Monday, 12 August 2002
9:09 - So, after literally three weeks of trying, we finally got through to BellSouth to have a phone line installed for my mother at the nursing home. Barbara was livid, and gave the poor phone company lady a piece of her mind. For three weeks now, I've been calling all day long, typically several times a day. It's become automatic: call 780-2355, press 2, press 3, listen to ten seconds of classical music, hear the automated attendant say, "we are experiencing extremely high call volumes at this time...", listen to five more minutes of classical music, after which the commercials start for wireless service and other stuff I don't want. I've spent as long as half an hour on hold before giving up, and frequently spent 10 or 15 minutes.
The really annoying thing is when instead of me giving up on them, they give up on me and simply disconnect me. That's annoying enough for anyone, but particularly annoying for me because I've programmed ACR systems and know that "disconnect the caller" is one of the options that can be programmed to shed load when call volumes are too high. So I'm fully aware that when they drop my call, it wasn't some accident or vagary of fortune, but an intentional act.
At any rate, we now have a phone line installation scheduled for Friday, so my mother will finally be able to place and receive phone calls without us having to carry Barbara's cell phone over there.
Thanks to Roland Dobbins for telling me about the latest severe security hole in Internet Explorer. This one allows a man-in-the-middle attack on an SSL connection, and in effect means that SSL provides no security at all. Actually, Roland sent me two messages about this vulnerability, the second being a gentle nudge because I hadn't said anything about the problem after receiving the first message. I confess that I didn't bother to post anything about the problem because I consider IE to be so fundamentally flawed from a security viewpoint that there's little point to announcing the hole-of-the-week.
In my opinion, anyone who uses IE routinely is simply asking to be exploited. I keep IE on my systems, not that I have any choice, but I do lock it up thoroughly and use it only when there's no alternative. I use Mozilla as my default browser, and Opera as my secondary browser. About the only time I fire up IE is when I absolutely need to view a site that isn't usable with Mozilla or Opera.
All of this simply reinforces my determination to migrate to Linux. Red Hat 8.0 (or whatever they decide to call it) is looking very good indeed. More important than the maturity of the OS itself is the maturity of the applications. OpenOffice.org and Mozilla are perfectly usable now, and can only get better. Evolution is coming along nicely. There's no FrontPage equivalent, but there are any number of decent HTML editors available. The only reason I continue to use FrontPage is for its site management functions, and the truth is that I could eliminate the need for those simply by dumping the entire contents of each of my web sites into a single directory rather than trying to organize them in a hierarchical directory structure. It's nice to be able to move a file and have FrontPage automatically fix all the links in files that point to it, but I can live without that capability if I need to.
Tuesday, 13 August 2002
10:05 - I should have mentioned that the IE SSL security hole I publicized yesterday also applies to at least one other browser, Konqueror on Linux. There's some question as to whether Mozilla is vulnerable. It appears not to be, but that may be more by accident than by design. At any rate, Konqueror is now fixed, while IE remains vulnerable. No surprise there. Open Source stuff gets fixed a lot faster than Closed Source stuff. Well, that's not fair. Opera is Closed Source, and it's fixed, too. Perhaps it would be fairer to say that anything gets fixed faster than Microsoft stuff.
There's also an interesting article on The Register about a German site's attempts to prevent so-called "deep linking" to it. I have never understood on what basis sites attempt to prevent deep linking. They usually claim copyright violation, but there's clearly no violation of copyright going on. A link, whatever its form, is simply an address or pointer. The HTML document that contains it has no text that is copyrighted by the target site, so how can there be any copyright violation?
The same thing is true of images. If I create an HTML document that contains an embedded pointer to an image hosted on another site, all I've included is an address. Although that page when displayed also displays the image, that rendering is done locally by the browser being used to display my HTML page. Let's use Barbara's site as an example. If I decide to display her photograph on this page, I can do so in at least two ways:
First, I can save that image file to my server, and embed the image in my page, like so:
In this case, the code reads: <img border="0" src="../../images/photo-bft.jpg" width="120" height="120"> That's clearly a copyright violation. I did not have the right to copy that image file, so by storing it on my server and pointing to the local copy, I have violated Barbara's copyright.
