Actually, it's not baseless, since Microsoft and company have been found to have violated the law on a number of occasions. A number of those violations (including browser integration) were a significant part of Win98. So it's not much of a stretch to call Win98 a criminal product, or at least a product that was heavily used in the commission of crimes.
As for pointless, well, so are most of the other funny posts around here:)
Just as long as we don't hear the President say (also in an Indian-related affair): "Mr. Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." The judiciary is only as much of a check on the Executive as it is allowed to be.
If I'm hiring a consultant, I'd rather they known and enjoy their field, than that they absolutely hate it but are somehow available to drag themselves to work every day in spite of it.
A high GPA is an indication that you were able to jump through the hoops of school well. That measurement is orthogonal to how well you know your job and how well you will do at it as a consultant.
Sounds like we need to start putting known bad models of cars up on web sites just like we are already cataloging broken-as-designed compact discs. I will not buy one of these cars, and if forced to buy it I will disconnect the sensor. Until that's against the law, in which case I don't know what I'll do.
It will only take a few people being carjacked remotely, mugged, raped, and/or killed in bad parts of town before the populace realizes this is a dumb idea. I hope...
Typical Chicken Little Civil Libertarian response. Take reasonable measures expressed by the President, both
sides of Congress and the AG and blow them out of proportion in a civil rights meltdown.
I don't recall blowing things out of proportion; no one has said that all of these people are 100% innocent. But there is a slippery slope somewhere around here. So far the government has not made a convincing case (IMHO of course) as to why legitimate actions of pursuing criminals need to be conducted with essentially no oversight by the public.
We are talking about
foreign terrorists not domestic liberal fruitcakes.
Ad hominem attack noted. Funny how those damn liberals are always happy to go to court to protect your rights to mock them, isn't it? Anybody that would do that must be a fruitcake, obviously.
If you are not a US Citizen, you are not afforded the rights
guaranteed by it.
Actually, the Bill of Rights doesn't mention the word "citizen" once. I don't think it bespeaks a great nation to deny certain reasonable human rights to those within its borders - surely the U.S. will not fall because we actually let those imprisoned without known cause speak to a lawyer?
These laws are focused at getting the foreign enemy within than domestic, hate America first,
verbal bomb throwers. Even so, none of these laws passed by the Government is going to prevent you from calling
President Bush "Chimpy" or tell your friends that John Ashcroft is a "Big Poo-Poo head". It didn't even stop you
from replying to me saying I am a little nervous twit bent on having my freedom stripped away for a little safety.
Just to note, I am/was not nervous just very uncomfortable after the situation. Having an active government bent
on getting to the bottom of the situation was the comfort I received.
I don't remember saying "twit", nor did I mean it. And I agree that so far the changes have not affected political discourse - if anything they have stimulated it, which is quite healthy and a good sign. But there have been changes to the way that civil rights operate within this country, and those changes are not necessarily right, no matter how much public support they engender. I would be happy to see the government get to the bottom of the whole thing, but I am not yet convinced that measures such as interrogating thousands of Middle Eastern students are the appropriate means to do so.
As long as you are not in the habit of causing physical terror to those around you, I don't see how you feel
restricted.
I am not restricted yet, but that doesn't mean I have no empathy for those who might already be. Heck, for all I know my phone is tapped, email read, etc. - there is insufficient public or judiciary oversight of those measures at the moment for me to be sure that this is not the case.
I don't know why you think the Bill of Rights was not supposed to provide comfort. I am always
comfortable knowing I have the Constitutional Right to own a double barreled 12 gauge shotgun.
Believe it or not, that makes me feel more comfortable too, although I am not a gun owner myself. But it is not the government which has provided you with that; it is a Constitutionally-protected right (I'm not sure if I'd go so far as to say gun ownership is a "natural right") that you have always had which the government is forbidden from taking away. Would you be happy to give up your weapon if it would catch some terrorists, or maybe just drop by the police station every month to have them check it for you? That is the situation in which we find ourselves with respect to some other rights at the moment, and it is no consolation that so far these infringements have only occurred against foreigners.
