"When honest people have guns, the criminals will just be more eager to shoot you so that you don't get them first. See my post below about the time I got robbed at a knife-point."
How sad that on/.--whose denizens speak loudly and often of freedom--one of said denizens deemed the factual and insightful parent "Flamebait." This is exacerbated by the fact that the comment was about a FREE SPEECH ISSUE.
Okay, if that is what the original contest rules stated, then point taken.
I understand how viruses spread. I also understand that releaseing viruses in the wild is not how Symantec, McAfee, et al test viruses. As I understand it, is done via a LAN that is NOT connected to the internet. An "internet simulator," if you will. Since TFA did not specify, it is logical to assume the latter was the method involved.
"The virus author who has the balls to infect every Mac..."
I RTFA twice, and nowhere does it say anything about the contest goal being to "infect every Mac" or even set thvirus loose in the "wild." It DOES say that the object was to infect TWO Macs with a HARMLESS virus.
FTFA: "...sponsoring a contest that challenges virus writers to actually prove that they can introduce a harmless virus into two modern OS X Macs."
Re:Authors Guild re: Used Book sales
on
Book 'Em, Dano
·
· Score: 1
Well, since you are clearly a pitiful, disturbed individual who thinks life has dealt you a raw deal, I pity you but place no value on your opinion.
My you find healing for whatever pain drives you to such vitriol.
Authors Guild re: Used Book sales
on
Book 'Em, Dano
·
· Score: 1
As an author, I am tempted to concur with the Author's Guild re: used book sales.
As a voracious reader, I very much like buying used books at reduced cost. (I also buy many for reference when doing research for my own writing.)
My libertarian leanings also give me pause at the notion of restricting free enterprise and doing what one wishes with one's own property (selling used books).
My capitalist leanings (okay, greed, profiteering, whatever) give me pause because, after all, I write for fun AND profit.
When I read the summary, I pictured an animated cartoon clock a-la Popeye or Tom & Jerry, running for its life on tiny legs and jumping out the window.
It's called a parabolic reflector. Although not as efficient in this guy's configuration (think of it as a shattered parabola glued back together with a few of the pieces missing), the principle is the same.
I remember a similar production that discussed the rather large (relatively) industry of companies that grow and sell not only "medical-grade maggots," but leeches, too. The ancient medical treatment of "blood letting" actually has theraputic value for reattached limbs. Leeches applied to a reattached limb promote blood flow and hence enhance the limb's ability to reintegrate and heal.
Even though I am in "the business," I. too eschew antlers. Not that I wouldm't take an animal with a good rack, but I do not go looking for them, and given a choice between an old doe and a young buck, I take the doe every time.
Most people have been Disneyized to the point they believe there is no longer such a thing as "subsistence hunting" in the U.S. Of course, those same people probably believe all the woodland creatures talk to one another and that fishes name their children Nemo, et al.
"People change. It is entirely possible that he might someday turn into a good person. Who knows, he may someday save your life. Isn't that worth something?"
Someday, Kim Jong Il *might* become a benevolent humanitarien. Isn't that worth something?
Someday, Josef Mengele *might* have discovered a cure for cancer. Isn't that worth something?
Someday, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah *might* become a philanthropist and use his fortune for the betterment of mankind. Isn't that worth something?
It means "Crime is crime, and just because it is IT based has no mitigating (nor magnifying--agreed) effect."
If I steal your wallet, it is a crime (theft). If I steal money from your back account via a hack or internet scam, it is a crime (theft).
I did not write that all crimes are equivalent, that came from your imagination. My point was and is that the same crime committed "in person" or via IT is equivalent.
Further, certain property crimes are no less devastating than assaultive crimes in terms of having permanent, life-altering effects on the victim. As far as I am concerned, bilking a widow out of here life savings and leaving her destitute should be a capital crime, for the perpetrator is no less an unredeemable sociopath than a serial killer. To warehouse said perpetrator in prison for the rest of his life has no value to society and serves only to drain resources better spent elsewhere. He will never contribute anything of value, has no redeeming qualities, so why should his life be preserved?
I made no equation. I reponded to the parent, which *did* make an equation. I simply pointed out that crime is crime, and just because it is IT based has no mitigating (nor magnifying--agreed) effect.
