They can tell you to keep your pants on when walking down the street (thou this is questionable ), and they can tell you not to charge money for information you have bought from others (thou this is questionable) but saying you can't copy a CD, book, movie or computer program for a friend is getting really rather close to "making a law abridging the freedom of speech" unless you want to use a naive interpretation of speech that would cover what you say, but not what you write.
..it is just that whenever I hear about a spectacular new hypothesis about anything that relates to: evolution, climate, weather, nuclear power, solar power, cellphone's or HIV, I almost immediately start grinding my teeth because I just know it will be jumped upon by some media outlet and spun into political propaganda. With this particular one I'm expecting at the very least a few GW sceptics and ID promoters, but with some (bad)luck maybe we can get some references to free energy devices as well... Heck, GW and ID has already been mentioned in the comments...
We have everything we need... almost
on
The DRM Scorecard
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
TOR Plausible deniability Analogue hole
What we miss is a file sharing program that makes use of a TOR like network and stores the files in a plausibly deniable container by default (i.e no need to be a computer geek) so that everyone can use it. Such a program would essentially be a tactical nuke against the record label's business model. Some time ago I may have considered promoting this immoral, but after I had a night ruined by region codes ( my girlfriend* at the time had bought me a present while visiting the states ) I sort of want to see this bullshit fail as much as possible. Unfortunately I don't know shit about designing a decent network so I can't write the stuff myself, but if things continue the way they do it is only a question of time before somebody does it.
*Yes yes, I know I'm not supposed to have had a girlfriend and post to slashdot... If it helps maintain the stereotype I could disclose that I'm nocturnal, skinny and still living with my mother...
I don't think, it is illegal to mislead (other than in advertising) or even to threaten (other than with violence). Would be nice, if FTC stops it somehow, of course, just to keep things cleaner...
Maybe ( and no, I'm not sure ) it isn't criminal, but you can certainly be held liable for it in court. Guess it's this whole criminal vs civil matter again...
Do they get a warrant, sneak into your home in the dead of night, and install software on your computer?
You still think they would need a warrant to do so? It is more like: try{ getTarget().addUncostitutionalSpyware(); } catch (SomebodyFoundOutException e){ getTarget().accuse( new Excuse( Excuse.paedophile , Excuse.terrorist )); } finally{ profit(); }
...check out the web pages that suck web site. There's a lot of good advice there and who knows, your site may be listed there.
Sure, but is there a way to nominate that site for having a completely broken DHTML interface with pointless animations? Also, if you are writing a page about other pages that suck, it should at least validate...
I seriously think that that it is just a question of time before Microsoft's OEM deals end up in the European Commission. Expect something along the lines of disallowing the license to be tied to a specific motherboard, disallowing per-machine pricing, require vendors to offer system's without software pre-installed at a reduced cost.. etc. There is plenty of precedence for this in other EC rulings so it is just a matter of when somebody pulls the trigger and files a complaint. Sure, it will be hard for the OEMs or other organisations to do so, but at the rate that Microsoft is pissing on everything they get within financial proximity to, it will happen sooner or latter.
As I mainly use my optical drives for data transfer and installing an operating system, my main concern is Linux support. Any device that doesn't work with Linux is dead to me ( literally speaking ).
It has come to our attention that you are planning to go to court over the brain patent. In the event that you would be interested in our legal services, perhaps you would like to sign a contract with our client. If interested, please let us know at, Damned Deals INC, 666 Chamber of Greed
Best regards: The lawyers
PS: Out of legal consideration we are unable to enter heaven so you will have to visit us. We apologise for any inconvenience and hope to see you in hell soon. DS
I've seen some of these, and quite frankly, it is hardly a car. They look like something you could tip over by giving a slight push towards the roof. I definitely wouldn't want to be in a collision and be sitting in one of them.
I'm complaining that the license allows you to use a different license ( i.e a proprietary one ) for binary form, but not for source. You are explicitly dissalowed from redistributing the source under any other license, even a compliant one. However, I notice now that this is largely mitigated in the "comunity" version of the license, which contains:
(A) Reciprocal Grants- For any file you distribute that contains code from the software (in source code or binary format), you must provide recipients the source code to that file along with a copy of this license, which license will govern that file. You may license other files that are entirely your own work and do not contain code from the software under any terms you choose.
No. You can use LGPL code any way you want as long as the derivative work is also put under the (L)GPL. It is only if you want to use a different license for your own code that the dynamic vs static linking rule is relevant.
Bullshit. They released a license that is only valid for programs that run on Windows, and the other license has stricter limitations for source distribution than object code. They are just trying to confuse people.
(D) If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of the software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this license.
