No, but you can sign your right away to filing suit in a public court. They can enforce use of arbitrators, whose decisions cannot be appealed and you may be stuck with paying legal fees for both yourself and the company if you lose. Generally this is favorable for a company because it guarantees them that you will never sue.
Add to this of course that Itanium2 is hardly a vector processor, so what they're doing is comparing apples to oranges.
It is fun to see Linux scale, but it is pretty silly to assume that this is something to play Quake on. It's important to see the usefulness of a system in contrast to the problem that needs computational solution, not what OS runs on it.
All this does is add competition to already available solutions for spying on employees. Such as hardware filters for keyboards or perhaps firewalls that log this kind of activity.
What I would like to know is what kinds of companies perform this kind of spying on their employees. I'd like to quote from Office Space;
"When I make a mistake, I have 8 different people comin' by to tell me about it. That's my only real motivation is not to be hassled, that and the fear of loosing my job. But you know Bob that will only make someone work just hard enough not to get fired."
Perhaps a tad off-topic, but did anybody notice on page 3 that 3 or 4 pins are bent on the bottom left corner of the CPU? Perhaps it is a bear to pry out of the socket these days?
I was of the (obviously incorrect) illusion that paying for cable TV was actually a way to pay the broadcasters so that there didn't have to be commercials..?
I too have very little sympathy for the content industry for similar reasons.
I thought NASA was the space agency. You know, charged with making space shuttles fly missions into outer space. I had no idea NASA was analogous to NSA, the national security agency.
No, the IMEI number identifies the phone. Not the account under which service is offered.
This is about GSM. A technology where the phone is NOT tied explicitly to the account. GSM is widely used in Europe but is also available here in the States.
So no, cloning the phone will give you nothing. The only thing you'd gain from this would be the ability to track who's account is using what phone at any given time. If you've got two phones with the same IMEI number, you've theoretically got two identical phones. Nothing more, nothing less.
If somebody was able to `copy' your SIM card, that's a different story; because then they would have access to `free' telephony.
Yes, but how long has it been in there? Presumably the entire lifetime of the package on ftp.openbsd.org?
And it is also disturbing that this is happening with the `official' distribution site. Not some rogue mirror. The question has been asked, how can we trust packages from here on?
It is very possible that this is a one time accident and that it will never happen again. According to CA-99-01-Trojan-TCP-Wrappers, similar things have happened before.
I suppose this only enhances the reasoning behind MD5 checksums. I will most definately use them rigorously from here on. And if not, how long before we get too paranoid for the average mirror? Let alone the primary distribution sites? Seems as if checksumming files should ease such paranoia (of course assuming that the.md5 files haven't been tampered with themselves?)
Why doesn't anybody declare a contest in which the participating would have to find the "silliest" patent in the USPTO database. The one who comes up with the far silliest patent would win.
I don't have anything to contribute with in terms of a prize, neither do I have the time to arrange such a contest, but if there is somebody out there who could consider such an endeavor, perhaps we could learn of even more silly patents..? It would just seem to be amusing I think.
I can recall a lot of people putting their bookmark.htm file online and use that as a start page. Should bookmarks as we know them be illegalized too? Because that's `deep linking' too if you think about it.
I would tend to agree with this. If you could use an archive of some sort, you'd also have to prove that it was a `neutral' source. Non-affiliated or whatever. The point that you're making and very well so is that this is a big mess and should be dealt with accordingly.
The posting date should clearly be the date when the clock starts ticking. Even if the web allows many times for dynamic content, created on the fly, it still should be considered published. Setting precedents like these is very dangerous.
But then again, who is to say that the posting is `published' to a small group first and in the 11th hour (11 months and 2 weeks later) gets published in the real world... There are all kinds of sleazebags out there.
Well, Solaris 9 has an SSH implementation which in fact is OpenSSH. They've modified a few things though; such as the reported version string;
Escape character is '^]'. SSH-2.0-Sun_SSH_1.0 ^] telnet>q
Everything else (config files, library dependencies etc.) speaks of OpenSSH so much that there is no other possible option. Sun probably took OpenSSH and modified a few things and released it as their own, as they are allowed to by the BSD license.
