Yeah booting from media is harder than it used to be, though single user mode and recovery partitions do most of it anyways. ( I actually run a netboot server myself, so just have to boot via network at worse. )
newgrp doesn't exit it but executes a child shell which replaces the newgrp process. It's within shell that has access to file descriptor 3.
For why the file needs to have the same setuid is that is what the exploit takes advantage of, normally writing to a setuid file clears the setuid bit, but that doesn't happen if the writer is already root. Which means that using the exploit ( and some tricks to get out of append mode ) someone can turn a setuid file into any program that will run as root when it is launched.
You can also just boot from an OS X image, for example download the OS X installer extract the installESD.dmg file ( typing from memory but pretty sure that is the name ), install that to a USB drive and boot from it holding the option key when the computer starts up. ( again typing from memory might be command-option or the like ) In fact depending on the age of the computer it might already have a recovery partition that you can just boot directly from and then launch disk utility to mount the main partition and terminal to fix it.
And what if I want to bring up two separate branches side-by-side to do some copying? Can't fucking do it in Git.
For side by side comparisions you can always just do a lightweight clone which pretty much should happen automatically if you clone to another directory within the same filesystem, i.e.
git clone -b branch orig_repo branch_repo
Hate speech is only illegal if it's basically a physically threat. Even then, proving Reddit is liable would be a tougher case (and not the individual user.)
I haven't seen anyone suggest Reddit itself is under any sort of legal threat, besides paranoid Reddit users themselves. And there's nothing to indicate that's Reddit's strategy here. Rather it seems to be based around people like me who simply don't care about the site because it doesn't seem like a community I'm interested in. I'm not sitting here going "Gee, I really should sue Reddit to force them to be something I'd participate in." I'm just plain not interested.
(4) Be ready for lawsuits from people who do not accept the original principles, but want to be part of the community regardless.
I don't think it's legal problems but social problems that are the issue. If you have a site that is known for having a section where people say offensive things about fat people, you might eventually have problems attracting fat people to your site. Which might conflict with wanting to grow. There's nothing legal going on there, it's all business.
Reddit is not trying to be some gated community and people are trying to force the gates open. That much is becoming clear. Rather Reddit itself wants to attract a more diverse community. And as a company, that's their right. I don't have a Reddit account because some of the content hosted there makes it seem like a site I wouldn't be interested in, and they're trying to pull people like me back into the fold. I don't think it will work for me, but that's at least what they're trying.
If other judges follow this precedent, it will be the death knell of civil litigation involving the internet in any way. I don't like how trolls do business, but I don't think changing the rules like this is a good idea overall.
This isn't changing the rules. This is following the rules.
See my article in the ABA's Judges Journal about how judges had been bending the rules for the RIAA. "Large Recording Companies v. The Defenseless: Some Common Sense Solutions to the Challenges of the RIAA Litigation". The Judges' Journal, Judicial Division of American Bar Association. Summer 2008 edition, Part 1 of The Judges Journals' 2-part series, "Access to Justice".
Release Notes. modern, safe programming practices. We welcome feedback and improvements from the broader community. Thanks to all of the contributors who helped make this release possible.
Remember, Malibu Media can just change venues too and start this all over again... This judge didn't do anything worth while for you and me and opened himself up to an appeal where he obviously will be slapped. About the only thing he accomplished is getting Malibu Media out of his courtroom and off his docket, for now. Nothing else will change.
I beg to differ.
Malibu Media can't choose the venue, or the judge.
If Judge Hellerstein's decision is followed by other judges, it will be the death knell of the present wave of Malibu Media litigation.
I fully appreciate your perspective and I agree that the waters are getting pretty muddy when you start trying to tie an IP address to a person, but the issue here is the issuing of the subpoena and not letting Malibu Media pursue discovery. They must be allowed to protect their rights in civil court, and that means they must be allowed to subpoena third parties for information so they can move from "John Doe" to an actual name and in this case, that takes a subpoena from the court.
While your argument for discovery has some logic to it, it is based on a false assumption of fact : that Malibu Media, once it obtains the name and address of the internet account subscriber, will serve a subpoena on that person in an attempt to find out the name of the person who should be named as a defendant.
Malibu Media's uniform practice, once it gets the name and address, is to immediately amend the complaint to name the subscriber as the infringer/defendant and then serve a summons and amended complaint, not a subpoena, on the subscriber.
This is in every single case .
The only thing I worry about in this case is if Microsoft goes one step further and ties a "use Microsoft products exclusively in the schools or no deal" string to that money/tax bump.
This is Washington. A lot of schools already exclusively use Microsoft products. But, to be fair, I don't think Microsoft is as bad as you think in this regard. When I was in school in Seattle (during the Dark Microsoft Times) I had a class where Microsoft had paid for a room full of iBooks.
I'm not so sure I agree that this make sense...
You didn't read the judges 11 page opinion then, where he makes his reasons very clear. Among other things, the trolls claim that they need the information to take people to court, but they never do; they just abuse the courts as a cheap way to get information for their blackmail scheme. The point that an IP is not an ID is exactly the point here, because the copyright troll wouldn't have any right to the name of anyone than the copyright infringer. And the fine judge found out that these copyright trolls have in several instances just ignored court orders and have just lied to the courts.
There's apparently a blanket rule against using the court system to conduct fishing expeditions.
If so, most judges have been unaware of it these past 10 years.
Hi Ray, nice to see the NYCL moniker around here again. I have a few questions if you're willing. First, you indicate that a judge has denied discovery due to several factors, one being that an IP address does not identify any particular individual. Can you speak to the weight or breadth of this specific Court's opinion here, in layman's terms? I see references to the Eastern and Southern districts of New York, might this decision influence cases outside of those jurisdictions?
It's not binding on anyone. But Judge Hellerstein is a very well respected judge, so it will probably have a lot of 'persuasive authority'.
Second, this business of "if the Motion Picture is considered obscene, it may not be eligible for copyright protection." I've read about certain cases where the Court stated that obscenity has no rigid definition, but "I'll know it when I see it." Does that have any bearing on the Malibu case? Was this some kind of completely outrageous pornography, where any community standard would likely find it to be obscene, or was it just run-of-the-mill porn? Would it matter either way? Would the opinion have likely been the same if the case involved a blockbuster Hollywood film instead of a pornographic and potentially obscene film?
I haven't researched that question yet, and I may well be litigating that issue in the near future, since I have several cases against Malibu Media which are now in litigation mode... so all I can say is, stay tuned.
Lastly, I'm curious whether or not you've kept up with developments in the case regarding Prenda Law, and how you might compare this case to that one, if at all. I try to read Ken White's PopeHat blog every once in awhile to see how poorly the Prenda copyright trolls are faring. It doesn't look good for Prenda, and I wonder if you would put Malibu in the same proverbial boat.
The Prenda people are a bunch of strange people who, based on reports I've read, may well wind up doing jail time. I know nothing about the Malibu Media people. If I did find out something really bad about them in would probably wind up in my court papers if relevant to the case or to their credibility.