For some reason all of the web maps have my office on the wrong corner of a major intersection; my offices is on the NE corner and the maps show that my office is on the SW corner.
I have been a Solaris Sys Admin for several years and I run several "big iron" Sun HA clusters. Several of the servers I maintain have Sun Platinum service contracts and all of the others have gold service contracts. I know about the GNU software CDs for Solaris 8, 9, and 10. A Sun person hand me boxed Solaris distribution sets, which include GNU licensed software, whenever a new release of Solaris comes out. I said nothing about Sun abandoning Solaris, I like Solaris (and it pays my salary). When I said that other Sys V distributors are abandoning Sys V -- I was referring mostly to HP and IBM, it is SCO that is suing it's Sys V customers. That said, Linux is becoming a serious threat to Solaris, especially on the low end. IBM has not ported some of it's application software to Solaris 10, which could be a problem for Sun.
It seems that Sun has decided that Linux is more of a threat to it than MS. Sun has competition in the server market from three places; other Sys 5 distributors, Windows, and Linux. Sun seems to have made it's peace with MS by entering settlements with them. The other major Sys 5 distributors are either moving to Linux, moving to Windows, or are suing their customers. This leaves Linux with it's GNU license as Sun's major threat. It is only logical that Sun use it's resources against it major threat, which is now Linux and the GPL. I wonder how long Sun will still support Open Office. I wonder how long Sun will still distribute GNU licensed software with Solaris.
Uh, no, I haven't ever used a dictionary attack. My mailing lists are managed using Majordomo and require opt-in. What does that have to do with this topic?
Yeah, GTA is pretty rough. Shows that parents have to be vigilant. Brings to mind the fact that a totally idiot couple can have a child, but one has to fill out an application and have a house inspection before one can get a dog from the dog pound (that could be scheduled to be gassed the next morning).
The part of the AUP that you are quoting only prohibits the sending of spam. The article is talking about "spam support" which includes other things, such as web site hosting.
From the article:
"MCI Worldcom's official position on the issue is that MCI can't stop their spam gangs selling proxy hijacking spamware from MCI's network as that would be 'censoring' the distribution and sale of illegal proxy hijacking software.
MCI is the only American, and indeed only Western network, where this spam support activity is "not against our policy". Spamhaus maintains that MCI's 'protected speech' excuses for servicing known spam gangs and proxy spamware distribution sites are dishonest and non-sensical in the face of the Internet's spam epidemic."
Spamming in the US is not illegal, sending spam illegally is illegal. Selling spamware IS illegal in Virginia and UUNet has a large presence in Virginia.
The Virginia law says:
18.2-152.4. Computer trespass; penalty.... B. It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to sell, give or otherwise distribute or possess with the intent to sell, give or distribute software which (i) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of facilitating or enabling the falsification of electronic mail transmission information or other routing information; (ii) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to facilitate or enable the falsification of electronic mail transmission information or other routing information; or (iii) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in facilitating or enabling the falsification of electronic mail transmission information or other routing information.
The real reason it is unenforcable is that the average 12 year old makes mommy buy it at the store for him anyway. She has no clue, "its just a game for heaven's sake."
How does a parent (over 18) buying a game and giving it to their kid in any way make the law unenforceable? There is no reason that mommy should not have a clue, the video game ratings are clearly shown on the game box. If mommy buys her kid an inappropriate game, then mommy is an idiot; this does not mean that the law in uneforceable.
ISPs shold not allow users with computers that are used to spam, or otherwise abuse the Internet, to remain connected to the Internet. It is up to the user to effectively secure his computer or to have somebody else secure his computer for him. Whether a user updates his software or uses a firewall properly doesn't matter at all, as long as the computer is effectively secured. It does not matter if the software maker produces insecure software, if the user choses to use insecure software or buys an insecure computer, the user is still responsible for the security of his computer. It does not matter if the user himself is knowingly causing the abuse or the user's computer is a zombie, the user is responsible for the abuse. The ISP should be held responsible for acting on abuse reports sent to abuse@isp and promptly disconnecting any user who has a computer that is abusing the Internet. If the abuse was caused by an insecure computer the ISP sould require that the user effectively remediate the problem and secure the computer before being reconnected.
