They're probably in Taiwan. I bet it's better than your Chinese. Give them a break. Besides, not only is your statement unfair, it's totally racist. English speaking ability has nothing to do with coding ability. If I had any modpoints left, I'd mod you flamebait. Any other mods around who want to do the honors?
The problem is that the RIAA made up the term "making available", so it's kind of hard to define. They claim its tantamount to distribution, so they sue people who do it for copyright violation. But just because it's tantamount to distribution doesn't mean it's the same. You could try to argue in court that anyone who is making available a copyrighted work has done something that only someone with the right to distribute has done, but it is neither an offer nor a grant of a right to make a copy.
Personally, I don't buy it. If they try that, then it weakens their case, it seems to me. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I think it comes down to this: there's nothing in copyright law about making something available, so the RIAA has to claim it's distribution or an offer to distribute. Which means that, if the copyright holder does it, then it's legal to take them up on it.
In short, I agree with you. I'm just saying that the RIAA isn't necessarily going to agree with us.
Wow, you people have done a lot of digging here. Let me try to pull you all out of the little hole you've made for yourselves.
First, a nitpick: It's not a safe assumption that the band holds the copyright to their own work. It's pretty common for bands to turn over the rights to their work to the record company. You'd need to know the details of the band's deal with its studio to know who owns the copyright. If they don't own the rights to their work, then they cannot distribute it any more than any other P2P user.
Second, other people have corrected you on the "public domain" thing, but there seems to be some confusion about whether this means that the band has granted you an implicit right to make a copy. This is a very interesting idea coming from Slashdotters because it also relates to the RIAA lawsuits. Let me explain.
The RIAA claims that people who share things on bittorrent are "making available" a copyrighted work and that is a violation of copyright. This theory is currently contested. However, that is precisely what this band is doing. For the sake of argument, assume the band does own the rights to its work. In that case, by the RIAA's own argument, the band intended the distribution which is their right as the copyright holder. Thus, you could argue that anyone is legally allowed to download the songs.*
Alternatively, if we discard the "making available" theory, then it is the downloader who made the copy, not the supplier because the downloader initiated the transaction. In this scenario, the case could be made that the downloader has illegally made a copy because he had no right to do that. The only argument you'd have is that the supplier gave you an implicit right to do that by publishing it. Not being a lawyer, I don't know if that would hold up in court, but I suspect it would. But with comparisons to leaving your door unlocked coming up, who knows what would happen?
Anyway, the interesting thing here is that, by the RIAA's argument, you're probably* doing nothing wrong by downloading from this band. However, if the opponents of the RIAA have their way, then this theory ends up on shaky legal ground.
My own opinion on the matter (which may not be how the judges end up ruling) is that "making available" is bunk, and that anyone who downloads something from bittorrent can reasonably expect that the data is allowed to be distributed by bittorrent. What this means is that the person seeding the file has full responsibility for verifying that the file is legally redistributable, and that the RIAA must prove actual damages and show actual distribution rather than simply showing that the files are available for download.
* This is a little shaky because "making available" is a fuzzy term that the RIAA claims is equivalent to distribution. You could argue that making available does not give an implicit right to create a copy.
Well, that does change things a bit. I'd be interested in seeing those cases if they are available online. Otherwise, I'll wait and see what happens here. Thanks.
But, as long as I mark the private land then it prevents someone from standing on that private land and taking pictures
As I said, this is an open question, unless you can point to court rulings to the contrary. There are already people who can take pictures on private land, and there are already things you can do on private land without the permission of the owner, so long as the owner hasn't expressly forbidden it (and a Private Property sign does not expressly forbid anything; it just removes deniability).
You're welcome to have an opinion, but it doesn't mean jack. It's all about what the court says and the legal precedent it sets. Until that happens, or until you can quote a legal code or case law, you have no business claiming something is the law. And there certainly isn't enough information in the article to make a case one way or the other. For example, there's not even any concrete statement that Google was even on the property. It's presumed. Drawing legal conclusions from such fluff is impossible.
Slashdot illiteracy is on the rise. I didn't say nothing could be done. I gave two examples of things that could be done. Please re-read until you've found them. Furthermore, "Private Drive" is not the same as a "Keep Off" or "No Trespassing" sign. Any reasonable person will realize that one gives instructions while the other simply notifies the public of something.
