The dems are fighting against this admin, accuse it of being corrupt (which it obviously is), is possibly about to lose the ability to monitor the WH (if they lose the up-coming battle in SCOTUS), and YET, they want to put voting admin under the WH.
You do realize that, according to the Constitution, the executive branch is the arm of the government that enforces the laws that the legislative enacts, right? This isn't a matter of trusting the White House to follow through. This is the way our government works.
As far as open or closed systems, this bill doesn't deal directly with what sort of software these systems need to run. The main focus of the bill is a paper trail being required for these systems, something that IMO is long overdue, and making sure the voting systems allow people with disabilities to vote. This has nothing to do with Microsoft, Linux, Open or Closed systems. Just because it doesn't deal with all of your hopes and wishes doesn't mean this is a bad bill. An all in one bill is less likely to succeed as too many people will have things to gain and lose from supporting the bill, leading to a poor, watered down bill. I would rather have a (slightly) more focused bill like this one be passed, dealing with a few, focused issues of voter confidence and accessibility, rather than them taking 5+ years making an overarching bill.
As for the article about the bill, it is a bunch of FUD, and I don't see how the author could have actually read much of the bill to have come to the conclusions that she did. The main quote I take issue with is "gives explicit federal sanction to trade secrets in vote counting." All source code, compiled code, and sample machines must be given to the NIST to be fully tested to make sure nothing can be done to the votes. It sets a required minimum number of ballots that need to be manually audited, using the paper trail, during the actual voting. There are no "trade secrets" anywhere in this counting and auditing process. As for the other complaints, the NIST has already been thoroughly involved in the auditing process of all voting machines for a long time. The "text conversion device" is required for accessibility, and already exists in other software applications. It is necessary if those with disabilities are to be involved in the voting process in a real way. As far as removing "safe harbor" for states that don't comply, I don't see why states should be immune from liability when it comes to protecting my vote.
Actually, in the US, many provisions in most EULAs are illegal and not considered valid. I don't know specifically about the "no liability" clauses, but I do know that in somewhat related cases, warnings do not remove a company's liability (i.e. wet floor signs aren't protection against a company being sued when a customer falls on said wet floor). I personally don't see why holding a company liable for damage caused by their software is a bad thing. It might get us software that will actually work...
Apple fanatics and people who could afford the extra eye-candy and wanted the status symbol do not count as "normal" people in my book. So yes, the price tag does keep most "normal" people from buying it.
Sorry to feed the troll, but you obviously don't know the first thing about Linux, and both you and your company's lawyers don't know the first thing about the GPL.
were unable to defrag its ext2 file system
ext2 and 3 are both designed to not need to be defragged, unlike FAT or NTFS, which require it on a regular basis to keep from being nigh useless.
So you can imagine our surprise[sic] when we were informed... that Linux is copyrighted under something called the GPL.
Any company that doesn't examine the licensing of the software it will use before putting it into production deserves whatever legal consequences it earns. The first thing I do before starting a project based on other open source (or more rarely proprietary) software is check the listening t make sure I can use it for what I need.
Part of this license states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available... Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools
WRONG. The GPL only requires source code disclosure if you distribute the modified code. GPL code isn't free in the do whatever you want, anarchy style freedom that some might want. GPL is free in a community conscious, mutual support style. I personally, as a developer, am of a mixed opinion about this setup. On one side, there is the desire to try making money by hiding "secrets". The other side is that the people who wrote GPL code put a lot of (usually personal) time into developing this code and taking their code without proper credit and listening to their wish on how to use the code.
If you think that using someone's code without proper credit is fair, stop using GPL and label yourself an IP thief. You will also need to write your own kernel (or go back to paying $150+ per seat to use Windows). There are different costs for using different things. Community support is the cost of GPL software, cold hard cash (along with the potential for other, undisclosed costs) is the cost for proprietary software. Its your choice, but when you chose don't complain that you didn't look at what you picked.
