Perhaps they didn't strip it off... perhaps they just didn't opy it.
You know how it is... your working on somthing, you stop to consider how your going to do this next peice... you seem some code that will drop in fine... then you see a little more...
maybe they just never thought to go back and grab the copyright. Really... its such a little thing. The code works without it. Very easy to forget, especially when your involved in a real problem (like coding or debugging or just plain testing).
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequetly explained by stupidity". I think this can adequetly be explained by stupidity... its really a pretty simple oversight for a programmer (if not a lawyer)
Thats right, we will never know all of what they know.
Does that mean we have to assume they \know?
Perhaps there is no connection and he is just being targeted as a scapegoat. Perhaps one of the things we don't know is whether our government has alterior motives.
As you say, we, the people, arn't privy to all "they" know. I don't see how these are any less possible than that there is indeed hard evidence.
am I the only one who saw NAS and was wondering why anyone thought there was a market for a machine doing "network audio"?
I also notice that nowhere does anyone feel the need to explain that NAS means "Network Attached Storage" (which took me a few paragraphs to make the connection to).
They live there now, under the thumb of an opressive regieme (Isreal), which has prevented
them from making any sort of forwards progress in years. Not to mention occasionally killing some of them.
> The Arabs control 99% of the Middle East land
> mass. Why do the palastinians (which are
> arabs) have a right to the last 1%?
Because they live there maybe? Perhaps because
they have been living there? What gives the jews
any right to come in and take that last 1% from
them, just because they control 99% of the land mass.
Sure if you feel the need to have revenge. It solves nothin gbut, tends to make people feel better.
How about dropping support for Isereal and the little pupet dictatorships we have setup in the Middle east?
How about not being complicit any further in the atrocities commited against the palestiniens?
Nah... fuck that. They are just sand niggers anyway. Lets just find the evil people who hurt us and hurt them back. Thats garaunteed to solve the problem.
Yes, I woul dsay that. Fuck it! Its not about who is right, its not about payback, its about living in peace.
They are intelligent, educated human beings. They have some legitimate grievences. Who cares what they have done? Whats done is done. Its past now. NOTHING we do can brin gback the dead.
We need to move forward. Lets take this as a wake up call. Lets do whats right. Lets call them to the table and talk to them rationally. Lets see their demands. Lets try to work for a solution that pleases all sides.
More killing will do nothing. Let us not create more matryrs! Violence will never win against these people. It has no point. It is counter productive. All it can do is make us feel better about ourselves....not actually stop them.
Noone said their rights count for less. Just that almost ALL of the discussion is about them. There is a difference. It is a statement that programmers are not the only ones who have rights.
I would disagree. I would say, quite simply, that a person who owns a computer and runs software has the right to see the source code for that software, and the right to modify the softwares instructions to do what he wants.
Software is a list of instructions for a computer. As the owner of the computer I should have the absolute right to Audit and/or modify any set of instructions that my computer is being given.
Since software must first exist in human readable form and binaries are NOT human readable, the computer owner has the right to see the program, and modify the program, in the only reasonable form for doing so - the source code form.
I see it as fundamentally no different than requiring ingredients labels on food packaging.
and yes, I write code as part of what I do for a living. I woul dnever think of handing someone a binary alone and saying "here you go, just run this, trust me".
My point is more "History ois written by the victor", and theres all sorts of nasty things that HAVE gone on. Teaching the version of history that makes the enemy look the most evil and "us" look the most good is not exactly new.
I think its valid to ask for proof of ANYTHING. Questioning is good. Question all things.
Now, I don't have any direct proof of the holocaust myself, however I have seen enough reports of evidence, from enough sources to be able to say that it probably did indeed happen.
However, in the absence of actually seeing verified evidence, it is never wrong to question or to be skeptical. Of course, once such evidence is presented, it is foolish to deny it.
Verify definitly, but never deny.
They are being marketed as normal CDs. Normal CDs follow specific standards for how they are layed out and the internal data formats etc.
These only partially compatible with these standards. Thus, by the standard set in the standards, they are defective.
A CD that cannot be read as data IS a defective CD. End of story. it is not standards complient. Thus to sell it as a standards complient CD is to sell a defective product.