No, I'm not joking. I suppose I could Google the names myself and find out why anybody would recognize them. Almost of the names are totally unknown to me. Of the few names that I do recognise, I do not believe that I could identify more than one or two of them in a photograph nor would I know the musicians by their music.
I guess that I am just not exposing myself to the same sorts of entertainment that you are exposed to.
During the 1980's, there seemed to have been quite a bit of confusion between the effects of greenhouse gasses and the effects of nuclear winter. Greenhouse gases were going to heat up the earth and nuclear winter effects were going to cool down the earth.
The theory of Nuclear Winter is about the effects of an all out nuclear war on the climate, not the effects of greenhouse gasses on climate -- two totally different things. The theory of Nuclear Winter was controversial and unwelcome by some segments of society because it made a nuclear war appear even less survivable.
Probably the biggest thing that caused the theory of Nuclear Winter to be confused with greenhouse gas climate change was that the effects of ancient wildfires on climate were used to support the Nuclear Winter theory. The effects on climate change between wildfires producing large amounts of particulates and internal combustion (or gas turbine) engines producing large amounts of C02 are quite different, but they can be confused.
1. sco
2. johnson & johnson
3. ing
4. ge aircraft engines
5. fleet
I mean, come on, how many people even know what product "ing" sells? Were the "fleet" queries looking for a loan or did they need a laxative? Somehow I just can't imagine a whole bunch of people doing queries for "ge aircraft engines".
Who ARE those people in the various Popular Men and Popular Women categories?
I recognise maybe three or four of the names in the categories that list the names of Men and Women; I recognise all of the entries in all of the other categories.
I agree with you about Firefox rending standards based HTML just fine. I was suggesting a possible tactical maneuver in the event that Firefox is unable to get a sufficient market penetration to cause all of the major websites to become standards compatible. Also, I wasn't including Active-X in the hypothetical compatibility model. I was only referring to the rendering portion of the browser being able to display broken MSIE HTML.
I wasn't including Active-X in a hypothetical compatibility model. I was referring to the rendering portion of the browser being able to display broken MSIE HTML.
This is a modified form of the game of "Chicken". It would be a good thing if Firefox waits and sees whether it needs to lower itself to the level of the broken websites. Firefox is currently gaining market share. If Firefox stops gaining market share before the majority of the important IE only websites get fixed, then it would be necessary to make Firefox work with non-compliant websites. If Firefox gains sufficient market share without pandering to broken (IE only) websites, then the broken websites will have a strong incentive to work with standards based browsers. If Firefox panders to the broken websites, then the broken websites will have no incentive to fix themselves to work with standards based browsers
In the US and most (all?) other areas, ISPs are not Common Carriers although they retain certain aspects Common Carriers. ISPs are quite free to "protect" their networks or "customize" their services as they see fit. ISPs have to walk a fine line with this, if an ISP can be shown to have too much control over the CONTENT of what is passed over their network, they may cause themselves to be liable for illegal acts that occur on their network. Terminating a user's service is not normally considered to be censorship. Any halfway clued ISP's contract will say that the ISP can terminate service for any reason, or for no reason at all.
This is a fishing expedition on SCO's part. They have no idea what IBM may have done wrong, they just want to look at IBM's shit to see if they can find something. There is no guilt or innocence in this case as it is a civil matter. According to SCO this case is not about a copyright violation, it is about a contract violation.
From all appearances, it seems that SCO is no longer trying to show that Linux contains any actual copied code. In the IBM case, SCO is desperately trying to find anything that might show that somebody from IBM provided code to the Linux kernel that was derived from Sys V code. This would would be a contract violation and not a copyright violation.
