> Maybe, just maybe, the fact that I created
> something gives me the right to dictate the
> terms of distribution.
An idea which is not only contrary to the fsf position, but also contrary to current law, and the tradition of copyright.
Copyright is a monopoly on the copying of a work, specifically designed to encourage production and publication of works. NOT a protection of the rights of the author.
Now, if you feel that the author has some right to the works that they produce, thats fine. It is your right to believe that. However, it means that any discussion of copyright with someone who does not fundamentally believe that pointless. It would be like trying to convince a hindu in the divinity of rabbi jesus, by using arguments from the bible.
Gnutella, Freenet, even napster, are existant proof that not everyone shares your worldview.
I have to agree here. As much as I like the idea of this hacktavism, in theory, in practice its not going to work. I really get the feeling that this is the work of some people who just don't grasp the true nature of what they are fighting against.
It reminds me alot of "Propaganda By example". Its good to learn from history. An anarchist campaign about a hundred years ago aimed at usining assasination and bombing to bring down the wrath of government, and sew distrust and malcontent with the government.
In theory its great. In practice it backfired so horribly that 100 years later bombs and mindless destruction are still synonomous with anarchism in many peoples minds.
There is the fact that NOONE really aaactually wants to launch nukes. At least, noone who has enough nukes to wipe out the US.
Russia has enough nukes and ICBMs to do it. Noone in russia actually wants, or has ever really actually wanted, to nuke the US.
Did they have plans for it? Sure, thats what you do when your having a cold war, you come up with all sorts of plans for what you can do.
Noone who is in a position to command enough nukes to make a difference actually wants to nuke anything or anyone.
If anything their plans are based on the fact that the US is the only nation to have ever used nukes, and has stated (in leaked top secret documents, as recently as a couple of years ago) that it feels it has the right to be the first to use nukes in a conflict - EVEN AGINST NON-NUCLEAR ENEMYS!
Comming up with protocols for such things that are secure even when the protocol is known is really not too hard. Certainly not too hard for organizations who can drop a million dollars here and there without even noticing.
If they are stupid enough to use "Security through obscurity" when it would be nearly trivial for them to do it otherwise (I mean come on, does anyone think that the code hasn't been security audited by the NSA?) is silly and irresponsible.
So yea, if they did it that way, they do DESERVE to have whatever happens, happen.
ICBMs are worthless anyway. Look at it this way. If We first strike, then they retaliate, we all die. A first strike would be wrong anyway - we have no need for that ability - right? RIGHT?!?
Now, if "they" (they being whoever is todays bad guy) strike first. Well, fuck, we are dead anyway. ALL our ICBMs do i s make sure that noone survives.
Quite frankly, if they strike and I die... They can have the land, I don't give a shit if we kill them too. At that point, it doesn't matter anymore.
I think the problem is the AIMSTER people are trying too hard.
scp can be used to violate copyright, so can ftp, http, etc etc etc.
What they need to do is make a general filesharing tool for sharing files with your friends. Thats what they made, thats all they need.
The problem with napster was really that it was specifically aimed at MP3s, AND that it was inherintly promiscuous. You could only share with everyone.
Now I think they are scared and trying to be clever and cover their ass, when in reality it doesn't need any more cover than its got.
If you don't want to hear from the law, don't sell lock picks, sell hammers. Nice general tool swhere the plethora of legitimate uses is obvious.
I don't know about the DMCA, this has probably changed but...
A debate raged for years about people making copies of music. Like making a tape copy to listen to in the car. RIAA said "Making copies even for personal use (like listening at work) is illegal, buy two copies" Consumer groups said "Its fair use".
Eventually the law was ammended to end this debate once and for all. It SPECIFICALLY said that end users COULD make personal copies of MUSIC (specifically).
However, this law was also ambiguous, and a new debate raged. Because the new amendment could be interpreted in such a way that its perfectly legal to make a personal copy and give only the copy to a friend. AFAIK this question was never answered definitivly.
