I fractured my spine on a speed boat (don't ask) which caused an odd pain in my stomach. The doc in a box that examined and xrayed me told me that back injuries commonly cause phantom stomach pain like I was experiencing.
It is an interesting story and an illustration of how difficult it can be to get some illnesses diagnosed and properly treated. It sounds like the infection has spread pretty far. It also sounds like he has been seeing doctors and doing what he was told are the right things (although way too many doctors didn't get the right diagnosis and self medicating on Cipro may not have been a good idea). As long as he is in Fargo, he may want to consider going to Rochester, MN. I understand that the Mayo clinic has some great infectious disease specialists. I wish him the best of luck and a complete recovery.
Somehow I have a very difficult time comparing the harm, destruction, and misfortune caused by a force of nature, to the evil done by people hiding behind the masks of corporations, churches, and governments.
I have sys admin'ed a network of over 250 servers, mostly Solaris, with some FreeBSD and a few Linux servers for about 6 years and have worked with AT&T Unix servers for about 20 years (I used to work for AT&T). I did not say that hostnames were not useful, functional names are very useful for identifying servers, I said that cutesy hostnames are silly. Random character hostnames are totally useless as you have pointed out. On a small home network, using names such as you have used are reasoaanble, names are just not important except as an identifier. I use names like cormail, denftp, etc. My car example means that I believe that naming cars with cutesy names like "Old Blue" or Susie Q" is silly.
Using cutesy hostnames is about as useful as naming a car. I am afraid that I don't get why you named your router "BEASTIE". I use descriptive hostnames that I can remember, I also never use cap letters and try to make them no more than 6 characters. My cars are known by their color, year, or model, and my kids are known as #1, #2, and #2.5.
I agree that a corporation can be sucessful and not be evil. How can you say that MS is ruthless (without mercy or pity) and also say that it is not evil (that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune)?
"In 1961, a 12,000-foot well was drilled at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, northeast of Denver, for disposing of waste fluids from Arsenal operations. Injection was commenced March 1962, and an unusual series of earthquakes erupted in the area shortly after."
I have noticed that some network prime time shows are now being rebroadcast in the wee hours of the morning. This is a Very Good Thing for timeshifters.
This could be a Good thing. Companies can lose trademarks if they become part of common language. The Linoleum trademark was lost this way and Kleenex almost lost their trademark. An interesting situation is that in Canada, the name "Aspirin" is a tradmark and the common name is "ASA". In the US, the name "ASA" is a tradmark and the common name is "aspirin". I wonder if the trademark "Fridgidaire" could have been lost because at one time everybody was calling a refrigerator (reguardless of it's maker) a "frigidaire".
The time when EULAs didn't suck was before the UCITA being adopted by most US states. The UCITA makes EULAs enforceable, as long as they are are not unreasonable. Any condition that a court finds unreasonable would only invalides the unreasonable condition, it does not invalidate the rest of the EULA. I doubt that a court would find that a clause allowing this sort of spyware to be considered unreasonable. The butthead clause may not meet the reasonableness requirement, in which case the butthead clause would be considered unenforceable and the rest of the EULA would remain in effect. And guess how much money it would cost to get the butthead clause to be judged unreasonable by a court.
I do not normally read EULA's as they suck. Who said that EULA's were easy to read and fair? It is very likely that the EULA for the printer driver allows the vendor to install spyware. Making sure that crap like spyware clauses is included in the EULA is the job of that creep in a suit. There may be some questions about the enforceability of certain portions of EULAs, however most US states have adopted the 2000 Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) which specifically says that EULAs are enforceable. A clause that says that you give your kids up for experimentation may be one of the things that may be unenforceable. With the current elected officials in the US it is hard to say what would be unenforceable. It is likely that courts would uphold the legality of this particular type of spyware as long as the EULA informed the user that it may be installed.
Somehow I don't believe that Lexmark would install this spyware without having the EULA cover it. This may be another example of people just hitting "AGREE" (effectively signing) without actually reading the EULA (a legally binding agrement). Stupid laws? Stupid people? Both? You decide.
When will websites start writing code that works with standards based browsers and stop writing code to work only with MSIE? If it breaks MSIE, so much the better.
