Solaris containers are slightly upgraded BSD jails, which are essentially a extension to chroot.
BSD has had them for a long time. I know that some linux distributions can do jails as well. For example, SLES 9 does jails. Sun's containers are essentially BSD jails plus some additional namespace splitting and a really great marketing push. I used to use a hosting company that used BSD jails to separate their virtual servers on shared systems back in 2000 or so.
You can get CDs with only hundreds, rather than thousands, of dollars. I have one that I started with $800. If you want a risk-free way to make a little on some money you know you won't need for a while, CDs are a good choice. You won't make a lot, but it's better than a savings account.
You still don't understand proxy bidding. The parent did an excellent job explaining it. Reread the parent and think about how your contention, particularly the section emphasized, does not make sense.
No. The kid in the story doesn't understand proxy bidding. That's the point. Sniping allows people who understand the system to win auctions at a lower price, since it bypasses those who don't understand the system.
Be glad that you learned something today and stop arguing the same point. The entire point of this article is that a study shows that sniping works best.
I block brute force password attacks on my home system by having a process monitor the sshd logs so that if a host fails to authenticate five times, its IP is added to my firewall's deny list. The attacker then gets to see his future connections time out. I do this rather than reject the connection outright to slow the attacker down. It's fun to think of the attacking system hanging on a partially open socket until it times out. Simply rejecting the connection would be too kind.
Could this setup be used for a joejob? Yeah, particularly since two hosts behind the same NAT system look the same to me. The risk is low though and doesn't matter since I have physical access to the box and nobody else does.
Mind telling me where DRM or even copyright is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
The landlord passes it through as part of your rent
Yep. The government chargers property taxes to the property owner. If the government directly charges businesses property taxes on software they buy, then they are recognizing that those businesses own that software. Compare this to how most software companies view software ownership.
See, the part of this I find interesting is not the direct economic impact of businesses having to pay more taxes (indirectly or not). The aspect that interest me is that the person who the government holds accountable for paying the property taxes must be the owner of the property. Tennessee is about to settle the question of software ownership. Taxes can be passed and repealed. The ownership question, once determined, has much further reaching consequences.
Think of your own example. The landlord passes it on to you as part of the cost. If we take a look at software, that would mean that the software owner would pay the tax and pass it on in form of increased price. If it's not your property, how can you pay property tax on it?
Power screwstrippers should be outlawed for use on PCs.
Adjustable torque power screwdrivers are a must if you're going to be handling any decent volume. At the lowest torque setting, you'll have a hard time getting the screws tight, much less stripping them. You'd be more likely to strip the screws by hand. The amount of time you'll save using one is substantial -- particularly if the reverse switch is easy to operate one-handed. These tools will also cut down on discomfort that can occur from operating a manual screwdriver all day.
Buying the package containing commercial software does not give you unlimited rights to use the software It does unless otherwise stated before purchasing the software. Most commercial software has the use restrictions printed on the box. Those restrictions are there for a reason. They describe the ways in which your rights will be limited if you agree to them. If you needed a license to use software in the default case, then the restrictions would not have to be printed there, instead there would be wording granting you additional rights (such as the right to use the software).
If obtaining the specific software you want was not conditional upon an agreement, then you have the right to modify it as you see fit.
Buying a video in the store does not give you broadcast rights; buying a book in the store does not give you republication or translation rights; buying a computer does not give you a right to reproduce the firmware or circuits inside. Those are all cases of duplication. The first two acts are prevented by copyright, the final by patent law.
Having a gas or electric meter installed in your house does not give you the right to bypass it to get unlimited gas or electricity. Believe it or not, laws limit what you are allowed to do in the privacy of your home with your own property. I don't think you technically own that hardware. Even if you did, you would be prevented from modifying it by your service agreement with the utility.
None of your examples have actually contradicted anything I've said in this thread. This thread started out discussing the right of a computer owner to modify files on his or her own computer (see subject). I still hold that, barring any contractual agreement to the contrary, I have a right to modify files on my computer as I see fit. That right does not extend to duplication or redistribution, because that is prevented by copyright and or patent law.
