Providing the entire work would be illegal. Quoting a small part would be legal. Providing some of the work could be either legal or illegal. Which was it, and why?
You forget about the entire copy Google made of the work and stored on their servers. They have no right to that copy. If they bought every book they made a fair use of then I would agree fair use would apply.
That's a bullshit disclaimer. You're just debating abortion and calling people morons, and then pretending to do so under the guise of humor. Except for your weak attempt at the end, there was no humor.
I don't get why you capitalize acronyms and proper nouns, but leave capitals off the beginning of sentences. Those are the most important capitals for reading.
Hence, selling the disk, which enables someone else to listen to the music, is copyright infringement according to the RIAA.
Do you have a link for that? First Sale Doctrine states you can resell CDs. In fact, this right was recently upheld for "promotional" CDs that were given away but not sold.
They send them out because they make money doing it. Which means that someone, somewhere, is paying for spam as a service. Which means that even if 100 spammers were instantaneously taken offline and thrown into pound-me-in-the-ass prison, 100 new spammers would emerge to fill there places and likely send out even more spam.
I don't understand your logic. Why would they send out more spam?
If we want to stop spam, we need to remove the economic incentive. And throwing spammers in jail does not accomplish that. So naturally the spam epidemic was largely unchanged by these arrests
How are you going to remove the economic incentive? And until you come up with your brilliant solution for doing so, it makes sense to punish spammers as a deterrent to those who think spam is easy money with no chance of repercussions. Most crime is a matter of economic incentive. Crime will never be completely stopped. But enforcement reduces the level.
Even if it has a firewall, it's probably third-party software, and as such, doesn't start until after the network interface is up and running,
I imagine most people either use the firewall in their router or they use the default firewall that comes with Windows. How many people install 3rd party firewalls?
Like it or not, most of the world's private computers are going to be running one form or another of Windows for the foreseeable future, and unless and until Redmond sets things so that there's a built-in firewall up and running while the box is still isolated, MS boxen are going to get pw0ned
I had never heard of the problem with firewalls being disabled at boot, but I looked around and yes, it seems like it was a problem before XP Service Pack 2 that has since been fixed:
SP2 turns on Windows Firewall by default and starts it earlier in the boot process. [...] In Windows XP Service Pack 2, the firewall driver has a static rule, called the boot-time policy. It performs stateful filtering and eliminates the window of vulnerability while the computer is booting.
Is that so? Does Joe Blow user, when being told how awful Windows is, and how wonderful Linux is, want to know about problems that he'll run into, or not? Does the average Joe Blow user know how to diagnose and report a memory problem to Debian?
I do, but I'm not an average user, but even for me it takes time and so far I've been willing to reboot every so often instead of tracking it down. I have reported bugs in the past, and I have also tracked down bugs only to find that they've already been reported, and have been stuck in unstable or not addressed.
You're afraid they'll sue you for music they don't own the rights to? I think you're a little caught up in this "oh my god the RIAA is the devil" thing.
Have you reported the problem? Memory leakage tends to be one of the easiest bugs to fix.
No, I've been lazy. It's one of those things I've been meaning to get to. I know, it's a bit hypocritical to complain about free software if I don't take the time to report the issue, but then again a comparison was being made with the quality of paid for software.
A) The active X thing only required a single click
How many clicks does a Firefox plugin or extension require?
B) It was hard to determine what was legitimately needed and what wasn't
How can a Firefox user determine this? Any web page can provide a malware link and say "you need to install CoolViewer to view the dancing monkey".
C) Active X could basically screw with the entire OS. The worst thing that Firefox might do is totally trash Firefox. Nothing more,
It can do anything the account it's running under has permission to do. That includes wiping out all your personal files, running as part of a botnet, and spying on your online banking.
Anyways, we've gotten off the main point: IE6 did not silently allow the installation of toolbars or other malware. This is what I replied to, and the least you can do is acknowledge that you were wrong.
You're joking right? There are still bugs in IE that have been there for years, compare that to Firefox which has very quick releases that fix most bugs.
What security holes have been left in IE for years? Every time I heard about some security bug in IE it was patched shortly as a hotfix.
Running stable wouldn't help with my leaking memory, since it's been leaking since Etch was testing and that has become stable. Besides that, stable runs too far behind for desktop use.
