If someone finds a security flaw, the appropriate thing to do is tell the people responsible for the system's security. If these kids discovered that SSN's were vulnerable on their school's system, all they should have done is make that fact known to school management, as in: Tell Them.
Justifying computer theft by trying to say you're just trying to expose the vulnerability is ethically bankrupt. It is, in fact, equivalent to robbing a gas station and then claiming you did it just to expose a vulernability. Or, shoplifting. Or, burglarizing your neighbor. Or, stealing a friend's car when he forgets to lock all the doors.
Theft is theft. Thieves don't get to redefine the word.
>> If we throw out 100 ideas, and the dissidents choose 1 w/o informing us, then the goal has been accomplished.
Wrong. All the Bad Guys need to do is work through each of those 100 ideas until they catch their dissidents.
Besides, you do not know if some of those ideas weren't posted here by the Bad Guys in the first place.
Because you cannot block access by the Bad Guys to the discussion here, or know with certainty that they are not posting here, the entire discussion is compromised.
>> Why do we need to go to the Moon in one day? And to Mars in a month?
Because human exploration and exploitation of the inner Solor System cannot take place as long as it takes months and years to complete missions. Space travel isn't a mission of pure science and research; it isn't analagous to 19th century expeditions to the poles.
Even if that were the case, shorter missions dramatically reduce life support requirements, permitting additional cargo and payload, including research personnel and equipment.
In other words, like other forms of point-to-point travel, the sooner we get there, the better.
And, no, the rules of physics do not prohibit a one-month trip to Mars.
The ISS and the Shuttle were not about exploration. But, there's been a bit of a mission change lately, or haven't you heard? You know, that Presidential directive a couple of years ago about returning to the Moon and exploring the inner Solar System. Pay attention.
Meanwhile, let's explore the "exploration" the Soviets did before they went bust: build smaller and cruder version of ISS; use same 3-man capsule they used snce the 1960's to staff and supply that space station. ISS/Shuttle or Mir/Soyuz: no difference.
Of course, the Russians can't afford to do much of anything these days.
It isn't politics. People don't want nukes going off, fallout or no fallout. Maybe that's rational, maybe that's not rational. But, it is certainly reality. So, stop whining that politicians are blocking "development" and get busy convincing 6 billion people that you're right and they're wrong. The politicians will follow.
>> No particular reason? How about beeing able RIGHT NOW with our current technology to launch an object that weights at least 8000000 tonns?
Well, first, because we have no current or forseeable missions that require putting 8000000 tons into LEO.
Second, Orion is all talk. We have no way of knowing the damn thing would work as advertised.
Third, we'd have to abrogate several treaties, including the one that bans open-air nuclear explosions. Unless a hostile alien craft the size of the Moon has passed Neptune, no President would commit political suicide by embacing that notion.
Fourth, if you wanna use Orion, build it in orbit or on the Moon. You can't seriously be arguing that exploding hundreds of nukes in Earth's lower atmosphere is a good thing?
Because NASA is in the exploration business, not the charter bus business. My tax money should not be spent to figure out how to send fatcat millionaires on joy rides.
Meanwhile, don't forget the Russians are doing the tourist bit because they need the money, not because they're blazing a new trail for "ordinary people".
The real reason we need to use something else to move about the solar system is that chemically fueled ships can't go fast enough.
We need to go from LEO to the Moon in well under a day, and to Mars in less than one month. Chemicals can't do that.
Chemicals are fine for launch to LEO, and there is no particular reason, I think, to launch nuclear ships from Earth's surface. Build and use them in space.
1. That public discussion by "dissidents" about the best way to hide on the Internet is inherently risky. You have no way to be certain the people you want to hide from aren't also listening to the discussion and, therefore, aqcquiring the ability to attempt to compromise every suggested method. Or, they may, in fact, join the discussion and suggest methods they know they have compromised.
2. If the other side has access to your data stream as it leaves your computer (not an unlikely scenario for anyone living where the regime controls the media and communications infrastructure)then you can never be certain that you aren't compromised, regardless of the encryption and anonymizing tools you use.
AS you suggest, other methods of communicating might be a better alterative, but those do not involve the Internet.
>> Any suggestions for products/procedures/systems out there making anonymous access & publishing a reality under repressive regime run Internet access?
1. Slashdot is a public forum. You need to assume that anything posted here is compromised. I.e., the people your friends want to hide from are reading this, too. That means anything anyone recommends here is not safe to use.
