Oh, also, the wiki article you link to specifically says that most telephone systems in the world pass along all the bits in the sample, so I'm not wrong for most of the world;)
Ok, allow me to clarify: According to my networking class at the university, phone systems are designed to do what I described earlier. Individual phone systems may not actually be implemented that way, but they were originally designed that way.
Anything you do on anyone else's property loses the expectation of privacy. The phone network is, legally, the phone company's property. The ISP's network is, legally, the ISP's property.
While I agree with you that perhaps the telecoms shouldn't actually own the networks since taxpayers helped build them, legally they do, so whatever happens on their network is theirs.
I'm not trying to say I think telecoms should be allowed to do whatever they want, I'm only trying to point out that saying "I should be allowed privacy" is not going to get anyone a victory in court, since legally there is no expectation or indication of privacy from the network owner, and that legally they can do pretty much whatever they want to the packets on their network (assuming no breach of contract or misrepresentation of services has occurred).
What this means is two things. First, that the law needs to be changed. Second, that the method of attack on the current law must be based on something other than privacy. I believe I mentioned what that attack vector could be: "The service agreement as signed implied impartial packet routing and transmission, but they're not doing that."
I hate to be the guy that nitpicks over something trivial, but phone systems are designed to give constant bandwidth to a phone call, so the quality can neither improve nor degrade... That's why you occasionally get "The network is busy, please try again later" messages when you try to make a call... the phone system can't establish a circuit for you.
But to comment on "Do they also listen to my phone calls", I'd have to say "yes and no". Phone companies monitor their networks, and may monitor calls carried on their network - it is their network, after all, and you give up your right to privacy (at least privacy from the phone company) if you use their network for a phone call.
I hate to side with telecoms on anything, but in this case I think I need to - as long as people sign up to use a service on company X's network, company X can do whatever they want with the packets that find their way on to the network (provided that no false advertisements, misrepresentations, or contract breaches occur).
In the case of Bell Canada, I think the most-likely-to-succeed attack vector would be "the service agreement as signed implied impartial packet routing and transmission, but they're not doing that", not "OH NOES THEY'RE IN UR PACKETS LOOKIN AT UR PRON".
I worked for a manager for a while who has had some problems with agile development. He stressed constantly that Scrum was the way things were to be done, but often his behavior contradicted that. One day, he arbitrarily decided something that all of his employees as well as *his* boss thought was inappropriate - the boss' comment was "That's not how Scrum works."
The manager's response? "Fine, then we're not doing Scrum for this task."
My observation, in retrospect, is that Scrum and similar systems only succeed if all the people involved are actually going to work by it.
And I want to quote one of the original post's articles, because it has been completely true in my experience:
But because Scrum works in short cycles and doesn't include any engineering practices, it's very easy for teams using Scrum to throw out design. Up-front design doesn't work when you're using short cycles, and Scrum doesn't provide a replacement.
The same manager has problems letting his employees spend time actually designing things for the long-term. One project in particular was completely rewritten (starting from scratch) four times simply because the manager actively refused to plan ahead more than one Scrum iteration. If that weren't bad enough, the results were entirely his fault because he did not share information only he was privy to that would have eliminated the need to rewrite the project in the first place.
Anyway, I completely agree with composer777 when he says "It's not going to replace lack of talent, lack of planning, or not knowing what the true costs of things are. I think many people in management have taken in only the parts that they want to hear, and ignored the rest."
Of course, better yet, they could just run OSs that don't need anti-virus programs...
If everyone switches to OS X (for example), it won't be too long before we see just as many viruses for OS X as we see for Windows. If you believe otherwise, you don't understand why there are so many viruses for Windows - it's not because Windows is more insecure, it's because Windows is on a great majority of end-user computers.
There are already antivirus programs available for both Linux and OS X; just because they're not necessary right now doesn't mean they won't be necessary in five or ten years.
I, for one, am happy to let Windows stay on top, just so malware authors don't bother to target Linux and OS X machines.