A CD that works in one situation and not in another is defective if both situations are valid, standards complient uses of a CD.
A defect is a defect, whether you introduce it intentionally or not.
Well of course... the code is ugly because its a small little snippit that we like to use to test people with.
Or more specifically, it is because I was bored one night and wanted to see how few lines I could impliment a specific algorythem in, still using proper indenting and lin ebreaking:)
Its mor ethan just to see how they do under stress, its also to see how they interact with people, and specifically the only people that they will have to interact with oin a daily basis.
> Anyone wishing to "use" the contents of the
> information they receive as a result of
> SirCam is still subject to copyright,
> trademark, insider trading regulations, etc
> etc.
Well of course, the original author would still hold copyright and all, but thats a side issue. Fair Use still applies. I see no reason why you would be bound to not reveal the information contained therein (if not the document itself, as that would be copyright).
> Now ethically, you'd probably just want to hit
> delete on all those emails without even
> bothering to look at them.
Of course that is unless you are looking at them specifically with the intention of figuring out whose information was compromised, so that you can warn them of the virus infection.
This, of course, assumes that you know its a virus. One could just as easily be a linux user who saw an attachment and immediatly used strongs
on it to get at the text.
Actually my favorite is a good test of those skills. I see if they know a programming language (currently perl or C are the only 2 I look for) and pull out my "Really evil code" for that language.
Uncommented, lots of shorthand, useless variable names etc. About half a page of 8x10 paper worth of code. Not obfuscated, but something that only someone with more than "sysadmin" code reading ability will easily get.
Say "Please read this and tell me what it does, its hard code, so don't expect to be able to get it all". Then see what they do.
Do they just stare at it and throw up their hands? Do they miss the stuff that even someone who just once looked at the camel book should get? Will they admit lack of knowledge and ask "what does split do?"
Actually, the least telling scenario is when they are a real hacker and read right through it in 10 seconds. Course, its only ever happened once.:)
Another thing we like is "the tribunal". Let the manager do an interview, then lead the guy into a conference room with his possible future co-workers. He has to work with these people, they can make quite a good judge.
Just lead in, talk for a bit, then manager makes a quick exit with some pithy remark about "I'll leave so that you guys can all talk freely".
Provides a great time for the candidate to get information about the workplace from the workers, to make sure that there are no personality conflicts, and can make for a great technical grilling:)
So far, in over 2 years, only 1 person has made it through that process and not worked out here.
Actually, the document *IS* copyrighted. You still could be found guilty of copyright infringement for publishing such a document.
However, just forwarding a copy to a friend, probably not (a debatable point actually).
Redistributing the information in another form? Wouldn't be covered by copyright. So you could perhaps write a summary or article about it, and then publish that.
Lets say company X is a mial order business, screws up an order and sends me the Widget that you ordered, when I havn't actually ordered anything at all from them.
Guess what? The widget is mine, and I don't have to pay for it. They still owe you a widget of course, and have to send you one, but I am under no obligation to pay them, or return the widget.
This may not work outside of the US, but thats the precedent here. Things that are sent to you in an unsolicited manner become yours, and no further obligation can be placed on you.
A perfect exampl eof this is a few months back when I ordered a bunch of stuff form thinkgeek. They sent my order twice - once almost exactly one week after the first one arrived.
Now, being an ethical person, and being a person who LIKES thinkgeek alot, I sent the second package back to them. However, I would have been well within my rights to keep it and not have them charge me for it a second time.
Ethically speaking, you would never find out what happened at the Wannsee Conference, because as soon as you realise that it was sent to you in error, you would destroy it - without even reading it yourself.
This assumes of course that your standard of ethics values personal privacy very highly. Then again, what if you discover the contents of the document while trying to ascertain the origin and to verify that you were not the intended recipient?
Well as was said, the military has solved this one already. Frankly, the ability to impersonate someone on the phone has never been out of the grasp of those who have needed it.
Now, fabricating evidence that will stand up to professional scrutiny (say, during a trial, or public announcment) is a little harder. This is no better than current technology for fooling someone "here and now"... the questuion is, as it advances, can it be good enough that a real good look can't tell the difference?
Of course, then we can get into that "linguistic fingerprinting" that was on/. a while back. Remember the guy who helped show who the unibomber was?