The law has upheld before that there are reasons for an individual to enter private property. Surveying seems like a reasonable one. Unless there are explicit instructions that you can't take pictures of the land itself, it seems Google is in a pretty strong position.
Really, it sounds like you're just getting into flamebait category. Google isn't taking pictures of you through a window. Yes, sometimes people end up in them, but that's not the intent and Google has removed photos like that in the past, when asked.
Define trespass. Solicitors are allowed on your property until they are asked to leave. Furthermore, government surveyors are allowed on your property for the purposes of map making and such. So you already don't have the protection you claim. The question is, can you combine these two parts of law to allow private surveying of the property? That's an open question for the courts to figure out, but Google seems to be on pretty firm ground. Unless there are fences or signs telling them not to enter or take pictures, then most likely, the courts will side with them.
The usage is, oddly enough for Slashdot, correct, though uncommon. Abyssal, in addition to meaning abyss-like, means unfathomable. Plus it raises the image of an abyss, which is rather appropriate, given the discussion. On the other hand, abysmal is much less appropriate because that simply describes the situation as being bad, rather than emphasizing the vast difference in price.
IANAL, but yes, for a couple of reasons. First, the performance itself is copyrighted, so it cannot be distributed, no matter the encoding. Second, even if you could somehow produce something that wasn't an equivalent performance from the original, then the result would likely be a derived work under copyright law and still be owned by the original rights holder.
Well, IANAL, either, but your question seems pretty obvious. Drugs are not songs. It is illegal to possess controlled substances in any capacity except under a license (think prescriptions, science labs, etc.). If you try to sell the drugs to a police officer, you demonstrate your possession of these drugs.
To make this more clear, imagine that you have a legal right to own a drug (for whatever reason) and you sell it to a police officer. The act of making this sale is illegal, but now the case is on much shakier ground. The defense could take two possible approaches with this:
1. The defendant knew that the person was an officer and was turning over the substance. This doesn't make a lot of sense because the substance was legally owned and there was likely money involved.
2. The defendant was entrapped by the officer, who might have offered to buy the substance, thus provoking the defendant to commit a crime he otherwise would not have committed. This defense might actually work.
Now, let's see how these apply to the MediaSentry case. First, there's no money changing hands, and the defendant can actually tell if it's MediaSentry downloading from him, by inspecting the IP address, so the defendant could credibly make the argument that, to his knowledge, he distributed the material only to entities who already held rights to the material (though that isn't the firmest legal ground).
Second, you could make a similar argument to entrapment. Maybe nobody would have downloaded it if MediaSentry did not.
Anyway, I think that should answer your question about why these two things are different.
I love how any time there's a Linux bug posted here and not everyone screams, "Damned Linux, let's switch to Windows", then all the weenies assume it's because there's a double standard.
Please go back and read my post. Notice the bit about "an error of similar proportion"? If you pay really close attention, you might notice there's an implication that RedHat screwed up just as much as the poster.
Microsoft breaks stuff all the time with WindowsUpdate. It's one of the reasons (and, for the subtlety-challenged, please note that I didn't say it was the only or even the main reason) for patch Tuesday. Everyone can schedule their testing and deployment around a known release schedule because simply turning on automatic installation and letting Windows do it on its own never really worked all that well.
Anyone, on any OS, who installs updates on a production server without first testing them, gets what's coming to them.
Judging by the CERN details, it sounds like there are two things you need to do. You need to be able to predict the 16-bit random number, and the 16-bit random port. My reading (and this was very brief, so someone *please* correct me if I'm wrong here) is that the older DNS servers had two flaws: a flaw in the RNG for the 16-bit transaction number, and they used fixed or predictable ports.
A NAT will reintroduce only the second problem because it gives you predictable ports, but obviously, relying solely on the unpredictability of a 16-bit transaction id is a little scary. Because of the birthday paradox, (assuming the attacker has perfect knowledge about which port you're choosing) an attacker would need to send only something on the order of 2^8 packets to poison the cache.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with building from sources. Seems like overkill and doesn't solve the main problem because you can still screw it up. All anyone's saying is that you should test this on a server that you don't care about, or at least test it on one, before upgrading all of them.
