If there were, this would presumably be an easy court case and security companies wouldn't have a hard time at all suing Microsoft for illegal measures to establish a monopoly, etc.
You mean like they are taking action against MS in the EU?
Malicious software and black hats will continue to use the pagefile exploit to overwrite what they need and do what they want, while legitimate software writers get locked out completely. Kind of defeats the purpose...or do you think that MS had a different purpose altogether?
They're going after people stealing their IP for personal profit.
There is no such thing as stealing of copyrighted material and there is no such thing as Intellectual Property. Intellectual property is a misleading term coined by lawyers to umbrella up copyright and patents. It is not a term of law and it is misleading to use.
I'm sure you think I'm just a grammar nazi for mentioning this, but if you allow the redefinition of the language of the law this way, don't be suprised when the FBI gives you a greeting, by which they mean a 'visit', by most other people would mean a warrantless search.
Sorry, you must have misunderstood me. I'm aware that copyright is in the constitution, my point was that the actual wording wasn't "intellectual property". My whole post was about wording, because I consider "intellectual property" a misleading term.
While I'm no expert on the history of copyright, I'm aware of it's history from the 17th century.
The Constitution was pretty clear in its aims, and I'm comfortable with the resulting temporary arrangement with the rights-holder being characterized as "intellectual property".
If you can cite me where the constitution of the USA refers to copyright as intellectual property then you win the cookie. As far as I know the term intellectual property was invented much later than the drafting of your constitution.
My point is, the wording matters because intellectual property conveys more than the constitution says and even more than what the current law is saying. One of the few inalienable rights in a democracy is the right to make a living (I think its a fancy way of saying that you can have private property). Copyright is _law_ not a right, so even that term is loaded, but by calling it intellectual property, it is likened to property, which it is not.
Google is actually infringing the copyrights in a worse way than this dude did. Google actually stores copyrighted content on their servers, while the guy only provided an index pointing to the information...
He was knowingly and wilfully helping others to share information representated as bits and those others have decided to share information falling under the copyright law, amongst different information free from copyright.
Jó szerencse == Good luck
pölö == ??? (it could be póló, which means tshirt or a phonetic version of pl, meaning "for example" but I haven't the slightest idea what did they mean to write)
by a native hungarian in the early morning (so if I missed something obvious, it's early!).
The problem with the editorial of course is that many of the points made in the original Forbes piece are completely valid and true.
Seriously, since you're editorializing aswell, which part of the Forbes article is correct about RMS? As I seem to recall I haven't found such part in that article, where the author would be right. The whole thing came off as something written by an ignorant uninformed person.
I have never doubted some people's ability to put their hands into sand, but I have to admit: I haven't seen such down-to-earth brutally simple way to do it in a long long time...
You don't even deserve the regular arguments that cite "two wrongs don't make a right", "statistical proof", etc...
The classic case of corrolation doesn't necessarily mean causation, but the obvious counter argument is that you compare the same area to an election when there were no voting machines yet at the place to the present state. If the area had comparatively no anomalies during that previous election compared to other places, then there shouldn't be any anomalies now either, comparing to other voting areas now.
So yeah, something like this means that the reason of the change of votes were the voting machines.
I know your post is a troll, but I just find it interesting enough to mention that with a difference bigger than the scientifically proven error margin, Kerry had won, according to some study comissioned by a joint venture of universities and media. Also, it is important that this matched the result of exit polls closely.
I'm not in any way encouraging anyone to actually go out and steal an election. This article is intended solely as a guide to the kinds of information and techniques that election thieves already have available, and not as an incitement to or an aid for committing crimes.
Why not? I'd rather have a hacker with good intentions to steal or otherwise grossly manipulate an election (libertarian party coming out as first) and get the system fixed subsequently, than to have the republican/democrat party keep themselves in power and dismiss the people complaining about election fraud as conspiracy theorists.
Since you cannot validate the correctness of the election either way, I'd opt for the path which fixes the situation.
Yes, when the only ones with rights to vote are those who understand the system, aka electronic engineers and computer programmers with access to the source code months prior to the election.
