If I run Firefox on Linux without NoScript, is there a danger?
If I run IE on XP without Javascript and ActiveX enabled, is there a danger? Or use any other javascriptless browser? Can a simple article be written without the gratudious fellatio of the Firefox team (and even then it took a plugin to accomplish what you would think would be easy.)
How do you propose to stop stupid users from manually opening malware, just by giving them a new OS?
By making data clearly different from executables? I mean, how about "The attachment you are trying to open is NOT a movie/picture/sound/etc. It is a program that has unlimited access to your machine."
Plausible implies only that it seems reasonable on face. Usually, making sense in within a closed belief system. For instance, movies are commonly considered plausible, although not probable.
Legally, Craigslist managers are obligated to extract as much money as possible from the company and give it to the owners.
The Supreme Court has already ruled (in the 80's I believe) this is not the case. Craigslist managers are obligated to protect Craigslist as an artifical entity, collection of values, and network of relationships (of which the shareholders are an important but not exclusive group). And one of those collective values is a lack of agressive monitization.
He has repeatedly refused to turn the company into a commercial cash cow, and as he points out 95+% percent of the dotcom's that were started with the intent of going commercial are now out of business.
95+% of noncommercial websites die in obscurity to. And Craigslist is clearly going to survive. The truely important thing to note is that sites that decide to be commerical and are as popular as Craigslist have valuations of hundreds of millions.
These for profit databases are the _only_ practical means of knowing the law.
In theory, what they are selling are their synopsis of the points of the case. There was an article on Slashdot a few months ago about a GPL document licensed version form that took all the public domain stuff and organized it. But quite a few/.'s (who were lawyers) said that the interpertation was vital to them understanding it. Sorry, I'm disorganized, but I'm short on time...
They'll never come again but in the meantime tens (hundreds?) of thousands of dollars were pissed away for a pointless requirement.
As opposed to how much it would cost to determine if every building really needed a wheelchair ramp? Numerous times blowing money like this is cost-effective because of the cost of decision making.
I know plenty of people who got fired for buying Microsoft;
You may know plenty of people you thought should get fired for buying Microsoft. But I doubt you know any who actually did. Want to give more specifics (I know there has to be some ambiguity to protect privacy, but some more details)?
Windows will automatically connect to any network it can find, even peer-to-peer. I'm sure this behavior can be disabled, but it's probably set up that way by default by the manufacturers to make it easier for users. I realize this is old news to most people, but I don't use WinXP very often and was a bit surprised to see it connect to a peer-to-peer network.
I believe this behavior is off by default. The last XP laptop I used required me to agree to connect to an unsecured hotspot, let alone a peer-to-peer one.
No, he doesn't want any filtering. he wants FBI agents to go on p2p networks and download the files (presumably if the files are listed in a way someone else can find, teh FBI agents can be that someone else). Then use a hash to id the files as opposed to their filename. He also wants them to call the ISPs and turn the IP addresses into a name, which could be used for a search warrant. No automated sniffing, nothing.
He's proposing to snoop on every packet that wends its way through the intertubes.
No he's not. The FBI has 32 people who look on p2p networks. 32 PEOPLE. He wants to hire an additional 250. And give money to local police forces to execute search warrants based on that. There is no fucking packet sniffing.
He is proposing building a database of offenders so that the really bad ones are gone after first. But that's fucking it. Shitty summary.
Where exactly is this "considered an illegal act"?
I believe Maryland made it explictly illegal recently.
How the hell do you "consider" something to be illegal? It either is, or isn't.
Because the law is rarely (see Maryland counterexample above) explicit in "no leeching wifi". But other laws (e.g. listening in to EM transmissions) may apply. There are legal arguements both ways, and the courts will have to rule. Law has a lot of murkiness.
How the hell is 12% a "sizeable percentage"?
Well, "sizeable percentage" != "majority". For instance, 12% of the population being infected with AIDS would be a "sizeable percentage" Depends on what you are measuring.
He wants the filtering done on file names?? Is he serious? That would be one of the easiest filters to get around.
The summary is crap. He doesn't want filtering at all. He wants FBI agents to actively search (as I read the article) on p2p networks. Similiar to how the RIAA works, but I cannot imagine any other way. According to the article, they download a file, call the ISP, use that combination to get a user. Right now they track the users, but I suppose at some point they will want warrents to arrest them.