Second, I can embed just a link in my HTML page, and cause that image to be retrieved from Barbara's server and displayed in my page, like so:
In this case, the code reads: <img border="0" src="http://www.fritchman.com/images/photo-bft.jpg" width="120" height="120"> That's clearly not a copyright violation. The image does not reside on my server. All I've done is embed a link in my HTML code that allows the browser of the person reading my page to retrieve the image himself. There can be no copyright violation because this page does not exist in the form to which the copyright holder objects until it is rendered locally by the user's browser.
I find it interesting that many of the people who object most strenuously to deep links also claim copyright on material that they do not own. For example, one herbalist site has many images of various plants that can be used for pharmaceutical purposes. The owner objects strongly to having her images linked to, and yet this same woman claims copyright on images she's scanned of various old medical and herbal books, which are in the public domain. I emailed her to say that reproducing public domain material in a different form no more gives her the right to claim copyright on that PD material than photocopying the old books would entitle her to claim copyright on the photocopies. I never did hear back from her on that one.
It seems to me that there's a simple answer here: If you don't want people to link to your material, don't post it on the web.
Wednesday, 14 August 2002
9:09 - I've gotten numerous comments on my post of yesterday, both by private mail and on the messageboard. I'll let this exchange with Gary Berg represent them:
But that other person chose to run that server and chose to post that file and chose to agree to pay overage charges for bandwidth. If someone links to it, tough. They wouldn't be able to link to it if it weren't there, or if the site owner had password-protected it or otherwise controlled access. When you put a file up on the web, you're basically posting a sign that says, "Free. Take one." If more people than you expect take advantage of that, that's your problem, not theirs, and certainly not the problem of whoever told them where to find it.
Yes, I did get slashdotted, more than once in fact, and it may be aggravating, but I didn't go out and sue anyone or claim copyright infringement. I simply removed the image. I posted this earlier today on the messageboard in response to a similar comment:
Anyone who posts a file is perfectly free to mark it such that it credits the originating site. My own pages, for example, include my copyright notice. If I cared to do so, I could mark each image file, visibly or via a watermark, with my copyright information, home page URL, or whatever. I don't do that because such images always remind me of stuff that originates on porn sites. Obviously, I needn't mark each image (or even every page) just as a book needn't have a copyright notice on each page. My material is still copyrighted, but that gives me no right to control anything except violations of that copyright. If the image is being served from my server, there is no copyright violation, by definition. I've put it there to be downloaded by people using browsers, and that's exactly what's happening.
I certainly agree that it's impolite, but that's an entirely separate issue. I think if you re-read the page you refer to again, you'll find that my position hasn't changed at all. I think it's rude, but legal, to embed an image link as I did with Barbara's photo. I think that high-volume sites should be considerate of small sites when using such links, or indeed any other kind of link. But you'll notice that I never threatened the site that slashdotted me, nor did I send them a message asking them to cease and desist, nor did I try to argue that it wasn't my responsibility to pay for the additional bandwidth (which, fortunately, I didn't have to do because pair.com tosses out the highest volume day each month).
As you say, your analogy of the book page is not applicable, precisely because there *is* a copyright issue involved there. The page in question has physical reality, whether in printed form on page or in digitized form as a computer file. The web page with an embedded image link is a chimera. It's assembled on the fly, and has no physical reality, other than the underlying code which no one claims violates copyright. I simply deliver that code from my server to your computer. What your computer does with it occurs at your end, not at mine.
My concern is and has been for a long time that copyright is being extended ridiculously, both in term and scope. In return for copyright protection for a limited term, which itself is becoming effectively infinite, content creators cede Fair Use rights to the public at large, and agree that upon expiration of the copyright their work goes into the public domain. But under the legislative blitz sponsored and paid for by MPAA, RIAA, and other content middlemen, Fritz "Hollywood" Hollings and others like him have almost succeeded in legislating Fair Use rights away, and I'm sure plan to kill the concept of Public Domain as well.
