Your biggest problems will come when everyone and their dog wants to install
their personal stuff (screensavers, wallpaper, P2P apps, etc...) on their new Linux machines, then
get mad when you tell them it won't work.
That's not a bug, that's a security feature. And that's how you sell it to management.
Although you can install your own wallpaper, of course; assuming that windows wallpapers still come as essentially giant bitmaps?
I dunno. I thought about this while driving home last night, and I eventually decided that even if having a gun makes life more dangerous for me in that situation, it also would provide me with somewhat more control over the situation. I think that most people, in a situation that is already so threatening to themselves and their families, would be willing to risk the extra danger in order to have a little more control and power over their situation. But maybe that's just me.
I didn't say it was a great solution, but on the other hand if the Nazis had wanted to kill anybody that quickly, well, they had tanks for the whole war anyway. Obviously there was something that held them back for a while; would an armed populace have added to that factor? For one thing, doing it with tanks would have generated public outrage a lot more quickly than just rounding everybody up into camps.
Heck, just a few guns hidden away would be a big help as far as escape attempts, assassinating unfriendly guards, etc. I can't think of a prison scenario where I'd be worse off if I had some sort of weapon.
Interesting question: were the Kosovo Albanians / KLA better off because they had some weapons, or not? I wonder if they really slowed the Serbs down at all.
Hmmm, just like telling kids not to use drugs for 20 years has really stopped them from using drugs. Yup, ignoring the problem and sweeping it under the rug is officially a Winning Strategy! (Don't worry, we've got it here in the States too:)
Frankly, I don't see why it's such a great plan to give already-raving loonies more of a persecution complex; that's the kind of thing they thrive on. The answer to speech you dislike is more speech, positive speech, that confronts what you see as dangerous thoughts with why they are dangerous. If, as you say, you all like freedom and democracy, then there ought to be ten voices opposed to the right wing for every Nazi that crawls out from under their rock. A strong democracy is not at threat from the far wings of the political spectrum. Society grows stronger through confronting and overcoming conflicts, not by avoiding them. (Not that I'm saying the US is doing great on this score either at the moment, you understand.)
I don't see why it has to be either Nazis banning stuff, or anti-Nazis banning stuff. Frankly, in a democratic society neither of you should get to ban anything.
I appreciate your viewpoint and your society's fears of the return of the right-wing, but somebody's got to make the case for the opposing viewpoint, and tonight that's me.
And BTW: what has that to do with hitler?
Do you realy think something would have been different at that time in europe if people had have
more guns?
Hmmm. How about this: try to ethnically cleanse a ghetto in Warsaw in 1944, and then try to ethnically cleanse a ghetto in New York, Detroit, or LA today. See how well you make out when the people you're trying to murder start shooting back. I bet those people are pretty happy to have their guns at that moment. Not that guns are necessarily doing great things for LA the other 99.9% of the time, but they do offer improved spittle-emitting-dictator stopping power compared to, say, rocks.
Do I own a gun? No - I don't know enough to safely operate one at the moment, my only experience having been an hour of riflery practice a few years back. Am I glad that I could own one if I needed it? You bet.
Totally random - I just liked the name, and have no relation with that project (in fact, I'd never heard of it when I picked the name). I don't speak for them, etc., etc.
I think my point is that if you're broadcasting something, then you have to take extra steps to make sure that someone doesn't intercept it, including encryption, frequency hopping, etc. It's not me "invading" anything if you're sending me the radio waves in the first place, any more than I would be trespassing if you started heaving bricks over your fence:)
Now, if you're having a quiet conversation inside your house, and I have to hook up a parabolic mic or a laser listening device in order to figure out what's going on in there, then I think there's a little better argument for me actually doing some "invading".
The bottom line is: you should have more of an expectation of privacy if you're doing things that would reasonably ensure that privacy. For example, holding the conversation indoors, speaking in a low voice, etc. If you are using a broadcast medium for communications that is known to be easily interceptible, then in order to receive the same expectation of privacy I think you should need to take further steps to ensure that privacy, like using encryption, etc.
It's a good question - if I could easily crack any crypto, would you still have an expectation of privacy? I think that if the crypto hole is well-known, then you probably have no expectation of privacy if you persist in using it (for example, the original Wi-Fi crypto that was shown to not be fairly secure). But it's reasonable to say that if nobody knew that it was breakable (for example - if I figure out a gaping hole in AES this morning that nobody else has seen), then people that still use it had some expectation of privacy (at least as much expectation as one can have when using a public broadcast medium).
