Here's a quick one for you: How many of you out there choose mages as your first character EVERY SINGLE TIME? Probably a lot of you.
You know what I'd like to see? A MMORPG with a magic system that wasn't geared toward combat, or ease of use. Something so incredibly complicated that you have no idea what's going on. For once, I'd like to see the PLAYER learn magical theory. And the magical theory to be entirely player researched, and incomplete. A magic system that lets YOU design spells, but all the knowledge you need to do so comes from experimental error. A magic system that KILLS you if you screw up badly enough. Obviously, that would be one of the greatest challenges ever to create, but I'll tell you right now, I'd quit my job if I had one and play that 24/7. Who's with me on that?
I advise you to read the opinion before getting to worked up - it was mid january, and Illinois was involved.
IANAL, but there seems to be a lot of language in there that indicates this decision is about permitting noninvasive search in traffic stops, not permitting search for contraband anywhere.
That having been said, I think I like the dissenting opinions more. The dissenting opinions raise some interest points, like the fact that drug dogs are far from infaliable, and that a search for contraband is not a search for something that poses a imminent threat to life and limb, which is apparantly part of the justification for the hilarity that may insue at a sobriety checkpoint.
Anyhow, give it a read. It's not overly difficult to understand, and by the end of it, you'll feel a little less offended.
There is a reason we have rules on gathering evidence. For example, going into someone's financial records without anything more than a hunch is just that.
I've been saying for years that investigative techniques for computer crime are insufficient - maybe it's across the board.
Think it would help if we pulled shows like CSI and Law&Order off the air?
When the feds finally apprehended Mitnick, they never got the data off his drive, but they did keep him for 4.5 years without trial or even a bail hearing.
It didn't take them that long because they had a strong case.
Unable to build a case against him, they simply stalled endlessly and trusted our bloated justice system to overlook the obviously overboard effort to force him to take a plea bargain.
When it comes down to it, privacy of your data may not be the determining factor, whatever your business is. People who are determined enough can find a way to make your life miserable whether or not your precious data is hidden from their eyes, as happened with Mitnick.
If you feel you have data worth hiding, best to divorce it from your daily life as best you can.
What I meant though was that the FBI definitely shouldn't be seeing Fyodor's site logs indicating suspect 56 visited his site about 30 seconds before the compromised host visited the site as an indication of guilt - certainly, they should follow up on it as a lead. But they should attempt to get some sort of hard link between the suspect and the compromised host. And they don't always get it.
And that doesn't stop people from getting convicted without any hard evidence.
Seriously, that is the dumbest thing I ever heard.
Nmap is popular as hell - unless they already have a suspect, this isn't going to be useful for them, all it will do is give them a scapegoat 9 times out of 10 - lets say they do get Fyodor's webserver log - which I doubt he'll be keeping in the future, assuming he does now - all that would give them is the IP addresses of a few dozen nmap users - one or two of which may be script kiddies of some sort.
And if they can verify that a script kiddy A downloaded nmap in their window of interest, what are they going to do? Assume they're responsible for the wrong crime and charge him or her. It's stupid and its a witchhunt and it's a shot in the dark.
Of course, if the FBI has already got a suspect, they might be able to strengthen their case, but that's still pretty circumstantial evidence. Not exactly a smoking gun.
Seems you don't understand how search engines work^^
What a normal spider does is generally try different IP's, see if they're running a webserver. Then they do a DNS lookup, fetch http:///robots.txt and read that to decide if indexing is allowed, and where. Then it just walks through the website. A number of places on the website might not be directly accessible, but also not disallowed for indexing by robots.txt.
If some other site has a link to that webserver in some disconnected region of the website, then the crawler generally makes sure it's okay to index that against the robots.txt, and if so, indexes.
The accusation here is that Microsoft isn't finding these adresses on their own, but instead using google's 'site:host.domain' results as a shortcut, which would constitute a violation of google's terms of service.
It was like my 10th birthday or something, and I wanted to see something else. Me and 10 other kids sat through a fricking 3 hour sports documentary. Worst birthday ever. Damn you, Hoop Dreams!
Looks like they've been delisted from download.com, and have released their source code, which consists of maybe 15 files that have been altered over the originals, most fo it being to change the text displayed in various pieces of the UI.
They're cockbites, but at least now they're complying like they should have frigging done in the first place.
