It might be a test or demonstration of the botnet. Like any weapon it needs to be test fired before actual use. The persons controlling this might be trying to kill two birds with one stone - test the botnet, and knock those who taunt you off the air.
So, in short, they actual sell less volume, even if they keep all the volume for themselves, and can charge higher prices.
Ah, but as Apple Computer so eloquently shows, profit = price * volume. If Intel had a monopoly on integrated circuits, they wouldn't care that they sold fewer computers, so long as they got to charge higher prices.
Also, what about the possibility of posting incorrect information? If one user posts their stupid cocked-up way of doing something and opens up a security hole, then having that information spread through the entire company (via the wiki) is obviously worse than having the information spread only among those people that the original user talks to.
Expecting people to do something complex, like securing their computer, with no apparent benefit before they get infected... I don't see it happening.
Car analogy still applies. The state expects you to have insurance on your car, even though you'll never use it if you're a good driver. Same thing applies here.
One home computer getting compromised is just not a big deal in the world.
One car with a broken turn signal isn't a big deal either. But have lots of cars in that state, and you've got issues. Even without the risk to life and limb, you'll have huge issues with traffic flow and maintaining order unless you lay down some minimum standards. Just compare traffic in India to traffic here in the US. Indian traffic is like current regime - few regulations on what kind of signals a vehicle must have, vehicles all over the place etc. US traffic is more like the regulated system that the OP was proposing.
Lots getting compromised might be a bigger deal, so it's reasonable to ask OS dealers to care about it, because they can affect lots of computers.
Maybe that's what it'll take. Most automakers offer warranties for their vehicles. Maybe OS vendors should do the same. All the same, it still falls to the individual user to take care of the system after the warranty expires.
Asking the vast mass of non-technical users to understand or even care about firewalls, etc. is not realistic. Heck, I'm an uber-geek, and even I hate being expected to care about that stuff.
I'm not expecting the individual user to fix the issue by himself. After all, could you fix a broken turn signal on a car? I am expecting that, if there is an issue, the user takes it to someone who will fix it for them. At the same time, once users are directly on the hook for the inconvenience that their computers cause others, they will protest and generate demand for secure operating systems.
Its better than nothing. Despite all the snickering, I think Windows XP Service Pack 2 is a fairly secure OS for normal use if one keeps up with security updates.
punishing people for owning infestable technology is like punishing Pinto [wikipedia.org] owners for buying a car that tends to explode
That's a bad analogy. Punishing people for using infestable technology is like punishing people for driving without headlights or speedometers, which, as a society we do. You can't go onto the highway without proper safety gear, such as headlights, turn signals, etc. Why should you be allowed onto the internet without a firewall at the very least?
At least average Joe is no longer sharing his entire catalog like many people were a few years ago.
Joe User is not sharing his entire music collection on Kazaa anymore, but that does not mean that he is not uploading. As more file-sharing goes to bittorrent-like systems, Joe User will be sharing what he is currently downloading. It makes little difference in the eyes of the RIAA, if one is uploading pieces of the file that one has a full download of, or if one is uploading pieces from a partial download.
I find it hard to believe that file sharing has increased.
You don't need to believe anything. Bittorrent is already 35% of all internet traffic, and its share is climbing. While Bittorrent has legitimate uses (World of Warcraft patches, Linux distributions, etc.) a lot of bittorrent traffic is in copyrighted material.
This is just Collateral damage. It sucks, but in the real world people only respond to severe efforts.
So, in other words, the ends justify the means?
I disagree. One of the central principles behind our system of justice is that the defendant is "innocent until proven guilty". The burden is on the RIAA to collect sufficient evidence in a legal fashion to show that I was sharing copyrighted material. It is not my responsibility to show that my computer is free of unauthorized content.
I don't agree with or like their methods, but they are working.
If their methods are working so well, then why has file sharing traffic, as a proportion of total internet traffic gone up consistently since the shutdown of the original Napster?
You can still make your own derivitives of it and distribute them under whatever terms you like.
Not exactly. I don't think you can "un-GPL" code that has already been placed under the GPL. You can say that any additional code will be distributed under a different license. Even then, you might run into trouble if your old code links to your new code.
I have a hard time with the concept of creating something, keeping a copyright in force, and then signing the copyright away for no benefit to myself.
The entire point of the GPL is that you use the terms of your copyright to ensure that all the users of your software have the same rights to it that you do. You (the creator) have the right to use, and the right to modify. With the GPL your users have the same rights. The GPL goes farther than that, though. It also says that neither you nor none of your users may take away any of those rights, by redistributing the program in a closed-source manner.