Note the distinction between source code and object code. The requirement for source code to be kept under teh license makes it incompatible with other open source licenses, while simultaneously the license makes no such requirement if your edistribute obct code only. In other words, this license is deliberately designed to make the code useable by proprietary vendors, while simultaneously being incompatible with other open source projects. The OSI should reject this license based on point 2 in their definition:
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form.
Even if this can be interpreted in complicance with Microsoft's license, the OSI should simply point out that the rationale behind point 2 is that source code should be available, and thus it is not acceptable to put stricter restrictions on the redistribtion of source code than one does on the redistribution of object code.
Well the limited version of the license certainly fails...
"(F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A) & 2(B) extend only to the software or derivative works that you create that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product."
Keeping the encryption/decryption onboard the hardware itself, and presenting a FAT32 volume achieves a good degree of software independence, because any computer capable of mounting a USB FAT32 device would work with your drive.
Uhm, I'd pick software dependance over hardware dependance any day. Software is easier to patch and maintain, if a vulnerability is found there is a higher chance you can fix the software than the hardware. If it is open source you have mor insight into what it actuallyd does etc... If you use hardware encryption and find out the implementation is flawed somehow, fixing it will be a pain and will frequently involve buying more hardware.
As usual the price has little to do with cost to the university, but rather how much you can charge and still get customers ( i.e students ). Thus it would appear that the market value of an engineering degree is higher ( surprise surprise ) and thus we shouldn't be surprised it is more expensive to obtain one. Heck, this is even true in countries where you don't have tuition fees. The grade requirements to get in to med school is usually high, thus you need to pay quite a price ( in terms of studying rather than getting a paid job ) in order to get in. It's all about opportunity cost.
If the part is there, he author has already signed away his rights regarding the license change to the FSF. He is trusting the FSF.
No. The "or any latter" language is an extra permission so even if the FSF released some evil draconian version of teh GPL that only means that users of software under "GPLv2 or latter" now CAN use the draconian license. They still have the option to use the good old "GPLv2". In other words, the very worst thing the FSF can do is to release a GPL version that is not copyleft, as that would effectively allow derivative works to be put under any license whatsoever ( including a draconian one ). So basically, you only need to trust the FSF if you would horribly mind your program ending up under the BSD, or a similar non-copyleft license.
Also, advocates of the BSD license should note that this permission is implicit in the BSD license as it allows relicensing under ANY license, which includes any version of the GPL. So weather you trust the FSF or not, the fact that they may change their licensing policy is certainly no reason to pick BSD over "GPL + Any latter version".
I, however, am looking for a USB key with the encryption and password entry built into the key itself. I am looking to enter the password or fingerprint on the device. That way, I am not dependent on the host. The drive could allow mounting after the biometric or password are supplied to it, and present a FAT32 volume, which would mount on any OS. I am looking for a portable solution.
Tell me, what does it matter if the decryption is in the hardware if you send the password through the USB stack ? How will you prevent the host system from carrying out a man in the middle attack ? How do you stop it reading anything you read from the device? How do you stop it from modifying anything you input on the keyboard ? How do you stop it from making screen, RAM and or even CPU ( think virtualisation ) dumps 60 times a second while you access the device? Basially, if you don't trust the machine you are using, you're fucked. End of story. The only exception is if you're doing the encryption / decryption manually, before it even hits the keyboard.
If you do trust the host, there is little point in hardware encryption/authentication.
It is still a good idea to have hardware that supports it. In particular, USB flash drives have a tendancy to store logical changes to data in new physical locations. They do this in order to minimise the number of writes to any one portion of the drive, and thus extend the lifetime of the flash memory. Normally this is a good thing, but for encryption purposes it is a pain since it makes it difficult to change / revoke a key without overwriting the entire drive. Of course, if you suspect a key has been compromised it is just good practise to do so anyway ( or better yet, destroy the drive).
Not sure how you did your maths there, but if C$150 is 114% then 1% is C$1.32 and thus 120% would give C$158.4 which is an increase of C$8.4 and not C$30 as claimed. It looks as if you meant that the total cost due to taxes was 20% of 150, but in that case the main bulk of the cost is the federal and provicial tax, not the new tax, and thus saying consumers are expected to pay C$30 more is rather misleading in context. With the higher estimate this tax would result in you paying C$9 more for a card that was priced C$150 without tax. I.e, rather than paying C$171 you would pay C$180. Not saying you are wrong ( depending on what you actually meant ) but your statement was a bit unclear.
Slashdot Mirror
They can tell you to keep your pants on when walking down the street (thou this is questionable ), and they can tell you not to charge money for information you have bought from others (thou this is questionable) but saying you can't copy a CD, book, movie or computer program for a friend is getting really rather close to "making a law abridging the freedom of speech" unless you want to use a naive interpretation of speech that would cover what you say, but not what you write.