It's still a judgement call, I agree, but the judgement should take into account the true security (or lack thereof) of current communications systems. Right now the assumption seems to be that any RF communication is private, which is a poor assumption.
Actually, by a reasonable standard those are not private. If you send unencrypted information out to all and sundry, you can't complain if some of us happen to read and understand it. It is not "reasonable" by any stretch of the imagination to imagine that you can bombard the world with signal and expect the world to keep the secret, any more than if you were to write your private diary in 6-inch type on your front lawn.
Unfortunately, the legislature and the courts, not understanding the technology involved, have not based the law upon a reasonable standard. Instead, we have laws that pretend to preserve privacy but instead just give the illusion of that protection. Really, those laws are worse than nothing, since people think their unencrypted transmissions are "secure". If the law described the truth of the matter more clearly, everybody would use encryption, and they would have real security.
You can call it "private" and "reasonable", but as long as I can sit out in my garage and listen in without anyone ever being able to tell that I did so, then it ain't private and you have no real expectation of privacy.
Note: not that I'd do that, but there's no reason I couldn't. Or that your neighbor couldn't, to be more exact.
That's nuts - if you didn't take the keys out of the car, somebody could just hop in while you're around on the other side of the car, and drive off, possibly with the kids still in the car. Assuming your gas cap is on the passenger side, at least. Not to mention that taking the keys out of the car makes sure that your engine is stopped when filling up.
If you link just to a/. comment, you still get an ad. So deep linking doesn't hurt/..
Personally, I feel like if you don't want your web server giving out pages to certain people, you should instruct it not to. There are already adequate technical options for controlling deep linking - we don't need to get the legal system involved.
How is someone browsing the web with their laptop in the front row more distracting than someone taking notes on their laptop in the front row? Either way the screen is as bright. The taking notes even involves more typing, although I admit that the web surfing will probably involve more changing images on the screen.
Agreed on that - decrypting broadcasts should be fun for the whole family, not just a few dealers. Although I'm not sure how they could be stealing the signal; they're just selling hardware, not the signal itself, aren't they? You could say that they're profiteering on the hardware, but not on the signal, I think.
Yes, because by interpreting radio signals that Hughes Aerospace is beaming through your head right now as a football game rather than as static, you're somehow taking the property of DirecTV, not to mention other consumers. This is like some sort of piracy Heisenberg theorem, isn't it - a signal that's observed is "pirated", while a signal that's ignored isn't? How is it Hughes out any more money if their signal is absorbed by your head or a rock rather than a "pirate" satellite dish?
And your other argument was that it's cheaper to just buy it in the first place? Heck, if I had the time, I'd intercept and decrypt DirecTV signals just for the fun factor:)
Y'know, I tried to think of something like that in Episode 1, and drew a blank. Guess it's time to watch it again if I'm forgetting minor things like chopping the apprentice bad guy into pieces:)
Fair enough, and I find that I follow the same tradeoffs too. Maybe it's for the best that y'all aren't a bunch of ideological hotheads; your readership seems to have that covered all on their own:)
Thanks for taking the time to reply - you've given me some things to think about.
That's a great tool. Unfortunately, it has to be run on the server side, which means that the server operator can override it whenever they want to change the past. I think a secure solution has to be client-side.
Maybe we need web.archive.org or something like that to continually archive major news sources and diff them, keeping all diffs that they find. Then it would be possible to look at the evolution of the story over time, whether the original publisher likes it or not.
If it's already BSD, then GPLing it won't help too much, since Microsoft could still use it under the BSD license. Unless you're talking about changing the license rather than just dual-licensing it. To change the license you have to get agreement from all contributors that haven't assigned you copyright, don't you?
If you have don't have openGL supported on your video hardware, then the openGL xscreensavers will drive the load up, true. But you can turn them off in the xscreensaver app defaults file, leaving just the simple screensavers. Or your system could have 3d hardware but openGL and/or xscreensaver isn't setup/compiled to use it?
Or just don't run a screensaver and use a modern monitor that has a powersave feature.
Or just don't run X on a server, and use a remote administrative GUI like webmin.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not a bug, that's a security feature. And that's how you sell it to management.
Although you can install your own wallpaper, of course; assuming that windows wallpapers still come as essentially giant bitmaps?
