The Google Voice app is NOT available on Cydia. GV Mobile (not a Google product) is available, but it doesn't integrate well with the iPhone's contact list. GV mobile is a far cry from any native app that Google would have released for the iPhone.
This is old news -- nicotine has long been known to improve cognitive function in schizophrenics. I remember hearing about this in an undergrad abnormal psych class about 5 years ago.
Neither this wireless service, nor FiOS, are available to users in many markets. Where I live we have a telephone company and cable company duopoly over broadband service. A little more competition would be nice. . .
I don't think music copyrights are generally a good thing (that is, they tend to benefit recording companies far more than artists, and do stifle creativity) but academia is different. Academics should be even more deserving of the right to use / cite / republish papers or scientific studies.
The point of working in academia is to seek knowledge and share it with others. Copyright prevents or severely limits that. If knowledge isn't shared, we're all more ignorant because of it. Academic works should all be published under the creative commons attribution license, or something similar.
I'm fortunate to manage an IT department at a company that values security. We do routine audits and pen test our own systems -- occasionally we find a hole, and we fill it. I've never been pressured to skimp on security.
Other commenters may argue that security is not something that companies can "buy," and they're right, to a point. Expensive proprietary firewalls are, in my experience, no better (and sometimes far worse) than a properly configured linux box. But companies do have to "buy" security in the sense that they need to budget time to ensure that systems are properly configured. I can set up a linux firewall in a matter of minutes, but to do it properly (especially when it must allow VPN, SSH, access to multiple databases, limited FTP, etc.) it takes much more time.
If companies realize how much their data is (are?) worth, they should also consider what's at stake if it's stolen or misused. Security doesn't have to be the primary investment for most companies, but it must be a high priority. If it's not, eventually bad things will happen.
Why a bank's IT / security team would feel it appropriate to operate ATMs that run Windows is completely beyond me. I mean, if bankers were really that stupid the world economy would probably have crumbled by now.
Oh, wait. . .
If someone misrepresents him or herself and breaks the law as a result, you have some recourse. If someone signs up for an e-mail address containing a certain sequence of letters, you do not. If people are fooled into thinking that an e-mail from sjrc6969@yahoo.com is official, they're idiots, and no regulations or safeguards will protect them. You shouldn't even ask students to give up e-mail addresses. You have no legal authority, and it makes you look foolish.
Let's look at it from another angle. I often wear white shirts. Because someone might mistake you for me, or because you might be able to pose as me, I insist that you stop wearing white shirts immediately. The people who are unable to distinguish between the two of us must be protected!
Also, sjrc.us, sjrc.tel, and a number of other sjrc domains are available. If you're really that paranoid about misrepresentation, wouldn't it make sense to register those domain names as well?
It's amazing to me that this kind of threat comes from an institution that charges money to educate people. Seems to me like the value of a degree from Santa Rosa Junior College just dropped dramatically.
Then again, I doubt it would have been worth much to begin with.
My experience with clearwire has been TERRIBLE. Throughput is laughably slow, often under 70-75kb/sec. Service is intermittent. They automatically renew a binding one year contract on the last day of each existing contract.
Clearwire is not an alternative at all.
I'm in a similar situation, and it's taken months to get all of our licenses in order. My strategy has been to move slowly, as tight budgets didn't allow us to upgrade everything right away, but forcefully, as the consequences running pirated software can be pretty substantial in the long run.
When possible, I switched to open source software (openoffice, gimp, etc.), but when some employees had difficulty switching, I went to management. Eventually, management decided that the increased productivity that we get out of using M$ products was worth spending about $2000 on licenses. I then set up a schedule and got management to agree to budget for 3 copies of office per month. We're finally up to date on licenses.
It was a difficult process, particularly because the median age at the company is fairly low, and because young people tend to believe that software should be free. Still, when management realized that the fines for using pirated software could literally bankrupt the company (and that if we ever fired an employee, he or she might report us to the BSA out of spite), they decided to give me a reasonable budget to buy software.
I think one of the most important things for small companies to realize is that if you use pirated software, you probably shouldn't fire anyone or make any of your employees unhappy. If you do, they can bring you down by reporting you to the BSA.
Mr. Henderson,
While I have no direct connection to you or to Mr. Anderson, I was disappointed to see the brief you filed before the court on August 9.
As a systems and network administrator, I would have felt that Mr. Anderson had done me a great service by attaching his "Fare Collection
Vulnerability Assessment Report," which the MBTA has included as
"Exhibit A."
As I'm sure you are now aware, this report is now available to the
public, as it was submitted as part of a public civil proceeding. Mr.
Anderson's presentation was also public, and was given to attendees in
advance of the conference at which he intended to speak. At least
until Saturday, it was also hosted by public servers at MIT. A bit of
research would likely have led you to the report -- in fact, it is
still public, and is now mirrored across the internet. Unfortunately
for the MBTA, "Exhibit A," which your organization willfully made
public, contains far more detailed and damaging information than Mr.
