False. Patents are for specific implementations, not ideas.
"A patent cannot be obtained on a mere idea or suggestion. " USPTO.
Looking through the Patent DB (oh the irony), you'll find many implementations of the same deda, all patented (at one point).
Please, if you make post a post with the title "Living in a Fact free world" on/., the least you coudl do is to follow the/. tradition and counter the topic line.;)
I expect to see a lot more of this happening, especially as more and more software development is shipped overseas to countries that don't have a long tradition of IP protection.
There are too many addresses. There are 16.7 million addresses per square metre of the earth's surface, including the oceans. This is overkill. The world does not need more than the 4 billion addresses available with IPv4, and I challenge you to come up with an application that requires that many. Assuming that you can actually come up with one, it could easily be solved with Network Address Translation, or NAT as it is commonly known.
Regarding 1: as someone else has said, that is an implementation issue, not a fault of the protocol itself. if Cisco fails to scale with the tech and times, they will be replaced.
Regarding 2: Either your scope is far too limited, or you simply are not very creative. When considering usage of IP space you must go beyond the technical to the social. Therein you will find problems and uses that can easily exhaust the 4 billion addresses.
Routing consumes IP addreses. Depending on how the IP blocks are distributed (subnetted) you can lose up to 25% of available "space".
As more people come on line applications not realistic in today's climate will as well. VOIP doesn't work so well when you can't contact the other IP because it sits behind a NAT box. If 2 billion people have 1 phone with VOIP, that would account for 2 billion addresses. All on it's own. Yes, eventually we are more than likely to see phones w/IP addresses. As voice and data merge in that arena, it will be in the interest of the service providers to move to a single unit ID: i.e. just a number, not a phone number, hardware number, etc.. This means it is likely closer than any of us realize.
This brings up another, more pressing drive in IPv6. The routing possibilities that are not there for IPv4. under IPv4 I can't take my IP with me to Singapore, for example. Heck I can't even take it next door to my neighbor's house. IPv6 has that capability in it. Even 1 billion people using VOIP on mobile phones would crush the existing infrastructure (but not because of IP space). Add to that laptops, PDAs, agents, and automobiles, and you rapidly see that 4B IPs is far from enough in the future. One of your inabilities to see the problem is you appear to be looking for a single application that will consume that space, not multiples.
As deployment of phones, mobile computing systems infrastructure monitoring (there are approximately 10+million miles of power infrastructure alone that could use some good monitoring, which can consume lots of IP space as well), increased WiFi hotspots to cover significant portions of the inhabited land, all eat into space.
NAT is not a solution for it falls flat in many ways. Self-discovery, auto-discovery or even guided discovery become impossible to do when multiple machines behind a NAT box need a specific port. further, when the machines need to be able to be contacted directly, NAT is a poor, if workable at all, solution.
Back to the social, the more scarce a resource is the more costly it will be and the more people will try to hang on to them. By increasing the space, we decrease the scarcity. Surely you've taken a decent econ class, right? If there are too many IPs, we wouldn't see hoarding and th costs of having an IP would be less.
If I were you, I would not assume the sole benefit to IPv6 is the size of the address space.
Regarding 3: So what if the tables are bigger, if as is the case, they are faster than IPv4 routing. In an increasingly connected world, the problem is the routing issue and the speed of routing, not the size one particular portion of the whole. Take, for example, autos. A car is X fast and weighs Y pounds. Add a bigger engine that makes the weight Y+15 and now the car is slower right? Not if the power increase is enough to accommodate the weight, in fact in many cases it may even be faster.
IPv6 routing lookups that are faster are using a different technology for the hardware that has a high chance of lowering cost. It is folly to assume that tomorrow's stuff will look, work,
Why do you take the posting of a Python Conference as an attempt to get you to switch? Some of us happen to feel quite secure in our choices and don't take the success of other languages as a threat or conversion attempt. You should try it sometime, where "it" is being confident and secure in your own choices.
"""
We applaud the hackers who so cleverly get around protections on technology. We had our "Free Kevin Mitnick" and "Free Dmitry" campaigns. """
Did either of them have the ability to stick you in jail for life, or shoot you for disagreeing with them? Did either of them wield the power of an Army, Air Force, and Navy? Did either of them posess nuclear weapons, command the attention of the press and so on?
Which group made the rules? Who watches the watchers?
First you'd have to wardrive around someplace you have no connections. Otherwise the FBI could simply round out all known crackers with connections to a geographical location.
ASSuming of course that you were a known cracker. Unknown crackers would not come up in the search.
Some of the wireless networks owners might have paid attention to the vehicle parked outside and tip off the FBI upon hearing of the compromise.
Not likely. Remember, Best Buy is a *store* there are people parked outside all the time. If you are talking about people with unsecured wilreless, they too are likely to not notice a car parked among many others. Further, step 5 prevents repeat sitting, so each message/exploit is conducted from a fresh location.
If Best Buy keeps server logs for a certain period of time they could mine them to find traces of intrusion attempts (assuming this guy wasn't bluffing).
According to the article, Best Buy claims no intrusion.
