...then so are lawyers, cops, prosecutors, judges, prison guards, everyone who profits from fastfood sales, authors of shitty romances novels, the purveyors of most primetime (and otherwise) television, all mainstream recording industry employeeys, everyone in Hollywood, your mom, all commercial airlines, most elected government officials, and everyone who has ever downloaded a torrent, even if said downloader could not/would not have purchased the content in question had the torrent not been available. That's a lot of immorality. Any crimes here? Not many, and none of any seriousness worth concerning yourself with. Go watch more cable coverage of Caley and Haleigh, the pedophile religious leader of the moment, or debate the merits of OJ's cases, and quit confusing legality with morality.
It was called a "joke." You'll find numerous definitions and descriptions of a concept called "humor" if you search the web. Were you too busy paying attention in school to develop a sense of humor, or were you actually a participant of the first world war? Have a Budweiser, watch a Bundesliga match, and don't worry, no one was trying to mess with the Bundeswehr. (We know what happens when they get mad.)
There's your license right there (see above). Find a lawyer who isn't afraid of IP to translate it into legalese. That could be the hard part, depending on where you are located, but knowing what you have and what you want to allow is the key. As someone posted earlier though, copyrighting your work but not requiring a restrictive EULA could accomplish what you want, if that is to allow the purchaser to use the product as they see fit (modifying it as needed, perhaps in ways that limit your liability to provide support), without permitting redistribution.
um, like, hire a real lawyer. really, dude.
That's real brilliant advice, but the problem is there are astonishingly few lawyers who will have the slightest clue how to answer this question.
That's why I'm going back to school for a law degree and focusing on intellectual property. This is clearly a niche that is growing and will continue to grow but definitely lacks enough "experts," or even many trained practitioners. You are very right, and I hope to capitalize on the fact few lawyers have any software knowledge at all, and few have any interest or experience with IP. This is a rapidly evolving field, which is the kind of thing that scares attorneys who are used to being able to refer to their text books for long standing, well-settled precedents. Granted, my own programming abilities are rudimentary, at best, but a good grasp of the basic concepts and issues in question should prove very useful. Being lumped into a category with slimy litigators and ambulance chasers is certainly not appealing, though I don't anticipate finding any shortage of clients once I pass the bar. Professional legal advice is a must for any serious software company, but finding knowledgeable, affordable counsel can be quite difficult.
The Bundeswehr is recruiting hackers? I'm sure Bayern Munich will get the top recruits as they often do, though I'll keep rooting for FC Kaiserslautern (FCK). Football and hacking finally meet, and I'm in heaven.
It sounds like they are throttling but have simply change the term for it and the stated reason for doing it. Kind of like when you invade a country to protect your own from weapons of mass destruction that you "know"" exist, and none are found so you say you went in to liberate the country's people from an evil dictator. I know that is not a fair comparison, but that's where they learned it from: if someone objects to what you are doing or why, change your reasoning or supposed goals until they shut up.
I'm sorry, Captain Serious. From the viewpoint of someone without such a judgmental idea of what might constitute humor, I can assure you that the rest of the article is more sensible, though the testing methodologies could use some broadening. Now, is this a topic that interests your convent specifically, or one that you enjoy personally? Come on, it was a take on the varied capabilities of the hardware (or should I say product, so as not to offend you) and "alphabet soup" of jargon that we have to continually interpret, and was not terribly explicit or vulgar -- not terribly clever or especially funny, but was it THAT bad? I suspect you shouldn't drive a car, so you can keep your eyes off of any offensive bumper stickers you might encounter. Or is/. now available in North Korea and Utah?
No, I think you are forgetting that every article like this gets replies like yours. Relevant open source software sees plenty of criticism (much of it done internally and prior to release), and points like yours seem to come up in every thread here. The catches are that most of open source source software is either not relevant to most people (common), isn't available at Best Buy or Walmart (very common), doesn't deserve as much criticism because it doesn't require an an excessive outlay of money for purchase or replacement (sometimes, at least), and it doesn't generally necessitate tons of patches every month to keep PCs from being hijacked and protect bank accounts from being drained (generally true, though debatably due to a lack of popular use). Open source software would get more of the negative attention you desire if it got any mainstream attention to begin with. Many folks here tend to like or prefer it to closed-source security risks, so if we are slightly biased, that is why. Our bias is not without reason, and it is far from dogmatic or so extreme that it stifles debate.