(this comes from a copyright FAQ that I read prior to the whole DMCA debacle - this may have changed)
Of course, copyright law also explicitly states that for music there is a manditory license. You can sell copies of music as long as you A) state ahead of time that you intend to (to the copyright holder) and B) Pay royalties by a certain time afterwards.
How is reverse engineering a patented work infringement?
Its stupid, afterall, the patent is documentation on how it works, thats why the entire system of patents was created, to give creators in incentive to publish how things work.
ALL the patent is an offer saying "If you publish how it works, in the form of a patent, then we give you 17 years exclusive rights to use it"
Reverse engineering a patented product is fine, but its pointless since you could have just looked it up. Producing a copy of a patented work and/or trying to sell it without permission - that would be infringment.
The DMCA however DOES have a clause about "circumventing an access control device". If the virus encrypted itself (which some viruses do) then reverse engineering it could be considered "circumventing an access control device" and thus outlawed via the DMCA.
Anyone else want to write a virus, dstribute it only to willing friends, and put it on a web page in binary form and then sue semantic when they come out with a virus definition for it?
> So why am I skeptical? Very simply, the
> purported license terms apear to be a sham from
> the beginning. There appears to be not only no
> legitimate use, but no use at all for the
> service under its license terms. You are allowed
> to download a file, but not open it afterwards.
> In other words, its useless.
Well IANAL but I am a Sysadmin and have worked customer support. So while I may not be an expert on the law, I am an expert on spotting the actions of a person who is operating an an area where they are incompetent.
This seems like one. Namely that the aimster people don't know law, and are trying to use what they do know (programming, logic) to find a way to sneak around the law and cover their asses.
Regardless of what the license says, its a peer to peer general file sharing protocol. In fact, its a "closed" one that lets you choose which peers to share with.
This has more REAL uses than I can imagine. I don't know how often I, or a friend, will do something (be it one friend scanning in a picture he drew, or another who wants to show me a config file etc etc) where something like this would be GREAT!
I run my own domain with a machine sitting off a DSL line, and am paranoid about security (or try to be). So I wont run ftp because its inherintly insecure. Alot of people wont use scp. And my AIM client (everybuddy) refuses to do file transfers.
If I want to share a file, I make a "secret" directory and put it on my webserver (no, not usually the carpanet.net one - I am a sysadmin afterall, I have many servers), but not everyone can do that.
All in all, they are providing a worthwhile service, allowing people to securely share files. Better than napster really, since napster was designed for promiscuous anonymous mp3 sharing SPECIFICALLY.
I think this is on better footing both from a useability standpoint, a bandwidth standpoint (don't get me started about the dorm network and napster - students downloading isn't why we blocked it at the boarder router until we could institute a bandwith cap) and from a legal one... since its really a very general utility.
If one wanted to compare p2p file sharing protocols to "tools" napster would be like a lockpick (nothing evil about them, they are useful for people who arn't "theives" but - not very general)....this is more like a hammer, or a crow bar. Lots and lots of general uses.
They get a paid informant to say that you sell drugs out of your apartment and over the internet, using your computer!
No need to involve the game warden at all! The police are happy to get search warrent and bust in armed to the teeth in military gear.
Then they confiscate your computer, and start forfeiture procedings to take everything you own (which, unless th elaw recently changed, they don't even need to find any evidence of a crime to do - much less get a criminal conviction).
Then you get to try and prove that your stuff wasn't used in a crime. In the mean time they gather all of the Aimster evidence that they need right off your box.
I am saying that the use of pain to stop someone needs to be justified just as strongly as the use of lethal force.
I am saying that the use of judo to attack a nonviolent passerby is just as bad as shooting them in the head. It is unjustified use of force either way you cut it.
It is never "OK" to use pain to stop someone in a situation where it would not be "OK" to attack them in any other way.
Television has done more to show people that sending troops around is bad than it has desensitized them.