I remember seeing an example of one of these systems on a "reality" TV show - they showed the cops remotely deactivating the fleeing car's engine. Of course, my first thought was: what happens when hackers figure out the frequency and the protocol and start deactivating cars on the freeway? I won't accept something like that on my car - my vehicle will be under my control, or it will be under no one's control.
His actions have actually made me feel more
comfortable about my situation.
I know they do. And it would likewise make me feel more comfortable if the government would lock up great numbers of people that make me nervous, without any particular evidence, and with restricted or no access to legal counsel. Hell yes, lock up everyone that looks funny to me! But guess what: the Bill of Rights was not written to make either you or I feel more comfortable. It was written to guarantee basic human rights to those who come into contact with the U.S. government. And in at least some cases recently, this has not been the case.
I'm sorry that you're nervous about living in NYC; I'm nervous about similar things in my city. But going overboard in our efforts to feel comfortable is not and will never be the correct solution if we have to destroy the very ideas that constitute this nation in order to reach that comfort. Our support of the principles of this nation need to be strongest in times of trouble - anybody can be a flag-waving freedom fighter when it's the Chinese government that's cracking down, but real patriots will stand up for the Constitution even against misguided members of their own government when they try to use a crisis to advance their own agendas.
In short: the Founding Fathers never promised you a rose garden, and they would be spinning in their graves if they knew what Mr. Ashcroft is trying to do in order to provide you with one.
There was a similar issue with the I-Pass (I assume similar hardware - a little RF transponder in your car) here in Illinois. Although IIRC the Illinois Tollway Authority said that they would not be doing the speed checking because they didn't want to discourage I-Pass use. I-Pass has helped to decrease traffic congestion, and anyway no one here drives slower than 10 over the limit. If they were going to ticket based on I-Pass they'd have to ticket 95% of the people:)
It's the other 'way round - if you didn't fax it, you'd have to encode each character in an email, deal with non-ASCII character sets in operating systems which (at the time) didn't support those sufficiently, etc. The argument is that faxing was easier than the all-electronic solution for the Japanese, and since they made such damn good fax machines it turned out to be good enough for the U.S. too.
Personally, I can't remember the last useful fax I got, but I guess some people still use it. It does have that "vestigial tail" feeling to it, I agree.
Once I go 6 months without a story on/. where a major fault has been introduced or missed in the Linux kernel I may rethink my opinion but until then I'll be suggesting that we buy our RTOS.
When I go 6 months without a vendor lieing to me that their software is A-OK I'll start purchasing more closed-source software.
I think you've hit the nail on the head there - that quote is definitely sigworthy.
Of course, you could have the worst of both worlds - use a popular embedded Linux vendor's product, but when you want the source they give you the runaround and a month later I still haven't gotten it. I'd name names, but since I work for another arm of the same far-flung conglomerate that they do, I'm afraid that I can't.
My advice on embedded linux: use it if it meets your technical requirements, but get the source up front when you get the binaries, and verify that the source really does produce the binaries. Don't wait 'til crunch time to find out that getting the source isn't as easy as you would have thought.
Re:Would somebody please mod this guy up?
on
Future Of IDS
·
· Score: 1
I'll second that - I've been looking for the same sort of thing and had no idea really where to start. This article and this thread have really provided me with some great options to monitor and control all the knobs that keep trying to Code Red my little apache webserver:(
Does "nobody you know" use a screen locker either? Because those situations are very similar. I think you just don't know anyone who cares about security:)
Hmmm, good point. I guess it depends on how much basic knowledge you already have about weaknesses versus the amount of cryptanalysis you would have to do yourself. It would be stupid to ignore known symmetry shortcuts that could halve your search time.
Also, many "idiots" try to brute force it. Effort required to force a key is proportional to the cipher's weakness.
Technically, effort required to "brute force" the key is just proportional to the keyspace, isn't it? If you're talking about a weakness of the cypher then you're no longer doing a brute force attack. "Brute force" means just guessing keys (iteratively or otherwise) without regard to the algorithm at all.
