As someone who actually lived through the 80s I must contradict you -- the Repubs have definitely embraced the Yuppie Scum Capitalism of the 80s. Not sure where you ever got the idea that yuppies were "liberal" (TV?), but in real life they're the ones that started the real estate scamming that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of working class homeless, many of whom grew up middle class.
As for the rest, yes I oversimplified it. If you want to know more about it there's plenty of info online.
Well even though they're so wacked they still manage to have some sense when it suits them. The guy I lived with certainly didn't bring out his inner devilman on the first date. He had a very charming and convincing front, which I initially mistook for his real personality.
Oh yes, those film scenes are sometimes terribly accurate. I co-habitated with one of those -- his words -- "possessed/empowered" people once. I quite literally feel very fortunate to have gotten away safely.
Back in the days before Republicans made Yuppie Scum Capitalism and No Taxes For The Rich their true, official religious doctrine, we used to treat a lot of people who would otherwise have had no other options but incarceration. The system was far from perfect, though. It was fairly easy to get someone locked up in treatment, because it was fairly easy to get treatment paid for. So Reagan's decision to release loonies everywhere to the street with no supervision was widely lauded at the time as a "victory for patients' rights". In reality, we simply went from one absurd extreme to the opposite one. Why? Beats me, but there does seem to be a pattern of extremism...
This is pretty cool though, if it's as good as they're claiming. Maybe soon we'll have genuine 3D equipment that doesn't require headache-inducing tricks to render 3D. I'd be all for that, it'd be killer!
I downloaded and deleted from the servers all the mail I'm legally allowed to immediately after I first read about that. My new policy is to delete all mail from the servers, keeping only an encrypted copy on my local main box (and its associated backups). Everyone should do the same, if they are able. Use fetchmail, offlineimap, whatever but do it quick. Remember, if you had nothing to hide they wouldn't be trying to examine your email, citizen! **shudder**
BTW: "wikitard" is not directed at you, just at the inevitable twit posting [citation needed] as a substitute for bothering to have an education or even STFW.:)
No. If you use BSD code, call it your own, and patent/copyright it you are in violation of the license and in violation of copyright law. The BSD license has the same backing of copyright law as any other, and it has already stood some pretty definitive legal testing (look it up, wikitard). As for the licenses themselves, from http://www.linfo.org/bsdlicense.html:
The only restrictions placed on users of software released under a typical BSD license are that if they redistribute such software in any form, with or without modification, they must include in the redistribution (1) the original copyright notice, (2) a list of two simple restrictions and (3) a disclaimer of liability. These restrictions can be summarized as (1) one should not claim that they wrote the software if they did not write it and (2) one should not sue the developer if the software does not function as expected or as desired. Some BSD licenses additionally include a clause that restricts the use of the name of the project (or the names of its contributors) for endorsing or promoting derivative works.
So please stop the FUD. It has long since been debunked, I really don't understand why it remains such a common belief amongst otherwise intelligent people...
I assure you, my lusers have no clue that I consider them "lusers", even the 1337z don't know I feel that way. It's called being a professional. And here on slashdot, where none of them know who I am, it's called "blowing off steam" (or "letting one's hair down", etc). HTH!
My mistake regarding the statement "one must have physical access to the machine". But one must be able to execute code on the machine as the user in question, i.e. the account would have to be already compromised.
But the average "power user" with a desktop and a laptop doesn't have a spare server in their closet, and isn't running a system that makes rsync easy.
But you've just described a luser, not a "power user". There's no "power user" who can't use rsync, sorry. Though I know delusions of adequacy are common 'round slashdot these days...
As a domain admin, I can pull data from any dropbox account for any user on my network just by grabbing their config.db.
I understand that, and yes it should be fixed -- but it's a far cry from being as scary as some people are making it sound. I'm glad I use rsync though.:)
Dropbox Insecure by Design
/ by / Mr. P / on / April 08, 2011 @ 4:54 am
References
Sources: http://dereknewton.com/2011/04/dropbox-authentication-static-host-ids/
Security Engineer Derek Newton recently discovered a vulnerability in Dropbox's authentication mechanism, whilst looking for forensic traces left behind by such software. Derek discovered that in one of Dropbox's SQLite Database files, config.db, there are 3 fields contained:
Email
Dropbox_Path
Host_ID
After testing (by modification of existing fields), Derek was able to determine that the only field that affected authentication in any way, was host_id. Any other fields did not affect the way in which the machine was able to communicate or sync files with Dropbox. After some more testing, Derek was able to prove that by taking the config.db, and installing it/copying it to another machine, that he was instantly able to access/sync the existing files of that users' Dropbox. In doing so, he was not once prompted for authentication or credentials, and the user was not notified of any access to their files.
This carries a lot of implications, as stated by Derek, as it allows Malware to quickly and quietly steal access to your files, without you knowing. It also allows malicious users to copy over a very small file in order to steal many larger files later, rather than copying over all the files at the time of theft. Malware would also be able to be persistently installed in the Dropbox files, so that when a user reformats their computer, it is simply synced and run all over again.