..it is just that whenever I hear about a spectacular new hypothesis about anything that relates to: evolution, climate, weather, nuclear power, solar power, cellphone's or HIV, I almost immediately start grinding my teeth because I just know it will be jumped upon by some media outlet and spun into political propaganda. With this particular one I'm expecting at the very least a few GW sceptics and ID promoters, but with some (bad)luck maybe we can get some references to free energy devices as well... Heck, GW and ID has already been mentioned in the comments...
TOR
Plausible deniability
Analogue hole
What we miss is a file sharing program that makes use of a TOR like network and stores the files in a plausibly deniable container by default (i.e no need to be a computer geek) so that everyone can use it. Such a program would essentially be a tactical nuke against the record label's business model. Some time ago I may have considered promoting this immoral, but after I had a night ruined by region codes ( my girlfriend* at the time had bought me a present while visiting the states ) I sort of want to see this bullshit fail as much as possible. Unfortunately I don't know shit about designing a decent network so I can't write the stuff myself, but if things continue the way they do it is only a question of time before somebody does it.
*Yes yes, I know I'm not supposed to have had a girlfriend and post to slashdot... If it helps maintain the stereotype I could disclose that I'm nocturnal, skinny and still living with my mother...
try{
getTarget().addUncostitutionalSpyware();
}
catch (SomebodyFoundOutException e){
getTarget().accuse( new Excuse( Excuse.paedophile , Excuse.terrorist ));
}
finally{
profit();
}
I seriously think that that it is just a question of time before Microsoft's OEM deals end up in the European Commission. Expect something along the lines of disallowing the license to be tied to a specific motherboard, disallowing per-machine pricing, require vendors to offer system's without software pre-installed at a reduced cost .. etc. There is plenty of precedence for this in other EC rulings so it is just a matter of when somebody pulls the trigger and files a complaint. Sure, it will be hard for the OEMs or other organisations to do so, but at the rate that Microsoft is pissing on everything they get within financial proximity to, it will happen sooner or latter.
Solar power, cheap, efficient, durable, pick two.
Anybody surprised? Anybody care? It is just another reason why the iPhone sucks...
As I mainly use my optical drives for data transfer and installing an operating system, my main concern is Linux support. Any device that doesn't work with Linux is dead to me ( literally speaking ).
Dear God
It has come to our attention that you are planning to go to court over the brain patent. In the event that you would be interested in our legal services, perhaps you would like to sign a contract with our client. If interested, please let us know at, Damned Deals INC, 666 Chamber of Greed
Best regards:
The lawyers
PS: Out of legal consideration we are unable to enter heaven so you will have to visit us. We apologise for any inconvenience and hope to see you in hell soon. DS
I've seen some of these, and quite frankly, it is hardly a car. They look like something you could tip over by giving a slight push towards the roof. I definitely wouldn't want to be in a collision and be sitting in one of them.
No. You can use LGPL code any way you want as long as the derivative work is also put under the (L)GPL. It is only if you want to use a different license for your own code that the dynamic vs static linking rule is relevant.
Bullshit. They released a license that is only valid for programs that run on Windows, and the other license has stricter limitations for source distribution than object code. They are just trying to confuse people.
As usual the price has little to do with cost to the university, but rather how much you can charge and still get customers ( i.e students ). Thus it would appear that the market value of an engineering degree is higher ( surprise surprise ) and thus we shouldn't be surprised it is more expensive to obtain one. Heck, this is even true in countries where you don't have tuition fees. The grade requirements to get in to med school is usually high, thus you need to pay quite a price ( in terms of studying rather than getting a paid job ) in order to get in. It's all about opportunity cost.
Also, advocates of the BSD license should note that this permission is implicit in the BSD license as it allows relicensing under ANY license, which includes any version of the GPL. So weather you trust the FSF or not, the fact that they may change their licensing policy is certainly no reason to pick BSD over "GPL + Any latter version".
Not sure how you did your maths there, but if C$150 is 114% then 1% is C$1.32 and thus 120% would give C$158.4 which is an increase of C$8.4 and not C$30 as claimed. It looks as if you meant that the total cost due to taxes was 20% of 150, but in that case the main bulk of the cost is the federal and provicial tax, not the new tax, and thus saying consumers are expected to pay C$30 more is rather misleading in context. With the higher estimate this tax would result in you paying C$9 more for a card that was priced C$150 without tax. I.e, rather than paying C$171 you would pay C$180. Not saying you are wrong ( depending on what you actually meant ) but your statement was a bit unclear.