hmmm.. So NetPd violates Napsters TOS.. And accoding to that TOS, the relevant bits being: (ii) use the Napster browser or service, or attempt to penetrate, modify or manipulate the Napster browser or service or any of the hardware or software thereof in order to: invade the privacy of, obtain the identity of, or obtain any personal information about (including but not limited to IP addresses of) any Napster account holder or user
(iii) reverse engineer any portion of the Napster service or browser
And the penalty:
Napster and its affiliates reserve the right to refuse service and terminate accounts in their discretion, including, but not limited to, if Napster believes that user conduct violates applicable law or is harmful to the interests of Napster, its affiliates, or other users, or for any other reason in Napster's sole discretion, with or without cause.
I'm just sorry they didn't have a 'fine' clause. Say $1,000 per infraction of privacy policy, and $100,000 per instance of infraction of the RE clause. Collecting 335,000 users nicks and IPs would cost Metallica and NetPD $335,000,000, as well as each bogus session using the harmful RE'd software (probably 40-100 clients) another million.
Enforcing the GPL isn't the FSF's problem in cases where copyright isn't theirs. In fact, they can't do a damn thing beyond 'We think Z company stole M authors code, which was GPL.' (Remember boys and girls, libel and slander suits can kill if you are a disinterested party.) Their take was probably 'Why is this person calling us?'
Has copyright been assigned to the FSF? Have the authors been contacted? Was the commercial vendor asked about dispensation from the author? No suit has been filed, and we don't have Bruce Perens screaming bloody murder, so I can say with certainty that none of the above happened, if indeed any theft of GPL material transpired.
Oh, yeah.. One author failing to enforce his licence does not make that license flawed. It could have been any of the source-included licenses, BSD, GPL, SCL, NCL, AL, etc..
If you are serious, I'd advise you to come forward with further detail.
As long as the ICQ server knows you're online, it's possible.
Clients can lie to the server about their identity through a buffer overrun in the password field, thus they are able to be on the visible list. You'd need to know of someone on the visible list, but you get actual status.
If your IP is known, you can confirm online status by attempting a direct spoof with a wide range of ports. Eventually the spoofer finds an open port ICQ is sitting on and transmits the message if online. I have yet to see a spoofer that reports response stat, so you can only find out if ICQ is running this way. This is the same as using a portscanner and watching for the standard ICQ responses.
Packet sniffers can also be used. The client transmits a keepalive packet to the server. Just set the sniffer to look for packets containing UserX.
then you trust the FSF to not set the terms to something you disagree with. This is, however, safe IMO.
I wasn't sure the earliest GPL revs allowed you to choose the later license and obselete the current. (And I have seen software explicitly under one and one only version of the GPL).
All we're left with is the question of trust. There are certainly benefits to be had from assignment, but there is always the danger, percieved or real, of the FSF doing something 'wacky'. Myself, I'd trust the FSF to hold my wallet, but others might find 'the spokesman' a little too, um, radical to be trustworthy. (clears throat).
What limited assignments could be made to mitigate or eliminate the risk? Could we do something along the line of 'I assign thee, the FSF, copyright to this version of said software, but this version only. All later versions, including those derived from this version of said software, will be copyright original author
Slashdot Mirror
They are certainly allowed to evolve! Unfortunatly, there are a set of well-known linits (I suppose) that govern how far a net can evolve.
It's not the machines, it's the huumans that designed them.. We're simply not smart enough to create a neural net capable of evolving past a certain point... The net stagnates on a set of variations and refuses to move..
I'm not an expert by any means, so any further explaination should be left to others.. . .
I'm laughing my ass off, but apparently no one else took the time to peek inside ILUVYOU.txt.vbs..
1. Introduce the idea of survival through predation.
2. Add some virtual physics.
3. Slap the simulation in the world's biggest cluster.
4. Sit back and see how long it takes the simulation to nuke itself!!
Now seriously.. All this amounts to is simple expansion of neural net evolution technique... We're still limited by the brains we can give the little virtual monsters..
According to the old Macromedia EULA in my hand, Macromedia claims right of use to anything generated by it. You retain ownership and copyright, however.
There may be a monkey clicking the mouse and stamping at the keys, but the code doesn't just magically appear without said monkey.
The company is bitter about losing the account with the advertising agency, that's for sure!! I'd say they're a first-year Mom and Pop with clueless morons behind the wheel. 'Gee, Bill. Let's get into this Internet thingie. We'll get a copy of some software and sell ourselves as web designers! They don't seem to have to know much!' I don't think they have a leg to stand on. Normally the fruits of paid labor belong to your employer. This includes work done on a conditional payment contract, as they probably were. (You don't get paid if you don't finish) Obviously the ad agency agrees with the two of us, and they're probably a pretty decent employer. They don't have to pay for a lawyer to defend you, after all!! Stick with them!