I disagree with your opinion that Fyodor's statement is flawed.
Remember that raw socket support is new, but network aware virsuses are not.
Viruses are brutally space efficient, so even if the oldschool windows socket API is all that is available, the change in size of the virus and it's effectiveness hardly seem likely to be effected in a significant extent at all. Recalling just how quickly the internet was infected last time there was a big 'sploit out there, slowing the scanning rate by 75% would still results in nearly complete infection faster than you can say 'gesundheit,' given that this stuff works on an exponential scale until it gets somewhat close to saturation.
Now, given that information, which is more allong the lines of what *I* interpretted Fyodor's statement as meaning, it doesn't seem so unreasonable, does it?
Is there a license that is essentially open source (i.e. you can take this source, do what you want with it, use the program, go nuts etc) but restricts redistribution (i.e all redistributions have to be approved by the project leader).
In a strange way, the GPL has that, except the 'project leader' you're discussing is the distribution requirements in the GPL. The biggest uncoolness with these Go Music folks is more GPL related than failing to acknowledge its roots.
And, as you can see, in this situation, where they're being uncool, they are in fact NOT abiding by the terms of the license, and should not be allowed to distribute their bastard program.
The spyware is a whole separate can of worms, for me. I'm pretty sure it's GPL-uncool to package those closed-source 'tools' with the GPL'd stuff. If someone would like to clarify, please do.
Re:Smartfox has been doing this for sometime
on
P2P vs. The Clones
·
· Score: 1
in response to your question and the implied misunderstanding about the rebranding of 'shareaza' to 'go music':
No, rebranding is pretty much totally cool (though I personally detest anyone who would practice it without crediting the parent). There are not any monetary restrictions on it - no money needs change hands, blah dee blah, as far as I know.
Go Music has not complied with GPL licensing rules. No offer for the source code is made, no GPL is included with the program distribution. Possibly other stuff too (packaging it with the non gpl'd spyware, perhaps even integrating it with shareaza's source.) Hence, what they're doing is uncool, because it ain't GPL happy.
Having been network administrator at my living group in college, I have to mention the merits of fyodor's rather awesome tool. nmap has saved my ass a number of times, locating owned boxes, spotting shitty firewall setups, etc.
On some occasions, I've used ARP poisoning on an owned box to figure out who's responsible. More often than not, it's a box at another university that was owned as well. Which is usually pretty obvious, thanks to nmap.
And now that nmap picks up versioning information, I can scan my entire living group and make note of anyone who's running something abysmally old, too. Quite frankly, it kicks ass, because it allows me to address problems that I would have had a bitch hard time figuring out without it.
As far as nefarious uses go... if people want to use the tool for bad, they're going to do so anyhow. From a *nix box at their disposal. Like any normal person. Also, if they're using the tool for bad, unless they're using the zombie scan feature, it's not all that anonymous, so... it's not something you want to do from your personal box, then.
All in all, I think this was a poor move by msft, nerfing raw sockets like this. They've trashed one of the good features in WinXP, and I think people are going to care.
As for those of you who think you know what the tools is for, I urge you to think a bit harder.
Sure, you can scan the entire internet doing version scanning on port 80 looking for vulnerable IIS boxes, but there is still fallout from the last virus epidemic doing that. Or you can use nmap to assess your own vulnerabilities and help prevent dozens of hours dealing with idiots who don't read security related emails.
I think you know what I'm talking about. There have been 3 really really poorly done ones, and those were done in cheap knockoff studios.
People see the quality and they REALLY hate it. So I don't think the industry is in danger, unless foreign competition gets better, which will be a while.
I'm very curious to see if the driver still functions after the the first '\0' in the module string has been changed to 'X'.
If so, then this is franky just obnoxious behavior.
If not, then in fact their non GPL module is using GPL-only kernel internals, meeting at least Linus's definition (I think?) of a derived work, which would constitute actual infringement.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a quick one for you: How many of you out there choose mages as your first character EVERY SINGLE TIME? Probably a lot of you.
You know what I'd like to see?
A MMORPG with a magic system that wasn't geared toward combat, or ease of use. Something so incredibly complicated that you have no idea what's going on. For once, I'd like to see the PLAYER learn magical theory. And the magical theory to be entirely player researched, and incomplete.
