Today I saw that XChat was at version 2.6.4, newer than the 2.6.2 version I patched last month to make the URL handling nicer. I've checked my patches against the latest version and it's still operational. The download page now contains patched sources for 2.6.4 in addition to the older patched code.

For more information, check out my XChat URL handling fix.

OK, to start off, this whole thing is completely insane. To understand what I'm talking about here, you might want to read:

• SCO vs. IBM
• SCO OpenLinux Press Release

Published on the 16th, this press release claims that SCO will be releasing a new version of Caldera OpenLinux, which as been stagnant for years. Here's the best part:Now, anyone who is aquainted with the GPL and SCO's history will realize that something is VERY VERY WRONG here. SCO's entire set of lawsuits against Linux users & distributors is that the "already contained code" could not be legally included in Linux. Publishing it this way would (through the GPL) force that code to be licensed under the GPL.

There are a few possibilities that I'm currently considering:

• The press release is fake
• The press release is real, and indicates that SCO is giving up litigating against Linux
• The press release is real, and indicates that SCO intends to violate the GPL by selling modified binary forms of Linux without source code

1) The press release is fake

Besides the overall tone of the release, we have this:The www.openlinux.org website is hosted by a university in Germany? That seems a bit off to me. For more details, check out the article on this over at groklaw.net.

2) SCO is giving up

Considering how poorly their case has been going over the last few years (and how reluctant they have been to let it go to trial), this isn't that unlikely. Quitting while they're ahead and encouraging SCO UNIX users to switch to an SCO commercial Linux distribution would be a good business move.

3) SCO wants to invalidate the GPL

If SCO does produce a new version of Caldera OpenLinux containing their proprietary source code merged into the Linux kernel code and not also release their source code, they will be violating the GPL. If they do that, there is absolutely no chance that the EFF will not grab the chance to start a class action lawsuit on the behalf of Linux kernel developers. The only logical reason for SCO to take this path is to attempt to invalidate the GPL in court - however, any other outcome from this would be a huge financial judgement against SCO.

I doubt very much that this is the intent of SCO - and not only because I think they have at least some business sense. Nobody in their right mind would fork the 2.5 kernel code for a production system.

One of the interesting quirks amaroK has is that the automatic collection update (reads metadata from ID3 tags) doesn't reload the data unless the parent directory of the music file has been modified. If you move an mp3 into the directory, this updates the directory's modification time and the file will get scanned. However, if you modify the tags in place with another application (which updates the file's modification time), amaroK will be oblivious. You have to rescan your entire collection for the updates to take effect. Until now, that is.The above script, once installed, can be used like so:All music files in the folder and its descendants will be updated in a reasonably short amount of time.

Note that the ending slash is required - the script was built to work with tab complete.

There are two different basic kinds of government - those that rule arbitrarily and those that rule through law. For the sake of argument, I will assume that rule of law is a superior form of government. In the United States, the US Constitution sets down the rules for how government is to operate. The legislative branch writes laws, the judicial branch interprets them, and the exectutive branch enforces them.

This brings up the topic of unenforced laws and worse, unenforcable laws. The stated purpose of a law is usually to either encourage an activity (usually through financial incentives) or to discourage it. Laws against murder exist to discourage people from killing each other. Then there are the laws that may claim to do something about a perceived bad behavior, but are rarely if ever enforced (but carry heavy penalties). Selectively enforced laws are just as bad - if the law is not intended to be enforced, what is it for? To intimidate the citizens, perhaps?

The fact that the commonly recognized phrase 'throw the book at' even exists is a problem. Constitutional safeguards are there to prevent tyranny - to restrict the government. When a government lets people break its laws for a long period of time, this gives them a false impression that they are not going to get prosecuted for what they currently do.

The huge body of unenforced laws that remain on the books in the US could potentially allow an extreme executive branch to turn our country into a dictatorship overnight. Not to say that that will happen, but it is legally possible.

Ah, the PATRIOT act. There is so much to say that I'm pretty sure you already know I want to say. Today someone mentioned the redefinition of terrorism in the act and it piqued my curiosity - so I popped over to THOMAS and looked it up!

I found section 802 to be of particular import:Huh. That definition of terrorism seems a bit broad to you, doesn't it? Not that governments ever abuse power or anything like that...

Recently (read: for the last ten years) Microsoft has been continuously blamed for all the computer security woes of the world. Their OS is ridiculed as full of holes while Internet Explorer is lambasted for its amazing ability to toss control of a hapless user's computer to the winds.

There are some very basic reasons for the insecurity of MS Windows.

