the animal world you will find the exact same behavior...I got pretty comfy myself The comfort level is also quite possibly quantifiable and linked to our genetic makeup as animals. In base animals this behavior is regulated such that the lead animals never overexploit their fellow pack members. In humans, with our abstract notion of currency, and the fact that never before in history has our daily life been so easily and thoroughly quantified into money, the overexploitation is carried out through the automated collection of taxes and with almost no resistance at all. An alpha animal cannot subject his fellow animals to slavery. The ruling class in humans, however, can quietly keep us all in financial slavery while rigging together a system large enough to maintain plausible deniability,"It's your own fault."
This guilt trip works wonders in ensuring that the working class is psychologically at a disadvantage in any bargaining position: negotiating working conditions, a raise, a home loan, a car loan, insurance rates, almost everything--including politics.
What you've described is the system of divide and conquer. A group of employees cannot divide and conquer their management as easily as the management can isolate and destroy the lead employees--the rest fall back in line very quickly after watching one or two token sacrifices (which have all the more impact if the best and the brightest are chosen to be the recipients of a brutal demonstration of managerial and corporate authority). All of this is made possible only by ensuring that the company always has control over the resources which the working class need: namely, finances. An $8.8 trillion dollar federal debt which shows no signs of going away does a fantastic job of ensuring that there will perpetually be a significant class of people who are constantly in need of financial resources. Once that $8.8 trillion dollar debt is in place it doesn't take any more than the most rudimentary system of generalized price fixing (on real estate, mortgage, rent, car payment, insurance, pump prices, etc.) to ensure that those people who are currently designated "slave class" will remain, perpetually across generations, as slave class.
The unnatural part comes with the artificial shortage of wealth. There is no shortage of wealth in this nation. Debt is explicitly and artificially created simply as a means of heavy-handed social and political control.
The point is that, if a person in a priveleged position takes an interest (with whatever motive) in a subordinate employee, the very ability to monitor their computer usage at a near moment-by-moment screencap level is separated from aggravated stalking by nothing more than the definition of the law with respect to employer-employee relationships. Being able to spy on an employee, even if they know you are spying on them, gives the aggressor an enormous advantage should they have an interest in manipulating the target--for love, money, lu5t, political position, social control, or whatever other motive.
I have no problem with my employer monitoring internet usage to make certain that I'm not sabotaging the business. At the same time I think there is a reasonable expectation that no one employee is monitored any more closely or hounded any more severely than any other employee. With the way AUPs and employee agreements are currently written (completely one-sided) one can be working in an environment where 4 hours of casual use/day is allowed but woe to the one employee who is targetted should they check their e-mail even once.
Giving free reign to employers to selectively enforce a zero-tolerance policy justified by any arbitrary excuse is a recipe, an open invitation even, for abuse--to the level which would be considered aggravated stalking in any other environment.
Everyone concentrates so much on which services are collecting information and what information they are collecting. The next, and more important, question is rightly,"What are they doing with it?" I'm not talking about the generalized vague notion that everyone has: they're selling it. Yes, of course, but to whom are they selling it? Do they portion it out or do they sell the entire database in raw csv format any time anyone asks? Is there a subscription service to receive weekly or monthly updates to the dataset? Is there any effort made to screen the people who offer to buy the dataset to ensure that they will similarly protect the privacy and security of the consumers represented within it? Are there services which will cross-reference the various databases to infer data which cannot be directly collected for legal or technical reasons? Are there services which buy these datasets which offer to correlate them with tax records, grocery card clubs, and DMV records?
The answer to all of the above questions, of course, is "yes--to the worst extent possible and with absolutely no conscientious consideration for the consumer from whom the data is being mined". Take it for what it's worth. Twenty years ago the hospital kept records, the insurance companies kept records, the banks and retail outlets kept records, but they weren't so ready and apt to cross compile and sell those records to hundreds of political and fringe religious groups posing under infinitely ambiguous names such as International Financial Consultants, Ltd.
More to the point: desktop applications are inherently preferable to the individual user. The argument can be made that a corporate environment, in which more than twenty people may need to use a program with limited seats in a license, or in which more than five people need to work collaboratively on the same data set, a client-server type may be more appropriate. Webapps are a client-server type of application in which the client is the web browser and the server is the application running within the web server. Viewing it as such may help to expose the odd nature of allowing so many middle layers to persist.
Desktop apps are important not only for security but also for efficiency and to prevent the gratuitous overconsumption of network resources.
We already have complete and irrefutable proof that the federal government is completely and utterly corrupt, less so but still applicable to state level governments.
Is it stealing if a corporation claims BSD code as their own and uses a bought copyright to harass the original author? Who do the courts typically believe--a multibillion dollar international corporation with pockets full of political and business connections, or a team of three or five relatively unknown programmers from working class families? Does it even matter who the courts believe if the tactical corporate maneuver itself will financially bankrupt the programmers, making the concept of ownership or even copyright completely irrelevent?