If Novell claims to own UNIX, then The Open Group could sue Novell for slander of title -- and The Open Group would probably win. The Open Group owns the UNIX trademark. I am a bit perplexed why The Open Group has been silent concerning SCO's claims to own UNIX.
Much of the copyright to UNIX code was never owned by Novell or SCO. The copyrights to the majority of UNIX code is either owned by other parties (e.g.; BSD, IBM, Sun, HP, many others) and/or has been released to the public domain (e.g., "ancient UNIX"). Even IF Novell has transferred all UNIX code copyrights to SCO, the only Sys V copyrights that SCO would own would be for PORTIONS of the code in UNIX System V.
I don't believe that here is any dispute that new SCO owns copyrights related to the old SCO UNIX (except perhaps as related to Sys V code within old SCO UNIX) and for code that it has written itself.
Novell has been saying all along that they believe that they own the copyright on Unix Sys V code. When Novell wins the case, there are two possible court cases involving SCO and Novell that could occur; 1. Novell could turn around and sue SCO for slander of title (if Novell has letters with SCO asking for Novell to sign the copyrights over to SCO, it would likely be a slam dunk for Novell to win); or, 2. SCO or Novell could ask a court to determine ownership of the Unix Sys V code (which really should be done).
I agree that spammers should be fined, made to pay restitution, and bankrupted.
I must disagree with you on some of your other points.
File trading is perfectly legal and certain groups, such as the RIAA, are trying to infer that any music trading (or possibly any other p2p file trading) is illegal. The tactics of these groups should be called into question.
Uncapping of modems is a civil matter, fines are inappropriate in civil matters.
Wardriving is not illegal.
The sending of unsolicited email is not necessarily illegal in the US, I believe that spammers are actually being busted for fraud, not for spamming.
Ringing a door bell is a port scan, not spamming. Ringing the doorbell and making it difficult for anybody else ring to the doorbell is a denial of service attack.
Port scans and the ringing of doorbells are legal. Spamming, denial of service attacks, and not letting anybody else ring the doorbell are illegal.
Another of those 'it must be crap because it's free' people. There are things that MS Office can do that Open Office cannot do and GIMP is not a drop-in replacement for Photoshop. If OO office or GIMP will not meet a person's needs, of course they will need to choose another product; it is not a matter of whether a product is "free" or commercial, it is a matter of needed functionality. Just because a particular piece of software is "free" does not mean that it is not useful.
You must also be one of those folks who prefers to run IIS or Netscape/iPlanet (or whatever it's called now) just because they are "commercial" products rather than running Apache, which is "free".
According to CNET Asia http://asia.cnet.com/news/software/0,39037051,3919 4057,00.htm
"Symantec's Norton AntiVirus product has blacklisted a piece of software which enables users in China to access websites which are blocked by order of the government."
"According to a report in the Financial Times, the firm has said the program, called Freegate, should be considered a Trojan horse. "
If a company or organization gives the right people enough money, the US government will create any law or "standard" made to order. First there were bespoke shirts and suits, now we have bespoke US laws and "standards". I wonder how much it would cost Microsoft to get the US Government to make a law declaring MS Windows as the "standard" OS?
Of course, there would be some question as to whether other countries would adopt these imposed "standards" and whether these "standards" could even be enforced in the US.
Another perfect Christmas gift would be a copy of the magazine; which includes the CD and an excellent article explaining the licensing. That issue also includes a companion article regarding Open Source in Brazil.
There is nothing at all illegal about pay per play, as long as the pay part is disclosed or obvious to listeners. There have been artists who have legally paid to have their music broadcast, it just has to be disclosed or obvious. The payola laws are not limited to radio, it includes TV also. Did you ever wonder why game shows show a list of companies that have paid commercial consideration or why anybody would care who provided a game show host's crappy suit? Some of the TV shows in the '70's even said who provided the cars used on the show. Those disclosures are to comply with the payola laws. See http://www.vocalist.org.uk/airplay101_payola2.html
Slashdot Mirror
I fractured my spine on a speed boat (don't ask) which caused an odd pain in my stomach. The doc in a box that examined and xrayed me told me that back injuries commonly cause phantom stomach pain like I was experiencing.
