A lot of Windows users downloaded iTunes, even though they didn't have an iPod. A lot of people just like it (and of course many people hate it). The same will probably be true of Safari.
I downloaded iTunes because for a while you the only way to get Quicktime was bundled with it[1]. It's f*cking insidious malware too - it installed a suspiciously DRM like filter driver over my CDRW drive. Plus Quicktime looks like a Mac app on Windows and was never stable. Sounds familiar? Thank God for Quicktime alternative I say, even though QT media seems to be getting rarer, thank God. And as for Safari replacing Opera, out of my cold dead hands Steve. Out of my cold dead hands.
Windows Developer: We tested Ubuntu with IE4Linux and we can catch it. It claims to be Win98 and it doesn't have the undocumented secret handshake to check for validity. And it hides the Bios too. If you look at the CS values Wine uses the same selector but you can't use that. But if you look at CS:Hardcoded_offset then all versions of Windows have some code that is not present in Wine. So we check for that. Lawyer: Hmm. Could they change Wine so it passes Windows Developer: Yeah, they could just set up a copy of the code code in Windows so the check is fooled. But that code is protected by copyright and patents. Lawyer. So we release code that depends on undocumented details, they reverse engineer and fix and we sue them? Excuse me, I need to make a phone call.... Lawyer. Take the code out. Windows Developer. What? I spent all night writing that! Then we'd authenticate Linux as genuine Windows. Why do we have to provide updates to people that didn't buy the software?
It's actually the same case as the AARD code which the lawyers got the developers to disable in the release build. Probably they could detect Wine and Ubuntu using undocumented details but the problem is that it would be artificial tieing updates to IE and Office to Windows which is illegal. In the AARD case, they disabled it really close to production by changing one byte in the data segment to minimise the risk. So technically it was possible - the code worked in Beta, but someone decided that the legal risk was too great for the release version.
There is some evidence that Microsoft developers are aware of these sorts of legal issues
Are you sure you are in the right thread? It seems you are implying that the extremely open process of crafting and refining the lastest version of the GPL was somehow elitist. It was, in fact, one of the most open processes in the history of mankind. The FSF went on a world tour telling anybody and everybody who would listen about their ideas for the new license. The had an interactive version of the license online where anybody could post comments linked directly to any word or phrase in the license and everybody could see all the posted comments. They also encouraged people to email comments. All comments were read and considered by a bunch of committees that were composed of basically everyone who was at all interested in participating.
And then Stallman did exactly what he wanted to do. At the end of the say, all the consultation in the world can't disguise that GPL3 is exactly what he wants it to be, nothing more an nothing less.
The GPLv3 does a better job at enforcing freedom.
Wow, enforcing freedom. That's a chilling phrase.
No license or contract can force someone to break the law.
But it can grant rights to users of my software I can't meet. So I end up either in breach of the GPL or in breach of the exclusive patent license. And the worst thing is that I never negotiated the GPL change. The FSF changed it out from under me - users of my software can opt for version 3 and them demand rights I can't give them.
If you distrust the FSF so much then you shouldn't use the "any later version" clause in your licenses.
Or I could invent my own license somewhere between BSD and GPL and give up them completely. Luckily all my projects don't have any third party code - I own the original copyright, so I can license them however I want. But if they did and I did have exclusive patent licenses, I'd be screwed.
Licenses are like code, they need to be upgraded over the course of time. The major difference is that licenses are upgraded over a longer time scale than code. Removing the "any later version" clause for the kernel was extremely short-sighted IMO. It was like burning code into ROM and providing no way for patches to be applied. This works fine for a while but sooner or later either due to a bug or due to changing external circumstances, you really, really want to change the code, but you cannot and you are screwed.
It's the same thing with a license. The GPLv2 is showing its age. There is the loophole TiVo found that lets them legally use GPLv2 code while denying end users one of the four basic freedoms. The patent landscape has changed significantly and Microsoft has been threatening to attack FOSS with its huge patent portfolio. I realize that Linus thinks the TiVo is a good thing, but he would really like to have better patent protection than what the GPLv2 provides. Finally, unlike the GPLv2, the GPLv3 will be compatible with the Apache license.