Actually courts have in fact held that web servers are in fact..wait for it.. put out there for public use when out on the internet. They've also held that anonymous ftp servers put on the net constitute public use meaning you can upload/download whatever you want to/from there and they can't nail you for using the resource.
A running car is not considered abandoned property, so you're correct there. but we are not talking about a running car, are we? If go down to a park and put up a swing, it is most certainly reasonable to assume people are free to swing on it. I if put a sign up, it is reasonable to expect people can read it.
If I put source code out under the GPL it is reasonable to expect people can download it and use it. Oh hi Daryl, didn't see you standing there!
I can photocopy a book I borrow from the library. The fact that the publisher failed to provide adequate security by printing books that can be photocopied does not make my actions legal.
How is photocopying the book illegal? Photcopying a book on loan from the library is not illegal. Oh did you mean to say photocopying it and then selling it? Well yes, that would be. But not merely photocopying it. Hell last library I went to had the photocopier right there. I could go in photocopy the book and never even check it out.
You assert to be a lawyer if I read your sig right. Given that you think the mere act of photocopying a book you have legally come into the possession of, I must assume that you are a lawyer for maybe the RIAA or the MPAA, or maybe even Disney or MS since they would agree with that statement (unless they were caught doing it, of course).;^D
I further suppose that if you were into trial law, you'd have to sue the library that made the book available, the photocopier company for making the tool, and the company that provided the copier, provided it wasn't in my home.
IT's like lock picking. IF you want to learn to pick a lock and find out its venurabilities, go right ahead. But do it on a lock you own.
But you'd best have the lock picking tools delivered to your house, becuase if they catch you carrying them home, they'll get you for possession of tools of burglary or whatever it is called in your jurisdiction.
First of all, do we know the individual in question came into the knowledge by doing a break in? How do we know he didn't discover it on accident?
Well we could READ THE ARTICLE where it says that Best Buy claims the man made no breaches, and where it says that he is charged with extortion, but does not say he is charged with breaking in. So, your ASSumption is unwarranted.
So lemme get this straight. Let us say I'm a newspaper delivery boy, and I toss the paper up to your doorstep. It hits the door and I notice the door moves, meaning the door is not secured. Nevermind your high tech lock, the friggin door is open.
Now, have I "hacked" your house? Nope. Have I done anything wrong? Nope. Let us say I have your work number on file, or know where you work. So I call you at work and tell you that I've noticed a problem with the security of your house and for 10 bucks I'll tell you what it is. Am I now a criminal, or someone who has noticed a problem and am looking to make a buck in return?
Maybe a different scenario to make you feel better? I'm coming to your house to do surveys, as I am doing to all the houses in your neighborhood. I come up to your door and ring the bell. You aren't home. While standing on the porch I notice your lock. I happen to know something about locks, and know that yours has a particularly nasty problem that has been discovered, making it easy to bypass.
Now, have I "hacked" your house? Nope. Have I done anything wrong? Nope. So I send you a letter or call you and leave a message informing you that I've found a problem with your home's security and in exchange for some money I'll help you out with correcting it.
Where is the problem? In fact this happens a lot. Many home security companies will do a visual lookover of a house and then approach the homeowner looking for a "business relationship".
How can this be done w/computers you so say? Easy. Webservers very very frequently give out what they are, their OS, what other software they run, their version (and patchlevel if apropos), the view source option can tell me things (and what I see there can be the problem), and sometimes even the URL can tell me that. Accidentally mistyping something in a field entry, etc.. Sometimes it is as simple as looking at the web page that says "Powered by FFOO verison XX.x" and knowing about that software.
And finally, get your facts straight about blackmail. It is not about what the blackmailer has done and is now demanding money for. Blackmail is knowing the TARGET has done something, knows something, is something/someone that the TARGET does not want known and demanding money in exchange for silence. Or, it's theatening the person with doing something IN THE FUTURE w/o payment. In all cases, blackmail is about FUTURE actions. Give me money or I WILL DO this. Maybe it's me but I don't see this as a successful blackmail attempt: "Hello, I exposed the fact that you've been having an affair for the last 3 years with your dog, now give me a million bucks!"
There is NO law against demanding money for something you've already done. Hell man, the phone company bills for services ALREADY RENDERED. So do the utilities and many other organizations/people. Late fees also fall into this category.
So I guess the lesson is if someone on here is your paper delivery or for some other reasons discovers something insecure about your house, not to mention it to you for fear of the charges that wil be forthcoming. Yup, better to leave your door open and let you deal with the consequences than deal with your "all of you are bad people" attitude.
So if your company provides web access via a proxy server, and you don't configure your email client (e.g. Outlook) to use the proxy server, then the email client only connects to the mail server.
Actually, I believe you set your "Internet Options" and everything that attempts to use the web uses the proxy, no per-application proxy settings.
The Mafia used terms like "protection" and "relationship", "family", "security", "paying your share" and others.
So does the government. Of course, the government make suse of "offers you can't refuse" like "give us a percent of your take, or... well you see I've got the guys with guns over here and we can 'go for a ride'".
If the government were serious about helping people, they wouldn't use terms, phrases and techniques the mafia used, right?
MS has been donating far longer than to the recent presidential campaign. In fact they have been the largest contributor in their field for many yeas, and in the top 3 for even longer.