The "unauthorized" user can't steal it because you will always have it. The "unauthorized" user can extend it and keep those extensions hidden, but I fail to see how that really hurts me: I can extend my copy too.
The problem that GPL is trying to address is the situation of a user taking community code, extending it, and selling it in a closed-source fashion. In that sense, the user is profiting from the community's work, but isn't giving anything back in return.
If I give an ice cream cone to my brother, I can't dictate to him how he eats it.
Bad analogy. You aren't giving your code itself to the user. There is no transfer of ownership. You're simply giving your users a right to use the code, extend the code, and redistribute the code in your name. Think of it as the loan of a tool. If I loan you my lawnmower, I have the right to say how you use the lawnmower (use the code), whether you can modify my lawnmower (extend the code), and whether you can also loan the lawnmower to someone else (redistribute the code). Further, if I grant you the right to loan the lawnmower to others, I also have a say in the loan agreement that you use to do that because, in the end, its still my lawnmower. I can say that you have to grant the person that you loan it to the same rights that I granted you.
To speak of 'rights' on their web site is sort of speaking about rights at K-Mart. You don't have any.
That's not true, per se. One does have right at K-Mart. For example, K-Mart may not turn me away even if I'm a minority or if I'm in a wheelchair. There are anti-discrimination and anti-harassment laws that grant me certain rights even if I'm inside private property.
Apples to oranges, my friend; Longhorn, Whistler, and Blackcomb were all internal project names for unreleased software
And Gutsy Gibbon is an internal name too. The official name of the release is Ubuntu Linux 7.10. Its just that Ubuntu is an open-source project so everyone knows the code name at the start, and we don't have to wait for some insider to leak it to the press.
Heck I still hear the occasional reference to Vista as "Longhorn", so this phenomenon is not solely limited to Ubuntu.
People built Pentium Ms and the like in their garages 20 years ago?
No. But they could at least design such a microprocessor now. Heck, Sun has open sourced its SPARC series of processors to get the community's input on its design.
The main reason that Windows "just works" for the average user is because all of the hardware manufacturers design their hardware and drivers specifically to work for Windows.
This is actually starting to affect Windows users as well. With Vista, Microsoft introduced a new driver model, but did not allow enough time for manufacturers to make stable drivers. Now, you're getting lots of incompatibilities with older hardware, especially laptops where power management drivers that were just becoming stable have been shaken up once again.
Don't most routers/modems come with a data counter?
Nope. The Motorola Surfboards that Comcast gives out in the Minneapolis/St. Paul areas don't have any logging or traffic monitoring capabilities that I know of.
And I suppose keeping information from citizens brings down 100+ story skyscrapers, sinks ships, destroys embassies, blows up hundreds of civilians, kills thousands, causes billions in damage...
No. But keeping information from citizens does prevent them from knowing about safety defects in the everyday products they use. The NHTSA (among other things) plays a role in regulating the auto industry. If there's another Ford Pinto-like problem out there, I want the information straight, not spin-doctored by some political appointee.
That's a non-trivial attack though -- it's not as though you can send mail with uni-directional traffic.
You don't have to send mail with unidirectional traffic. You just have to make sure that the traffic doesn't point back to you. In other words, if you send mail from a botnet, you're still free and clear as long as you don't use too much of your botnet at once.
Ubuntu, as of the latest version (Feisty Fawn), does not install SELinux. If you want that functionality, you'll have to install it yourself. I think this is because SELinux policies can be difficult for beginning users to navigate. Also, when SELinux thwarts execution of some file, there is often no explicit message stating that the file was blocked by SELinux, please change your configuration. In all too many cases, the user is left on their own to figure out why their file isn't executing.
That was the rumor. However, recently, the NYSE gave symbol M to Macy's Inc. (department store chain). I think they realized that Microsoft wasn't going to leave the NASDAQ.
It seems to be a broad spectrum attack against many different Linux vendors, with most of the emphasis on attacking Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I did find some case studies highlighting people switching away from SuSE, something that I find interesting considering that Novell/SuSE is now a Microsoft partner.
A higher "average" noise level does way more damage to hearing than temporary short term spikes. The compressed dynamic range on modern songs is probably doing more damage than your "wildly variant spikes".
Why does it need to be barcode? Here in Minnesota we vote Scantron-like bubble sheets, where one fills in a circle next to the candidate that one chooses. The ballot is then fed into a machine that reads your votes and tallies the totals. I think grandparent is imagining a system by which the machine fills out the scantron for you, and you then verify that all your votes got recorded correctly.
Slashdot Mirror
It might be a test or demonstration of the botnet. Like any weapon it needs to be test fired before actual use. The persons controlling this might be trying to kill two birds with one stone - test the botnet, and knock those who taunt you off the air.