Miracle Max: I'll call the brute squad!
Fessik: I'm on the brute squad.
Miracle Max: You are the brute squad!
I believe you can still take the matter to court if arbitration doesn't work out the way you like, though. The arbitration is just offered as an option since sometimes it turns out to be cheaper. The moral for the little guy in these cases seems to be: either go to court immediately to defend your domain, or else cave right away. Arbitration will just suck up time and money that you don't have.
Well, we're all about getting access to ebooks so that the blind can read them, aren't we?:)
Re:What is important in technology?
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 1
Actually, better than tank-like mechs would be the convertible cycles used by Scott Bernard and the Robotech Defense Forces (no, of course I haven't seen the original un-hacked-up series or I'd definitely use the correct names - I'm going off of a memory of Robotech from when I was 10:). A motorocycle that provides quick transport, but converts into a partial exoskeleton to provide the human rider with enhanced strength and foot speed, sophisticated weapons systems, and some flight capacity.
I think the "you can't make it better than a tank" argument is correct to a point, but tanks have already essentially become giant masses of armor as they try to defend themselves against all sorts of attacks on the ground and in the air. Look at the average weight of an armor over the past fifty years - at a certain point the things are just going to be impossible to deploy in the field, the supply chains will be broken by the amount of fuel that is required to move so much armor, etc. Once ordinance is easier to deliver by air (and I think that point has mostly been reached) the tank will no longer be much of an offensive force.
If there is another world war, I don't see tanks playing much of a role in it. Wars will be fought by air and space power, but they'll be won on the ground, and a light and sturdy mech-like skeleton for troops to use could be a big advantage on unsteady terrain, underground, or just in order to cover large amounts of good terrain in a hurry.
Ah, but this is the game editor we're talking about. It's not about making money on sales, but on fostering a vibrant 3rd-party game world design scene. The relevant question is: is there a significant non-Windows level development scene? And I think, considering the number of D&D aficianados that use *nix, that you could say this is the case.
I find it surprising that they could figure out a way to make the game cross-platform, but not the editor. An editing tool doesn't have nearly the audio, video, and networking demands placed upon it that the game itself does; an editor just has to have some dialog boxes, various map displays, etc. If anything I would expect it would be easier to put together a cross-platform editor than it would be to create a cross-platform game.
Well shut my mouth - I guess I learned something today:)
Although in practice 106(2) would be very difficult to enforce. I could be mixing up derivative Britney Spears tracks in my basement (god forbid) for years and no one would be the wiser.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it's not baseless, since Microsoft and company have been found to have violated the law on a number of occasions. A number of those violations (including browser integration) were a significant part of Win98. So it's not much of a stretch to call Win98 a criminal product, or at least a product that was heavily used in the commission of crimes.
As for pointless, well, so are most of the other funny posts around here :)
...because it's really Red Hat == Linux, right? :)
Just as long as we don't hear the President say (also in an Indian-related affair): "Mr. Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." The judiciary is only as much of a check on the Executive as it is allowed to be.
They should have to beg for absolution from everyone who's followed that link today :)
...in order to have your permission to ask your advice!
P.S. I'm also in a harry :)
If I'm hiring a consultant, I'd rather they known and enjoy their field, than that they absolutely hate it but are somehow available to drag themselves to work every day in spite of it.
A high GPA is an indication that you were able to jump through the hoops of school well. That measurement is orthogonal to how well you know your job and how well you will do at it as a consultant.
Good point. I forget, how many tire changes am I allowed before I have to call home and re-register?
Windows XP: it's basically like being on parole :)
Sounds like we need to start putting known bad models of cars up on web sites just like we are already cataloging broken-as-designed compact discs. I will not buy one of these cars, and if forced to buy it I will disconnect the sensor. Until that's against the law, in which case I don't know what I'll do.
It will only take a few people being carjacked remotely, mugged, raped, and/or killed in bad parts of town before the populace realizes this is a dumb idea. I hope...