We need to fight against all encroachments on Fair Use and Public Domain, and we need to fight all attempts to extend copyright protection in either term or scope. In fact, we need to roll back such protections to no more than those envisioned by the Founding Fathers. In my opinion, and I speak as a content-creator, a seven-year term renewable for seven more years is sufficient. Even a 14-year term renewable for 14 more years would be better than what we have now, which in effect allows Disney and other corporations to lock things up forever. Not to mention their pillaging of the Public Domain. Just try to write a story based on Cinderella or another of the PD fairy tales that Disney now claims, and see how long it takes to get a nasty letter from their lawyers. This has to stop, and the only way to stop it is to speak out loud and long about such abuses, and in particular about attempts to extend what has already gone much too far.
Yes, and my concern is that a lot of behavior that is at worst impolite has been made illegal over the last few years, and the last thing we need is for that trend to continue. It used to be merely impolite to offend someone. Now in many cases it is actually illegal, which is outrageous. Offense is in the eye of the offended, so legislating against offensive behavior inevitably raises the question of who is to define what is offensive. As of late, the thinking seems to be that any behavior that anyone finds offensive should be banned, regardless of how easily the offended person takes offense. So now I find myself in the odd position of defending impolite behavior.
Thursday, 15 August 2002
9:06 - On Saturday night, 17/18 August, asteroid 2002 NY40 will pass Terra at a distance of about 327,000 miles (527,000 km), little more than the radius of Luna's orbit. This asteroid is so close and moving so fast that its movement will be apparent in a small telescope, or even in a binocular. Its apparent velocity at closest approach (18 August at 0747 UCT) will be about 8 arcminutes/minute. In other words, it will be moving fast enough to cover the angle subtended by the full Luna in about 3.5 minutes. Locating it will be the hard part, but Sky & Telescope magazine offers detailed directions.
There's no chance that 2002 NY40 will strike Terra on this pass. Next time, or the time after, or the time after that, who knows? As I and others have been saying repeatedly, it's time and past time for us to build planetary defenses against objects like 2002 NY40.
More comments on the stuff I've been writing about this week.
Exactly. Many of the people who complain the loudest about deep-linking are those who are completely clueless about protecting their content. It's like opening your property as a public park and then complaining when people visit it. It's easy enough to put up the electronic equivalent of "Private! Keep Out!" signs around the content you want to protect, so I have little sympathy for people who don't do that and then complain about how many visitors they get or how those visitors access their content.
The problem, of course, is that "offensive" is in the eye of the beholder, and the advent of Political Correctness has made many people much too quick to take offense. We need not let our behavior be influenced by people who take offense where none is intended, and I think you err in modifying your behavior to suit the preferences of your Politically Correct friend. People who take offense too easily can go through life being offended for all I care. If I intend to be offensive, the person whom I'm offending will be in no doubt of my intent.
As to "Native Americans" and other Politically Correct circumlocutions, I simply continue to use the original forms. As it happens, I am a Native American, having been born here. Indians are no more and no less Native Americans than you or I or most residents of Central and South America. Most Indians were presumably born here as well, and if they're referring to their forebears, well their ancestors simply got here before ours did. That doesn't make them Native Americans, just descendents of earlier immigrants.
As to the woman who mistook polite behavior for an offense against her strange belief system, well you're probably better off having found out early what she was like.
11:19 - I just returned from visiting my mother, and I'm afraid she may be in the early stages of Alzheimers. Not surprising, given that she's 83, but we'd hoped to avoid that horror, and until now we thought we had. The first signs came some months ago, when Barbara commented on a personality change she'd noticed in my mother. Until then, my mother had been easy to get along with, but Barbara said my mother was becoming harder and harder to get along with. I told Barbara that I hadn't noticed, which I hadn't.