If you read the summary, it quotes the new law which specifically says the notices received by the schools must be "legally valid". I would surmise that if any Tennessee schools want to fight the RIAA, that's the basis they'll use.
Funny you say that, because a few minutes ago I was thinking "the first few seasons of DS9 were good, but it went downhill from there..."
You know, one of the things that's funny about Star Trek in general is that people like the most random pieces of the series, and there doesn't seem to be a pattern...
I compared the restrictions of using proprietary software to the restrictions of living in society. There are rules imposed, but that doesn't detract from our freedom.
Linux and other free software does not impose restrictions on the use of the software, and therefore the analogy I provided is simply not applicable.
I wasn't saying it's the right model - in fact I specifically pointed out that the model was flawed. Way to ignore my point.
My point was that comparing software to physical products is simply wrong, since they are fundamentally different, and therefore we need another business model for software.
I wasn't talking about licenses, I was talking about business models... and in any case having a proprietary license was sort of implied by the context.
In fact I acknowledged that I had a flawed business model - that was sort of my point. Read the last line of what I wrote. Calling me an idiot just shows that you missed my point:P
In any case, several of your suggestions have merit.
Try being an IT guy at a small software shop filled with semi-competent developers. Some of them use 64-bit Vista, some of them use 32-bit XP. I'm extremely tired of the differences and unique bugs for each version of software. For instance, I was informed this morning that TortoiseSVN (64-bit) seems to be hanging on one machine. 32-bit Tortoise doesn't even run on 64-bit Windows - so I'm stuck.
Wait a minute...Dell (and HP, and Lenovo, and Toshiba, ad infinitum) already tell me what software I can run on my new computer. And that's always Windows.
Dell - Ubuntu and FreeDOS (they also offer Solaris, Red Hat and SUSE on their servers)
You're trying to equate a physical product model with a software product model. The comparison is fundamentally flawed because the two models are fundamentally different.
If I, as a developer, spend several years developing WidgetDesigner, and then I sell a copy of WidgetDesigner to you for $50, is it fair to me if you go and give every other person in the world a copy of my software at no charge? I can't sell any other copies, because everyone already has a free copy - I will have then earned $50 for several man-years of work.
In no other industry does anyone call this fair (besides, I suppose, the music industry for some reason). It's ridiculous to say it's fair in the software (or music) industry.
What we need is a different model for software (and music) distribution and sales. I don't have any ideas, but I can still call you out on flawed comparisons.
I choose to use Windows because I like playing games, and I work on a few open source (!) Windows apps/libraries. It is a conscious choice that necessitates certain restrictions.
It's the same as life in general. If you want to stay out of jail, that necessitates obeying your country's laws (ignoring the whole "don't get caught" thing). That doesn't mean you're not free to kill someone - to the contrary, you're quite free to kill whomever you wish.
The freedom to control consequences is not a prerequisite for the freedom to choose.
Software is the same way in many respects. While you are free to use Microsoft Word in whatever way you wish, you are not free to disassemble it - and that is something you consciously agree to when you install the software. Any claims that it is not a choice are ridiculous.
If you don't like the terms of use of proprietary software, don't use it. That, in and of itself, is an exercise of your freedom to choose.
Having to support two versions of libraries on a single system is a logistical nightmare in many cases (think: clueless users, businesses, etc), at least when you're trying to keep things as bug-free as possible.
It's not as simple as "latest or older". Various reviews I've read (here on slashdot, even) say that 8.10 is slower in some ways than 7.10, so if that were true, why would I want 8.10?
Yes yes I know, security patches etc., but from an end-user's standpoint, all they care about is "faster".
AVG was run first (it was already installed), so I have no evidence to suggest Avast is actually superior in detection ability other than the fact that it detected several viruses that AVG did not detect. But like I said, YMMV.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, also, the wiki article you link to specifically says that most telephone systems in the world pass along all the bits in the sample, so I'm not wrong for most of the world ;)
Ok, allow me to clarify: According to my networking class at the university, phone systems are designed to do what I described earlier. Individual phone systems may not actually be implemented that way, but they were originally designed that way.
