While at the same time I've seen arguments that it's right that the rich and powerful tend to get more when they sue newspapers and radio stations for defamation because they're more valuable people... I mean their reputation is more valuable.
Lets go the whole hog! one rule for the rich, one for the poor! The lazy fuckers! Probably all criminals anyway!
Hit someone while drunk driving? well since you're rich you're obviously more valuable to society, lets stack the odds in your favor so you don't go to jail!
Speeding? well sure if you make more money in the 20 minutes you save getting to work than it costs you to pay for your speeding ticket then that's perfectly fine! It just makes economic sense for you to break the law then!
Crime isn't the same as milk or eggs. It's not a comodity. Fines are supposed to be punishment so if a fine is too small to be noticed by one person or so big as to not fit the crime for another then it's not justice. Fines relative to your wealth make perfect sense in that context. If you get to avoid going to jail because of your daddies money then something is seriously messed up with your legal system.
and that would just lead to "Generic Systems Co" folding and opening up the next day as "Ge dynamic Systems CO". A completely different entity which just happens to employ all the same people.
Now a death penalty which involves the board of directors or the biggest share holders actually being given the death penalty might mean something. Perhaps in cases where a company causes a vast number of deaths.
But it is a good way of describing security though obscurity and security through your system actually being secure. Which is the difference between closed and open source.
Re:operation of the air traffic control system
on
FAA Network Hacked
·
· Score: 1
When looking for schoolbooks for the severely dyslexic little brother of a friend we tried looking for audio books. Turned out there was an organisation which used to deal with that here. Notice "was".
For schoolbooks which had no audio book available from the publisher they'd got teachers who volunteered to record audio books for blind students.
Guess what the publishers thought of that.
Now they aren't allowed hand out recordings to blind students and the publishers aren't interested in making or distributing any since the market is so small.
As far as rights holders are concerned the disabled can go fuck themselves.
Re:operation of the air traffic control system
on
FAA Network Hacked
·
· Score: 1
What I was more refering to was.
1: You walk in the front door into the guest/public area. Lean down and plug something into a network port which acts as a wireless repeater. Of course it would be stupid to have live network ports in the public areas.
2: Bullshit your way into the office area one way or another. Do the same.
3: Bullshit your way into the server room. At this point you have full physical access and the game is over.
Re:operation of the air traffic control system
on
FAA Network Hacked
·
· Score: 1
Well someone who really wanted to could physically enter the building and either set up their own wireless access point or use some other setup to allow themselves to acess the network.
The moral is that newspaper articals should cite their sources just like wikipedia does. If a newspaper cited wikipedia then it should make a note as such, especially in it's online version where it would take up no real space.
Of course then it would become obvious how crap the research done by most journalists is.
The problem is not with wikipedia. The problem is with reputable newspapers not citing their sources allowing this kind of circular crap.
If I take a letter, lock it in a safe, hide the safe somewhere in New York, then tell you to read the letter, that's not security. That's obscurity. On the other hand, if I take a letter and lock it in a safe, and then give you the safe along with the design specifications of the safe and a hundred identical safes with their combinations so that you and the world's best safecrackers can study the locking mechanism -and you still can't open the safe and read the letter - that's security.
This might be a way to explain it to your clients.
"this law makes them feel much safer and secure in their workplace"
I don't know about where you live but here gas station attendants are not expected to risk their lives to stop theft. The norm for all night gas stations here is that the clerk stays inside with thick glass and one of those trays which slide to pass cash and merchandise back and forth between them and the customer. If someone steals gas then it's a matter of getting their plates from the security camera.
Are people expected to try to stop robbers where you live???
De Patie was killed in March 2005 while trying to stop a fleeing motorist from stealing $12 worth of gas from a service station in Maple Ridge, B.C. He was struck and dragged to his death.
A report by WorkSafeBC said the station wasn't enforcing its policy requiring attendants to remain inside at night.
De Patie's parents, Doug and Corinne, said they're confident the new regulation will help prevent similar tragedies in the future.
Seems pretty damn retarded to me. How many similar tragedies have there been in the past? 1? 2? most aren't stupid enough to die for 12 bucks.
Making it illegal for employers to subtract money from employees paychecks for merchandise stolen by customers perhaps would have been a sensible solution. Some fool gets himself killed over 12 dollars and suddenly it needs a special law. This is utterly utterly useless.
Stealing data in this case being akin to reading a sign glued to someones forehead. If you write your social security number on your chest and walk around the public streets you have no right to bitch if passing researchers write it down as part of a study into how retarded it is to walk around with your SSN on your chest. They didn't hack anything, they didn't crack any security. They read something that was being broadcast to all and sundry.
it's the "it's for your own good" mentality. You see what happens is that your mother(well someones mother) votes for someone who promises to force you to stay on the straight and narrow and make sure you eat your broccoli.