But the problem was brought home to me during this morning's visit. I'd noticed that my mom hasn't been as sharp over the past several months as she used to be. Whereas she used to do the New York Times crossword puzzle, she now limits herself to doing the daily puzzle in the local paper. The local Sunday crossword is too hard for her, and even those from later in the week are becoming a real challenge for her. I also noticed that mom has been much more irritable since she's been in the hospital and subsequently the nursing home, but I attributed that to trauma from her fall, the surgery, and the helplessness she must feel.
This morning, though, mom was in a bad mood. She's argumentative, hostile, and uncooperative, and that's a marked departure from her usual personality. She complains frequently now, also, which is again a change from her normal behavior. This morning, she was complaining about being moved to her lift chair. She begged us to move the lift chair to the nursing home, because she said it was much more comfortable than the bed. Now, she just wants to stay in the bed, and complains every time they tell her they're going to move her to the chair.
This morning, she told me that she objected to being moved to her chair in part because the table where she keeps all her stuff is on the left side of her bed whereas the chair is on the right. I told her that the table has wheels, and all she had to do was ask the staff to roll the table over next to the chair after they moved her. She got upset with me for suggesting that. Then she said that even if the table were next to her, she wouldn't be able to reach things. I suggested that she use the gripper that Barbara brought over to the nursing home. Mom said the gripper was at home, and I said that I didn't realize that Barbara had taken it back home. Mom then told me that it had always been at home and had never been at the nursing home. I told her that it had been and asked if she didn't remember Barbara tying it to her bed frame with string so she wouldn't drop it. She finally did remember that, but then said that that had been in the old room and the gripper hadn't been moved to her new room. That, of course, is wrong, but she was getting so upset that I didn't bother to look for it.
About then, the aide showed up in response to mom's having pushed her call button a few minutes previous. She'd told me that she wanted to ask about the pain pill and bed pan, but when the aide came in my mother couldn't remember what she'd pushed the button for. I'm noticing more and more of these short-term memory lapses, which really concern me.
The staff had told her that they were going to give her a pain pill and put her on the bedpan before they moved her to her lift chair. My mom told me that they'd forget to give her the pain pill, which of course they won't, and then started complaining about the bed pan. It's a plastic device, and she said that the edges cut into her when she was on it. Fair enough. She wanted the staff to pad the edge with a towel. I wasn't sure how they could do that, but they certainly tried. They couldn't figure out how to do it, which soon became apparent. My mother was muttering about how everyone thought her ideas were bad ones, and wouldn't even try them. She gets strange ideas and then acts as though they're fact, no matter how much Barbara, the staff, or I try to dissuade her. So we found ourselves at a bed pan impasse.
Mom had mentioned some days ago that she'd prefer the old style metal bed pan with a wide edge, so I asked the staff if they had such a thing, or at least a plastic bed pad with a wider rim. They went off in search of that, leaving me alone with my mother. She started going on at me about getting her in trouble by asking for a different bed pan. When the aide came back, she told me in the hall that they did have bed pans with wider rims, but that the therapist didn't want them using them for mom because they would place too much stress on her hips and legs, possibly causing a spontaneous fracture. I asked her if she wanted me to tell mom about the problem, and she was obviously relieved that I was willing to do it. When I told her, my mother acted as though we were making up an excuse for not letting her have what she wanted.
I see evidence in my mother of hostility, argumentativeness, constant criticism, lack of cooperation, and a persecution complex. She's mentioned more than once lately that she expects me to be "on her side" but that she thinks I'm on "their side", as though there were sides here. I'm not a physician, but I believe that these are all signs of incipient Alzheimers. I decided I'd better let someone in a position of authority know, so I stopped by the office to talk to Lea, who's the Head of Nursing. She was out, but I'm going to talk to her this afternoon about our concerns and see if there's anything to be done. Certainly, I want the doctor to be aware of what's going on. I understand that there are now drugs available that can reduce the severity and lengthen the onset of Alzheimers, so I want to talk to the doctor about it myself.
This is not good.
