Hes advocating breaking the law as a good thing, which it basically isnt except for a small set of corner cases. Laws are what allow society to function, and breaking them chips away at that. If "civil disobedience" were ok for every single minor thing you disagreed with, we would cease to have any kind of government whatsoever and would have anarchy.
Absolutely not. The idea that "society" (whatever that consists of) is able to decide what is right or wrong makes no sense.
In a legal and social sense, absolutely it does. Thats EXACTLY what societal norms and laws are! They are society as a whole saying "we think this is harmful, and as the majority we will enforce this on the populace for the greater good."
You can disagree with that if you want, and go live in some country where that power is relegated to a single person, or else one where there is no collective will / enforcement, but Ill warn you that those dont tend to be particularly pleasant places to live.
In the absence of copyright it would just sound so absurd nobody would do it, just like no commerce tries to ask for payment for breathing "their air" while at the premises.
I am almost certain that if copyright were abolished tomorrow, the source code for Windows would STILL be protected by contract / NDAs, would STILL be kept secret, and the binaries would STILL be protected by some kind of activation / antitheft.
Or is part of the hope that companies like microsoft not be allowed to use activation / anti-copy technologies?
I assume RMS and his supporters missed the part where this is a democracy, and breaking laws that were passed in a democracy is generally anti-society. Exceptions of course when the law seems unconscionable, but in this case we're discussing whether an author has control over their works-- clearly not on the level of civil rights or suffrage.
But as the GP AC noted, "its OK for us to break the laws that we want to because we decided that that is best." Glad to hear thats how our system is supposed to work; keep upping the ante so that more awful copyright laws get passed, im sure that will fix things.
As a consequence, sources say that any information traversing "any" Huawei equipped network isn't safe unless it has military encryption.
Wow, military grade encryption? Would that be, like, AES, one of the most widely deployed, tested, and recognized encryption schemes out there? Wow man, that stuff is hard to come by.
I also like the implication that unless you have a VPN, it will still magically find its way out to Huawei regardless of what other network controls you have in place. Having backdoors is one thing, getting thru a firewall is something completely different.
Sources add that most corporate telecommunications networks use "pretty light encryption" on their virtual private networks, or VPNs.
Proprietary information could be not only spied upon but also could be altered and in some cases could be sabotaged.
Someone want to explain to me the difference between "altered in transit" and "sabotaged"?
Im sorry, when so many of the assertions in the article read like uninformed drivel, its kind of hard to take the headline seriously. I have a strong feeling that the person who wrote this doesnt understand any of the terms hes going on about.
Some people are consultants and dont have the luxury of sitting at a desk with outlook and a voip phone. For us, having an email experience that at times is BETTER than the desktop outlook experience is wonderful.
But I suppose if your only metric for "being productive" involves you sitting at your own computer, sure, a mobile device would be inferior. But that doesnt really make iPhone or Android any better-- if anything, it makes them more inadequate.
I have heard the complaint from numerous folks that SSL libraries really are a mess, which is why periodically we get nasty vulnerabilities in them; supposedly, auditing the code is an exercise in futility.
because what you just wrote said no productive employee ever.
Is this the part where you explain why tactile keyboards and shortcutted everything is inferior to swipe gestures and a native youtube experience? Or how ActiveSync is somehow superior to a BES?
Android and iPhone are poor subsitutions for Blackberry, and it is my opinion that the vast majority of people who disagree should never have had blackberries to begin with.
Its not that theyre bad, its that they target a different range of priorities than Blackberry does, and in terms of messaging / phone, a good blackberry simply cant be beat IMO.
If a bank takes a loss on an investment, it gets zero recompensation from the government (unless some emergency bill is passed). There is no such thing in the banking world as "zero liability" storage of money; FDIC only covers funds to a certain level, and if the bank runs out and is unable to fully meet its obligations, theres a good chance it will go into bankruptcy and can fail. All the FDIC insurance does is make sure that in such a scenario that the depositors arent totally up a creek.
If that qualifies as "zero liability" in your book, then sure, run with that.
You fucking bank apologists really confuse me. I can only assume you work on Wall Street and live in that reality distortion field.
No need to be nasty about it, and for the record I make probably around the median income, dont have a mansion, dont work at a bank, dont have any special attraction to banks, dont live or work on Wall street or have a significant attachment to wall st.....
The discussion was never on whether banks have caused problems in the past, and I dont think thats relevant. When banks screw up, Im all for letting them fail. But here we are discussing whether it is a good idea that the government be allowed to entitle itself to funds that were entrusted to a private entity, and I think "no, thats incredibly dangerous".
I think the mentality that the government is the default and de-facto final destination for all funds is cancerous, and needs to be stamped out. The only reason the government should ever be taking money is to fulfill its duties to the governed, and I take a rather narrower view of what that entails. I think that giving "extra" money to the government rarely turns out for the best, and tends to cause it to expand in unhealthy ways.