Distributing kiddie porn is not an act of war, nor is exploiting children to make it. Extradite, or don't extradite?
Using email to organize and execute other crimes (murder, theft, kidnapping) in the U.S. from a foreign country is not an "act of war." Extradite or don't extradite?
I do not understand this pervasive attitude that IT crime is somehow "lesser" than a crime with visible/tangible results. Some go so far as to defend IT offenses "victimless" crimes. I always wonder whether the more vociferous defenders are themselves warez traders or script kiddies--why else would they so dilligently defend the indefensible?
"I'm geniunuely curious - what features did CP/M-86 have that PC-DOS 1.0 didn't have and vice versa?"
Bear in mind I am working from 20-plus year old memory. One thing that immediately comes to mind is true wildcard search, e.g. *fubar*.* That search under CPM-86 would find all files containing the word "fubar." Under MSDOS, it ignored everything after the first wildcard and essentially searched for "all files."
The PIP and STAT commands provided highly versatile access and control over the file system, hardware ports, hardware in general, etc., which MSDOS lacked.
As to porting, I remember distinctly have to "port" programs I had written in ASM under CPM-86 to make them work under MSDOS. It mostly involved changing addresses and argument parameters for system calls, and changin entirely some calls to functions MSDOS did not support.
Anyone who has used both OS's will frank that CPM, let alone CPM-86, was significantly more powerful. In fact, I once used a CPM-86-derived (or maybe just a new version) OS that supported mutitasking, complete with independent screens for each active application. You could have an editor, compiler, and another application or two (up to five, I think) all running at the same time, and switch back and forth between them by clicking "buttons" displayed on the "25th line" of the display. It was kick-ass for its day.
You can have an "interest" in machine guns, but cannot legally own one without a federal permit (at least in the U.S.)
More directly, nothing I wrote infringes your sister's interest in lockpicking or owning a lockpick set. She just shouldn't wag it around in public. Again drawing on the firearm metaphor, you can both own and carry concealed in public a handgun in most U.S. states, but you must have a permit to do so. The purpose is to distinguish the legitimate from the nefarious. Membership in a lockpicking club gives your sister public legitimacy.
When I was refurbishing/repairing commercial automatic test equipment (ATE), I often worked in the field. The cabinetry had door locks to prevent "unqualified personnel" muucking around inside. It was commonto show up at a jobsite and find they had lost the cabinet keys. For a long time I used paper clibs as crude picks to open the doors. I finally procurred a lockpick set and carried it with me when on the job.
So, a Geek with a legitimate need for lockpicks.
If your sister is a legitimate lockpicking hobbyist, so long as she is en-route to or from the local lockpicking club (to which she has a membership card whereby to establish legitimacy), she, too, should be exempt. If, however, she is out wardriving or attending a RAVE party, her motive for having lockpicks is justifiably suspect.
Odd you would cite logic as the basis of your rebuttal. It is illogical to equate non-tangible thought with the tangible creation of a tool (website) designed to facillitate a crime. You cannot prove the existence let alone the purpose of a thought. You can prove existence and purpose of a website.
"Obtaining someone's information illegally, to use it illegally, is...already illegal!"
Do you understand the difference between "obtaining someone's information" and "ATTEMPTING to obtain someone's information"?
I see this law as similar to ones making it illegal to possess "burglary tools." Who but a locksmith or other tech-type has a legitimate reason to possess lock picks while out in public?
"But there were no programming languages available for it yet and very little software had been ported over from CP/M to the CP/M-86."
It has been a while, but as I remember it, everything I had under CP/M was upward compatible under CP/M-86, and none of it compatible under MS-DOS. The system calls were different between MS-DOS and CP/M-86.
I know for a fact CP/M-86 was infinitely more powerful and versatile than MS-DOS. Perhaps that was its downfall--it was too powerful and versatile and hence confusing for the "average" user.
Slashdot Mirror
"When honest people have guns, the criminals will just be more eager to shoot you so that you don't get them first. See my post below about the time I got robbed at a knife-point."
And this is based on what?
