mobile data typically costs so you can't keep checking for updates
With the AT&T/Cingular plans, you have to take data and I believe it is unlimited. Still, as another poster suggests, I believe the updates will come via iTunes.
I wonder, however, if iPhone users will be prompted on the phone to seek the patch through their iTunes. My wife has an iPod which she hasn't sync'd since right after we bought it eight months ago. It would be nice if they had an app on the phone that tells you that you have a security update waiting.
Maybe Duke can use this exploit to shut off iPhones before they bring their entire wireless network to its knees this fall.
I cannot image the hole will last long or anyone will really care all that much. I've seen a number of exploits demonstrated to hack into bluetooth enabled phones and do malicious things like delete contact lists. This is only a hot story because of the phone's popularity.
Welcome to a post-9/11 U.S. where people don't stand up for their constitutional rights because they are too busy buying duct tape and plastic sheeting.
You're right, in a sense, that the FBI probably isn't allowed to do this stuff; but, no one in authority is going to stop them.
Pretty soon, people in this country are going to have to start exercising their 2nd Amendment rights for the reason it exists: armed revolution.
It's probably best to look into details of proposals and raise a stink before they become law. Doing so would have saved us a whole lot of trouble with things like the Patriot Act which was passed almost completely unread by the people passing it, much less their constituents.
Waiting until something is already law to complain about it is like buying a fire extinguisher as a means of fire prevention.
(Hint: It's on your cellphone bill every month.)
That is true and is one of the reasons I believe Carriers should have to tell you what your total bill would be in their ads rather than just at the point of signing the contract. But, I'd be surprised if there are not already taxes on the phone service in Japan, so I'm not sure what your point is. $3.50 a year is way less than the over $5.00 I pay in taxes and fees on my cell phone bill each month, but surely your not suggesting that the $3.50 will be the only tax on cell service they pay.
The company that runs the box the ISP installed provides an opt-out option. Go to this page and click opt-out.
I think their behavior with this product is reprehensible. Pass the link on to anyone you know who is affected and encourage them to call their ISP and complain every day until it's removed. If all their call center does is get complaints, they'll reconsider whether it's making them any money.
Frankly, I'm far more concerned about preserving competition between ISPs at all levels, from comsumer last-mile broadband up through the long-haul links.
There really isn't that much competition at the last mile. The fact that you might have a choice of DSL providers is a product of government regulation. If the AT&Ts and Verizons of this country had their way, they would keep the last mile to themselves.
In reality, what we're talking about where broadband is concerned is competition between the monopolies that have the last mile. In the market I'm in, I have a choice between Verizon and Time Warner for broadband. Both would introduce these tiers if they could get away with it. No one else can enter the market for the final mile here, so tell me how competition is going to help.
Actually, What you can expect is not higher latency, but significant packet loss. You'll get clean, packet-loss free connectivity to people paying the extortion money and everything else will be relegated to congestion hell.
Your excuse is bullshit. But of course, you knew that already.
I take offense at that. I'm not looking to excuse anything. I don't watch Fox (Entertainment or News). I don't like their products (or the fact that to them it's all product.) But the ratings prove my point: The worst rated FoxNews show is better rated than anything on MSNBC or CNN.
Rupert Murdoch might be a bit of a right winger, but I think he's more loyal to money. Of the four broadcast networks, Fox (entertainment) is one of the most liberal. Take a look at his flagship tabloid in the U.K. if you want to see more liberalism from Murdoch: The Sun.
Murdoch is a cynical, trash-peddling, capitalist pig not a right-wing ideolog. If you're going to despise him, do it from an educated perspective.
It's not that simple. News Corp's agenda is to make money. Fox Entertainment gives people what they want to see as entertainment, which seems to be mostly crappy reality television. Fox News gives people what they want to see as news, which seems to be republican talking points and talking heads yelling at each other. If liberally biased news got decent ratings, Fox News would be democratic lap dogs.
News Corp is just capitalism taken to its logical conclusion.
Understand that I do not point this out to defend their behavior. In fact, I believe news should be an unbiased representation of the truth; but, that is not what most people want it to be. People want to hear news from people who think like they do. In a world where individuals are becoming increasingly socially isolated at the same time they're becoming increasingly electronically connected, people like the sense of belonging that getting news from like-minded people gives them. Viewers of Bill O'Rielly and viewers of Jon Stewart both like their guy and despise the other. It's human nature.
If we get not just a sales tax on the connection, but a "connection tax," will my open AP "WardriversWelcome" become a bootlegging operation?
That's an interesting point. Obviously, you'd pay tax on your connection, but if you turn around and share it for free, will someone decide that that is tax evasion? Could this be the end of free wireless hotspots? Something to ponder that is...
If Fred Thompson enters the race which is just a formality now, there will be no chance McCain will grab the Republican nomination.