I don't recall blowing things out of proportion; no one has said that all of these people are 100% innocent. But there is a slippery slope somewhere around here. So far the government has not made a convincing case (IMHO of course) as to why legitimate actions of pursuing criminals need to be conducted with essentially no oversight by the public.
Ad hominem attack noted. Funny how those damn liberals are always happy to go to court to protect your rights to mock them, isn't it? Anybody that would do that must be a fruitcake, obviously.
Actually, the Bill of Rights doesn't mention the word "citizen" once. I don't think it bespeaks a great nation to deny certain reasonable human rights to those within its borders - surely the U.S. will not fall because we actually let those imprisoned without known cause speak to a lawyer?
I don't remember saying "twit", nor did I mean it. And I agree that so far the changes have not affected political discourse - if anything they have stimulated it, which is quite healthy and a good sign. But there have been changes to the way that civil rights operate within this country, and those changes are not necessarily right, no matter how much public support they engender. I would be happy to see the government get to the bottom of the whole thing, but I am not yet convinced that measures such as interrogating thousands of Middle Eastern students are the appropriate means to do so.
I am not restricted yet, but that doesn't mean I have no empathy for those who might already be. Heck, for all I know my phone is tapped, email read, etc. - there is insufficient public or judiciary oversight of those measures at the moment for me to be sure that this is not the case.
Believe it or not, that makes me feel more comfortable too, although I am not a gun owner myself. But it is not the government which has provided you with that; it is a Constitutionally-protected right (I'm not sure if I'd go so far as to say gun ownership is a "natural right") that you have always had which the government is forbidden from taking away. Would you be happy to give up your weapon if it would catch some terrorists, or maybe just drop by the police station every month to have them check it for you? That is the situation in which we find ourselves with respect to some other rights at the moment, and it is no consolation that so far these infringements have only occurred against foreigners.
No, it's OK as long as you take the hard drive from the old car along with it :)
I remember seeing an example of one of these systems on a "reality" TV show - they showed the cops remotely deactivating the fleeing car's engine. Of course, my first thought was: what happens when hackers figure out the frequency and the protocol and start deactivating cars on the freeway? I won't accept something like that on my car - my vehicle will be under my control, or it will be under no one's control.
I know they do. And it would likewise make me feel more comfortable if the government would lock up great numbers of people that make me nervous, without any particular evidence, and with restricted or no access to legal counsel. Hell yes, lock up everyone that looks funny to me! But guess what: the Bill of Rights was not written to make either you or I feel more comfortable. It was written to guarantee basic human rights to those who come into contact with the U.S. government. And in at least some cases recently, this has not been the case.
I'm sorry that you're nervous about living in NYC; I'm nervous about similar things in my city. But going overboard in our efforts to feel comfortable is not and will never be the correct solution if we have to destroy the very ideas that constitute this nation in order to reach that comfort. Our support of the principles of this nation need to be strongest in times of trouble - anybody can be a flag-waving freedom fighter when it's the Chinese government that's cracking down, but real patriots will stand up for the Constitution even against misguided members of their own government when they try to use a crisis to advance their own agendas.
In short: the Founding Fathers never promised you a rose garden, and they would be spinning in their graves if they knew what Mr. Ashcroft is trying to do in order to provide you with one.
There was a similar issue with the I-Pass (I assume similar hardware - a little RF transponder in your car) here in Illinois. Although IIRC the Illinois Tollway Authority said that they would not be doing the speed checking because they didn't want to discourage I-Pass use. I-Pass has helped to decrease traffic congestion, and anyway no one here drives slower than 10 over the limit. If they were going to ticket based on I-Pass they'd have to ticket 95% of the people :)
It's the other 'way round - if you didn't fax it, you'd have to encode each character in an email, deal with non-ASCII character sets in operating systems which (at the time) didn't support those sufficiently, etc. The argument is that faxing was easier than the all-electronic solution for the Japanese, and since they made such damn good fax machines it turned out to be good enough for the U.S. too.
