> If the DoD wanted to provide a photo of the general in front of a flag, then they should have submitted a photo of her taken in front of a flag. [army.mil]
Umm.... what makes you think that photo was taken in front of a flag, versus just having the flag photoshopped in?
If "IJ" means Indiana Jones, as I think it does, this whole argument is flawed as there have only been three Indiana Jones movies. The original Raiders of the Lost Ark, Temple of Doom, and Last Crusade.
They're not trying to lock people out of their hardware, though that's the perspective of tech geeks (like myself) who want the freedom to mix and match technologies until we build our perfect setup.
What they are trying to do is lock people into their hardware. Their intent is to get people (in volumes that far outwight the tech geek population) to use their product and then find themselves inconvenienced should they later decide to upgrade to competing products. If they can make it more convenient for Joe Consumer's next purchase to be one of their own products rather than what another company offers, they secure their own financial future. Joe Consumer isn't looking that far down the road and isn't planning to use the product in a manner exceeding the manufacturer's expectations, so Joe Consumer makes his purchase without considering these issues.
Every Slashdotter needs this app [openendsoftware.com].
Ummmm... why does "every" slashdotter need a Mac OS X-only application? Even giving you the liberty that by "every" you just mean "many", I'm guessing your math is seriously off.
Ok, to pretend that I'm really on topic... I agree that this is just plain fraud, there's nothing special here due to computer use.
I think that at least in some states, there's a legal difference between a contest (purely odds based) and a tournament (skill based); solving a difficult puzzle could probably be easily argued as being tournament material (IANAL). I know that in my state (not one known for gambling), there are poker parlors which are considered legal because they don't play cash for each hand, instead they play as a tournament.
It does not prove that security in those things is broken.
Ok, so by your words, being able to create a document that contains blatantly false information, and successfully using that document to bypass security doesn't prove that "security in those things is broken". What, pray tell, would be required beyond this to demonstrate that security is broken? Because, you see, in my simple view of things, if you are "Bob" and security is on the lookout for "Bob", and you show them a modified password claiming that you're "Neil", and security lets you through because as far as they can tell you aren't "Bob", security has been compromised. When security is based on human inspection of said passport, clearly it's subject to human error. When security is electronically based, such as the case with RFID, all but the most basic of human interaction should be removed from the "is this a real passport?" equation.
Cool, now if I'm really good in that subject (math comes to mind), I can just skip the entire first half of each semester and still get a B in the class!
Well, lets see... 50% for the first half of the semester... 100% for the second half (because you're really good at math)... this gives you a 75% average, with is a C.
I'm going to advise against thinking you're really good at math!
Was it ever actually a bastion? It hasn't been mainstream in since, well...has it ever honestly? I guess that depends on your definition of mainstream and your timeline of the "internet", but I hope you see at least a sliver of my point. A lot of great (and some poor) anecdotes will pop up in the discussion about how people use or used to use usenet, but if you asked the mainstream internet user between 1999 and 2008 if they utilize usenet, the majority would probably say, "Huh".
Yes, it was a bastion. I define mainstream loosely as being predominant in its domain. Within the domain of the Internet, USENET was a bastion for many years.
The Internet has a history that well predates your "1999 to 2008" research pool, and if you talk with people who were using the Internet (or ARPAnet or DARPAnet, UUCP, etc.) you will probably not find anyone who doesn't know what USENET was/is.
Sure, your point seems to be that the growth of users on the Internet has grown incredibly, and the bulk of them don't have a clue what USENET is (and perhaps this justifies Comcast's removal of it from their lineup), but regardless of how things have changed with growth, USENET was once an overwhelmingly important part of the Internet.
You may as well be asking "what would you prefer, a liver transplant or to die of cancer"? I don't know about you, but I prefer to remain healthy in the first place. The RIAA "investigating" and prosecuting is not healthy. The government seizing private equipment if they think it may have been involved is also not healthy. I don't particularly care if one is more or less healthy than the other.