2. If the "other side" controls the "last mile" that connects your friends' computers to the net, they have access to every bit that leaves their machines.
3. Do you know if the idea you adopt wasn't deliberately posted here by the "other side"? No, you don't.
Well, I don't think patents are "evil", whatever that means. And I'm rather sure corporations with literally billions of dollars of other people's money at stake do, in fact, engage in patent searchs before they venture to release new products. Who, I ask, do you think is paying all those people wo make their livings as patent researchers?
Now, I also really doubt that corporations are paying people to check every new patent issued in hopes of finding someone to sue. You may be that paranoid, but I don't think they are. If someone releases a new product that competes with them, then, yes, they'll do a patent search because they would be negligent of they did not. Why? Because people deliberately violate patents.
The patent system was invented to protect the right of inventors to benefit from the exploitation of their inventions. Not, as you assert. to "give some incentives to companies to disclosure their ideas to world". Not do patents have anything to do with ideas. Ideas are confined to the space within our heads. An idea for a new product has absolutely no impact or meaning unless it is implemented. Patents deal with the implementation of ideas, not ideas.
Too many people in the open source community, when confronted with the reality of institutions like patents and copyright, fail to deal with them in a coherent and mature manner. Instead, they simply claim to hold the higher moral ground and declare that anyone or anything that disagrees with them is "evil". Well, seen from here, that just sounds like so much pouting and whining by people who are mad because they can't get what they want. Bottom line: What's mine is mine, and you can't have it unless I want you to, even if you pervert the language and call it "sharing".
Judging by the number of patents that continue to be granted, people and business and labs are having no trouble finding new ways to implement old things in ways that do not violate anyone's patents. (Thereby showing that the patent system is working as intended: encouraging invention.) Why isn't the open source world do that? Why isn't the open source world buckling down and finding a new and better way to build a moustrap, rather than whimopering about all the "evil" people who won't let them steal their own inventions?
Don't be churlish. You can have all the independent ideas you want, but if you want to implement an idea that someone else has patented, you do so only at the pleasure, or license, of the patentholder. I rather like that.
But, in any case, you haven't responded to my question: Does anyone bother to do a patent search? Or, do they, like you apparently, just plan to stomp their feet when they get caught and whine about "Evil Patents!"?
Even if someone doesn't approve of patents on ideological grounds, why should they expect the rest of us to care and why should that be an excuse for remaining deliberately ignorant of legal constraints on your efforts?
You know, hasn't anyone heard of patent searches? Why is this a surprise? Why wasn't someone involved with Wine looking for patent encumbrances a long time ago?
Some people would drive their car into a tree and then bitch about the mean nasties who planted the damn thing.
But why rush to the most extreme and most costly last resort? The guy just wants to get his last paycheck. He should delay legal action until his boss does something that requires it.
I don't believe the U.S. government is interested in spreading democracy simply because it is the "right" thing to do. I believe that they believe democratic regimes are less hostile and more stable than undemocratic regimes, and that democratic regimes are more likely to seek peaceful resolution of conflicts and work toward common goals. agree with that perspective.
I believe, rather strongly, that terrorism and fanaticism take root where other avenues of expression and growth are blocked. That, in one degree or another, is the situation in all the Arab regimes.
For the record, most of the terrorists currently killing Iraqis are not Iraqis, they're outsiders who've come in with the express purpose of committing murder.
Legitimacy absoutely requires democracy. The majority must respect the rights of minorities, bthere is no democracy if a minority takes precedence over a majority.
I'm never particuarly interested in convincing anyone of my position, just explaining it and countering the falsehoods and scarecrow arguments commonly used in rebuttals around here.
Slashdot Mirror
>> ...all what you've desribed is exactly politics in my book
What's your point? That you have a problem with reality?
When politics expresses the will of the people, that's called democracy. Got a problem with that?
Or do you think we should all bow down before the wisdom of the elite who agree with you?
Convince enough people to agree wth you and then "politics" will be on your side. That's how the world has always worked, and always will.
Stop blaming "politics" for your lack of persuasive ability.
Nuts.
If someone finds a security flaw, the appropriate thing to do is tell the people responsible for the system's security. If these kids discovered that SSN's were vulnerable on their school's system, all they should have done is make that fact known to school management, as in: Tell Them.
Justifying computer theft by trying to say you're just trying to expose the vulnerability is ethically bankrupt. It is, in fact, equivalent to robbing a gas station and then claiming you did it just to expose a vulernability. Or, shoplifting. Or, burglarizing your neighbor. Or, stealing a friend's car when he forgets to lock all the doors.