From the "certification" that was the centerpiece of the Daimler Chrysler suit and from statements made by SCO folks (such as Darl McBride), it appears to me that the SCO folks are trying to say that SCO owns Unix, and because Linux is actually a type of Unix, SCO believes that it also owns Linux. Yeah, I know that it sounds screwy; SCO is forgetting many things, such as it is not known which parts of Unix, if any, are actually owned by SCO.
I think that at first, SCO sued IBM in an attempt to get IBM to buy them out. Now that it is obvious that IBM would rather fight than buy, SCO is going on a giant fishing expedition. I believe that the magistrate and the judge in the case would rather indulge SCO during discovery so that SCO has less of a chance of appealing the case when they lose.
The website was tested to work with most releases of Firefox, Netscape, MSIE, and other browsers under Windows, Solaris, Linux, and OS-X. Some XP users have to install the Sun JRE. I only support the use of the site using Firefox, Netscape, and Camino; I would support Opera if it worked with our site. Opera just won't work with certain parts of our Java code. The servers run Solaris, use Sun Java, and the website code was optimised for use with Netscape.
I used to use Opera (I even paid for it) but have went to Firefox. The reason that I dropped Opera and went to Firefox was because Opera's JAVA implementation (with Sun Java) did not work properly with the web site that I administer for work. I really miss being able to automatically open the tabs that I had open when it was last shutdown (or crashed) and I cannot find a Firefox plugin that mimics this behavior.
According to the article, users are asked if they want to download a license; they are not asked if they want to install an executable. In any event, the normal MS user simply is conditioned to just press "YES" to get rid of the popup that is standing in their way of listening to the DRM'd crap.
Slashdot Mirror
For some reason all of the web maps have my office on the wrong corner of a major intersection; my offices is on the NE corner and the maps show that my office is on the SW corner.
I have been a Solaris Sys Admin for several years and I run several "big iron" Sun HA clusters. Several of the servers I maintain have Sun Platinum service contracts and all of the others have gold service contracts. I know about the GNU software CDs for Solaris 8, 9, and 10. A Sun person hand me boxed Solaris distribution sets, which include GNU licensed software, whenever a new release of Solaris comes out. I said nothing about Sun abandoning Solaris, I like Solaris (and it pays my salary). When I said that other Sys V distributors are abandoning Sys V -- I was referring mostly to HP and IBM, it is SCO that is suing it's Sys V customers. That said, Linux is becoming a serious threat to Solaris, especially on the low end. IBM has not ported some of it's application software to Solaris 10, which could be a problem for Sun.
It seems that Sun has decided that Linux is more of a threat to it than MS. Sun has competition in the server market from three places; other Sys 5 distributors, Windows, and Linux. Sun seems to have made it's peace with MS by entering settlements with them. The other major Sys 5 distributors are either moving to Linux, moving to Windows, or are suing their customers. This leaves Linux with it's GNU license as Sun's major threat. It is only logical that Sun use it's resources against it major threat, which is now Linux and the GPL. I wonder how long Sun will still support Open Office. I wonder how long Sun will still distribute GNU licensed software with Solaris.
Uh, no, I haven't ever used a dictionary attack. My mailing lists are managed using Majordomo and require opt-in. What does that have to do with this topic?
Yeah, GTA is pretty rough. Shows that parents have to be vigilant. Brings to mind the fact that a totally idiot couple can have a child, but one has to fill out an application and have a house inspection before one can get a dog from the dog pound (that could be scheduled to be gassed the next morning).
The part of the AUP that you are quoting only prohibits the sending of spam. The article is talking about "spam support" which includes other things, such as web site hosting.
From the article:
"MCI Worldcom's official position on the issue is that MCI can't stop their spam gangs selling proxy hijacking spamware from MCI's network as that would be 'censoring' the distribution and sale of illegal proxy hijacking software.