He wants to expand the program from 32 people to 280ish people, and the 1 billion is over the next 8 years.
Also, from a view of civil rights (FTFA):
"You can't just go peruse everybody's computer," he said. "You train the officers in what is legal and established and approved and how to get warrants when they need a warrant?"
. . this dragnet surveillance "for the children" would never be used to enforce copyright
I assume you are reacting to the summaries statement:
His plan involves utilizing new software to monitor peer-to-peer traffic on an ongoing basis.
But in reality, it invovles FBI agents trying to download the files, then getting the IP of the computer that sent them, and calling the ISP.
The only moderately automatic thing that is done (which is actively ignored by most people in this discussion) is that they are hashing the file to prevent renaming. Since they have to have already downloaded the file, I assume its to try to track it's propogation over the P2P network, presumably so they can target the major distributors/creators.
For myself and most people I know, the internet is about acquiring information about things we aren't familiar with, not about rehashing information which we already know
True. But one way to find out about those things is to be told about them by a group of your peers with similar interests. Even/. operates like that. But, "all your friends enjoy reading about X, would you like to know about X as well" seems like a really good* way to learn about new topics you might enjoy.
*Good meaning effective. Other value judgements (moral, scary-big-brothery) not applied.
Then again, if you do go to a technical school, I can tell you from quite a bit of anecdotal evidence that you're going to get preferential treatment in the hiring process with a huge name engineering school. I've personally had two interviewers confide in me post-selection that I was picked over (to me) obviously more qualified candidates because they didn't believe that someone from [X. State] could be better qualified than a person from [ABC] and that they had just assumed that I flubbed the interviews
Your example leaves something to be desired, in that [ABC] is famous and renouned, whereas [X. State] is not. Now, I don't know whether the same would have applied if the two schools were on equal footing. For instance, Harvard or Yale and CalTech or MIT.
From Netflix's perspective, it doesn't matter whether I liked it or not - it matters that I rented it.
Netflix is a subscription all-you-can-eat service. So they would most prefer if you got a large plan and never used it. Since the only thing that keeps you renewing your subscription is your enjoyment of the movies, and since it costs them money every time you rent a movie, they have a vested interest in trying to maximize enjoyment per movie.
Actually, they'd probably rather you really enjoy 1/3 of the movies you borrow, so you subscribe to the 3-at-a-time model.
Seems the FCC only lets us have that in the 5Hz to 400 kHz ranges.
The FCC only regulates EM transmissions, so what you actually meant was 400 terahertz to 750 terahertz. Transverse waves through a medium like air are not covered, although given the directed advertising (using parabolic dishes, etc.) advertisments may make that a welcome addition. You should also note that other frequencies (5.8 GHz, 2.4GHz, etc.) are free for all, so long as the power does not exceed a certain amount.
Slashdot Mirror
I do run Opera, which is why I get all annoyed at the Firefox fanboys. No, bad browser evangelism.
If I run IE on XP without Javascript and ActiveX enabled, is there a danger? Or use any other javascriptless browser? Can a simple article be written without the gratudious fellatio of the Firefox team (and even then it took a plugin to accomplish what you would think would be easy.)
Yeah, but .mpg.exe can be confusing, especially if you don't know the machine you are on (not your usually one), has extensions off.
By making data clearly different from executables? I mean, how about "The attachment you are trying to open is NOT a movie/picture/sound/etc. It is a program that has unlimited access to your machine."
: superficially reasonable but often specious
Plausible implies only that it seems reasonable on face. Usually, making sense in within a closed belief system. For instance, movies are commonly considered plausible, although not probable.
I know what words mean...
The Supreme Court has already ruled (in the 80's I believe) this is not the case. Craigslist managers are obligated to protect Craigslist as an artifical entity, collection of values, and network of relationships (of which the shareholders are an important but not exclusive group). And one of those collective values is a lack of agressive monitization.
95+% of noncommercial websites die in obscurity to. And Craigslist is clearly going to survive. The truely important thing to note is that sites that decide to be commerical and are as popular as Craigslist have valuations of hundreds of millions.
Because they are just as plausible as any other explaination?