Anything you do on anyone else's property loses the expectation of privacy. The phone network is, legally, the phone company's property. The ISP's network is, legally, the ISP's property.
While I agree with you that perhaps the telecoms shouldn't actually own the networks since taxpayers helped build them, legally they do, so whatever happens on their network is theirs.
I'm not trying to say I think telecoms should be allowed to do whatever they want, I'm only trying to point out that saying "I should be allowed privacy" is not going to get anyone a victory in court, since legally there is no expectation or indication of privacy from the network owner, and that legally they can do pretty much whatever they want to the packets on their network (assuming no breach of contract or misrepresentation of services has occurred).
What this means is two things. First, that the law needs to be changed. Second, that the method of attack on the current law must be based on something other than privacy. I believe I mentioned what that attack vector could be: "The service agreement as signed implied impartial packet routing and transmission, but they're not doing that."
Disclaimer: IANAL, but I like to pretend I am ;)
I hate to be the guy that nitpicks over something trivial, but phone systems are designed to give constant bandwidth to a phone call, so the quality can neither improve nor degrade... That's why you occasionally get "The network is busy, please try again later" messages when you try to make a call... the phone system can't establish a circuit for you.
But to comment on "Do they also listen to my phone calls", I'd have to say "yes and no". Phone companies monitor their networks, and may monitor calls carried on their network - it is their network, after all, and you give up your right to privacy (at least privacy from the phone company) if you use their network for a phone call.
I hate to side with telecoms on anything, but in this case I think I need to - as long as people sign up to use a service on company X's network, company X can do whatever they want with the packets that find their way on to the network (provided that no false advertisements, misrepresentations, or contract breaches occur).
In the case of Bell Canada, I think the most-likely-to-succeed attack vector would be "the service agreement as signed implied impartial packet routing and transmission, but they're not doing that", not "OH NOES THEY'RE IN UR PACKETS LOOKIN AT UR PRON".
I worked for a manager for a while who has had some problems with agile development. He stressed constantly that Scrum was the way things were to be done, but often his behavior contradicted that. One day, he arbitrarily decided something that all of his employees as well as *his* boss thought was inappropriate - the boss' comment was "That's not how Scrum works."
The manager's response? "Fine, then we're not doing Scrum for this task."
My observation, in retrospect, is that Scrum and similar systems only succeed if all the people involved are actually going to work by it.
And I want to quote one of the original post's articles, because it has been completely true in my experience:
But because Scrum works in short cycles and doesn't include any engineering practices, it's very easy for teams using Scrum to throw out design. Up-front design doesn't work when you're using short cycles, and Scrum doesn't provide a replacement.
The same manager has problems letting his employees spend time actually designing things for the long-term. One project in particular was completely rewritten (starting from scratch) four times simply because the manager actively refused to plan ahead more than one Scrum iteration. If that weren't bad enough, the results were entirely his fault because he did not share information only he was privy to that would have eliminated the need to rewrite the project in the first place.
Anyway, I completely agree with composer777 when he says "It's not going to replace lack of talent, lack of planning, or not knowing what the true costs of things are. I think many people in management have taken in only the parts that they want to hear, and ignored the rest."
We used to run NOD32 at work and we all hated it... we felt like it hogged resources, actually.
Of course, better yet, they could just run OSs that don't need anti-virus programs...
If everyone switches to OS X (for example), it won't be too long before we see just as many viruses for OS X as we see for Windows. If you believe otherwise, you don't understand why there are so many viruses for Windows - it's not because Windows is more insecure, it's because Windows is on a great majority of end-user computers.
There are already antivirus programs available for both Linux and OS X; just because they're not necessary right now doesn't mean they won't be necessary in five or ten years.
I, for one, am happy to let Windows stay on top, just so malware authors don't bother to target Linux and OS X machines.
You don't bother reading other responses, do you?