When I used XP it was rock solid. These days I use Linux, and no problems crashing, but it leaks memory. I also cringe every time I update, because every 6 months or so there's a critical bug in some app I need. I'm running Debian "testing".
I don't run IE6 anymore, but as I remember it ActiveX required permission to install something capable of malware. Firefox is extensible and lets you install malware capable software too.
As to what actually happened in your situation, if you didn't install something, then you probably got your malware from a new bug that wasn't patched or you hadn't patched yet.
Microsoft has been responsive when it comes to fixing security holes.
In conclusion, IE6 didn't let you install malware by design, and Firefox essentially shares the same design. Both browsers have had security bugs. Both let you install malware. The problem with the IE/Firefox security mythology is that it fools users into thinking Firefox is somehow magically secure. It isn't, and users need to stay patched and be security conscious.
You could have installed something without remembering. You say you ran a virus check after restoration. Did you do a check before restoring to see what got you? Did you search the net to see what it was? Without details like that, your anecdote is meaningless when it comes to your assertion about the security of IE6.
There are, however, plenty of documented cases of malware on the net. Could you link to one that shows a fundamental design flaw of IE6 that isn't in Firefox, one that lets you "install all kinds of random crap that messes with settings and toolbars without prompts"?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe Rails is more crash-prone or scaling-challenged than other platforms.
You can read the Rails is a Ghetto" rant and do a find for "restart". Apparently Rails had a buggy garbage collector.
Providing the entire work would be illegal. Quoting a small part would be legal. Providing some of the work could be either legal or illegal. Which was it, and why?
You forget about the entire copy Google made of the work and stored on their servers. They have no right to that copy. If they bought every book they made a fair use of then I would agree fair use would apply.
Jeez you're an idiot. I wouldn't have posted that under a registered nick either.
The Anonymous Coward was making fun of the post above him, which was made under a registered nick.
why the hell is everything tagged "story"?
I have another question. What happened to the option to turn off tags?
And one more: Is there any forum to discuss Slashdot issues? Seems like the only way is to bitch off-topic in the articles.
Disclaimer: This is supposed to be humorous.
That's a bullshit disclaimer. You're just debating abortion and calling people morons, and then pretending to do so under the guise of humor. Except for your weak attempt at the end, there was no humor.
And "gratis" isn't really an English word; it's a Spanish word that is sometimes used in explanations like we read here.
The dictionary I checked listed the origin as Middle English, 1444 from Latin.
You know dictionaries are online now, gratis even.
I don't get why you capitalize acronyms and proper nouns, but leave capitals off the beginning of sentences. Those are the most important capitals for reading.
Hence, selling the disk, which enables someone else to listen to the music, is copyright infringement according to the RIAA.
Do you have a link for that? First Sale Doctrine states you can resell CDs. In fact, this right was recently upheld for "promotional" CDs that were given away but not sold.
Bazaar( aka bzr, aka bazaar-ng until recently ): very nice, but a little flakey now and then.
"a little flakey" in a version control system? That's a death sentence.
They send them out because they make money doing it. Which means that someone, somewhere, is paying for spam as a service. Which means that even if 100 spammers were instantaneously taken offline and thrown into pound-me-in-the-ass prison, 100 new spammers would emerge to fill there places and likely send out even more spam.
I don't understand your logic. Why would they send out more spam?
If we want to stop spam, we need to remove the economic incentive. And throwing spammers in jail does not accomplish that. So naturally the spam epidemic was largely unchanged by these arrests
How are you going to remove the economic incentive? And until you come up with your brilliant solution for doing so, it makes sense to punish spammers as a deterrent to those who think spam is easy money with no chance of repercussions. Most crime is a matter of economic incentive. Crime will never be completely stopped. But enforcement reduces the level.
Even if it has a firewall, it's probably third-party software, and as such, doesn't start until after the network interface is up and running,
I imagine most people either use the firewall in their router or they use the default firewall that comes with Windows. How many people install 3rd party firewalls?
Like it or not, most of the world's private computers are going to be running one form or another of Windows for the foreseeable future, and unless and until Redmond sets things so that there's a built-in firewall up and running while the box is still isolated, MS boxen are going to get pw0ned
I had never heard of the problem with firewalls being disabled at boot, but I looked around and yes, it seems like it was a problem before XP Service Pack 2 that has since been fixed:
SP2 turns on Windows Firewall by default and starts it earlier in the boot process. [...] In Windows XP Service Pack 2, the firewall driver has a static rule, called the boot-time policy. It performs stateful filtering and eliminates the window of vulnerability while the computer is booting.