Right, because clearly all this was decided in the last two days since that announcement was made. I hope that tinfoil hat of yours has multiple layers to resist the extra-sensitive mind-reading devices.
Re:is the bug with 20+k interrupts on dual core
on
Linux 2.6.26 Out
·
· Score: 1
Right. You post here asking if a bug is fixed when you have a bug number that is still marked New. Clearly, you knew the answer to your question, which, as I said, makes you a whiner. As for "Defensive fanboi bitch", I accept the "bitch" part, but who said anything about defending or supporting Linux? I mentioned that you're a lazy git because you didn't bother to answer your own question when it was trivially easy to do so. As it turns out, you did know the answer and felt like whining. So who's bitching now?
Re:Does it disturb anyone else?
on
Linux 2.6.26 Out
·
· Score: 1
Actually, submitting to the controller is redundant. I guess that makes the above a joke within a joke for those who thought otherwise. From the relevant Wiki article:
Not entirely true. The drive also has a controller to support NCQ, which means the drive can change the order of the commands submitted by the "master", which means that the "master" is, in a sense, submissive.
Which just goes to show that, with SATA, we finally have equal rights for slaves and masters. Isn't progress great?
Re:is the bug with 20+k interrupts on dual core
on
Linux 2.6.26 Out
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Did you file a bug report? Did they mark it fixed? If you answered no to either of these questions, you may be a whiner. You also may not know what you're talking about as you said "20+k interrupts" without actually specifying an amount of time or what type of interrupts they were, and you came and posted here rather than checking the change logs for things like, "dual core", "interrupt storm" or any other keywords.
Re:Real writeable NTFS?
on
Linux 2.6.26 Out
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Not sure why it isn't in the kernel.
Because it doesn't need to be. Really, that's all there is to it. The old one took a long time to develop because kernel code is harder. The only real reason why you'd want an in-kernel driver is if you wanted to boot off of NTFS. The in-kernel driver is good enough to let you do that via a loopback file on the NTFS volume, so the rest can be in userspace.
Apple uses that, too, and I don't hear people complaining about Apple's support for NTFS. People who still complain about this are living in the past, or are hitting one of the few remaining strange corner cases that aren't yet supported (and I very much doubt you are).
Re:Does it disturb anyone else?
on
Linux 2.6.26 Out
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Nah, SATA gets rid of all that. No more master and slave. Now, we submit to the controller.
Re:Kernel debugger?
on
Linux 2.6.26 Out
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
A kernel debugger is a program you can run from one computer, generally via a serial patch cable or some such, that lets you step through the kernel code running on another computer. It's like a normal debugger, but remote.
Linux has had kernel debuggers for years, but Linus never wanted it in mainline, so it was always a patch, and sometimes didn't work on the latest kernel. Now, it's part of the kernel (I don't see any links to why Linus changed his mind, but you might be able to find something on LKML if you look).
Anyway, I think this is good news. I understand why Linus never wanted a debugger in the kernel, but I disagree with him on two points. First, even developers who have a good understanding of the code can get work done faster if they use a debugger. Using a debugger does not automatically relegate you to someone who doesn't have a good understanding of things, as Linus would have you believe (i.e. there's a difference between needing a debugger and being more productive with a debugger).
Second, there are a lot of people these days who just fix bugs, or just want to debug their own tiny kernel patch. I.e. people who don't have a full understanding of the system but who need to get something done. It's good that these people are now first-class citizens. They likely will never write a new kernel subsystem, but maybe they'll fix a few bugs and make life better for the rest of us.
To put this all another way, my point is that AV software makes this trade off all the time. LinkScanner and the local scanner both put you at increased risk in an attempt to find viruses. I think we all agree that LinkScanner is on the wrong side of any sane cost-benefit analysis, but it's not clear to me that the local scanner is on the right side.
Clearly it is for people who click every link in every email they get, but what about the people who are security conscious? If you use safe browsing habits, then does the additional risk of AV software start to outweigh the benefit of possibly catching something if you screw up or if one of the sites you trust gets attacked and starts hosting malware?