These configure options should get you an identical setup to that of the layout on Solaris 9;
The $CC variable is to build with Sun Forte, substitute with gcc as you please. Note the LDFLAGS and CFLAGS though. This configure expects to find zlib and openssl headers in/tmp/foo/include and _static_ libraries/tmp/foo/lib. Don't dynamically link with anything unless it's available on the system itself when it comes to Solaris. You'll introduce nasty inter-dependancies which you'll regret in the long run. Trust me, installing shared libraries on 500 machines isn't that fun.
"What's good for Microsoft in every country is good for Microsoft."
Otherwise they wouldn't be doing this, would they?
Question is, are they actually going to provide $750MM in cash or are they going to provide software licenses? Remember that class-action settlement where they proposed to give schools licenses "worth" a certain amount of money? $750MM in non-transferable licenses doesn't really put food on peoples tables.
While I agree that the argument was incorrect as a whole, there is some truth in it.
AT&T did sell source code to corporations and gave it away for virtually nothing to Universities and other educational institutions. Hence one could say open source. Open Source however is indicative of the Open Source Initiative (OSI http://www.opensource.org). If one would be nit-picking, it isn't incorrect to say that UNIX was `open source'.
To further go into matters, some historical AT&T code is now released with a less restrictive license, thanks to Caldera. SCO used to govern the code and provide it for a fee to enthusiasts, which I believe was $100. While it has little value for todays computing, it is nevertheless out there. (At this time I can't seem to find the site, perhaps some kind soul can provide that).
IBM has released Transarc's AFS as OpenAFS (http://www.openafs.org). Don't know if that is what you're looking for, but it is pretty nice. It's also portable, so it runs on various unices as well as Windows. Most can be found as binaries if you don't want to roll your own.
AFS is an NFS style implementation though, so you would have to save your files onto a special mount.
It has been said many times, but I'll reiterate it because it is my opinion; I think it stinks! Why are corporations allowed to promise one thing and turn their back on you once you're signed up? That's crap.
The fact of the matter is that I am paying $50 + extra IPs for cable access. I have an agreement that I am supposed to get 1.5mbps downstream and 128kbps upstream. I am supposed to get n e-mail addresses and whatever. Why can't I use that which I am supposed to get?
AND WHY do people take it up the wazoo? Why do people all of the sudden "realize" that the corporations "have" to do this. Why are people trying to compromise with a party that will dominate you and bully you? The outcry SHOULD BE that these corporations have to maintain their service as is. Not how we "consumers" can please our corporate masters. I'm personally sick of this crap.
They wouldn't have been doing cable internet in the first place unless it was profitable. It is profitable, because they have a leverage DSL providers don't have; one bill one company (Cable TV, Internet, soon VoIP...). Just different services. This smells like another FCIPS (Fuck the Consumer to Increase Profits to Shareholders) and nothing else. There are people that complain a lot about how bad things are getting and how our civil liberties are eroding away. Well, a lot of these people bend over to seemingly "little" things like these... Go figure.
There is federal legislation about healthcare industries, so I don't think it would be too much to ask of ISPs and other businesses to treat customer records in a similar fashion. Every once in a while we see a pioneering step from some part of the world in making man free. It's good to see that.
Warehousing is and should remain, perfectly legal for many intents and purposes. Specifically, the most important thing that comes to mind is the content industry and its products. One is to purchase a game for roughly $50 and quite often, one has to use the CD which comes with the game for various purposes. Sometimes one loads sounds and animations off of the disc, however many times the CD is required to `verify' the installation of the game.
If I am to use the original CD, I need to have the assurance that I can take the CD to the retailer and get a new one if I break it. This service must be available in such a fashion that I can without sustaining additional expense or unreasonable inconvenience (I want the replacement at the time I want to play the game) or it isn't viable. Sending in a broken CD to get it replaced, results in loss of time and extra expense. One is not only compelled to pay for postage both ways, but also some dubious fee for the actual replacement disc. After all, I didn't pay for the actual disc, but the right to use the contents.
