Here in America we jail people just for making bad movies!
The fact that we don't jail people for making bad movies is the reason that there have been riots around the Muslim world the past week. Many of the people in those countries just cannot comprehend that the government can do nothing about the film other then issuing statements.
I don't think it's that they are trying to nickel and dime you. I think they were trying to reduce cost of the base OS, by not including the licensing fees for MPEG2.
If so, that may be a good thing if it exposes end users to the patent craziness that is screwing up the industry. As the best way to get rid of a bad law is to strictly enforce it, unbundling the MPEG licenses will annoy end users.
The point needs to be made that, absent probable cause or reasonable articulable suspicion, the police/government has no authority to track anyone. So instead of you and I "hoping" that they can't follow us without a good reason (and thus, by extension, "hoping" that they won't abuse the privilege), they are first required to have a good reason before being allowed to follow us.
I was referring to that case where a police officer follows someone out in the open, on public streets. In that case, the cops have as much freedom of movement as anyone else does. If they were to trespass on private property, or take any other action that would be illegal for a normal civilian to take (wiretaps, access to any non-public corporate data, tampering with someone vehicle to attach a tracking device, etc.) then yes, they should have to get a warrant.
They never needed a warrant to "tail" a guy driving round in his car, or "shadow" him walking down the street, so why need one to tail/shadow a cellphone? I don't think any of these events is unreasonable.
The best argument against this is that trailing a person requires resources (the cop), and has an opportunity cost for the police. They are not going to tail someone without a (hopefully good) reason. If, on the other hand, they engage in mass surveillance with minimal cost cost per victim, that eliminates the cost for the police to engage in such behavior.
... The government just needs a private key and digitally sign each paper bill it produces (similar to the current serial numbers but with PKI powers) and then when you accept paper money for payment you will need a computer to read and verify the digital signature is valid....
Nice thought, but it won't work. You just need a bill, and you can copy the serial number, signature and all.
What might work is the following: Manufacture each bill with a random "fingerprint", and and sign that. This fingerprint would need to be something that is impossible to create in given configuration (it must be random, and there cannot be any alternative non-random way to make it.) It should also be easy to verify. I do not know of anything that meets these criteria, but there may be something.
I cannot say for the C standard, but in my work, we do some standards development under ISO. None of this work is funded by ISO -- it is either funded by my employer, or government agencies, commercial end-users, or others that have in interest in the technology getting standardized. This process can be quite expensive -- salaries, travel, meetings, but none of that is paid by ISO. It is all paid by the participants (or funding they can acquire from other interested parties.).
ISO basically acts as a middleman. They collect their fee on the work done by others, and do not provide any value add other than blessing the standard as an International Standard.
One problem with the perjury remedy is it a criminal matter, and thus takes a the government to initiate litigation. There is no private right of action, and you are pretty much SOL unless you can convince the US Department of Justice to prosecute someone fora false DMCA take-down request.
The way I always thought this should work, is that if an infringement claim is made and the poster does not contest, the material is taken down and the issue is closed, if the poster does contest the remains accessible, but the person who posted it accepts liability is the alleged content owner decides to sue, and the material will remain visible until the poster or a court orders it removed. This way, anyone can post anything without fear of a takedown, as long as they are willing to defend their actions in court.
So they go through all the trouble of banning liquids on flights, and other security theater, while allowing provably dangerous electronics onto the planes without any question. What happens when some terrorist is able to reprogram a phone or computer to overheat on command? Perhaps they could even "forget" the phone on a plane, and arrange for it to cause some mischief after the bad guy deplanes.
I would love to see them ban computers and cellphones because that would effect frequent business travelers, and perhaps cause some pushback against the insanity of airline security.
Generally, a Windows update will not require a new key. Microsoft can use their key to sign any number of OS updates going forward. The only reason they would need to issue a new key is if the private key were compromised, or (maybe) if the certificate expires in 10 years or so.
I don't see a big issue here. Most workstations are bought with an OS pre-installed simply because it is legislated. Corporations wipe them and re-install their own 'flavour' of the OS - even if it is the same version. And many private buyers do too. We install our own flavour of the OS regardless of what came on the PC. We buy workstations with 'Home' editions and install 'Pro' editions (legitimately)...