The lawn darts were a bit extreme but I have to agree. There seems to be more and more of an obsession with stopping kids from hurting themselves in any way at all. I hate to imagine how dull my childhood would be if I had it over now, when did letting kids climb trees go out of fashion? When did playing with candels and matches(where it wouldn't burn down the house) become a sin? I went through scouts and now help out the local group occasionally and it's as if most of the kids these days reach the age of 12 without ever touching a box of matches or climbing a tree.
Well we could look at IP owners who saw sense and tried putting everything online for free.
Now if you're right then there would be no effect on their sales of DVD's and such. If you're right then they would gain little from it and might even loose sales.
Yes, I download a great deal of material, why? Because it's easier.
I pay a subscription but I doubt the money is going to the artists, if the copyright holders could get their heads out of their asses and provide a single place where I could get everything I wanted- movies, music, ebooks, games from all studios and all providers without DRM and at a similar price then I'd be quite happy to pay them instead.
I do think copyright is broken, the lengh of time is insane for one thing but copyrights and patents have their uses.
So yes, I'd be one of those pirates but I'm not totally opposed to copyright.
So by your logic if all a groups copyrighted work was suddenly available for download for free they'd have a massive dropoff in sales? Sounds logical, I mean these guys went bankrupt as soon as they tried it. http://www.youtube.com/user/MontyPython
Forgot to add. Expect one of the RIAA advertising drones that seem to have been hanging out on slashdot to turn up and tell you that you're just being an evil thief who wants to justify his actions.
You see by complaining about DRM and stupid DRM features like you have experienced you're a "Pirate enabler" and since DRM is purely about stopping pirates you should really stop complaining, take it up the ass,let your hardware downgrade the video stream, sit through the unskippable advertisments quietly, feel grateful that they allowed you to give them your money and like it.
Slashdot Mirror
While at the same time I've seen arguments that it's right that the rich and powerful tend to get more when they sue newspapers and radio stations for defamation because they're more valuable people... I mean their reputation is more valuable.
Lets go the whole hog!
one rule for the rich, one for the poor!
The lazy fuckers!
Probably all criminals anyway!
Hit someone while drunk driving? well since you're rich you're obviously more valuable to society, lets stack the odds in your favor so you don't go to jail!
Speeding? well sure if you make more money in the 20 minutes you save getting to work than it costs you to pay for your speeding ticket then that's perfectly fine!
It just makes economic sense for you to break the law then!
Crime isn't the same as milk or eggs. It's not a comodity. Fines are supposed to be punishment so if a fine is too small to be noticed by one person or so big as to not fit the crime for another then it's not justice. Fines relative to your wealth make perfect sense in that context.
If you get to avoid going to jail because of your daddies money then something is seriously messed up with your legal system.
Doesn't seem to have irish school books unfortunatly.
and that would just lead to "Generic Systems Co" folding and opening up the next day as "Ge dynamic Systems CO". A completely different entity which just happens to employ all the same people.
Now a death penalty which involves the board of directors or the biggest share holders actually being given the death penalty might mean something.
Perhaps in cases where a company causes a vast number of deaths.
But it is a good way of describing security though obscurity and security through your system actually being secure.
Which is the difference between closed and open source.
It's good to know they have something like that.
You have no idea.
When looking for schoolbooks for the severely dyslexic little brother of a friend we tried looking for audio books. Turned out there was an organisation which used to deal with that here. Notice "was".
For schoolbooks which had no audio book available from the publisher they'd got teachers who volunteered to record audio books for blind students.
Guess what the publishers thought of that.
Now they aren't allowed hand out recordings to blind students and the publishers aren't interested in making or distributing any since the market is so small.
As far as rights holders are concerned the disabled can go fuck themselves.
What I was more refering to was.
1:
You walk in the front door into the guest/public area.
Lean down and plug something into a network port which acts as a wireless repeater.
Of course it would be stupid to have live network ports in the public areas.
2:
Bullshit your way into the office area one way or another.
Do the same.
3:
Bullshit your way into the server room.
At this point you have full physical access and the game is over.
Well someone who really wanted to could physically enter the building and either set up their own wireless access point or use some other setup to allow themselves to acess the network.
So one of the safe crackers found a flaw. And they fixed it.
The open source doesn't guarantee 100% perfect security, simply better security than security through obscurity.
The moral is that newspaper articals should cite their sources just like wikipedia does.
If a newspaper cited wikipedia then it should make a note as such, especially in it's online version where it would take up no real space.