Television is what brought home the pictures of what war really looks like during viet nam. Its one of the reasons that public outcry against the autrocities was so powerful.
My fear is that this will be used too much. A television image of some people running away from an invisable beam? Thats not going to capture the true severity of the fact that force IS being used.
We wont have the benefit of being reminded why we never want to ever send soldiers anywhere, if we can avoid it.
> Hitler was appeased for years and military
> force was used as a last resort... by that
> time it was too late for millions.
Better that the bad guy gets away for a while and is caught later, than we go sending forces around willy-nilly and hurting innocent people.
> I do agree with your other point, the use of
> military force should never be taken lightly...
> but then that almost goes without saying.
It does go without saying - far too often.
The problem is that this makes it easier to justify. "Oh, well they wont kill anyone" that somehow makes it ok to use military force, when before it wouldn't have been.
Its less shocking to see a tank point an emitter at someone and see a crowd run away than it is to see a soldier holding a gun and shooting at people.
My bottom line: If its not wholly apropriate and justified to have a soldier sitting there firing live rounds and killing people, then its not apropriate to use this either.
What scares me is that public perception wont see it that way.
With guns, you have bullet casings, the bulletts themselves, even if they miss! When they hit you have entry and exit wounds etc.
With a maser? Maybe a mild burn?
Of course, a higher powered version could certainly kill. The difference between "hurt" and "cook" is really only a matter of power.
I wonder what the effective range is? A maser sniper riffle would be silent, could do damage or kill quickly, and hard to detect if your not looking for it.
What about the possibility of increased cancer risk? has that been studied?
Theres alot of abuse potential in something like this. No marks, no physical evidence, just pain, and on short order.
I have to say that in a sense I agree. Its better to be murned with a maser, and possibly blinded, than to be set on fire and charrded by napalm.
Then again, I think its a bad thing to have such "non-lethal" weapons too. It cheapens the percieved danger of sending around military forces.
"Oh well see they just use these masers, noone dies, no serious injury". OK fine, but give it a few years, and that will make it much easier to justify the use of force in some peoples minds.
Sending of troops somewhere to do violent things SHOULD be violent, it SHOULD be dangerous. We should never do anything that will trick people into taking the issue of using military force lightly.
Its not a light issue. The use of military force, in any form, should ALWAYS be the absolute last resort.
I fear that technology like this will cheapen it in some peoples minds, and make the use of military force "easier".
There is an old story of a security gaurd at a telecom company who used to warm up on cold winter nights by standing in front of the microwave transmitters.
The story goes, he was found dead one night over the holidays. Evidently the power output was bumped up during that time period and he cooked.
Generally I agree that most anaologies are bad, even the one i gave was sub-optimal.
I think the mistake though is not in the use of anaologies, but in adherence to them. Anaologies are good for illustrating a point, however, it must be realised that any analogy will break down at some point - sometimes thats important - sometimes it isn't.
As I was trying to say, this tool is just a method for looking around and seeing what others have made available to you.
Whether its illegal or not ONLY matter is you are caught doing it. Until you are aprehended by law enforcement, and brought (usually against your will) into a court, then law means absolutly nothing - its just words on a paper.
Thinsg like a persons attachment to things does matter. It is moral and ethical considerations, the stuff that law is suposed to be based on that matters, not the law.
> Where do you get the 'come on in' sign with
> file shares?
Where it says "Publically accessable" (or equivalent, whatever it actually says that means this - I havn't actually used the tool or even windows in a LONG time).
Unlike locks on doors at peopls homes, these can have passwords, and other access control mechanisms, that are much easier to control than home keys.
Unlike at your home, where there are often reasons to temporarily unlock a door, there are NO good reasons to leave a share "unlocked" except to allow general public access.
Since there is no place to hang a "Come on in" sign (unlike in the physical world on he front of your house) the "publically accessable" configuration must be assumed to mean that it is meant for public access.