Brian: "Don't give me that 'it's not you, it's me' - I invented 'it's not you, it's me'. That's my line. If it's anybody, then it is definitely me."
I think Gameforms just went non-live :)
I dunno. I thought about this while driving home last night, and I eventually decided that even if having a gun makes life more dangerous for me in that situation, it also would provide me with somewhat more control over the situation. I think that most people, in a situation that is already so threatening to themselves and their families, would be willing to risk the extra danger in order to have a little more control and power over their situation. But maybe that's just me.
I didn't say it was a great solution, but on the other hand if the Nazis had wanted to kill anybody that quickly, well, they had tanks for the whole war anyway. Obviously there was something that held them back for a while; would an armed populace have added to that factor? For one thing, doing it with tanks would have generated public outrage a lot more quickly than just rounding everybody up into camps.
Heck, just a few guns hidden away would be a big help as far as escape attempts, assassinating unfriendly guards, etc. I can't think of a prison scenario where I'd be worse off if I had some sort of weapon.
Interesting question: were the Kosovo Albanians / KLA better off because they had some weapons, or not? I wonder if they really slowed the Serbs down at all.
Hmmm, just like telling kids not to use drugs for 20 years has really stopped them from using drugs. Yup, ignoring the problem and sweeping it under the rug is officially a Winning Strategy! (Don't worry, we've got it here in the States too :)
Frankly, I don't see why it's such a great plan to give already-raving loonies more of a persecution complex; that's the kind of thing they thrive on. The answer to speech you dislike is more speech, positive speech, that confronts what you see as dangerous thoughts with why they are dangerous. If, as you say, you all like freedom and democracy, then there ought to be ten voices opposed to the right wing for every Nazi that crawls out from under their rock. A strong democracy is not at threat from the far wings of the political spectrum. Society grows stronger through confronting and overcoming conflicts, not by avoiding them. (Not that I'm saying the US is doing great on this score either at the moment, you understand.)
I don't see why it has to be either Nazis banning stuff, or anti-Nazis banning stuff. Frankly, in a democratic society neither of you should get to ban anything.
I appreciate your viewpoint and your society's fears of the return of the right-wing, but somebody's got to make the case for the opposing viewpoint, and tonight that's me.
Hmmm. How about this: try to ethnically cleanse a ghetto in Warsaw in 1944, and then try to ethnically cleanse a ghetto in New York, Detroit, or LA today. See how well you make out when the people you're trying to murder start shooting back. I bet those people are pretty happy to have their guns at that moment. Not that guns are necessarily doing great things for LA the other 99.9% of the time, but they do offer improved spittle-emitting-dictator stopping power compared to, say, rocks.
Do I own a gun? No - I don't know enough to safely operate one at the moment, my only experience having been an hour of riflery practice a few years back. Am I glad that I could own one if I needed it? You bet.
Aren't you supposed to follow up with something about a "charnel house"? Stick to the script, already.
Totally random - I just liked the name, and have no relation with that project (in fact, I'd never heard of it when I picked the name). I don't speak for them, etc., etc.
I think my point is that if you're broadcasting something, then you have to take extra steps to make sure that someone doesn't intercept it, including encryption, frequency hopping, etc. It's not me "invading" anything if you're sending me the radio waves in the first place, any more than I would be trespassing if you started heaving bricks over your fence :)
Now, if you're having a quiet conversation inside your house, and I have to hook up a parabolic mic or a laser listening device in order to figure out what's going on in there, then I think there's a little better argument for me actually doing some "invading".
The bottom line is: you should have more of an expectation of privacy if you're doing things that would reasonably ensure that privacy. For example, holding the conversation indoors, speaking in a low voice, etc. If you are using a broadcast medium for communications that is known to be easily interceptible, then in order to receive the same expectation of privacy I think you should need to take further steps to ensure that privacy, like using encryption, etc.
It's a good question - if I could easily crack any crypto, would you still have an expectation of privacy? I think that if the crypto hole is well-known, then you probably have no expectation of privacy if you persist in using it (for example, the original Wi-Fi crypto that was shown to not be fairly secure). But it's reasonable to say that if nobody knew that it was breakable (for example - if I figure out a gaping hole in AES this morning that nobody else has seen), then people that still use it had some expectation of privacy (at least as much expectation as one can have when using a public broadcast medium).
It's still a judgement call, I agree, but the judgement should take into account the true security (or lack thereof) of current communications systems. Right now the assumption seems to be that any RF communication is private, which is a poor assumption.