MS got let of the hook not becuas eof their poltiical contributions, bt rather because there was no political drive once the government could declare victory to finish the job.
They also got let off the hook because nobody in government has the balls to do as they used to and revoke corporate charters over this crap.
Microsoft gives money to both sides, though they tend to give more to the democrats as I recall, Clinton got money, Gore got money, and Bush got money. I'll bet even McCain got some money.
MS seems to give to qwhomever is in office slightly more than who isn't. All during their trial, they gave MORE to Democrats than to Republicans. Yet, they still got went after. GO figure. Maybe that's why they flipped priorities in 98, and massively increased their efforts?
Maybe they realized the democrats were not their allies? It happens. My father swore he was a Republican for over 25 years. Then he learned more and realized he was a Democrat.
Haliburton is freaking huge, man. Do some homework. Haliburton and Bechtel both have done this before, they rebuilt the Kuwait fields after GWI. Hmmm might that play a part?? Out of Bechtel's 1.3 million in contributions, only 59% went to republicans.
Bechtel received an initial38+ Million dollar deal that can go up to 680Million or so. SOunds pretty good for them.
"""Bechtel Group Inc., the San Francisco-based engineering company, has been in the construction business for more than 100 years and has completed close to 20,000 projects in 140 countries."""
Furthermore, in most of those contracts, Haliburton is the only one submitting proposals and bids. Kinda hard to lose those when you are uncontested, no?
Abt Associates Inc. gave ZERO to the republicans, including Bush, yet got in on the deal. SkyLink Air and Logistic Support (USA) Inc. gave a mere 3900 or so total, of which 77% went to the repubs, and none to Bush, yet they got in on it too.
Many of the companies that got in gave very small sums, relatively speaking, and little if any to Bush's campaign.
According to opensecrets.org, Haliburton came in 12th in the Oil and gas top contributor for 2004, and not on the top list in 2000.
71 senators and 186 House members (43 percent) reported taking Enron cash over the last decade.
Does any conspiracy theory not get amplified by that tin-foil hat of yours?;)
Fortunately, some of us your our brain and realize that we are most likely to contribute to people we already agree with. We realize this is the most logical explanation: that people will give to who they agree with over those they don't agree with.
Of course, the stupid and asinine campaign finance laws screw the whole thing up anyway by muddying the waters with concrete dust.
But back to SCO, SCO doesn't donate much, not even in the top 20 for the industry. So your assertion that money will buy them off is bunk. Nor are they friends with anyone in the beltway.
It is likely they won't get nailed over it because there won't be anything left to nail.
Insightful my eye! Amtrak is run by the government. The problem isn't lack of government support, but he government support to begin with!
ge tit inot the private sector where it will have an incentive to make *people* happy, instead of just making a legislator happy by saying he brought jobs via Amtrak.
Only then will you see Amtrak be responsive, productive, and viable.
I beleive part of this is due to what you are wishing for.
You see, one thing about a republic is that each president is allowed to set their own foreign policy ideals.
Unlike countries where one ruler or family of rulers holds power for decades, each presidency has historically had it's own ideas on foreign policies.
While this has lead to an appearance of inconsistency when attempting to pigeon hole the US foreign policy arena, it provides great flexibility in providing for the capacity to change previous directions and correct what may be neede changes under a different world environment, politically speaking.
Whether the Domino Theory was correct or not, when the Cold War policies are examined under that way of thinking, the logic is clear.
If the primary goal is to prevent the domino-like fall of states to the communist government system, what the specific state does is only secondary. if the state has any strategic importance, the non-communist state's details are of even lesser importance.
To a certain extent, the domino theory was correct as applied to communism. Socialism and communism need an every growing *base* of resources as it destroys it's existing bases of resources attempting to maintain itself. It's woefully inefficient command economy based structure drives a mandate to conquer and obtain new resources. Preventing these resources from falling under communist control is an effective deterrent to communism's advance.
Realizing this it is not difficult to see why certain choices were made back then. While a communist world would eventually collapse, how many millions upon millions of people would have died in the process, and how many billions would have suffered?
I'm not justifying, condoning, nor apposing this mentality and strategy, merely pointing it out.
When the priority is no longer preventing the spread of Communism, the strategic and tactical consideration *must* change.
Many people, Americans and other, call foul on the issue w/Iraq using the slogan "but you supported him/it 20 years ago!". This is said as if to say we should support him/it now, or at the very least not oppose it.
In truth, the current administration was not in power 5, 10, 15, 20, or even 30 years ago, and thus not in a position to support or oppose military or CIA dealings (covert or otherwise) with the Afghanis, Iraqis, Iranians, etc., etc., etc..
That you should choose the piss on the parade in your past sentence that you proposed with the prior sentence is telling.
You accuse the Americans of having one blinded mentality, while brandishing your own. You believe that only you have the truth and that only your way is the best way; precisely what you accuse the US government and the American people of.
Even worse, you lay the "fault" of decision by people 10, 20, even 30 or 40 years ago at the feet of the current powers that be. This shows an endemic issue, as opposed to real analysis.