It does not appear that you actually read the rest of my post. I recommend that you do so. I will reiterate some of the most important points here:
You do not have to agree to a license agreement in order to use software on your computer. If you bought the software you can use it as you see fit. You may not make illegal copies of it, but you can run it or modify it if you so choose.
If I buy a book, I can scribble in the pages, cross the author's name out, or use it to paper my walls. No terms written inside the book can prevent me from doing so. Terms agreed to before the purchase of the book might, but not terms within the book itself, because I can choose to reject those terms or even not to read them.
This is actually why the GPL works, by the way. Normally you don't have the right to copy software, but it will grant you that right in exchange for certain promises. EULAs, on the other hand, generally don't grant you any rights that you don't already have. Their only (still dubious in my mind) enforceability comes from their click-through nature. This would be different if acceptance of the EULA was required to obtain the software.
Let me repeat: If I have some code on my computer that I have legally obtained and I have not entered into a binding agreement restricting my rights, I may execute that code.
So, all in all, you are trying to play a game of chess with the law and you only know the rules to checkers. Please don't make public statements if you don't know what you are talking about. The law is simple. Its every idiot trying to stand as close to the line as possible that fuck it up for everyone else. I'm speaking hypothetically. As I said, I don't actually do these things, but I am certain that I have the right to do them.
We're going way off topic here, but I think this issue bears discussion.
Editing a binary to remove the EULA by no means frees you from the terms of the license. If I have not seen the license and have not agreed to it, I am not bound by its terms. If I have removed the capability of the program to show me the license (without ever having agreed to its terms), I cannot be bound by that license. (Please remember that this is a theoretical discussion, I am a software engineer and I pay for software that I use out of respect for my fellows.)
The rights granted by the license which is expressed by the EULA are not offered to you under other licensing terms. There is nothing restricting my right to execute a program on my computer by default. Duplicating the program would require a license under copyright law, but executing it does not. In order to even see the EULA of many applications, you must first run the application itself. There is no doubt that that initial execution is entirely within my rights. I see no reason why a second execution should somehow suddenly be illegal if I have not entered into a contract barring me from performing that act.
In any contract, you can't arbitrarily scribble out sections you don't like, sign it, and expect your modified terms to apply without the express agreement of the other party. The two parties have to agree to substantially the same terms in order to have a contractual agreement. Without that agreeement, the software publisher doesn't grant you the right to install or use the software. First off, by eliminating the EULA before reading it, I have not agreed to any contract.
Secondly, how well do you think renegotiation of an EULA would be accepted by the software publisher? Would they actually be willing to make a deal with a single individual?
Thirdly, there is much debate over whether EULAs are really enforceable contracts. Contacts are required to provide something in exchange for your agreement. Most EULAs simply attempt to restrict your rights without providing consideration and are therefor unenforceable. Another problem with enforcing EULAs is that the End User may not be the one who agreed to it! Consider the case of applications on a shared computer or software installed for you by a third party such as a computer service technician.
This, however, doesn't give one the right to take the app and 'remix' it into an ad-free version...
It's my computer. Assuming I haven't agreed to a binding contract not to do so, I can edit any file on it in whatever manner I choose. If I edit out the bit of code that displays the ad, I am totally within my rights.
Before you tell me that I needed to agree to an EULA to use the app, consider that I can edit the file before executing it. I can remove the EULA and any advertisement code and still be 100% within my rights.
This is not to say that I do this. If I want software, I pay for it. However, I take offense at your declaration that I do not have the right to edit files on my own computer if I choose to do so.
Everybody who wants to view the source of a (L)GPL-derived project that is 'commercialized (sold, traded etc), has the right to view the changed sources. So it's not only the buyers who have the right to view the source.
You are mistaken. The provision for making source available applies only to people to whom you have distributed binaries. It says so right here:
4. You may copy and distribute the Library (or a portion or derivative of it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange.
If distribution of object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place satisfies the requirement to distribute the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
Locate is not just for Linux. It's pretty portable. I use it on my macs.