I can't see any half-way sensible judge supporting that.
The problem here is the recent shortage of half-way sensible judges in our country. All too often they make decisions based on (unfounded) instinct rather than first learning the details needed to render a well formed opinion.
Lets say I sell software, lets call it Winblows A(ustere). I would like to start selling Winblows B(loated) and I would like to charge a premium for it. In order to convince users to upgrade, I'm going to drop support and sales of Winblows A(ustere).
Now, by your "fair enough rule", if I drop sales of Winblows A(ustere), thus having it taken away from me and placed into the public domain, I'm going to be competing fully with my own product (well, it used to be mine at least).
I suppose I'm OK with that though; instead of pulling Winblows A(ustere) from the sales list, I'll leave it in there and mark it up a thousand times. There, it's still available for sale, and thus not public domain. Of course, no one is going to buy it, are they?
The BlackBerry has really lost its monopoly on the messaging device. If they were forced to comply with this, I would expect them to lose market share while people flocked to any of the myriad other devices that provide convenient messaging services.
Being an independent contractor simply isn't suited for everyone, and I would not be surprised to hear that many people would prefer to keep their current salary than take a 100% raise as a contractor. Nothing in employment is certain, but in general an employee is going to keep a stable steady paycheck longer than a contractor. Yes, reasonable contractors take in more income overall, but they still go from contract to contract, with down time between. To some, that's a positive aspect (more money, lots of vacation time), but to others the downtimes can be scary.
For a country where religion and state are seperate, there sure is a lot of religious posturing among your leaders. What country are you referring to? Surely it isn't the Gool Ole (Boys) U. S. of A. Oh, that thing you read in the Constitution? It means about as much as other constitutional ramblings such as right to privacy, etc.
How the hell are you supposed to run redundant DNS setups when zone transfers aren't allowed? Sure there are inventive ways, but... DNS WAS FRIKKEN DESIGNED FOR THIS! Well, first you ask yourself for permission.
Then you grant yourself that permission (in writing, if you feel that could become useful later).
Then you perform zone transfers without legal risk.
This is a personal problem.
There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved through a suitable use of high explosives. This is not one of those exceptions.
Slashdot Mirror
> If the DoD wanted to provide a photo of the general in front of a flag, then they should have submitted a photo of her taken in front of a flag. [army.mil]
Umm.... what makes you think that photo was taken in front of a flag, versus just having the flag photoshopped in?
If "IJ" means Indiana Jones, as I think it does, this whole argument is flawed as there have only been three Indiana Jones movies. The original Raiders of the Lost Ark, Temple of Doom, and Last Crusade.
IJ4? Sheesh. Like that'll ever happen.
They're not trying to lock people out of their hardware, though that's the perspective of tech geeks (like myself) who want the freedom to mix and match technologies until we build our perfect setup.
What they are trying to do is lock people into their hardware. Their intent is to get people (in volumes that far outwight the tech geek population) to use their product and then find themselves inconvenienced should they later decide to upgrade to competing products. If they can make it more convenient for Joe Consumer's next purchase to be one of their own products rather than what another company offers, they secure their own financial future. Joe Consumer isn't looking that far down the road and isn't planning to use the product in a manner exceeding the manufacturer's expectations, so Joe Consumer makes his purchase without considering these issues.
Ideally, they are the same. Pragmatically, there are differences.
I know, I'll get modded offtopic, but...
Every Slashdotter needs this app [openendsoftware.com].
Ummmm... why does "every" slashdotter need a Mac OS X-only application? Even giving you the liberty that by "every" you just mean "many", I'm guessing your math is seriously off.
Ok, to pretend that I'm really on topic... I agree that this is just plain fraud, there's nothing special here due to computer use.
I think that at least in some states, there's a legal difference between a contest (purely odds based) and a tournament (skill based); solving a difficult puzzle could probably be easily argued as being tournament material (IANAL). I know that in my state (not one known for gambling), there are poker parlors which are considered legal because they don't play cash for each hand, instead they play as a tournament.
