The USFG owes me a couple new desks. Sometimes they make me headdesk so hard it just... breaks my desk.
Two things that I can't get out of my mind right now:
If this is the *director* of the bureau, what will a regular special agent be like?
Has it ever occured to the director of the FBI to notify the congress that people may, for example, kill people? Or maybe he's better off warning them chemicals can be used as weapons. Or even warn them guns may be used to kill people!
Somehow I feel Jeane Dixon is in a better shape to be DFBI than this guy...
If you breath close to their console, they may claim you're using part (the air) of the lincensed (not owned!) property (the console) in a way it was not licensed for.
DNA sequences can be purpose built nowadays, and soon it will be cheap enough for everybody to buy.
So, soon not only the robbed people will be able to buy one of those markers - other people will be able to do it too.
This probably means, even if this now has some chance of being accepted in court, it will (I hope) be droped when they find anyone can be framed by the real burglar, if she gets the chance to build the same sequence with the same environmental markers.
A good question is, perhaps, whether it will be easy or hard to do so.
And I wonder what if the system detects it correctly, issues an alarm, but the driver doesn't wake up with the alarm? Maybe the environment is already noisy (for sound alarms), has lots of lights (light alarms) or the car is shaking a lot (vibration alarms). Or maybe the person is so tired that the alarm doesn't work at all.
I think someone should just not drive when tired. If a person is aware that may fall into sleep at any moment, then maybe it's just stupid to drive anything.
If it is killed at 37C, then any second effect could be avoided by warming the entire body.
But that will probably avoid the good desirable effect too — if it is killed, then it won't even create the defenses it is supposed to create. (Oh, and warming your body would also be bad for testicles, which defeats the main purpose of warming it.)
But that way your normally warmer parts would be actually at the same temperature as your outer parts. Wouldn't then the vaccine get spread along all of your body?
Anyway, a vaccine that might screw genitalia. That's a choice between the joy of being father (again, for some), or living longer. I wonder if the secondary effects will be that bad, maybe it's no worse than a soft kick.
The card reader display shows what the card reader should look like?
And if someone is able to compromise both the card and that image of "what it should look like"?
In this kind of situation it is better to have banks telling people — through another medium — what the terminals should look like. (But in some countries this might not be possible, if every bank/network has its own design)
The idea should work, the problem, as you point, is that you're relying on courts (actually the same courts which sometimes rule stuff like patenting ideas). And there is plenty of room for "ambiguity".
A DRM-breaker will always be useful to break DRM used in public-domain works (even if we wait 70 years (or more, if it is a Fantasia DVD)). But it can be used to break copyright protected works too. In a country where people go bankrupt because of the AA, that's too much uncertainty and risk.
But the problem is that not only should people be able to break DRM on PD and share tools to do so, restricting access to public domain should never happen. This proposal points the root of this evil.
We had to choose: either we could go to the kitchen to prepare the dish that we wanted to eat with the flavors that we wanted to add and we could put a little Brazilian flavor into the food, or we could go eat what Microsoft wanted to sell us. Simply speaking, the idea of freedom won.
Lula, at FISL 10 (10th International Free Software Forum)
That might be a good pointer, but, IIRC, his term will end in some months.
I guess he means "not allowing people to read/share/copy a book is like keeping people as slaves".
This sounds like "the content wants to be free".
After all, it makes sense to have some ability to control our own work. The problem is that instead of just assuring people don't get robbed, the congress usually gives *AA sort of a license to kill.
All material on this site is released under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA license.
Although the movie is not directly hosted on its site (or is it?), maybe it's also under BY-NC-SA.
Not only could the OP just grab the video and convert it to DVD, he could distribute it too! (The only bottleneck being MPEG patents.) No need to feel guilty for sharing a version for your beloved movie player gadget!
Won't this just catch the ones who plan their attacks with no encryption?
Also, even if it catches those, isn't the internet a little big to filter without getting overloaded with stuff to analyse? Unless everyone starts using ASCII youtube, I suppose...
But surely, this gives potential to the idea of fake alerts to make sure security forces will be somewhere else waiting for an attack, while the real one happens on their backs.
The problem is that, AFAIK, the DMCA not only forces you to comply (I suppose if it is really illegal, you get into trouble if you don't comply, instead of waiting for fair judgement from a court of law), but it also considers a link to something illegal to be illegal by itself.
As said by others, this would force the proprietary version to be released under the GPL.
Now, about how much better that is, it would allow you get the newest version and strip off any bloatware. Instead of just forking, you could maintain kind of a parallel fork, stripping each new release, or incorporate useful enhancements in Beef TACO.
I guess this'd be more useful as a long-term improvement (if we ever want that, what's next? M-x bbdb on your dishwasher?)
than as a "change NOW" move — people who need new equipment will buy it, others can continue using the older ones.