I wonder how much text is needed, on average, to prove (or disprove) who the original author of the text was?
Furthermore, it was considered good "netiquette" to have your relays be open to the world. It simplified things. MTA gets a message, it sees that its not a local delivery, so it is nice and tries to forward it to the right place.
Who ever thought people would ABUSE this sort of stuff?
Hell, at one point it was an accepted practice of being a good net citizen to have guest accounts on your machines too.
These are, of course, all legacy attitudes. Sorry to see them go, of course. Would be great to live in that world, wouldn't it?
My response was more like "What kind of heathen refridgerates beer?"
But yea... Guiness is definitly in the class of beers that should be served at or close to room temperature.
What the hell is wrong with people. I finnaly find a bar with people I like, and they serve a beer thats not too bad (Petes wicked ale), but I have to wait like an hour before my beer is even at a drinkable temperature!
And yes, I am a born and raised American. I suppose its what I get from living in a place where beer companies can get away with putting more rice in their beer than barley.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps they didn't strip it off... perhaps they just didn't opy it.
You know how it is... your working on somthing, you stop to consider how your going to do this next peice... you seem some code that will drop in fine... then you see a little more...
maybe they just never thought to go back and grab the copyright. Really... its such a little thing. The code works without it. Very easy to forget, especially when your involved in a real problem (like coding or debugging or just plain testing).
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequetly explained by stupidity". I think this can adequetly be explained by stupidity... its really a pretty simple oversight for a programmer (if not a lawyer)
-Steve
Thats right, we will never know all of what they know.
Does that mean we have to assume they \know?
Perhaps there is no connection and he is just being targeted as a scapegoat. Perhaps one of the things we don't know is whether our government has alterior motives.
As you say, we, the people, arn't privy to all "they" know. I don't see how these are any less possible than that there is indeed hard evidence.
-Steve
Ok....
am I the only one who saw NAS and was wondering why anyone thought there was a market for a machine doing "network audio"?
I also notice that nowhere does anyone feel the need to explain that NAS means "Network Attached Storage" (which took me a few paragraphs to make the connection to).
Seriously... some of us know different TLAs.
-Steve
No claim... except currently living there.
They live there now, under the thumb of an opressive regieme (Isreal), which has prevented
them from making any sort of forwards progress in years. Not to mention occasionally killing some of them.
> The Arabs control 99% of the Middle East land
> mass. Why do the palastinians (which are
> arabs) have a right to the last 1%?
Because they live there maybe? Perhaps because
they have been living there? What gives the jews
any right to come in and take that last 1% from
them, just because they control 99% of the land mass.
-Steve
Find those responsible?
Sure if you feel the need to have revenge. It solves nothin gbut, tends to make people feel better.
How about dropping support for Isereal and the little pupet dictatorships we have setup in the Middle east?
How about not being complicit any further in the atrocities commited against the palestiniens?
Nah... fuck that. They are just sand niggers anyway. Lets just find the evil people who hurt us and hurt them back. Thats garaunteed to solve the problem.
-Steve
Yes, I woul dsay that. Fuck it! Its not about who is right, its not about payback, its about living in peace.
They are intelligent, educated human beings. They have some legitimate grievences. Who cares what they have done? Whats done is done. Its past now. NOTHING we do can brin gback the dead.
We need to move forward. Lets take this as a wake up call. Lets do whats right. Lets call them to the table and talk to them rationally. Lets see their demands. Lets try to work for a solution that pleases all sides.
More killing will do nothing. Let us not create more matryrs! Violence will never win against these people. It has no point. It is counter productive. All it can do is make us feel better about ourselves....not actually stop them.
-Steve
Even I know this one...
Under Windows 4.x all (not NT, I know jack about NT...and ME actually, I havn't really used Windows since OSR2) you need to do is run winipcfg.
From there you can release your address and get a new lease. Of course, only with DHCP running.
-Steve
I am not saying "I wouldn't hand out a binary", just that I wouldn't think to say "Heres a binary, run it, you can't have the source".
Sure binaries are great. Im big on binary distributions, even package managers - great things for the everyday user etc.
