If you are correct that inquisitorial systems are flawed, and the GP is correct that adversarial systems are flawed, is there a compromise between or synthesis of the two that would be better?
The "every-other-Windows-sucks" pattern isn't based on comparing NT kernels. It refers to Microsoft's OS releases for the "home user" space, and Windows NT and Windows 2000 weren't aimed at that market - unlike 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista, Win 7 and now Win 8.
Just to note, treason is a crime specifically defined by the United States Constitution. He undoubtedly broke the law, but Manning did not commit treason just by handing that information to an Australian, because - last I checked anyway - Australia is not an Enemy of the United States.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. -- Article III, Section, United States Constitution.
Voting with your wallet by not buying is like voting at the polls by not picking any of the candidates.
If you want to vote with your wallet (as opposed to simply saving the money), you have to buy a competitor's game.
Or fund one. As far as alternatives to SimCity go, perhaps Civitas on Kickstarter? Their goal is to have all the SimCity features: big cities, terraforming, subways, curved roads, real singleplayer, disasters, save/reload, etc, with none of that always on DRM. Oh, AND LINUX SUPPORT (check the Updates page).
I think it might end being a HARMful idea if thugs with badges (as opposed to actual servants of the law) started jamming wifi and mobile whenever they wanted to beat someone. It's not like someone might EMPathise with the victims, after all.:)
All punning aside, it'd be a seriously bad idea. That kind of escalation would only end in tears, and hopefully the administration's statement in favour of an individual's right to record the police indicates that TPTB realise this.
I wonder if EA and the other companies rushing towards server-side components have considered the legal consequences viz copyright and contract law:
(1) Copyright is a contract between creator and society, enforced by government.
(2) If you protect your work via copyright, then your consideration is the protected work.
(3) If your work includes server-side components, then those components are part of your consideration.
(4) If you turn off those servers and do not provide for the release of the components when the copyright expires, you are in breach of your contractual obligation.
Now, I am not a lawyer, and maybe there is some fine print loophole that lets them off in violation of the spirit of the agreement, but it seems pretty clear to me that creators and society make a deal: we agree to protect your work for X years, and when those X years are up we get your work.
And EA has already turned off their servers for many of their games. How many of those servers have they kept the code for?
(p.s. yes I know Disney / Sonny Bono / etc and copyright is already a broken covenant and we might never see a modern work expire in our great-grandchildren's lifetimes, but aside from that)
So long as it's not followed by "Nuclear launch detected! Nuclear launch detected! Nuclear launch detected! Nuclear launch detected! Nuclear launch detected!...."
(cue "oh crap" flashbacks to playing SupCom - and the mad rush to check the map whilst praying those nuke symbols wouldn't be of the incoming variety, and then if they were, praying you had enough ABMs to stop them...)
agnostic An agnostic is a person who believes that the existence of a greater power, such as a god, cannot be proven or disproved; therefore an agnostic wallows in the complexity of the existence of higher beings.
Hopefully after over a thousand years we might just possibly have come up with some kind of technology to spot fake citizens? I've heard of things called "birth certificates" and "passports", maybe those might help?
If you've got a system where the user(s) log in as admin/root a lot (for whatever reason), make the code signing app require rebooting into a special mode.
If you've got an "attacker with temporary physical access", you've got bigger problems. Start looking at full disk encryption, multi-factor authentication, etc.
Doh, sorry. Hmm. What if the villain gets their hands on the hash function, can they generate the hash for "I voted for X" and then see whether or not it matches your receipt? Or do they need more than that? The ID? Which is printed right next to the hash on your receipt so that you can look it up yourself? If I'm understanding you, apologies if I'm not.
The problem with your approach is that it works right up until someone, sometime, learns the private key - and then EVERYONE's underwear is instantly on the outside.
Actually, no, it mightn't work even that long. So long as a bad guy can make enough people believe the key is hacked, true or not, your election can be influenced.
Presuming the GP meant "free" literally, rather than ironically. Plus different people seem to have different views on what a "free market" actually means.
I did read what you wrote, but the English language is generously misinterpretable (I think that's a word, and if not, hey, English!). What would you suggest? Would you prefer a car analogy? (and I agree on "!=", since I didn't mean to claim "=" (equivalence), I apologise for not being clear)
Let's see... this isn't an ordinary leech, it's a pervasive leech willing to crack passwords and disconnect other people to get in and willing to do "evil twin" attacks (which can be used not just to leech but to spy and steal passwords).