It is an interesting story and an illustration of how difficult it can be to get some illnesses diagnosed and properly treated. It sounds like the infection has spread pretty far. It also sounds like he has been seeing doctors and doing what he was told are the right things (although way too many doctors didn't get the right diagnosis and self medicating on Cipro may not have been a good idea). As long as he is in Fargo, he may want to consider going to Rochester, MN. I understand that the Mayo clinic has some great infectious disease specialists. I wish him the best of luck and a complete recovery.
Somehow I have a very difficult time comparing the harm, destruction, and misfortune caused by a force of nature, to the evil done by people hiding behind the masks of corporations, churches, and governments.
I have sys admin'ed a network of over 250 servers, mostly Solaris, with some FreeBSD and a few Linux servers for about 6 years and have worked with AT&T Unix servers for about 20 years (I used to work for AT&T). I did not say that hostnames were not useful, functional names are very useful for identifying servers, I said that cutesy hostnames are silly. Random character hostnames are totally useless as you have pointed out. On a small home network, using names such as you have used are reasoaanble, names are just not important except as an identifier. I use names like cormail, denftp, etc. My car example means that I believe that naming cars with cutesy names like "Old Blue" or Susie Q" is silly.
Using cutesy hostnames is about as useful as naming a car. I am afraid that I don't get why you named your router "BEASTIE". I use descriptive hostnames that I can remember, I also never use cap letters and try to make them no more than 6 characters. My cars are known by their color, year, or model, and my kids are known as #1, #2, and #2.5.
I agree that a corporation can be sucessful and not be evil. How can you say that MS is ruthless (without mercy or pity) and also say that it is not evil (that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune)?
http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/states/colorado/colorado _history.html
"In 1961, a 12,000-foot well was drilled at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, northeast of Denver, for disposing of waste fluids from Arsenal operations. Injection was commenced March 1962, and an unusual series of earthquakes erupted in the area shortly after."
It seems to be pretty common for promo tshirts to be X-Large shirts marked "One Size Fits All". Those one-size promo shirts fit me just fine.
I have noticed that some network prime time shows are now being rebroadcast in the wee hours of the morning. This is a Very Good Thing for timeshifters.
This could be a Good thing. Companies can lose trademarks if they become part of common language. The Linoleum trademark was lost this way and Kleenex almost lost their trademark. An interesting situation is that in Canada, the name "Aspirin" is a tradmark and the common name is "ASA". In the US, the name "ASA" is a tradmark and the common name is "aspirin". I wonder if the trademark "Fridgidaire" could have been lost because at one time everybody was calling a refrigerator (reguardless of it's maker) a "frigidaire".
The time when EULAs didn't suck was before the UCITA being adopted by most US states. The UCITA makes EULAs enforceable, as long as they are are not unreasonable. Any condition that a court finds unreasonable would only invalides the unreasonable condition, it does not invalidate the rest of the EULA. I doubt that a court would find that a clause allowing this sort of spyware to be considered unreasonable. The butthead clause may not meet the reasonableness requirement, in which case the butthead clause would be considered unenforceable and the rest of the EULA would remain in effect. And guess how much money it would cost to get the butthead clause to be judged unreasonable by a court.
I do not normally read EULA's as they suck. Who said that EULA's were easy to read and fair? It is very likely that the EULA for the printer driver allows the vendor to install spyware. Making sure that crap like spyware clauses is included in the EULA is the job of that creep in a suit. There may be some questions about the enforceability of certain portions of EULAs, however most US states have adopted the 2000 Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) which specifically says that EULAs are enforceable. A clause that says that you give your kids up for experimentation may be one of the things that may be unenforceable. With the current elected officials in the US it is hard to say what would be unenforceable. It is likely that courts would uphold the legality of this particular type of spyware as long as the EULA informed the user that it may be installed.
Somehow I don't believe that Lexmark would install this spyware without having the EULA cover it. This may be another example of people just hitting "AGREE" (effectively signing) without actually reading the EULA (a legally binding agrement). Stupid laws? Stupid people? Both? You decide.
When will websites start writing code that works with standards based browsers and stop writing code to work only with MSIE? If it breaks MSIE, so much the better.
If Novell claims to own UNIX, then The Open Group could sue Novell for slander of title -- and The Open Group would probably win. The Open Group owns the UNIX trademark. I am a bit perplexed why The Open Group has been silent concerning SCO's claims to own UNIX.