See, there's a problem here. Fixing a bug or a security hole in code is something which is an objective improvment. So I can turn on auto updates on a box without many qualms. But a license is something else. One man's loophole of flaw is another man's feature. E.g. if I were IBM on Linux Torvalds the anti-Tivoisation features in GPL3 may not be an achievement - I may not want my users to be granted those freedoms because I don't have the power to grant them. The patents in question for example may be third party ones I can't freely license even if I wanted to. And Linus wants to keep his keys private so he can differentiate between code provided by a trusted party and an untrusted one.
Come to think of it, fixing bugs in code is not really uncontroversial either. If you had an experience of commercial development, you'd know that fixing bugs is mostly seen as an improvement by end users. But every now and again, the fix breaks some weird misuse of the product that end users depend on. Or introduces a bug that kills them even as it fixes a bug which they don't care about. And in fact, most experienced admins don't turn on auto updates. They download the updates to a test machine, check if they cause problems and only then deploy them across the network.
It seems that you're arguing for the essentially elitist and undemocratic idea that a small group of experts should be responsible for deciding what improvements to make, and anyone that disagrees is either dumb or worse dishonest. And that while people will complain about the patent licensing parts of GPL3 for purely selfish reasons they will eventually accept them.
But the last part in particularly is completely wrong. Lots of big companies would work with GPL2 but can't accept GPL3. The loopholes as you see them were actually features from their point of view. And it's absurd for deveopers to leave in the "version X or later" clause when GPL4 or GPL5 may allow end users of the software to make demands on them which they may not legally be able to meet. In general if it were possible for a group of experts to decide objectively on progress and convince end users to give them the power to push them out, then the Soviet Union would not have collapsed.
Aren't they like the RIAA though? In the case of the RIAA, technological change has invalidated their old business model and they need to find a new one. There's no point spending tax dollars and taking away people's freedom to keep such a dinosaur alive. The RIAA needs to work on a new business model like "package stuff properly and upload it to Pirate Bay".
It's the same with Tuvalu. Americans have up to know been able to emit as much CO2 as they want. People in Tuvalu needs to experiment with new model like "Waterworld" or "Captain Nemo" rather than trying to restrict other countries lifestyles.
Phorusrhacids (marketed as Terror Birds!!! by the ever highbrow Scientific American) are cooler giant extinct birds. I like the way in the SciAm pictures they have a thoughtful, confident expression too, like they're thinking "I could bite that dude's head clean off. I don't think he knows that"
The writeup is bad. The article is something like "Dinosaur be twice the size of yo mama, fat Capitalist Caucasian Running Dog". The scientist studied Communism at Mao Tse Tung University in Beijing and then did a post Doc in Ghetto Insults at a community college in Brooklyn.
Windows seems to have been fine tuned so it's hard to get into this situation and easy to get out of it. You probably already have a license to run it too;-)
What happens if you do an Alt F1 to get a virtual console? That should flip the screen to text mode, then you could log in an edit xorg.conf.
Of course, we all know what the judge really meant to order is the logging of relevant data
Exactly. The people suing them demanded a list of IP addresses, times and the name of the torrent they downloaded so they can subpoena the user name from the IP address and then sue the users. TorrentSpy have a tracker which knows that information. It keeps it in Ram but doesn't store it on disk. But that's equivalent to destroying evidence which means they are in deep shit legally. I guess the judge can force them to keep logs and then they are off the hook. But most of the people here are quibbling about the language and pointing out that they know more about technology than the judge. Which is true, but if you were in this situation and you did something cute like pulling the DIMMS and sending them to the court you would probably end up in prison on some legal technicality.
The judge doesn't understand technology but she knows that TorrentSpy have to provide any information requested if it is evidence of criminal activity - they can't protect the anonymity of their users if those users are breaking the law. Or rather if they do, the people running TorrentSpy will end up in jail.
From a performance standpoint, that is insane. You won't be able to serve as many users if you are doing that level of logging, it's a lot of I/O traffic. Especially if it's a single log file for all client-handling threads; you are adding an artificial thread-synchronized block of code to every action. Ouch!
The only reason that the situation arrives is because most of TorrentSpy's users are pirating stuff. If they weren't then TorrentSpy wouldn't have been forced to preserve the logs.
The problem is that the judges paper analogy doesn't hold; you aren't shredding because you never had the info in the first place.
Yeah they did, they just only stored it in Ram. Of course a tracker knows the IP addresses of peers. That's analogous to having a document which could be used as evidence of a crime but shredding rather than filing it. And if you do that to protect people breaking laws, you go to jail.