If you want to know why spotlight will be cool, try the search feature in iTunes. Once you've experienced that, you'll see why this feature will be useful when it can be applied to files.
Grouping windows by application solves a subset of the problem solved by virtual desktops.
Lets say I'm developing three different projects at once. It would be really nice to show the editor, terminal, preview, etc. for each one quickly. In other words, I want three virtual desktops each with several open windows from a various applications.
Only on Slashdot would Mozilla not supporting a web standard be considered a benefit.
The Web is supposed to be platform agnostic. Any technology that runs on only one platform cannot be a web standard.
Mozilla supports web standards. Not supporting ActiveX is part of supporting web standards. This is particularly true if you consider that support can also be defined as: To keep from weakening or failing; strengthen. By avoiding proprietary, single-platform technologies, Mozilla is making web standards stronger.
Ignoring it and hoping it goes away is not the right answer, either
It is for me. I use Macs and Linux. If someone wants to make money from me through my web browser, they had damned well better do it using technology I can use. I won't be your customer unless you support my platforms of choice.
I used to be a web developer. If one of our clients wanted some fancy single-platform buzzword technology just because they thought it was cool, we'd ask them if they'd rather be "cool" or reach 5% more customers. Guess which one they all chose?
If the X% of people use Mozilla, then that's all the more incentive to develop sites that work in Mozilla. I do not want anything to remove that benefit.
Now why would trade secrets be protected so extensively when journalists are free to publish governments secrets
In a democracy, citizens have a recognized right to know what their government is doing. Why would this extend to design details of products developed by a corporation of which you are not a significant owner? Should journalists be free to publish video from inside your house that was obtained illegally by your plumber?
Look, I'm all for more corporate reform. I've done work for organizations that want to limit corporate power and have written an article on the subject. However, confusing the rights of citizens to access government information with access to trade secrets just doesn't make any sense. It sounds like the argument that trade secret disclosure should be protected just like whistle blowing, even when the secrets are not causing harm to anyone.
Slashdot Mirror
Solaris containers are slightly upgraded BSD jails, which are essentially a extension to chroot.
a rch-handbook/jail.html
BSD has had them for a long time. I know that some linux distributions can do jails as well. For example, SLES 9 does jails. Sun's containers are essentially BSD jails plus some additional namespace splitting and a really great marketing push. I used to use a hosting company that used BSD jails to separate their virtual servers on shared systems back in 2000 or so.
More about jails:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/
You can get CDs with only hundreds, rather than thousands, of dollars. I have one that I started with $800. If you want a risk-free way to make a little on some money you know you won't need for a while, CDs are a good choice. You won't make a lot, but it's better than a savings account.
No. The kid in the story doesn't understand proxy bidding. That's the point. Sniping allows people who understand the system to win auctions at a lower price, since it bypasses those who don't understand the system.
Be glad that you learned something today and stop arguing the same point. The entire point of this article is that a study shows that sniping works best.
I block brute force password attacks on my home system by having a process monitor the sshd logs so that if a host fails to authenticate five times, its IP is added to my firewall's deny list. The attacker then gets to see his future connections time out. I do this rather than reject the connection outright to slow the attacker down. It's fun to think of the attacking system hanging on a partially open socket until it times out. Simply rejecting the connection would be too kind.
Could this setup be used for a joejob? Yeah, particularly since two hosts behind the same NAT system look the same to me. The risk is low though and doesn't matter since I have physical access to the box and nobody else does.
Well, the only FPS I play is Doom II. I must not count.
EV still exists and is still a lot of fun. The latest version runs on Windows as well as OS 9 and OS X.
Mind telling me where DRM or even copyright is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
The landlord passes it through as part of your rent
Yep. The government chargers property taxes to the property owner. If the government directly charges businesses property taxes on software they buy, then they are recognizing that those businesses own that software. Compare this to how most software companies view software ownership.