Either you didn't think far enough ahead to these questions or you're seeking to rehash the same old tired license war.
Is there any history behind this? Could the decision to take the initial notice public have been based on past examples, possibly occurring between the team you worked on and the oBSD team, of similar situations?
In a perfect world you would have a valid point. This is the real world where established corporations feel no moral qualms about stealing and sealing away free software, which might possibly affect their profit margin, using any number of tactical legal avenues. While BSD may be more free GPL is a more practical implementation of free for the real world.
Maybe this is just an example of two developers with limited social skills stepping on each others toes That line had me thinking: do the devs involved have a history of finding and using each other's source code without the proper considerations?
I've heard of a C compiler written in BASH. The capacity of a programming language to suck depends significantly on the intended application. AREXX would probably work quite well to write a Linuxfromscratch, Amigafromscratch, or AROSfromscratch installer.
Amiga's mascots have alwasy been sooooooooooo s3xy. =D
Do you really think it's possible to design a website that equally well on a 24" widescreen display as on a cell-phone display using nothing but HTML? A 24" screen at 320x200 will fit just fine on a cell-phone display using nothing but HTML.
The point being that whatever bugs he's going to come up with have already been known to a priveleged set of people. Squashing those bugs now won't change the fact that exploits have probably been available for years.
I recall reading something about enormous Borg like Google cubes requiring cities to build nuclear fusion reactors to power them, competing with Fermilab and LLNL for Most Brownouts Caused by Powerup, and being airlifted into remote regions of the world to hide classified data.
I saw the functionality in one highly refined boot loader but I don't remember what it was called--and I remember that it used framebuffers (which are okay but I'd rather not be setting my system into an fbmode from the bootloader as a fbmode change once in a shell would probably lose the bgpic). I want to use mbr, grub or lilo, the linux kernel, and a shell. Surely something could be done between the kernel and svga libs. Maybe some hints could be taken from X11 and eterm or aterm.
Jack used JTAG to discover exploits in the hardware. The exploit can, most probably, be taken advantage of from the WAN side using malformed packets and raw payloads.
The proper trained eye looking at the circuit schematics would have been able to identify the same things--and probably have. The engineers who see the exploits usually take them home and play core wars with their friends. It's the same concept as reverse engineering closed source drivers. The original engineers wrote the closed source implementation and now Jack (at Juniper) is reverse engineering it and finding some interesting twists along the way.
What do you call a zero day exploit before it's released to the general public and called a zero day exploit? Whatever it's called it has existed since before common home routers have been available at major consumer outlets. It's impossible to think that nobody ever took advantage of it until now.
Slashdot Mirror
This guilt trip works wonders in ensuring that the working class is psychologically at a disadvantage in any bargaining position: negotiating working conditions, a raise, a home loan, a car loan, insurance rates, almost everything--including politics.
What you've described is the system of divide and conquer. A group of employees cannot divide and conquer their management as easily as the management can isolate and destroy the lead employees--the rest fall back in line very quickly after watching one or two token sacrifices (which have all the more impact if the best and the brightest are chosen to be the recipients of a brutal demonstration of managerial and corporate authority). All of this is made possible only by ensuring that the company always has control over the resources which the working class need: namely, finances. An $8.8 trillion dollar federal debt which shows no signs of going away does a fantastic job of ensuring that there will perpetually be a significant class of people who are constantly in need of financial resources. Once that $8.8 trillion dollar debt is in place it doesn't take any more than the most rudimentary system of generalized price fixing (on real estate, mortgage, rent, car payment, insurance, pump prices, etc.) to ensure that those people who are currently designated "slave class" will remain, perpetually across generations, as slave class.
The unnatural part comes with the artificial shortage of wealth. There is no shortage of wealth in this nation. Debt is explicitly and artificially created simply as a means of heavy-handed social and political control.
What do you perceive to be the problem?
The point is that, if a person in a priveleged position takes an interest (with whatever motive) in a subordinate employee, the very ability to monitor their computer usage at a near moment-by-moment screencap level is separated from aggravated stalking by nothing more than the definition of the law with respect to employer-employee relationships. Being able to spy on an employee, even if they know you are spying on them, gives the aggressor an enormous advantage should they have an interest in manipulating the target--for love, money, lu5t, political position, social control, or whatever other motive.
I have no problem with my employer monitoring internet usage to make certain that I'm not sabotaging the business. At the same time I think there is a reasonable expectation that no one employee is monitored any more closely or hounded any more severely than any other employee. With the way AUPs and employee agreements are currently written (completely one-sided) one can be working in an environment where 4 hours of casual use/day is allowed but woe to the one employee who is targetted should they check their e-mail even once.