One of Microsoft's more evil policies is that corporate bulk Windows licenses are only upgrades. Thus, you cannot (legally) install a volume license on a naked machine. Thus, you need to buy a system with an OEM license only to blow it away with the corporate version. This means that you have to do exactly what you are doing (buy systems with preinstalled OSs) in order to remain in compliance with the license.
We will not be buying hardware that doesn't come with the PKI Key declared - and I doubt that any of the serious vendors (eg Dell, IBM, Toshiba, etc) would ship equipment without the PKI Key clearly identified on a sticky label on the box.
Having the public key will not help you here unless you simply want to insure that you can install an OS the vendor approved. Knowing the public key will allow you (and the bootloader) to verify and OS, but not to make a new one. If you want to be able to install another OS, you either need the means to add a public key of your choice the the system, or limit yourself to operating systems that have been signed by the system vendor.
Maybe I'm naive, but if I were a BIOS manufacturer, I would just have an option to "disable trusted boot" or "enable installation of new operating system" both with appropriate warnings about malware and lack of support....
Or, even better, provide have the BIOS provide a UI for key management. This way, before installing an OS, you need to go into the BIOS, install the new OS's bootloader key, and then fire it up. Ideally, this functionality should only be available from the ROM setup program before an OS is loaded, to make it more difficult (hopefully impossible) for malware to install its own keys programatically.
I am all for privacy but everything posted on Facebook that is public is, by definition, public information. If a person wants to keep something private do not post it on Facebook!
Most of what is on Facebook is not public. There is an access control system that, by default, limits your posts to friend of friends. You can adjust the permissions of every post to be accessible to whatever set of people you desire. I realize that they will do data mining, but that information is only used internally to target ads. I have no problem with any of this.
What I do have a problem with is when Facebook violates the agreement or when someone (a potential employer, for example) requires that you friend them as a condition for (continued) employment or any other reason.
My point was that Windows license includes a patent license as well. If the patent license is the same prices as the Windows+patent license, then they are pricing Windows at $0 over the underlying patents. (Assuming that Windows uses the same patented tech that Android does, which given the nature of the products is quite likely.) This does not pass the anti-trust smell test IMHO.
...when he said the VCR was a much a threat to the movie industry as the Boston Strangler was to the woman home alone.
The Boston Strangler was an overblown threat which got a lot of press (as such crimes always do) and which whipped people into a panic. He ended up taking 13 lives, which while tragic, is pretty insignificant statistically. There are far greater threats bigger dangers than falling victim to a deranged killer.
However, a claim of certain acts -- including pedophilia (and domestic abuse, etc) -- instantly initiates criminal proceedings, starting out with separation and investigation. They are engaging in acts that do have very serious immediate consequences that involve law enforcement and the courts. These procedures are increasingly mandatory in many locales, with an assertion of "I made it up" being insufficient to stop investigation and/or prosecution. For example, had they made these claims against their parents, they might well have been removed from the home by the courts (and almost certainly would have been in California, according to a child care worker I just IMed this link to; she notes that forwarded communication is a fairly common reason to start investigations, and removal is a precautionary measure).
That is problem. We have a justice system set on a hair trigger for certain crimes. We should not throw out the constitution, or limit what school-aged people can do outside of school. Instead, we should stop going on witch hunts at the mere hint that someone may have done a certain act. Yes, child molestation is a terrible crime, but so is ruining someone's life with to a false accusation. The pendulum has swung far too far toward protecting the victims of these horrible crimes, at the cost of not protecting those falsely accused.
Why is this even a criminal matter? The guy should be fired, and possibly sued by his employer, but that's it. There is no reason to get the police involved.
Slashdot Mirror
Here in America we jail people just for making bad movies!
The fact that we don't jail people for making bad movies is the reason that there have been riots around the Muslim world the past week. Many of the people in those countries just cannot comprehend that the government can do nothing about the film other then issuing statements.
I don't think it's that they are trying to nickel and dime you. I think they were trying to reduce cost of the base OS, by not including the licensing fees for MPEG2.
If so, that may be a good thing if it exposes end users to the patent craziness that is screwing up the industry. As the best way to get rid of a bad law is to strictly enforce it, unbundling the MPEG licenses will annoy end users.
