Linksys didn't OWN the software. Thus not one penny of Cisco's money went to paying for the software. And I don't believe that Linksys lied to them about using embedded linux. It was common knowledge.
Linksys owned the copyright to every line of software they wrote, under the GPL, or whatever other license, assuming they didn't assign the copyright to someone else. This was one of the assets that Cisco was paying for in the merger.
What Linksys was originally claiming was in the router was a stock Linux kernel, with some publically available patches and, with binary loadable modules that fit under the Linus Torvalds (in)famous interpretation of the GPL with regards to binary modules, that it's not a derived work as long as it uses the standard ABIs.
What Linksys was actually shipping included proprietary loadable modules that didn't use the standard ABIs, proprietary modules that were directly linked into the kernel, and undisclosed patches to the kernel. As far as I know, the extent of this mess was not common knowledge at the time of the merger (March/April 2003).
No, I place the blame on Linksys/Broadcom, and the responsibility on Cisco. Cisco was financially and legally responsible to find out what was in the systems it was buying from Linksys.
I fail to see how saying that a company purchasing copyrights had better review the status of those copyrights is "blaming the GPL" for anything.
Cisco should have no trouble releasing the code they borrowed and improved
They should have no trouble; however, they claim to be having trouble getting the code that precisely matches the released version due to the chaos surrounding the merger. Whether this is true or not, I can't say, but it sounds plausible. If this is the case, they should take the code they *do* have, produce a flash upgrade for the router to this known version, and be done with it.
or paying reasonable terms to the software's authors.
We're talking about the Linux kernel here. Even if someone could successfully contact all copyright holders, the only terms some of them consider reasonable are the terms of the GPL.
This business about "it wants you to burn down your house, or at the very least share it with cloners," is greed based bullshit.
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. However, that is Daniel Lyons of Forbes talking, not Cisco. From what I understand, Cisco is dealing with the FSF amicably and in good faith in trying to resolve this issue.
Only people who don't have the nuts to share their code can think this way, that would be companies like Cisco, Microsoft and other "Information Economy" losers. They think they can steal everyone else's work and keep everyone else from doing anything.
Aside from this fiasco, what work has Cisco "stolen"? I'm curious.
Cicso's recent advert showing "hackers" being beaten and abused in filthy Russian looking jails, puts Cisco firmly on my list of "Bad Company". Despite their prowess, size and publications, I no longer want anything to do with them.
That's fine, but hate Cisco for what they're actually doing wrong, producing overpriced routers based on proprietary software, and trying to raise general security fears for their own benefit. Not for things they are actually working on fixing, and not for business rags trying to stir the pot for their own purposes.
I do seriously object to the tone of the article that seems to suggest companies like Cisco are the victim here.
In many ways Cisco *is* a victim here. They didn't design the router, and I'm reasonably sure that Cisco's development proceedures would have prevented such a gaffe from happening. Someone at Linksys and/or Broadcom made some very bad decisions, and Cisco inherited the resulting problem along with the merger.
They paid NOTHING for this software
Actually, they paid a fair amount ($500 million from what I understand) for a company with a range of hardware products containing embedded software, so yes, they did pay for this software, and they paid for it with the understanding that it wasn't in violation of any licenses.
I completely object to the Forbes' article's tone that the FSF are doing evil things to companies, and the implication that someone with deep pockets should sue them to take them out. The article had many factual inaccuracies on top of a vile tone.
On the other hand the subject matter of the article contains a cautionary tale that really does need to be told to the Forbes readers: when buying the copyrights of software that other people developed, it is critical to carefully review the development materials for possible license violations, of both proprietary and Free licenses. Otherwise you can end up in all sorts of legal hot water. I just wish they told that story better.
I recently learned that automatic transmissions increase one's towing capacity. At first I thought it was because they did not trust the human to know when to downshift, but it does appear that there are some features in some transmissions that make it less likely to slip. Or so a truck salesman says. If I switched to automatic it would be because I needed that kind of towing capacity.