• the Windows system was designed before networks were very important for most users
• security wasn't the focus of design - usability was
• users were expected to be intelligent

While the first two have been mostly corrected (both by redesign and patching on of various security products), the third is nearly impossible to patch. People do stupid things - and always will. Malware has two vectors of attack - exploiting security holes or exploiting the user. A large portion of malware now exploits the user rather than the technology - this is why security patches are not enough anymore.

On platforms where security patches and a firewall aren't enough (e.g. Windows), antivirus and antispyware are needed to stop the user from doing stupid things.

Stop being stupid. You know who you are.

Every so often the plan for a perfect crime springs full-formed to my attention. However, my dastardly plots always come to nothing - either because someone else has already thought of and used my ingenious idea or because it just plain old won't work.

The Armored-Truck Fraud

As I rode the ski lift through the fog, driving snow, and wind, I realized that a theft of possibly hundreds of millions could be pulled off through a conspiracy. Requirements:

• 30 or 40 conspirators
• about $10 million in investment
• no criminal record or morals

The plan is quite simple, really. All you have to do is found an Armored Courier company and then pull the carpet out from under all your clients at once. Since every employee of the company is in on the plan, you can coordinate the heist for moment when the most valuable items are being transported. I brought up the possibility of such a plot and was informed that someone had already done it. Alas.

The Artificial Stock Depression

Someone on IRC brought up a pastime of his - buying a single stock in a company merely to go to the stockholder meetings and enjoy himself. The activities you can engage in are many:

• eating the free food
• criticizing the leadership of the board
• charging the podium with a super soaker

These of course could be combined for fun AND profit! The plan is quite simple: First, buy a stock. Next, attend the first stockholder meeting you can. After the second stage you'll be rather unwelcome at the meeting, so eat the free food before continuing. The next step is critical - you have to make it look genuine. Charge the podium as the chairman of the board speaks (remember your super soaker, you have to look emotionally unhinged!) and loudly accuse him of embezzlement. This should produce at least 10 seconds of utter confusion which you may be able to use to make your escape.

After your escape, monitor the stock of the company for a short term drop in value - buy low, sell high! Unfortunately you may well be charged with assault and slander - so you may have to settle for the fun and skip the profit.

Pancakes - fluffy but not weak, and not strangely tasting of buttermilk.

Ingredients:

• 6.75 cups flour
• 0.875 cups granulated sugar
• 3.75 teaspoons salt
• 3.75 tablespoons baking powder
• 5.25 cups milk
• 0.75 cups oil
• 4 large eggs
• REAL maple syrup

Mix dry ingredients thoroughly. Beat eggs separately and add the milk and oil (mix the liquids well before adding to the dry ingredients). Mix dry and wet mixtures together until there are no dry lumps - but not too much, otherwise your pancakes won't be as tender and fluffy.

Heat griddle and grease (extra credit: use bacon grease for a nice flavor). If water hisses and quickly evaporates when dripped on the griddle, it is hot enough.

Pour about a third of a cup of batter onto the griddle for each pancake. Allow the pancakes to cook until the edges begin to look dry and bubble holes stay open further towards the middles. Flip them but be careful to keep them the on griddle and avoid overlap. If you want them to come out well, avoid dropping them to the griddle too far - gas will be expelled and reduce their fluffyness. When the middle of the pancakes rise into a somewhat convex shape and you can feel with the spatula that there is no liquid batter left, serve fresh with maple syrup!

There are very few things in life as annoying as misplaced apostrophes. 2 or 3 very simple rules will tell you when and where to use them, but lately it seems that almost nobody knows what those (very simple) rules are. Not to mention that 50% of those in-the-know don't care enough to move a finger half and inch and press down at the correct time. Often the perpetrator is a reasonable and intelligent person - but they hide it well behind their facade of grammatical stupidity.

This awful crime - known to be associated with parking in two spaces, leaving lights on uselessly for hours, and purposefully timing clocks forward in a vain attempt to make oneself wake up on time - is what is known as a 'pet peeve'.

In closing, here is Bob's quick guide to the apostrophe, you idiots.

At the present time, ISPs are generally well behaved. You give them money and they provide a reasonably reliable and fast network connection to the Internet. Using this connection, you can send and recieve packets. All packets are created equal.

Now, a group of ISPs want to make some packets more equal than others. With the laws they are pushing for, ISPs will be allowed to legally extort any online service (this will impact more than the web, remember!) for extra money.

Network neutrality requires that the common carrier rules be applied to public access IP networks. The supporters of Internet network neutrality include Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, and last but not least one of the pioneers of the Internet, Vinton Cerf.

People who care about the online first amendment rights should find out more at save the Internet and sign the petition.

Yesterday, the House Committee on the Judiciary approved the Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act (HR 5417). This is great news, but the future of network neutrality remains uncertain.