Of course then it would become obvious how crap the research done by most journalists is.
The problem is not with wikipedia.
The problem is with reputable newspapers not citing their sources allowing this kind of circular crap.
OK, this just makes me want to play it more.
If I learned to play Dwarf Fortress I can learn to play EVE.
Well there's an old quote you could pull out.
If I take a letter, lock it in a safe, hide the safe somewhere in New York, then tell you to read the letter, that's not security. That's obscurity. On the other hand, if I take a letter and lock it in a safe, and then give you the safe along with the design specifications of the safe and a hundred identical safes with their combinations so that you and the world's best safecrackers can study the locking mechanism -and you still can't open the safe and read the letter - that's security.
This might be a way to explain it to your clients.
not really
http://www.unionbio.com/applications/app_notes/mosquito_files/QTN-012%20Mosquito.pdf
"this law makes them feel much safer and secure in their workplace"
I don't know about where you live but here gas station attendants are not expected to risk their lives to stop theft.
The norm for all night gas stations here is that the clerk stays inside with thick glass and one of those trays which slide to pass cash and merchandise back and forth between them and the customer.
If someone steals gas then it's a matter of getting their plates from the security camera.
Are people expected to try to stop robbers where you live???
De Patie was killed in March 2005 while trying to stop a fleeing motorist from stealing $12 worth of gas from a service station in Maple Ridge, B.C. He was struck and dragged to his death.
A report by WorkSafeBC said the station wasn't enforcing its policy requiring attendants to remain inside at night.
De Patie's parents, Doug and Corinne, said they're confident the new regulation will help prevent similar tragedies in the future.
Seems pretty damn retarded to me.
How many similar tragedies have there been in the past? 1? 2? most aren't stupid enough to die for 12 bucks.
Making it illegal for employers to subtract money from employees paychecks for merchandise stolen by customers perhaps would have been a sensible solution.
Some fool gets himself killed over 12 dollars and suddenly it needs a special law.
This is utterly utterly useless.
possibly it was a jar full of males. No risk of bites then.
Depends whether you live within the US borders.
Stealing data in this case being akin to reading a sign glued to someones forehead.
If you write your social security number on your chest and walk around the public streets you have no right to bitch if passing researchers write it down as part of a study into how retarded it is to walk around with your SSN on your chest.
They didn't hack anything, they didn't crack any security. They read something that was being broadcast to all and sundry.
it's the "it's for your own good" mentality.
You see what happens is that your mother(well someones mother) votes for someone who promises to force you to stay on the straight and narrow and make sure you eat your broccoli.
The lawn darts were a bit extreme but I have to agree.
There seems to be more and more of an obsession with stopping kids from hurting themselves in any way at all.
I hate to imagine how dull my childhood would be if I had it over now, when did letting kids climb trees go out of fashion?
When did playing with candels and matches(where it wouldn't burn down the house) become a sin?
I went through scouts and now help out the local group occasionally and it's as if most of the kids these days reach the age of 12 without ever touching a box of matches or climbing a tree.
Is anything there factually incorrect?
Otherwise calling a charlatan a charlatan should be perfectly fine.
Well we could look at IP owners who saw sense and tried putting everything online for free.
Now if you're right then there would be no effect on their sales of DVD's and such.
If you're right then they would gain little from it and might even loose sales.
Now lets look at an example...
http://www.youtube.com/user/MontyPython
http://entertainment.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/25/0041202
Now to be fair they only experienced a marginal increase in DVD sales... barely enough to notice but still.
Yes,
I download a great deal of material, why? Because it's easier.
I pay a subscription but I doubt the money is going to the artists, if the copyright holders could get their heads out of their asses and provide a single place where I could get everything I wanted- movies, music, ebooks, games from all studios and all providers without DRM and at a similar price then I'd be quite happy to pay them instead.
I do think copyright is broken, the lengh of time is insane for one thing but copyrights and patents have their uses.
So yes, I'd be one of those pirates but I'm not totally opposed to copyright.
So by your logic if all a groups copyrighted work was suddenly available for download for free they'd have a massive dropoff in sales?
Sounds logical, I mean these guys went bankrupt as soon as they tried it.
http://www.youtube.com/user/MontyPython
Forgot to add.
Expect one of the RIAA advertising drones that seem to have been hanging out on slashdot to turn up and tell you that you're just being an evil thief who wants to justify his actions.
You see by complaining about DRM and stupid DRM features like you have experienced you're a "Pirate enabler" and since DRM is purely about stopping pirates you should really stop complaining, take it up the ass,let your hardware downgrade the video stream, sit through the unskippable advertisments quietly, feel grateful that they allowed you to give them your money and like it.