It originally comes from a "Dilbert" cartoon. The boss hires a new user interface designer, whose previous career was being an international terrorist. The boss says, "It isn't a perfect fit, but he went to Yale." Dilbert comments to Sven, the new guy, about him (Sven) going to Yale, and Sven says, "I yust got out last week."
He'll be in the paper all week...
Interesting point in the student's write-up...
on
Darl Goes to Harvard
·
· Score: 2, Informative
At this point he [Darl] announced that he had several coworkers with him, two of whom looked, I kid you not, like Agents (were Agent Smith et. al. collecting social security). These guys never smiled, all night.
Maybe Darl wasn't just blowing smoke when he said he had hired some security guards...
Hint: Read the article before posting. (I know, this is Slashdot - what was I thinking?)
Anyway, you're talking about the virus. The article is talking about downloads from web sites, where you can't tell what type of file you're downloading - you think you're getting a.pdf, and you're really getting an executable. And you gave it permission to download, because you knew that the file was of a safe type! The type you approved was safe, it just wasn't the type of the real file.
Combined with another (not yet fixed) bug that lets web sites spoof which domain they are in, and you have all kinds of fun - downloading a trojan when you think you're downloading a.pdf or even.txt from a trusted site...
But you really can't blame stupid users for this one. If the browser lies to you about what site you're really visiting, and lies about what type of file you're downloading, there's no $&%^$^%$ way that it's the user's fault. The blame lies exactly with Microsoft.
This is really bad, since IE is an integral part of the Windows OS!
Yeah, I know, that's just what Microsoft said at the trial. But this bug may force them to choose between:
- leaving their software unfit for use on the Internet, and
- proving to everyone that they lied in court.
Not a good situation for Microsoft. Of course, it's just (somewhat informed) speculation that Microsoft can't fix it...
Let's say that I create a database that takes non-trivial effort to create. And let's say that the only sources of data that I use are readily available to others. Now you're telling me that the only protection I've got for that database is trade secret? What if I want to let the public access the database, via the Web or whatever? Oops, there goes the trade secret.
Let me give you a couple examples from history. Roget's Thesaurus was basically the dictionary, re-indexed. Young's Concordance was a list of all words in the King James Bible, stating in which passage each word appeared (giving a few words of context), and what the original Greek or Hebrew word was for the English word. Both Roget and Young spent a significant amount of effort on these (at a rough guess, 10 to 20 years, which makes it pretty close to the life work of each man.) Both were published as books. And, if I understand correctly, both were copyrighted under the then-existent laws. Both these books were essentially "databases on paper".
It seems to me that this bill is just extending the same protection to electronic databases that they would have if the same information was published in a dead-tree version. I don't see what's so horrible about it.
Artistic merit? You're telling me that only works that have artistic merit get copyright protection? How much "artistic merit" does the dictionary have? It's copyrighted. For that matter, how about the POSIX spec? Artistic merit? Don't make me laugh. But it's copyrighted.
In the case of this particular letter, I'm not sure that Microsoft is pleased. Several times on page 3, it describes Linux as "highly capable". Not quite the message that Microsoft wants to spread...
So, to win this case, SCO will have to prove in court that what Novell said was false, and that SCO lost a specific sale because of what Novell said. I don't see much chance of them proving either one...
But hey, what am I thinking? I'm talking like they care about winning the suit, instead of just pumping the stock price, slinging FUD, and stalling.
Disclaimer: IANAL.
If the shuttle is retired in 2010, and the new vehicle is available in 2014 (later, if it's delayed), then this leaves nothing for four years. Not good.
If I wanted a free Unix environment for a PC, why would I install this instead of Linux or BSD?
Yeah, I know, this is really for the corporate environment, not for us hackers - but come to think of it, my point probably applies in the corporate environment, too.
Is there anything that the OSS community can do to compete with this kind of underhandedness?
Sure. Be open. Be transparent. Be honest. Allow choice - don't try to lock people in.
See, when Microsoft tries to "leverage Windows" to get customers to do this or that, the people on the receiving end of the "leverage" feel coerced. Typically, they don't like it. They get mad. They look for an alternative.
So, the most effective way to compete with Microsoft is to not be like them...
They're wearing jackets designed to look like police/FBI, but they "aren't claiming to be cops". They just want to make that impression without doing quite enough to get busted for impersonating an officer.
Unfortunately, it isn't the kind of abuse that's going to get the public up in arms. Bribery? Strip club owners? You're not going to get much sympathy there.
I agree that the case sure sounds like the new powers are being abused (already), and I suspect that most of the Slashdot crowd likewise sees it that way, but as I said, we aren't enough. What it will take to get these new powers overturned is an abuse that's glaringly bad enough to get the general public good and mad.
... but I kind of understand the "can't tell the customer" part. When you are genuinely dealing with terrorists, you want to watch them for a while without tipping them off so that you can grab all of them.
Of course, this also works pretty well at not tipping people off that you're abusing this new power.
My own personal take on this is that the potential for abuse is there, but when real (documented) abuses occur - or occur often enough - public outcry will force the repeal of a lot of this stuff. (Note that public outcry on/. is not enough.)