If we followed suit, we would have to "attack" the whole of Europe for it's prior issues. We would have to continually point out the demonstrated and undeniable imperialistic tendencies born of Europe, from Germany to Spain, and France as well. Or the support of international terrorists given by many of those same countries. Or the lack of resolve by the Eurpoean continent to resist or stop Hitler before he had managed to grow his empire to the point they could not resist.
We'd also have to say to you, why didn't your country go take care of Idi Amin? The United States cut off aid to Uganda in 1972 in protest at Amin's policies, which former US President Jimmy Carter said "disgusted the entire civilised world". The Brits followed the next year. The French was in deals with Amin for "parts for planes", the Soviets were there training his troops and providing equipment.
The Israelis, who initially supported his coup, were perhaps the mos tinstrumental in his defeat by conducting the raid they did to free their ho
I am not some self-righteous person that beleives I can make better decisions that the person that was elected to do so.
Does that include voting for or against them? Obviously if they are running for (re)election they've made the choice, who are you to disagree with them, right?
Always question, just don't let it be the questioning that is of paramount importance.
What are you talking about? The US government (despite trying desperately to do so) has found absoloutly no evidence that Saddam or the Iraqi government ever funded or consorted with Al Queda or any other "terrorist" group.
If you think otherwise, then please link to official government press releases/information So you only buy it if the government says it??
There hav ebeen quite a number of sources stating that SH gave money to terrorists, and even concocted a group to attack the US. The reason it wasn't made a big deal in the news is because they failed pretty badly.
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/iraq99 l. htm http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/Conti nuati on.htm
The allegations and evidence of an Iraq-Al Queada connection predate Bush by several years. dating back to at least pre-1997 when classified memos were declassified that spoke of these connections.
Spain and checkoslavakia have provided evidence of a direct connection between Iraqi officials and the 9/11 terrorists.
Beyond al queda, SH/Iraq has indeed supported terrorism, ranging from paying "bounties" to families of suicide terrorists, to the aforementioned embassy bombing attempts.
Some links for you to peruse: http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/ 030210fa_ fact http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2001/ht ml/102 49.htm "Iraq provided bases to several terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Abu Nidal organization (ANO). In 2001, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) raised its profile in the West Bank and Gaza Strip by carrying out successful terrorist attacks against Israeli targets. In recognition of the PFLP's growing role, an Iraqi Vice President met with former PFLP Secretary General Habbash in Baghdad in January 2001 and expressed continued Iraqi support for the intifadah. Also, in mid-September, a senior delegation from the PFLP met with an Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister. Baghdad also continued to host other Palestinian rejectionist groups, including the Arab Liberation Front, and the 15 May Organization.
Meanwhile, Czech police continued to provide protection to the Prague office of the US Government-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), which produces Radio Free Iraq programs and employs expatriate journalists. The police presence was augmented in 1999 and 2000, following reports that the Iraqi Intelligence Service might retaliate against RFE/RL for broadcasts critical of the Iraqi regime. As concerns over the facility's security mounted through 2000, the Czechs expelled an Iraqi intelligence officer in April 2001.
The Iraqi regime has not met a request from Riyadh for the extradition of two Saudis who had hijacked a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight to Baghdad in 2000. Disregarding its obligations under international law, the regime granted political asylum to the hijackers and gave them ample opportunity to voice their criticisms of alleged abuses by the Saudi Government in the Iraqi Government-controlled and international media."
This link does quite the job of documenting the various pieces of evidence: http://www.hereticalideas.com/archives/ 000106.html
http://blog.draga.com/archives/000044.html
This one is a short and a bit cryptic one involving Russia: http://www.bigpig.org/cgi-bin/pig.cgi?op= read&sid= 374
Now you have the opporuntity to do some reasearch, to read that which you assert does not exist. Whether you do or not, is a mark of your character and honesty.
Without passing a moral judgement on this... if the president of the US (pick one) said "we need to go over and start eliminating these ruthless dictators" they wouldn't stand for it.
All of the "it is about oil and nothing else" pleas have less evidence behind them than the evidence that Iraq was pursuing nuclear, biological, and/or chemical weapons.
Is that you are assuming an Iraqi Tribunal will follow American Law and codes. It will not, "rest assured".
If SH were to be tried by an American court system perhaps. But he will not be. And if you think that the Iraqis will be following our books, maybe you should consider applying for the job of Information Minister in the New Sadam Hussein Iraq, which will be carved out of equal portions of Iraq, Syria, Iran and Afghanistan.;^D
Slashdot Mirror
False. Patents are for specific implementations, not ideas.
"A patent cannot be obtained on a mere idea or suggestion. " USPTO.
Looking through the Patent DB (oh the irony), you'll find many implementations of the same deda, all patented (at one point).
Please, if you make post a post with the title "Living in a Fact free world" on
I expect to see a lot more of this happening, especially as more and more software development is shipped overseas to countries that don't have a long tradition of IP protection.
You mean like Redmond, WA?
There are too many addresses. There are 16.7 million addresses per square metre of the earth's surface, including the oceans. This is overkill. The world does not need more than the 4 billion addresses available with IPv4, and I challenge you to come up with an application that requires that many. Assuming that you can actually come up with one, it could easily be solved with Network Address Translation, or NAT as it is commonly known.