Keeping documents rather than shredding them imposes costs on businesses, just like logging does on servers, but the costs of not doing it, i.e. jail and/or lawsuits are greater.
Look it's not hard. If you run a business and you aid and abet piracy or any criminal activity sooner or later the legal system will shut you down. And if you're dumb enough to try to bullshit your way out of this with excuses like the ones you posted, you go to jail.
No, I don't think so. But once someone subpoenas the information you have to go back to TRACE.
Imagine if it were paper documents. You could have a policy to shred day to day stuff (i.e. you're in ERROR mode). But then if someone subpoenas you have to keep everything. Actually, that's not quite right. Evidence that might end up in court would be kept even in ERROR logs.
Then you can right click on the desktop and fiddle around until you get the right settings. You can test the new mode for 10 seconds before applying it too.
Are you kidding? At this point, turning the machine off or in anyway disconnecting the power from the RAM is effectively destruction of evidence, contempt of court and a whole bunch of things which are serious crimes. No one likes a smartarse and judges have a whole arsenal of legal weapons to use against them.
Well, they could write them to disk then couldn't they? There's a world of difference between "we never had that data" and "we did have it we don't store it on disk. It sits in RAM for a while and then we delete it". The ruling means that deciding not to store it on disk is close to destroying evidence, which is very illegal.
Which, despite the spin and your personal feeling about torrents is not unreasonable. Let's suppose I gathered information about murders in Ram and make a conscious decision to delete it rather than storing it on disk. Should that be legal? Or should the judge have the power to force me to write the log to disk in future if someone tries to subpoena it?
Luckily they have endless security holes, a sweaty CEO that throws chairs and sings about developers, an arrogant ex-CEO who sits and rocks backs and forth like he's at the special olympics, emails about "cutting off air supply" and "fucking burying" people.
That's just team building. Like when the coach of the football team rants about how they are going to KILL! their opponents. Team linux has the same thing too - e.g. when Linus flames enemies of Linux and hypes new features on the kernel mailing lists.
People do it because it works - e.g. it has made you really hate Microsoft because you see them as the opposing team. Even though temperamentally there's probably not much diffence between Bill Gates and Theo de Raadt for example.
some factory in taiwan that would be willing to make an 'extra' run
You mean "some factory in mainland China". Taiwan is rich enough that local businesses lobby effectively against piracy, since it hurts them more than it helps them. China is poor enough that piracy is still common. At least I think so - I didn't see stores selling pirated disks in Taiwan at all, whereas you can get almost anything pirated in China. Even mobile phones - there are Sony ripoffs called Phony which I thought was amusing.
It Is the worst thing that could ever Happen. Especially since the consumers; Ability to complaint about service has been Thrown Out. { By the I agree / or Do not agree} Button that have to be clicked for Internet service.(ALSO: THIS IS ILLEGAL CONTRACT)!.
Currently The Tele-Com's Have Given themselves the "ABILITY" to "RATION"! out The First Amendment: ++Mainly Freedom Of Speech and Freedom Of Press.( By Their Agree or Do not Agree). Before the provide service!. **THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO DENY SPEECH OR PRESS TO ANYONE!!
The Telephone Lines and Cables are not Just for Large Corporations,They are for Public and Private use.
This is what they are Trying to achieve: Total Control and Dominance in: What you can see, hear, or speak and write!. By Offing the Consuming public: Apparently Low Prices on Many Peripherals. That The Consumer Believes that they are getting a good DEAL, "WHICH THEY ARE NOT!.
Regulatory, INTERVENTION IS NEEDED!.
Being pushed off a or "TERMINATED at the "DISCRETION OF SOME EMPLOYEE HAVING A BAD DAY, OR AN ATTITUDE ABOUT WHAT SOMEONE WRITES, THAT IS NOT TO HIS OR HER LIKING.
IS THE GOVERNMENT AND THE FCC GIVING TOTALITARIAN AND FASCIST AUTHORITY , TO A PACK OF GREEDY MONGRELS, {THE TELE-COM} INDUSTRY!.
THERE IS NO WAY TO GET SERVICE!. THERE IS NO WAY TO GET MAINTENANCE!. THERE IS NO ONE TO CALL ABOUT SERVICE DROP-OUT (OFF)!.