Actually, by a reasonable standard those are not private. If you send unencrypted information out to all and sundry, you can't complain if some of us happen to read and understand it. It is not "reasonable" by any stretch of the imagination to imagine that you can bombard the world with signal and expect the world to keep the secret, any more than if you were to write your private diary in 6-inch type on your front lawn.
Unfortunately, the legislature and the courts, not understanding the technology involved, have not based the law upon a reasonable standard. Instead, we have laws that pretend to preserve privacy but instead just give the illusion of that protection. Really, those laws are worse than nothing, since people think their unencrypted transmissions are "secure". If the law described the truth of the matter more clearly, everybody would use encryption, and they would have real security.
You can call it "private" and "reasonable", but as long as I can sit out in my garage and listen in without anyone ever being able to tell that I did so, then it ain't private and you have no real expectation of privacy.
Note: not that I'd do that, but there's no reason I couldn't. Or that your neighbor couldn't, to be more exact.
That's nuts - if you didn't take the keys out of the car, somebody could just hop in while you're around on the other side of the car, and drive off, possibly with the kids still in the car. Assuming your gas cap is on the passenger side, at least. Not to mention that taking the keys out of the car makes sure that your engine is stopped when filling up.
People are stupid, apparently.
If you link just to a /. comment, you still get an ad. So deep linking doesn't hurt /..
Personally, I feel like if you don't want your web server giving out pages to certain people, you should instruct it not to. There are already adequate technical options for controlling deep linking - we don't need to get the legal system involved.
How is someone browsing the web with their laptop in the front row more distracting than someone taking notes on their laptop in the front row? Either way the screen is as bright. The taking notes even involves more typing, although I admit that the web surfing will probably involve more changing images on the screen.
Agreed on that - decrypting broadcasts should be fun for the whole family, not just a few dealers. Although I'm not sure how they could be stealing the signal; they're just selling hardware, not the signal itself, aren't they? You could say that they're profiteering on the hardware, but not on the signal, I think.
Yes, because by interpreting radio signals that Hughes Aerospace is beaming through your head right now as a football game rather than as static, you're somehow taking the property of DirecTV, not to mention other consumers. This is like some sort of piracy Heisenberg theorem, isn't it - a signal that's observed is "pirated", while a signal that's ignored isn't? How is it Hughes out any more money if their signal is absorbed by your head or a rock rather than a "pirate" satellite dish?
And your other argument was that it's cheaper to just buy it in the first place? Heck, if I had the time, I'd intercept and decrypt DirecTV signals just for the fun factor :)
If more politicians understood that, we wouldn't have useless laws against cell phone scanning either :)
Y'know, I tried to think of something like that in Episode 1, and drew a blank. Guess it's time to watch it again if I'm forgetting minor things like chopping the apprentice bad guy into pieces :)
Obi Wan didn't cut off any arms in a bar in Episode One. Although it didn't really warp me that much as a kid, come to think of it.
Fair enough, and I find that I follow the same tradeoffs too. Maybe it's for the best that y'all aren't a bunch of ideological hotheads; your readership seems to have that covered all on their own :)
Thanks for taking the time to reply - you've given me some things to think about.
That's a great tool. Unfortunately, it has to be run on the server side, which means that the server operator can override it whenever they want to change the past. I think a secure solution has to be client-side.
Maybe we need web.archive.org or something like that to continually archive major news sources and diff them, keeping all diffs that they find. Then it would be possible to look at the evolution of the story over time, whether the original publisher likes it or not.
If it's already BSD, then GPLing it won't help too much, since Microsoft could still use it under the BSD license. Unless you're talking about changing the license rather than just dual-licensing it. To change the license you have to get agreement from all contributors that haven't assigned you copyright, don't you?
On the plus side, he probably displaces more water than Archimedes - Ballmer is a much better demonstration of buoyancy :)
If you have don't have openGL supported on your video hardware, then the openGL xscreensavers will drive the load up, true. But you can turn them off in the xscreensaver app defaults file, leaving just the simple screensavers. Or your system could have 3d hardware but openGL and/or xscreensaver isn't setup/compiled to use it?
Or just don't run a screensaver and use a modern monitor that has a powersave feature.
Or just don't run X on a server, and use a remote administrative GUI like webmin.
OK, whoever's going through nearly day-old posts and moderating score:1 comments "overrated" is officially a jackass. Loser.