Think about it... About three or four years ago, one always received a thick manual with the game. I will take MS Flight Simulator 98 as an example. Then came MSFS 2000. The manual was subsequently much smaller, yet contained some info. Of course, in order to make any sense, one had to purchase an extra book, or `strategy guide' with the game. With the advent of MSFS 2002, the manual is rendered into a pamphlet and with many other titles, one isn't distributed at all.
The boxes these days are also much smaller, not a bad thing per say, but indicative of how content industries are trying to save money by selling for the same amount or more, yet condense the contents.
As it is, I am licensing the right to use the contents of the disc. Read just about any EULA and it will tell you this. The DMCA forbids me to circumvent a copy protective mechanism. But if I make an identical (1:1) copy of the disc with the contents that I've paid for, why should that be illegal? I may want to create 100 copies of the same disc. As long as I do not dissiminate these copies to anybody else, why should that be illegal? After all, it's my money and I'm paying for the blank discs.
The bottom line with the content industry is that they have a commitment to their shareholders to sustain a steady financial growth. Well, with any publically traded company for that matter. So innovation is perhaps not as important in terms of technology, but in ways to reap new profits. If the content industry had it their way, one would be forced to purchase a DVD for each family member or friend who is to watch a movie. Capitalist or not, such a demeanour is unreasonable and I doubt that any American would side with the content industry if matters went to such extents.
Take the game CD once again. What if I would like to allow my son to play a game on his computer? But as with anybody with kids, it may not be perfectly safe to hand over the original disc. If I can give my son a $1 worth of a CD-R with the contents on it, (of which I have not circumvented any copy protective devices, by making a perfect copy) the situation is much more reasonable.
Cracking or reverse engineering is a different issue, so perhaps we should stop comparing apples and oranges.
You can file suit against anybody for anything at any time you want. That doesn't mean you're going to win the suit.
To me it would appear as if this case is based on creating precedent rather than anything else. Just read what it says;
"Vivendi Rep: We feel the restrictions against the theft of intellectual property will be cleared up in this suit, and will lead to a more clear idea of what is and what isn't internet piracy for the general public. In general, Blizzard is being used as a "first time" suit for this kind of piracy, and we want the public to understand that what is going on with the BNetD project cannot be done without legal ramifications under the DMCA."
I've speculated in the past that Vivendi-Universal wants to start charging for battle.net access. Some people have scoffed at this, but I really don't think it's that far off. It could be some kind of subscription based on minutes spent on battle.net or some feature based billing. Say that every game comes with 600 free minutes to try battle.net out, after which one needs to pay $29.99 or some other Vivendi-esque fee for monthly access. Or perhaps $49.99 for a Gold account which gives you the ability to host a game..?
If bnetd was to exist and allow people to play for free; it could make a real dent in Vivendi's plans. Think about it... If Vivendi really doesn't plan on charging for battle.net, why in the world would they be scared that bnetd would? It would seem to me that people would go with the free service (battle.net) rather than the "rogue" bnetd.
There are a lot of things that don't make sense here. I hope that a court would throw the case out on the grounds that Vivendi is speculating on something that hasn't happened yet and may never happen.
The claim that bnetd will be hurt because it allows "pirated" copies to be played sounds equally dubious to me. Has Vivendi published numbers that are indisputable that show exactly how many copies are pirated and played on bnetd? How have they come to this conclusion other than assumption?
When big corporations get scared they either try to buy the competition or sue them to stone age.
That's not the point. They shouldn't have any reason to look for you at all. Because any kind of copy protection device circumvented, is a violation of the DMCA and a punishable fellony.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but you can sign your right away to filing suit in a public court. They can enforce use of arbitrators, whose decisions cannot be appealed and you may be stuck with paying legal fees for both yourself and the company if you lose. Generally this is favorable for a company because it guarantees them that you will never sue.
Don't confuse the two matters;
The content provider is not obligated to provide content on all platforms and media available.
If you have however, purchased the perpetual rights, to view the content, you have Fair Use rights.
You do not have the right to copy movies that you rent.
Add to this of course that Itanium2 is hardly a vector processor, so what they're doing is comparing apples to oranges.
