They don't have to filter, they've made it illegal to own. It's just another thing for the police to fish for. The police will seize computer equipment in the UK on the slightest pretext, that way they can scour it for material glorifying terrorism, banner ads with dodgy content, copyrighted materials, and now "extreme" porn, it's so much easier to get convictions this way and you know what convictions mean? Prizes!
And had it been created privately, from grass roots, by individuals setting up ever expanding links. Connecting networks into larger and larger networks, would the internet be worse, or better? Would we be even thinking about net neutrality?
Gore may have been instrumental in the internet being the shape it is today, but he was not instrumental in it's creation. We can't even say it's better this way, we just don't know.
Would widely diverse cheap/free music being available to teenagers at the tips of their fingers destroy this demographic? Could that be their real fear?
We also don't see mandatory quarantine for anyone entering hospital, or the kind of tough cleaning regimes the food industry has to deal with in hospitals. What we do see is emails being intercepted, computer seized, stop and search and a whole raft other measures to prevent a minor problem.
If you could hook up a blue box to your call forwarder (and live in the telephonic stone age), you could make them call themselves after routing the call around the world with a latency of about 30 seconds:-)
You say these things like they work. I'm in the UK and recruiters are the new land sharks over here, they will simply not take "Piss off I don't want to talk to you" for an answer.
To those of us who do productive things for a living, any unsolicited call is an inconvenience, having to set up systems to intercept call before they get through is a waste of time.
First, in answer to your last point, the vulnerability that an admin user could get request headers is silly. An admin user could get a hell of a lot more than that from traffic sent to their server without even installing a webserver.
A key word in your post is 'public'. An vulnerability in an open source product is much more likely to become public, for simple reasons that it's uneconomical for proprietary vendors to publicise vulnerabilities they've found. So as a metric of security, public vulnerabilities are a pretty poor one.
And did you read the Apache vulnerability you posted? You had to have a specific arrangement of script alias and document root, as opposed to the default one.
I would like to make it clear that I don't think that Apache is more secure because it's open source, and IIS is insecure because it's MS. But I do believe this is insufficient evidence for anything.
The only useful metric of security is exploitations per installation time (i.e. how many installations * average time up). Unfortunately we're never going to get that data. A security advisory is a public disclosure of a vulnerability, this is going to happen more often for open source projects than closed ones for two reasons: 1) You can see the source. 2) Open source projects like Apache are community efforts, which will increase the ratio of good guys to bad guys looking at the code. A public vuln usually indicates a fixed vuln. When the vulnerabilities posted are really silly, like the one I mentioned, advisory count is an even sillier metric. How many of Apache's priv. escalations escalate you to nobody?
Hitler's foreign policy was pretty successful, for a while at least. When looked at from an Aryan supremacist point of view.
There I've done it, I've invoked Godwins law. Now will you all just get over yourselves.
Taking land and property = bad Killing people to express dissatisfaction with land grabs = bad Killing people to express dissatisfaction with people killing people to express dissatisfaction with land grabs = bad
"According to eyewitnesses, one of the soldiers' stray, indiscriminate bullets found its way at Katouni's back just to hit the head of the unborn baby boy."
Well that's ok then. If I fired indiscriminately and one of my stray bullets hit you, you'd be fine with that?
Sheesh, don't they teach kids that "Two wrongs don't make a right" anywhere outside of Yorkshire?
Well the MS ones are along the lines of: the default config is vulnerable (with one arbitrary code execution), and the Apache ones are more like: if the config is really weird and the moon is just right you might be able to DOS it.
Also of course, fewer advisories doesn't mean less secure. Hell, one of the Apache vulnerabilities is that a local admin user can get information about the request headers sent to the server.
The whole point of SSL is that you can trust it on a completely untrusted network. If the signature validates it doesn't matter if every person in the world has had a chance to inspect and rewrite your packets, the data is secure.
However I agree that it doesn't seem to get much/any advantage over multicast. A better strategy might be for ISPs to simply lift bandwidth caps on traffic that doesn't leave their network. Bittorrent would scream on a network like that, while the traffic ISPs pay for (i.e. that which leaves their network upstream) is likely to decline.
Sorry, you're still stuck in the proprietary model. In the open source model, the goods are the work done in creating the product not the product itself.
I work for a company that runs a website, we make no money from proprietary sales. The author has simply failed to realise that shrink wrap vendors are not the whole world.