A magic system that lets YOU design spells, but all the knowledge you need to do so comes from experimental error. A magic system that KILLS you if you screw up badly enough.
Obviously, that would be one of the greatest challenges ever to create, but I'll tell you right now, I'd quit my job if I had one and play that 24/7.
Who's with me on that?
I advise you to read the opinion before getting to worked up - it was mid january, and Illinois was involved.
IANAL, but there seems to be a lot of language in there that indicates this decision is about permitting noninvasive search in traffic stops, not permitting search for contraband anywhere.
That having been said, I think I like the dissenting opinions more. The dissenting opinions raise some interest points, like the fact that drug dogs are far from infaliable, and that a search for contraband is not a search for something that poses a imminent threat to life and limb, which is apparantly part of the justification for the hilarity that may insue at a sobriety checkpoint.
Anyhow, give it a read. It's not overly difficult to understand, and by the end of it, you'll feel a little less offended.
There is a reason we have rules on gathering evidence. For example, going into someone's financial records without anything more than a hunch is just that.
I've been saying for years that investigative techniques for computer crime are insufficient - maybe it's across the board.
Think it would help if we pulled shows like CSI and Law&Order off the air?
When the feds finally apprehended Mitnick, they never got the data off his drive, but they did keep him for 4.5 years without trial or even a bail hearing.
It didn't take them that long because they had a strong case.
Unable to build a case against him, they simply stalled endlessly and trusted our bloated justice system to overlook the obviously overboard effort to force him to take a plea bargain.
When it comes down to it, privacy of your data may not be the determining factor, whatever your business is. People who are determined enough can find a way to make your life miserable whether or not your precious data is hidden from their eyes, as happened with Mitnick.
If you feel you have data worth hiding, best to divorce it from your daily life as best you can.
btw, it's called humor.
Fair enough.
What I meant though was that the FBI definitely shouldn't be seeing Fyodor's site logs indicating suspect 56 visited his site about 30 seconds before the compromised host visited the site as an indication of guilt - certainly, they should follow up on it as a lead. But they should attempt to get some sort of hard link between the suspect and the compromised host. And they don't always get it.
And that doesn't stop people from getting convicted without any hard evidence.
Seriously, that is the dumbest thing I ever heard.
Nmap is popular as hell - unless they already have a suspect, this isn't going to be useful for them, all it will do is give them a scapegoat 9 times out of 10 - lets say they do get Fyodor's webserver log - which I doubt he'll be keeping in the future, assuming he does now - all that would give them is the IP addresses of a few dozen nmap users - one or two of which may be script kiddies of some sort.
And if they can verify that a script kiddy A downloaded nmap in their window of interest, what are they going to do? Assume they're responsible for the wrong crime and charge him or her. It's stupid and its a witchhunt and it's a shot in the dark.
Of course, if the FBI has already got a suspect, they might be able to strengthen their case, but that's still pretty circumstantial evidence. Not exactly a smoking gun.
Just my $0.02US
Seems you don't understand how search engines work^^
What a normal spider does is generally try different IP's, see if they're running a webserver. Then they do a DNS lookup, fetch http:///robots.txt and read that to decide if indexing is allowed, and where. Then it just walks through the website. A number of places on the website might not be directly accessible, but also not disallowed for indexing by robots.txt.
If some other site has a link to that webserver in some disconnected region of the website, then the crawler generally makes sure it's okay to index that against the robots.txt, and if so, indexes.
The accusation here is that Microsoft isn't finding these adresses on their own, but instead using google's 'site:host.domain' results as a shortcut, which would constitute a violation of google's terms of service.
Java is not a modern language, but a step backward in time.
That's flamebait, btw people.
what's to stop me from going into your house, putting a bullet in your head with MY .38 and taking all your stuff as it is? It's not that hard, yo.
sleep tight^^
jk, btw
My god, that judge has got to be crooked.
Anyone know the name?
It was like my 10th birthday or something, and I wanted to see something else. Me and 10 other kids sat through a fricking 3 hour sports documentary. Worst birthday ever. Damn you, Hoop Dreams!
Looks like they've been delisted from download.com, and have released their source code, which consists of maybe 15 files that have been altered over the originals, most fo it being to change the text displayed in various pieces of the UI.
They're cockbites, but at least now they're complying like they should have frigging done in the first place.