See, the part of this I find interesting is not the direct economic impact of businesses having to pay more taxes (indirectly or not). The aspect that interest me is that the person who the government holds accountable for paying the property taxes must be the owner of the property. Tennessee is about to settle the question of software ownership. Taxes can be passed and repealed. The ownership question, once determined, has much further reaching consequences.
Think of your own example. The landlord passes it on to you as part of the cost. If we take a look at software, that would mean that the software owner would pay the tax and pass it on in form of increased price. If it's not your property, how can you pay property tax on it?
When you lease your home, you don't pay property tax on it.
Oooh. Buzzword compliance is the first thing I look for in photo management software.
POST = Power On Self Test
A POST card translates those damned power-on beeps into English.
Power screwstrippers should be outlawed for use on PCs.
Adjustable torque power screwdrivers are a must if you're going to be handling any decent volume. At the lowest torque setting, you'll have a hard time getting the screws tight, much less stripping them. You'd be more likely to strip the screws by hand. The amount of time you'll save using one is substantial -- particularly if the reverse switch is easy to operate one-handed. These tools will also cut down on discomfort that can occur from operating a manual screwdriver all day.
RISC is good
Buying the package containing commercial software does not give you unlimited rights to use the software
It does unless otherwise stated before purchasing the software. Most commercial software has the use restrictions printed on the box. Those restrictions are there for a reason. They describe the ways in which your rights will be limited if you agree to them. If you needed a license to use software in the default case, then the restrictions would not have to be printed there, instead there would be wording granting you additional rights (such as the right to use the software).
If obtaining the specific software you want was not conditional upon an agreement, then you have the right to modify it as you see fit.
Buying a video in the store does not give you broadcast rights; buying a book in the store does not give you republication or translation rights; buying a computer does not give you a right to reproduce the firmware or circuits inside.
Those are all cases of duplication. The first two acts are prevented by copyright, the final by patent law.
Having a gas or electric meter installed in your house does not give you the right to bypass it to get unlimited gas or electricity. Believe it or not, laws limit what you are allowed to do in the privacy of your home with your own property.
I don't think you technically own that hardware. Even if you did, you would be prevented from modifying it by your service agreement with the utility.
None of your examples have actually contradicted anything I've said in this thread. This thread started out discussing the right of a computer owner to modify files on his or her own computer (see subject). I still hold that, barring any contractual agreement to the contrary, I have a right to modify files on my computer as I see fit. That right does not extend to duplication or redistribution, because that is prevented by copyright and or patent law.
It does not appear that you actually read the rest of my post. I recommend that you do so. I will reiterate some of the most important points here:
You do not have to agree to a license agreement in order to use software on your computer. If you bought the software you can use it as you see fit. You may not make illegal copies of it, but you can run it or modify it if you so choose.
If I buy a book, I can scribble in the pages, cross the author's name out, or use it to paper my walls. No terms written inside the book can prevent me from doing so. Terms agreed to before the purchase of the book might, but not terms within the book itself, because I can choose to reject those terms or even not to read them.
This is actually why the GPL works, by the way. Normally you don't have the right to copy software, but it will grant you that right in exchange for certain promises. EULAs, on the other hand, generally don't grant you any rights that you don't already have. Their only (still dubious in my mind) enforceability comes from their click-through nature. This would be different if acceptance of the EULA was required to obtain the software.
Let me repeat: If I have some code on my computer that I have legally obtained and I have not entered into a binding agreement restricting my rights, I may execute that code.
So, all in all, you are trying to play a game of chess with the law and you only know the rules to checkers. Please don't make public statements if you don't know what you are talking about. The law is simple. Its every idiot trying to stand as close to the line as possible that fuck it up for everyone else.
I'm speaking hypothetically. As I said, I don't actually do these things, but I am certain that I have the right to do them.
We're going way off topic here, but I think this issue bears discussion.
Editing a binary to remove the EULA by no means frees you from the terms of the license.
If I have not seen the license and have not agreed to it, I am not bound by its terms. If I have removed the capability of the program to show me the license (without ever having agreed to its terms), I cannot be bound by that license. (Please remember that this is a theoretical discussion, I am a software engineer and I pay for software that I use out of respect for my fellows.)