So, in short, they actual sell less volume, even if they keep all the volume for themselves, and can charge higher prices.
Ah, but as Apple Computer so eloquently shows, profit = price * volume. If Intel had a monopoly on integrated circuits, they wouldn't care that they sold fewer computers, so long as they got to charge higher prices.
Also, what about the possibility of posting incorrect information? If one user posts their stupid cocked-up way of doing something and opens up a security hole, then having that information spread through the entire company (via the wiki) is obviously worse than having the information spread only among those people that the original user talks to.
Expecting people to do something complex, like securing their computer, with no apparent benefit before they get infected... I don't see it happening.
Car analogy still applies. The state expects you to have insurance on your car, even though you'll never use it if you're a good driver. Same thing applies here.
One home computer getting compromised is just not a big deal in the world.
One car with a broken turn signal isn't a big deal either. But have lots of cars in that state, and you've got issues. Even without the risk to life and limb, you'll have huge issues with traffic flow and maintaining order unless you lay down some minimum standards. Just compare traffic in India to traffic here in the US. Indian traffic is like current regime - few regulations on what kind of signals a vehicle must have, vehicles all over the place etc. US traffic is more like the regulated system that the OP was proposing.
Lots getting compromised might be a bigger deal, so it's reasonable to ask OS dealers to care about it, because they can affect lots of computers.
Maybe that's what it'll take. Most automakers offer warranties for their vehicles. Maybe OS vendors should do the same. All the same, it still falls to the individual user to take care of the system after the warranty expires.
Asking the vast mass of non-technical users to understand or even care about firewalls, etc. is not realistic. Heck, I'm an uber-geek, and even I hate being expected to care about that stuff.
I'm not expecting the individual user to fix the issue by himself. After all, could you fix a broken turn signal on a car? I am expecting that, if there is an issue, the user takes it to someone who will fix it for them. At the same time, once users are directly on the hook for the inconvenience that their computers cause others, they will protest and generate demand for secure operating systems.
Its better than nothing. Despite all the snickering, I think Windows XP Service Pack 2 is a fairly secure OS for normal use if one keeps up with security updates.
punishing people for owning infestable technology is like punishing Pinto [wikipedia.org] owners for buying a car that tends to explode
That's a bad analogy. Punishing people for using infestable technology is like punishing people for driving without headlights or speedometers, which, as a society we do. You can't go onto the highway without proper safety gear, such as headlights, turn signals, etc. Why should you be allowed onto the internet without a firewall at the very least?
At least average Joe is no longer sharing his entire catalog like many people were a few years ago.
Joe User is not sharing his entire music collection on Kazaa anymore, but that does not mean that he is not uploading. As more file-sharing goes to bittorrent-like systems, Joe User will be sharing what he is currently downloading. It makes little difference in the eyes of the RIAA, if one is uploading pieces of the file that one has a full download of, or if one is uploading pieces from a partial download.
I find it hard to believe that file sharing has increased.
You don't need to believe anything. Bittorrent is already 35% of all internet traffic, and its share is climbing. While Bittorrent has legitimate uses (World of Warcraft patches, Linux distributions, etc.) a lot of bittorrent traffic is in copyrighted material.
This is just Collateral damage. It sucks, but in the real world people only respond to severe efforts.
So, in other words, the ends justify the means?
I disagree. One of the central principles behind our system of justice is that the defendant is "innocent until proven guilty". The burden is on the RIAA to collect sufficient evidence in a legal fashion to show that I was sharing copyrighted material. It is not my responsibility to show that my computer is free of unauthorized content.
I don't agree with or like their methods, but they are working.
If their methods are working so well, then why has file sharing traffic, as a proportion of total internet traffic gone up consistently since the shutdown of the original Napster?
You can still make your own derivitives of it and distribute them under whatever terms you like.
Not exactly. I don't think you can "un-GPL" code that has already been placed under the GPL. You can say that any additional code will be distributed under a different license. Even then, you might run into trouble if your old code links to your new code.
I have a hard time with the concept of creating something, keeping a copyright in force, and then signing the copyright away for no benefit to myself.
The entire point of the GPL is that you use the terms of your copyright to ensure that all the users of your software have the same rights to it that you do. You (the creator) have the right to use, and the right to modify. With the GPL your users have the same rights. The GPL goes farther than that, though. It also says that neither you nor none of your users may take away any of those rights, by redistributing the program in a closed-source manner.
The "unauthorized" user can't steal it because you will always have it. The "unauthorized" user can extend it and keep those extensions hidden, but I fail to see how that really hurts me: I can extend my copy too.
