You misunderstand my interpretation of the situation as approval. I do not condone the actions of Anonymous, I merely speculate on their reasoning and, most important to the discussion at hand, believe that Sony are a bunch of incompetent, greedy and evil bastards who don't have a clue who did this to them. I don't think it was Anonymous, I gave my reasons why. Feel free to keep trolling there bud but realize that you are just as much of an immature idiot hiding behind anonymous as Anonymous are.
Yes but the information they "stole" was used more to embarrass them then anything else. I never heard anything about them accessing HBG's bank accounts or using their corp. credit cards; judging by the amount and sensitivity of data they copied it seems likely they could have used it to drain a few accounts.
As others have stated this just seems like a convenient scapegoat. If it was Anonymous then copying credit card data was most likely just part and parcel to further embarrassing Sony by pointing out how weakly they guarded this data.
Better Privacy serves to protect against not deletable longterm cookies, a new generation of 'Super-Cookie', which silently conquered the internet. This new cookie generation offers unlimited user tracking to industry and market research. Concerning privacy Flash- and DOM Storage objects are most critical. This addon was made to make users aware of those hidden, never expiring objects and to offer an easy way to get rid of them - since browsers are unable to do that for you.
That is interesting, I always assumed if you didn't reformat the system partitions (or the single if that's how it's setup) then you'd get a crazy mix of old system/program files and new...
Not to mention that, although it's not needed often, it's great when you can wipe out all the system partitions but leave/home intact during a reinstall.
I learned a long time ago how helpful it could be to move My Documents on a Windows machine to a separate partition from the Windows and Program Files folders. Reinstalling is much easier without having to back up personal stuff first. Even though I use it a lot less in Linux old habits die hard and I always try to keep personal files separate from system files, no matter what OS I am using.
All I know is if I have to sit through Peter Parker getting bit by a radioactive spider one more time, well, I'm just not going to do it. My understanding is that the next Spiderman movie is a reboot; here's hoping they "cut to the chase".
Didn't you have ads in the 21st century?" Well sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio, and in magazines, and movies, and at ball games... and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts, and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams, no siree.
As someone else above mentioned it's about this: Constitution Free Zone . They are basically validating that the Constitution Free Zone pertains to computers/data just as much as it pertains to your pockets, bag, car trunk, etc.
Mind, I don't agree with it and never have but there is a lot of precedence for this. I'd like to see the whole shebang overturned but we're definitely only going to see the digital aspect of it get worse unless all this "close to the border" BS is completely overturned.
Yeah well at some point you ask a third and then a fourth and before you know it you have an overwhelming majority of experts agreeing on something. That makes you feel a whole lot better then just hearing it from one. And, you know, people might trust a doctor who also happens to be a family member or close friend more then a hospitable.
OK, enough beating on this analogy. The point is that even if I don't have the knowledge to examine the code and deem it safe I'll feel a lot better if my friend who works for NASA and my 15 year old nephew who never ran into a computer problem of mine he couldn't solve told me FB's code is safe as opposed to me hearing it from FB. Yes I have to trust my friend and nephew but, for me, the user anyway, that trust is easier to give to them then to a for profit entity who has more interest in keeping me as a customer over keeping me safe on the web.
With the Firebug plug-in you can change the JS (and HTML and CSS too for that matter) in the debugger and see instant results. But I don't know if it allows you to swap a complete script. I guess you accomplish that by changing a link to a script in an HTML file to point to your own. I've only ever used it to debug my own scripts or someone's I had to take ownership of.
Apparently a SNOW account is a type of bank checking account for people wealthy enough to leave a $10K minimum in there account. Wait, that doesn't seem right.
Oh, OK, it's about sorting permissions on a certain release of Mac OS X. Hmm, still doesn't seem to fit.
Help me out here, there's a bunch more; stuff about a Megan Snow, more about Mac OS X, none of them seem to fit the nature of the article. At which result in this "google" search you suggested am I supposed to be looking?
Well taking them at face value Google claims to have stripped the comments and copyright worthy elements from the files. So, again giving them the benefit of the doubt, are the elements they copied worthy of copyright or simply a way to promote interoperability?
OK, I am one of the IANAL guys spouting off about headers not being protected by copyright but you definitely raise a good point. So lets assume there are many comments in the header files in Linux, some useful, some funny, some coming close to the greatest written piece ever. I'll grant that those elements in the file are subject to copyright.