Now, this kind of solution probably would be as useful for aware people as antivirus with "permanent protection" are for people who understand how to stay away from viruses.
I mean, the danger was always there, it's more a feature than a
design error.
You can always trust an archive, or at least write a "fetch
timestamp", when writing serious stuff, like wikipedia
articles. (Anyway, an URL bibliography item should always say
when it was fetched.)
I don't know if, on the other hand, by linking smaller portions of
data, we aren't making it easier to find and track that kind
of changes.
It is hard to read a hundred-paragraph document to track 3 or 4
pieces of data. On the other hand, if those 3 or 4 pieces are
independent links, with descriptive names, you might need nothing else
to guess what should be written in the linked resource, "Uh, link
`we-are-at-war'. Oh wait, it now says we never were at war...".
That won't happen, there's HTTP 3xx. Of course if you move or discontinue something, you'll use those.
(Now seriously, if something disappears and you can't fix it, then there's nothing else you can do (other than removing the link). On one hand this is sad, but on the other hand it's this interdependence that makes web great.
Are HTML named anchors an example of data-naming? At least some browsers will render a resource around an anchor, if its name is given in the URL.
Applied to the web (and with a way to join two pieces of data) this can lead to a HTML-supported bottom-up approach, with no need for "a special way to #include files". People could then create welcome.html-piece, toc.html-piece, blogpost.html-piece and say index.html is *.html-piece.
I'd me more like complaining about an ad for a product which protects from unhealty food by discarding bad food, and using the kind of packaging often associated with unhealty food.
It's not about ads that lie, it's about the ad being built in a way McAffee itself disapproves (or should disapprove...), while "health product" companies generally don't issue rules on which packages should not be trusted.
That indeed explains it — see, people who don't filter that kind of emails (HTML, unique ID URLs,...) aren't aware of how to really keep the computer safe. They're the target audience of the email.
Actually, if the manufacturer doesn't fix it by that time, maybe you're doing more harm if you help them hiding the vulnerability. Now people at least know it's there, and maybe even fix it, or at least workaround it.
If he didn't disclose, what would be the chances noone else found out about this same vulnerability? Well, some cracker could eventually find this and do bad things...
Except for script kiddies, XP is not less secure than it was before the disclose, it's only the false belief of security that looses.
Maybe this is indeed part of a war, but it's less than a Microsoft vs. Google war and more of a Security Through Obscurity vs. No Obscurity war.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, oh, well...
The USFG owes me a couple new desks. Sometimes they make me headdesk so hard it just... breaks my desk.
Two things that I can't get out of my mind right now:
Somehow I feel Jeane Dixon is in a better shape to be DFBI than this guy...
If you breath close to their console, they may claim you're using part (the air) of the lincensed (not owned!) property (the console) in a way it was not licensed for.
So, soon not only the robbed people will be able to buy one of those markers - other people will be able to do it too.
This probably means, even if this now has some chance of being accepted in court, it will (I hope) be droped when they find anyone can be framed by the real burglar, if she gets the chance to build the same sequence with the same environmental markers.
A good question is, perhaps, whether it will be easy or hard to do so.
And I wonder what if the system detects it correctly, issues an alarm, but the driver doesn't wake up with the alarm? Maybe the environment is already noisy (for sound alarms), has lots of lights (light alarms) or the car is shaking a lot (vibration alarms). Or maybe the person is so tired that the alarm doesn't work at all.
I think someone should just not drive when tired. If a person is aware that may fall into sleep at any moment, then maybe it's just stupid to drive anything.
If it is killed at 37C, then any second effect could be avoided by warming the entire body.
But that will probably avoid the good desirable effect too — if it is killed, then it won't even create the defenses it is supposed to create. (Oh, and warming your body would also be bad for testicles, which defeats the main purpose of warming it.)
But that way your normally warmer parts would be actually at the same temperature as your outer parts. Wouldn't then the vaccine get spread along all of your body?
Anyway, a vaccine that might screw genitalia. That's a choice between the joy of being father (again, for some), or living longer. I wonder if the secondary effects will be that bad, maybe it's no worse than a soft kick.
The card reader display shows what the card reader should look like?
And if someone is able to compromise both the card and that image of "what it should look like"?
In this kind of situation it is better to have banks telling people — through another medium — what the terminals should look like. (But in some countries this might not be possible, if every bank/network has its own design)
The idea should work, the problem, as you point, is that you're relying on courts (actually the same courts which sometimes rule stuff like patenting ideas). And there is plenty of room for "ambiguity".
A DRM-breaker will always be useful to break DRM used in public-domain works (even if we wait 70 years (or more, if it is a Fantasia DVD)). But it can be used to break copyright protected works too. In a country where people go bankrupt because of the AA, that's too much uncertainty and risk.