If you read the summary, it quotes the new law which specifically says the notices received by the schools must be "legally valid". I would surmise that if any Tennessee schools want to fight the RIAA, that's the basis they'll use.
So you're saying the mafia/mob/etc's loan payment enforcement tactics are legal, because they get people to pay up.
I think he was talking about making a new series.
Funny you say that, because a few minutes ago I was thinking "the first few seasons of DS9 were good, but it went downhill from there..."
You know, one of the things that's funny about Star Trek in general is that people like the most random pieces of the series, and there doesn't seem to be a pattern...
What? That doesn't follow at all.
I compared the restrictions of using proprietary software to the restrictions of living in society. There are rules imposed, but that doesn't detract from our freedom.
Linux and other free software does not impose restrictions on the use of the software, and therefore the analogy I provided is simply not applicable.
I wasn't saying it's the right model - in fact I specifically pointed out that the model was flawed. Way to ignore my point.
My point was that comparing software to physical products is simply wrong, since they are fundamentally different, and therefore we need another business model for software.
I agree with you completely.
I wasn't talking about licenses, I was talking about business models... and in any case having a proprietary license was sort of implied by the context.
In fact I acknowledged that I had a flawed business model - that was sort of my point. Read the last line of what I wrote. Calling me an idiot just shows that you missed my point :P
In any case, several of your suggestions have merit.
Try being an IT guy at a small software shop filled with semi-competent developers. Some of them use 64-bit Vista, some of them use 32-bit XP. I'm extremely tired of the differences and unique bugs for each version of software. For instance, I was informed this morning that TortoiseSVN (64-bit) seems to be hanging on one machine. 32-bit Tortoise doesn't even run on 64-bit Windows - so I'm stuck.
Wait a minute...Dell (and HP, and Lenovo, and Toshiba, ad infinitum) already tell me what software I can run on my new computer. And that's always Windows.
That's just with ten minutes of googling. I'm sure you could do better with more time.
You're trying to equate a physical product model with a software product model. The comparison is fundamentally flawed because the two models are fundamentally different.
If I, as a developer, spend several years developing WidgetDesigner, and then I sell a copy of WidgetDesigner to you for $50, is it fair to me if you go and give every other person in the world a copy of my software at no charge? I can't sell any other copies, because everyone already has a free copy - I will have then earned $50 for several man-years of work.
In no other industry does anyone call this fair (besides, I suppose, the music industry for some reason). It's ridiculous to say it's fair in the software (or music) industry.
What we need is a different model for software (and music) distribution and sales. I don't have any ideas, but I can still call you out on flawed comparisons.
I choose to use Windows because I like playing games, and I work on a few open source (!) Windows apps/libraries. It is a conscious choice that necessitates certain restrictions.
It's the same as life in general. If you want to stay out of jail, that necessitates obeying your country's laws (ignoring the whole "don't get caught" thing). That doesn't mean you're not free to kill someone - to the contrary, you're quite free to kill whomever you wish.
The freedom to control consequences is not a prerequisite for the freedom to choose.
Software is the same way in many respects. While you are free to use Microsoft Word in whatever way you wish, you are not free to disassemble it - and that is something you consciously agree to when you install the software. Any claims that it is not a choice are ridiculous.
If you don't like the terms of use of proprietary software, don't use it. That, in and of itself, is an exercise of your freedom to choose.
Having to support two versions of libraries on a single system is a logistical nightmare in many cases (think: clueless users, businesses, etc), at least when you're trying to keep things as bug-free as possible.
I really don't think his point was to point out a parallel to a real-life minority... He just wanted to call Harry Potter gay.
It's not as simple as "latest or older". Various reviews I've read (here on slashdot, even) say that 8.10 is slower in some ways than 7.10, so if that were true, why would I want 8.10?
Yes yes I know, security patches etc., but from an end-user's standpoint, all they care about is "faster".
AVG was run first (it was already installed), so I have no evidence to suggest Avast is actually superior in detection ability other than the fact that it detected several viruses that AVG did not detect. But like I said, YMMV.