WHEN THERE IS A PROBLEM, THEY SAY IT'S YOUR COMPUTER OR EQUIPMENT,AND IN MANY CASES THIS IS AN OUT RIGHT LIE AND FRAUD(AGAINST CONSUMERS)
WHERE THERE IS NO PROTECTION BY THE GOVERNMENT ![Why FCC does not have a complaint for such activity is incomprehensible.]
AND THERE SHOULD BE PROTECTION OF BASIC SPEECH AND PRESS!.
AND NOT AT THE DISCRETION OF SOME LAME BRAIN OVER PAID OVER RATE(THEMSELVES) COMPANY AND EMPLOYEES'. {AND WAY OVER PRICED].
IN GENERAL THERE IS NO VENUE FOR THE CONSUMER, OR AVENUE FOR THEM TO PURSUE, IF THE DAMN THING STOPS WORKING!.(or If They are Denied ACCESS).
THAN THERE IS THE BOLD BLATANT CONSUMER FRAUD THAT THE TELE-COM'S PERPETRATED AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT BUSINESS AND CONSUMER:!
BY SAYING THAT THEY HAVE A MAIL SYSTEM THAT; IS YOURS(LEADING THE CONSUMER) TO BELIEVE, THAT THEY CAN WRITE AND CORRESPOND PERSONAL MESSAGES: WHEN THEY ARE NOT.
THEY ARE VENUES FOR THE TELE-COMS TO ADD [ADVERTISEMENTS] TOO. THIS IS NOT PERSONAL MAIL!}.[This is corporate selling] and I Want To know WHEN I AM GETTING PAID???.
THAN MOST OF ALL, AFTER A TELECOM COMPANY TELLS YOU THAT YOU {STATED} OR WROTE SOMETHING THEY DO NOT LIKE.
GO AND TAKE A GOOD LONG LOOK AT THE TRASH, OBSCENITY,PORNOGRAPHY THEY PUT AT THE : TOP BOTTOM, SIDES OF YOUR MAIL!.IF YOU COMPLAIN THEY SAY TO LEAVE.( The Telephone and Cable Line Are For the Use Of The Public and Private Use)!. These company have no legal ground to ask any consumer to agree or not to the use of Public access and they have no right to deny[access] , but they keep trying
THEY: {THE TELECOM] INDUSTRY WOULD, GIVEN HALF A CHANCE ; TURN THE PUBLIC AND CONSUMER INTO THEIR OWN PRIVATE WHORES!.
**YES: Intervention is very needed!. +++HARMFUL BEHAVIOR. YES IF TRYING TO DOMINATE AND CONTROL SPEECH AND PRESS IS NOT HARMFUL, WITH NO AVENUE OR VENUE FOR THE CONSUMER TO COMPLAIN AND NO CONSUMER PROTECTIONS; ***YES THIS IS A VERY HARMFUL THING!.
**WHAT IS EVEN MORE HARMFUL,, I AM SITTING IN MY HOUSE,WITH A PACK OF MORONS FOR SOME BIG TELECOM WITH BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND VERY LARGE LEGAL STAFFS:; TELLING ME AND EVERY OTHER CONSUMER HOW TO READ, WRITE and SPEAK! IS THIS FASCISM? OR TOTALITARIAN
Life just seemed more simple. Al Qaeda was still at war with America. They'd attacked embassies, the USS Cole and the WTC. It's just that the Clinton was too busy with other issues to do anything about it.
I reckon al Qaeda suspects would tell us the location of the Secret Rebel Base if they were suddenly hauled out of torture dungeons for surprise cocktails with a drunk and very friendly President in an ill fitting dress.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of Windows users downloaded iTunes, even though they didn't have an iPod. A lot of people just like it (and of course many people hate it). The same will probably be true of Safari.
I downloaded iTunes because for a while you the only way to get Quicktime was bundled with it[1]. It's f*cking insidious malware too - it installed a suspiciously DRM like filter driver over my CDRW drive. Plus Quicktime looks like a Mac app on Windows and was never stable. Sounds familiar? Thank God for Quicktime alternative I say, even though QT media seems to be getting rarer, thank God. And as for Safari replacing Opera, out of my cold dead hands Steve. Out of my cold dead hands.
[1] They offer it separately now - http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/ . Mind you they should still be shot.