MCI is the only American, and indeed only Western network, where this spam support activity is "not against our policy". Spamhaus maintains that MCI's 'protected speech' excuses for servicing known spam gangs and proxy spamware distribution sites are dishonest and non-sensical in the face of the Internet's spam epidemic."
Spamming in the US is not illegal, sending spam illegally is illegal. Selling spamware IS illegal in Virginia and UUNet has a large presence in Virginia.
... B. It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to sell, give or otherwise distribute or possess with the intent to sell, give or distribute software which (i) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of facilitating or enabling the falsification of electronic mail transmission information or other routing information; (ii) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to facilitate or enable the falsification of electronic mail transmission information or other routing information; or (iii) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in facilitating or enabling the falsification of electronic mail transmission information or other routing information.
The Virginia law says:
18.2-152.4. Computer trespass; penalty.
The real reason it is unenforcable is that the average 12 year old makes mommy buy it at the store for him anyway. She has no clue, "its just a game for heaven's sake."
How does a parent (over 18) buying a game and giving it to their kid in any way make the law unenforceable? There is no reason that mommy should not have a clue, the video game ratings are clearly shown on the game box. If mommy buys her kid an inappropriate game, then mommy is an idiot; this does not mean that the law in uneforceable.
ISPs shold not allow users with computers that are used to spam, or otherwise abuse the Internet, to remain connected to the Internet. It is up to the user to effectively secure his computer or to have somebody else secure his computer for him. Whether a user updates his software or uses a firewall properly doesn't matter at all, as long as the computer is effectively secured. It does not matter if the software maker produces insecure software, if the user choses to use insecure software or buys an insecure computer, the user is still responsible for the security of his computer. It does not matter if the user himself is knowingly causing the abuse or the user's computer is a zombie, the user is responsible for the abuse. The ISP should be held responsible for acting on abuse reports sent to abuse@isp and promptly disconnecting any user who has a computer that is abusing the Internet. If the abuse was caused by an insecure computer the ISP sould require that the user effectively remediate the problem and secure the computer before being reconnected.
No, I'm not joking. I suppose I could Google the names myself and find out why anybody would recognize them. Almost of the names are totally unknown to me. Of the few names that I do recognise, I do not believe that I could identify more than one or two of them in a photograph nor would I know the musicians by their music.
I guess that I am just not exposing myself to the same sorts of entertainment that you are exposed to.
During the 1980's, there seemed to have been quite a bit of confusion between the effects of greenhouse gasses and the effects of nuclear winter. Greenhouse gases were going to heat up the earth and nuclear winter effects were going to cool down the earth.
The theory of Nuclear Winter is about the effects of an all out nuclear war on the climate, not the effects of greenhouse gasses on climate -- two totally different things. The theory of Nuclear Winter was controversial and unwelcome by some segments of society because it made a nuclear war appear even less survivable.
Probably the biggest thing that caused the theory of Nuclear Winter to be confused with greenhouse gas climate change was that the effects of ancient wildfires on climate were used to support the Nuclear Winter theory. The effects on climate change between wildfires producing large amounts of particulates and internal combustion (or gas turbine) engines producing large amounts of C02 are quite different, but they can be confused.
SCO is in odd company for Top Company Queries
1. sco
2. johnson & johnson
3. ing
4. ge aircraft engines
5. fleet
I mean, come on, how many people even know what product "ing" sells? Were the "fleet" queries looking for a loan or did they need a laxative? Somehow I just can't imagine a whole bunch of people doing queries for "ge aircraft engines".
Who ARE those people in the various Popular Men and Popular Women categories?
I recognise maybe three or four of the names in the categories that list the names of Men and Women; I recognise all of the entries in all of the other categories.