Anderson's original presentation.
Instead of trying to prevent this information from leaking out, it
seems it would have made more sense to work with Mr. Anderson and his
colleagues, or other qualified individuals, to address the
vulnerabilities in your system. By seeking prior restraint, the MBTA
has suggested that it is uninterested in taking any other corrective
action -- at least, if such action is in progress, it is not mentioned
in the documents presented to the court.
What is also surprising to me is that you disparage Mr. Anderson's
research as unoriginal, while at the same time the MBTA is requesting
that this information be censored. If Mr. Anderson's research is
unoriginal (and I agree with you on this point), how would the release
of this report be damaging to the MBTA? How can prior restraint be
justified for material that has already been released?
Despite my objection to your position in this case, I am indebted to
you, and to the MBTA, because by seeking prior restraint in this case,
you've taught tens of thousands of people around the world a bit more
about how your systems work, and you've demonstrated that prior
restraint is quite unrealistic in the internet age. Chances are that
relatively few people would have learned about the security flaws of
the MBTA system if Mr. Anderson were permitted to give his
presentation. As a result of the MBTA's legal challenge, many have
taken notice, and have examined the information on vulnerabilities you
intended to suppress, as well as the (more sensitive) information the
MBTA has now brought to light.
I don't expect a reply to this message, as I'm sure you're already
quite busy with this matter, but if I were in your position, I would
thank Mr. Anderson and his fellow students for a thorough security
audit, which they did at no cost to you or to your employer. Of
course, if you'd like to respond, you're welcome to do so -- I'd be
curious to learn more about your position on this issue.
Regards and best wishes!
Disclaimer: I have no interest in exploiting the vulnerabilities in
the MBTA's systems, and don't live in Massachusetts or anywhere near
Boston. I have never ridden public transportation in Boston and at
this time have no intention of doing so. Also, I am not a lawyer, and
am not affiliated with any party in this case.
"Well, they don't have your HTML. They have a copy of your HTML.
Your original HTML is still residing on the server where you put it. They are not interfering with your data.
What they are doing is interfering with their subscribers requested copy of that data. Their subscriber has the right to render the requested HTML in any way they see fit. They can use a different CSS file that resides on their box or some other network location. They can choose not to render graphics, flash, or allow JavaScript to run."
By that reasoning a bookstore could rewrite portions of my book and sell it without my consent. This line of argument seems badly flawed.
Slashdot Mirror
The Google Voice app is NOT available on Cydia. GV Mobile (not a Google product) is available, but it doesn't integrate well with the iPhone's contact list. GV mobile is a far cry from any native app that Google would have released for the iPhone.
This is old news -- nicotine has long been known to improve cognitive function in schizophrenics. I remember hearing about this in an undergrad abnormal psych class about 5 years ago.
Neither this wireless service, nor FiOS, are available to users in many markets. Where I live we have a telephone company and cable company duopoly over broadband service. A little more competition would be nice. . .
I don't think music copyrights are generally a good thing (that is, they tend to benefit recording companies far more than artists, and do stifle creativity) but academia is different. Academics should be even more deserving of the right to use / cite / republish papers or scientific studies.
The point of working in academia is to seek knowledge and share it with others. Copyright prevents or severely limits that. If knowledge isn't shared, we're all more ignorant because of it. Academic works should all be published under the creative commons attribution license, or something similar.
I'm fortunate to manage an IT department at a company that values security. We do routine audits and pen test our own systems -- occasionally we find a hole, and we fill it. I've never been pressured to skimp on security.
Other commenters may argue that security is not something that companies can "buy," and they're right, to a point. Expensive proprietary firewalls are, in my experience, no better (and sometimes far worse) than a properly configured linux box. But companies do have to "buy" security in the sense that they need to budget time to ensure that systems are properly configured. I can set up a linux firewall in a matter of minutes, but to do it properly (especially when it must allow VPN, SSH, access to multiple databases, limited FTP, etc.) it takes much more time.
If companies realize how much their data is (are?) worth, they should also consider what's at stake if it's stolen or misused. Security doesn't have to be the primary investment for most companies, but it must be a high priority. If it's not, eventually bad things will happen.
People are gagging for windows 7 not because it's good, but because they believe it's good.
No, people are gagging for Windows 7 because Vista was a terrible flop and XP is ancient.
mod parent up
Why a bank's IT / security team would feel it appropriate to operate ATMs that run Windows is completely beyond me. I mean, if bankers were really that stupid the world economy would probably have crumbled by now. Oh, wait. . .
It's still an incredibly stupid idea.
If someone misrepresents him or herself and breaks the law as a result, you have some recourse. If someone signs up for an e-mail address containing a certain sequence of letters, you do not. If people are fooled into thinking that an e-mail from sjrc6969@yahoo.com is official, they're idiots, and no regulations or safeguards will protect them. You shouldn't even ask students to give up e-mail addresses. You have no legal authority, and it makes you look foolish.