But the problem is that not only should people be able to break DRM on PD and share tools to do so, restricting access to public domain should never happen. This proposal points the root of this evil.
Their president knows what free software is,
Lula, at FISL 10 (10th International Free Software Forum)
That might be a good pointer, but, IIRC, his term will end in some months.
Then *AA just need to found a new country and make it so every work is registered there and say copyright never expires on that country?
I guess he means "not allowing people to read/share/copy a book is like keeping people as slaves".
This sounds like "the content wants to be free".
After all, it makes sense to have some ability to control our own work. The problem is that instead of just assuring people don't get robbed, the congress usually gives *AA sort of a license to kill.
We need more examples that making a move does not mean being under the MPAA umbrella, does not mean using DRM, and does not mean "bittorrent is evil".
This is going to give "Copyrighted stuff can't be copied" people a hard time...
Although the movie is not directly hosted on its site (or is it?), maybe it's also under BY-NC-SA.
Not only could the OP just grab the video and convert it to DVD, he could distribute it too! (The only bottleneck being MPEG patents.) No need to feel guilty for sharing a version for your beloved movie player gadget!
Won't this just catch the ones who plan their attacks with no encryption?
Also, even if it catches those, isn't the internet a little big to filter without getting overloaded with stuff to analyse? Unless everyone starts using ASCII youtube, I suppose...
But surely, this gives potential to the idea of fake alerts to make sure security forces will be somewhere else waiting for an attack, while the real one happens on their backs.
The problem is that, AFAIK, the DMCA not only forces you to comply (I suppose if it is really illegal, you get into trouble if you don't comply, instead of waiting for fair judgement from a court of law), but it also considers a link to something illegal to be illegal by itself.
So, google is hosting links, it's just that.
As said by others, this would force the proprietary version to be released under the GPL.
Now, about how much better that is, it would allow you get the newest version and strip off any bloatware. Instead of just forking, you could maintain kind of a parallel fork, stripping each new release, or incorporate useful enhancements in Beef TACO.
The GPL would forbid the proprietary version.
I guess this'd be more useful as a long-term improvement (if we ever want that, what's next? M-x bbdb on your dishwasher?) than as a "change NOW" move — people who need new equipment will buy it, others can continue using the older ones.
Now, this kind of solution probably would be as useful for aware people as antivirus with "permanent protection" are for people who understand how to stay away from viruses.
That one day is 1969-10-29, right?
I mean, the danger was always there, it's more a feature than a design error.
You can always trust an archive, or at least write a "fetch timestamp", when writing serious stuff, like wikipedia articles. (Anyway, an URL bibliography item should always say when it was fetched.)
I don't know if, on the other hand, by linking smaller portions of data, we aren't making it easier to find and track that kind of changes.
It is hard to read a hundred-paragraph document to track 3 or 4 pieces of data. On the other hand, if those 3 or 4 pieces are independent links, with descriptive names, you might need nothing else to guess what should be written in the linked resource, "Uh, link `we-are-at-war'. Oh wait, it now says we never were at war...".
That won't happen, there's HTTP 3xx. Of course if you move or discontinue something, you'll use those.
(Now seriously, if something disappears and you can't fix it, then there's nothing else you can do (other than removing the link). On one hand this is sad, but on the other hand it's this interdependence that makes web great.
Are HTML named anchors an example of data-naming? At least some browsers will render a resource around an anchor, if its name is given in the URL.
Applied to the web (and with a way to join two pieces of data) this can lead to a HTML-supported bottom-up approach, with no need for "a special way to #include files". People could then create welcome.html-piece, toc.html-piece, blogpost.html-piece and say index.html is *.html-piece.
I'd me more like complaining about an ad for a product which protects from unhealty food by discarding bad food, and using the kind of packaging often associated with unhealty food.
It's not about ads that lie, it's about the ad being built in a way McAffee itself disapproves (or should disapprove...), while "health product" companies generally don't issue rules on which packages should not be trusted.
But usually e-mails are not routed through spammers, while URL's can point to spammers...
That indeed explains it — see, people who don't filter that kind of emails (HTML, unique ID URLs,...) aren't aware of how to really keep the computer safe. They're the target audience of the email.
Actually, if the manufacturer doesn't fix it by that time, maybe you're doing more harm if you help them hiding the vulnerability. Now people at least know it's there, and maybe even fix it, or at least workaround it.
If he didn't disclose, what would be the chances noone else found out about this same vulnerability? Well, some cracker could eventually find this and do bad things...
Except for script kiddies, XP is not less secure than it was before the disclose, it's only the false belief of security that looses.
Maybe this is indeed part of a war, but it's less than a Microsoft vs. Google war and more of a Security Through Obscurity vs. No Obscurity war.