How sad that on /.--whose denizens speak loudly and often of freedom--one of said denizens deemed the factual and insightful parent "Flamebait." This is exacerbated by the fact that the comment was about a FREE SPEECH ISSUE.
Okay, if that is what the original contest rules stated, then point taken.
I understand how viruses spread. I also understand that releaseing viruses in the wild is not how Symantec, McAfee, et al test viruses. As I understand it, is done via a LAN that is NOT connected to the internet. An "internet simulator," if you will. Since TFA did not specify, it is logical to assume the latter was the method involved.
"The virus author who has the balls to infect every Mac..."
I RTFA twice, and nowhere does it say anything about the contest goal being to "infect every Mac" or even set thvirus loose in the "wild." It DOES say that the object was to infect TWO Macs with a HARMLESS virus.
FTFA: "...sponsoring a contest that challenges virus writers to actually prove that they can introduce a harmless virus into two modern OS X Macs."
Well, since you are clearly a pitiful, disturbed individual who thinks life has dealt you a raw deal, I pity you but place no value on your opinion.
My you find healing for whatever pain drives you to such vitriol.
As an author, I am tempted to concur with the Author's Guild re: used book sales.
As a voracious reader, I very much like buying used books at reduced cost. (I also buy many for reference when doing research for my own writing.)
My libertarian leanings also give me pause at the notion of restricting free enterprise and doing what one wishes with one's own property (selling used books).
My capitalist leanings (okay, greed, profiteering, whatever) give me pause because, after all, I write for fun AND profit.
Any other authors here with an opinion?
When I read the summary, I pictured an animated cartoon clock a-la Popeye or Tom & Jerry, running for its life on tiny legs and jumping out the window.
It's called a parabolic reflector. Although not as efficient in this guy's configuration (think of it as a shattered parabola glued back together with a few of the pieces missing), the principle is the same.
Survival Training Student: "Sir, what is this white stuff in the soup you made from that dead raccoon in this turtle shell?"
Survival Instructor: "That's rice."
Student: "Why is it moving around like that?"
Instructor: "It's WILD rice. Now eat up."
I remember a similar production that discussed the rather large (relatively) industry of companies that grow and sell not only "medical-grade maggots," but leeches, too. The ancient medical treatment of "blood letting" actually has theraputic value for reattached limbs. Leeches applied to a reattached limb promote blood flow and hence enhance the limb's ability to reintegrate and heal.
Even though I am in "the business," I. too eschew antlers. Not that I wouldm't take an animal with a good rack, but I do not go looking for them, and given a choice between an old doe and a young buck, I take the doe every time.
Most people have been Disneyized to the point they believe there is no longer such a thing as "subsistence hunting" in the U.S. Of course, those same people probably believe all the woodland creatures talk to one another and that fishes name their children Nemo, et al.
Bluetooth SNOOPER rifle?
You're wrong. There at least two of us, and at least one of us is also a reloader and a firearms-related industry professional.
I hardly think IT crime is "out of sight, out of mind" among /. denizens.
I am tired of having to explain everything. If you can't see the connection, then forget it.
"People change. It is entirely possible that he might someday turn into a good person. Who knows, he may someday save your life. Isn't that worth something?"
Someday, Kim Jong Il *might* become a benevolent humanitarien. Isn't that worth something?
Someday, Josef Mengele *might* have discovered a cure for cancer. Isn't that worth something?
Someday, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah *might* become a philanthropist and use his fortune for the betterment of mankind. Isn't that worth something?
It means "Crime is crime, and just because it is IT based has no mitigating (nor magnifying--agreed) effect."
If I steal your wallet, it is a crime (theft). If I steal money from your back account via a hack or internet scam, it is a crime (theft).
I did not write that all crimes are equivalent, that came from your imagination. My point was and is that the same crime committed "in person" or via IT is equivalent.
Further, certain property crimes are no less devastating than assaultive crimes in terms of having permanent, life-altering effects on the victim. As far as I am concerned, bilking a widow out of here life savings and leaving her destitute should be a capital crime, for the perpetrator is no less an unredeemable sociopath than a serial killer. To warehouse said perpetrator in prison for the rest of his life has no value to society and serves only to drain resources better spent elsewhere. He will never contribute anything of value, has no redeeming qualities, so why should his life be preserved?