It is fun to see Linux scale, but it is pretty silly to assume that this is something to play Quake on. It's important to see the usefulness of a system in contrast to the problem that needs computational solution, not what OS runs on it.
I fully agree with the parent post.
All this does is add competition to already available solutions for spying on employees. Such as hardware filters for keyboards or perhaps firewalls that log this kind of activity.
What I would like to know is what kinds of companies perform this kind of spying on their employees. I'd like to quote from Office Space;
"When I make a mistake, I have 8 different people comin' by to tell me about it. That's my only real motivation is not to be hassled, that and the fear of loosing my job. But you know Bob that will only make someone work just hard enough not to get fired."
Well, what happens with UnitedLinux now? I thought Caldera^H^H^H^H^H^H^HSCO was the founding member of this organization.
I was of the (obviously incorrect) illusion that paying for cable TV was actually a way to pay the broadcasters so that there didn't have to be commercials..?
I too have very little sympathy for the content industry for similar reasons.
I thought NASA was the space agency. You know, charged with making space shuttles fly missions into outer space. I had no idea NASA was analogous to NSA, the national security agency.
No, the IMEI number identifies the phone. Not the account under which service is offered.
This is about GSM. A technology where the phone is NOT tied explicitly to the account. GSM is widely used in Europe but is also available here in the States.
So no, cloning the phone will give you nothing. The only thing you'd gain from this would be the ability to track who's account is using what phone at any given time. If you've got two phones with the same IMEI number, you've theoretically got two identical phones. Nothing more, nothing less.
If somebody was able to `copy' your SIM card, that's a different story; because then they would have access to `free' telephony.
Yes, but how long has it been in there? Presumably the entire lifetime of the package on ftp.openbsd.org?
.md5 files haven't been tampered with themselves?)
And it is also disturbing that this is happening with the `official' distribution site. Not some rogue mirror. The question has been asked, how can we trust packages from here on?
It is very possible that this is a one time accident and that it will never happen again. According to CA-99-01-Trojan-TCP-Wrappers, similar things have happened before.
I suppose this only enhances the reasoning behind MD5 checksums. I will most definately use them rigorously from here on. And if not, how long before we get too paranoid for the average mirror? Let alone the primary distribution sites? Seems as if checksumming files should ease such paranoia (of course assuming that the
Why doesn't anybody declare a contest in which the participating would have to find the "silliest" patent in the USPTO database. The one who comes up with the far silliest patent would win.
I don't have anything to contribute with in terms of a prize, neither do I have the time to arrange such a contest, but if there is somebody out there who could consider such an endeavor, perhaps we could learn of even more silly patents..? It would just seem to be amusing I think.
I can recall a lot of people putting their bookmark.htm file online and use that as a start page. Should bookmarks as we know them be illegalized too? Because that's `deep linking' too if you think about it.
I would tend to agree with this. If you could use an archive of some sort, you'd also have to prove that it was a `neutral' source. Non-affiliated or whatever. The point that you're making and very well so is that this is a big mess and should be dealt with accordingly.
The posting date should clearly be the date when the clock starts ticking. Even if the web allows many times for dynamic content, created on the fly, it still should be considered published. Setting precedents like these is very dangerous.
But then again, who is to say that the posting is `published' to a small group first and in the 11th hour (11 months and 2 weeks later) gets published in the real world... There are all kinds of sleazebags out there.
Well, Solaris 9 has an SSH implementation which in fact is OpenSSH. They've modified a few things though; such as the reported version string;
/tmp/foo/include and _static_ libraries /tmp/foo/lib. Don't dynamically link with anything unless it's available on the system itself when it comes to Solaris. You'll introduce nasty inter-dependancies which you'll regret in the long run. Trust me, installing shared libraries on 500 machines isn't that fun.
Escape character is '^]'.
SSH-2.0-Sun_SSH_1.0
^]
telnet>q
Everything else (config files, library dependencies etc.) speaks of OpenSSH so much that there is no other possible option. Sun probably took OpenSSH and modified a few things and released it as their own, as they are allowed to by the BSD license.