Friday, 16 August 2002
11:09 - Thanks to everyone who responded via private mail and the messageboard to my post yesterday about our concerns for my mother's mental state. Many of these messages offered good advice based on experience with older friends and relatives, and Barbara and I appreciate all of them.
Barbara called yesterday on her way home from playing golf with her father, and I told her about what had happened. She suggested she just stop by to visit my mother on the way home, which made sense. While she was there, she spoke to Lea, who's the Head of Nursing. Lea told her that Alzheimers was possible, but there were a lot of other possibilities, including the aftereffects of trauma from her fall and surgery, depression, and so on. They're going to schedule a visit from their house psychologist to evaluate mom's state. In the interim, we'll just keep on keeping on.
And the phone company is supposed to be installing a phone line for mom today, finally, which will help a lot.
I found this article via Slashdot yesterday, and it provides an interesting window on things to come as DRM becomes ubiquitous. It's also one of the reasons that I'll never install XP (other than on a testbed system to take screenshots for books) and why I haven't yet installed W2K SP3. Note that the problem is with MP3 files that this guy ripped from his own CDs, and which his Fair Use rights guarantee he has the right to use on his own computers. But XP's DRM functions have impaired his ability to do that, which is a good reason to avoid XP.
None of us need an operating system one of whose major purposes is to make our life more difficult, and to prevent us from exercising our rights under copyright law. But, as I mentioned years ago, this is the direction Microsoft is heading. When Microsoft asks "Where do you want to go today?" my answer is "Certainly not where you're trying to take me." For now, Windows 2000 remains a viable choice, at least for me. But as new security holes arise and the patches for them also install unasked-for and unwanted DRM software and force us to accept more restrictive licensing provisions than applied to the product we bought and paid for, Windows 2000 (or indeed any other Microsoft product) becomes less and less viable.
Fortunately, there's an excellent alternative out there. It's called Linux. Now all we have to do is make sure it remains a good alternative, by preventing Fritz "Hollywood" Hollings and the other scumbag legislators that the MPAA and RIAA have bought and paid for from killing Linux with their legislative sledgehammers. Hollings and his cohorts should be in federal prison for what they've done and continue to do. So should the MPAA and RIAA executives who have bribed them.
The Register reports that Microsoft is soft-pedaling the recently-announced security hole in SSL. That, of course, is their standard response when a hideous, gaping security hole arises for which they have no patch. Fortunately, as The Register says, there's an easy workaround. Just install Mozilla. I'm still using Mozilla 1.0, but Tom Syroid told me yesterday that he's been using the current Mozilla 1.1 Beta, and it's rock-solid. For some reason, the Microsoft Security PR Bulletin (what an interesting concept) doesn't mention this workaround. They do, however, take their usual course of blaming the people who discovered the flaw.
Saturday, 17 August 2002
9:22 - I got a call yesterday from my mother, telling me that the phone company guy was there and wanted her to test the phone. Works fine, both directions. She sounded very cheerful. Having a phone there will also make life easier for us, because sometimes we can call instead of driving over.
Bob Walder took issue with my comments yesterday about Microsoft and DRM. I won't post his message, because the last time I did that he got mad at me. So I'll try to paraphrase it fairly. Bob observes that although he despises DRM as much as the next guy, he thinks I was unfair in attributing DRM functions to Windows XP rather than Windows Media Player. I can always install a different MP3 player, says Bob, and anyway the DRM functions in WMP are optional and can be disabled by clearing a checkbox. To that, I responded:
Well, yes, for now you can use a different player or turn off DRM in WMP (although it is of course on by default, which is no coincidence). But how much longer will that be true? I said it was a taste of things to come. Or perhaps you have a Pollyanna view of what is to come? If you think DRM is going to remain optional in Microsoft software, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Microsoft is famous for their frog-boiling methods. As they say, if you drop a frog in a pot of boiling water, it jumps out. But if you put the frog in a pot of cold water and bring the pot slowly to a boil, the frog will let itself be cooked. Microsoft clearly regards its customers as frogs.