Calling me an apologist is just a smokescreen; real world opinions dont usually tend to be as simplistic as you seem to think they are. I can be a supporter of private enterprise and nervous about government involvement without it meaning that I am somehow a sellout to "the man".
I think all of that is a good point, and a lot more compelling than the whole "you owe it to the government" argument given above.
Im just not super thrilled with the idea that the government can seize legally held property for no other reason than that it feels entitled to it, thats all.
Deoposit insurance doesnt magically remove the risk of not getting a return, its just a backstop if something goes catastrophically wrong-- which incidentally is a protection for the consumer, not the bank. If the bank goes under, its owners still take a significant hit.
Or did I miss the part where that 100k CHF goes to the bank, rather than the consumer, in the event of an issue?
And the bank has already made its (legitimate) profit by having access to the principal to lend against for many years
And the government-- especially in countries with a VAT-- has already gotten its piece of the pie at each step of the transaction chain. The money was entrusted by an individual to a private entity, the individual abandoned it, im not seeing the principle whereby the government gets to swoop in and take it. Im not trying to say that the bank deserves this money, just that its done a good deal more to earn it than the government has.
Government taking truly abandoned property makes sense, as it is a burden to society if unclaimed and there is noone else more convenient to claim it. If there were, then the government wouldnt get it at all.
Ubuntu is the best thing to happen to Linux for all of us who dont use Linux. Its users have been faithfully beta testing for everyone else for the last 6 years:P
(For the record, if I was to switch my primary desktop back to Linux, theres a good chance it would be Ubuntu-- life is an adventure)
Slashdot Mirror
Hes advocating breaking the law as a good thing, which it basically isnt except for a small set of corner cases. Laws are what allow society to function, and breaking them chips away at that. If "civil disobedience" were ok for every single minor thing you disagreed with, we would cease to have any kind of government whatsoever and would have anarchy.
Absolutely not. The idea that "society" (whatever that consists of) is able to decide what is right or wrong makes no sense.
In a legal and social sense, absolutely it does. Thats EXACTLY what societal norms and laws are! They are society as a whole saying "we think this is harmful, and as the majority we will enforce this on the populace for the greater good."
You can disagree with that if you want, and go live in some country where that power is relegated to a single person, or else one where there is no collective will / enforcement, but Ill warn you that those dont tend to be particularly pleasant places to live.
"It's not bad because it's good" is hardly a compelling argument.
Ive kind of understood that to be the core of RMS's reasoning. If this isnt so, I would appreciate someone clarifying it.
I understand that copyright has issues, but I think that granting an author some degree of control over their works has a lot of merit.
In the absence of copyright it would just sound so absurd nobody would do it, just like no commerce tries to ask for payment for breathing "their air" while at the premises.
I am almost certain that if copyright were abolished tomorrow, the source code for Windows would STILL be protected by contract / NDAs, would STILL be kept secret, and the binaries would STILL be protected by some kind of activation / antitheft.
Or is part of the hope that companies like microsoft not be allowed to use activation / anti-copy technologies?
I assume RMS and his supporters missed the part where this is a democracy, and breaking laws that were passed in a democracy is generally anti-society. Exceptions of course when the law seems unconscionable, but in this case we're discussing whether an author has control over their works-- clearly not on the level of civil rights or suffrage.
But as the GP AC noted, "its OK for us to break the laws that we want to because we decided that that is best." Glad to hear thats how our system is supposed to work; keep upping the ante so that more awful copyright laws get passed, im sure that will fix things.
Article read like FUD.
As a consequence, sources say that any information traversing "any" Huawei equipped network isn't safe unless it has military encryption.
Wow, military grade encryption? Would that be, like, AES, one of the most widely deployed, tested, and recognized encryption schemes out there? Wow man, that stuff is hard to come by.
I also like the implication that unless you have a VPN, it will still magically find its way out to Huawei regardless of what other network controls you have in place. Having backdoors is one thing, getting thru a firewall is something completely different.
Sources add that most corporate telecommunications networks use "pretty light encryption" on their virtual private networks, or VPNs.
Proprietary information could be not only spied upon but also could be altered and in some cases could be sabotaged.
Someone want to explain to me the difference between "altered in transit" and "sabotaged"?
Im sorry, when so many of the assertions in the article read like uninformed drivel, its kind of hard to take the headline seriously. I have a strong feeling that the person who wrote this doesnt understand any of the terms hes going on about.
Cars will link up with Segways to form some kind of mobile, highly stylish hivemind.
Everyone always tries to change the laws for themselves
Fix'd
Some people are consultants and dont have the luxury of sitting at a desk with outlook and a voip phone. For us, having an email experience that at times is BETTER than the desktop outlook experience is wonderful.