So... this "leech" isn't just hopping in the back of an open ute without asking so he can get a free ride, he's picking the locks and making copies of the keys to various cars in the neighbourhood, including yours, and taking them for - least worst case scenario - casual trips without the owners' knowledge.
Is that a closer comparison? Or can you come up with something better?
I'm also curious; what would a leech have to do in your neighbourhood before you'd take any action? (assuming you have a "neighbourhood" rather than merely a coincidental grouping of inhabited buildings).
From the summary, the cracker has already compromised the submitter's network at least once, is trying again, and is doing the same to other networks in the submitter's neighborhood. The cracker has already breached that "good ol' Amer'can spirit" you speak of.
While it's not his job, duty, or right to administer his neighbours, it is his responsibility to help protect the neighbourhood of which he is a part. If you spotted a stranger sneaking into your neighbours' houses, would you (a) lock your own doors and warn your neighbours / call the police, or (b) lock your own doors and go back to watching TV?
Yeah, I had the same reaction. Citation needed, for sure.
Though as an ignorant foreigner I'm now wondering: how *does* the US military reconcile its oath to defend the Constitution with the DHS's stance that the Constitution (at least, the 4th) does not apply (within 100 miles of the border) on US soil? What happens when a DHS agent tries a warrantless search on a US soldier and wants to seize their laptop/phone?
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, I for one like seeing a funny one-liner followed by an informative summary. Brightens my day AND I learn something. :)
From the geekwire article: "How is what he’s doing different than those stationary surveillance cameras tucked away in buildings and public places?"
The difference is that his act violates the subject's "space". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_space
Respecting the "illusion of privacy" becomes more, not less, important as our surveillance technology advances.
So what's your contingency plan?
If you are correct that inquisitorial systems are flawed, and the GP is correct that adversarial systems are flawed, is there a compromise between or synthesis of the two that would be better?
Ah. Yeah, I'd have to say their aim was very off, in that case. At least in my area, it was very much perceived as a business OS.
The "every-other-Windows-sucks" pattern isn't based on comparing NT kernels. It refers to Microsoft's OS releases for the "home user" space, and Windows NT and Windows 2000 weren't aimed at that market - unlike 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista, Win 7 and now Win 8.
From your own link: "No, only games that have been bought as a gift, and thus have never been played, can be traded."
Tough luck if you buy a game, play it for a bit, decide you don't like it, and want to trade it to someone else for a game you might actually enjoy.
Even though I buy the occasional game on Steam, I don't forget the nature of the beast: it's still an artificial scarcity model.
Article III, Section 3. Sorry.
Just to note, treason is a crime specifically defined by the United States Constitution. He undoubtedly broke the law, but Manning did not commit treason just by handing that information to an Australian, because - last I checked anyway - Australia is not an Enemy of the United States.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. -- Article III, Section, United States Constitution.
Voting with your wallet by not buying is like voting at the polls by not picking any of the candidates.
If you want to vote with your wallet (as opposed to simply saving the money), you have to buy a competitor's game.
Or fund one. As far as alternatives to SimCity go, perhaps Civitas on Kickstarter? Their goal is to have all the SimCity features: big cities, terraforming, subways, curved roads, real singleplayer, disasters, save/reload, etc, with none of that always on DRM. Oh, AND LINUX SUPPORT (check the Updates page).
I think it might end being a HARMful idea if thugs with badges (as opposed to actual servants of the law) started jamming wifi and mobile whenever they wanted to beat someone. It's not like someone might EMPathise with the victims, after all. :)
All punning aside, it'd be a seriously bad idea. That kind of escalation would only end in tears, and hopefully the administration's statement in favour of an individual's right to record the police indicates that TPTB realise this.
I wonder if EA and the other companies rushing towards server-side components have considered the legal consequences viz copyright and contract law:
(1) Copyright is a contract between creator and society, enforced by government.
(2) If you protect your work via copyright, then your consideration is the protected work.
(3) If your work includes server-side components, then those components are part of your consideration.
(4) If you turn off those servers and do not provide for the release of the components when the copyright expires, you are in breach of your contractual obligation.