Technically, the police are paid for by the citizens. Thus technically, I am writing their paycheck. I have the right to monitor to make sure I am getting my money's worth. For other precedents, you can look at FOIA and government oversight agencies. There is no privacy issue. If the ACLU was encouraging monitoring officers' off duty activities that would be a problem, but this is only supposed to be used to monitor on duty activities.
wow, this post shows that
A) You haven't used desktop Linux in a long time. I'm using Linux Mint right now and don't need to drop to the command line for anything other than rare extreme troubleshooting issues, or when its just plain easier (disclaimer, I find going to command line, and copying files from my desktop to a distant directory much easier than clicking through 5-10 folders).
B) You haven't done any systems administration on a Windows machine, probably ever. You don't have to recompile the Windows kernel ever, but you need to use the command line or mess with text config files often if you are running anything more complicated than sharing a folder.
C) You haven't read a Windows manual or help file in a long time...
I'm tired of all of this crap about Moore's documentaries being nothing but lies. His documentaries are heavily biased against the Bush administration and the direction of the country, but, for the most part, his facts are pretty accurate. This new documentary was created to point out how bad the national health care situation is currently. His using Cuba to demonstrate national health care shows his bias, but it doesn't make his point less accurate or factual. Health care in this country is screwed up. When needing medical care could mean years, or even decades of extreme debt, even when you have "insurance" (if it can be called that with the crap these companies pull), we have an issue.
I'm tired of the ad hominem attacks here. If you disagree with the man, fine. If you don't want to watch the movie, fine. But if you want to disagree with him as vocally as many do here, counter his facts, stop the BS and petty name calling.
The short explanation to protect your website from this is to not display any user generated data. This includes: GET variables, POST variables, COOKIES, SERVER variables (such as REQUEST_URI, etc.) or any database stored values that may have originally come from such sources.
The best way to do this depends on the server side technology you are using. But even then, no filter is 100%. You also have to watch context. In the example here, Yahoo was filtering quotation marks, but this exploit works around that restriction.
Whether it was disclosed to Yahoo directly or not, it has already been fixed (at least when I tested it in Firefox). I don't know about most of the Yahoo team, but Rasmus (the same one that invented PHP) pays very close attention to site security, and Yahoo, Google, and many others watch the boards where these vulnerabilities are revealed and fix the problems, often within hours, whether its disclosed or not.
Well, since there is no "net neutrality" legislation that has passed yet, the answer to your question is - yes. Also, since there is no clear legislation yet, they could potentially be sued for it, leaving the decision up to random judge (or set of judges, depending on how high it gets appealed) who know(s) nothing (or next to nothing) about the technologies either. So pick your poison, legislators in the pocket of big business who consider the internet to be comparable to tubes, or judges in the pockets of political parties which are in the pockets of big business. Either way, without good lobbying and effective voting, the future for AT&T looks pretty green, and pretty slow for the rest of us...
Like the other person said, upgrades aren't as smooth as fresh installs. However, the X issue is probably a nVidia/ATI driver issue. If you have one of those video cards, run envy to update the drivers properly; the default settings in the updated xorg.conf explode on these cards.
It looks like a flash pop-in, so it will get through everything except flashblock and a properly configured adblock. Not an inferior browser, a less limiting set of filters.
After reading the article, this arrangement makes perfect logical sense to me, and it should to anyone who has seen MS operate in the past:
1) MS is having issues coming up with the next big thing, or getting their version of the next big thing working.
2) Competitor X is working on the same idea and is making progress.
3) MS offers to collaborate with (cajoles/forces/steals from) Competitor X on the idea to MS's benifit.
4) MS forces the competition out of the market, or at the least marginalizes them for a significant period of time.
5) And, strangely enough with no question marks, profit.
In general I agree with what you are saying, however I do disagree with this association:
A lot of slashdotters mourn the loss of privacy with stories about governments and organizations using technology to invade our lives, but sooner rather than later we are going to see our brothers and sisters have the capability to do the very same.
There is a world of difference between your siblings/friends/self/etc. taking and sharing your picture and the government monitoring you covertly (or even not so covertly, as in the UK). People you know taking pictures of you will (usually) not get you in trouble with the law; the government, especially one more totalitarian than we currently have in the US (yes, they do exist), can twist the photos they take to get you in trouble with the law. Also, other people (and, as in this case, companies) taking and sharing such pictures is part of their first amendment free speech/press rights and probably won't infringe on your ability to exercise your rights. The government, however, doesn't have free speech rights and could be using such monitoring to, if not totally take away, at least influence your free speech.