But I suppose if your only metric for "being productive" involves you sitting at your own computer, sure, a mobile device would be inferior. But that doesnt really make iPhone or Android any better-- if anything, it makes them more inadequate.
Make the plates out of Uranium! Its like a warning sign with built in theft-deterrent!
Probably holy symbol of sun worshippers.
In a deep underground vault with no windows.
That makes perfect sense.
I have heard the complaint from numerous folks that SSL libraries really are a mess, which is why periodically we get nasty vulnerabilities in them; supposedly, auditing the code is an exercise in futility.
because what you just wrote said no productive employee ever.
Is this the part where you explain why tactile keyboards and shortcutted everything is inferior to swipe gestures and a native youtube experience? Or how ActiveSync is somehow superior to a BES?
Good luck with that.
From the article:
It is still unknown whether the passwords were retrieved in the clear text format or were decrypted by the attackers afterwards.
Its possible they were stored hashed, and simply cracked. That, however, WOULD strongly imply either no salt or a single global salt.
Android and iPhone are poor subsitutions for Blackberry, and it is my opinion that the vast majority of people who disagree should never have had blackberries to begin with.
Its not that theyre bad, its that they target a different range of priorities than Blackberry does, and in terms of messaging / phone, a good blackberry simply cant be beat IMO.
if you're not very bright, Windows.
Smug attitude, Check.
Calling users dumb for spending less than a grand on each iteration of hardware, check.
What a great example of OSX fanboyism, someone archive parents comment.
Get new PC. Install Windows 7. It works.
Where in this process are you having configuration issues?
Maybe its just the computer field in general. Have you ever seen as much angst as when Microsoft or Canonical changes some small widget in their GUI?
If a bank takes a loss on an investment, it gets zero recompensation from the government (unless some emergency bill is passed). There is no such thing in the banking world as "zero liability" storage of money; FDIC only covers funds to a certain level, and if the bank runs out and is unable to fully meet its obligations, theres a good chance it will go into bankruptcy and can fail. All the FDIC insurance does is make sure that in such a scenario that the depositors arent totally up a creek.
If that qualifies as "zero liability" in your book, then sure, run with that.
You fucking bank apologists really confuse me. I can only assume you work on Wall Street and live in that reality distortion field.
No need to be nasty about it, and for the record I make probably around the median income, dont have a mansion, dont work at a bank, dont have any special attraction to banks, dont live or work on Wall street or have a significant attachment to wall st.....
The discussion was never on whether banks have caused problems in the past, and I dont think thats relevant. When banks screw up, Im all for letting them fail. But here we are discussing whether it is a good idea that the government be allowed to entitle itself to funds that were entrusted to a private entity, and I think "no, thats incredibly dangerous".
I think the mentality that the government is the default and de-facto final destination for all funds is cancerous, and needs to be stamped out. The only reason the government should ever be taking money is to fulfill its duties to the governed, and I take a rather narrower view of what that entails. I think that giving "extra" money to the government rarely turns out for the best, and tends to cause it to expand in unhealthy ways.
Calling me an apologist is just a smokescreen; real world opinions dont usually tend to be as simplistic as you seem to think they are. I can be a supporter of private enterprise and nervous about government involvement without it meaning that I am somehow a sellout to "the man".
I think all of that is a good point, and a lot more compelling than the whole "you owe it to the government" argument given above.
Im just not super thrilled with the idea that the government can seize legally held property for no other reason than that it feels entitled to it, thats all.
But if I die without instructions then you get to just keep it?
I have bad news for you: If you die without a will, SOMEONE gets to "just keep it".
Deoposit insurance doesnt magically remove the risk of not getting a return, its just a backstop if something goes catastrophically wrong-- which incidentally is a protection for the consumer, not the bank. If the bank goes under, its owners still take a significant hit.
Or did I miss the part where that 100k CHF goes to the bank, rather than the consumer, in the event of an issue?
And the bank has already made its (legitimate) profit by having access to the principal to lend against for many years
And the government-- especially in countries with a VAT-- has already gotten its piece of the pie at each step of the transaction chain. The money was entrusted by an individual to a private entity, the individual abandoned it, im not seeing the principle whereby the government gets to swoop in and take it. Im not trying to say that the bank deserves this money, just that its done a good deal more to earn it than the government has.
Government taking truly abandoned property makes sense, as it is a burden to society if unclaimed and there is noone else more convenient to claim it. If there were, then the government wouldnt get it at all.
The government gets all abandoned property when someone dies.
Thing is, it wasnt abandoned: It was entrusted to another private entity, who has used its own resources to safeguard it.
Ubuntu is the best thing to happen to Linux for all of us who dont use Linux. Its users have been faithfully beta testing for everyone else for the last 6 years :P
(For the record, if I was to switch my primary desktop back to Linux, theres a good chance it would be Ubuntu-- life is an adventure)