Regarding 1: as someone else has said, that is an implementation issue, not a fault of the protocol itself. if Cisco fails to scale with the tech and times, they will be replaced.
Regarding 2:
Either your scope is far too limited, or you simply are not very creative. When considering usage of IP space you must go beyond the technical to the social. Therein you will find problems and uses that can easily exhaust the 4 billion addresses.
Routing consumes IP addreses. Depending on how the IP blocks are distributed (subnetted) you can lose up to 25% of available "space".
As more people come on line applications not realistic in today's climate will as well. VOIP doesn't work so well when you can't contact the other IP because it sits behind a NAT box. If 2 billion people have 1 phone with VOIP, that would account for 2 billion addresses. All on it's own. Yes, eventually we are more than likely to see phones w/IP addresses. As voice and data merge in that arena, it will be in the interest of the service providers to move to a single unit ID: i.e. just a number, not a phone number, hardware number, etc.. This means it is likely closer than any of us realize.
This brings up another, more pressing drive in IPv6. The routing possibilities that are not there for IPv4. under IPv4 I can't take my IP with me to Singapore, for example. Heck I can't even take it next door to my neighbor's house. IPv6 has that capability in it. Even 1 billion people using VOIP on mobile phones would crush the existing infrastructure (but not because of IP space). Add to that laptops, PDAs, agents, and automobiles, and you rapidly see that 4B IPs is far from enough in the future. One of your inabilities to see the problem is you appear to be looking for a single application that will consume that space, not multiples.
As deployment of phones, mobile computing systems infrastructure monitoring (there are approximately 10+million miles of power infrastructure alone that could use some good monitoring, which can consume lots of IP space as well), increased WiFi hotspots to cover significant portions of the inhabited land, all eat into space.
NAT is not a solution for it falls flat in many ways. Self-discovery, auto-discovery or even guided discovery become impossible to do when multiple machines behind a NAT box need a specific port. further, when the machines need to be able to be contacted directly, NAT is a poor, if workable at all, solution.
Back to the social, the more scarce a resource is the more costly it will be and the more people will try to hang on to them. By increasing the space, we decrease the scarcity. Surely you've taken a decent econ class, right? If there are too many IPs, we wouldn't see hoarding and th costs of having an IP would be less.
If I were you, I would not assume the sole benefit to IPv6 is the size of the address space.
Regarding 3:
So what if the tables are bigger, if as is the case, they are faster than IPv4 routing. In an increasingly connected world, the problem is the routing issue and the speed of routing, not the size one particular portion of the whole. Take, for example, autos. A car is X fast and weighs Y pounds. Add a bigger engine that makes the weight Y+15 and now the car is slower right? Not if the power increase is enough to accommodate the weight, in fact in many cases it may even be faster.
IPv6 routing lookups that are faster are using a different technology for the hardware that has a high chance of lowering cost. It is folly to assume that tomorrow's stuff will look, work,
Everyone seems to be switching from Linux 2.4.x to 2.6.x
Now we're going from IPv4 to IPv6
What the fuck do you people have against the number 5?
You have to admit 5 is a pretty odd number.
I have never thought that Microsoft was a monopoly, but I am glad to see them get a little competition.
If there is no competition there is a monopoly. If you recognize the lack of options, you implicitly recognize the existence of a monopoly.
Except for GTK, ALL the Unix toolkits have a Windows version
I don't now about ALL, but GTK does in fact run on Windows.
Why do you take the posting of a Python Conference as an attempt to get you to switch? Some of us happen to feel quite secure in our choices and don't take the success of other languages as a threat or conversion attempt. You should try it sometime, where "it" is being confident and secure in your own choices.
"""
We applaud the hackers who so cleverly get around protections on technology. We had our "Free Kevin Mitnick" and "Free Dmitry" campaigns.
"""
Did either of them have the ability to stick you in jail for life, or shoot you for disagreeing with them? Did either of them wield the power of an Army, Air Force, and Navy? Did either of them posess nuclear weapons, command the attention of the press and so on?
Which group made the rules? Who watches the watchers?
"A witty saying proves nothing" --Voltaire.
First you'd have to wardrive around someplace you have no connections. Otherwise the FBI could simply round out all known crackers with connections to a geographical location.
ASSuming of course that you were a known cracker. Unknown crackers would not come up in the search.
Some of the wireless networks owners might have paid attention to the vehicle parked outside and tip off the FBI upon hearing of the compromise.
Not likely. Remember, Best Buy is a *store* there are people parked outside all the time. If you are talking about people with unsecured wilreless, they too are likely to not notice a car parked among many others. Further, step 5 prevents repeat sitting, so each message/exploit is conducted from a fresh location.
If Best Buy keeps server logs for a certain period of time they could mine them to find traces of intrusion attempts (assuming this guy wasn't bluffing).
According to the article, Best Buy claims no intrusion.
Actually courts have in fact held that web servers are in fact ..wait for it.. put out there for public use when out on the internet. They've also held that anonymous ftp servers put on the net constitute public use meaning you can upload/download whatever you want to/from there and they can't nail you for using the resource.