Either that or we assume that people are incompetent by default and every public share is a mistake (which is not the case, there are certainly intentional public shares put out by competent people)
I kind of think of it as walkign around in a place where the lighting isn't that good.
This software is like a flashlight, you point it at the building your in front of, and it sends abeam of light (or in this case a few packets) that bounce back and tells you that somethings there.
Then it filters this information for you and shows you all of the places that have doors open and signs next to the door that say "Come on in".
At the very least, this exposes people who don't know what they are doing. This is a good thing, because it will cause their files to be messed with, which is bad, but will provide them with information - namely that they are exposed and they should fix this.
In the long run, I think it will be a very good thing for Windows users.
Maybe they really did do it on purpose? I know when _I_ was at scool I opened a share on my Windows box (for the short time that I ran windows) and made it open to everyone - with full intention that people would use it!
Your idea just sounds like it would be another annoyance. Now I open my share to the public and start getting a few emails from random people all the time saying "BTW you have an open share, you probably don't want that" every few days...fun.
As if I don't get enough random emails from people who see old mailing list messages or my old web pages (that i can't update or delete anymore) and ask me stupid questions.
Im certainly glad I don't run a windows box with an open share anymore.
> When Sally runs her anon ftp server, she is most
> likely savvy enough to realize that people will
> use it.
So what your saying then, by implication, is that if someone runs windows we should automatically assume that they are stupid and have no clue whatsoever?
That is a great stereotype and I, for one, am extremely amused by it.
If you leave the door to your house wide open, then you can't charge a person with breaking and entering.(Tresspassing sure, but not breaking and entering).
Whats this more like? Well, if you tell your system to share out a peice of your hard drive (be it a "folder" in windows or a volume under coda, or a directory unde rnfs) then you have made something available.
Anyone who queries your machine (which is really no different than looking at your house from the street, analogy wise), then they see this sign sitting there "Shared Space here, come on in".
I am pretty sure that if you had a similar sign on your house, and left the front door open, it would be hard to charge someone with tresspassing.
If someone shares out a drive, and does not impliment access control, then I think it is wholly right that we assume that they know what they are doing and MEAN to do it.
This tool just makes use of the shares that a person has made available. It doesn't "break in", it walks in the open front door and uses the offered resources.
Very simple, you cut out the part place where he says that he blew up his system syncing against unstable.
I have too... its definitly possible to blow your system up doing that. Unstable is where packages get initally uploaded to. Its the development distribution - and you have no buisness syncing against it unless you are willing to have your system blow up and need manual fixing.
(actually - Ive never had my system "blow up" from it, but I have had a package or two break and make a few things blow up - its almost never that difficult to fix, if you know how)
In short, ther eis no quality control on unstable. Its where packages go so that people can use and test them. They havn't been formally tested (like the stuff in "stable"), sometimes stuff blows up in there.
> As to the "IP doesn't exist" argument, I think
> what he means is that IP is not a legally
> defined term
Exactly. IP is a term that is used as a simplification and propaganda tactic. It is an attempt to bring 3 completely different concepts under one conceptual umbrella. The problem with this umbrella is, of course, that it doesn't hold water.
Its also an attempt to push forward into peoples minds the idea that information can be owned and controlled and that it is a fundamental right to own and control (just like physical property).
> There's no currently proposed alternative to
> IP rights that can't be shot down in flames in
> 30 seconds by anyone who knows elementary
> economics
Thats a pretty broad ranging statment, I would like to see something to back it up.
of course, I supose that means that the economic argument is the only wrothwhile one then? I have said several times that if my ideas were implimented there would be changes - an entire industry would be turned on its head. It would mean that "Musicians would need day jobs" (actually - theres only a very few that don't need day jobs as it is now).
Slashdot Mirror
> Maybe, just maybe, the fact that I created
> something gives me the right to dictate the
> terms of distribution.
An idea which is not only contrary to the fsf position, but also contrary to current law, and the tradition of copyright.
Copyright is a monopoly on the copying of a work, specifically designed to encourage production and publication of works. NOT a protection of the rights of the author.