As for KDE 4.2 specifically, I think I'll stick to Gnome for now. I really liked some of the earlier KDE versions, but I used mainly Windows then, and I know my Gnome setup works and does what I need it to. I must admit that I'm kind of excited to try a new, "stable" version of KDE, but my hopes are not too high for it. Why? Because there has been so much KDE bashing lately that expectations for it are not what they used to be, except perhaps amongst fanatics that will never be swayed by factually-based criticism. 4.2 is supposedly stable and probably ready for widespread adoption, or so I hear.
Yeah, that comes as a pretty big surprise to some of us who drink more than one cup of coffee back-to-back or pound energy drinks like they are nothing. Reading about this literally scared me, since my caffeine intake varies greatly but can consist of up to 6 cups of regular, black coffee and a diet Mt. Dew or two in a day. The gnomes that live under my desk told me not to worry, though.
Only very rarely did a customer find a lower price elsewhere and bring it to our attention.
With all due respect, that's because most consumers will simply go and buy the item for the lower price rather than having to dick around with you and submit proof of a better price offered somewhere else.
I do know that when I started working for CC beating a competitor's price by 10% of the difference was new in the industry and we did shop and match competitor's prices (We'd go in with hidden mics and record model prices).
Who were your local competitors, Goldfinger and Kim Jong Il? Here, a small notepad or something will suffice. If questioned or otherwise accosted, a simple response of "I'm looking for the best price on a few things, and will definitely be back here to buy if you give me the best deal," has always worked okay for me.
Hmm, Best Buy has always had what I went there for (aside from Black Friday items), but their prices are usually not the best. The same goes for Microcenter - sufficient stock, better selection of computer gear, but kind of expensive. Circuit City - no thanks, I don't like being pressured by "highly motivated," commissioned, incompetent salesmen.
Nowadays, I prefer Newegg for most anything computer related. Great selection, good prices, attentive customer service staff, and a very functional website. You can't see the stuff in person before buying, but they've always done me right. I still shop around, but they usually win.
My issue with them was that several times when I would go to their store to buy their advertised loss leader... they wouldn't have it. Then I would go across the street to BB and pricematch
That is one of the few good things about BB - they usually have what they advertise. In contrast, running out of advertised items is the best thing about HH Gregg, who moved into this area a few years ago. HH Gregg has an in-stock guarantee, meaning if they don't have something from the current ad, they will sell you an otherwise more expensive similar item for the ad price.
The bestest part: their selection is not that great. As a result, a couple of friends and I would sometimes go to "buy" things like Coby home theater systems, no-name mp3 players, etc., in the last day or two an ad was in effect. Just about every time one of us did this, we'd ask to see the cheap piece of crap, they were out, and they'd sell us something pretty nice for dirt cheap. Examples: $400 (regularly priced) JVC home theater system for about $75, a $250 Sony system for the same price. Whenever one of us found an out of stock uber-low-end item, we'd tell everyone we knew. I don't know if they still do this, but their rabid sales staff put even Circuit City to shame, so I wouldn't feel bad exploiting their policies again.
I suspect HH Gregg may be on the way out, as well. Their selection always stinks, their prices stink, and their sales staff is on commission and even pushier than CC. I last went there in July before buying a nice plasma TV elsewhere. I figured I might as well check them out. Strangely, the one time I was willing to spend some real jack there, no one would look at me. I seriously looked at EVERY TV displayed, and not one salesman approached me. Best Buy dominating their segment will not be good, but HH Gregg can rot with CC.
So question is, if you are Windows user and Happy for it. Stick with it. If you ain't happy, think do you want to try Linux as your OS and if answer is "yes", then check what Distribution is best for you. Just forget the OpenSolaris and few *BSD OS's if you ain't ready to play the helpdesk for yourself.
I agree...I think. My first experience with Linux was with Slackware in the mid 90's. Ugh, that was rough. Since then I've tinkered a bit with older versions of Red Hat, SUSE, open SUSE, Fedora, Ubuntu, FreeBSD, Sabayon (Gentoo based, IIRC) and a whole slew of lesser-known off-shoots. Ubuntu came the closest to being what I wanted, and I was able to use it for most of what I needed to do, but it still seemed like a pain. About a year ago I switched to Linux Mint and can now say I have an OS I like and use 95% of the time (still have XP for games on my home desktop).