A running car is not considered abandoned property, so you're correct there. but we are not talking about a running car, are we? If go down to a park and put up a swing, it is most certainly reasonable to assume people are free to swing on it. I if put a sign up, it is reasonable to expect people can read it.
If I put source code out under the GPL it is reasonable to expect people can download it and use it. Oh hi Daryl, didn't see you standing there!
Remember that NSA still measure computing power in acres.
Which is so useful and needed in tracking down an email/IP path by using quantum chromodynamics instead of the ole web-bug and look at logs trick.
Actually, I'm pretty sure they measure it terms of GHz, GFlops, etc. just like the rest of us do.
I can photocopy a book I borrow from the library. The fact that the publisher failed to provide adequate security by printing books that can be photocopied does not make my actions legal.
;^D
How is photocopying the book illegal? Photcopying a book on loan from the library is not illegal. Oh did you mean to say photocopying it and then selling it? Well yes, that would be. But not merely photocopying it. Hell last library I went to had the photocopier right there. I could go in photocopy the book and never even check it out.
You assert to be a lawyer if I read your sig right. Given that you think the mere act of photocopying a book you have legally come into the possession of, I must assume that you are a lawyer for maybe the RIAA or the MPAA, or maybe even Disney or MS since they would agree with that statement (unless they were caught doing it, of course).
I further suppose that if you were into trial law, you'd have to sue the library that made the book available, the photocopier company for making the tool, and the company that provided the copier, provided it wasn't in my home.
Cheers
IT's like lock picking. IF you want to learn to pick a lock and find out its venurabilities, go right ahead. But do it on a lock you own.
But you'd best have the lock picking tools delivered to your house, becuase if they catch you carrying them home, they'll get you for possession of tools of burglary or whatever it is called in your jurisdiction.
First of all, do we know the individual in question came into the knowledge by doing a break in? How do we know he didn't discover it on accident?
Well we could READ THE ARTICLE where it says that Best Buy claims the man made no breaches, and where it says that he is charged with extortion, but does not say he is charged with breaking in. So, your ASSumption is unwarranted.
So lemme get this straight. Let us say I'm a newspaper delivery boy, and I toss the paper up to your doorstep. It hits the door and I notice the door moves, meaning the door is not secured. Nevermind your high tech lock, the friggin door is open.
Now, have I "hacked" your house? Nope. Have I done anything wrong? Nope. Let us say I have your work number on file, or know where you work. So I call you at work and tell you that I've noticed a problem with the security of your house and for 10 bucks I'll tell you what it is. Am I now a criminal, or someone who has noticed a problem and am looking to make a buck in return?
Maybe a different scenario to make you feel better? I'm coming to your house to do surveys, as I am doing to all the houses in your neighborhood.
I come up to your door and ring the bell. You aren't home. While standing on the porch I notice your lock. I happen to know something about locks, and know that yours has a particularly nasty problem that has been discovered, making it easy to bypass.
Now, have I "hacked" your house? Nope. Have I done anything wrong? Nope. So I send you a letter or call you and leave a message informing you that I've found a problem with your home's security and in exchange for some money I'll help you out with correcting it.
Where is the problem? In fact this happens a lot. Many home security companies will do a visual lookover of a house and then approach the homeowner looking for a "business relationship".
How can this be done w/computers you so say? Easy. Webservers very very frequently give out what they are, their OS, what other software they run, their version (and patchlevel if apropos), the view source option can tell me things (and what I see there can be the problem), and sometimes even the URL can tell me that. Accidentally mistyping something in a field entry, etc.. Sometimes it is as simple as looking at the web page that says "Powered by FFOO verison XX.x" and knowing about that software.
And finally, get your facts straight about blackmail. It is not about what the blackmailer has done and is now demanding money for. Blackmail is knowing the TARGET has done something, knows something, is something/someone that the TARGET does not want known and demanding money in exchange for silence. Or, it's theatening the person with doing something IN THE FUTURE w/o payment. In all cases, blackmail is about FUTURE actions. Give me money or I WILL DO this. Maybe it's me but I don't see this as a successful blackmail attempt:
"Hello, I exposed the fact that you've been having an affair for the last 3 years with your dog, now give me a million bucks!"
There is NO law against demanding money for something you've already done. Hell man, the phone company bills for services ALREADY RENDERED. So do the utilities and many other organizations/people. Late fees also fall into this category.
So I guess the lesson is if someone on here is your paper delivery or for some other reasons discovers something insecure about your house, not to mention it to you for fear of the charges that wil be forthcoming. Yup, better to leave your door open and let you deal with the consequences than deal with your "all of you are bad people" attitude.
So if your company provides web access via a proxy server, and you don't configure your email client (e.g. Outlook) to use the proxy server, then the email client only connects to the mail server.
Actually, I believe you set your "Internet Options" and everything that attempts to use the web uses the proxy, no per-application proxy settings.
The Mafia used terms like "protection" and "relationship", "family", "security", "paying your share" and others.
... well you see I've got the guys with guns over here and we can 'go for a ride'".
So does the government. Of course, the government make suse of "offers you can't refuse" like "give us a percent of your take, or
If the government were serious about helping people, they wouldn't use terms, phrases and techniques the mafia used, right?