Slashdot Mirror
They're probably in Taiwan. I bet it's better than your Chinese. Give them a break. Besides, not only is your statement unfair, it's totally racist. English speaking ability has nothing to do with coding ability. If I had any modpoints left, I'd mod you flamebait. Any other mods around who want to do the honors?
The problem is that the RIAA made up the term "making available", so it's kind of hard to define. They claim its tantamount to distribution, so they sue people who do it for copyright violation. But just because it's tantamount to distribution doesn't mean it's the same. You could try to argue in court that anyone who is making available a copyrighted work has done something that only someone with the right to distribute has done, but it is neither an offer nor a grant of a right to make a copy.
Personally, I don't buy it. If they try that, then it weakens their case, it seems to me. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I think it comes down to this: there's nothing in copyright law about making something available, so the RIAA has to claim it's distribution or an offer to distribute. Which means that, if the copyright holder does it, then it's legal to take them up on it.
In short, I agree with you. I'm just saying that the RIAA isn't necessarily going to agree with us.
Wow, you people have done a lot of digging here. Let me try to pull you all out of the little hole you've made for yourselves.
First, a nitpick: It's not a safe assumption that the band holds the copyright to their own work. It's pretty common for bands to turn over the rights to their work to the record company. You'd need to know the details of the band's deal with its studio to know who owns the copyright. If they don't own the rights to their work, then they cannot distribute it any more than any other P2P user.
Second, other people have corrected you on the "public domain" thing, but there seems to be some confusion about whether this means that the band has granted you an implicit right to make a copy. This is a very interesting idea coming from Slashdotters because it also relates to the RIAA lawsuits. Let me explain.
The RIAA claims that people who share things on bittorrent are "making available" a copyrighted work and that is a violation of copyright. This theory is currently contested. However, that is precisely what this band is doing. For the sake of argument, assume the band does own the rights to its work. In that case, by the RIAA's own argument, the band intended the distribution which is their right as the copyright holder. Thus, you could argue that anyone is legally allowed to download the songs.*
Alternatively, if we discard the "making available" theory, then it is the downloader who made the copy, not the supplier because the downloader initiated the transaction. In this scenario, the case could be made that the downloader has illegally made a copy because he had no right to do that. The only argument you'd have is that the supplier gave you an implicit right to do that by publishing it. Not being a lawyer, I don't know if that would hold up in court, but I suspect it would. But with comparisons to leaving your door unlocked coming up, who knows what would happen?
Anyway, the interesting thing here is that, by the RIAA's argument, you're probably* doing nothing wrong by downloading from this band. However, if the opponents of the RIAA have their way, then this theory ends up on shaky legal ground.
My own opinion on the matter (which may not be how the judges end up ruling) is that "making available" is bunk, and that anyone who downloads something from bittorrent can reasonably expect that the data is allowed to be distributed by bittorrent. What this means is that the person seeding the file has full responsibility for verifying that the file is legally redistributable, and that the RIAA must prove actual damages and show actual distribution rather than simply showing that the files are available for download.
* This is a little shaky because "making available" is a fuzzy term that the RIAA claims is equivalent to distribution. You could argue that making available does not give an implicit right to create a copy.
Well, that does change things a bit. I'd be interested in seeing those cases if they are available online. Otherwise, I'll wait and see what happens here. Thanks.
But, as long as I mark the private land then it prevents someone from standing on that private land and taking pictures
As I said, this is an open question, unless you can point to court rulings to the contrary. There are already people who can take pictures on private land, and there are already things you can do on private land without the permission of the owner, so long as the owner hasn't expressly forbidden it (and a Private Property sign does not expressly forbid anything; it just removes deniability).
You're welcome to have an opinion, but it doesn't mean jack. It's all about what the court says and the legal precedent it sets. Until that happens, or until you can quote a legal code or case law, you have no business claiming something is the law. And there certainly isn't enough information in the article to make a case one way or the other. For example, there's not even any concrete statement that Google was even on the property. It's presumed. Drawing legal conclusions from such fluff is impossible.