Theft is theft. Thieves don't get to redefine the word.
Same difference.
Idiots. Book 'em. Dano.
>> If we throw out 100 ideas, and the dissidents choose 1 w/o informing us, then the goal has been accomplished.
Wrong. All the Bad Guys need to do is work through each of those 100 ideas until they catch their dissidents.
Besides, you do not know if some of those ideas weren't posted here by the Bad Guys in the first place.
Because you cannot block access by the Bad Guys to the discussion here, or know with certainty that they are not posting here, the entire discussion is compromised.
>> Why do we need to go to the Moon in one day? And to Mars in a month?
Because human exploration and exploitation of the inner Solor System cannot take place as long as it takes months and years to complete missions. Space travel isn't a mission of pure science and research; it isn't analagous to 19th century expeditions to the poles.
Even if that were the case, shorter missions dramatically reduce life support requirements, permitting additional cargo and payload, including research personnel and equipment.
In other words, like other forms of point-to-point travel, the sooner we get there, the better.
And, no, the rules of physics do not prohibit a one-month trip to Mars.
The ISS and the Shuttle were not about exploration. But, there's been a bit of a mission change lately, or haven't you heard? You know, that Presidential directive a couple of years ago about returning to the Moon and exploring the inner Solar System. Pay attention.
Meanwhile, let's explore the "exploration" the Soviets did before they went bust: build smaller and cruder version of ISS; use same 3-man capsule they used snce the 1960's to staff and supply that space station. ISS/Shuttle or Mir/Soyuz: no difference.
Of course, the Russians can't afford to do much of anything these days.
It isn't politics. People don't want nukes going off, fallout or no fallout. Maybe that's rational, maybe that's not rational. But, it is certainly reality. So, stop whining that politicians are blocking "development" and get busy convincing 6 billion people that you're right and they're wrong. The politicians will follow.
>> No particular reason? How about beeing able RIGHT NOW with our current technology to launch an object that weights at least 8000000 tonns?
Well, first, because we have no current or forseeable missions that require putting 8000000 tons into LEO.
Second, Orion is all talk. We have no way of knowing the damn thing would work as advertised.
Third, we'd have to abrogate several treaties, including the one that bans open-air nuclear explosions. Unless a hostile alien craft the size of the Moon has passed Neptune, no President would commit political suicide by embacing that notion.
Fourth, if you wanna use Orion, build it in orbit or on the Moon. You can't seriously be arguing that exploding hundreds of nukes in Earth's lower atmosphere is a good thing?
This is Sunday. This story broke on Thursday.
/. will report the unveiling of OS/2.
Next,
Because NASA is in the exploration business, not the charter bus business. My tax money should not be spent to figure out how to send fatcat millionaires on joy rides.
Meanwhile, don't forget the Russians are doing the tourist bit because they need the money, not because they're blazing a new trail for "ordinary people".
Cost efficency has nothing to do with it.
The real reason we need to use something else to move about the solar system is that chemically fueled ships can't go fast enough.
We need to go from LEO to the Moon in well under a day, and to Mars in less than one month. Chemicals can't do that.
Chemicals are fine for launch to LEO, and there is no particular reason, I think, to launch nuclear ships from Earth's surface. Build and use them in space.
Griffin has directed NASA to consider how a Shuttle mission to Hubble might proceed. He has not actually directed that the mission take place.
No difference. This is a fight between two different kinds of miscreants.
>> ...Piracy made it possible for 'word-of-mouth' to spread about Battlestar Galactica.
Typically specious and lame thinking from jerks who want to steal and call it sharing.
What evidence exists that this show's ratings are atttibutable to pirates?
Their argument goes like this:
1. People pirated the show.
2. The show is popular.
3. Therefore, piracy made the show popular.
Got that?
Essentially, I made two points:
1. That public discussion by "dissidents" about the best way to hide on the Internet is inherently risky. You have no way to be certain the people you want to hide from aren't also listening to the discussion and, therefore, aqcquiring the ability to attempt to compromise every suggested method. Or, they may, in fact, join the discussion and suggest methods they know they have compromised.
2. If the other side has access to your data stream as it leaves your computer (not an unlikely scenario for anyone living where the regime controls the media and communications infrastructure)then you can never be certain that you aren't compromised, regardless of the encryption and anonymizing tools you use.
AS you suggest, other methods of communicating might be a better alterative, but those do not involve the Internet.