Now every time I see a new distro or a major update to an old one I am momentarily tempted to try it out. But I don't. Trying something new is always fun, but my headaches with new OSs are in the past so there is no longer any reason to experiment (at least until something revolutionary comes out). That's why I can resist testing out OpenSolaris. Yeah, Open Solaris certainly looks interesting and has a nice legacy behind it, but I suspect the drawbacks outweigh what little gain most desktop users might see. Sticking with an OS once you find a good one you like makes perfect sense. Mint is so dang easy to deal with, and Ubuntu-based, so support and software are easy enough to find, so I'll probably stick with it until it is no longer developed, and probably for years after that. My disgusting addiction and dependence upon MS products is in the past, though my laptop will definitely not see Open Solaris. Mint ain't broke (for the most part).
Suppose that your target is a total of, say, $200K rather than the assumed multi-millions. You are far less likely to be caught or to trigger money-laundering precautions. In a case like this your best strategy might well be to go for above-average but not top 10% balances.
This isn't my area of expertise (I don't have one), but I think this makes sense. The ideal target accounts would see a fairly large number of transactions without being really big accounts, meaning there would be a lot of "noise" (legit transactions) without a huge amount of scrutiny (unlike with especially large accounts). Corporate accounts might be worse targets than personal accounts, as they are likely tracked with rectification software and/or accountants. I wonder whether it is more common to see one-time theft of large amounts or perhaps repeat transfers of smaller amounts with the hope that they go undetected. Office Space-style microtransactions would probably raise suspicion quickly and not be profitable enough to be worth the risk.
Honeypots for the banking industry? I never thought of that.
Good point, because it has been proven that everyone who has ever enjoyed playing an even moderately violent video game has also been shown to have murderous tendencies. It isn't about the puzzle and the challenge of it all, of course.
The means and methods of such a system are very interesting to some of us, even if we really have no interest in actually achieving the criminal result. But I know, everyone who reads novels about serial killers really wishes it were them.
That is a bit harsh, but the basic idea is not that wrong. Users don't care about security because it is a bigger inconviniance than the not doing it. The botnets are quiet and Joe Sixpack can't relate insecure OS / config with spam (don't cares).
What about Joe the Plumber? Some regular Joes understand a bit about how these maverick programs run in the background to do nefarious things. Do these people come to me all the time for help, because they think something may be amiss but aren't sure exactly what is wrong or how to fix it? You betcha. I think average folks are poorly informed on topics like this, but the success of the anti-virus/anti-spam/anti-malware/bloated firewall/anti-pop-up software industry is indicative of some level of awareness.
Or maybe I'm wrong and people spend tons of money on expensive software they really don't need for the same reasons they respond to spam - ignorance and a feeling of a need to act on everything.
You have Bob. Bob has a thing about catching STDs. No matter how many times he gets cleaned up, he turns around and does something stupid and gets a new one, and in turn passes them on.
Is it unethical to study his infections? The subject won't stop getting the infections, nor will he stop spreading them. However, we can use what we learn from studying the subject further on down the line.
Yes, if you propose to examine or diagnose Bob against his will, it would be medically unethical. He has a right to privacy, even if he is a douchebag. Even if he doesn't know you are studying him (say you set up surveillance on him or drug him and kidnap him) it is unethical to study him directly without his knowledge or permission. Studying trends or the people he infects, or how diseases spread in general, is a different story, and none of his business. I'm not sure this is a fair analogy anyway though, especially since one's privacy has already been compromised if a computer is infected by a botnet, and the professional standards are not the same. Apples to oranges, and I don't really have a problem with infiltrating botnets, though I have a hard time articulating why. I guess opening one's computer up to the internet isn't the same to me as contracting a disease or getting medical care.
I'm not sure what you read, but the summary has been edited, I think. My original response was prompted by the term "power chord" in the summary, when it should have read "power cord." Here's a link for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humour#Understanding_humour.