I know very little about cars (and trucks), but I would still question that salesman where he got that idea. For evidence otherwise, Mack's transmissions for their big rigs all seem to be standard, not automatic. Is towing many many tons enough?
Even better, software to automatically install commercial software, including hands and eyes-free identifying and "Agreeing to" the automated click-through EULA.
I wonder what a typical judge would say if XYZ corp tried to enforce a license with someone, when the only licensing "discussion" was XYZ's automated software talking to the consumer's automated software.
If the unlikely "partial invalidation" described comes to pass, the remnants of the GPL would come out more like a BSD license than a Public Domain release. The author would still maintain copyright, people still couldn't claim they entirely wrote derivative works, they'd have to give the author credit. The author would also still have the right to distribute under an alternate license (although the attraction of that option would be reduced).
If this were to come to pass, it would suck, but life would go on.
Also, hypothetically speaking, if this were to come to pass, the same arguments used to partially invalidate the GPL would surely work to partially invalidate many many proprietary licenses, which would be... interesting to say the least.
Still, any (US) lawyer I've talked to (or read articles from) who wasn't paid to say otherwise has indicated that the GPL is pretty much solid. Of course, your lawyers might vary;-)
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, the above is not legal advice. Bring back the intellectual commons.
It's all an illusion, smoke and mirrors, because they're banking on the fact that most people are ignorant, and have no clue what a farce their company has become. Future customers--but especially future investors who don't know SCO-- might be impressed by this circus act.
I find it particularly telling that, while they have no showing in New York City, they have one in Newark, NJ. To be blunt, Newark is the place to go if you want to be in the New York metropolitan area, but also want to discourage New Yorkers from coming.
It appears that *nix systems now have an exploit, where are all the people claiming "Linux has no exploits that need patching", showing how insecure Microsoft are?
Where are all the people making such claims, hopefully flipping burgers. Of course Linux has the occasional exploit, which of course requires patching.
There are still differences between a Linux exploit and a Windows one. The Linux one is generally fixed faster, and the fix is more likely to work the first time. A Linux exploit is less likely to give the cracker full root access to your system than a Windows one. Also, most decent Linux systems (eg Debian) are considerably easier to patch than Windows (apt-get update, apt-get install).
Sobig and Blaster came and went and microsoft got bashed so damn much, when something like this happens to linux its like "oh shit happens, nevermind".
That's because Sobig and Blaster were seen everywhere, they did actual damage to actual systems. Blaster might even have exacerbated the recent Northeastern US/Southeastern Canada blackout. Any exploits of this OpenSSH bug, if such exploits exist, are so rare that most people are calling them rumors. Nobody would sanely call Sobig a rumor.
And it's going to be harder to patch *nix systems than windows (don't say Windows update is hard to use and *nix is as easy, its not [most of the time, ignoring redcarpet ect])
I have used apt-get, redcarpet and Windows Update. Apt-get is easier, faster, and more reliable than both redcarpet and Windows Update. Redcarpet is just as easy, and more reliable compared with WU. Windows Update often requires reboots, and occasionally trashes systems altogether.
SSH is probably the most used administration tool for *nix, probably the last thing people want an exploit in. Microsoft don't seem so on their own anymore.
Nope, they're still in a league of their own regarding security problems. Sorry to break it to you.
What hasn't been confirmed is:
A) Is it truly exploitable, or just a bug? and
B) Has it been exploited in the wild?
C) Has it been exploited on a ssh server with privilege separation properly enabled?
golgotha007 wrote: if you have physical access to a system, the game is freaken over.
you could just tkae the drives out and mount them on a diff system...
Yes.
The one exception to that is if you have encrypted filesystems that require a security token (password, smart card, whatever) be supplied at mount time. You also must make sure there is insufficient information without that token to decrypt the data.