Slashdot illiteracy is on the rise. I didn't say nothing could be done. I gave two examples of things that could be done. Please re-read until you've found them. Furthermore, "Private Drive" is not the same as a "Keep Off" or "No Trespassing" sign. Any reasonable person will realize that one gives instructions while the other simply notifies the public of something.
The law has upheld before that there are reasons for an individual to enter private property. Surveying seems like a reasonable one. Unless there are explicit instructions that you can't take pictures of the land itself, it seems Google is in a pretty strong position.
Really, it sounds like you're just getting into flamebait category. Google isn't taking pictures of you through a window. Yes, sometimes people end up in them, but that's not the intent and Google has removed photos like that in the past, when asked.
Define trespass. Solicitors are allowed on your property until they are asked to leave. Furthermore, government surveyors are allowed on your property for the purposes of map making and such. So you already don't have the protection you claim. The question is, can you combine these two parts of law to allow private surveying of the property? That's an open question for the courts to figure out, but Google seems to be on pretty firm ground. Unless there are fences or signs telling them not to enter or take pictures, then most likely, the courts will side with them.
The usage is, oddly enough for Slashdot, correct, though uncommon. Abyssal, in addition to meaning abyss-like, means unfathomable. Plus it raises the image of an abyss, which is rather appropriate, given the discussion. On the other hand, abysmal is much less appropriate because that simply describes the situation as being bad, rather than emphasizing the vast difference in price.
IANAL, but yes, for a couple of reasons. First, the performance itself is copyrighted, so it cannot be distributed, no matter the encoding. Second, even if you could somehow produce something that wasn't an equivalent performance from the original, then the result would likely be a derived work under copyright law and still be owned by the original rights holder.
Well, IANAL, either, but your question seems pretty obvious. Drugs are not songs. It is illegal to possess controlled substances in any capacity except under a license (think prescriptions, science labs, etc.). If you try to sell the drugs to a police officer, you demonstrate your possession of these drugs.
To make this more clear, imagine that you have a legal right to own a drug (for whatever reason) and you sell it to a police officer. The act of making this sale is illegal, but now the case is on much shakier ground. The defense could take two possible approaches with this:
1. The defendant knew that the person was an officer and was turning over the substance. This doesn't make a lot of sense because the substance was legally owned and there was likely money involved.
2. The defendant was entrapped by the officer, who might have offered to buy the substance, thus provoking the defendant to commit a crime he otherwise would not have committed. This defense might actually work.
Now, let's see how these apply to the MediaSentry case. First, there's no money changing hands, and the defendant can actually tell if it's MediaSentry downloading from him, by inspecting the IP address, so the defendant could credibly make the argument that, to his knowledge, he distributed the material only to entities who already held rights to the material (though that isn't the firmest legal ground).
Second, you could make a similar argument to entrapment. Maybe nobody would have downloaded it if MediaSentry did not.
Anyway, I think that should answer your question about why these two things are different.
If everything you use renders OK in IE, why not just use IE? Especially as it now has tabs, which was the main feature where Opera was beating it.
I love how any time there's a Linux bug posted here and not everyone screams, "Damned Linux, let's switch to Windows", then all the weenies assume it's because there's a double standard.
Please go back and read my post. Notice the bit about "an error of similar proportion"? If you pay really close attention, you might notice there's an implication that RedHat screwed up just as much as the poster.
Microsoft breaks stuff all the time with WindowsUpdate. It's one of the reasons (and, for the subtlety-challenged, please note that I didn't say it was the only or even the main reason) for patch Tuesday. Everyone can schedule their testing and deployment around a known release schedule because simply turning on automatic installation and letting Windows do it on its own never really worked all that well.
Anyone, on any OS, who installs updates on a production server without first testing them, gets what's coming to them.
You're assuming just one DNS lookup. Odds are, the DNS server is sending out lookups all the time, and you need to match only one of them.
Judging by the CERN details, it sounds like there are two things you need to do. You need to be able to predict the 16-bit random number, and the 16-bit random port. My reading (and this was very brief, so someone *please* correct me if I'm wrong here) is that the older DNS servers had two flaws: a flaw in the RNG for the 16-bit transaction number, and they used fixed or predictable ports.