The rights granted by the license which is expressed by the EULA are not offered to you under other licensing terms.
There is nothing restricting my right to execute a program on my computer by default. Duplicating the program would require a license under copyright law, but executing it does not. In order to even see the EULA of many applications, you must first run the application itself. There is no doubt that that initial execution is entirely within my rights. I see no reason why a second execution should somehow suddenly be illegal if I have not entered into a contract barring me from performing that act.
In any contract, you can't arbitrarily scribble out sections you don't like, sign it, and expect your modified terms to apply without the express agreement of the other party. The two parties have to agree to substantially the same terms in order to have a contractual agreement. Without that agreeement, the software publisher doesn't grant you the right to install or use the software.
First off, by eliminating the EULA before reading it, I have not agreed to any contract.
Secondly, how well do you think renegotiation of an EULA would be accepted by the software publisher? Would they actually be willing to make a deal with a single individual?
Thirdly, there is much debate over whether EULAs are really enforceable contracts. Contacts are required to provide something in exchange for your agreement. Most EULAs simply attempt to restrict your rights without providing consideration and are therefor unenforceable. Another problem with enforcing EULAs is that the End User may not be the one who agreed to it! Consider the case of applications on a shared computer or software installed for you by a third party such as a computer service technician.
This, however, doesn't give one the right to take the app and 'remix' it into an ad-free version...
It's my computer. Assuming I haven't agreed to a binding contract not to do so, I can edit any file on it in whatever manner I choose. If I edit out the bit of code that displays the ad, I am totally within my rights.
Before you tell me that I needed to agree to an EULA to use the app, consider that I can edit the file before executing it. I can remove the EULA and any advertisement code and still be 100% within my rights.
This is not to say that I do this. If I want software, I pay for it. However, I take offense at your declaration that I do not have the right to edit files on my own computer if I choose to do so.
You are mistaken. The provision for making source available applies only to people to whom you have distributed binaries. It says so right here:
Locate is not just for Linux. It's pretty portable. I use it on my macs.
If you want to know why spotlight will be cool, try the search feature in iTunes. Once you've experienced that, you'll see why this feature will be useful when it can be applied to files.
Grouping windows by application solves a subset of the problem solved by virtual desktops.
Lets say I'm developing three different projects at once. It would be really nice to show the editor, terminal, preview, etc. for each one quickly. In other words, I want three virtual desktops each with several open windows from a various applications.
Virtual desktops have their place.
Only on Slashdot would Mozilla not supporting a web standard be considered a benefit.
The Web is supposed to be platform agnostic. Any technology that runs on only one platform cannot be a web standard.
Mozilla supports web standards. Not supporting ActiveX is part of supporting web standards. This is particularly true if you consider that support can also be defined as: To keep from weakening or failing; strengthen. By avoiding proprietary, single-platform technologies, Mozilla is making web standards stronger.
Ignoring it and hoping it goes away is not the right answer, either
It is for me. I use Macs and Linux. If someone wants to make money from me through my web browser, they had damned well better do it using technology I can use. I won't be your customer unless you support my platforms of choice.
I used to be a web developer. If one of our clients wanted some fancy single-platform buzzword technology just because they thought it was cool, we'd ask them if they'd rather be "cool" or reach 5% more customers. Guess which one they all chose?
If the X% of people use Mozilla, then that's all the more incentive to develop sites that work in Mozilla. I do not want anything to remove that benefit.
Now why would trade secrets be protected so extensively when journalists are free to publish governments secrets
In a democracy, citizens have a recognized right to know what their government is doing. Why would this extend to design details of products developed by a corporation of which you are not a significant owner? Should journalists be free to publish video from inside your house that was obtained illegally by your plumber?
Look, I'm all for more corporate reform. I've done work for organizations that want to limit corporate power and have written an article on the subject. However, confusing the rights of citizens to access government information with access to trade secrets just doesn't make any sense. It sounds like the argument that trade secret disclosure should be protected just like whistle blowing, even when the secrets are not causing harm to anyone.