The downside of this setup is that this feature means that the machine (or the process with secured data) would never be able to boot unattended, so most system administrators refuse to have them in their environment.
Rather than wondering if it will ever replace Fairbanks' UberUPS, I'm more interested if it will be adapted to replace this battery. Reducing the number of open chest surgeries for people already having heart problems can be a very very good thing.
I hope the crashing price is due to the high bidders that appeared non-serious getting their bids removed. I can't see someone bidding more than $100 just to get their name in the paper. The only reason I can see for a high bid is for someone with a business reason (eg. a lawyer, or someone who wants to start a reselling buisiness) for becoming a party to the potential lawsuit.
I've heard unsubstantiated rumors that David Boies has backed away from the case personally, but the case is, of course, still being handled by Boies, Schiller & Flexner. As circumstantial evidence, notice that most recent legal statements from the SCO camp have come from Mark Heise, a less important partner in the same firm.
I would not argue with people calling Boies overrated, myself.
You're assuming everyone uses their ISP's smarthost.
No, I'm not. I gave an ISP as an example, since that's the most common case. You can just as well use an alternative service provider, or even set up your own little networks of AMTP servers where you sign each other's certs.
I work for a small not for profit organization. We issue several certificates a month for our own little private network of clients and friends. There's nothing to stop you from doing it too.
If you want your little cluster to have contact with the rest of the world, one of you will need a certificate that's signed by someone outside the cluster. But that's only one of you, and it still could just be another cluster's signature.
Every step we take that *requires* centralization, registration, additional fees or anything else that's trivial for a mega-corp but burdensome for an individual is another step towards turning the Internet into a clone of TV. Dumb, paying consumers at the edges, a few fat-cat suppliers of everything in the middle:(
And that's what I like about AMTP. It implies centralization and registration, so the megacorps and fatcats will support it, but it doesn't actually require this centralization and registration. In fact, it really encourages postmasters to sit down and think about who they trust really, and to set up relationships based on that.
Who needs central signing for this? Only the mail backbone? The whole "SSL implies central signatures implies supporting the Verisign behemoth" is for servers who have no idea who will be connecting to them, like webservers or DNSSEC servers. They need a signature by one of the root CA certificates that are supported by a wide range of browsers (or DNS servers). This problem doesn't carry over to here.
Any "leaf" nodes, or even branches, have a finite and known group of email servers they communicate with. The certificate has to be signed by someone they trust, but it doesn't have to be trusted by the world. For example, if your AMTP server passes email up to your ISP or down to departmental servers, a certificate signed by your ISP would suffice (and self-signed certs for your departmental servers).
So basically, if you want your AMTP server to be allowed to go to random machines and deliver your mail directly, you need a centrally signed certificate. If you just want to pass your email to the next server up the line, you just need a cert signed by someone they trust, like them.
While the Do-Not-Call list does protect you from unsolicited calls from private groups, it does not protect you from non-profit groups (such as charities).
True, but you can always ask these groups to add you to their own "do-not-call" lists. They can get in trouble if they call you after that.
While I'm glad I some protection from telemarketers I know I am still going to get calls from the police asking for donations and silently threatening to ticket me if I don't donate.
Of course, I would be nervous being on their do-not-call list, it might also become a wait-an-hour-before-responding-to-911-call list.;-)
Individual mileage may vary. For example, when I contributed to a charity, I noticed a marked increase in the number of charities calling me, including charities having no similarity to the one I contributed to.
Likewise, I would expect political calls to increase if I contributed to a politician's campaign, including from other campaigns in the same party. Even without contributing, I would expect more political calls and pollsters in the summer and early fall of even-numbered years.
Can telemarketers call your cell phone number? Of course they can. However, barring certain exceptions, it is illegal for them to do so if your name is on the national do-not-call list. Alternately, it is illegal for any telemarketer to call you if you have requested to be added to their own "do-not-call" list. Note: telling them "don't call me" or "take me off your list" might not be sufficient, you must ask to be added to their "do-not-call list".