I've had it with Microsoft. Not so much their software itself, which is buggy and has many security holes. That I could live with. What I object to is their licensing. I refuse to pay a recurring rental for my software, which is what Licensing 6 amounts to, and I refuse to accept additional, more restrictive, terms in a software agreement for a patch which Microsoft's own incompetence has made necessary.
Bob refers to my comments as "Microsoft Bashing", but I don't see them in that light. I catch hell from Microsoft partisans for pointing out the obnoxious things about Microsoft and their software, and I also catch hell from Linux partisans when I point out that the emperor has no clothes. For the record, I'll say it again:
What I like about Microsoft Windows and Windows applications
What I dislike about Microsoft Windows and Windows applications
What I like about Linux and OSS applications
What I dislike about Linux and OSS applications
I'm sure there are many other points in each of those four categories, but those are the ones that immediately came to mind as I was writing this. On balance, I find myself coming down in the Linux/OSS camp, not because I'm a Linux partisan (let alone a Linux bigot), but because I perceive that for Linux and OSS applications the advantages outweigh the drawbacks, while for Microsoft and Windows applications the converse is true. Right now, Windows and Windows applications are the better choice for many, probably most, people. But that is changing, as OSS developers improve their products almost daily. Conversely, Microsoft has taken the classic steps of a company under siege. They're circling their wagons, and using every means they can think of to destroy Linux and OSS. If they win, they're the only ones that benefit. All of us lose. If OSS wins, we all benefit, and only Microsoft loses. I know which I'd choose.
9:26 - It seems clear now that the two bodies found in Britain are those of ten-year-old friends Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman. A local child is also missing, nine-year-old Jennifer Renee Short, and all of us are hoping for the best but fearing the worst. As Barbara observed yesterday, what the hell is going on? It seems as though another child goes missing every week lately, and all too often those children are found murdered. Or, as in the case of 14-year-old Elizabeth Smart, never found at all.
Any parent with a young child must be terrified by this recent blizzard of child stealing and murder. Even when the parents and children do everything right, as was true with 5-year-old Samantha Runnion, that's no guarantee that a child will not be abducted and murdered. Obviously, something needs to be done to prevent this from happening, but what? Since actions taken after the fact are usually too late to save the child, it seems to me that something needs to be done before the fact. The only practical thing I can think of is to deter would-be child kidnappers and murderers, and the only way I can think of to deter them is to make it quite clear that kidnapping and murdering a child will inevitably result in their capture followed by a slow, agonizingly painful death.
We're pretty good at the first part. Obviously, there are exceptions, but many of the scum who kidnap and murder children are in fact caught. We need to work on the second part, though. A long trial followed by appeals and eventually a prison term simply isn't enough. Even the death penalty isn't enough, assuming that it's carried out by lethal injection or other humane means. A quick, painless death is too good for someone who kidnaps and murders a child.
Someone who kidnaps and murders a child should undergo at least a year of the worst torture that modern science can devise. There are drugs that function exactly the opposite of analgesics, intensifying pain rather than reducing it, and those drugs should be employed to heighten the torture experience. Once the kidnapper/murderer had suffered a year or two of the most agonizing torture we could devise, we could then execute him, preferably by short-drop or suspension hanging, so he could dance Danny Deever for ten minutes or so. All of this should be done publicly, of course pour encouragement les autres.
Some might object that Article X of the Bill of Rights prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments", but a strict constructionist would argue both that that applies only to federal courts and that a cruel punishment is acceptable as long as it is not unusual, or vice versa. So I suggest that we make torture and painful execution of child killers a "usual" punishment. We might also revive that fine idea from Merry Olde England, by declaring child kidnappers/murderers wolfsheads or outlaws. In the original sense, this meant just what it said. Someone who was declared an outlaw was outside the protection of the law. Anyone could kill him without penalty, because he enjoyed no protection under the law.
All of this might not eliminate kidnapping and murdering of children, but I suspect it'd reduce it substantially. Savagery must be met with savagery. It's the only thing these people understand.
Copyright © 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 by Robert Bruce Thompson. All Rights Reserved.