In theory, what they are selling are their synopsis of the points of the case. There was an article on Slashdot a few months ago about a GPL document licensed version form that took all the public domain stuff and organized it. But quite a few /.'s (who were lawyers) said that the interpertation was vital to them understanding it. Sorry, I'm disorganized, but I'm short on time...
As opposed to how much it would cost to determine if every building really needed a wheelchair ramp? Numerous times blowing money like this is cost-effective because of the cost of decision making.
You may know plenty of people you thought should get fired for buying Microsoft. But I doubt you know any who actually did. Want to give more specifics (I know there has to be some ambiguity to protect privacy, but some more details)?
Why do you care? Because the address bar is long, or it takes a negligable amount of time to build the page?
"I have ridden the mighty moon worm!"
-- Al Gore, Inventor of the Environment, First Emperor of the Moon
I believe this behavior is off by default. The last XP laptop I used required me to agree to connect to an unsecured hotspot, let alone a peer-to-peer one.
No, he doesn't want any filtering. he wants FBI agents to go on p2p networks and download the files (presumably if the files are listed in a way someone else can find, teh FBI agents can be that someone else). Then use a hash to id the files as opposed to their filename. He also wants them to call the ISPs and turn the IP addresses into a name, which could be used for a search warrant. No automated sniffing, nothing.
No he's not. The FBI has 32 people who look on p2p networks. 32 PEOPLE. He wants to hire an additional 250. And give money to local police forces to execute search warrants based on that. There is no fucking packet sniffing.
He is proposing building a database of offenders so that the really bad ones are gone after first. But that's fucking it. Shitty summary.
I believe Maryland made it explictly illegal recently.
Because the law is rarely (see Maryland counterexample above) explicit in "no leeching wifi". But other laws (e.g. listening in to EM transmissions) may apply. There are legal arguements both ways, and the courts will have to rule. Law has a lot of murkiness.
Well, "sizeable percentage" != "majority". For instance, 12% of the population being infected with AIDS would be a "sizeable percentage" Depends on what you are measuring.
The summary is crap. He doesn't want filtering at all. He wants FBI agents to actively search (as I read the article) on p2p networks. Similiar to how the RIAA works, but I cannot imagine any other way. According to the article, they download a file, call the ISP, use that combination to get a user. Right now they track the users, but I suppose at some point they will want warrents to arrest them.
He wants to expand the program from 32 people to 280ish people, and the 1 billion is over the next 8 years.
Also, from a view of civil rights (FTFA):
I assume you are reacting to the summaries statement:
But in reality, it invovles FBI agents trying to download the files, then getting the IP of the computer that sent them, and calling the ISP.
The only moderately automatic thing that is done (which is actively ignored by most people in this discussion) is that they are hashing the file to prevent renaming. Since they have to have already downloaded the file, I assume its to try to track it's propogation over the P2P network, presumably so they can target the major distributors/creators.
True. But one way to find out about those things is to be told about them by a group of your peers with similar interests. Even /. operates like that. But, "all your friends enjoy reading about X, would you like to know about X as well" seems like a really good* way to learn about new topics you might enjoy.
*Good meaning effective. Other value judgements (moral, scary-big-brothery) not applied.
Your example leaves something to be desired, in that [ABC] is famous and renouned, whereas [X. State] is not. Now, I don't know whether the same would have applied if the two schools were on equal footing. For instance, Harvard or Yale and CalTech or MIT.
Netflix is a subscription all-you-can-eat service. So they would most prefer if you got a large plan and never used it. Since the only thing that keeps you renewing your subscription is your enjoyment of the movies, and since it costs them money every time you rent a movie, they have a vested interest in trying to maximize enjoyment per movie.
Actually, they'd probably rather you really enjoy 1/3 of the movies you borrow, so you subscribe to the 3-at-a-time model.
Uh, is the puppy mechanical in any way?
The FCC only regulates EM transmissions, so what you actually meant was 400 terahertz to 750 terahertz. Transverse waves through a medium like air are not covered, although given the directed advertising (using parabolic dishes, etc.) advertisments may make that a welcome addition. You should also note that other frequencies (5.8 GHz, 2.4GHz, etc.) are free for all, so long as the power does not exceed a certain amount.
My taxes are complex enough without having to qualify my sale of old cables at a yard sale as a capital loss, thank you.