The point needs to be made that, absent probable cause or reasonable articulable suspicion, the police/government has no authority to track anyone. So instead of you and I "hoping" that they can't follow us without a good reason (and thus, by extension, "hoping" that they won't abuse the privilege), they are first required to have a good reason before being allowed to follow us.
I was referring to that case where a police officer follows someone out in the open, on public streets. In that case, the cops have as much freedom of movement as anyone else does. If they were to trespass on private property, or take any other action that would be illegal for a normal civilian to take (wiretaps, access to any non-public corporate data, tampering with someone vehicle to attach a tracking device, etc.) then yes, they should have to get a warrant.
They never needed a warrant to "tail" a guy driving round in his car, or "shadow" him walking down the street, so why need one to tail/shadow a cellphone? I don't think any of these events is unreasonable.
The best argument against this is that trailing a person requires resources (the cop), and has an opportunity cost for the police. They are not going to tail someone without a (hopefully good) reason. If, on the other hand, they engage in mass surveillance with minimal cost cost per victim, that eliminates the cost for the police to engage in such behavior.
The Arduino Uno does have a CE mark. Look at the picture of the back of the board.
I don't know it is required, but it does have it
... The government just needs a private key and digitally sign each paper bill it produces (similar to the current serial numbers but with PKI powers) and then when you accept paper money for payment you will need a computer to read and verify the digital signature is valid. ...
Nice thought, but it won't work. You just need a bill, and you can copy the serial number, signature and all.
What might work is the following: Manufacture each bill with a random "fingerprint", and and sign that. This fingerprint would need to be something that is impossible to create in given configuration (it must be random, and there cannot be any alternative non-random way to make it.) It should also be easy to verify. I do not know of anything that meets these criteria, but there may be something.
I cannot say for the C standard, but in my work, we do some standards development under ISO. None of this work is funded by ISO -- it is either funded by my employer, or government agencies, commercial end-users, or others that have in interest in the technology getting standardized. This process can be quite expensive -- salaries, travel, meetings, but none of that is paid by ISO. It is all paid by the participants (or funding they can acquire from other interested parties.).
ISO basically acts as a middleman. They collect their fee on the work done by others, and do not provide any value add other than blessing the standard as an International Standard.
One problem with the perjury remedy is it a criminal matter, and thus takes a the government to initiate litigation. There is no private right of action, and you are pretty much SOL unless you can convince the US Department of Justice to prosecute someone fora false DMCA take-down request. The way I always thought this should work, is that if an infringement claim is made and the poster does not contest, the material is taken down and the issue is closed, if the poster does contest the remains accessible, but the person who posted it accepts liability is the alleged content owner decides to sue, and the material will remain visible until the poster or a court orders it removed. This way, anyone can post anything without fear of a takedown, as long as they are willing to defend their actions in court.
So they go through all the trouble of banning liquids on flights, and other security theater, while allowing provably dangerous electronics onto the planes without any question. What happens when some terrorist is able to reprogram a phone or computer to overheat on command? Perhaps they could even "forget" the phone on a plane, and arrange for it to cause some mischief after the bad guy deplanes.
I would love to see them ban computers and cellphones because that would effect frequent business travelers, and perhaps cause some pushback against the insanity of airline security.
Should she not be suing the studios for age discrimination instead? That (if anyone) is who is truly hurting her career.
Maybe, they requested the patent on the bug to insure that nobody else can invade users' privacy. (Yeah right, I don't believe that either.)
Generally, a Windows update will not require a new key. Microsoft can use their key to sign any number of OS updates going forward. The only reason they would need to issue a new key is if the private key were compromised, or (maybe) if the certificate expires in 10 years or so.
I don't see a big issue here. Most workstations are bought with an OS pre-installed simply because it is legislated. Corporations wipe them and re-install their own 'flavour' of the OS - even if it is the same version. And many private buyers do too. We install our own flavour of the OS regardless of what came on the PC. We buy workstations with 'Home' editions and install 'Pro' editions (legitimately) ...
One of Microsoft's more evil policies is that corporate bulk Windows licenses are only upgrades. Thus, you cannot (legally) install a volume license on a naked machine. Thus, you need to buy a system with an OEM license only to blow it away with the corporate version. This means that you have to do exactly what you are doing (buy systems with preinstalled OSs) in order to remain in compliance with the license.