Now, if you feel that the author has some right to the works that they produce, thats fine. It is your right to believe that. However, it means that any discussion of copyright with someone who does not fundamentally believe that pointless. It would be like trying to convince a hindu in the divinity of rabbi jesus, by using arguments from the bible.
Gnutella, Freenet, even napster, are existant proof that not everyone shares your worldview.
-Steve
I have to agree here. As much as I like the idea of this hacktavism, in theory, in practice its not going to work. I really get the feeling that this is the work of some people who just don't grasp the true nature of what they are fighting against.
It reminds me alot of "Propaganda By example". Its good to learn from history. An anarchist campaign about a hundred years ago aimed at usining assasination and bombing to bring down the wrath of government, and sew distrust and malcontent with the government.
In theory its great. In practice it backfired so horribly that 100 years later bombs and mindless destruction are still synonomous with anarchism in many peoples minds.
-Steve
There is more than MAD stopping it.
There is the fact that NOONE really aaactually wants to launch nukes. At least, noone who has enough nukes to wipe out the US.
Russia has enough nukes and ICBMs to do it. Noone in russia actually wants, or has ever really actually wanted, to nuke the US.
Did they have plans for it? Sure, thats what you do when your having a cold war, you come up with all sorts of plans for what you can do.
Noone who is in a position to command enough nukes to make a difference actually wants to nuke anything or anyone.
If anything their plans are based on the fact that the US is the only nation to have ever used nukes, and has stated (in leaked top secret documents, as recently as a couple of years ago) that it feels it has the right to be the first to use nukes in a conflict - EVEN AGINST NON-NUCLEAR ENEMYS!
-Steve
I have to agree here.
Comming up with protocols for such things that are secure even when the protocol is known is really not too hard. Certainly not too hard for organizations who can drop a million dollars here and there without even noticing.
If they are stupid enough to use "Security through obscurity" when it would be nearly trivial for them to do it otherwise (I mean come on, does anyone think that the code hasn't been security audited by the NSA?) is silly and irresponsible.
So yea, if they did it that way, they do DESERVE to have whatever happens, happen.
-Steve
Nah, fuck it.
ICBMs are worthless anyway. Look at it this way. If We first strike, then they retaliate, we all die. A first strike would be wrong anyway - we have no need for that ability - right? RIGHT?!?
Now, if "they" (they being whoever is todays bad guy) strike first. Well, fuck, we are dead anyway. ALL our ICBMs do i s make sure that noone survives.
Quite frankly, if they strike and I die... They can have the land, I don't give a shit if we kill them too. At that point, it doesn't matter anymore.
-Steve
I think the problem is the AIMSTER people are trying too hard.
scp can be used to violate copyright, so can ftp, http, etc etc etc.
What they need to do is make a general filesharing tool for sharing files with your friends. Thats what they made, thats all they need.
The problem with napster was really that it was specifically aimed at MP3s, AND that it was inherintly promiscuous. You could only share with everyone.
Now I think they are scared and trying to be clever and cover their ass, when in reality it doesn't need any more cover than its got.
If you don't want to hear from the law, don't sell lock picks, sell hammers. Nice general tool swhere the plethora of legitimate uses is obvious.
-Steve
I don't know about the DMCA, this has probably changed but...
A debate raged for years about people making copies of music. Like making a tape copy to listen to in the car. RIAA said "Making copies even for personal use (like listening at work) is illegal, buy two copies" Consumer groups said "Its fair use".
Eventually the law was ammended to end this debate once and for all. It SPECIFICALLY said that end users COULD make personal copies of MUSIC (specifically).
However, this law was also ambiguous, and a new debate raged. Because the new amendment could be interpreted in such a way that its perfectly legal to make a personal copy and give only the copy to a friend. AFAIK this question was never answered definitivly.