I agree with you about Firefox rending standards based HTML just fine. I was suggesting a possible tactical maneuver in the event that Firefox is unable to get a sufficient market penetration to cause all of the major websites to become standards compatible. Also, I wasn't including Active-X in the hypothetical compatibility model. I was only referring to the rendering portion of the browser being able to display broken MSIE HTML.
I wasn't including Active-X in a hypothetical compatibility model. I was referring to the rendering portion of the browser being able to display broken MSIE HTML.
This is a modified form of the game of "Chicken". It would be a good thing if Firefox waits and sees whether it needs to lower itself to the level of the broken websites. Firefox is currently gaining market share. If Firefox stops gaining market share before the majority of the important IE only websites get fixed, then it would be necessary to make Firefox work with non-compliant websites. If Firefox gains sufficient market share without pandering to broken (IE only) websites, then the broken websites will have a strong incentive to work with standards based browsers. If Firefox panders to the broken websites, then the broken websites will have no incentive to fix themselves to work with standards based browsers
In the US and most (all?) other areas, ISPs are not Common Carriers although they retain certain aspects Common Carriers. ISPs are quite free to "protect" their networks or "customize" their services as they see fit. ISPs have to walk a fine line with this, if an ISP can be shown to have too much control over the CONTENT of what is passed over their network, they may cause themselves to be liable for illegal acts that occur on their network. Terminating a user's service is not normally considered to be censorship. Any halfway clued ISP's contract will say that the ISP can terminate service for any reason, or for no reason at all.
Moderation -1 100% Bullshit My bullshit detector just went off the scale.
I find it a bit freaky to have a television that can display pictures from Sony Memory Sticks.
This is a fishing expedition on SCO's part. They have no idea what IBM may have done wrong, they just want to look at IBM's shit to see if they can find something. There is no guilt or innocence in this case as it is a civil matter. According to SCO this case is not about a copyright violation, it is about a contract violation.
From all appearances, it seems that SCO is no longer trying to show that Linux contains any actual copied code. In the IBM case, SCO is desperately trying to find anything that might show that somebody from IBM provided code to the Linux kernel that was derived from Sys V code. This would would be a contract violation and not a copyright violation.
From the "certification" that was the centerpiece of the Daimler Chrysler suit and from statements made by SCO folks (such as Darl McBride), it appears to me that the SCO folks are trying to say that SCO owns Unix, and because Linux is actually a type of Unix, SCO believes that it also owns Linux. Yeah, I know that it sounds screwy; SCO is forgetting many things, such as it is not known which parts of Unix, if any, are actually owned by SCO.
I think that at first, SCO sued IBM in an attempt to get IBM to buy them out. Now that it is obvious that IBM would rather fight than buy, SCO is going on a giant fishing expedition. I believe that the magistrate and the judge in the case would rather indulge SCO during discovery so that SCO has less of a chance of appealing the case when they lose.
Which mirrors have IBM's Dynix and AIX source code on them?
The website was tested to work with most releases of Firefox, Netscape, MSIE, and other browsers under Windows, Solaris, Linux, and OS-X. Some XP users have to install the Sun JRE. I only support the use of the site using Firefox, Netscape, and Camino; I would support Opera if it worked with our site. Opera just won't work with certain parts of our Java code. The servers run Solaris, use Sun Java, and the website code was optimised for use with Netscape.
I used to use Opera (I even paid for it) but have went to Firefox. The reason that I dropped Opera and went to Firefox was because Opera's JAVA implementation (with Sun Java) did not work properly with the web site that I administer for work. I really miss being able to automatically open the tabs that I had open when it was last shutdown (or crashed) and I cannot find a Firefox plugin that mimics this behavior.
According to the article, users are asked if they want to download a license; they are not asked if they want to install an executable. In any event, the normal MS user simply is conditioned to just press "YES" to get rid of the popup that is standing in their way of listening to the DRM'd crap.
With MacGyver it must always be assumed that he had a Swiss Army knife, although a Goa'uld Staff weapon would probably open the vault faster.