We will not be buying hardware that doesn't come with the PKI Key declared - and I doubt that any of the serious vendors (eg Dell, IBM, Toshiba, etc) would ship equipment without the PKI Key clearly identified on a sticky label on the box.
Having the public key will not help you here unless you simply want to insure that you can install an OS the vendor approved. Knowing the public key will allow you (and the bootloader) to verify and OS, but not to make a new one. If you want to be able to install another OS, you either need the means to add a public key of your choice the the system, or limit yourself to operating systems that have been signed by the system vendor.
Maybe I'm naive, but if I were a BIOS manufacturer, I would just have an option to "disable trusted boot" or "enable installation of new operating system" both with appropriate warnings about malware and lack of support. ...
Or, even better, provide have the BIOS provide a UI for key management. This way, before installing an OS, you need to go into the BIOS, install the new OS's bootloader key, and then fire it up. Ideally, this functionality should only be available from the ROM setup program before an OS is loaded, to make it more difficult (hopefully impossible) for malware to install its own keys programatically.
I am all for privacy but everything posted on Facebook that is public is, by definition, public information. If a person wants to keep something private do not post it on Facebook!
Most of what is on Facebook is not public. There is an access control system that, by default, limits your posts to friend of friends. You can adjust the permissions of every post to be accessible to whatever set of people you desire. I realize that they will do data mining, but that information is only used internally to target ads. I have no problem with any of this.
What I do have a problem with is when Facebook violates the agreement or when someone (a potential employer, for example) requires that you friend them as a condition for (continued) employment or any other reason.
This American Life is distributed by PRI. Yes it plays mostly on NPR affiliates, but NPR has nothing to do with making it.
Note, however that this week's episode was a co-production if This American Life and NPR's Planet Money.
Normally, this statement would be correct, but not always.
That way it's cooler and will reflect much more light.
I get the A/C bill and it is through the sky.
The cash I'm wasting there it makes me want to cry.
(add more lyrics)
My point was that Windows license includes a patent license as well. If the patent license is the same prices as the Windows+patent license, then they are pricing Windows at $0 over the underlying patents. (Assuming that Windows uses the same patented tech that Android does, which given the nature of the products is quite likely.) This does not pass the anti-trust smell test IMHO.
I wonder if there are antitrust implications of licensing the patents for that same price that they sell the software for.
Absolutely not. I roundabout is supposed to reduce the time a car spends idling.
...when he said the VCR was a much a threat to the movie industry as the Boston Strangler was to the woman home alone.
The Boston Strangler was an overblown threat which got a lot of press (as such crimes always do) and which whipped people into a panic. He ended up taking 13 lives, which while tragic, is pretty insignificant statistically. There are far greater threats bigger dangers than falling victim to a deranged killer.
However, a claim of certain acts -- including pedophilia (and domestic abuse, etc) -- instantly initiates criminal proceedings, starting out with separation and investigation. They are engaging in acts that do have very serious immediate consequences that involve law enforcement and the courts. These procedures are increasingly mandatory in many locales, with an assertion of "I made it up" being insufficient to stop investigation and/or prosecution. For example, had they made these claims against their parents, they might well have been removed from the home by the courts (and almost certainly would have been in California, according to a child care worker I just IMed this link to; she notes that forwarded communication is a fairly common reason to start investigations, and removal is a precautionary measure).
That is problem. We have a justice system set on a hair trigger for certain crimes. We should not throw out the constitution, or limit what school-aged people can do outside of school. Instead, we should stop going on witch hunts at the mere hint that someone may have done a certain act. Yes, child molestation is a terrible crime, but so is ruining someone's life with to a false accusation. The pendulum has swung far too far toward protecting the victims of these horrible crimes, at the cost of not protecting those falsely accused.
Why is this even a criminal matter? The guy should be fired, and possibly sued by his employer, but that's it. There is no reason to get the police involved.
It would be a lot more refreshing if they did it while there was a Republican in the White House.
I'm surprised any of his vewers are actually smart enough to figure out how to turn on the television.
They would not be his viewers if they did not.