The problem that GPL is trying to address is the situation of a user taking community code, extending it, and selling it in a closed-source fashion. In that sense, the user is profiting from the community's work, but isn't giving anything back in return.
If I give an ice cream cone to my brother, I can't dictate to him how he eats it.
Bad analogy. You aren't giving your code itself to the user. There is no transfer of ownership. You're simply giving your users a right to use the code, extend the code, and redistribute the code in your name. Think of it as the loan of a tool. If I loan you my lawnmower, I have the right to say how you use the lawnmower (use the code), whether you can modify my lawnmower (extend the code), and whether you can also loan the lawnmower to someone else (redistribute the code). Further, if I grant you the right to loan the lawnmower to others, I also have a say in the loan agreement that you use to do that because, in the end, its still my lawnmower. I can say that you have to grant the person that you loan it to the same rights that I granted you.
To speak of 'rights' on their web site is sort of speaking about rights at K-Mart. You don't have any.
That's not true, per se. One does have right at K-Mart. For example, K-Mart may not turn me away even if I'm a minority or if I'm in a wheelchair. There are anti-discrimination and anti-harassment laws that grant me certain rights even if I'm inside private property.
Apples to oranges, my friend; Longhorn, Whistler, and Blackcomb were all internal project names for unreleased software
And Gutsy Gibbon is an internal name too. The official name of the release is Ubuntu Linux 7.10. Its just that Ubuntu is an open-source project so everyone knows the code name at the start, and we don't have to wait for some insider to leak it to the press.
Heck I still hear the occasional reference to Vista as "Longhorn", so this phenomenon is not solely limited to Ubuntu.
People built Pentium Ms and the like in their garages 20 years ago?
No. But they could at least design such a microprocessor now. Heck, Sun has open sourced its SPARC series of processors to get the community's input on its design.
How is "Gutsy Gibbon" or "Feisty Fawn" more silly than "Longhorn" or "Whistler" or "Blackcomb" ?
The main reason that Windows "just works" for the average user is because all of the hardware manufacturers design their hardware and drivers specifically to work for Windows.
This is actually starting to affect Windows users as well. With Vista, Microsoft introduced a new driver model, but did not allow enough time for manufacturers to make stable drivers. Now, you're getting lots of incompatibilities with older hardware, especially laptops where power management drivers that were just becoming stable have been shaken up once again.
Don't most routers/modems come with a data counter?
Nope. The Motorola Surfboards that Comcast gives out in the Minneapolis/St. Paul areas don't have any logging or traffic monitoring capabilities that I know of.
And I suppose keeping information from citizens brings down 100+ story skyscrapers, sinks ships, destroys embassies, blows up hundreds of civilians, kills thousands, causes billions in damage...
No. But keeping information from citizens does prevent them from knowing about safety defects in the everyday products they use. The NHTSA (among other things) plays a role in regulating the auto industry. If there's another Ford Pinto-like problem out there, I want the information straight, not spin-doctored by some political appointee.
That's a non-trivial attack though -- it's not as though you can send mail with uni-directional traffic.
You don't have to send mail with unidirectional traffic. You just have to make sure that the traffic doesn't point back to you. In other words, if you send mail from a botnet, you're still free and clear as long as you don't use too much of your botnet at once.
Ubuntu, as of the latest version (Feisty Fawn), does not install SELinux. If you want that functionality, you'll have to install it yourself. I think this is because SELinux policies can be difficult for beginning users to navigate. Also, when SELinux thwarts execution of some file, there is often no explicit message stating that the file was blocked by SELinux, please change your configuration. In all too many cases, the user is left on their own to figure out why their file isn't executing.
That was the rumor. However, recently, the NYSE gave symbol M to Macy's Inc. (department store chain). I think they realized that Microsoft wasn't going to leave the NASDAQ.
It seems to be a broad spectrum attack against many different Linux vendors, with most of the emphasis on attacking Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I did find some case studies highlighting people switching away from SuSE, something that I find interesting considering that Novell/SuSE is now a Microsoft partner.
A higher "average" noise level does way more damage to hearing than temporary short term spikes. The compressed dynamic range on modern songs is probably doing more damage than your "wildly variant spikes".
Neither the CCNA or MCSE require seven exams. You might be thinking of CCIE, which requires a lot of exams, and a lab session.
Why does it need to be barcode? Here in Minnesota we vote Scantron-like bubble sheets, where one fills in a circle next to the candidate that one chooses. The ballot is then fed into a machine that reads your votes and tallies the totals. I think grandparent is imagining a system by which the machine fills out the scantron for you, and you then verify that all your votes got recorded correctly.