Its the "just trust me, you don't need the source" that I don't get. No, don't trust me, please. Check it out for yourself. Feel free not to trust me.
-steve
Noone said their rights count for less. Just that almost ALL of the discussion is about them. There is a difference. It is a statement that programmers are not the only ones who have rights.
I would disagree. I would say, quite simply, that a person who owns a computer and runs software has the right to see the source code for that software, and the right to modify the softwares instructions to do what he wants.
Software is a list of instructions for a computer. As the owner of the computer I should have the absolute right to Audit and/or modify any set of instructions that my computer is being given.
Since software must first exist in human readable form and binaries are NOT human readable, the computer owner has the right to see the program, and modify the program, in the only reasonable form for doing so - the source code form.
I see it as fundamentally no different than requiring ingredients labels on food packaging.
and yes, I write code as part of what I do for a living. I woul dnever think of handing someone a binary alone and saying "here you go, just run this, trust me".
-Steve
Certainly. Agreed.
My point is more "History ois written by the victor", and theres all sorts of nasty things that HAVE gone on. Teaching the version of history that makes the enemy look the most evil and "us" look the most good is not exactly new.
I think its valid to ask for proof of ANYTHING. Questioning is good. Question all things.
Now, I don't have any direct proof of the holocaust myself, however I have seen enough reports of evidence, from enough sources to be able to say that it probably did indeed happen.
However, in the absence of actually seeing verified evidence, it is never wrong to question or to be skeptical. Of course, once such evidence is presented, it is foolish to deny it.
Verify definitly, but never deny.
-Steve
> If you truly believe that you are simply a
> hypocrite.
Incorrect. Nothing that was said indicated hypocracy. Idiocy maybe, but not hypocracy.
Perhaps just severe distrust for written history. Thats not too hard to end up with.
I mean we know the civil war was over slavery, and Lincoln freed the slaves. Isn't that right? Its what most people I know learned in school.
-Steve
They are being marketed as normal CDs. Normal CDs follow specific standards for how they are layed out and the internal data formats etc.
These only partially compatible with these standards. Thus, by the standard set in the standards, they are defective.
A CD that cannot be read as data IS a defective CD. End of story. it is not standards complient. Thus to sell it as a standards complient CD is to sell a defective product.
A CD that works in one situation and not in another is defective if both situations are valid, standards complient uses of a CD.
A defect is a defect, whether you introduce it intentionally or not.
-Steve
This isn't a case of them "not making it available to you". This is them taking it away from you. There is a difference.
You have the right to make copies for your own use. They are purposfully taking measures to prevent you from exercising that right.
-Steve
This is not a case of someone "photocopying sandpaper".
This is a case of a paper manafacturer selling sandpaper disguised and labeled as copier paper.
-Steve
Well of course... the code is ugly because its a small little snippit that we like to use to test people with.
:)
Or more specifically, it is because I was bored one night and wanted to see how few lines I could impliment a specific algorythem in, still using proper indenting and lin ebreaking
Its mor ethan just to see how they do under stress, its also to see how they interact with people, and specifically the only people that they will have to interact with oin a daily basis.
-Steve
> Anyone wishing to "use" the contents of the
> information they receive as a result of
> SirCam is still subject to copyright,
> trademark, insider trading regulations, etc
> etc.
Well of course, the original author would still hold copyright and all, but thats a side issue. Fair Use still applies. I see no reason why you would be bound to not reveal the information contained therein (if not the document itself, as that would be copyright).
> Now ethically, you'd probably just want to hit
> delete on all those emails without even
> bothering to look at them.
Of course that is unless you are looking at them specifically with the intention of figuring out whose information was compromised, so that you can warn them of the virus infection.
This, of course, assumes that you know its a virus. One could just as easily be a linux user who saw an attachment and immediatly used strongs
on it to get at the text.
-Steve
Great idea... we do stuff like this...
:)
:)
Actually my favorite is a good test of those skills. I see if they know a programming language (currently perl or C are the only 2 I look for) and pull out my "Really evil code" for that language.
Uncommented, lots of shorthand, useless variable names etc. About half a page of 8x10 paper worth of code. Not obfuscated, but something that only someone with more than "sysadmin" code reading ability will easily get.