That is so, so true. Anyone who wants four more years of Bush will run for Thompson's camp. McCain is just a pale imitation; Thompson's the real thing.
Given a choice between the two, I'm actually hoping that McCain, the maverick, is just saying what the right wants to hear, but I think he's rudderless and just going whereever the RNC blows him.
While I agree that guns are quite effective at killing things (it is a specific-use tool), the change of a single word in your statement displays its absurdity quite well. "If you think guns don't kill people, try to kill someone without one." Sounds pretty simple. I suspect Neanderthals had more clubbing deaths than we do nowadays. I wonder if they tried to ban trees.
Ok. Well, trees can be used to build things, not just club people. Knives can be used to prepare food and eat food, not just kill people. Guns are used to kill people and what else?
Guns are never a tool, they are only a weapon. The only reason to have a gun is to kill with it. Yes, a tiny minority of people use guns to hunt animals, sometimes even for food, but it's still killing. If you want a rifle that holds a few rounds at a time to hunt with, be my guest; but, don't pretend that people hunt with 9mm pistols and assault rifles. You're just insulting the intelligence of your audience. Also, don't wrap yourself in the flag or the constitution on this issue: you just look stubborn and immature. When the right to keep and bear arms was put in the constitution, guns couldn't hold more than one round and couldn't be fired reliably more than 30 yards or so. The government certainly can and must regulate the sophisticated weaponry available today.
The founding fathers were not omniscient geniuses, and the document is not carved in stone. If the constitution were the same today as it was when the 2nd Amendment was added, blacks would be slaves and anyone who isn't a white male landowner wouldn't be allowed to vote.
My own idea for "preventing the next VT tragedy" was to crack down on the manufacturers of doors, not the sellers of handguns. If it were illegal to manufacture doors with closed loops in their handles, the guy wouldn't have been able to chain the door shut.
Tiny nitpick about your otherwise insightful rant: Door manufacturers typically do not supply nor dictate the choice of handles.
Also, what you're saying is "guns don't kill people, door handles do." If you think guns don't kill people, try to shoot someone without one.
I'm all for the Nelson-esque "Ha, Ha!" on this one, but isn't this Salon article revealing state secrets in some way.
I'm not looking to troll here. I'm serious. Wouldn't it have been better to quietly bring it to their attention than to go public. If this is typical government ignorance, who knows how wide-spread the problem is. Could revealing something like this to the public be considered treason?
I don't think the fact that the articles are right out in the open is any defense. Anyone who's close enough to see troops knows where they are, but it could still be considered treason to pick up a phone and call the enemy and tell them where troops are.
Unless the software is created by employees of your company, or you agree up front that you will have copyright, the copyright goes to the developer as the author of the work. It's no different than you going to the store and buying Office 2007 off the shelf, and the same accounting rules apply.
What I find more interesting is the licensing. You should have been told what the license would be before the work was begun. A permanent, exclusive license is the next best thing to owning the copyright, as they cannot turn around and license the complete application to anyone else.
However, unless the developers are idiots, they've written the majority of your application as a collection of libraries suitable for reuse for other purposes -- many of which may precede your project or have been licensed to the developer from other developers. So, even though they offer you an exclusive license, they may be planning to repurpose portions of the application for other uses.
Others have suggested that you should bring a lawyer into the discussion, and you're certainly welcome to do so. But, unless they've given you the source code for you to maintain the application, you might want to start looking for another developer to write a replacement application under terms you do like. Once you involve lawyers and the threat of a lawsuit, expect the developer to stop maintaining the application.
Either software patents are universally bad, or they're not. Just because it's Microsoft that is the target this time, it doesn't make software patents a good thing.
making it illegal for any entity besides the IRS, SSA, you employer and your bank to ask for a SSN
That ship has sailed. SSNs aren't going anywhere and aren't getting reigned in with their entire purpose for exiting being outmoded.
If you want to do away with this kind of exposure, eliminate the need for the SSN to be propogated around with financial transactions. In order to do that, you'd have to eliminate the income tax. Who's up for paying 30%+ sales tax to replace the income tax so that they can keep their SSN private.
Slashdot Mirror
mobile data typically costs so you can't keep checking for updates
With the AT&T/Cingular plans, you have to take data and I believe it is unlimited. Still, as another poster suggests, I believe the updates will come via iTunes.
I wonder, however, if iPhone users will be prompted on the phone to seek the patch through their iTunes. My wife has an iPod which she hasn't sync'd since right after we bought it eight months ago. It would be nice if they had an app on the phone that tells you that you have a security update waiting.
Maybe Duke can use this exploit to shut off iPhones before they bring their entire wireless network to its knees this fall.