The latter condition requires the government to stop being out to get them. ;^)
MS has been donating far longer than to the recent presidential campaign. In fact they have been the largest contributor in their field for many yeas, and in the top 3 for even longer.
;)
MS got let of the hook not becuas eof their poltiical contributions, bt rather because there was no political drive once the government could declare victory to finish the job.
They also got let off the hook because nobody in government has the balls to do as they used to and revoke corporate charters over this crap.
Microsoft gives money to both sides, though they tend to give more to the democrats as I recall, Clinton got money, Gore got money, and Bush got money. I'll bet even McCain got some money.
MS seems to give to qwhomever is in office slightly more than who isn't. All during their trial, they gave MORE to Democrats than to Republicans. Yet, they still got went after. GO figure. Maybe that's why they flipped priorities in 98, and massively increased their efforts?
Maybe they realized the democrats were not their allies? It happens. My father swore he was a Republican for over 25 years. Then he learned more and realized he was a Democrat.
Haliburton is freaking huge, man. Do some homework. Haliburton and Bechtel both have done this before, they rebuilt the Kuwait fields after GWI. Hmmm might that play a part?? Out of Bechtel's 1.3 million in contributions, only 59% went to republicans.
Bechtel received an initial38+ Million dollar deal that can go up to 680Million or so. SOunds pretty good for them.
"""Bechtel Group Inc., the San Francisco-based engineering company, has been in the construction business for more than 100 years and has completed close to 20,000 projects in 140 countries."""
Furthermore, in most of those contracts, Haliburton is the only one submitting proposals and bids. Kinda hard to lose those when you are uncontested, no?
Abt Associates Inc. gave ZERO to the republicans, including Bush, yet got in on the deal. SkyLink Air and Logistic Support (USA) Inc. gave a mere 3900 or so total, of which 77% went to the repubs, and none to Bush, yet they got in on it too.
Many of the companies that got in gave very small sums, relatively speaking, and little if any to Bush's campaign.
According to opensecrets.org, Haliburton came in 12th in the Oil and gas top contributor for 2004, and not on the top list in 2000.
71 senators and 186 House members (43 percent) reported taking Enron cash over the last decade.
Does any conspiracy theory not get amplified by that tin-foil hat of yours?
Fortunately, some of us your our brain and realize that we are most likely to contribute to people we already agree with. We realize this is the most logical explanation: that people will give to who they agree with over those they don't agree with.
Of course, the stupid and asinine campaign finance laws screw the whole thing up anyway by muddying the waters with concrete dust.
But back to SCO, SCO doesn't donate much, not even in the top 20 for the industry. So your assertion that money will buy them off is bunk. Nor are they friends with anyone in the beltway.
It is likely they won't get nailed over it because there won't be anything left to nail.
Not quite. You don't get the stability and security, or even the scalability of Unix/Linux. Nor do you get the scriptability.
Kinda like putting a Corvette steering wheel, along with the emblems and shifter onto a Ford Escort. It's still a Ford Escort.
Or like putting a giant wing, a fart can, and a bunch of stickers on your little old Civic. it still isn't a sports car.
Insightful my eye! Amtrak is run by the government. The problem isn't lack of government support, but he government support to begin with!
ge tit inot the private sector where it will have an incentive to make *people* happy, instead of just making a legislator happy by saying he brought jobs via Amtrak.
Only then will you see Amtrak be responsive, productive, and viable.
I beleive part of this is due to what you are wishing for.
You see, one thing about a republic is that each president is allowed to set their own foreign policy ideals.
Unlike countries where one ruler or family of rulers holds power for decades, each presidency has historically had it's own ideas on foreign policies.
While this has lead to an appearance of inconsistency when attempting to pigeon hole the US foreign policy arena, it provides great flexibility in providing for the capacity to change previous directions and correct what may be neede changes under a different world environment, politically speaking.
Whether the Domino Theory was correct or not, when the Cold War policies are examined under that way of thinking, the logic is clear.
If the primary goal is to prevent the domino-like fall of states to the communist government system, what the specific state does is only secondary. if the state has any strategic importance, the non-communist state's details are of even lesser importance.
To a certain extent, the domino theory was correct as applied to communism. Socialism and communism need an every growing *base* of resources as it destroys it's existing bases of resources attempting to maintain itself. It's woefully inefficient command economy based structure drives a mandate to conquer and obtain new resources. Preventing these resources from falling under communist control is an effective deterrent to communism's advance.
Realizing this it is not difficult to see why certain choices were made back then. While a communist world would eventually collapse, how many millions upon millions of people would have died in the process, and how many billions would have suffered?
I'm not justifying, condoning, nor apposing this mentality and strategy, merely pointing it out.
When the priority is no longer preventing the spread of Communism, the strategic and tactical consideration *must* change.
Many people, Americans and other, call foul on the issue w/Iraq using the slogan "but you supported him/it 20 years ago!". This is said as if to say we should support him/it now, or at the very least not oppose it.
In truth, the current administration was not in power 5, 10, 15, 20, or even 30 years ago, and thus not in a position to support or oppose military or CIA dealings (covert or otherwise) with the Afghanis, Iraqis, Iranians, etc., etc., etc..