He's probably a octopus like organism from Alpha Centauri. That's the reason he's so keen to convince people that interstellar travel is impossible.
The ones behing killing people were upholding a religious consensus--even the ancient Greeks knew the world was round.
Yeah, be careful when a religious consensus is used to silence scientific skeptics.
You need to disable the Firefox Genuine Advantage check.
Maybe they special case Ubuntu. E.g. consider.
...
/ 01/1573160.aspx#1582487
Windows Developer: We tested Ubuntu with IE4Linux and we can catch it. It claims to be Win98 and it doesn't have the undocumented secret handshake to check for validity. And it hides the Bios too. If you look at the CS values Wine uses the same selector but you can't use that. But if you look at CS:Hardcoded_offset then all versions of Windows have some code that is not present in Wine. So we check for that.
Lawyer: Hmm. Could they change Wine so it passes
Windows Developer: Yeah, they could just set up a copy of the code code in Windows so the check is fooled. But that code is protected by copyright and patents.
Lawyer. So we release code that depends on undocumented details, they reverse engineer and fix and we sue them? Excuse me, I need to make a phone call.
Lawyer. Take the code out.
Windows Developer. What? I spent all night writing that! Then we'd authenticate Linux as genuine Windows. Why do we have to provide updates to people that didn't buy the software?
It's actually the same case as the AARD code which the lawyers got the developers to disable in the release build. Probably they could detect Wine and Ubuntu using undocumented details but the problem is that it would be artificial tieing updates to IE and Office to Windows which is illegal. In the AARD case, they disabled it really close to production by changing one byte in the data segment to minimise the risk. So technically it was possible - the code worked in Beta, but someone decided that the legal risk was too great for the release version.
There is some evidence that Microsoft developers are aware of these sorts of legal issues
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2007/02
Are you sure you are in the right thread? It seems you are implying that the extremely open process of crafting and refining the lastest version of the GPL was somehow elitist. It was, in fact, one of the most open processes in the history of mankind. The FSF went on a world tour telling anybody and everybody who would listen about their ideas for the new license. The had an interactive version of the license online where anybody could post comments linked directly to any word or phrase in the license and everybody could see all the posted comments. They also encouraged people to email comments. All comments were read and considered by a bunch of committees that were composed of basically everyone who was at all interested in participating.
And then Stallman did exactly what he wanted to do. At the end of the say, all the consultation in the world can't disguise that GPL3 is exactly what he wants it to be, nothing more an nothing less.
The GPLv3 does a better job at enforcing freedom.
Wow, enforcing freedom. That's a chilling phrase.
No license or contract can force someone to break the law.
But it can grant rights to users of my software I can't meet. So I end up either in breach of the GPL or in breach of the exclusive patent license. And the worst thing is that I never negotiated the GPL change. The FSF changed it out from under me - users of my software can opt for version 3 and them demand rights I can't give them.
If you distrust the FSF so much then you shouldn't use the "any later version" clause in your licenses.
Or I could invent my own license somewhere between BSD and GPL and give up them completely. Luckily all my projects don't have any third party code - I own the original copyright, so I can license them however I want. But if they did and I did have exclusive patent licenses, I'd be screwed.
If it passed the Swedish Elk Test then it probably won't roll over as easily as we think
That was a Coupe Elk. The SUV Elk chewed though a Smart like it was made of tinfoil.
Licenses are like code, they need to be upgraded over the course of time. The major difference is that licenses are upgraded over a longer time scale than code. Removing the "any later version" clause for the kernel was extremely short-sighted IMO. It was like burning code into ROM and providing no way for patches to be applied. This works fine for a while but sooner or later either due to a bug or due to changing external circumstances, you really, really want to change the code, but you cannot and you are screwed.
It's the same thing with a license. The GPLv2 is showing its age. There is the loophole TiVo found that lets them legally use GPLv2 code while denying end users one of the four basic freedoms. The patent landscape has changed significantly and Microsoft has been threatening to attack FOSS with its huge patent portfolio. I realize that Linus thinks the TiVo is a good thing, but he would really like to have better patent protection than what the GPLv2 provides. Finally, unlike the GPLv2, the GPLv3 will be compatible with the Apache license.