Now, back to your example, if the only thing in your header file is the comment itself which contains this fabulous piece of writing and the fact that you completed it on 3/18/2011* and I strip it out the writing, leaving only the date completed (a fact), is the header file still subject to copyright protection?
The point I'm trying to make is that Google claims (right or wrong, I don't know, I have not seen the files) that they stripped out everything but the sections of the header that describe the interface into the Linux kernel. Linux on the other hand copied some of this data from BSD and ATT SYSV header files claiming all along that this was needed for interoperability. A court of law held that IBM could do the same thing with regards to Linux and SCO could not claim protection over those files. I agreed with that then and I agree with it now; assuming Google did a thorough job of scrubbing anything out of the files that was worthy of copyright protection.
If all a header file does is describe an interface then no, I don't think it should be copyrighted. The interface is there to promote interoperability and if headers were subject to copyright we might have Linux but it damn well would not work as a near perfect drop in replacement for Unix.
If people are putting code in headers that are worthy of copyright my first reaction would be "they're doing it wrong".
All phone books are uninteresting. Some books are interesting. All header files (IMHO) should be uninteresting.
IANAL - I might be wrong but I trust my own knowledge over anything Florian has to say on the subject.
It means they are using the headers only and that these do not meet the minimum standard for copyright protection. If we can copyright header files then we might as well throw in the towel and allow 1's and 0's to be copyrighted, declare clean room reverse engineering illegal and just say F*&k you interoperability.
Slashdot Mirror
...interested in more about Mr. Coulton, NPR did some pretty coverage on their Planet Money blog:
Internet Rock Start on NPR
You misunderstand my interpretation of the situation as approval. I do not condone the actions of Anonymous, I merely speculate on their reasoning and, most important to the discussion at hand, believe that Sony are a bunch of incompetent, greedy and evil bastards who don't have a clue who did this to them. I don't think it was Anonymous, I gave my reasons why. Feel free to keep trolling there bud but realize that you are just as much of an immature idiot hiding behind anonymous as Anonymous are.
Yes but the information they "stole" was used more to embarrass them then anything else. I never heard anything about them accessing HBG's bank accounts or using their corp. credit cards; judging by the amount and sensitivity of data they copied it seems likely they could have used it to drain a few accounts.
As others have stated this just seems like a convenient scapegoat. If it was Anonymous then copying credit card data was most likely just part and parcel to further embarrassing Sony by pointing out how weakly they guarded this data.
And for Firefox users there is Better Privacy.
From the Better Privacy site:
Better Privacy serves to protect against not deletable longterm cookies, a new generation of 'Super-Cookie', which silently conquered the internet. This new cookie generation offers unlimited user tracking to industry and market research. Concerning privacy Flash- and DOM Storage objects are most critical.
This addon was made to make users aware of those hidden, never expiring objects and to offer an easy way to get rid of them - since browsers are unable to do that for you.
emphasis mine
Go Canada! At least someone has some common sense left.
"It's the main reason I will work for FooCo until it goes bankrupt".
Or "It's the main reason I will work for FooCo until I get a better offer (from say, Google!).
That is interesting, I always assumed if you didn't reformat the system partitions (or the single if that's how it's setup) then you'd get a crazy mix of old system/program files and new...
Not to mention that, although it's not needed often, it's great when you can wipe out all the system partitions but leave /home intact during a reinstall.
I learned a long time ago how helpful it could be to move My Documents on a Windows machine to a separate partition from the Windows and Program Files folders. Reinstalling is much easier without having to back up personal stuff first. Even though I use it a lot less in Linux old habits die hard and I always try to keep personal files separate from system files, no matter what OS I am using.
Off to fire up Virtual Box and try 'em both!
All I know is if I have to sit through Peter Parker getting bit by a radioactive spider one more time, well, I'm just not going to do it. My understanding is that the next Spiderman movie is a reboot; here's hoping they "cut to the chase".
And all hail Cthulu!
Ads. Coming soon to your dreams!
Didn't you have ads in the 21st century?"
Well sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio, and in magazines, and movies, and at ball games... and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts, and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams, no siree.
Damn near prescient I would say!
Site seems to be /.'ed already. Here is another site mirroring the original blog.