(this comes from a copyright FAQ that I read prior to the whole DMCA debacle - this may have changed)
Of course, copyright law also explicitly states that for music there is a manditory license. You can sell copies of music as long as you A) state ahead of time that you intend to (to the copyright holder) and B) Pay royalties by a certain time afterwards.
-Steve
-Steve
How is reverse engineering a patented work infringement?
Its stupid, afterall, the patent is documentation on how it works, thats why the entire system of patents was created, to give creators in incentive to publish how things work.
ALL the patent is an offer saying "If you publish how it works, in the form of a patent, then we give you 17 years exclusive rights to use it"
Reverse engineering a patented product is fine, but its pointless since you could have just looked it up. Producing a copy of a patented work and/or trying to sell it without permission - that would be infringment.
The DMCA however DOES have a clause about "circumventing an access control device". If the virus encrypted itself (which some viruses do) then reverse engineering it could be considered "circumventing an access control device" and thus outlawed via the DMCA.
Anyone else want to write a virus, dstribute it only to willing friends, and put it on a web page in binary form and then sue semantic when they come out with a virus definition for it?
Sounds like fun to me.
-Steve
> So why am I skeptical? Very simply, the
> purported license terms apear to be a sham from
> the beginning. There appears to be not only no
> legitimate use, but no use at all for the
> service under its license terms. You are allowed
> to download a file, but not open it afterwards.
> In other words, its useless.
Well IANAL but I am a Sysadmin and have worked customer support. So while I may not be an expert on the law, I am an expert on spotting the actions of a person who is operating an an area where they are incompetent.
This seems like one. Namely that the aimster people don't know law, and are trying to use what they do know (programming, logic) to find a way to sneak around the law and cover their asses.
Regardless of what the license says, its a peer to peer general file sharing protocol. In fact, its a "closed" one that lets you choose which peers to share with.
This has more REAL uses than I can imagine. I don't know how often I, or a friend, will do something (be it one friend scanning in a picture he drew, or another who wants to show me a config file etc etc) where something like this would be GREAT!
I run my own domain with a machine sitting off a DSL line, and am paranoid about security (or try to be). So I wont run ftp because its inherintly insecure. Alot of people wont use scp. And my AIM client (everybuddy) refuses to do file transfers.
If I want to share a file, I make a "secret" directory and put it on my webserver (no, not usually the carpanet.net one - I am a sysadmin afterall, I have many servers), but not everyone can do that.
All in all, they are providing a worthwhile service, allowing people to securely share files. Better than napster really, since napster was designed for promiscuous anonymous mp3 sharing SPECIFICALLY.
I think this is on better footing both from a useability standpoint, a bandwidth standpoint (don't get me started about the dorm network and napster - students downloading isn't why we blocked it at the boarder router until we could institute a bandwith cap) and from a legal one... since its really a very general utility.
If one wanted to compare p2p file sharing protocols to "tools" napster would be like a lockpick (nothing evil about them, they are useful for people who arn't "theives" but - not very general)....this is more like a hammer, or a crow bar. Lots and lots of general uses.
-Steve
Or better yet...
They get a paid informant to say that you sell drugs out of your apartment and over the internet, using your computer!
No need to involve the game warden at all! The police are happy to get search warrent and bust in armed to the teeth in military gear.
Then they confiscate your computer, and start forfeiture procedings to take everything you own (which, unless th elaw recently changed, they don't even need to find any evidence of a crime to do - much less get a criminal conviction).
Then you get to try and prove that your stuff wasn't used in a crime. In the mean time they gather all of the Aimster evidence that they need right off your box.
-Steve
No its not.
I am saying that the use of pain to stop someone needs to be justified just as strongly as the use of lethal force.
I am saying that the use of judo to attack a nonviolent passerby is just as bad as shooting them in the head. It is unjustified use of force either way you cut it.
It is never "OK" to use pain to stop someone in a situation where it would not be "OK" to attack them in any other way.
-Steve
Television has done more to show people that sending troops around is bad than it has desensitized them.
