I was actually sitting across from him in Principles of Programming when I read the LJ entry with a picture of his wager in it. I just about cracked up.
> Until one person, one single person, on/. is arrested on some trumped up charges, shut the fuck up with the Nazi analogies.
Because obviously/. is the entire US. And obviously it doesn't matter if OTHER people are arrested and detained indefinitely on trumped-up charges, just so long as they aren't _us_.
"First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew."
Okay ladies and gentlemen, take out a new $20 (or $50 or whatever) bill. Now, look at the back. See the yellow "20"'s all over the back of the bill? Ignore the 2's and look at the 0's. Do you notice the pattern? o o o o o
If you examine the bill, you will see this pattern repeated over and over in the 0's, in multiple orientations but always with the same 4 angles and distances. This is the pattern Photoshop looks for to detect US currency. (Conspiracy theorists will be amused to note that if you examine recent Euro notes, they bear the SAME PATTERN.)
Copyright already protects programs. Copyright protection is appropriate: it protects independent invention, so that even if you copyright a trivial piece of code, you can't stop me writing the same thing without ever seeing yours. A patent, OTOH, prevents me from INVENTING THE SAME THING MYSELF. Patents are therefore only appropriate for _significant_ inventions, not the sort of small, incremental and obvious advances typically found in computer science.
Parent's speculations are, in fact, correct. It's worth noting, too, that it _is_ possible to read the magnetic fields on a disk with an electron microscope, and that's one way to see that the "1" you're looking at is actually a 0.95 (or that it is written slightly to the left of the track, and that there's a 0 peeking out under the right edge.)
Computer forensics involve more than just opening emails with Outlook. If you're copying the drive of an enemy, of course the most valuable information will probably have been deleted. In such circumstances, you don't just copy the files, you image the entire drive (as another person suggested, ghost would do the trick), and do your best to recover not only the files still present, but the deleted ones as well. (Better would be to perform low-level forensics on the original drive, which can recover multiple layers of deleted and overwritten files. Undoubtedly the CIA did that with the original drives.)
So, what you're saying is that Sveasoft blatantly violated the GPL by distributing binaries without source, and even admitted to it, but claimed it was okay because their distribution of binaries "didn't count" because it "wasn't an actual release"? And then _they_ got mad at the people who demanded they fulfill their obligations under the GPL?
"nickel-and-dime the literal words of the GPL"
There's a reason the FSF had lawyers write those words. They were meant to be interepreted AS WRITTEN, not as you see fit.
I don't think that one flies (though IANAL and reading the GPL makes my head spin.) Since the code is a derivative work of code licensed under the GPL, the result has to be licensed under the GPL, not the-GPL-or-something-else-at-your-option. Otherwise it would be possible for me to license a program -- licensed to me under the GPL -- to others under the disjunction of the GPL and a more permissive license which allows source-less redistribution. I've just given permission for someone to take away freedom, which is what the GPL is designed to prevent; so I must conclude that one cannot relicense a GPL'ed program under a disjunctive license, even one including the GPL, without the permission of the original copyright holder(s) (which in this case would include Linksys, who has certainly not been consulted!)
Note: by "disjunctive license", I mean a license which gives the licensee a choice between two licenses, such as the GPL and the 'SveaSoft License'.
It's very unclear what's going on here, but I think the confusion seems to be deliberate on the part of SveaSoft. The impression I get is that it's one guy trying to lawyer himself an end-run around the GPL, without actually involving a lawyer. I've seen references made to dual-licensing, with one license being the GPL and the other allowing for a subscription (which is terminated as soon as rights under the GPL are exercised). While that may be legal, it seems rather dubious.
In any case, it seem that SveaSoft is claiming to use the GPL, but trying to make life difficult for people who redistribute or ask for source. IMNSHO, that's just plain bad faith. Also, whatever legal mumbo-jumbo they may invoke is very questionable since I can't find a way to see their licensing terms without giving them my money first!
I hate to burst your bubble, but Diebold manufactures mark-sense optical systems too.
So if you're advocating those, you've gotta ask yourself one question: Do you feel lucky? Well, do ya?