See, there's a problem here. Fixing a bug or a security hole in code is something which is an objective improvment. So I can turn on auto updates on a box without many qualms. But a license is something else. One man's loophole of flaw is another man's feature. E.g. if I were IBM on Linux Torvalds the anti-Tivoisation features in GPL3 may not be an achievement - I may not want my users to be granted those freedoms because I don't have the power to grant them. The patents in question for example may be third party ones I can't freely license even if I wanted to. And Linus wants to keep his keys private so he can differentiate between code provided by a trusted party and an untrusted one.
Come to think of it, fixing bugs in code is not really uncontroversial either. If you had an experience of commercial development, you'd know that fixing bugs is mostly seen as an improvement by end users. But every now and again, the fix breaks some weird misuse of the product that end users depend on. Or introduces a bug that kills them even as it fixes a bug which they don't care about. And in fact, most experienced admins don't turn on auto updates. They download the updates to a test machine, check if they cause problems and only then deploy them across the network.
It seems that you're arguing for the essentially elitist and undemocratic idea that a small group of experts should be responsible for deciding what improvements to make, and anyone that disagrees is either dumb or worse dishonest. And that while people will complain about the patent licensing parts of GPL3 for purely selfish reasons they will eventually accept them.
But the last part in particularly is completely wrong. Lots of big companies would work with GPL2 but can't accept GPL3. The loopholes as you see them were actually features from their point of view. And it's absurd for deveopers to leave in the "version X or later" clause when GPL4 or GPL5 may allow end users of the software to make demands on them which they may not legally be able to meet. In general if it were possible for a group of experts to decide objectively on progress and convince end users to give them the power to push them out, then the Soviet Union would not have collapsed.
gnumonks? gnu MONKS? Jesus Christ.
Aren't they like the RIAA though? In the case of the RIAA, technological change has invalidated their old business model and they need to find a new one. There's no point spending tax dollars and taking away people's freedom to keep such a dinosaur alive. The RIAA needs to work on a new business model like "package stuff properly and upload it to Pirate Bay".
It's the same with Tuvalu. Americans have up to know been able to emit as much CO2 as they want. People in Tuvalu needs to experiment with new model like "Waterworld" or "Captain Nemo" rather than trying to restrict other countries lifestyles.
Phorusrhacids (marketed as Terror Birds!!! by the ever highbrow Scientific American) are cooler giant extinct birds. I like the way in the SciAm pictures they have a thoughtful, confident expression too, like they're thinking "I could bite that dude's head clean off. I don't think he knows that"
8 01_050801_terrorbirds.html
E.g. see the picture here -
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0
The writeup is bad. The article is something like "Dinosaur be twice the size of yo mama, fat Capitalist Caucasian Running Dog". The scientist studied Communism at Mao Tse Tung University in Beijing and then did a post Doc in Ghetto Insults at a community college in Brooklyn.
Windows seems to have been fine tuned so it's hard to get into this situation and easy to get out of it. You probably already have a license to run it too ;-)
What happens if you do an Alt F1 to get a virtual console? That should flip the screen to text mode, then you could log in an edit xorg.conf.
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=83973
Of course, we all know what the judge really meant to order is the logging of relevant data
Exactly. The people suing them demanded a list of IP addresses, times and the name of the torrent they downloaded so they can subpoena the user name from the IP address and then sue the users. TorrentSpy have a tracker which knows that information. It keeps it in Ram but doesn't store it on disk. But that's equivalent to destroying evidence which means they are in deep shit legally. I guess the judge can force them to keep logs and then they are off the hook. But most of the people here are quibbling about the language and pointing out that they know more about technology than the judge. Which is true, but if you were in this situation and you did something cute like pulling the DIMMS and sending them to the court you would probably end up in prison on some legal technicality.
The judge doesn't understand technology but she knows that TorrentSpy have to provide any information requested if it is evidence of criminal activity - they can't protect the anonymity of their users if those users are breaking the law. Or rather if they do, the people running TorrentSpy will end up in jail.
From a performance standpoint, that is insane. You won't be able to serve as many users if you are doing that level of logging, it's a lot of I/O traffic. Especially if it's a single log file for all client-handling threads; you are adding an artificial thread-synchronized block of code to every action. Ouch!
The only reason that the situation arrives is because most of TorrentSpy's users are pirating stuff. If they weren't then TorrentSpy wouldn't have been forced to preserve the logs.