And then take a few days off to recover from the alcohol poisioning!
He works at Andover, so that would put him in Acton, Mass. Then again, the new servers are just outside of Boston, Mass, so he could be there.. Then again, he could be sitting on the couch with the Commander and Hemos. That would put him in Holland, Mi. Take your pick.. I don't know!!
2.2.12 and newer stacks get misinterpreted by fingerprinting proggies written before they were released.. Conversly, some of them written after the fact report AIX as Linux 2.2.x...
Hey!! You ruined it! I was going to drive over to the Geek Compound with a trunk full of the finest British exports to help them celebrate a successful server migration!!
Now that you went and fucked it up, what the hell am I going to do with a pony of Guinness and five sixers of Bass? Not to mention the case of Harp!!!
Judging from the 'test servers' a week or so ago, it's just a bigger cluster with badder hardware.. No major changes to the SW, except for the new SlashCode finally makes it into production on it's home site..
Funny, but dead on..
Perhaps we should help them with a more intelligent 'author filter', and a better FM source snagger. It's obvious that Mr. Matzigkeit didn't belong that high up on the list, and other entities like UCB are over represented as well. Most everything *BSD carries the Berkley name, regardless of author!!
Be warned: They don't call him 'Well Hung' Bob Young for nothing!!
Then we have FreeStandard, RedHatStandards, and SuSEStandards
Apache does a good job of following standards, as do all of the system daemons. What makes you think we wouldn't stick with one standard? Slap it in a RFC and say 'Ye shall use this' is all it takes!
Shrinkwrap/click-thru licences have been tested by a couple of states now. They are, to everyones great detriment, probably enforcable. /. had a mention of the WA case a few days back. Entering into a contract with deliberate prior intent to violate it is fraud. If you sign the contract knowing you're going to violate it, and then violate it, not only can the other party void the contract but can sue you for damages based on the fact you knew you would violate it. If they want to be pricks about it, they could also push to see you prosecuted criminally.. Changing the license after the fact is something traditionally illegal. UCITA makes it legal, unfortunatly. I hope Verant gets a good slap..
No, I'm actually a RISC fan. I just felt like going off at somebody.
Read the rest of the thread, especially my reply to myself. They're not hypocrites, exactly..
How developed is SMP in the PPC world?
There hasn't really been such a thing as SMP PPC Mac until now. Yeah, there were some early dual proc Macs, and IBM makes a slew of SMP PPC based systems, but you really can't make any comparison whatsoever to the hypothetical SMP G4 running the prototype OS/X. That said, you can rest assured it will prolly kill anything consumer market short of a quad Xeon.
Someone thought I was joking!
No. The TOS should have those terms, and the fine clause, and here's an analogy:
I write a bit of software. The license I used granted some of my rights to my users. My users can do all sorts of wonderful things with my software. But so can BigEvilCorp. They decide to rip me off and exploit my license. I can't change BigEvilCorps license. They can screw me.
I write another bit of software. The license I use not only preserves all of my rights, it actually removes some of those normally granted my users. My users want to do wonderful things with my software, and I can let them, either by changing the license on a case-by-case basis or by choosing to not enforce some of it. But BiggEvilCorp can't screw me.
It's not the TOS or the license; It's the person enforcing it.
Since you asked..
/.) is still illegal.
TOS or no TOS, breaking the law (however unjust it may be to
The law says you must agree to the TOS to use the service. The law says you must also enter the agreement in good faith. By entering into the TOS with previous deliberate intent to violate it you have broken the law.
I don't care if you are a pedophiliac, a drug dealer, or a jaywalker; If the someone has to break the law to catch you, they should be the ones going to jail. No if's, and's, or but's.
For the rest of your argument: NetPD is not the police. They are a private company, with no right to search or seizure whatsoever. Napster, Inc., is not a pedophile. They are accused of the offense of copyright infringement, a victimless crime, in a civil suit. This is nothing more that a corporate dicksize war.