Do you need to put your cell number on the do not call list You don't need to put any number on the list, but it can be useful if you want the protection that the list offers. It could be especially useful for a cell phone, given the pricing structure of most cellular plans.
or is it already protected since you pay on a time basis? My understanding is, the fact that you pay for time spent on incoming calls doesn't protect you in any way from any call. If anything, it makes you more vulnerable, and makes registering the number on the do-not-call more useful.
Are you saying that I can't split my votes? I have to vote for one party? I know that in the last ellection I voted for canidates from at least three different parties.
In some parlementary governments (I know the Israeli Knesset) that's what you are voting for, which party to represent you in parlement. It appears that the Swedish Riksdag is a little more complicated, and you have some of the flexibility you are asking for, but essentially most people are just picking the party to represent their constituency.
Here in New York State, we have two technologies used for state lottery tickets, One is essentially fill in a scantron sheet, the other is called "Quick Pick" and it involves telling the clerk "Gimme a quick pick", the clerk hits a button, and the computer gives you a random selection of numbers for your lottery ticket.
From observation, Quick Pick is far more common (like three times as common) compared to people filling in the little bubbles. I have no idea what the error rate is on the scantron selections either (I'm not sure anyone does).
While "Quick Pick" would make an interesting voting technology, I'm not sure how democratic it is.
Your issue is easily handled by the bookmark file keywords provided by Mozilla Firebird. After you've bookmarked a page, you can return to it by typing in your personally chosen keyword.
It is interesting how this simple user interface feature provides a function you thought could only be provided by a central bureaucracy like the DNS. Hold off on the hyperbole a bit. There are some good solutions if you look.
DNS was developed in 1981; The WWW was developed in 1990. That right there is a clue that DNS is for more than just web addresses.
Off the top of my head here are some uses of DNS that just don't seem to fit with the YURL concept:
1) Configuring security policy
2) Configuring routing policy
3) Troubleshooting routing issues (ping, traceroute, etc)
4) Command line internet tools (ssh, rsync, cvs, etc)
5) Configuring distributed functionality in a large application across an enterprise (databases, directory services, etc)
In all the above, I need machine identifiers to be both reliable (something YURL and nym offers and DNS doesn't), and human readable (something DNS offers and YURL and nym does not). Since there's nothing out there that offers everything I need, I stick with DNS, it doesn't require I implement anything new.
Now if something like YURL or nym were combined with something like DNS's CNAME feature in a way that allows for human readable, reliable and secure addresses, then I'll sit up and take notice. I'm sorry, I just can't take any alternative naming scheme seriously if its solution to complex identifiers is "let the bookmarks handle it".
Federal minimum wage is $5.15/hour in the US. Some states have a higher minimum wage, no state has a lower one, most states just use the Federal minimum wage.
In many areas of the country, "unskilled service" jobs are the only ones really growing. These are jobs like Grill crew at McDonalds, retail clerk at a Hallmark store, security guard for Securitas, etc. Many of these jobs pay minimum wage whenever they can get away with it.
That being said, while the US minimum wage is next to impossible to live on, in many ways it actually is "great money" compared to average wages in many other countries, or the wages that "illegal" immigrants get in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
ohreally factor wrote:
Linksys didn't OWN the software. Thus not one penny of Cisco's money went to paying for the software. And I don't believe that Linksys lied to them about using embedded linux. It was common knowledge.
Linksys owned the copyright to every line of software they wrote, under the GPL, or whatever other license, assuming they didn't assign the copyright to someone else. This was one of the assets that Cisco was paying for in the merger.
What Linksys was originally claiming was in the router was a stock Linux kernel, with some publically available patches and, with binary loadable modules that fit under the Linus Torvalds (in)famous interpretation of the GPL with regards to binary modules, that it's not a derived work as long as it uses the standard ABIs.