Television is what brought home the pictures of what war really looks like during viet nam. Its one of the reasons that public outcry against the autrocities was so powerful.
My fear is that this will be used too much. A television image of some people running away from an invisable beam? Thats not going to capture the true severity of the fact that force IS being used.
We wont have the benefit of being reminded why we never want to ever send soldiers anywhere, if we can avoid it.
-Steve
> Hitler was appeased for years and military
> force was used as a last resort... by that
> time it was too late for millions.
Better that the bad guy gets away for a while and is caught later, than we go sending forces around willy-nilly and hurting innocent people.
> I do agree with your other point, the use of
> military force should never be taken lightly...
> but then that almost goes without saying.
It does go without saying - far too often.
The problem is that this makes it easier to justify. "Oh, well they wont kill anyone" that somehow makes it ok to use military force, when before it wouldn't have been.
Its less shocking to see a tank point an emitter at someone and see a crowd run away than it is to see a soldier holding a gun and shooting at people.
My bottom line: If its not wholly apropriate and justified to have a soldier sitting there firing live rounds and killing people, then its not apropriate to use this either.
What scares me is that public perception wont see it that way.
-Steve
And worst...how do you prove one was used?
With guns, you have bullet casings, the bulletts themselves, even if they miss! When they hit you have entry and exit wounds etc.
With a maser? Maybe a mild burn?
Of course, a higher powered version could certainly kill. The difference between "hurt" and "cook" is really only a matter of power.
I wonder what the effective range is? A maser sniper riffle would be silent, could do damage or kill quickly, and hard to detect if your not looking for it.
What about the possibility of increased cancer risk? has that been studied?
Theres alot of abuse potential in something like this. No marks, no physical evidence, just pain, and on short order.
-Steve
I have to say that in a sense I agree. Its better to be murned with a maser, and possibly blinded, than to be set on fire and charrded by napalm.
Then again, I think its a bad thing to have such "non-lethal" weapons too. It cheapens the percieved danger of sending around military forces.
"Oh well see they just use these masers, noone dies, no serious injury". OK fine, but give it a few years, and that will make it much easier to justify the use of force in some peoples minds.
Sending of troops somewhere to do violent things SHOULD be violent, it SHOULD be dangerous. We should never do anything that will trick people into taking the issue of using military force lightly.
Its not a light issue. The use of military force, in any form, should ALWAYS be the absolute last resort.
I fear that technology like this will cheapen it in some peoples minds, and make the use of military force "easier".
-Steve
Well...
There is an old story of a security gaurd at a telecom company who used to warm up on cold winter nights by standing in front of the microwave transmitters.
The story goes, he was found dead one night over the holidays. Evidently the power output was bumped up during that time period and he cooked.
-Steve
Generally I agree that most anaologies are bad, even the one i gave was sub-optimal.
I think the mistake though is not in the use of anaologies, but in adherence to them. Anaologies are good for illustrating a point, however, it must be realised that any analogy will break down at some point - sometimes thats important - sometimes it isn't.
As I was trying to say, this tool is just a method for looking around and seeing what others have made available to you.
-Steve
Whether its illegal or not ONLY matter is you are caught doing it. Until you are aprehended by law enforcement, and brought (usually against your will) into a court, then law means absolutly nothing - its just words on a paper.
Thinsg like a persons attachment to things does matter. It is moral and ethical considerations, the stuff that law is suposed to be based on that matters, not the law.
-Steve
> Where do you get the 'come on in' sign with
> file shares?
Where it says "Publically accessable" (or equivalent, whatever it actually says that means this - I havn't actually used the tool or even windows in a LONG time).
Unlike locks on doors at peopls homes, these can have passwords, and other access control mechanisms, that are much easier to control than home keys.
Unlike at your home, where there are often reasons to temporarily unlock a door, there are NO good reasons to leave a share "unlocked" except to allow general public access.
Since there is no place to hang a "Come on in" sign (unlike in the physical world on he front of your house) the "publically accessable" configuration must be assumed to mean that it is meant for public access.