ICANN has always been a corporation. It used to be somewhat less corrupt, or so I'm told... But to say "the other root servers" doesn't mean anything in the way you seem to be suggesting it, as ICANN has dominion over ALL the root servers. (At least those in the "standard" US Govt. DNS hierarchy.) You may be thinking of Verisign, which runs the.com registry, and could also use some serious overthrowing.
Ideally, we should all switch to an/alternate root/ system, which eschews ICANN in favor of an entirely different set of root nameservers (typically also including ICANN-registered domains); in practice, that would require action on a massive scale which simply isn't likely to happen. (Not to mention the fact that most of the alternate roots have gone bust, been bought, or become stupid and corrupt like ICANN.)
Silence, troll. Some of us prefer to use the Internet as its creators intended, rather than bowing before our corporate ISP overlords. I'm paying for a pipe, and I damn well want a pipe. (Note: My ISP, DSLExtreme, does in fact give me an unfiltered pipe. So I'm sure not complaining.)
I thought that sounded curious myself... but I did some digging and managed to verify that the second paragraph, about the history of Sprint -- weird as it seems -- is entirely accurate, so who knows?
My uncle sailed around the world over the last seven years. He recently re-entered the US in San Diego, after stopping in Mexico. He was expecting Customs agents, but was instead stopped by the Department of Homeland Security. (Keep in mind, he had spent large parts of the previous seven years in middle-eastern countries the US wants nothing to do with):
DHS Dude: "Welcome to San Diego. Did you bring anything back from Mexico?"
My Uncle: "Uhh... just some toys and things, you know..."
DD: "That's fine. No alcohol or drugs or anything?"
MU: "No, none of that. But don't you want to see our..."
DD: "OK, move along then."
MU: "... passports?"
No passport check, which would have revealed the presence of middle-eastern visas up the wazoo, no verification of citizenship, didn't even bother to inspect the boat.
Makes you feel very Secure in your Homeland, doesn't it?
I don't know how long it took to break CSS, but failure to correctly encrypt the key had nothing to do with it. (The player in question, btw, was Xing.) Even if the key were encrypted, the player would have to have the key to decrypt _that_! Ultimately, you can't keep the user from doing extracting any secrets the program contains (barring something like NGSCB . . . unless they have an electron microscope . . . but that's an entirely different discussion.)
As for XBOX, the system has been 0wn3d. Read up on the original "007: Nightfire" savegame hack (not to even mention the existence of XBox modchips).
And from this post, we learn two things:
1) Slashdotters can't tell a deep and meaningful, but out-of-the ordinary opinion from a troll. Hint: read the last sentence.
2) Slashdotters are easy pray to reverse psychology. Hint: read the first sentence.
But that's exactly the point. Blacklisting services don't have any opinion about you. They don't judge you, they just keep track about facts about you which are reported by spamtraps, annoyed mailserver owners, and the like. Email-server administrators use this as a conversation point to share their experienced with colleages so they can know who is more likely to spam and who is not.
Blacklists do typically provide you with a report about yourself on request, but there is no dispute-resolution process which works universally. All I'm saying is perhaps there SHOULD BE a regulated way for you to dispute information that the blacklists are reporting about you.
Blacklist operators like to say they just provide a service to the sysadmins; it's the owners of the recipient servers who do the blocking. But by the same logic, credit reporting agencies just provide a service to merchants and lenders; it's those lenders who refuse your application. Yet Congress has seen fit to pass the Fair Credit Reporting Act to stop abuses by the credit bureaus; despite the fact that they don't actually deny you a loan, it is obvious the power they have over individuals and the ways they can abuse it, EVEN IF that power is granted to them indirectly by lenders. I would argue that the same could be said of blacklists; arguably, they could (and perhaps should) be regulated for the same reasons that credit bureaus are.
If the cost to register a domain name were $500 instead of $35, I would never have been able, as a poor college student, to register a domain name. Is it your intent to make the Internet more elitist than it's already becoming, or did you just not think through your proposal?