What Linksys was actually shipping included proprietary loadable modules that didn't use the standard ABIs, proprietary modules that were directly linked into the kernel, and undisclosed patches to the kernel. As far as I know, the extent of this mess was not common knowledge at the time of the merger (March/April 2003).
twitter wrote:
Once again, you put the blame on the GPL.
No, I place the blame on Linksys/Broadcom, and the responsibility on Cisco. Cisco was financially and legally responsible to find out what was in the systems it was buying from Linksys.
I fail to see how saying that a company purchasing copyrights had better review the status of those copyrights is "blaming the GPL" for anything.
Cisco should have no trouble releasing the code they borrowed and improved
They should have no trouble; however, they claim to be having trouble getting the code that precisely matches the released version due to the chaos surrounding the merger. Whether this is true or not, I can't say, but it sounds plausible. If this is the case, they should take the code they *do* have, produce a flash upgrade for the router to this known version, and be done with it.
or paying reasonable terms to the software's authors.
We're talking about the Linux kernel here. Even if someone could successfully contact all copyright holders, the only terms some of them consider reasonable are the terms of the GPL.
This business about "it wants you to burn down your house, or at the very least share it with cloners," is greed based bullshit.
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. However, that is Daniel Lyons of Forbes talking, not Cisco. From what I understand, Cisco is dealing with the FSF amicably and in good faith in trying to resolve this issue.
Only people who don't have the nuts to share their code can think this way, that would be companies like Cisco, Microsoft and other "Information Economy" losers. They think they can steal everyone else's work and keep everyone else from doing anything.
Aside from this fiasco, what work has Cisco "stolen"? I'm curious.
Cicso's recent advert showing "hackers" being beaten and abused in filthy Russian looking jails, puts Cisco firmly on my list of "Bad Company". Despite their prowess, size and publications, I no longer want anything to do with them.
That's fine, but hate Cisco for what they're actually doing wrong, producing overpriced routers based on proprietary software, and trying to raise general security fears for their own benefit. Not for things they are actually working on fixing, and not for business rags trying to stir the pot for their own purposes.
Sterno wrote:
I do seriously object to the tone of the article that seems to suggest companies like Cisco are the victim here.
In many ways Cisco *is* a victim here. They didn't design the router, and I'm reasonably sure that Cisco's development proceedures would have prevented such a gaffe from happening. Someone at Linksys and/or Broadcom made some very bad decisions, and Cisco inherited the resulting problem along with the merger.
They paid NOTHING for this software
Actually, they paid a fair amount ($500 million from what I understand) for a company with a range of hardware products containing embedded software, so yes, they did pay for this software, and they paid for it with the understanding that it wasn't in violation of any licenses.
I completely object to the Forbes' article's tone that the FSF are doing evil things to companies, and the implication that someone with deep pockets should sue them to take them out. The article had many factual inaccuracies on top of a vile tone.
On the other hand the subject matter of the article contains a cautionary tale that really does need to be told to the Forbes readers: when buying the copyrights of software that other people developed, it is critical to carefully review the development materials for possible license violations, of both proprietary and Free licenses. Otherwise you can end up in all sorts of legal hot water. I just wish they told that story better.
ritter wrote:
I recently learned that automatic transmissions increase one's towing capacity. At first I thought it was because they did not trust the human to know when to downshift, but it does appear that there are some features in some transmissions that make it less likely to slip. Or so a truck salesman says. If I switched to automatic it would be because I needed that kind of towing capacity.
I know very little about cars (and trucks), but I would still question that salesman where he got that idea. For evidence otherwise, Mack's transmissions for their big rigs all seem to be standard, not automatic. Is towing many many tons enough?
Even better, software to automatically install commercial software, including hands and eyes-free identifying and "Agreeing to" the automated click-through EULA.