An election is not only about counting the votes, but the process being accountable and verifiable by every voter.
One thing to remember with Americans is that compared to the world (not just Europe... there are other continents out there as well), we are very educated. Almost everyone has graduated from high school and a very large percentage of our population has been to or graduated from college.
One of the most common stereotypes is that americans are uneducated. It sadly has a kernel of truth to it. Comparetively the old prussian high school system in central/eastern europe is achieving (was achieving) much better results than the american one up until now. Given that in a large percentage of Europe university education is state sponsored, it means that education reaches to more people.
About religion: I consider it on the same level as Santa Claus. While I wouldn't think of being hostile towards anyone for believing in either of them, I do attribute lack of critical thinking to a religious person, just as I do attribute a lack of critical thinking to an adult believing in Santa Claus.
Let me demonstrate the difference in what I know about.
10 Hungary 3,00
What does it tell you? It would be wrong to assume that the press is great in Hungary. It only means that the press is not physically threatened. That is freedom of journalism.
Freedom of press also means that there is no outstanding bias in either way, which is simply not the case in ex-communist Hungary. Most of the press has been privatized into the hands of ex-communist businessman, so currently the press shows around 80%-20% bias towards the socialist side.
The hungarian "public" tv is called state tv for a reason, even by European media experts, in contrast for example the BBC which does a good job at maintaining balance and trying not to be too biased to either side. That is freedom of the press.
So yeah, you're free to write about what you want in Hungary, but informed opinion is hard to be established for the common people, because most of the domestic media is so biased. It is not even free market, when the government while doesn't jail journalists they don't like, but they do fund news sources they like (by advertising only in those papers for example) and boycott the ones they don't.
I was talking about how the networking modell kills the current copyright model.
Partly this is what I ment. Wouldn't it be so much easier if we just didn't have to put up with all this copyright mess (because frankly, most of these services are good things to exist)?
Content == Information. Someone else's information? That is only a valid phrase if noone else has that information. AKA, content creators should be only compensated for that and not given distribution rights afterwards.
Exactly. Personally I think that Stallman is a visionary and Linus is too pragmatist in a sense, as Stallman clearly wants to avoid the DRM/"Trusted computing" trap with GPLv3 and Linus can't see medium/longterm about this. Also, he doesn't seem to be really understanding the v3, since he claimed things like digitally signed repositories like apt-get would be not allowed with v3, while Stallman clearly established that it's not the case.
I think Linus is a good coder and project manager, but we shouldn't expect him to "show the way" in issues of principle/vision. He's an engineer, not a "freedom fighter".
Slashdot Mirror
D'oh. Thanks for telling me. See, that's what I get for not reading TFA.
Next time I'll be more careful.
The whole point of the first article was that Microsoft "fixed" the pagefile workaround! I would have thought you're new enough at here to RTFA!
Anyways, good riddance that this company found another way around...
Malicious software and black hats will continue to use the pagefile exploit to overwrite what they need and do what they want, while legitimate software writers get locked out completely. Kind of defeats the purpose...or do you think that MS had a different purpose altogether?
I'm sure you think I'm just a grammar nazi for mentioning this, but if you allow the redefinition of the language of the law this way, don't be suprised when the FBI gives you a greeting, by which they mean a 'visit', by most other people would mean a warrantless search.
Sorry, you must have misunderstood me. I'm aware that copyright is in the constitution, my point was that the actual wording wasn't "intellectual property". My whole post was about wording, because I consider "intellectual property" a misleading term.
While I'm no expert on the history of copyright, I'm aware of it's history from the 17th century.
My point is, the wording matters because intellectual property conveys more than the constitution says and even more than what the current law is saying. One of the few inalienable rights in a democracy is the right to make a living (I think its a fancy way of saying that you can have private property). Copyright is _law_ not a right, so even that term is loaded, but by calling it intellectual property, it is likened to property, which it is not.
Google is actually infringing the copyrights in a worse way than this dude did. Google actually stores copyrighted content on their servers, while the guy only provided an index pointing to the information...