The problem is that the judges paper analogy doesn't hold; you aren't shredding because you never had the info in the first place.
Yeah they did, they just only stored it in Ram. Of course a tracker knows the IP addresses of peers. That's analogous to having a document which could be used as evidence of a crime but shredding rather than filing it. And if you do that to protect people breaking laws, you go to jail.
Keeping documents rather than shredding them imposes costs on businesses, just like logging does on servers, but the costs of not doing it, i.e. jail and/or lawsuits are greater.
Look it's not hard. If you run a business and you aid and abet piracy or any criminal activity sooner or later the legal system will shut you down. And if you're dumb enough to try to bullshit your way out of this with excuses like the ones you posted, you go to jail.
No, I don't think so. But once someone subpoenas the information you have to go back to TRACE.
Imagine if it were paper documents. You could have a policy to shred day to day stuff (i.e. you're in ERROR mode). But then if someone subpoenas you have to keep everything. Actually, that's not quite right. Evidence that might end up in court would be kept even in ERROR logs.
Does Ubuntu have a safe mode? In Windows you can press a function key to get to safe mode where the generic VGA driver is used.
w indows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/boot_failsafe.mspx?mf r=true
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/
Then you can right click on the desktop and fiddle around until you get the right settings. You can test the new mode for 10 seconds before applying it too.
It also helps to learn "Do you speak English? Then get me someone who does!" in as many languages as possible.
Are you kidding? At this point, turning the machine off or in anyway disconnecting the power from the RAM is effectively destruction of evidence, contempt of court and a whole bunch of things which are serious crimes. No one likes a smartarse and judges have a whole arsenal of legal weapons to use against them.
Well, they could write them to disk then couldn't they? There's a world of difference between "we never had that data" and "we did have it we don't store it on disk. It sits in RAM for a while and then we delete it". The ruling means that deciding not to store it on disk is close to destroying evidence, which is very illegal.
Which, despite the spin and your personal feeling about torrents is not unreasonable. Let's suppose I gathered information about murders in Ram and make a conscious decision to delete it rather than storing it on disk. Should that be legal? Or should the judge have the power to force me to write the log to disk in future if someone tries to subpoena it?
Luckily they have endless security holes, a sweaty CEO that throws chairs and sings about developers, an arrogant ex-CEO who sits and rocks backs and forth like he's at the special olympics, emails about "cutting off air supply" and "fucking burying" people.
That's just team building. Like when the coach of the football team rants about how they are going to KILL! their opponents. Team linux has the same thing too - e.g. when Linus flames enemies of Linux and hypes new features on the kernel mailing lists.
People do it because it works - e.g. it has made you really hate Microsoft because you see them as the opposing team. Even though temperamentally there's probably not much diffence between Bill Gates and Theo de Raadt for example.
some factory in taiwan that would be willing to make an 'extra' run
You mean "some factory in mainland China". Taiwan is rich enough that local businesses lobby effectively against piracy, since it hurts them more than it helps them. China is poor enough that piracy is still common. At least I think so - I didn't see stores selling pirated disks in Taiwan at all, whereas you can get almost anything pirated in China. Even mobile phones - there are Sony ripoffs called Phony which I thought was amusing.
Particularly this comment on the Wired blog
,WITH A PACK OF MORONS FOR SOME BIG TELECOM WITH BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND VERY LARGE LEGAL STAFFS :; TELLING ME AND EVERY OTHER CONSUMER HOW TO READ, WRITE and SPEAK!
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/06/net_neutr ality_.html#comment-72777768
The Government and the FCC[Federal Communication Commission], Should stop the Tele-Communications, from selling bundles.
It Is the worst thing that could ever Happen. Especially since the consumers; Ability to complaint about service has been Thrown Out.
{ By the I agree / or Do not agree} Button that have to be clicked for Internet service.(ALSO: THIS IS ILLEGAL CONTRACT)!.
Currently The Tele-Com's Have Given themselves the "ABILITY" to "RATION"! out The First Amendment:
++Mainly Freedom Of Speech and Freedom Of Press.( By Their Agree or Do not Agree). Before the provide service!.
**THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO DENY SPEECH OR PRESS TO ANYONE!!
The Telephone Lines and Cables are not Just for Large Corporations,They are for Public and Private use.