I cannot image the hole will last long or anyone will really care all that much. I've seen a number of exploits demonstrated to hack into bluetooth enabled phones and do malicious things like delete contact lists. This is only a hot story because of the phone's popularity.
I keep re-reading my Constitution
Oh, that old thing?
Welcome to a post-9/11 U.S. where people don't stand up for their constitutional rights because they are too busy buying duct tape and plastic sheeting.
You're right, in a sense, that the FBI probably isn't allowed to do this stuff; but, no one in authority is going to stop them.
Pretty soon, people in this country are going to have to start exercising their 2nd Amendment rights for the reason it exists: armed revolution.
This is a -proposal-, not a law
It's probably best to look into details of proposals and raise a stink before they become law. Doing so would have saved us a whole lot of trouble with things like the Patriot Act which was passed almost completely unread by the people passing it, much less their constituents.
Waiting until something is already law to complain about it is like buying a fire extinguisher as a means of fire prevention.
(Hint: It's on your cellphone bill every month.)
That is true and is one of the reasons I believe Carriers should have to tell you what your total bill would be in their ads rather than just at the point of signing the contract. But, I'd be surprised if there are not already taxes on the phone service in Japan, so I'm not sure what your point is. $3.50 a year is way less than the over $5.00 I pay in taxes and fees on my cell phone bill each month, but surely your not suggesting that the $3.50 will be the only tax on cell service they pay.
s/politicians/bureaucrats/
You can find them here.
The company that runs the box the ISP installed provides an opt-out option. Go to this page and click opt-out.
I think their behavior with this product is reprehensible. Pass the link on to anyone you know who is affected and encourage them to call their ISP and complain every day until it's removed. If all their call center does is get complaints, they'll reconsider whether it's making them any money.
where as IBM is not.
Since when? IBM is short for International Business Machines which, I believe, is still the actual company name.
One of these days legislation will simply slip in, and then everyone on will really regret not taking more action when we had the chance.
You have that backwards. Without some legislation, they can destroy net neutrality as soon as it suits them.
Frankly, I'm far more concerned about preserving competition between ISPs at all levels, from comsumer last-mile broadband up through the long-haul links.
There really isn't that much competition at the last mile. The fact that you might have a choice of DSL providers is a product of government regulation. If the AT&Ts and Verizons of this country had their way, they would keep the last mile to themselves.
In reality, what we're talking about where broadband is concerned is competition between the monopolies that have the last mile. In the market I'm in, I have a choice between Verizon and Time Warner for broadband. Both would introduce these tiers if they could get away with it. No one else can enter the market for the final mile here, so tell me how competition is going to help.
Actually, What you can expect is not higher latency, but significant packet loss. You'll get clean, packet-loss free connectivity to people paying the extortion money and everything else will be relegated to congestion hell.
Your excuse is bullshit. But of course, you knew that already.
I take offense at that. I'm not looking to excuse anything. I don't watch Fox (Entertainment or News). I don't like their products (or the fact that to them it's all product.) But the ratings prove my point: The worst rated FoxNews show is better rated than anything on MSNBC or CNN.
Rupert Murdoch might be a bit of a right winger, but I think he's more loyal to money. Of the four broadcast networks, Fox (entertainment) is one of the most liberal. Take a look at his flagship tabloid in the U.K. if you want to see more liberalism from Murdoch: The Sun.
Murdoch is a cynical, trash-peddling, capitalist pig not a right-wing ideolog. If you're going to despise him, do it from an educated perspective.
I thought fox was a republican lapdog?
It's not that simple. News Corp's agenda is to make money. Fox Entertainment gives people what they want to see as entertainment, which seems to be mostly crappy reality television. Fox News gives people what they want to see as news, which seems to be republican talking points and talking heads yelling at each other. If liberally biased news got decent ratings, Fox News would be democratic lap dogs.
News Corp is just capitalism taken to its logical conclusion.
Understand that I do not point this out to defend their behavior. In fact, I believe news should be an unbiased representation of the truth; but, that is not what most people want it to be. People want to hear news from people who think like they do. In a world where individuals are becoming increasingly socially isolated at the same time they're becoming increasingly electronically connected, people like the sense of belonging that getting news from like-minded people gives them. Viewers of Bill O'Rielly and viewers of Jon Stewart both like their guy and despise the other. It's human nature.
If we get not just a sales tax on the connection, but a "connection tax," will my open AP "WardriversWelcome" become a bootlegging operation?
...
That's an interesting point. Obviously, you'd pay tax on your connection, but if you turn around and share it for free, will someone decide that that is tax evasion? Could this be the end of free wireless hotspots? Something to ponder that is
If Fred Thompson enters the race which is just a formality now, there will be no chance McCain will grab the Republican nomination.
That is so, so true. Anyone who wants four more years of Bush will run for Thompson's camp. McCain is just a pale imitation; Thompson's the real thing.