Slashdot Mirror
...then so are lawyers, cops, prosecutors, judges, prison guards, everyone who profits from fastfood sales, authors of shitty romances novels, the purveyors of most primetime (and otherwise) television, all mainstream recording industry employeeys, everyone in Hollywood, your mom, all commercial airlines, most elected government officials, and everyone who has ever downloaded a torrent, even if said downloader could not/would not have purchased the content in question had the torrent not been available. That's a lot of immorality. Any crimes here? Not many, and none of any seriousness worth concerning yourself with. Go watch more cable coverage of Caley and Haleigh, the pedophile religious leader of the moment, or debate the merits of OJ's cases, and quit confusing legality with morality.
It was called a "joke." You'll find numerous definitions and descriptions of a concept called "humor" if you search the web. Were you too busy paying attention in school to develop a sense of humor, or were you actually a participant of the first world war? Have a Budweiser, watch a Bundesliga match, and don't worry, no one was trying to mess with the Bundeswehr. (We know what happens when they get mad.)
There's your license right there (see above). Find a lawyer who isn't afraid of IP to translate it into legalese. That could be the hard part, depending on where you are located, but knowing what you have and what you want to allow is the key. As someone posted earlier though, copyrighting your work but not requiring a restrictive EULA could accomplish what you want, if that is to allow the purchaser to use the product as they see fit (modifying it as needed, perhaps in ways that limit your liability to provide support), without permitting redistribution.
um, like, hire a real lawyer. really, dude.
That's real brilliant advice, but the problem is there are astonishingly few lawyers who will have the slightest clue how to answer this question.
That's why I'm going back to school for a law degree and focusing on intellectual property. This is clearly a niche that is growing and will continue to grow but definitely lacks enough "experts," or even many trained practitioners. You are very right, and I hope to capitalize on the fact few lawyers have any software knowledge at all, and few have any interest or experience with IP. This is a rapidly evolving field, which is the kind of thing that scares attorneys who are used to being able to refer to their text books for long standing, well-settled precedents. Granted, my own programming abilities are rudimentary, at best, but a good grasp of the basic concepts and issues in question should prove very useful. Being lumped into a category with slimy litigators and ambulance chasers is certainly not appealing, though I don't anticipate finding any shortage of clients once I pass the bar. Professional legal advice is a must for any serious software company, but finding knowledgeable, affordable counsel can be quite difficult.
The Bundeswehr is recruiting hackers? I'm sure Bayern Munich will get the top recruits as they often do, though I'll keep rooting for FC Kaiserslautern (FCK). Football and hacking finally meet, and I'm in heaven.
It sounds like they are throttling but have simply change the term for it and the stated reason for doing it. Kind of like when you invade a country to protect your own from weapons of mass destruction that you "know"" exist, and none are found so you say you went in to liberate the country's people from an evil dictator. I know that is not a fair comparison, but that's where they learned it from: if someone objects to what you are doing or why, change your reasoning or supposed goals until they shut up.
I'm sorry, Captain Serious. From the viewpoint of someone without such a judgmental idea of what might constitute humor, I can assure you that the rest of the article is more sensible, though the testing methodologies could use some broadening. Now, is this a topic that interests your convent specifically, or one that you enjoy personally? Come on, it was a take on the varied capabilities of the hardware (or should I say product, so as not to offend you) and "alphabet soup" of jargon that we have to continually interpret, and was not terribly explicit or vulgar -- not terribly clever or especially funny, but was it THAT bad? I suspect you shouldn't drive a car, so you can keep your eyes off of any offensive bumper stickers you might encounter. Or is /. now available in North Korea and Utah?
No, I think you are forgetting that every article like this gets replies like yours. Relevant open source software sees plenty of criticism (much of it done internally and prior to release), and points like yours seem to come up in every thread here. The catches are that most of open source source software is either not relevant to most people (common), isn't available at Best Buy or Walmart (very common), doesn't deserve as much criticism because it doesn't require an an excessive outlay of money for purchase or replacement (sometimes, at least), and it doesn't generally necessitate tons of patches every month to keep PCs from being hijacked and protect bank accounts from being drained (generally true, though debatably due to a lack of popular use). Open source software would get more of the negative attention you desire if it got any mainstream attention to begin with. Many folks here tend to like or prefer it to closed-source security risks, so if we are slightly biased, that is why. Our bias is not without reason, and it is far from dogmatic or so extreme that it stifles debate.