I disagree with your opinion that Fyodor's statement is flawed.
Remember that raw socket support is new, but network aware virsuses are not.
Viruses are brutally space efficient, so even if the oldschool windows socket API is all that is available, the change in size of the virus and it's effectiveness hardly seem likely to be effected in a significant extent at all. Recalling just how quickly the internet was infected last time there was a big 'sploit out there, slowing the scanning rate by 75% would still results in nearly complete infection faster than you can say 'gesundheit,' given that this stuff works on an exponential scale until it gets somewhat close to saturation.
Now, given that information, which is more allong the lines of what *I* interpretted Fyodor's statement as meaning, it doesn't seem so unreasonable, does it?
don't forget the randomly capitalized first letter in a word in the middle of a sentence.
Is there a license that is essentially open source (i.e. you can take this source, do what you want with it, use the program, go nuts etc) but restricts redistribution (i.e all redistributions have to be approved by the project leader). In a strange way, the GPL has that, except the 'project leader' you're discussing is the distribution requirements in the GPL. The biggest uncoolness with these Go Music folks is more GPL related than failing to acknowledge its roots. And, as you can see, in this situation, where they're being uncool, they are in fact NOT abiding by the terms of the license, and should not be allowed to distribute their bastard program. The spyware is a whole separate can of worms, for me. I'm pretty sure it's GPL-uncool to package those closed-source 'tools' with the GPL'd stuff. If someone would like to clarify, please do.
in response to your question and the implied misunderstanding about the rebranding of 'shareaza' to 'go music':
No, rebranding is pretty much totally cool (though I personally detest anyone who would practice it without crediting the parent). There are not any monetary restrictions on it - no money needs change hands, blah dee blah, as far as I know.
Go Music has not complied with GPL licensing
rules. No offer for the source code is made, no GPL is included with the program distribution. Possibly other stuff too (packaging it with the non gpl'd spyware, perhaps even integrating it with shareaza's source.) Hence, what they're doing is uncool, because it ain't GPL happy.
m-w.com lists both pronunciations, thank you.^^
Having been network administrator at my living group in college, I have to mention the merits of fyodor's rather awesome tool. nmap has saved my ass a number of times, locating owned boxes, spotting shitty firewall setups, etc.
On some occasions, I've used ARP poisoning on an owned box to figure out who's responsible. More often than not, it's a box at another university that was owned as well. Which is usually pretty obvious, thanks to nmap.
And now that nmap picks up versioning information, I can scan my entire living group and make note of anyone who's running something abysmally old, too. Quite frankly, it kicks ass, because it allows me to address problems that I would have had a bitch hard time figuring out without it.
As far as nefarious uses go... if people want to use the tool for bad, they're going to do so anyhow. From a *nix box at their disposal. Like any normal person. Also, if they're using the tool for bad, unless they're using the zombie scan feature, it's not all that anonymous, so... it's not something you want to do from your personal box, then.
All in all, I think this was a poor move by msft, nerfing raw sockets like this. They've trashed one of the good features in WinXP, and I think people are going to care.
As for those of you who think you know what the tools is for, I urge you to think a bit harder.
Sure, you can scan the entire internet doing version scanning on port 80 looking for vulnerable IIS boxes, but there is still fallout from the last virus epidemic doing that. Or you can use nmap to assess your own vulnerabilities and help prevent dozens of hours dealing with idiots who don't read security related emails.
I think you know what I'm talking about.
There have been 3 really really poorly done
ones, and those were done in cheap knockoff studios.
People see the quality and they REALLY hate it.
So I don't think the industry is in danger, unless
foreign competition gets better, which will be a while.
Despite the obvious flame, the presence of the word 'swastika' I have to say that the parent is much more 'funny' than flamebait.
I'm very curious to see if the driver still functions after the the first '\0' in the module string has been changed to 'X'.
If so, then this is franky just obnoxious behavior.
If not, then in fact their non GPL module is using GPL-only kernel internals, meeting at least Linus's definition (I think?) of a derived work, which would constitute actual infringement.
Wrong dude, that's if you were a part timer.
455$/week comes to about 11.38 an hour.
In this case, you'd just be losing 3 cents an hour.
Reminds me of the time the IRS sued the IRS.
Whoops, my bad. I was wondering what was up with that.