Encryption? Who's talking about encryption? Or peer review for that matter?
>> Any suggestions for products/procedures/systems out there making anonymous access & publishing a reality under repressive regime run Internet access?
1. Slashdot is a public forum. You need to assume that anything posted here is compromised. I.e., the people your friends want to hide from are reading this, too. That means anything anyone recommends here is not safe to use.
2. If the "other side" controls the "last mile" that connects your friends' computers to the net, they have access to every bit that leaves their machines.
3. Do you know if the idea you adopt wasn't deliberately posted here by the "other side"? No, you don't.
Good luck.
Well, I don't think patents are "evil", whatever that means. And I'm rather sure corporations with literally billions of dollars of other people's money at stake do, in fact, engage in patent searchs before they venture to release new products. Who, I ask, do you think is paying all those people wo make their livings as patent researchers?
Now, I also really doubt that corporations are paying people to check every new patent issued in hopes of finding someone to sue. You may be that paranoid, but I don't think they are. If someone releases a new product that competes with them, then, yes, they'll do a patent search because they would be negligent of they did not. Why? Because people deliberately violate patents.
The patent system was invented to protect the right of inventors to benefit from the exploitation of their inventions. Not, as you assert. to "give some incentives to companies to disclosure their ideas to world". Not do patents have anything to do with ideas. Ideas are confined to the space within our heads. An idea for a new product has absolutely no impact or meaning unless it is implemented. Patents deal with the implementation of ideas, not ideas.
Too many people in the open source community, when confronted with the reality of institutions like patents and copyright, fail to deal with them in a coherent and mature manner. Instead, they simply claim to hold the higher moral ground and declare that anyone or anything that disagrees with them is "evil". Well, seen from here, that just sounds like so much pouting and whining by people who are mad because they can't get what they want. Bottom line: What's mine is mine, and you can't have it unless I want you to, even if you pervert the language and call it "sharing".
Judging by the number of patents that continue to be granted, people and business and labs are having no trouble finding new ways to implement old things in ways that do not violate anyone's patents. (Thereby showing that the patent system is working as intended: encouraging invention.) Why isn't the open source world do that? Why isn't the open source world buckling down and finding a new and better way to build a moustrap, rather than whimopering about all the "evil" people who won't let them steal their own inventions?
Don't be churlish. You can have all the independent ideas you want, but if you want to implement an idea that someone else has patented, you do so only at the pleasure, or license, of the patentholder. I rather like that.
But, in any case, you haven't responded to my question: Does anyone bother to do a patent search? Or, do they, like you apparently, just plan to stomp their feet when they get caught and whine about "Evil Patents!"?
Even if someone doesn't approve of patents on ideological grounds, why should they expect the rest of us to care and why should that be an excuse for remaining deliberately ignorant of legal constraints on your efforts?
>> ...that would be orders of magnitude more work that implementing Wine...
...unpublished patent applications are always waiting to be rubber-stamped...
Nuts. Thousands of people do that for a living. Pay them and move on.
>>
Nuts, too.
In any case, you don't have the right to copy someone else's inventions and ideas if they don't want you to do that, regardless of patents.
You know, hasn't anyone heard of patent searches? Why is this a surprise? Why wasn't someone involved with Wine looking for patent encumbrances a long time ago?
Some people would drive their car into a tree and then bitch about the mean nasties who planted the damn thing.
But why rush to the most extreme and most costly last resort? The guy just wants to get his last paycheck. He should delay legal action until his boss does something that requires it.
>> ...any contract that does violate the law is null and void.
Yeah, but someone's got to pay court costs to sort it out. The employer will contend there's no violation. It'll take a lawsuit to get a ruling.
I don't believe the U.S. government is interested in spreading democracy simply because it is the "right" thing to do. I believe that they believe democratic regimes are less hostile and more stable than undemocratic regimes, and that democratic regimes are more likely to seek peaceful resolution of conflicts and work toward common goals. agree with that perspective.
I believe, rather strongly, that terrorism and fanaticism take root where other avenues of expression and growth are blocked. That, in one degree or another, is the situation in all the Arab regimes.
For the record, most of the terrorists currently killing Iraqis are not Iraqis, they're outsiders who've come in with the express purpose of committing murder.
Legitimacy absoutely requires democracy. The majority must respect the rights of minorities, bthere is no democracy if a minority takes precedence over a majority.
I'm never particuarly interested in convincing anyone of my position, just explaining it and countering the falsehoods and scarecrow arguments commonly used in rebuttals around here.