Pro-gun: check. Anti-abortion: check. Pro-tax-cut: check. Paranoid, fatalistic world view: check.
Given a choice between the two, I'm actually hoping that McCain, the maverick, is just saying what the right wants to hear, but I think he's rudderless and just going whereever the RNC blows him.
It'd be a little bit like asking the CEO of an oil company to determine environmental policy.
That's what we have now, and look what it has done for the oil industry.
While I agree that guns are quite effective at killing things (it is a specific-use tool), the change of a single word in your statement displays its absurdity quite well. "If you think guns don't kill people, try to kill someone without one." Sounds pretty simple. I suspect Neanderthals had more clubbing deaths than we do nowadays. I wonder if they tried to ban trees.
Ok. Well, trees can be used to build things, not just club people. Knives can be used to prepare food and eat food, not just kill people. Guns are used to kill people and what else?
Guns are never a tool, they are only a weapon. The only reason to have a gun is to kill with it. Yes, a tiny minority of people use guns to hunt animals, sometimes even for food, but it's still killing. If you want a rifle that holds a few rounds at a time to hunt with, be my guest; but, don't pretend that people hunt with 9mm pistols and assault rifles. You're just insulting the intelligence of your audience. Also, don't wrap yourself in the flag or the constitution on this issue: you just look stubborn and immature. When the right to keep and bear arms was put in the constitution, guns couldn't hold more than one round and couldn't be fired reliably more than 30 yards or so. The government certainly can and must regulate the sophisticated weaponry available today.
The founding fathers were not omniscient geniuses, and the document is not carved in stone. If the constitution were the same today as it was when the 2nd Amendment was added, blacks would be slaves and anyone who isn't a white male landowner wouldn't be allowed to vote.
If you just don't want the hassle at all, determine the number they are calling from and contact the telco to arrange call blocking for that number.
My own idea for "preventing the next VT tragedy" was to crack down on the manufacturers of doors, not the sellers of handguns. If it were illegal to manufacture doors with closed loops in their handles, the guy wouldn't have been able to chain the door shut.
Tiny nitpick about your otherwise insightful rant: Door manufacturers typically do not supply nor dictate the choice of handles.
Also, what you're saying is "guns don't kill people, door handles do." If you think guns don't kill people, try to shoot someone without one.
In my particular case it was because my hosting service allows anonymous FTP uploads(?!) with no 'correct' way to disable it (???!!!)
So, this had nothing to do with Drupal, right?
I'm all for the Nelson-esque "Ha, Ha!" on this one, but isn't this Salon article revealing state secrets in some way.
I'm not looking to troll here. I'm serious. Wouldn't it have been better to quietly bring it to their attention than to go public. If this is typical government ignorance, who knows how wide-spread the problem is. Could revealing something like this to the public be considered treason?
I don't think the fact that the articles are right out in the open is any defense. Anyone who's close enough to see troops knows where they are, but it could still be considered treason to pick up a phone and call the enemy and tell them where troops are.
Unless the software is created by employees of your company, or you agree up front that you will have copyright, the copyright goes to the developer as the author of the work. It's no different than you going to the store and buying Office 2007 off the shelf, and the same accounting rules apply.
What I find more interesting is the licensing. You should have been told what the license would be before the work was begun. A permanent, exclusive license is the next best thing to owning the copyright, as they cannot turn around and license the complete application to anyone else.
However, unless the developers are idiots, they've written the majority of your application as a collection of libraries suitable for reuse for other purposes -- many of which may precede your project or have been licensed to the developer from other developers. So, even though they offer you an exclusive license, they may be planning to repurpose portions of the application for other uses.
Others have suggested that you should bring a lawyer into the discussion, and you're certainly welcome to do so. But, unless they've given you the source code for you to maintain the application, you might want to start looking for another developer to write a replacement application under terms you do like. Once you involve lawyers and the threat of a lawsuit, expect the developer to stop maintaining the application.
I'd like to see fewer laws drafted by lobbyists. Can they include that?
I sort of hope they get bit badly by this
Either software patents are universally bad, or they're not. Just because it's Microsoft that is the target this time, it doesn't make software patents a good thing.
making it illegal for any entity besides the IRS, SSA, you employer and your bank to ask for a SSN
That ship has sailed. SSNs aren't going anywhere and aren't getting reigned in with their entire purpose for exiting being outmoded.
If you want to do away with this kind of exposure, eliminate the need for the SSN to be propogated around with financial transactions. In order to do that, you'd have to eliminate the income tax. Who's up for paying 30%+ sales tax to replace the income tax so that they can keep their SSN private.
network connections
Tiny nitpick about your otherwise astute observation, but I believe fees for Internet Access are not subject to sales tax in the U.S.