I made no equation. I reponded to the parent, which *did* make an equation. I simply pointed out that crime is crime, and just because it is IT based has no mitigating (nor magnifying--agreed) effect.
So, where do you draw the line?
Distributing kiddie porn is not an act of war, nor is exploiting children to make it. Extradite, or don't extradite?
Using email to organize and execute other crimes (murder, theft, kidnapping) in the U.S. from a foreign country is not an "act of war." Extradite or don't extradite?
I do not understand this pervasive attitude that IT crime is somehow "lesser" than a crime with visible/tangible results. Some go so far as to defend IT offenses "victimless" crimes. I always wonder whether the more vociferous defenders are themselves warez traders or script kiddies--why else would they so dilligently defend the indefensible?
"I'm geniunuely curious - what features did CP/M-86 have that PC-DOS 1.0 didn't have and vice versa?"
Bear in mind I am working from 20-plus year old memory. One thing that immediately comes to mind is true wildcard search, e.g. *fubar*.* That search under CPM-86 would find all files containing the word "fubar." Under MSDOS, it ignored everything after the first wildcard and essentially searched for "all files."
The PIP and STAT commands provided highly versatile access and control over the file system, hardware ports, hardware in general, etc., which MSDOS lacked.
As to porting, I remember distinctly have to "port" programs I had written in ASM under CPM-86 to make them work under MSDOS. It mostly involved changing addresses and argument parameters for system calls, and changin entirely some calls to functions MSDOS did not support.
Anyone who has used both OS's will frank that CPM, let alone CPM-86, was significantly more powerful. In fact, I once used a CPM-86-derived (or maybe just a new version) OS that supported mutitasking, complete with independent screens for each active application. You could have an editor, compiler, and another application or two (up to five, I think) all running at the same time, and switch back and forth between them by clicking "buttons" displayed on the "25th line" of the display. It was kick-ass for its day.
You can have an "interest" in machine guns, but cannot legally own one without a federal permit (at least in the U.S.)
More directly, nothing I wrote infringes your sister's interest in lockpicking or owning a lockpick set. She just shouldn't wag it around in public. Again drawing on the firearm metaphor, you can both own and carry concealed in public a handgun in most U.S. states, but you must have a permit to do so. The purpose is to distinguish the legitimate from the nefarious. Membership in a lockpicking club gives your sister public legitimacy.
When I was refurbishing/repairing commercial automatic test equipment (ATE), I often worked in the field. The cabinetry had door locks to prevent "unqualified personnel" muucking around inside. It was commonto show up at a jobsite and find they had lost the cabinet keys. For a long time I used paper clibs as crude picks to open the doors. I finally procurred a lockpick set and carried it with me when on the job.
So, a Geek with a legitimate need for lockpicks.
If your sister is a legitimate lockpicking hobbyist, so long as she is en-route to or from the local lockpicking club (to which she has a membership card whereby to establish legitimacy), she, too, should be exempt. If, however, she is out wardriving or attending a RAVE party, her motive for having lockpicks is justifiably suspect.
Odd you would cite logic as the basis of your rebuttal. It is illogical to equate non-tangible thought with the tangible creation of a tool (website) designed to facillitate a crime. You cannot prove the existence let alone the purpose of a thought. You can prove existence and purpose of a website.
"Obtaining someone's information illegally, to use it illegally, is...already illegal!"
Do you understand the difference between "obtaining someone's information" and "ATTEMPTING to obtain someone's information"?
I see this law as similar to ones making it illegal to possess "burglary tools." Who but a locksmith or other tech-type has a legitimate reason to possess lock picks while out in public?
"But there were no programming languages available for it yet and very little software had been ported over from CP/M to the CP/M-86."
It has been a while, but as I remember it, everything I had under CP/M was upward compatible under CP/M-86, and none of it compatible under MS-DOS. The system calls were different between MS-DOS and CP/M-86.
I know for a fact CP/M-86 was infinitely more powerful and versatile than MS-DOS. Perhaps that was its downfall--it was too powerful and versatile and hence confusing for the "average" user.