It does not prove that security in those things is broken.
Ok, so by your words, being able to create a document that contains blatantly false information, and successfully using that document to bypass security doesn't prove that "security in those things is broken". What, pray tell, would be required beyond this to demonstrate that security is broken? Because, you see, in my simple view of things, if you are "Bob" and security is on the lookout for "Bob", and you show them a modified password claiming that you're "Neil", and security lets you through because as far as they can tell you aren't "Bob", security has been compromised. When security is based on human inspection of said passport, clearly it's subject to human error. When security is electronically based, such as the case with RFID, all but the most basic of human interaction should be removed from the "is this a real passport?" equation.
You have a fine career ahead of you. But it isn't in marketing.
Cool, now if I'm really good in that subject (math comes to mind), I can just skip the entire first half of each semester and still get a B in the class!
Well, lets see... 50% for the first half of the semester... 100% for the second half (because you're really good at math)... this gives you a 75% average, with is a C.
I'm going to advise against thinking you're really good at math!
Was it ever actually a bastion? It hasn't been mainstream in since, well...has it ever honestly? I guess that depends on your definition of mainstream and your timeline of the "internet", but I hope you see at least a sliver of my point. A lot of great (and some poor) anecdotes will pop up in the discussion about how people use or used to use usenet, but if you asked the mainstream internet user between 1999 and 2008 if they utilize usenet, the majority would probably say, "Huh".
Yes, it was a bastion. I define mainstream loosely as being predominant in its domain. Within the domain of the Internet, USENET was a bastion for many years.
The Internet has a history that well predates your "1999 to 2008" research pool, and if you talk with people who were using the Internet (or ARPAnet or DARPAnet, UUCP, etc.) you will probably not find anyone who doesn't know what USENET was/is.
Sure, your point seems to be that the growth of users on the Internet has grown incredibly, and the bulk of them don't have a clue what USENET is (and perhaps this justifies Comcast's removal of it from their lineup), but regardless of how things have changed with growth, USENET was once an overwhelmingly important part of the Internet.
You may as well be asking "what would you prefer, a liver transplant or to die of cancer"? I don't know about you, but I prefer to remain healthy in the first place. The RIAA "investigating" and prosecuting is not healthy. The government seizing private equipment if they think it may have been involved is also not healthy. I don't particularly care if one is more or less healthy than the other.
I can't see any half-way sensible judge supporting that.
The problem here is the recent shortage of half-way sensible judges in our country. All too often they make decisions based on (unfounded) instinct rather than first learning the details needed to render a well formed opinion.
Lets say I sell software, lets call it Winblows A(ustere). I would like to start selling Winblows B(loated) and I would like to charge a premium for it. In order to convince users to upgrade, I'm going to drop support and sales of Winblows A(ustere). Now, by your "fair enough rule", if I drop sales of Winblows A(ustere), thus having it taken away from me and placed into the public domain, I'm going to be competing fully with my own product (well, it used to be mine at least). I suppose I'm OK with that though; instead of pulling Winblows A(ustere) from the sales list, I'll leave it in there and mark it up a thousand times. There, it's still available for sale, and thus not public domain. Of course, no one is going to buy it, are they?
Now now... everyone is entitled to as much justice as they can afford.
The BlackBerry has really lost its monopoly on the messaging device. If they were forced to comply with this, I would expect them to lose market share while people flocked to any of the myriad other devices that provide convenient messaging services.
Being an independent contractor simply isn't suited for everyone, and I would not be surprised to hear that many people would prefer to keep their current salary than take a 100% raise as a contractor. Nothing in employment is certain, but in general an employee is going to keep a stable steady paycheck longer than a contractor. Yes, reasonable contractors take in more income overall, but they still go from contract to contract, with down time between. To some, that's a positive aspect (more money, lots of vacation time), but to others the downtimes can be scary.
This is a personal problem. There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved through a suitable use of high explosives. This is not one of those exceptions.