This is what they are Trying to achieve: Total Control and Dominance in: What you can see, hear, or speak and write!. By Offing the Consuming public: Apparently Low Prices on Many Peripherals. That The Consumer Believes that they are getting a good DEAL, "WHICH THEY ARE NOT!.
Regulatory, INTERVENTION IS NEEDED!.
Being pushed off a or "TERMINATED at the "DISCRETION OF SOME EMPLOYEE HAVING A BAD DAY, OR AN ATTITUDE ABOUT WHAT SOMEONE WRITES, THAT IS NOT TO HIS OR HER LIKING.
IS THE GOVERNMENT AND THE FCC GIVING TOTALITARIAN AND FASCIST AUTHORITY , TO A PACK OF GREEDY MONGRELS, {THE TELE-COM} INDUSTRY!.
THERE IS NO WAY TO GET SERVICE!.
THERE IS NO WAY TO GET MAINTENANCE!.
THERE IS NO ONE TO CALL ABOUT SERVICE DROP-OUT (OFF)!.
WHEN THERE IS A PROBLEM, THEY SAY IT'S YOUR COMPUTER OR EQUIPMENT,AND IN MANY CASES THIS IS AN OUT RIGHT LIE AND FRAUD(AGAINST CONSUMERS)
WHERE THERE IS NO PROTECTION BY THE GOVERNMENT ![Why FCC does not have a complaint for such activity is incomprehensible.]
AND THERE SHOULD BE PROTECTION OF BASIC SPEECH AND PRESS!.
AND NOT AT THE DISCRETION OF SOME LAME BRAIN OVER PAID OVER RATE(THEMSELVES) COMPANY AND EMPLOYEES'. {AND WAY OVER PRICED].
IN GENERAL THERE IS NO VENUE FOR THE CONSUMER, OR AVENUE FOR THEM TO PURSUE, IF THE DAMN THING STOPS WORKING!.(or If They are Denied ACCESS).
THAN THERE IS THE BOLD BLATANT CONSUMER FRAUD THAT THE TELE-COM'S PERPETRATED AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT BUSINESS AND CONSUMER:!
BY SAYING THAT THEY HAVE A MAIL SYSTEM THAT; IS YOURS(LEADING THE CONSUMER) TO BELIEVE, THAT THEY CAN WRITE AND CORRESPOND PERSONAL MESSAGES: WHEN THEY ARE NOT.
THEY ARE VENUES FOR THE TELE-COMS TO ADD [ADVERTISEMENTS] TOO. THIS IS NOT PERSONAL MAIL!}.[This is corporate selling] and I Want To know WHEN I AM GETTING PAID???.
THAN MOST OF ALL, AFTER A TELECOM COMPANY TELLS YOU THAT YOU {STATED} OR WROTE SOMETHING THEY DO NOT LIKE.
GO AND TAKE A GOOD LONG LOOK AT THE TRASH, OBSCENITY,PORNOGRAPHY THEY PUT AT THE : TOP BOTTOM, SIDES OF YOUR MAIL!.IF YOU COMPLAIN THEY SAY TO LEAVE.( The Telephone and Cable Line Are For the Use Of The Public and Private Use)!. These company have no legal ground to ask any consumer to agree or not to the use of Public access and they have no right to deny[access] , but they keep trying
THEY: {THE TELECOM] INDUSTRY WOULD, GIVEN HALF A CHANCE ; TURN THE PUBLIC AND CONSUMER INTO THEIR OWN PRIVATE WHORES!.
**YES: Intervention is very needed!.
+++HARMFUL BEHAVIOR.
YES IF TRYING TO DOMINATE AND CONTROL SPEECH AND PRESS IS NOT HARMFUL, WITH NO AVENUE OR VENUE FOR THE CONSUMER TO COMPLAIN AND NO CONSUMER PROTECTIONS;
***YES THIS IS A VERY HARMFUL THING!.
**WHAT IS EVEN MORE HARMFUL,, I AM SITTING IN MY HOUSE
IS THIS FASCISM? OR TOTALITARIAN
Life just seemed more simple. Al Qaeda was still at war with America. They'd attacked embassies, the USS Cole and the WTC. It's just that the Clinton was too busy with other issues to do anything about it.
I reckon al Qaeda suspects would tell us the location of the Secret Rebel Base if they were suddenly hauled out of torture dungeons for surprise cocktails with a drunk and very friendly President in an ill fitting dress.