Without more context it's hard to say if he's overstepping the bounds of commonly accepted political discourse. But if your phrasing of the second part, i.e. "... who perhaps doesn't want to commit a terrorist act?" is accurate (and I assume it is), the statement sounds more like sinister rhetoric than genuine pragmatism. If it were something more like ".. who will not commit a terrorist act?" it would set off fewer alarm bells in my head.
However, I am firmly opposed to the notion he's espousing, if we're fighting against evil monsters who want to destroy our way of life, turning into evil monsters and destroying our own way of life is not the best way to go about it.
Although it's badly translated and therefore hard to pick out the nuance, it looks a little fishy. Yes if someone has a gun pointed at someone, you don't wait until after the trial to disarm him. However if there is a suspicion of a threat, do you run out and grab everyone who might be involved? How long do you hold them? It's this kind of thinking that can lead to a police state. It's almost exactly how Stalin operated.
Without access to a proper translation it's impossible to say how far he goes in this statement though.
Sorry, but like all photographers who make this argument, you lose. If you put something on the web you've lost it, "information wants to be free" is not a rallying cry for digital piracy, it's a simple statement that it's really easy to copy data. Doesn't matter about the law, doesn't matter about rights, if you want exclusive control over your data, do not put it on the web. The web is there to grease the motion of data.
Of course if copyright was still there to ensure that works of art were properly attributed, as opposed to fill the coffers of large companies, putting things on the web would be safer. But it's not, so it isn't.
I think the key point was the shear level of defensiveness the CoS was willing to show. Can you imagine having some nut-job in a suit following around reporters investigating the Catholic church, constantly getting in their way and causing trouble?
If it's true they should have been able to report on it with impunity. The problem was they backed down, can you imagine what it would be like if the beeb made full use of position in a fight like that?
I can only hope they tear the CoS a new arsehole.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't have to filter, they've made it illegal to own. It's just another thing for the police to fish for. The police will seize computer equipment in the UK on the slightest pretext, that way they can scour it for material glorifying terrorism, banner ads with dodgy content, copyrighted materials, and now "extreme" porn, it's so much easier to get convictions this way and you know what convictions mean? Prizes!
And had it been created privately, from grass roots, by individuals setting up ever expanding links. Connecting networks into larger and larger networks, would the internet be worse, or better? Would we be even thinking about net neutrality?
Gore may have been instrumental in the internet being the shape it is today, but he was not instrumental in it's creation. We can't even say it's better this way, we just don't know.
Can you delete your /. posts?
Who said you could look at that? You're violating their privacy. I hereby give you the worst rating ever for privacy; a DOUBLE black mark.
Doesn't seem to apply to software unfortunately, see Q6 in: http://www.dti.gov.uk/consumers/fact-sheets/page38 608.html
Would widely diverse cheap/free music being available to teenagers at the tips of their fingers destroy this demographic? Could that be their real fear?
We also don't see mandatory quarantine for anyone entering hospital, or the kind of tough cleaning regimes the food industry has to deal with in hospitals. What we do see is emails being intercepted, computer seized, stop and search and a whole raft other measures to prevent a minor problem.
If you could hook up a blue box to your call forwarder (and live in the telephonic stone age), you could make them call themselves after routing the call around the world with a latency of about 30 seconds :-)
You say these things like they work. I'm in the UK and recruiters are the new land sharks over here, they will simply not take "Piss off I don't want to talk to you" for an answer.
To those of us who do productive things for a living, any unsolicited call is an inconvenience, having to set up systems to intercept call before they get through is a waste of time.
First, in answer to your last point, the vulnerability that an admin user could get request headers is silly. An admin user could get a hell of a lot more than that from traffic sent to their server without even installing a webserver.
A key word in your post is 'public'. An vulnerability in an open source product is much more likely to become public, for simple reasons that it's uneconomical for proprietary vendors to publicise vulnerabilities they've found. So as a metric of security, public vulnerabilities are a pretty poor one.
And did you read the Apache vulnerability you posted? You had to have a specific arrangement of script alias and document root, as opposed to the default one.
I would like to make it clear that I don't think that Apache is more secure because it's open source, and IIS is insecure because it's MS. But I do believe this is insufficient evidence for anything.
http://secunia.com/advisories/21006/ http://secunia.com/advisories/12801/ http://secunia.com/advisories/11563/ all with default config. Unless you count actually putting content on your site as changing it's config.