I never said the government wasn't to blame; I was simply disagreeing with the GGP saying that the government should never have been involved. I never said they did things well, but each municipality had different reasons for doing it poorly. You are right that, in the long view, government deficiencies of one sort or another can be considered the cause of failure, but I believe that is looking at things too glibly. Saying the government doesn't know enough about this and should just stay out and let the corporations do it ignores the fact that the government is us. We, those with the knowledge, should help the legislatures, etc. craft these laws, not point and laugh when they fail because they only get bad information from those with something to gain.
"Firstly, whether or not every waking moment of my day is observed or not, I may say whatever I damn well please."
You are probably one of the few with nothing to lose. You also still live in a relatively free nation, I assume, and are still somewhat secure that your constitutional rights will be upheld when you get the chance to argue in court. Now imagine that those rights didn't matter to those using the cameras who want to control the populace. What good are said rights when you chance of ever seeing the inside of the courtroom are at best 3 years away, if ever.
"Secondly, footage taken of you in your own home without warrant isn't admissable evidence, as per (my understand of) the Fourth Amendment."
Last I checked, the Fourth Amendment doesn't exist in the UK. Yes there are civil liberties there, but they aren't the same. Also, if the government does become corrupt, the ability to gather privately, to move semi-privately, may be the only way to restore justice. The reason there are civil liberties, like the Bill of Rights, is not because those rights weren't there before, its to keep those rights from being taken away. That is the same reason privacy needs to be protected now; not because the government is currently so corrupt it can't be trusted (somewhat arguable in the US right now...), but because we need to keep it from ever being taken away.
This is far from flamebait. When it comes to something that needs to help the public in general, the government can be trusted to do it much better than any corporate entity. Roads, parks and military are three good examples. Just because the government can screw up doesn't mean it always has or always will. Municipal Wi-Fi is a good idea, but it was farmed out, in most cases, to groups that have a lot to lose from it doing well, or to groups that didn't have and weren't given the resources they needed. This is an instance of "Crap in, crap out." not government deficiencies.
Its not about making their jobs easier or harder. Its about whether these devices remove people's right to privacy. Without that right, free speech doesn't exist, protection from unwarranted searches is removed, and many other rights are moot or oppressed.
Should we stop something because it makes the job of law enforcement easier? no.
Should we stop something because it removes the basic rights of law abiding citizens? Yes.
Should we stop something because it makes harassment easier? Yes.
Telephones, computers (in general), vehicles, helecopters, and remote controlled robots (depending on their application) don't infringe on people's rights. Cameras on every corner with the ability and threat of watching you even in your home do. No matter what the laws are in this, the threat of being watched in your home is always there and will always be in the backs of people's minds, influencing their actions. In this case with the drones, I will give you, its a little more gray, both in the benefits gained and the threats to privacy.
It doesn't affect all software jobs. It may affect many software development jobs, but most jobs in the IT field are to create and/or implement software solutions internally. For these jobs open source is often a boon (if its good code, but that goes for proprietary even more so). Open source software allows the IT departments implementing a solution to tailor the application to their own needs. They can also often go back to the community for assistance, if support isn't supplied by the vendor (Red Hat, Novell, MySQL, etc.), for a lot less than support contracts cost with companies like Microsoft, etc.
To quote Sudo, "If a law is unjust, we owe it to our children to disobey."
Personally I would have to disagree with this quote. We don't owe it to our children to disobey a law; we owe it to our children to change unjust laws. Disobedience when it won't effect change will only harm the disobedient. I don't think I owe it to my son to get sued/put in prison, remove the primary source of income from our household, and remove my ability to parent (if I am put in prison).
the thing is, GPLv2 has a "or future versions" clause meaning that the current piece of software can be upgraded to version 3 without having to be re-released. This means Novell would need to release an entirely new version of the GCC, bash, etc. or those pieces of software would be indemnified from any patent lawsuits brought by Microsoft. The kernel itself, as it will remain under version 2, may still be under the shadow of Microsoft's threats, should any of the (what was it MS said, 65?) supposed MS patents actually be in it. However, I doubt the kernel has much to worry about - talking to hardware can only be done in very few ways so the obviousness of the patent will probably invalidate them.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize that, according to the Constitution, the executive branch is the arm of the government that enforces the laws that the legislative enacts, right? This isn't a matter of trusting the White House to follow through. This is the way our government works.