Actually that's still an overstatement.
He was knowingly and wilfully helping others to share information representated as bits and those others have decided to share information falling under the copyright law, amongst different information free from copyright.
Calling copyrighted information intellectual property isn't any better. It's still Orwellian doublespeak.
Jó szerencse == Good luck pölö == ??? (it could be póló, which means tshirt or a phonetic version of pl, meaning "for example" but I haven't the slightest idea what did they mean to write)
by a native hungarian in the early morning (so if I missed something obvious, it's early!).
heads...although if there is a scorpion in the sand putting your hand there is just as stupid...
I have never doubted some people's ability to put their hands into sand, but I have to admit: I haven't seen such down-to-earth brutally simple way to do it in a long long time...
You don't even deserve the regular arguments that cite "two wrongs don't make a right", "statistical proof", etc...
The classic case of corrolation doesn't necessarily mean causation, but the obvious counter argument is that you compare the same area to an election when there were no voting machines yet at the place to the present state. If the area had comparatively no anomalies during that previous election compared to other places, then there shouldn't be any anomalies now either, comparing to other voting areas now.
So yeah, something like this means that the reason of the change of votes were the voting machines.
You have to have some seriously braindead and paranoid thinking to come up with that...
I know your post is a troll, but I just find it interesting enough to mention that with a difference bigger than the scientifically proven error margin, Kerry had won, according to some study comissioned by a joint venture of universities and media. Also, it is important that this matched the result of exit polls closely.
Actually you can. See, if you steal the election from the people, they no longer have one! Erm...
If you steal the election, the people no longer have their result! Mpff...
If you steal the election, the people will have a different result than they originally had!
Rats...
Since you cannot validate the correctness of the election either way, I'd opt for the path which fixes the situation.
So you're advocating a Platonist community I see, with technical people in charge instead of philosophers?
:)
In that case, welcome our taxation-in-binary-format overlords!
(otherwise let's just stick to democracy
An election is not only about counting the votes, but the process being accountable and verifiable by every voter.
About religion: I consider it on the same level as Santa Claus. While I wouldn't think of being hostile towards anyone for believing in either of them, I do attribute lack of critical thinking to a religious person, just as I do attribute a lack of critical thinking to an adult believing in Santa Claus.
Let me demonstrate the difference in what I know about.
10 Hungary 3,00
What does it tell you? It would be wrong to assume that the press is great in Hungary. It only means that the press is not physically threatened. That is freedom of journalism.
Freedom of press also means that there is no outstanding bias in either way, which is simply not the case in ex-communist Hungary. Most of the press has been privatized into the hands of ex-communist businessman, so currently the press shows around 80%-20% bias towards the socialist side.
The hungarian "public" tv is called state tv for a reason, even by European media experts, in contrast for example the BBC which does a good job at maintaining balance and trying not to be too biased to either side. That is freedom of the press.
So yeah, you're free to write about what you want in Hungary, but informed opinion is hard to be established for the common people, because most of the domestic media is so biased. It is not even free market, when the government while doesn't jail journalists they don't like, but they do fund news sources they like (by advertising only in those papers for example) and boycott the ones they don't.
I was talking about how the networking modell kills the current copyright model.
Partly this is what I ment. Wouldn't it be so much easier if we just didn't have to put up with all this copyright mess (because frankly, most of these services are good things to exist)?
Content == Information. Someone else's information? That is only a valid phrase if noone else has that information. AKA, content creators should be only compensated for that and not given distribution rights afterwards.
Exactly. Personally I think that Stallman is a visionary and Linus is too pragmatist in a sense, as Stallman clearly wants to avoid the DRM/"Trusted computing" trap with GPLv3 and Linus can't see medium/longterm about this. Also, he doesn't seem to be really understanding the v3, since he claimed things like digitally signed repositories like apt-get would be not allowed with v3, while Stallman clearly established that it's not the case.
I think Linus is a good coder and project manager, but we shouldn't expect him to "show the way" in issues of principle/vision. He's an engineer, not a "freedom fighter".