/6/ remember) you get 3 vulnerabilities. http://secunia.com/product/9633/
The only useful metric of security is exploitations per installation time (i.e. how many installations * average time up). Unfortunately we're never going to get that data. A security advisory is a public disclosure of a vulnerability, this is going to happen more often for open source projects than closed ones for two reasons: 1) You can see the source. 2) Open source projects like Apache are community efforts, which will increase the ratio of good guys to bad guys looking at the code. A public vuln usually indicates a fixed vuln. When the vulnerabilities posted are really silly, like the one I mentioned, advisory count is an even sillier metric. How many of Apache's priv. escalations escalate you to nobody?
Even given this, when you limit to Apache 2.2.x (IIS
In point one, you forgot homosexuals. Who after the allies won, weren't allowed to count their time in concentration camps against their 'crimes'.
BTW, anyone have accurate numbers for the numbers of Gypsies killed by the Nazis?
Hitler's foreign policy was pretty successful, for a while at least. When looked at from an Aryan supremacist point of view.
There I've done it, I've invoked Godwins law. Now will you all just get over yourselves.
Taking land and property = bad
Killing people to express dissatisfaction with land grabs = bad
Killing people to express dissatisfaction with people killing people to express dissatisfaction with land grabs = bad
Do you understand yet?
"According to eyewitnesses, one of the soldiers' stray, indiscriminate bullets found its way at Katouni's back just to hit the head of the unborn baby boy."
Well that's ok then. If I fired indiscriminately and one of my stray bullets hit you, you'd be fine with that?
Sheesh, don't they teach kids that "Two wrongs don't make a right" anywhere outside of Yorkshire?
Well the MS ones are along the lines of: the default config is vulnerable (with one arbitrary code execution), and the Apache ones are more like: if the config is really weird and the moon is just right you might be able to DOS it.
Also of course, fewer advisories doesn't mean less secure. Hell, one of the Apache vulnerabilities is that a local admin user can get information about the request headers sent to the server.
The whole point of SSL is that you can trust it on a completely untrusted network. If the signature validates it doesn't matter if every person in the world has had a chance to inspect and rewrite your packets, the data is secure.
However I agree that it doesn't seem to get much/any advantage over multicast. A better strategy might be for ISPs to simply lift bandwidth caps on traffic that doesn't leave their network. Bittorrent would scream on a network like that, while the traffic ISPs pay for (i.e. that which leaves their network upstream) is likely to decline.
Er, they seem to be talking about a replacement for IP. You know IP right? It's connectionless.
Sorry, you're still stuck in the proprietary model. In the open source model, the goods are the work done in creating the product not the product itself.
I work for a company that runs a website, we make no money from proprietary sales. The author has simply failed to realise that shrink wrap vendors are not the whole world.
Without more context it's hard to say if he's overstepping the bounds of commonly accepted political discourse. But if your phrasing of the second part, i.e. "... who perhaps doesn't want to commit a terrorist act?" is accurate (and I assume it is), the statement sounds more like sinister rhetoric than genuine pragmatism. If it were something more like ".. who will not commit a terrorist act?" it would set off fewer alarm bells in my head.
However, I am firmly opposed to the notion he's espousing, if we're fighting against evil monsters who want to destroy our way of life, turning into evil monsters and destroying our own way of life is not the best way to go about it.
If anyone reading this is a game designer, please, for the love of His Noodley Appendage, listen to this guy.
Also, if I want a story I'll read a book or watch a film. If I want to play, I'll play a game. Stop trying to make me do both.
Although it's badly translated and therefore hard to pick out the nuance, it looks a little fishy. Yes if someone has a gun pointed at someone, you don't wait until after the trial to disarm him. However if there is a suspicion of a threat, do you run out and grab everyone who might be involved? How long do you hold them? It's this kind of thinking that can lead to a police state. It's almost exactly how Stalin operated.
Without access to a proper translation it's impossible to say how far he goes in this statement though.
Sorry, but like all photographers who make this argument, you lose. If you put something on the web you've lost it, "information wants to be free" is not a rallying cry for digital piracy, it's a simple statement that it's really easy to copy data. Doesn't matter about the law, doesn't matter about rights, if you want exclusive control over your data, do not put it on the web. The web is there to grease the motion of data. Of course if copyright was still there to ensure that works of art were properly attributed, as opposed to fill the coffers of large companies, putting things on the web would be safer. But it's not, so it isn't.
I think the key point was the shear level of defensiveness the CoS was willing to show. Can you imagine having some nut-job in a suit following around reporters investigating the Catholic church, constantly getting in their way and causing trouble?
If it's true they should have been able to report on it with impunity. The problem was they backed down, can you imagine what it would be like if the beeb made full use of position in a fight like that? I can only hope they tear the CoS a new arsehole.