That you should choose the piss on the parade in your past sentence that you proposed with the prior sentence is telling.
You accuse the Americans of having one blinded mentality, while brandishing your own. You believe that only you have the truth and that only your way is the best way; precisely what you accuse the US government and the American people of.
Even worse, you lay the "fault" of decision by people 10, 20, even 30 or 40 years ago at the feet of the current powers that be. This shows an endemic issue, as opposed to real analysis.
If we followed suit, we would have to "attack" the whole of Europe for it's prior issues. We would have to continually point out the demonstrated and undeniable imperialistic tendencies born of Europe, from Germany to Spain, and France as well. Or the support of international terrorists given by many of those same countries. Or the lack of resolve by the Eurpoean continent to resist or stop Hitler before he had managed to grow his empire to the point they could not resist.
We'd also have to say to you, why didn't your country go take care of Idi Amin? The United States cut off aid to Uganda in 1972 in protest at Amin's policies, which former US President Jimmy Carter said "disgusted the entire civilised world". The Brits followed the next year. The French was in deals with Amin for "parts for planes", the Soviets were there training his troops and providing equipment.
The Israelis, who initially supported his coup, were perhaps the mos tinstrumental in his defeat by conducting the raid they did to free their ho
I am not some self-righteous person that beleives I can make better decisions that the person that was elected to do so.
Does that include voting for or against them? Obviously if they are running for (re)election they've made the choice, who are you to disagree with them, right?
Always question, just don't let it be the questioning that is of paramount importance.
What are you talking about? The US government (despite trying desperately to do so) has found absoloutly no evidence that Saddam or the Iraqi government ever funded or consorted with Al Queda or any other "terrorist" group.
9 l. htmi nuati on.htm
/ 030210fa_ factt ml/102 49.htm
/ 000106.html
= read&sid= 374
r ro r.htm? xml=/ne ws/2003/04/27/walq127.xml
If you think otherwise, then please link to official government press releases/information
So you only buy it if the government says it??
There hav ebeen quite a number of sources stating that SH gave money to terrorists, and even concocted a group to attack the US. The reason it wasn't made a big deal in the news is because they failed pretty badly.
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/iraq9
http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/Cont
The allegations and evidence of an Iraq-Al Queada connection predate Bush by several years. dating back to at least pre-1997 when classified memos were declassified that spoke of these connections.
Spain and checkoslavakia have provided evidence of a direct connection between Iraqi officials and the 9/11 terrorists.
Beyond al queda, SH/Iraq has indeed supported terrorism, ranging from paying "bounties" to families of suicide terrorists, to the aforementioned embassy bombing attempts.
Some links for you to peruse:
http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2001/h
"Iraq provided bases to several terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Abu Nidal organization (ANO). In 2001, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) raised its profile in the West Bank and Gaza Strip by carrying out successful terrorist attacks against Israeli targets. In recognition of the PFLP's growing role, an Iraqi Vice President met with former PFLP Secretary General Habbash in Baghdad in January 2001 and expressed continued Iraqi support for the intifadah. Also, in mid-September, a senior delegation from the PFLP met with an Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister. Baghdad also continued to host other Palestinian rejectionist groups, including the Arab Liberation Front, and the 15 May Organization.
Meanwhile, Czech police continued to provide protection to the Prague office of the US Government-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), which produces Radio Free Iraq programs and employs expatriate journalists. The police presence was augmented in 1999 and 2000, following reports that the Iraqi Intelligence Service might retaliate against RFE/RL for broadcasts critical of the Iraqi regime. As concerns over the facility's security mounted through 2000, the Czechs expelled an Iraqi intelligence officer in April 2001.
The Iraqi regime has not met a request from Riyadh for the extradition of two Saudis who had hijacked a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight to Baghdad in 2000. Disregarding its obligations under international law, the regime granted political asylum to the hijackers and gave them ample opportunity to voice their criticisms of alleged abuses by the Saudi Government in the Iraqi Government-controlled and international media."
This link does quite the job of documenting the various pieces of evidence:
http://www.hereticalideas.com/archives
http://blog.draga.com/archives/000044.html
This one is a short and a bit cryptic one involving Russia:
http://www.bigpig.org/cgi-bin/pig.cgi?op
http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/iraq_te
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml
Now you have the opporuntity to do some reasearch, to read that which you assert does not exist. Whether you do or not, is a mark of your character and honesty.
Without passing a moral judgement on this ... if the president of the US (pick one) said "we need to go over and start eliminating these ruthless dictators" they wouldn't stand for it.
All of the "it is about oil and nothing else" pleas have less evidence behind them than the evidence that Iraq was pursuing nuclear, biological, and/or chemical weapons.
Doesn't stop them from being proclaimed, does it?
Is that you are assuming an Iraqi Tribunal will follow American Law and codes. It will not, "rest assured".
;^D
If SH were to be tried by an American court system perhaps. But he will not be. And if you think that the Iraqis will be following our books, maybe you should consider applying for the job of Information Minister in the New Sadam Hussein Iraq, which will be carved out of equal portions of Iraq, Syria, Iran and Afghanistan.