I wonder what a typical judge would say if XYZ corp tried to enforce a license with someone, when the only licensing "discussion" was XYZ's automated software talking to the consumer's automated software.
If the unlikely "partial invalidation" described comes to pass, the remnants of the GPL would come out more like a BSD license than a Public Domain release. The author would still maintain copyright, people still couldn't claim they entirely wrote derivative works, they'd have to give the author credit. The author would also still have the right to distribute under an alternate license (although the attraction of that option would be reduced).
... interesting to say the least.
;-)
If this were to come to pass, it would suck, but life would go on.
Also, hypothetically speaking, if this were to come to pass, the same arguments used to partially invalidate the GPL would surely work to partially invalidate many many proprietary licenses, which would be
Still, any (US) lawyer I've talked to (or read articles from) who wasn't paid to say otherwise has indicated that the GPL is pretty much solid. Of course, your lawyers might vary
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, the above is not legal advice. Bring back the intellectual commons.
Thankfully, this Clark has a single, well-defined chin.
Hugh George Asm wrote:
It's all an illusion, smoke and mirrors, because they're banking on the fact that most people are ignorant, and have no clue what a farce their company has become. Future customers--but especially future investors who don't know SCO-- might be impressed by this circus act.
I find it particularly telling that, while they have no showing in New York City, they have one in Newark, NJ. To be blunt, Newark is the place to go if you want to be in the New York metropolitan area, but also want to discourage New Yorkers from coming.
koniosis wrote:
It appears that *nix systems now have an exploit, where are all the people claiming "Linux has no exploits that need patching", showing how insecure Microsoft are?
Where are all the people making such claims, hopefully flipping burgers. Of course Linux has the occasional exploit, which of course requires patching.
There are still differences between a Linux exploit and a Windows one. The Linux one is generally fixed faster, and the fix is more likely to work the first time. A Linux exploit is less likely to give the cracker full root access to your system than a Windows one. Also, most decent Linux systems (eg Debian) are considerably easier to patch than Windows (apt-get update, apt-get install).
Sobig and Blaster came and went and microsoft got bashed so damn much, when something like this happens to linux its like "oh shit happens, nevermind".
That's because Sobig and Blaster were seen everywhere, they did actual damage to actual systems. Blaster might even have exacerbated the recent Northeastern US/Southeastern Canada blackout. Any exploits of this OpenSSH bug, if such exploits exist, are so rare that most people are calling them rumors. Nobody would sanely call Sobig a rumor.
And it's going to be harder to patch *nix systems than windows (don't say Windows update is hard to use and *nix is as easy, its not [most of the time, ignoring redcarpet ect])
I have used apt-get, redcarpet and Windows Update. Apt-get is easier, faster, and more reliable than both redcarpet and Windows Update. Redcarpet is just as easy, and more reliable compared with WU. Windows Update often requires reboots, and occasionally trashes systems altogether.
SSH is probably the most used administration tool for *nix, probably the last thing people want an exploit in. Microsoft don't seem so on their own anymore.
Nope, they're still in a league of their own regarding security problems. Sorry to break it to you.
ferratus wrote:
6 371592604940&w=2
Reading the mailing list, it appears that there's nothing confirmed so far. Let's hope its just a false rumour.
Not entirely true, it is confirmed that there is a bug, the bug is possibly exploitable. A little more info (and the patch) can be found at: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-misc&m=10
What hasn't been confirmed is:
A) Is it truly exploitable, or just a bug? and
B) Has it been exploited in the wild?
C) Has it been exploited on a ssh server with privilege separation properly enabled?
golgotha007 wrote:
if you have physical access to a system, the game is freaken over.
you could just tkae the drives out and mount them on a diff system...
Yes.
The one exception to that is if you have encrypted filesystems that require a security token (password, smart card, whatever) be supplied at mount time. You also must make sure there is insufficient information without that token to decrypt the data.