These configure options should get you an identical setup to that of the layout on Solaris 9;
CC=cc \
CFLAGS="-g -I/tmp/foo/include" \
LDFLAGS="-L/tmp/foo/lib -R/tmp/foo/lib" \
./configure \
--prefix=/tmp/foo \
--bindir=/usr/bin \
--sbindir=/usr/lib/ssh \
--localstatedir=/var/run \
--libdir=/usr/lib \
--includedir=/usr/include \
--mandir=/usr/share/man \
--with-ssl-dir=/tmp/foo \
--sysconfdir=/etc/ssh \
--libexecdir=/usr/lib/ssh \
--datadir=/usr/lib/ssh \
--with-pid-dir=/var/run \
--with-prngd-socket=/var/run/prng-socket \
--with-zlib=/tmp/foo \
--disable-wtmp \
--disable-utmp
The $CC variable is to build with Sun Forte, substitute with gcc as you please. Note the LDFLAGS and CFLAGS though. This configure expects to find zlib and openssl headers in
I think that Mr. Ballmer means:
"What's good for Microsoft in every country is good for Microsoft."
Otherwise they wouldn't be doing this, would they?
Question is, are they actually going to provide $750MM in cash or are they going to provide software licenses? Remember that class-action settlement where they proposed to give schools licenses "worth" a certain amount of money? $750MM in non-transferable licenses doesn't really put food on peoples tables.
While I agree that the argument was incorrect as a whole, there is some truth in it.
AT&T did sell source code to corporations and gave it away for virtually nothing to Universities and other educational institutions. Hence one could say open source. Open Source however is indicative of the Open Source Initiative (OSI http://www.opensource.org). If one would be nit-picking, it isn't incorrect to say that UNIX was `open source'.
To further go into matters, some historical AT&T code is now released with a less restrictive license, thanks to Caldera. SCO used to govern the code and provide it for a fee to enthusiasts, which I believe was $100. While it has little value for todays computing, it is nevertheless out there. (At this time I can't seem to find the site, perhaps some kind soul can provide that).
IBM has released Transarc's AFS as OpenAFS (http://www.openafs.org). Don't know if that is what you're looking for, but it is pretty nice. It's also portable, so it runs on various unices as well as Windows. Most can be found as binaries if you don't want to roll your own.
AFS is an NFS style implementation though, so you would have to save your files onto a special mount.
It has been said many times, but I'll reiterate it because it is my opinion; I think it stinks! Why are corporations allowed to promise one thing and turn their back on you once you're signed up? That's crap.
The fact of the matter is that I am paying $50 + extra IPs for cable access. I have an agreement that I am supposed to get 1.5mbps downstream and 128kbps upstream. I am supposed to get n e-mail addresses and whatever. Why can't I use that which I am supposed to get?
AND WHY do people take it up the wazoo? Why do people all of the sudden "realize" that the corporations "have" to do this. Why are people trying to compromise with a party that will dominate you and bully you? The outcry SHOULD BE that these corporations have to maintain their service as is. Not how we "consumers" can please our corporate masters. I'm personally sick of this crap.
They wouldn't have been doing cable internet in the first place unless it was profitable. It is profitable, because they have a leverage DSL providers don't have; one bill one company (Cable TV, Internet, soon VoIP...). Just different services. This smells like another FCIPS (Fuck the Consumer to Increase Profits to Shareholders) and nothing else. There are people that complain a lot about how bad things are getting and how our civil liberties are eroding away. Well, a lot of these people bend over to seemingly "little" things like these... Go figure.
There is federal legislation about healthcare industries, so I don't think it would be too much to ask of ISPs and other businesses to treat customer records in a similar fashion. Every once in a while we see a pioneering step from some part of the world in making man free. It's good to see that.
Warehousing is and should remain, perfectly legal for many intents and purposes. Specifically, the most important thing that comes to mind is the content industry and its products. One is to purchase a game for roughly $50 and quite often, one has to use the CD which comes with the game for various purposes. Sometimes one loads sounds and animations off of the disc, however many times the CD is required to `verify' the installation of the game.