Of course I think they're ludicrous! But I also think that NetPD's collection of 335,000 usernames is ludicrous. A perfect match!! I personally could live with bots. You'll note I made no mention of levying a fine on them. Collection of information that is or could be personally identifiable is not acceptable under any circumstance, however. Reverse engineering, in the case of making a new client conforming to the specifications and rules laid out by Napster, Inc., is and has been deemed (by allowing said clients to connect) acceptable by said company. Reverse engineering with the express intent of violating the other terms of service (in this case, personally identifiable information) and in the process damage Napster, Inc., should deserve enforcement of the fine. And what if they did not collect IP addresses? I'd consider a list of the files stored in /home/jim/napster/shared/ a pretty good fingerprint.
Whatever you're thinking Hemos:
BZZZT! You're wrong!!
This is AOL and Steve Case. They would not do anything that might undermine their strategic advantage, as purveyor of more newbies than any other ISP-alike, to crush NSI at a later date. We see it all the time in Microsoft's Embrace and Extend philosophy: Jump in bed with the enemy, and once you figure what makes him/her so stellar, jump right back out and offer your bastardized version for less. Perhaps after AOL figures the game out, they'll offer domains that can only be seen by AOL subscribers, and that walk over the outside DNS. Or they figure that they can con NSI into giving them enough of the buck off the newbie domain regs to run them into the ground with sheer volume. Or perhaps they just want to make an 'easy to use' domain registration proceedure for AOL users, in an effort to turn the rest of us into drooling sycophants and unable to use anything more complex than AOL.
What did I do with that bottle of Zanax?? Steve Case is coming for me!!!
Hmmm.. So NetPd violates Napsters TOS.. And accoding to that TOS, the relevant bits being: (ii) use the Napster browser or service, or attempt to penetrate, modify or manipulate the Napster browser or service or any of the hardware or software thereof in order to: invade the privacy of, obtain the identity of, or obtain any personal information about (including but not limited to IP addresses of) any Napster account holder or user
(iii) reverse engineer any portion of the Napster service or browser
And the penalty:
Napster and its affiliates reserve the right to refuse service and terminate accounts in their discretion, including, but not limited to, if Napster believes that user conduct violates applicable law or is harmful to the interests of Napster, its affiliates, or other users, or for any other reason in Napster's sole discretion, with or without cause.
I'm just sorry they didn't have a 'fine' clause. Say $1,000 per infraction of privacy policy, and $100,000 per instance of infraction of the RE clause. Collecting 335,000 users nicks and IPs would cost Metallica and NetPD $335,000,000, as well as each bogus session using the harmful RE'd software (probably 40-100 clients) another million.
I have a bad vibe this is flamebait, but..
Enforcing the GPL isn't the FSF's problem in cases where copyright isn't theirs. In fact, they can't do a damn thing beyond 'We think Z company stole M authors code, which was GPL.' (Remember boys and girls, libel and slander suits can kill if you are a disinterested party.) Their take was probably 'Why is this person calling us?'
Has copyright been assigned to the FSF? Have the authors been contacted? Was the commercial vendor asked about dispensation from the author? No suit has been filed, and we don't have Bruce Perens screaming bloody murder, so I can say with certainty that none of the above happened, if indeed any theft of GPL material transpired.
Oh, yeah.. One author failing to enforce his licence does not make that license flawed. It could have been any of the source-included licenses, BSD, GPL, SCL, NCL, AL, etc..
If you are serious, I'd advise you to come forward with further detail.
As long as the ICQ server knows you're online, it's possible.
Clients can lie to the server about their identity through a buffer overrun in the password field, thus they are able to be on the visible list. You'd need to know of someone on the visible list, but you get actual status.
If your IP is known, you can confirm online status by attempting a direct spoof with a wide range of ports. Eventually the spoofer finds an open port ICQ is sitting on and transmits the message if online. I have yet to see a spoofer that reports response stat, so you can only find out if ICQ is running this way. This is the same as using a portscanner and watching for the standard ICQ responses.
Packet sniffers can also be used. The client transmits a keepalive packet to the server. Just set the sniffer to look for packets containing UserX.
then you trust the FSF to not set the terms to something you disagree with. This is, however, safe IMO.
I wasn't sure the earliest GPL revs allowed you to choose the later license and obselete the current. (And I have seen software explicitly under one and one only version of the GPL).
All we're left with is the question of trust. There are certainly benefits to be had from assignment, but there is always the danger, percieved or real, of the FSF doing something 'wacky'. Myself, I'd trust the FSF to hold my wallet, but others might find 'the spokesman' a little too, um, radical to be trustworthy. (clears throat).
What limited assignments could be made to mitigate or eliminate the risk? Could we do something along the line of 'I assign thee, the FSF, copyright to this version of said software, but this version only . All later versions, including those derived from this version of said software, will be copyright original author