Your rant suggests making more thorough use of the hierarchical properties of DNS. I have thought about the problem, and come to the opposite conclusion: dump the toplevel hierarchy altogether. Start at the top with what are not considered second-level domains, adding some arbitrary mechanism to disambiguate multiple registrations of the same domain (a numbering system or some such.) I mean after all, that's all that.com.net.org are currently used for, as Berners-Lee points out: they are disambiguators. Any meaning previously attached to them is gone...
between the babelfish translation of the article, and a few people's posts, that this is a case of "you get what you pay for." If NEC says you can't do it, maybe it's because you can't do it reliably; that seems to be the case here. I would question the feasibility of taking hardware designed for single-layer disks and using it for dual-layer burns, and indeed the article points out (in broken, babelfished English, but as best I can tell) that the resulting drives are flaky at best. My advice, though I support the development of open/third-party firmware in general, would be to skip this upgrade and go buy the real thing.
Slashdot Mirror
I was actually sitting across from him in Principles of Programming when I read the LJ entry with a picture of his wager in it. I just about cracked up.
> Until one person, one single person, on /. is arrested on some trumped up charges, shut the fuck up with the Nazi analogies.
Because obviously /. is the entire US. And obviously it doesn't matter if OTHER people are arrested and detained indefinitely on trumped-up charges, just so long as they aren't _us_.
"First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew."
Bullshit. I just checked. There is no such traffic.
Okay ladies and gentlemen, take out a new $20 (or $50 or whatever) bill. Now, look at the back. See the yellow "20"'s all over the back of the bill? Ignore the 2's and look at the 0's. Do you notice the pattern?
o
o
o
o
o
If you examine the bill, you will see this pattern repeated over and over in the 0's, in multiple orientations but always with the same 4 angles and distances. This is the pattern Photoshop looks for to detect US currency. (Conspiracy theorists will be amused to note that if you examine recent Euro notes, they bear the SAME PATTERN.)
Copyright already protects programs. Copyright protection is appropriate: it protects independent invention, so that even if you copyright a trivial piece of code, you can't stop me writing the same thing without ever seeing yours. A patent, OTOH, prevents me from INVENTING THE SAME THING MYSELF. Patents are therefore only appropriate for _significant_ inventions, not the sort of small, incremental and obvious advances typically found in computer science.
Parent's speculations are, in fact, correct. It's worth noting, too, that it _is_ possible to read the magnetic fields on a disk with an electron microscope, and that's one way to see that the "1" you're looking at is actually a 0.95 (or that it is written slightly to the left of the track, and that there's a 0 peeking out under the right edge.)
Computer forensics involve more than just opening emails with Outlook. If you're copying the drive of an enemy, of course the most valuable information will probably have been deleted. In such circumstances, you don't just copy the files, you image the entire drive (as another person suggested, ghost would do the trick), and do your best to recover not only the files still present, but the deleted ones as well. (Better would be to perform low-level forensics on the original drive, which can recover multiple layers of deleted and overwritten files. Undoubtedly the CIA did that with the original drives.)
"nickel-and-dime the literal words of the GPL"
There's a reason the FSF had lawyers write those words. They were meant to be interepreted AS WRITTEN, not as you see fit.
Note: by "disjunctive license", I mean a license which gives the licensee a choice between two licenses, such as the GPL and the 'SveaSoft License'.
It's very unclear what's going on here, but I think the confusion seems to be deliberate on the part of SveaSoft. The impression I get is that it's one guy trying to lawyer himself an end-run around the GPL, without actually involving a lawyer. I've seen references made to dual-licensing, with one license being the GPL and the other allowing for a subscription (which is terminated as soon as rights under the GPL are exercised). While that may be legal, it seems rather dubious.
In any case, it seem that SveaSoft is claiming to use the GPL, but trying to make life difficult for people who redistribute or ask for source. IMNSHO, that's just plain bad faith. Also, whatever legal mumbo-jumbo they may invoke is very questionable since I can't find a way to see their licensing terms without giving them my money first!
I hate to burst your bubble, but Diebold manufactures mark-sense optical systems too. So if you're advocating those, you've gotta ask yourself one question: Do you feel lucky? Well, do ya?
-EOF-
Ideally, we should all switch to an /alternate root/ system, which eschews ICANN in favor of an entirely different set of root nameservers (typically also including ICANN-registered domains); in practice, that would require action on a massive scale which simply isn't likely to happen. (Not to mention the fact that most of the alternate roots have gone bust, been bought, or become stupid and corrupt like ICANN.)