Say "Please read this and tell me what it does, its hard code, so don't expect to be able to get it all". Then see what they do.
Do they just stare at it and throw up their hands? Do they miss the stuff that even someone who just once looked at the camel book should get? Will they admit lack of knowledge and ask "what does split do?"
Actually, the least telling scenario is when they are a real hacker and read right through it in 10 seconds. Course, its only ever happened once.
Another thing we like is "the tribunal". Let the manager do an interview, then lead the guy into a conference room with his possible future co-workers. He has to work with these people, they can make quite a good judge.
Just lead in, talk for a bit, then manager makes a quick exit with some pithy remark about "I'll leave so that you guys can all talk freely".
Provides a great time for the candidate to get information about the workplace from the workers, to make sure that there are no personality conflicts, and can make for a great technical grilling
So far, in over 2 years, only 1 person has made it through that process and not worked out here.
-Steve
You wanna find out?
Lawyers don't tend to break legs, burn down houses, or allow you to experience restful sleep with the fishes.
Then again, some may argue that thats because they don't have the common decency to just beat the crap out of you or kill you and get it over with.
-Steve
Actually, the document *IS* copyrighted. You still could be found guilty of copyright infringement for publishing such a document.
However, just forwarding a copy to a friend, probably not (a debatable point actually).
Redistributing the information in another form? Wouldn't be covered by copyright. So you could perhaps write a summary or article about it, and then publish that.
-Steve
Veruy true. That is not the case here however.
It is the case that it *IS* addressed to you, however the contents were not intended to be sent to you.
There is a term for this, its known as "Shit out of luck".
-Steve
Of course....
Lets say company X is a mial order business, screws up an order and sends me the Widget that you ordered, when I havn't actually ordered anything at all from them.
Guess what? The widget is mine, and I don't have to pay for it. They still owe you a widget of course, and have to send you one, but I am under no obligation to pay them, or return the widget.
This may not work outside of the US, but thats the precedent here. Things that are sent to you in an unsolicited manner become yours, and no further obligation can be placed on you.
A perfect exampl eof this is a few months back when I ordered a bunch of stuff form thinkgeek. They sent my order twice - once almost exactly one week after the first one arrived.
Now, being an ethical person, and being a person who LIKES thinkgeek alot, I sent the second package back to them. However, I would have been well within my rights to keep it and not have them charge me for it a second time.
-Steve
Actually....
Ethically speaking, you would never find out what happened at the Wannsee Conference, because as soon as you realise that it was sent to you in error, you would destroy it - without even reading it yourself.
This assumes of course that your standard of ethics values personal privacy very highly. Then again, what if you discover the contents of the document while trying to ascertain the origin and to verify that you were not the intended recipient?
-Steve
Well as was said, the military has solved this one already. Frankly, the ability to impersonate someone on the phone has never been out of the grasp of those who have needed it.
/. a while back. Remember the guy who helped show who the unibomber was?
Now, fabricating evidence that will stand up to professional scrutiny (say, during a trial, or public announcment) is a little harder. This is no better than current technology for fooling someone "here and now"... the questuion is, as it advances, can it be good enough that a real good look can't tell the difference?
Of course, then we can get into that "linguistic fingerprinting" that was on
I wonder how much text is needed, on average, to prove (or disprove) who the original author of the text was?
-Steve
Furthermore, it was considered good "netiquette" to have your relays be open to the world. It simplified things. MTA gets a message, it sees that its not a local delivery, so it is nice and tries to forward it to the right place.
Who ever thought people would ABUSE this sort of stuff?
Hell, at one point it was an accepted practice of being a good net citizen to have guest accounts on your machines too.
These are, of course, all legacy attitudes. Sorry to see them go, of course. Would be great to live in that world, wouldn't it?
-Steve
My response was more like "What kind of heathen refridgerates beer?"
But yea... Guiness is definitly in the class of beers that should be served at or close to room temperature.
What the hell is wrong with people. I finnaly find a bar with people I like, and they serve a beer thats not too bad (Petes wicked ale), but I have to wait like an hour before my beer is even at a drinkable temperature!
And yes, I am a born and raised American. I suppose its what I get from living in a place where beer companies can get away with putting more rice in their beer than barley.
-Steve