A user would need to delete/revoke the affected device ID from their Dropbox after infection to prevent continued access.
Note this requires an attacker to already have access to the config.db, i.e. one must have physical access to the machine and already be logged in as a privileged user or owner of the config.db.
A BSD licensed kernel going into a smart phone would not necessarily result in source code we could download to then work on the kernel for that phone.
A Linux licensed kernel requires the phone company to release a source version of their kernel so we can tinker with it ourselves.
Which of those situations looks more free to you?
In spite of your GPL does anyone have the choice to run the kernel (or OS, for that matter) of their choosing on any phone currently available? There may be one or two red herrings still in production, but if so you may be pretty certain they'll be gone within a year. So this is not an issue which can be resolved by creative licensing, nor does the GPL have any advantage in this situation. GPLv3 tries to address this exact issue, with the result that no-one outside of GNU enthusiasts will touch anything GPLv3-licensed with a ten foot pole. The failure of the GPL is the failure to understand human nature.
The BSD license doesn't try to coerce anyone into anything, which is much more in line with my personal philosophy than the well-intentioned, but frankly ill-informed GPL.
The code you write is more free under BSD.
The code that is revised by people who used it is not.
The way I feel about it is that's their choice to make. Why should I be automatically entitled to any revisions others want to make to the code? I prefer having freedom of choice, therefore I prefer to extend freedom of choice to others when I am able. Don't get me wrong, I admire much of RMS' work. I just don't agree with tying the idea of "freedom" to a restrictive license. It strikes me as misguided and maybe a bit hypocritical.
I think he's actually complaining that since microsoft didn't feel properly accommodated under the licensing agreement they originally agreed to that Sun/Oracle should have allowed them more freedom. I guess I'd have to agree, as long as that standard is also applied to microsoft's (and all other) code!
I submit BSD and GPL are equally free, if different.
Only if you redefine "free", which oddly enough is what the GPL tries to do.:)
FWIW I have published code under a number of closed and open licenses. The only reason I ever publish anything GPL is because I'm reusing some GPL code. Otherwise (if it's not a for-profit project) I'd use only BSD-licensing, as it's as close to unconditionally free as one can get without risking someone else claiming it as their own and closing it off (as can happen with PD). BSD-licensing is definitely more free, it really isn't debatable at all without the common GNU trick of redefining "free".
GPL is like everyone are free and slavery is not allowed as slaves are not free
BSD is like everyone talks that they are free, but some people makes others as their slaves and keep them in slavery but same time talking how they are allowed to slave others.
Can't you read? I can understand being insufficiently literate to understand the licenses themselves, but it's spelled out quite succinctly in this discussion. Are you just trolling? BSD-licensed code may be re-used however one wishes, but the original, BSD-licensed code remains forevermore open and available. That's as free as freedom gets, surpassing even Public Domain, which is at risk for being copyrighted or even patented by anyone who files an application.
The OP has it right. GPL=="Here's a gift, what'd you get me?" BSD=="Here's a gift, hope you like it!"
People are not omnipotent and therefore the business of dispelling ignorance is a massive and collective endeavor. This is imperfect of course, but it's the best we can do. No-one can contain all the scientific knowledge necessary to fully understand everything, even if we had it right now. A much larger problem is all the corruption and "junk science", much of which is the inevitable byproduct of capitalizing on and politicizing science. But you have to fund discovery somehow...
...people will never learn that there is no privacy on a networked computer running proprietary software or on proprietary networks.
FTFY. Those of us who use FOSS are the only people who have a shot at actual privacy. Note, I say "we have a shot". You can still make thousands of tiny mistakes that will screw it up. The cell providers are another story, there's no privacy for anyone on the proprietary networks available.
Slashdot Mirror
Truly, there are waaaaay more old men with wood than pervs who want them. Though I suppose it's a boon to the sex workers.
As someone who actually lived through the 80s I must contradict you -- the Repubs have definitely embraced the Yuppie Scum Capitalism of the 80s. Not sure where you ever got the idea that yuppies were "liberal" (TV?), but in real life they're the ones that started the real estate scamming that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of working class homeless, many of whom grew up middle class.
As for the rest, yes I oversimplified it. If you want to know more about it there's plenty of info online.
Well even though they're so wacked they still manage to have some sense when it suits them. The guy I lived with certainly didn't bring out his inner devilman on the first date. He had a very charming and convincing front, which I initially mistook for his real personality.
Oh yes, those film scenes are sometimes terribly accurate. I co-habitated with one of those -- his words -- "possessed/empowered" people once. I quite literally feel very fortunate to have gotten away safely.
Back in the days before Republicans made Yuppie Scum Capitalism and No Taxes For The Rich their true, official religious doctrine, we used to treat a lot of people who would otherwise have had no other options but incarceration. The system was far from perfect, though. It was fairly easy to get someone locked up in treatment, because it was fairly easy to get treatment paid for. So Reagan's decision to release loonies everywhere to the street with no supervision was widely lauded at the time as a "victory for patients' rights". In reality, we simply went from one absurd extreme to the opposite one. Why? Beats me, but there does seem to be a pattern of extremism...