As far as open or closed systems, this bill doesn't deal directly with what sort of software these systems need to run. The main focus of the bill is a paper trail being required for these systems, something that IMO is long overdue, and making sure the voting systems allow people with disabilities to vote. This has nothing to do with Microsoft, Linux, Open or Closed systems. Just because it doesn't deal with all of your hopes and wishes doesn't mean this is a bad bill. An all in one bill is less likely to succeed as too many people will have things to gain and lose from supporting the bill, leading to a poor, watered down bill. I would rather have a (slightly) more focused bill like this one be passed, dealing with a few, focused issues of voter confidence and accessibility, rather than them taking 5+ years making an overarching bill.
As for the article about the bill, it is a bunch of FUD, and I don't see how the author could have actually read much of the bill to have come to the conclusions that she did. The main quote I take issue with is "gives explicit federal sanction to trade secrets in vote counting." All source code, compiled code, and sample machines must be given to the NIST to be fully tested to make sure nothing can be done to the votes. It sets a required minimum number of ballots that need to be manually audited, using the paper trail, during the actual voting. There are no "trade secrets" anywhere in this counting and auditing process. As for the other complaints, the NIST has already been thoroughly involved in the auditing process of all voting machines for a long time. The "text conversion device" is required for accessibility, and already exists in other software applications. It is necessary if those with disabilities are to be involved in the voting process in a real way. As far as removing "safe harbor" for states that don't comply, I don't see why states should be immune from liability when it comes to protecting my vote.
Actually, in the US, many provisions in most EULAs are illegal and not considered valid. I don't know specifically about the "no liability" clauses, but I do know that in somewhat related cases, warnings do not remove a company's liability (i.e. wet floor signs aren't protection against a company being sued when a customer falls on said wet floor). I personally don't see why holding a company liable for damage caused by their software is a bad thing. It might get us software that will actually work...
Apple fanatics and people who could afford the extra eye-candy and wanted the status symbol do not count as "normal" people in my book. So yes, the price tag does keep most "normal" people from buying it.
Sorry to feed the troll, but you obviously don't know the first thing about Linux, and both you and your company's lawyers don't know the first thing about the GPL.
ext2 and 3 are both designed to not need to be defragged, unlike FAT or NTFS, which require it on a regular basis to keep from being nigh useless.
Any company that doesn't examine the licensing of the software it will use before putting it into production deserves whatever legal consequences it earns. The first thing I do before starting a project based on other open source (or more rarely proprietary) software is check the listening t make sure I can use it for what I need.
WRONG. The GPL only requires source code disclosure if you distribute the modified code. GPL code isn't free in the do whatever you want, anarchy style freedom that some might want. GPL is free in a community conscious, mutual support style. I personally, as a developer, am of a mixed opinion about this setup. On one side, there is the desire to try making money by hiding "secrets". The other side is that the people who wrote GPL code put a lot of (usually personal) time into developing this code and taking their code without proper credit and listening to their wish on how to use the code.
If you think that using someone's code without proper credit is fair, stop using GPL and label yourself an IP thief. You will also need to write your own kernel (or go back to paying $150+ per seat to use Windows). There are different costs for using different things. Community support is the cost of GPL software, cold hard cash (along with the potential for other, undisclosed costs) is the cost for proprietary software. Its your choice, but when you chose don't complain that you didn't look at what you picked.
Do the candidates know what software their web servers run or even care?
Technically, the police are paid for by the citizens. Thus technically, I am writing their paycheck. I have the right to monitor to make sure I am getting my money's worth. For other precedents, you can look at FOIA and government oversight agencies. There is no privacy issue. If the ACLU was encouraging monitoring officers' off duty activities that would be a problem, but this is only supposed to be used to monitor on duty activities.
Author: Same guy who wrote Sandman and American Gods (and its sequel), among many others, these being the most popular.