If I am to use the original CD, I need to have the assurance that I can take the CD to the retailer and get a new one if I break it. This service must be available in such a fashion that I can without sustaining additional expense or unreasonable inconvenience (I want the replacement at the time I want to play the game) or it isn't viable. Sending in a broken CD to get it replaced, results in loss of time and extra expense. One is not only compelled to pay for postage both ways, but also some dubious fee for the actual replacement disc. After all, I didn't pay for the actual disc, but the right to use the contents.
Think about it... About three or four years ago, one always received a thick manual with the game. I will take MS Flight Simulator 98 as an example. Then came MSFS 2000. The manual was subsequently much smaller, yet contained some info. Of course, in order to make any sense, one had to purchase an extra book, or `strategy guide' with the game. With the advent of MSFS 2002, the manual is rendered into a pamphlet and with many other titles, one isn't distributed at all.
The boxes these days are also much smaller, not a bad thing per say, but indicative of how content industries are trying to save money by selling for the same amount or more, yet condense the contents.
As it is, I am licensing the right to use the contents of the disc. Read just about any EULA and it will tell you this. The DMCA forbids me to circumvent a copy protective mechanism. But if I make an identical (1:1) copy of the disc with the contents that I've paid for, why should that be illegal? I may want to create 100 copies of the same disc. As long as I do not dissiminate these copies to anybody else, why should that be illegal? After all, it's my money and I'm paying for the blank discs.
The bottom line with the content industry is that they have a commitment to their shareholders to sustain a steady financial growth. Well, with any publically traded company for that matter. So innovation is perhaps not as important in terms of technology, but in ways to reap new profits. If the content industry had it their way, one would be forced to purchase a DVD for each family member or friend who is to watch a movie. Capitalist or not, such a demeanour is unreasonable and I doubt that any American would side with the content industry if matters went to such extents.
Take the game CD once again. What if I would like to allow my son to play a game on his computer? But as with anybody with kids, it may not be perfectly safe to hand over the original disc. If I can give my son a $1 worth of a CD-R with the contents on it, (of which I have not circumvented any copy protective devices, by making a perfect copy) the situation is much more reasonable.
Cracking or reverse engineering is a different issue, so perhaps we should stop comparing apples and oranges.
If you haven't already done so, make a donation or join the EFF.
http://www.eff.org/perl/join
You can file suit against anybody for anything at any time you want. That doesn't mean you're going to win the suit.
To me it would appear as if this case is based on creating precedent rather than anything else. Just read what it says;
"Vivendi Rep: We feel the restrictions against the theft of intellectual property will be cleared up in this suit, and will lead to a more clear idea of what is and what isn't internet piracy for the general public. In general, Blizzard is being used as a "first time" suit for this kind of piracy, and we want the public to understand that what is going on with the BNetD project cannot be done without legal ramifications under the DMCA."
I've speculated in the past that Vivendi-Universal wants to start charging for battle.net access. Some people have scoffed at this, but I really don't think it's that far off. It could be some kind of subscription based on minutes spent on battle.net or some feature based billing. Say that every game comes with 600 free minutes to try battle.net out, after which one needs to pay $29.99 or some other Vivendi-esque fee for monthly access. Or perhaps $49.99 for a Gold account which gives you the ability to host a game..?
If bnetd was to exist and allow people to play for free; it could make a real dent in Vivendi's plans. Think about it... If Vivendi really doesn't plan on charging for battle.net, why in the world would they be scared that bnetd would? It would seem to me that people would go with the free service (battle.net) rather than the "rogue" bnetd.
There are a lot of things that don't make sense here. I hope that a court would throw the case out on the grounds that Vivendi is speculating on something that hasn't happened yet and may never happen.
The claim that bnetd will be hurt because it allows "pirated" copies to be played sounds equally dubious to me. Has Vivendi published numbers that are indisputable that show exactly how many copies are pirated and played on bnetd? How have they come to this conclusion other than assumption?
When big corporations get scared they either try to buy the competition or sue them to stone age.
Can't a legal guardian sign an agreement with Apple?
So when does EUI start trading?
That's not the point. They shouldn't have any reason to look for you at all. Because any kind of copy protection device circumvented, is a violation of the DMCA and a punishable fellony.