The downside of this setup is that this feature means that the machine (or the process with secured data) would never be able to boot unattended, so most system administrators refuse to have them in their environment.
Rather than wondering if it will ever replace Fairbanks' UberUPS, I'm more interested if it will be adapted to replace this battery. Reducing the number of open chest surgeries for people already having heart problems can be a very very good thing.
I hope the crashing price is due to the high bidders that appeared non-serious getting their bids removed. I can't see someone bidding more than $100 just to get their name in the paper. The only reason I can see for a high bid is for someone with a business reason (eg. a lawyer, or someone who wants to start a reselling buisiness) for becoming a party to the potential lawsuit.
I've heard unsubstantiated rumors that David Boies has backed away from the case personally, but the case is, of course, still being handled by Boies, Schiller & Flexner. As circumstantial evidence, notice that most recent legal statements from the SCO camp have come from Mark Heise, a less important partner in the same firm.
I would not argue with people calling Boies overrated, myself.
timffbf wrote:
:(
You're assuming everyone uses their ISP's smarthost.
No, I'm not. I gave an ISP as an example, since that's the most common case. You can just as well use an alternative service provider, or even set up your own little networks of AMTP servers where you sign each other's certs.
I work for a small not for profit organization. We issue several certificates a month for our own little private network of clients and friends. There's nothing to stop you from doing it too.
If you want your little cluster to have contact with the rest of the world, one of you will need a certificate that's signed by someone outside the cluster. But that's only one of you, and it still could just be another cluster's signature.
Every step we take that *requires* centralization, registration, additional fees or anything else that's trivial for a mega-corp but burdensome for an individual is another step towards turning the Internet into a clone of TV. Dumb, paying consumers at the edges, a few fat-cat suppliers of everything in the middle
And that's what I like about AMTP. It implies centralization and registration, so the megacorps and fatcats will support it, but it doesn't actually require this centralization and registration. In fact, it really encourages postmasters to sit down and think about who they trust really, and to set up relationships based on that.
Who needs central signing for this? Only the mail backbone? The whole "SSL implies central signatures implies supporting the Verisign behemoth" is for servers who have no idea who will be connecting to them, like webservers or DNSSEC servers. They need a signature by one of the root CA certificates that are supported by a wide range of browsers (or DNS servers). This problem doesn't carry over to here.
Any "leaf" nodes, or even branches, have a finite and known group of email servers they communicate with. The certificate has to be signed by someone they trust, but it doesn't have to be trusted by the world. For example, if your AMTP server passes email up to your ISP or down to departmental servers, a certificate signed by your ISP would suffice (and self-signed certs for your departmental servers).
So basically, if you want your AMTP server to be allowed to go to random machines and deliver your mail directly, you need a centrally signed certificate. If you just want to pass your email to the next server up the line, you just need a cert signed by someone they trust, like them.
Akasha wrote:
;-)
While the Do-Not-Call list does protect you from unsolicited calls from private groups, it does not protect you from non-profit groups (such as charities).
True, but you can always ask these groups to add you to their own "do-not-call" lists. They can get in trouble if they call you after that.
While I'm glad I some protection from telemarketers I know I am still going to get calls from the police asking for donations and silently threatening to ticket me if I don't donate.
Of course, I would be nervous being on their do-not-call list, it might also become a wait-an-hour-before-responding-to-911-call list.
Individual mileage may vary. For example, when I contributed to a charity, I noticed a marked increase in the number of charities calling me, including charities having no similarity to the one I contributed to.
Likewise, I would expect political calls to increase if I contributed to a politician's campaign, including from other campaigns in the same party. Even without contributing, I would expect more political calls and pollsters in the summer and early fall of even-numbered years.
gsparrow asks:
Can telemarketers call your cell phone number?