They expect you to make interpretations that favor yourself.
They expect "reasonable" interpretations. If you are creatively aggressive, you are running a risk.
The IRS doesn't run on "hope".
You are not being fair at all.
Is that so? Does Joe Blow user, when being told how awful Windows is, and how wonderful Linux is, want to know about problems that he'll run into, or not? Does the average Joe Blow user know how to diagnose and report a memory problem to Debian?
I do, but I'm not an average user, but even for me it takes time and so far I've been willing to reboot every so often instead of tracking it down. I have reported bugs in the past, and I have also tracked down bugs only to find that they've already been reported, and have been stuck in unstable or not addressed.
It's called Jailbreaking.
Watch out for Jailbot.
You're afraid they'll sue you for music they don't own the rights to? I think you're a little caught up in this "oh my god the RIAA is the devil" thing.
Have you reported the problem? Memory leakage tends to be one of the easiest bugs to fix.
No, I've been lazy. It's one of those things I've been meaning to get to. I know, it's a bit hypocritical to complain about free software if I don't take the time to report the issue, but then again a comparison was being made with the quality of paid for software.
A) The active X thing only required a single click
How many clicks does a Firefox plugin or extension require?
B) It was hard to determine what was legitimately needed and what wasn't
How can a Firefox user determine this? Any web page can provide a malware link and say "you need to install CoolViewer to view the dancing monkey".
C) Active X could basically screw with the entire OS. The worst thing that Firefox might do is totally trash Firefox. Nothing more,
It can do anything the account it's running under has permission to do. That includes wiping out all your personal files, running as part of a botnet, and spying on your online banking.
Anyways, we've gotten off the main point: IE6 did not silently allow the installation of toolbars or other malware. This is what I replied to, and the least you can do is acknowledge that you were wrong.
You're joking right? There are still bugs in IE that have been there for years, compare that to Firefox which has very quick releases that fix most bugs.
What security holes have been left in IE for years? Every time I heard about some security bug in IE it was patched shortly as a hotfix.
Running stable wouldn't help with my leaking memory, since it's been leaking since Etch was testing and that has become stable. Besides that, stable runs too far behind for desktop use.
When I used XP it was rock solid. These days I use Linux, and no problems crashing, but it leaks memory. I also cringe every time I update, because every 6 months or so there's a critical bug in some app I need. I'm running Debian "testing".
Well, even though this didn't really cause mine, it is a one-click stop to malware: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActiveX .
I don't run IE6 anymore, but as I remember it ActiveX required permission to install something capable of malware. Firefox is extensible and lets you install malware capable software too.
As to what actually happened in your situation, if you didn't install something, then you probably got your malware from a new bug that wasn't patched or you hadn't patched yet.
The other is more obvious which is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software which means that the critical vulnerabilities of IE don't get patched until MS decides to.
Microsoft has been responsive when it comes to fixing security holes.
In conclusion, IE6 didn't let you install malware by design, and Firefox essentially shares the same design. Both browsers have had security bugs. Both let you install malware. The problem with the IE/Firefox security mythology is that it fools users into thinking Firefox is somehow magically secure. It isn't, and users need to stay patched and be security conscious.
My dreams seem to lack any sort of projected visual images which I can focus on.
It could be that you dream in full color and detail but your memory doesn't capture it. Dreams are slippery -- the details fade fast.
They are rather cognitive or imaginary-looking (like closing your eyes while awake and imagining a dinosaur chasing after you).
Try recollecting something from yesterday -- is it much different?
You could have installed something without remembering. You say you ran a virus check after restoration. Did you do a check before restoring to see what got you? Did you search the net to see what it was? Without details like that, your anecdote is meaningless when it comes to your assertion about the security of IE6.
There are, however, plenty of documented cases of malware on the net. Could you link to one that shows a fundamental design flaw of IE6 that isn't in Firefox, one that lets you "install all kinds of random crap that messes with settings and toolbars without prompts"?
I'm not sure who'd be the best candidate for building a new government out of total anarchy, but I"m guessing brute physical strength won't matter.
It'll be the person who can influence and arm the most people. Just look at Iraq.