As for KDE 4.2 specifically, I think I'll stick to Gnome for now. I really liked some of the earlier KDE versions, but I used mainly Windows then, and I know my Gnome setup works and does what I need it to. I must admit that I'm kind of excited to try a new, "stable" version of KDE, but my hopes are not too high for it. Why? Because there has been so much KDE bashing lately that expectations for it are not what they used to be, except perhaps amongst fanatics that will never be swayed by factually-based criticism. 4.2 is supposedly stable and probably ready for widespread adoption, or so I hear.
Yeah, that comes as a pretty big surprise to some of us who drink more than one cup of coffee back-to-back or pound energy drinks like they are nothing. Reading about this literally scared me, since my caffeine intake varies greatly but can consist of up to 6 cups of regular, black coffee and a diet Mt. Dew or two in a day. The gnomes that live under my desk told me not to worry, though.
Hopefully they fall over, burn down, sink into the swamp, and rot in hell.
Only very rarely did a customer find a lower price elsewhere and bring it to our attention.
With all due respect, that's because most consumers will simply go and buy the item for the lower price rather than having to dick around with you and submit proof of a better price offered somewhere else.
I do know that when I started working for CC beating a competitor's price by 10% of the difference was new in the industry and we did shop and match competitor's prices (We'd go in with hidden mics and record model prices).
Who were your local competitors, Goldfinger and Kim Jong Il? Here, a small notepad or something will suffice. If questioned or otherwise accosted, a simple response of "I'm looking for the best price on a few things, and will definitely be back here to buy if you give me the best deal," has always worked okay for me.
I don't know about that but I just went to HHG and picked up some ABC, BBD, and ELO CDs, G.
...and $25 USB cables.
walkie-talkies anyone???
Hmm, Best Buy has always had what I went there for (aside from Black Friday items), but their prices are usually not the best. The same goes for Microcenter - sufficient stock, better selection of computer gear, but kind of expensive. Circuit City - no thanks, I don't like being pressured by "highly motivated," commissioned, incompetent salesmen.
Nowadays, I prefer Newegg for most anything computer related. Great selection, good prices, attentive customer service staff, and a very functional website. You can't see the stuff in person before buying, but they've always done me right. I still shop around, but they usually win.
My issue with them was that several times when I would go to their store to buy their advertised loss leader... they wouldn't have it. Then I would go across the street to BB and pricematch
That is one of the few good things about BB - they usually have what they advertise. In contrast, running out of advertised items is the best thing about HH Gregg, who moved into this area a few years ago. HH Gregg has an in-stock guarantee, meaning if they don't have something from the current ad, they will sell you an otherwise more expensive similar item for the ad price.
The bestest part: their selection is not that great. As a result, a couple of friends and I would sometimes go to "buy" things like Coby home theater systems, no-name mp3 players, etc., in the last day or two an ad was in effect. Just about every time one of us did this, we'd ask to see the cheap piece of crap, they were out, and they'd sell us something pretty nice for dirt cheap. Examples: $400 (regularly priced) JVC home theater system for about $75, a $250 Sony system for the same price. Whenever one of us found an out of stock uber-low-end item, we'd tell everyone we knew. I don't know if they still do this, but their rabid sales staff put even Circuit City to shame, so I wouldn't feel bad exploiting their policies again.
I suspect HH Gregg may be on the way out, as well. Their selection always stinks, their prices stink, and their sales staff is on commission and even pushier than CC. I last went there in July before buying a nice plasma TV elsewhere. I figured I might as well check them out. Strangely, the one time I was willing to spend some real jack there, no one would look at me. I seriously looked at EVERY TV displayed, and not one salesman approached me. Best Buy dominating their segment will not be good, but HH Gregg can rot with CC.
So question is, if you are Windows user and Happy for it. Stick with it. If you ain't happy, think do you want to try Linux as your OS and if answer is "yes", then check what Distribution is best for you. Just forget the OpenSolaris and few *BSD OS's if you ain't ready to play the helpdesk for yourself.
I agree...I think. My first experience with Linux was with Slackware in the mid 90's. Ugh, that was rough. Since then I've tinkered a bit with older versions of Red Hat, SUSE, open SUSE, Fedora, Ubuntu, FreeBSD, Sabayon (Gentoo based, IIRC) and a whole slew of lesser-known off-shoots. Ubuntu came the closest to being what I wanted, and I was able to use it for most of what I needed to do, but it still seemed like a pain. About a year ago I switched to Linux Mint and can now say I have an OS I like and use 95% of the time (still have XP for games on my home desktop).