Much of the copyright to UNIX code was never owned by Novell or SCO. The copyrights to the majority of UNIX code is either owned by other parties (e.g.; BSD, IBM, Sun, HP, many others) and/or has been released to the public domain (e.g., "ancient UNIX"). Even IF Novell has transferred all UNIX code copyrights to SCO, the only Sys V copyrights that SCO would own would be for PORTIONS of the code in UNIX System V.
I don't believe that here is any dispute that new SCO owns copyrights related to the old SCO UNIX (except perhaps as related to Sys V code within old SCO UNIX) and for code that it has written itself.
Novell has been saying all along that they believe that they own the copyright on Unix Sys V code. When Novell wins the case, there are two possible court cases involving SCO and Novell that could occur; 1. Novell could turn around and sue SCO for slander of title (if Novell has letters with SCO asking for Novell to sign the copyrights over to SCO, it would likely be a slam dunk for Novell to win); or, 2. SCO or Novell could ask a court to determine ownership of the Unix Sys V code (which really should be done).
This reply is US centric:
I agree that spammers should be fined, made to pay restitution, and bankrupted.
I must disagree with you on some of your other points.
File trading is perfectly legal and certain groups, such as the RIAA, are trying to infer that any music trading (or possibly any other p2p file trading) is illegal. The tactics of these groups should be called into question.
Uncapping of modems is a civil matter, fines are inappropriate in civil matters.
Wardriving is not illegal.
The sending of unsolicited email is not necessarily illegal in the US, I believe that spammers are actually being busted for fraud, not for spamming.
Ringing a door bell is a port scan, not spamming. Ringing the doorbell and making it difficult for anybody else ring to the doorbell is a denial of service attack. Port scans and the ringing of doorbells are legal. Spamming, denial of service attacks, and not letting anybody else ring the doorbell are illegal.
Another of those 'it must be crap because it's free' people. There are things that MS Office can do that Open Office cannot do and GIMP is not a drop-in replacement for Photoshop. If OO office or GIMP will not meet a person's needs, of course they will need to choose another product; it is not a matter of whether a product is "free" or commercial, it is a matter of needed functionality. Just because a particular piece of software is "free" does not mean that it is not useful.
You must also be one of those folks who prefers to run IIS or Netscape/iPlanet (or whatever it's called now) just because they are "commercial" products rather than running Apache, which is "free".
According to CNET Asia http://asia.cnet.com/news/software/0,39037051,3919 4057,00.htm
"Symantec's Norton AntiVirus product has blacklisted a piece of software which enables users in China to access websites which are blocked by order of the government."
"According to a report in the Financial Times, the firm has said the program, called Freegate, should be considered a Trojan horse. "
If a company or organization gives the right people enough money, the US government will create any law or "standard" made to order. First there were bespoke shirts and suits, now we have bespoke US laws and "standards". I wonder how much it would cost Microsoft to get the US Government to make a law declaring MS Windows as the "standard" OS?
Of course, there would be some question as to whether other countries would adopt these imposed "standards" and whether these "standards" could even be enforced in the US.
Another perfect Christmas gift would be a copy of the magazine; which includes the CD and an excellent article explaining the licensing. That issue also includes a companion article regarding Open Source in Brazil.
That's because it is astroturfing.
XM and Sirius both charge per receiver:
XM
first receiver: $10 / month
each additional receiver: $7 (2nd - 5th receiver)
Sirius
first receiver: $13 / month
each additional receiver: $7 (2nd - 4th receiver)
Both have discounted multiyear subscriptions.
Sirius has a product lifetime subscription available for about $500.
Hmmm, TiVo's product lifetime subscription is only $300.
There is nothing at all illegal about pay per play, as long as the pay part is disclosed or obvious to listeners. There have been artists who have legally paid to have their music broadcast, it just has to be disclosed or obvious. The payola laws are not limited to radio, it includes TV also. Did you ever wonder why game shows show a list of companies that have paid commercial consideration or why anybody would care who provided a game show host's crappy suit? Some of the TV shows in the '70's even said who provided the cars used on the show. Those disclosures are to comply with the payola laws. See http://www.vocalist.org.uk/airplay101_payola2.html
Governments meddle all the time. These laws are the result of some scandals that occured in the 1950's. One discussion is at http://www.history-of-rock.com/payola.htm/