Now, I am not a lawyer, and maybe there is some fine print loophole that lets them off in violation of the spirit of the agreement, but it seems pretty clear to me that creators and society make a deal: we agree to protect your work for X years, and when those X years are up we get your work.
Otherwise, the creator is making an illusory promise ("I will give you the keys if I feel like it"). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_promise
And EA has already turned off their servers for many of their games. How many of those servers have they kept the code for?
(p.s. yes I know Disney / Sonny Bono / etc and copyright is already a broken covenant and we might never see a modern work expire in our great-grandchildren's lifetimes, but aside from that)
So long as it's not followed by "Nuclear launch detected! Nuclear launch detected! Nuclear launch detected! Nuclear launch detected! Nuclear launch detected! ...."
(cue "oh crap" flashbacks to playing SupCom - and the mad rush to check the map whilst praying those nuke symbols wouldn't be of the incoming variety, and then if they were, praying you had enough ABMs to stop them...)
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=agnostic
Though, personally, I don't wallow (except when I want to), and I don't take it as given that "cannot" is true either. :)
Other fun stuff: you can be an agnostic and still believe (or disbelieve) in a god - you just recognise that a (dis)belief is all it is.
Hopefully after over a thousand years we might just possibly have come up with some kind of technology to spot fake citizens? I've heard of things called "birth certificates" and "passports", maybe those might help?
Thousands of people voluntarily jump off perfectly good airplanes all the time, does that make it okay to to force a handful to jump off at gunpoint?
Y'know, you can claim to be any religion you like, but just claiming something doesn't automatically make it true. Wolves in sheep's clothing, etc.
If you've got a system where the user(s) log in as admin/root a lot (for whatever reason), make the code signing app require rebooting into a special mode.
If you've got an "attacker with temporary physical access", you've got bigger problems. Start looking at full disk encryption, multi-factor authentication, etc.
Doh, sorry. Hmm. What if the villain gets their hands on the hash function, can they generate the hash for "I voted for X" and then see whether or not it matches your receipt? Or do they need more than that? The ID? Which is printed right next to the hash on your receipt so that you can look it up yourself? If I'm understanding you, apologies if I'm not.
The problem with your approach is that it works right up until someone, sometime, learns the private key - and then EVERYONE's underwear is instantly on the outside.
Actually, no, it mightn't work even that long. So long as a bad guy can make enough people believe the key is hacked, true or not, your election can be influenced.
Presuming the GP meant "free" literally, rather than ironically. Plus different people seem to have different views on what a "free market" actually means.
I did read what you wrote, but the English language is generously misinterpretable (I think that's a word, and if not, hey, English!). What would you suggest? Would you prefer a car analogy? (and I agree on "!=", since I didn't mean to claim "=" (equivalence), I apologise for not being clear)
Let's see... this isn't an ordinary leech, it's a pervasive leech willing to crack passwords and disconnect other people to get in and willing to do "evil twin" attacks (which can be used not just to leech but to spy and steal passwords).
So... this "leech" isn't just hopping in the back of an open ute without asking so he can get a free ride, he's picking the locks and making copies of the keys to various cars in the neighbourhood, including yours, and taking them for - least worst case scenario - casual trips without the owners' knowledge.
Is that a closer comparison? Or can you come up with something better?
I'm also curious; what would a leech have to do in your neighbourhood before you'd take any action? (assuming you have a "neighbourhood" rather than merely a coincidental grouping of inhabited buildings).
From the summary, the cracker has already compromised the submitter's network at least once, is trying again, and is doing the same to other networks in the submitter's neighborhood. The cracker has already breached that "good ol' Amer'can spirit" you speak of.
While it's not his job, duty, or right to administer his neighbours, it is his responsibility to help protect the neighbourhood of which he is a part. If you spotted a stranger sneaking into your neighbours' houses, would you (a) lock your own doors and warn your neighbours / call the police, or (b) lock your own doors and go back to watching TV?
Thanks. (mod parent up, please)
Yeah, I had the same reaction. Citation needed, for sure.
Though as an ignorant foreigner I'm now wondering: how *does* the US military reconcile its oath to defend the Constitution with the DHS's stance that the Constitution (at least, the 4th) does not apply (within 100 miles of the border) on US soil? What happens when a DHS agent tries a warrantless search on a US soldier and wants to seize their laptop/phone?