Silence, troll. Some of us prefer to use the Internet as its creators intended, rather than bowing before our corporate ISP overlords. I'm paying for a pipe, and I damn well want a pipe. (Note: My ISP, DSLExtreme, does in fact give me an unfiltered pipe. So I'm sure not complaining.)
I thought that sounded curious myself... but I did some digging and managed to verify that the second paragraph, about the history of Sprint -- weird as it seems -- is entirely accurate, so who knows?
My uncle sailed around the world over the last seven years. He recently re-entered the US in San Diego, after stopping in Mexico. He was expecting Customs agents, but was instead stopped by the Department of Homeland Security. (Keep in mind, he had spent large parts of the previous seven years in middle-eastern countries the US wants nothing to do with): DHS Dude: "Welcome to San Diego. Did you bring anything back from Mexico?" My Uncle: "Uhh... just some toys and things, you know..." DD: "That's fine. No alcohol or drugs or anything?" MU: "No, none of that. But don't you want to see our..." DD: "OK, move along then." MU: "... passports?" No passport check, which would have revealed the presence of middle-eastern visas up the wazoo, no verification of citizenship, didn't even bother to inspect the boat. Makes you feel very Secure in your Homeland, doesn't it?
I don't know how long it took to break CSS, but failure to correctly encrypt the key had nothing to do with it. (The player in question, btw, was Xing.) Even if the key were encrypted, the player would have to have the key to decrypt _that_! Ultimately, you can't keep the user from doing extracting any secrets the program contains (barring something like NGSCB . . . unless they have an electron microscope . . . but that's an entirely different discussion.) As for XBOX, the system has been 0wn3d. Read up on the original "007: Nightfire" savegame hack (not to even mention the existence of XBox modchips).
And from this post, we learn two things: 1) Slashdotters can't tell a deep and meaningful, but out-of-the ordinary opinion from a troll. Hint: read the last sentence. 2) Slashdotters are easy pray to reverse psychology. Hint: read the first sentence.
Errr, shoot. Mirror here.
Mirror here, missing images right now but I'm working on it. And who cares about the images, anyway?
But that's exactly the point. Blacklisting services don't have any opinion about you. They don't judge you, they just keep track about facts about you which are reported by spamtraps, annoyed mailserver owners, and the like. Email-server administrators use this as a conversation point to share their experienced with colleages so they can know who is more likely to spam and who is not. Blacklists do typically provide you with a report about yourself on request, but there is no dispute-resolution process which works universally. All I'm saying is perhaps there SHOULD BE a regulated way for you to dispute information that the blacklists are reporting about you.
Blacklist operators like to say they just provide a service to the sysadmins; it's the owners of the recipient servers who do the blocking. But by the same logic, credit reporting agencies just provide a service to merchants and lenders; it's those lenders who refuse your application. Yet Congress has seen fit to pass the Fair Credit Reporting Act to stop abuses by the credit bureaus; despite the fact that they don't actually deny you a loan, it is obvious the power they have over individuals and the ways they can abuse it, EVEN IF that power is granted to them indirectly by lenders. I would argue that the same could be said of blacklists; arguably, they could (and perhaps should) be regulated for the same reasons that credit bureaus are.
If the cost to register a domain name were $500 instead of $35, I would never have been able, as a poor college student, to register a domain name. Is it your intent to make the Internet more elitist than it's already becoming, or did you just not think through your proposal?
Your rant suggests making more thorough use of the hierarchical properties of DNS. I have thought about the problem, and come to the opposite conclusion: dump the toplevel hierarchy altogether. Start at the top with what are not considered second-level domains, adding some arbitrary mechanism to disambiguate multiple registrations of the same domain (a numbering system or some such.) I mean after all, that's all that .com .net .org are currently used for, as Berners-Lee points out: they are disambiguators. Any meaning previously attached to them is gone...
between the babelfish translation of the article, and a few people's posts, that this is a case of "you get what you pay for." If NEC says you can't do it, maybe it's because you can't do it reliably; that seems to be the case here. I would question the feasibility of taking hardware designed for single-layer disks and using it for dual-layer burns, and indeed the article points out (in broken, babelfished English, but as best I can tell) that the resulting drives are flaky at best. My advice, though I support the development of open/third-party firmware in general, would be to skip this upgrade and go buy the real thing.