Either that or we assume that people are incompetent by default and every public share is a mistake (which is not the case, there are certainly intentional public shares put out by competent people)
-Steve
I kind of think of it as walkign around in a place where the lighting isn't that good.
This software is like a flashlight, you point it at the building your in front of, and it sends abeam of light (or in this case a few packets) that bounce back and tells you that somethings there.
Then it filters this information for you and shows you all of the places that have doors open and signs next to the door that say "Come on in".
At the very least, this exposes people who don't know what they are doing. This is a good thing, because it will cause their files to be messed with, which is bad, but will provide them with information - namely that they are exposed and they should fix this.
In the long run, I think it will be a very good thing for Windows users.
-Steve
What problem?
Maybe they really did do it on purpose? I know when _I_ was at scool I opened a share on my Windows box (for the short time that I ran windows) and made it open to everyone - with full intention that people would use it!
Your idea just sounds like it would be another annoyance. Now I open my share to the public and start getting a few emails from random people all the time saying "BTW you have an open share, you probably don't want that" every few days...fun.
As if I don't get enough random emails from people who see old mailing list messages or my old web pages (that i can't update or delete anymore) and ask me stupid questions.
Im certainly glad I don't run a windows box with an open share anymore.
-Steve
> When Sally runs her anon ftp server, she is most
> likely savvy enough to realize that people will
> use it.
So what your saying then, by implication, is that if someone runs windows we should automatically assume that they are stupid and have no clue whatsoever?
That is a great stereotype and I, for one, am extremely amused by it.
-Steve
Well... to use a physical analogy...
If you leave the door to your house wide open, then you can't charge a person with breaking and entering.(Tresspassing sure, but not breaking and entering).
Whats this more like? Well, if you tell your system to share out a peice of your hard drive (be it a "folder" in windows or a volume under coda, or a directory unde rnfs) then you have made something available.
Anyone who queries your machine (which is really no different than looking at your house from the street, analogy wise), then they see this sign sitting there "Shared Space here, come on in".
I am pretty sure that if you had a similar sign on your house, and left the front door open, it would be hard to charge someone with tresspassing.
If someone shares out a drive, and does not impliment access control, then I think it is wholly right that we assume that they know what they are doing and MEAN to do it.
This tool just makes use of the shares that a person has made available. It doesn't "break in", it walks in the open front door and uses the offered resources.
-Steve
Very simple, you cut out the part place where he says that he blew up his system syncing against unstable.
I have too... its definitly possible to blow your system up doing that. Unstable is where packages get initally uploaded to. Its the development distribution - and you have no buisness syncing against it unless you are willing to have your system blow up and need manual fixing.
(actually - Ive never had my system "blow up" from it, but I have had a package or two break and make a few things blow up - its almost never that difficult to fix, if you know how)
In short, ther eis no quality control on unstable. Its where packages go so that people can use and test them. They havn't been formally tested (like the stuff in "stable"), sometimes stuff blows up in there.
-Steve
> As to the "IP doesn't exist" argument, I think
> what he means is that IP is not a legally
> defined term
Exactly. IP is a term that is used as a simplification and propaganda tactic. It is an attempt to bring 3 completely different concepts under one conceptual umbrella. The problem with this umbrella is, of course, that it doesn't hold water.
Its also an attempt to push forward into peoples minds the idea that information can be owned and controlled and that it is a fundamental right to own and control (just like physical property).
> There's no currently proposed alternative to
> IP rights that can't be shot down in flames in
> 30 seconds by anyone who knows elementary
> economics
Thats a pretty broad ranging statment, I would like to see something to back it up.
of course, I supose that means that the economic argument is the only wrothwhile one then? I have said several times that if my ideas were implimented there would be changes - an entire industry would be turned on its head. It would mean that "Musicians would need day jobs" (actually - theres only a very few that don't need day jobs as it is now).
-Steve