Of course they can. However, barring certain exceptions, it is illegal for them to do so if your name is on the national do-not-call list. Alternately, it is illegal for any telemarketer to call you if you have requested to be added to their own "do-not-call" list. Note: telling them "don't call me" or "take me off your list" might not be sufficient, you must ask to be added to their "do-not-call list".
Do you need to put your cell number on the do not call list
You don't need to put any number on the list, but it can be useful if you want the protection that the list offers. It could be especially useful for a cell phone, given the pricing structure of most cellular plans.
or is it already protected since you pay on a time basis?
My understanding is, the fact that you pay for time spent on incoming calls doesn't protect you in any way from any call. If anything, it makes you more vulnerable, and makes registering the number on the do-not-call more useful.
bluGill asks:
Are you saying that I can't split my votes? I have to vote for one party? I know that in the last ellection I voted for canidates from at least three different parties.
In some parlementary governments (I know the Israeli Knesset) that's what you are voting for, which party to represent you in parlement. It appears that the Swedish Riksdag is a little more complicated, and you have some of the flexibility you are asking for, but essentially most people are just picking the party to represent their constituency.
Here in New York State, we have two technologies used for state lottery tickets, One is essentially fill in a scantron sheet, the other is called "Quick Pick" and it involves telling the clerk "Gimme a quick pick", the clerk hits a button, and the computer gives you a random selection of numbers for your lottery ticket.
From observation, Quick Pick is far more common (like three times as common) compared to people filling in the little bubbles. I have no idea what the error rate is on the scantron selections either (I'm not sure anyone does).
While "Quick Pick" would make an interesting voting technology, I'm not sure how democratic it is.
Anonymous Coward wrote:
Yes, DNSSEC is unfinished. The IETF has become worse than ISO.
Nope, IETF won't be worse than the ISO as long as the IETF allows you to read the standard without charging you.
Tyler Close wrote:
Your issue is easily handled by the bookmark file keywords provided by Mozilla Firebird. After you've bookmarked a page, you can return to it by typing in your personally chosen keyword.
It is interesting how this simple user interface feature provides a function you thought could only be provided by a central bureaucracy like the DNS. Hold off on the hyperbole a bit. There are some good solutions if you look.
DNS was developed in 1981; The WWW was developed in 1990. That right there is a clue that DNS is for more than just web addresses.
Off the top of my head here are some uses of DNS that just don't seem to fit with the YURL concept:
1) Configuring security policy
2) Configuring routing policy
3) Troubleshooting routing issues (ping, traceroute, etc)
4) Command line internet tools (ssh, rsync, cvs, etc)
5) Configuring distributed functionality in a large application across an enterprise (databases, directory services, etc)
In all the above, I need machine identifiers to be both reliable (something YURL and nym offers and DNS doesn't), and human readable (something DNS offers and YURL and nym does not). Since there's nothing out there that offers everything I need, I stick with DNS, it doesn't require I implement anything new.
Now if something like YURL or nym were combined with something like DNS's CNAME feature in a way that allows for human readable, reliable and secure addresses, then I'll sit up and take notice. I'm sorry, I just can't take any alternative naming scheme seriously if its solution to complex identifiers is "let the bookmarks handle it".
gazbo wrote:
Like you know if you're in a room with a washing machine and it finishes, and suddenly you're aware of how quiet everything is?
and battjt responded:
Or in a datacenter when the power goes out!
No, that generally sounds like a cacophony of beeping as dozens of UPS alarms start going off together.
Federal minimum wage is $5.15/hour in the US. Some states have a higher minimum wage, no state has a lower one, most states just use the Federal minimum wage.
In many areas of the country, "unskilled service" jobs are the only ones really growing. These are jobs like Grill crew at McDonalds, retail clerk at a Hallmark store, security guard for Securitas, etc. Many of these jobs pay minimum wage whenever they can get away with it.
That being said, while the US minimum wage is next to impossible to live on, in many ways it actually is "great money" compared to average wages in many other countries, or the wages that "illegal" immigrants get in the US.