Let's look at it from another angle. I often wear white shirts. Because someone might mistake you for me, or because you might be able to pose as me, I insist that you stop wearing white shirts immediately. The people who are unable to distinguish between the two of us must be protected!
Also, sjrc.us, sjrc.tel, and a number of other sjrc domains are available. If you're really that paranoid about misrepresentation, wouldn't it make sense to register those domain names as well?
Dumb.
It's amazing to me that this kind of threat comes from an institution that charges money to educate people. Seems to me like the value of a degree from Santa Rosa Junior College just dropped dramatically.
Then again, I doubt it would have been worth much to begin with.
Zimbab-waah?
My experience with clearwire has been TERRIBLE. Throughput is laughably slow, often under 70-75kb/sec. Service is intermittent. They automatically renew a binding one year contract on the last day of each existing contract. Clearwire is not an alternative at all.
I'm in a similar situation, and it's taken months to get all of our licenses in order. My strategy has been to move slowly, as tight budgets didn't allow us to upgrade everything right away, but forcefully, as the consequences running pirated software can be pretty substantial in the long run.
When possible, I switched to open source software (openoffice, gimp, etc.), but when some employees had difficulty switching, I went to management. Eventually, management decided that the increased productivity that we get out of using M$ products was worth spending about $2000 on licenses. I then set up a schedule and got management to agree to budget for 3 copies of office per month. We're finally up to date on licenses.
It was a difficult process, particularly because the median age at the company is fairly low, and because young people tend to believe that software should be free. Still, when management realized that the fines for using pirated software could literally bankrupt the company (and that if we ever fired an employee, he or she might report us to the BSA out of spite), they decided to give me a reasonable budget to buy software.
I think one of the most important things for small companies to realize is that if you use pirated software, you probably shouldn't fire anyone or make any of your employees unhappy. If you do, they can bring you down by reporting you to the BSA.
Mr. Henderson, While I have no direct connection to you or to Mr. Anderson, I was disappointed to see the brief you filed before the court on August 9. As a systems and network administrator, I would have felt that Mr. Anderson had done me a great service by attaching his "Fare Collection Vulnerability Assessment Report," which the MBTA has included as "Exhibit A." As I'm sure you are now aware, this report is now available to the public, as it was submitted as part of a public civil proceeding. Mr. Anderson's presentation was also public, and was given to attendees in advance of the conference at which he intended to speak. At least until Saturday, it was also hosted by public servers at MIT. A bit of research would likely have led you to the report -- in fact, it is still public, and is now mirrored across the internet. Unfortunately for the MBTA, "Exhibit A," which your organization willfully made public, contains far more detailed and damaging information than Mr. Anderson's original presentation. Instead of trying to prevent this information from leaking out, it seems it would have made more sense to work with Mr. Anderson and his colleagues, or other qualified individuals, to address the vulnerabilities in your system. By seeking prior restraint, the MBTA has suggested that it is uninterested in taking any other corrective action -- at least, if such action is in progress, it is not mentioned in the documents presented to the court. What is also surprising to me is that you disparage Mr. Anderson's research as unoriginal, while at the same time the MBTA is requesting that this information be censored. If Mr. Anderson's research is unoriginal (and I agree with you on this point), how would the release of this report be damaging to the MBTA? How can prior restraint be justified for material that has already been released? Despite my objection to your position in this case, I am indebted to you, and to the MBTA, because by seeking prior restraint in this case, you've taught tens of thousands of people around the world a bit more about how your systems work, and you've demonstrated that prior restraint is quite unrealistic in the internet age. Chances are that relatively few people would have learned about the security flaws of the MBTA system if Mr. Anderson were permitted to give his presentation. As a result of the MBTA's legal challenge, many have taken notice, and have examined the information on vulnerabilities you intended to suppress, as well as the (more sensitive) information the MBTA has now brought to light. I don't expect a reply to this message, as I'm sure you're already quite busy with this matter, but if I were in your position, I would thank Mr. Anderson and his fellow students for a thorough security audit, which they did at no cost to you or to your employer. Of course, if you'd like to respond, you're welcome to do so -- I'd be curious to learn more about your position on this issue. Regards and best wishes! Disclaimer: I have no interest in exploiting the vulnerabilities in the MBTA's systems, and don't live in Massachusetts or anywhere near Boston. I have never ridden public transportation in Boston and at this time have no intention of doing so. Also, I am not a lawyer, and am not affiliated with any party in this case.
"Well, they don't have your HTML. They have a copy of your HTML. Your original HTML is still residing on the server where you put it. They are not interfering with your data. What they are doing is interfering with their subscribers requested copy of that data. Their subscriber has the right to render the requested HTML in any way they see fit. They can use a different CSS file that resides on their box or some other network location. They can choose not to render graphics, flash, or allow JavaScript to run." By that reasoning a bookstore could rewrite portions of my book and sell it without my consent. This line of argument seems badly flawed.