Slashdot Mirror
It originally comes from a "Dilbert" cartoon. The boss hires a new user interface designer, whose previous career was being an international terrorist. The boss says, "It isn't a perfect fit, but he went to Yale." Dilbert comments to Sven, the new guy, about him (Sven) going to Yale, and Sven says, "I yust got out last week."
He'll be in the paper all week...
Maybe Darl wasn't just blowing smoke when he said he had hired some security guards...
...distribute.
Anyway, you're talking about the virus. The article is talking about downloads from web sites, where you can't tell what type of file you're downloading - you think you're getting a .pdf, and you're really getting an executable. And you gave it permission to download, because you knew that the file was of a safe type! The type you approved was safe, it just wasn't the type of the real file.
Combined with another (not yet fixed) bug that lets web sites spoof which domain they are in, and you have all kinds of fun - downloading a trojan when you think you're downloading a .pdf or even .txt from a trusted site...
But you really can't blame stupid users for this one. If the browser lies to you about what site you're really visiting, and lies about what type of file you're downloading, there's no $&%^$^%$ way that it's the user's fault. The blame lies exactly with Microsoft.
Yeah, I know, that's just what Microsoft said at the trial. But this bug may force them to choose between:
- leaving their software unfit for use on the Internet, and
- proving to everyone that they lied in court.
Not a good situation for Microsoft. Of course, it's just (somewhat informed) speculation that Microsoft can't fix it...
Of course, that was back in the day. My mom isn't going to get this virus because now, she doesn't have a computer...
Let's say that I create a database that takes non-trivial effort to create. And let's say that the only sources of data that I use are readily available to others. Now you're telling me that the only protection I've got for that database is trade secret? What if I want to let the public access the database, via the Web or whatever? Oops, there goes the trade secret.
Let me give you a couple examples from history. Roget's Thesaurus was basically the dictionary, re-indexed. Young's Concordance was a list of all words in the King James Bible, stating in which passage each word appeared (giving a few words of context), and what the original Greek or Hebrew word was for the English word. Both Roget and Young spent a significant amount of effort on these (at a rough guess, 10 to 20 years, which makes it pretty close to the life work of each man.) Both were published as books. And, if I understand correctly, both were copyrighted under the then-existent laws. Both these books were essentially "databases on paper".
It seems to me that this bill is just extending the same protection to electronic databases that they would have if the same information was published in a dead-tree version. I don't see what's so horrible about it.
Artistic merit? You're telling me that only works that have artistic merit get copyright protection? How much "artistic merit" does the dictionary have? It's copyrighted. For that matter, how about the POSIX spec? Artistic merit? Don't make me laugh. But it's copyrighted.
but SCO doesn't have a lot. Especially not compared to IBM...
In the case of this particular letter, I'm not sure that Microsoft is pleased. Several times on page 3, it describes Linux as "highly capable". Not quite the message that Microsoft wants to spread...
Why do you assume that they haven't?
I had no trouble getting to them today, yesterday, or the day before. Perhaps you are having routing trouble?
won't it be hard to use them? They'll tend to float off of the mousepad...
The lawsuit you are watching for is not the only one they have threatened to file...
So, to win this case, SCO will have to prove in court that what Novell said was false, and that SCO lost a specific sale because of what Novell said. I don't see much chance of them proving either one... But hey, what am I thinking? I'm talking like they care about winning the suit, instead of just pumping the stock price, slinging FUD, and stalling. Disclaimer: IANAL.
s/sue/buy/
After January 23, I expect they'll have a bit tougher time getting anybody to buy their "license".
If the shuttle is retired in 2010, and the new vehicle is available in 2014 (later, if it's delayed), then this leaves nothing for four years. Not good.
This is especially funny if you know the Mormon Church's position on coffee...
Well, if SCO doesn't have any assets in the UK, about all they could lose is the attorney fees...
Yeah, I know, this is really for the corporate environment, not for us hackers - but come to think of it, my point probably applies in the corporate environment, too.
Sure. Be open. Be transparent. Be honest. Allow choice - don't try to lock people in.
See, when Microsoft tries to "leverage Windows" to get customers to do this or that, the people on the receiving end of the "leverage" feel coerced. Typically, they don't like it. They get mad. They look for an alternative.
So, the most effective way to compete with Microsoft is to not be like them...
They're wearing jackets designed to look like police/FBI, but they "aren't claiming to be cops". They just want to make that impression without doing quite enough to get busted for impersonating an officer.
No, that won't solve the problem. Then we would just have a large number of investigations that are "ongoing"... forever.
Unfortunately, it isn't the kind of abuse that's going to get the public up in arms. Bribery? Strip club owners? You're not going to get much sympathy there.
I agree that the case sure sounds like the new powers are being abused (already), and I suspect that most of the Slashdot crowd likewise sees it that way, but as I said, we aren't enough. What it will take to get these new powers overturned is an abuse that's glaringly bad enough to get the general public good and mad.
Of course, this also works pretty well at not tipping people off that you're abusing this new power.
My own personal take on this is that the potential for abuse is there, but when real (documented) abuses occur - or occur often enough - public outcry will force the repeal of a lot of this stuff. (Note that public outcry on /. is not enough.)