Thanks for the explanation, I'm less excited about it now. :P
This is pretty cool though, if it's as good as they're claiming. Maybe soon we'll have genuine 3D equipment that doesn't require headache-inducing tricks to render 3D. I'd be all for that, it'd be killer!
I downloaded and deleted from the servers all the mail I'm legally allowed to immediately after I first read about that. My new policy is to delete all mail from the servers, keeping only an encrypted copy on my local main box (and its associated backups). Everyone should do the same, if they are able. Use fetchmail, offlineimap, whatever but do it quick. Remember, if you had nothing to hide they wouldn't be trying to examine your email, citizen! **shudder**
BTW: "wikitard" is not directed at you, just at the inevitable twit posting [citation needed] as a substitute for bothering to have an education or even STFW. :)
So please stop the FUD. It has long since been debunked, I really don't understand why it remains such a common belief amongst otherwise intelligent people...
I assure you, my lusers have no clue that I consider them "lusers", even the 1337z don't know I feel that way. It's called being a professional. And here on slashdot, where none of them know who I am, it's called "blowing off steam" (or "letting one's hair down", etc). HTH!
My mistake regarding the statement "one must have physical access to the machine". But one must be able to execute code on the machine as the user in question, i.e. the account would have to be already compromised.
But you've just described a luser, not a "power user". There's no "power user" who can't use rsync, sorry. Though I know delusions of adequacy are common 'round slashdot these days...
I understand that, and yes it should be fixed -- but it's a far cry from being as scary as some people are making it sound. I'm glad I use rsync though. :)
Note this requires an attacker to already have access to the config.db, i.e. one must have physical access to the machine and already be logged in as a privileged user or owner of the config.db.
In spite of your GPL does anyone have the choice to run the kernel (or OS, for that matter) of their choosing on any phone currently available? There may be one or two red herrings still in production, but if so you may be pretty certain they'll be gone within a year. So this is not an issue which can be resolved by creative licensing, nor does the GPL have any advantage in this situation. GPLv3 tries to address this exact issue, with the result that no-one outside of GNU enthusiasts will touch anything GPLv3-licensed with a ten foot pole. The failure of the GPL is the failure to understand human nature.
The BSD license doesn't try to coerce anyone into anything, which is much more in line with my personal philosophy than the well-intentioned, but frankly ill-informed GPL.
The way I feel about it is that's their choice to make. Why should I be automatically entitled to any revisions others want to make to the code? I prefer having freedom of choice, therefore I prefer to extend freedom of choice to others when I am able. Don't get me wrong, I admire much of RMS' work. I just don't agree with tying the idea of "freedom" to a restrictive license. It strikes me as misguided and maybe a bit hypocritical.
I think he's actually complaining that since microsoft didn't feel properly accommodated under the licensing agreement they originally agreed to that Sun/Oracle should have allowed them more freedom. I guess I'd have to agree, as long as that standard is also applied to microsoft's (and all other) code!
Only if you redefine "free", which oddly enough is what the GPL tries to do. :)
FWIW I have published code under a number of closed and open licenses. The only reason I ever publish anything GPL is because I'm reusing some GPL code. Otherwise (if it's not a for-profit project) I'd use only BSD-licensing, as it's as close to unconditionally free as one can get without risking someone else claiming it as their own and closing it off (as can happen with PD). BSD-licensing is definitely more free, it really isn't debatable at all without the common GNU trick of redefining "free".
Can't you read? I can understand being insufficiently literate to understand the licenses themselves, but it's spelled out quite succinctly in this discussion. Are you just trolling? BSD-licensed code may be re-used however one wishes, but the original, BSD-licensed code remains forevermore open and available. That's as free as freedom gets, surpassing even Public Domain, which is at risk for being copyrighted or even patented by anyone who files an application.
The OP has it right. GPL=="Here's a gift, what'd you get me?" BSD=="Here's a gift, hope you like it!"
People are not omnipotent and therefore the business of dispelling ignorance is a massive and collective endeavor. This is imperfect of course, but it's the best we can do. No-one can contain all the scientific knowledge necessary to fully understand everything, even if we had it right now. A much larger problem is all the corruption and "junk science", much of which is the inevitable byproduct of capitalizing on and politicizing science. But you have to fund discovery somehow...
FTFY. Those of us who use FOSS are the only people who have a shot at actual privacy. Note, I say "we have a shot". You can still make thousands of tiny mistakes that will screw it up. The cell providers are another story, there's no privacy for anyone on the proprietary networks available.
Yeah, but you have to love the terminology: "Internet hackers". "Your honor, I swear -- I never hacked the internet!"
Me too! That's why I posted it for other people to click.
Here you go. Every time you click on that Bing searches for Padova Maria Luisa nude with pony. :)