Novel: From the summary, UPCOMING. As in, not yet released.
wow, this post shows that
A) You haven't used desktop Linux in a long time. I'm using Linux Mint right now and don't need to drop to the command line for anything other than rare extreme troubleshooting issues, or when its just plain easier (disclaimer, I find going to command line, and copying files from my desktop to a distant directory much easier than clicking through 5-10 folders).
B) You haven't done any systems administration on a Windows machine, probably ever. You don't have to recompile the Windows kernel ever, but you need to use the command line or mess with text config files often if you are running anything more complicated than sharing a folder.
C) You haven't read a Windows manual or help file in a long time...
I'm tired of all of this crap about Moore's documentaries being nothing but lies. His documentaries are heavily biased against the Bush administration and the direction of the country, but, for the most part, his facts are pretty accurate. This new documentary was created to point out how bad the national health care situation is currently. His using Cuba to demonstrate national health care shows his bias, but it doesn't make his point less accurate or factual. Health care in this country is screwed up. When needing medical care could mean years, or even decades of extreme debt, even when you have "insurance" (if it can be called that with the crap these companies pull), we have an issue.
I'm tired of the ad hominem attacks here. If you disagree with the man, fine. If you don't want to watch the movie, fine. But if you want to disagree with him as vocally as many do here, counter his facts, stop the BS and petty name calling.
The short explanation to protect your website from this is to not display any user generated data. This includes: GET variables, POST variables, COOKIES, SERVER variables (such as REQUEST_URI, etc.) or any database stored values that may have originally come from such sources.
The best way to do this depends on the server side technology you are using. But even then, no filter is 100%. You also have to watch context. In the example here, Yahoo was filtering quotation marks, but this exploit works around that restriction.
Whether it was disclosed to Yahoo directly or not, it has already been fixed (at least when I tested it in Firefox). I don't know about most of the Yahoo team, but Rasmus (the same one that invented PHP) pays very close attention to site security, and Yahoo, Google, and many others watch the boards where these vulnerabilities are revealed and fix the problems, often within hours, whether its disclosed or not.
Well, since there is no "net neutrality" legislation that has passed yet, the answer to your question is - yes. Also, since there is no clear legislation yet, they could potentially be sued for it, leaving the decision up to random judge (or set of judges, depending on how high it gets appealed) who know(s) nothing (or next to nothing) about the technologies either. So pick your poison, legislators in the pocket of big business who consider the internet to be comparable to tubes, or judges in the pockets of political parties which are in the pockets of big business. Either way, without good lobbying and effective voting, the future for AT&T looks pretty green, and pretty slow for the rest of us...
Like the other person said, upgrades aren't as smooth as fresh installs. However, the X issue is probably a nVidia/ATI driver issue. If you have one of those video cards, run envy to update the drivers properly; the default settings in the updated xorg.conf explode on these cards.
It looks like a flash pop-in, so it will get through everything except flashblock and a properly configured adblock. Not an inferior browser, a less limiting set of filters.
After reading the article, this arrangement makes perfect logical sense to me, and it should to anyone who has seen MS operate in the past:
1) MS is having issues coming up with the next big thing, or getting their version of the next big thing working.
2) Competitor X is working on the same idea and is making progress.
3) MS offers to collaborate with (cajoles/forces/steals from) Competitor X on the idea to MS's benifit.
4) MS forces the competition out of the market, or at the least marginalizes them for a significant period of time.
5) And, strangely enough with no question marks, profit.
There is a world of difference between your siblings/friends/self/etc. taking and sharing your picture and the government monitoring you covertly (or even not so covertly, as in the UK). People you know taking pictures of you will (usually) not get you in trouble with the law; the government, especially one more totalitarian than we currently have in the US (yes, they do exist), can twist the photos they take to get you in trouble with the law. Also, other people (and, as in this case, companies) taking and sharing such pictures is part of their first amendment free speech/press rights and probably won't infringe on your ability to exercise your rights. The government, however, doesn't have free speech rights and could be using such monitoring to, if not totally take away, at least influence your free speech.
agreed. but is that the fault of the tool or the users?