Personally, I can't remember the last useful fax I got, but I guess some people still use it. It does have that "vestigial tail" feeling to it, I agree.
When are you posting from - 1993? 'Round here the only time we don't email executables is if we can get EWF [1] in a VB script :)
1. EWF: Equivalent Worm Functionality
I think you've hit the nail on the head there - that quote is definitely sigworthy.
Of course, you could have the worst of both worlds - use a popular embedded Linux vendor's product, but when you want the source they give you the runaround and a month later I still haven't gotten it. I'd name names, but since I work for another arm of the same far-flung conglomerate that they do, I'm afraid that I can't.
My advice on embedded linux: use it if it meets your technical requirements, but get the source up front when you get the binaries, and verify that the source really does produce the binaries. Don't wait 'til crunch time to find out that getting the source isn't as easy as you would have thought.
I'll second that - I've been looking for the same sort of thing and had no idea really where to start. This article and this thread have really provided me with some great options to monitor and control all the knobs that keep trying to Code Red my little apache webserver :(
Does "nobody you know" use a screen locker either? Because those situations are very similar. I think you just don't know anyone who cares about security :)
Hmmm, good point. I guess it depends on how much basic knowledge you already have about weaknesses versus the amount of cryptanalysis you would have to do yourself. It would be stupid to ignore known symmetry shortcuts that could halve your search time.
Technically, effort required to "brute force" the key is just proportional to the keyspace, isn't it? If you're talking about a weakness of the cypher then you're no longer doing a brute force attack. "Brute force" means just guessing keys (iteratively or otherwise) without regard to the algorithm at all.
Miracle Max: I'll call the brute squad!
Fessik: I'm on the brute squad.
Miracle Max: You are the brute squad!
I believe you can still take the matter to court if arbitration doesn't work out the way you like, though. The arbitration is just offered as an option since sometimes it turns out to be cheaper. The moral for the little guy in these cases seems to be: either go to court immediately to defend your domain, or else cave right away. Arbitration will just suck up time and money that you don't have.
Well, we're all about getting access to ebooks so that the blind can read them, aren't we? :)
Actually, better than tank-like mechs would be the convertible cycles used by Scott Bernard and the Robotech Defense Forces (no, of course I haven't seen the original un-hacked-up series or I'd definitely use the correct names - I'm going off of a memory of Robotech from when I was 10 :). A motorocycle that provides quick transport, but converts into a partial exoskeleton to provide the human rider with enhanced strength and foot speed, sophisticated weapons systems, and some flight capacity.
I think the "you can't make it better than a tank" argument is correct to a point, but tanks have already essentially become giant masses of armor as they try to defend themselves against all sorts of attacks on the ground and in the air. Look at the average weight of an armor over the past fifty years - at a certain point the things are just going to be impossible to deploy in the field, the supply chains will be broken by the amount of fuel that is required to move so much armor, etc. Once ordinance is easier to deliver by air (and I think that point has mostly been reached) the tank will no longer be much of an offensive force.
If there is another world war, I don't see tanks playing much of a role in it. Wars will be fought by air and space power, but they'll be won on the ground, and a light and sturdy mech-like skeleton for troops to use could be a big advantage on unsteady terrain, underground, or just in order to cover large amounts of good terrain in a hurry.
Ah, but this is the game editor we're talking about. It's not about making money on sales, but on fostering a vibrant 3rd-party game world design scene. The relevant question is: is there a significant non-Windows level development scene? And I think, considering the number of D&D aficianados that use *nix, that you could say this is the case.
I find it surprising that they could figure out a way to make the game cross-platform, but not the editor. An editing tool doesn't have nearly the audio, video, and networking demands placed upon it that the game itself does; an editor just has to have some dialog boxes, various map displays, etc. If anything I would expect it would be easier to put together a cross-platform editor than it would be to create a cross-platform game.
Well shut my mouth - I guess I learned something today :)
Although in practice 106(2) would be very difficult to enforce. I could be mixing up derivative Britney Spears tracks in my basement (god forbid) for years and no one would be the wiser.