Giving free reign to employers to selectively enforce a zero-tolerance policy justified by any arbitrary excuse is a recipe, an open invitation even, for abuse--to the level which would be considered aggravated stalking in any other environment.
Everyone concentrates so much on which services are collecting information and what information they are collecting. The next, and more important, question is rightly,"What are they doing with it?" I'm not talking about the generalized vague notion that everyone has: they're selling it. Yes, of course, but to whom are they selling it? Do they portion it out or do they sell the entire database in raw csv format any time anyone asks? Is there a subscription service to receive weekly or monthly updates to the dataset? Is there any effort made to screen the people who offer to buy the dataset to ensure that they will similarly protect the privacy and security of the consumers represented within it? Are there services which will cross-reference the various databases to infer data which cannot be directly collected for legal or technical reasons? Are there services which buy these datasets which offer to correlate them with tax records, grocery card clubs, and DMV records?
The answer to all of the above questions, of course, is "yes--to the worst extent possible and with absolutely no conscientious consideration for the consumer from whom the data is being mined". Take it for what it's worth. Twenty years ago the hospital kept records, the insurance companies kept records, the banks and retail outlets kept records, but they weren't so ready and apt to cross compile and sell those records to hundreds of political and fringe religious groups posing under infinitely ambiguous names such as International Financial Consultants, Ltd.
Didn't we already see this?
More to the point: desktop applications are inherently preferable to the individual user. The argument can be made that a corporate environment, in which more than twenty people may need to use a program with limited seats in a license, or in which more than five people need to work collaboratively on the same data set, a client-server type may be more appropriate. Webapps are a client-server type of application in which the client is the web browser and the server is the application running within the web server. Viewing it as such may help to expose the odd nature of allowing so many middle layers to persist.
Desktop apps are important not only for security but also for efficiency and to prevent the gratuitous overconsumption of network resources.
We already have complete and irrefutable proof that the federal government is completely and utterly corrupt, less so but still applicable to state level governments.
More fuel for the fire is always welcome.
Is it stealing if a corporation claims BSD code as their own and uses a bought copyright to harass the original author? Who do the courts typically believe--a multibillion dollar international corporation with pockets full of political and business connections, or a team of three or five relatively unknown programmers from working class families? Does it even matter who the courts believe if the tactical corporate maneuver itself will financially bankrupt the programmers, making the concept of ownership or even copyright completely irrelevent?
Either you didn't think far enough ahead to these questions or you're seeking to rehash the same old tired license war.
Is there any history behind this? Could the decision to take the initial notice public have been based on past examples, possibly occurring between the team you worked on and the oBSD team, of similar situations?
In a perfect world you would have a valid point. This is the real world where established corporations feel no moral qualms about stealing and sealing away free software, which might possibly affect their profit margin, using any number of tactical legal avenues. While BSD may be more free GPL is a more practical implementation of free for the real world.
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of PS3 driven botnets.
The parent gets it.
I've heard of a C compiler written in BASH. The capacity of a programming language to suck depends significantly on the intended application. AREXX would probably work quite well to write a Linuxfromscratch, Amigafromscratch, or AROSfromscratch installer.
Amiga's mascots have alwasy been sooooooooooo s3xy. =D
The point being that whatever bugs he's going to come up with have already been known to a priveleged set of people. Squashing those bugs now won't change the fact that exploits have probably been available for years.
There were at least two, then.
Are you trying to say the Amiga didn't have AREXX?
I recall reading something about enormous Borg like Google cubes requiring cities to build nuclear fusion reactors to power them, competing with Fermilab and LLNL for Most Brownouts Caused by Powerup, and being airlifted into remote regions of the world to hide classified data.
It was called AREXX.
I saw the functionality in one highly refined boot loader but I don't remember what it was called--and I remember that it used framebuffers (which are okay but I'd rather not be setting my system into an fbmode from the bootloader as a fbmode change once in a shell would probably lose the bgpic). I want to use mbr, grub or lilo, the linux kernel, and a shell. Surely something could be done between the kernel and svga libs. Maybe some hints could be taken from X11 and eterm or aterm.
The value of concise plain text. Maybe they'll patent the CSS for "plain text" before the end of the year.
Jack used JTAG to discover exploits in the hardware. The exploit can, most probably, be taken advantage of from the WAN side using malformed packets and raw payloads.
The proper trained eye looking at the circuit schematics would have been able to identify the same things--and probably have. The engineers who see the exploits usually take them home and play core wars with their friends. It's the same concept as reverse engineering closed source drivers. The original engineers wrote the closed source implementation and now Jack (at Juniper) is reverse engineering it and finding some interesting twists along the way.
What do you call a zero day exploit before it's released to the general public and called a zero day exploit? Whatever it's called it has existed since before common home routers have been available at major consumer outlets. It's impossible to think that nobody ever took advantage of it until now.