I never said the government wasn't to blame; I was simply disagreeing with the GGP saying that the government should never have been involved. I never said they did things well, but each municipality had different reasons for doing it poorly. You are right that, in the long view, government deficiencies of one sort or another can be considered the cause of failure, but I believe that is looking at things too glibly. Saying the government doesn't know enough about this and should just stay out and let the corporations do it ignores the fact that the government is us. We, those with the knowledge, should help the legislatures, etc. craft these laws, not point and laugh when they fail because they only get bad information from those with something to gain.
A couple points:
"Firstly, whether or not every waking moment of my day is observed or not, I may say whatever I damn well please."
You are probably one of the few with nothing to lose. You also still live in a relatively free nation, I assume, and are still somewhat secure that your constitutional rights will be upheld when you get the chance to argue in court. Now imagine that those rights didn't matter to those using the cameras who want to control the populace. What good are said rights when you chance of ever seeing the inside of the courtroom are at best 3 years away, if ever.
"Secondly, footage taken of you in your own home without warrant isn't admissable evidence, as per (my understand of) the Fourth Amendment."
Last I checked, the Fourth Amendment doesn't exist in the UK. Yes there are civil liberties there, but they aren't the same. Also, if the government does become corrupt, the ability to gather privately, to move semi-privately, may be the only way to restore justice. The reason there are civil liberties, like the Bill of Rights, is not because those rights weren't there before, its to keep those rights from being taken away. That is the same reason privacy needs to be protected now; not because the government is currently so corrupt it can't be trusted (somewhat arguable in the US right now...), but because we need to keep it from ever being taken away.
This is far from flamebait. When it comes to something that needs to help the public in general, the government can be trusted to do it much better than any corporate entity. Roads, parks and military are three good examples. Just because the government can screw up doesn't mean it always has or always will. Municipal Wi-Fi is a good idea, but it was farmed out, in most cases, to groups that have a lot to lose from it doing well, or to groups that didn't have and weren't given the resources they needed. This is an instance of "Crap in, crap out." not government deficiencies.
Its not about making their jobs easier or harder. Its about whether these devices remove people's right to privacy. Without that right, free speech doesn't exist, protection from unwarranted searches is removed, and many other rights are moot or oppressed.
Should we stop something because it makes the job of law enforcement easier? no.
Should we stop something because it removes the basic rights of law abiding citizens? Yes.
Should we stop something because it makes harassment easier? Yes.
Telephones, computers (in general), vehicles, helecopters, and remote controlled robots (depending on their application) don't infringe on people's rights. Cameras on every corner with the ability and threat of watching you even in your home do. No matter what the laws are in this, the threat of being watched in your home is always there and will always be in the backs of people's minds, influencing their actions. In this case with the drones, I will give you, its a little more gray, both in the benefits gained and the threats to privacy.
It doesn't affect all software jobs. It may affect many software development jobs, but most jobs in the IT field are to create and/or implement software solutions internally. For these jobs open source is often a boon (if its good code, but that goes for proprietary even more so). Open source software allows the IT departments implementing a solution to tailor the application to their own needs. They can also often go back to the community for assistance, if support isn't supplied by the vendor (Red Hat, Novell, MySQL, etc.), for a lot less than support contracts cost with companies like Microsoft, etc.
Personally I would have to disagree with this quote. We don't owe it to our children to disobey a law; we owe it to our children to change unjust laws. Disobedience when it won't effect change will only harm the disobedient. I don't think I owe it to my son to get sued/put in prison, remove the primary source of income from our household, and remove my ability to parent (if I am put in prison).
exactly, which is why I said in my original post that the international law in this needs to be clarified and taken out of any one country's control.
the thing is, GPLv2 has a "or future versions" clause meaning that the current piece of software can be upgraded to version 3 without having to be re-released. This means Novell would need to release an entirely new version of the GCC, bash, etc. or those pieces of software would be indemnified from any patent lawsuits brought by Microsoft. The kernel itself, as it will remain under version 2, may still be under the shadow of Microsoft's threats, should any of the (what was it MS said, 65?) supposed MS patents actually be in it. However, I doubt the kernel has much to worry about - talking to hardware can only be done in very few ways so the obviousness of the patent will probably invalidate them.