As someone else above mentioned it's about this: Constitution Free Zone . They are basically validating that the Constitution Free Zone pertains to computers/data just as much as it pertains to your pockets, bag, car trunk, etc.
Mind, I don't agree with it and never have but there is a lot of precedence for this. I'd like to see the whole shebang overturned but we're definitely only going to see the digital aspect of it get worse unless all this "close to the border" BS is completely overturned.
Yeah well at some point you ask a third and then a fourth and before you know it you have an overwhelming majority of experts agreeing on something. That makes you feel a whole lot better then just hearing it from one. And, you know, people might trust a doctor who also happens to be a family member or close friend more then a hospitable.
OK, enough beating on this analogy. The point is that even if I don't have the knowledge to examine the code and deem it safe I'll feel a lot better if my friend who works for NASA and my 15 year old nephew who never ran into a computer problem of mine he couldn't solve told me FB's code is safe as opposed to me hearing it from FB. Yes I have to trust my friend and nephew but, for me, the user anyway, that trust is easier to give to them then to a for profit entity who has more interest in keeping me as a customer over keeping me safe on the web.
With the Firebug plug-in you can change the JS (and HTML and CSS too for that matter) in the debugger and see instant results. But I don't know if it allows you to swap a complete script. I guess you accomplish that by changing a link to a script in an HTML file to point to your own. I've only ever used it to debug my own scripts or someone's I had to take ownership of.
Ah, sounds good to me, thanks!
Oh good idea! Why didn't I think of that. Duh!
Apparently a SNOW account is a type of bank checking account for people wealthy enough to leave a $10K minimum in there account. Wait, that doesn't seem right.
Oh, OK, it's about sorting permissions on a certain release of Mac OS X. Hmm, still doesn't seem to fit.
Help me out here, there's a bunch more; stuff about a Megan Snow, more about Mac OS X, none of them seem to fit the nature of the article. At which result in this "google" search you suggested am I supposed to be looking?
...rise in the number of so-called SNOW accounts.
What's a SNOW account?
Touch choice
Pun intended? :-)
But Google claims to have removed the interesting elements leaving only interface details that are needed to operate with the kernel.
Well taking them at face value Google claims to have stripped the comments and copyright worthy elements from the files. So, again giving them the benefit of the doubt, are the elements they copied worthy of copyright or simply a way to promote interoperability?
OK, I am one of the IANAL guys spouting off about headers not being protected by copyright but you definitely raise a good point. So lets assume there are many comments in the header files in Linux, some useful, some funny, some coming close to the greatest written piece ever. I'll grant that those elements in the file are subject to copyright.
Now, back to your example, if the only thing in your header file is the comment itself which contains this fabulous piece of writing and the fact that you completed it on 3/18/2011* and I strip it out the writing, leaving only the date completed (a fact), is the header file still subject to copyright protection?
The point I'm trying to make is that Google claims (right or wrong, I don't know, I have not seen the files) that they stripped out everything but the sections of the header that describe the interface into the Linux kernel. Linux on the other hand copied some of this data from BSD and ATT SYSV header files claiming all along that this was needed for interoperability. A court of law held that IBM could do the same thing with regards to Linux and SCO could not claim protection over those files. I agreed with that then and I agree with it now; assuming Google did a thorough job of scrubbing anything out of the files that was worthy of copyright protection.
* Happy Saint Patrick's Day everyone!
If all a header file does is describe an interface then no, I don't think it should be copyrighted. The interface is there to promote
interoperability and if headers were subject to copyright we might have Linux but it damn well would not work as a near perfect
drop in replacement for Unix.
If people are putting code in headers that are worthy of copyright my first reaction would be "they're doing it wrong".
All phone books are uninteresting. Some books are interesting. All header files (IMHO) should be uninteresting.
IANAL - I might be wrong but I trust my own knowledge over anything Florian has to say on the subject.
I already got burned by a goatse link in this thread.
So after carefully following your link from the techdrivein home page on down I see that you have actually provided something interesting. Thanks.
claiming to remove all copyrighted components
It means they are using the headers only and that these do not meet the minimum standard for copyright protection. If we can copyright header files then we might as well throw in the towel and allow 1's and 0's to be copyrighted, declare clean room reverse engineering illegal and just say F*&k you interoperability.