A NAT will reintroduce only the second problem because it gives you predictable ports, but obviously, relying solely on the unpredictability of a 16-bit transaction id is a little scary. Because of the birthday paradox, (assuming the attacker has perfect knowledge about which port you're choosing) an attacker would need to send only something on the order of 2^8 packets to poison the cache.
IMHO, rhel should have tested this.
'Course they should. Nobody said otherwise.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with building from sources. Seems like overkill and doesn't solve the main problem because you can still screw it up. All anyone's saying is that you should test this on a server that you don't care about, or at least test it on one, before upgrading all of them.
What? And isn't it an error of similar proportion to upgrade your primary DNS servers without first testing the new install?
I am not infalable
We can see that.
(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
Right, because clearly all this was decided in the last two days since that announcement was made. I hope that tinfoil hat of yours has multiple layers to resist the extra-sensitive mind-reading devices.
Right. You post here asking if a bug is fixed when you have a bug number that is still marked New. Clearly, you knew the answer to your question, which, as I said, makes you a whiner. As for "Defensive fanboi bitch", I accept the "bitch" part, but who said anything about defending or supporting Linux? I mentioned that you're a lazy git because you didn't bother to answer your own question when it was trivially easy to do so. As it turns out, you did know the answer and felt like whining. So who's bitching now?
Actually, submitting to the controller is redundant. I guess that makes the above a joke within a joke for those who thought otherwise. From the relevant Wiki article:
Not entirely true. The drive also has a controller to support NCQ, which means the drive can change the order of the commands submitted by the "master", which means that the "master" is, in a sense, submissive.
Which just goes to show that, with SATA, we finally have equal rights for slaves and masters. Isn't progress great?
Did you file a bug report? Did they mark it fixed? If you answered no to either of these questions, you may be a whiner. You also may not know what you're talking about as you said "20+k interrupts" without actually specifying an amount of time or what type of interrupts they were, and you came and posted here rather than checking the change logs for things like, "dual core", "interrupt storm" or any other keywords.
Not sure why it isn't in the kernel.
Because it doesn't need to be. Really, that's all there is to it. The old one took a long time to develop because kernel code is harder. The only real reason why you'd want an in-kernel driver is if you wanted to boot off of NTFS. The in-kernel driver is good enough to let you do that via a loopback file on the NTFS volume, so the rest can be in userspace.
Apple uses that, too, and I don't hear people complaining about Apple's support for NTFS. People who still complain about this are living in the past, or are hitting one of the few remaining strange corner cases that aren't yet supported (and I very much doubt you are).
Nah, SATA gets rid of all that. No more master and slave. Now, we submit to the controller.
A kernel debugger is a program you can run from one computer, generally via a serial patch cable or some such, that lets you step through the kernel code running on another computer. It's like a normal debugger, but remote.
Linux has had kernel debuggers for years, but Linus never wanted it in mainline, so it was always a patch, and sometimes didn't work on the latest kernel. Now, it's part of the kernel (I don't see any links to why Linus changed his mind, but you might be able to find something on LKML if you look).
Anyway, I think this is good news. I understand why Linus never wanted a debugger in the kernel, but I disagree with him on two points. First, even developers who have a good understanding of the code can get work done faster if they use a debugger. Using a debugger does not automatically relegate you to someone who doesn't have a good understanding of things, as Linus would have you believe (i.e. there's a difference between needing a debugger and being more productive with a debugger).
Second, there are a lot of people these days who just fix bugs, or just want to debug their own tiny kernel patch. I.e. people who don't have a full understanding of the system but who need to get something done. It's good that these people are now first-class citizens. They likely will never write a new kernel subsystem, but maybe they'll fix a few bugs and make life better for the rest of us.
To put this all another way, my point is that AV software makes this trade off all the time. LinkScanner and the local scanner both put you at increased risk in an attempt to find viruses. I think we all agree that LinkScanner is on the wrong side of any sane cost-benefit analysis, but it's not clear to me that the local scanner is on the right side.
Clearly it is for people who click every link in every email they get, but what about the people who are security conscious? If you use safe browsing habits, then does the additional risk of AV software start to outweigh the benefit of possibly catching something if you screw up or if one of the sites you trust gets attacked and starts hosting malware?