Now every time I see a new distro or a major update to an old one I am momentarily tempted to try it out. But I don't. Trying something new is always fun, but my headaches with new OSs are in the past so there is no longer any reason to experiment (at least until something revolutionary comes out). That's why I can resist testing out OpenSolaris. Yeah, Open Solaris certainly looks interesting and has a nice legacy behind it, but I suspect the drawbacks outweigh what little gain most desktop users might see. Sticking with an OS once you find a good one you like makes perfect sense. Mint is so dang easy to deal with, and Ubuntu-based, so support and software are easy enough to find, so I'll probably stick with it until it is no longer developed, and probably for years after that. My disgusting addiction and dependence upon MS products is in the past, though my laptop will definitely not see Open Solaris. Mint ain't broke (for the most part).
Suppose that your target is a total of, say, $200K rather than the assumed multi-millions. You are far less likely to be caught or to trigger money-laundering precautions. In a case like this your best strategy might well be to go for above-average but not top 10% balances.
This isn't my area of expertise (I don't have one), but I think this makes sense. The ideal target accounts would see a fairly large number of transactions without being really big accounts, meaning there would be a lot of "noise" (legit transactions) without a huge amount of scrutiny (unlike with especially large accounts). Corporate accounts might be worse targets than personal accounts, as they are likely tracked with rectification software and/or accountants. I wonder whether it is more common to see one-time theft of large amounts or perhaps repeat transfers of smaller amounts with the hope that they go undetected. Office Space-style microtransactions would probably raise suspicion quickly and not be profitable enough to be worth the risk.
Honeypots for the banking industry? I never thought of that.
Haha, I've had root on your box for three months already.
Good point, because it has been proven that everyone who has ever enjoyed playing an even moderately violent video game has also been shown to have murderous tendencies. It isn't about the puzzle and the challenge of it all, of course.
The means and methods of such a system are very interesting to some of us, even if we really have no interest in actually achieving the criminal result. But I know, everyone who reads novels about serial killers really wishes it were them.
That is a bit harsh, but the basic idea is not that wrong. Users don't care about security because it is a bigger inconviniance than the not doing it. The botnets are quiet and Joe Sixpack can't relate insecure OS / config with spam (don't cares).
What about Joe the Plumber? Some regular Joes understand a bit about how these maverick programs run in the background to do nefarious things. Do these people come to me all the time for help, because they think something may be amiss but aren't sure exactly what is wrong or how to fix it? You betcha. I think average folks are poorly informed on topics like this, but the success of the anti-virus/anti-spam/anti-malware/bloated firewall/anti-pop-up software industry is indicative of some level of awareness.
Or maybe I'm wrong and people spend tons of money on expensive software they really don't need for the same reasons they respond to spam - ignorance and a feeling of a need to act on everything.
You have Bob. Bob has a thing about catching STDs. No matter how many times he gets cleaned up, he turns around and does something stupid and gets a new one, and in turn passes them on. Is it unethical to study his infections? The subject won't stop getting the infections, nor will he stop spreading them. However, we can use what we learn from studying the subject further on down the line.
Yes, if you propose to examine or diagnose Bob against his will, it would be medically unethical. He has a right to privacy, even if he is a douchebag. Even if he doesn't know you are studying him (say you set up surveillance on him or drug him and kidnap him) it is unethical to study him directly without his knowledge or permission. Studying trends or the people he infects, or how diseases spread in general, is a different story, and none of his business. I'm not sure this is a fair analogy anyway though, especially since one's privacy has already been compromised if a computer is infected by a botnet, and the professional standards are not the same. Apples to oranges, and I don't really have a problem with infiltrating botnets, though I have a hard time articulating why. I guess opening one's computer up to the internet isn't the same to me as contracting a disease or getting medical care.
Awesome AWESOME AWESOME!!!
I'm not sure what you read, but the summary has been edited, I think. My original response was prompted by the term "power chord" in the summary, when it should have read "power cord." Here's a link for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humour#Understanding_humour.
Um, okay...