How secure *is* our secret data? Hopefully banning USB drives is just one layer and they are taking greater steps to securing who has access to such data.
Really, all your post says to me is that it's impossible to properly secure it. No matter what security protocols you put in place, someone will find a way around them. Even if they are followed properly and don't lax over time (and we all know how likely that's going to be), there will always be a hole that someone who is persistent enough will find.
We all know that in computer security, whitelisting is more secure then blacklisting - with blacklisting, there's always another threat out there that was missed, and once one knows the system sufficiently it becomes trivially easy to bypass it (ask any school student who wants to access a blocked website at school).
It's a situation like this, which means the only way to maintain the system's security is by blacklisting known security vulnerabilities - banning removable media, and so on. But of course that method is flawed. Sooner or later someone will come up with a new way to breach the security. And if they're smart enough not to brag about it and lucky enough not to get caught, then there's no easy way to tell what the security hole is.
Who, please name ONE SINGLE person who got killed! One would do.
Repeating spin over and over is not making it any more correct.
Well, they might have gotten someone killed over it...
Fixed that for you. I think that's what you were trying to say, right? Conjecture without any objective evidence is just detrimental to everyone. Now, I think you're secretly have a ruber birdo fetish. Of course, you'll just deny it, and I have no way to prove it because you wouldn't release a picture of you with it that someone could identify. Who knows? If I could find out that you use 4chan (perhaps you mentioned it previously under your alias? Google is my friend here), then that puts you on the site this was fished from. If I were to actually try and say something like this seriously, or suggest you might have thought about molesting children (after all, who knows what's going through your mind?), you would slam me for libel - I have no evidence to back up either of these things. To keep repeating the baseless sound bite that Assange has blood on his hands is of the same family of comments.
If the information is available to the public, then there's a greater risk of someone crying foul about any 'tweaks' that are made to the story. Also, it also means that it isn't a he said/she said thing. 'Scientific journalism' is good because it allows different news outlets to draw their own conclusions based on the actual leak, rather then passing through a game of Chinese Whispers. For example, an Australian Labour Party power broker passed on information, tipping the US off about Julia Gillard taking over Kevin Rudd's role as PM a year before it actually happened. I've seen everything on it from condemning it as pandering to the US, to passing it off as business as usual - explaining that it's important to share information to keep diplomatic lines open.
The fact that the leak is out there for anyone to see means that spin can be kept to a minimum at least, they can't outright lie because people will check the facts against the evidence.
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Foreign Correspondent ran a documentary on china's mass production. I'll leave people to draw their own conclusions on the matter.
I've had a little bit of a tinker in a LiveCD (UNE) with it, and from what I can see, it's different - as in, "swapping from windows to linux for the first time" different. It's seems to be designed for touch interfaces - using a mouse in it just feels... wrong, for lack of a better term. There is a left hand panel with squares showing application icons and a blank one at the top of the screen (from memory, I think that it houses your status things like time and network connections in the right hand corner). The left-hand panel is very "windows 7-ish" - your open programs appear on there and you just click on them to bring them back into focus, or start if they aren't open. There's not much you can do to customize the thing - you can change the programs on the left panel and the background, but it's really quite locked down. Also, it's a pain to customize anything - for example, if I wanted to change my background, I can't just right click on it and select change like you can in GNOME. Instead, you go to the applications browser (see below), system, Appearance Preferences.
The folders interface has moved away from natalius as well - they're going for a "search-based" system, as opposed to the tried and true files and folders system. So, to find files you type into a search bar. Same for applications - if you want to pull up a program that isn't on the left panel, you go into what looks like the file browser, but has apps instead of files and folders.
Different is the only word to describe it. It's not what I'd be looking for in a desktop - for touch devices like tablets and the new netvertibles that are coming out, it seems like it would work brilliantly. Although, as I said, this was with the netbook edition of 10.10. It might hopefully move a little bit back towards mouse and keyboard navigation for the desktop.
Wikileaks would be slammed by everyone if the leaks weren't edited - remember Amnesty International's response to the war logs? I don't like some of his practices any more than you do, but it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation with editing the leaks - if it isn't edited, then you could be actually endangering lives. If it is, then you get slammed for pushing your own agenda.
I know that wikileaks has it's own adgenda, but so does everybody. In cases like the "collateral murder" video, the spin put on it was a bit much. But the original, full-length video was also available for anyone who didn't want to see the annotated and edited version.
That said, I do agree that the trickle of leaks is irresponsible - it does seem to be purely to piss off the US Government, something that should be a side affect of Wikileak's work rather than a deliberate act.
I think that the grandparent's argument of the boils down to the fact that stealing physical goods deprives the owner of those goods, whilst copying it does not deprive them of the ability to use it. However, seizing the domain names deprives the owner of their use. No hypocrisy is required.
No matter what they do, it will never work. You can't fix a social "problem" with technology. It's just another step up in the arms race that is copyright protection - The only people who are going to be hurt by this are the people like grandma who think that "proxy" means some type of skin disease. This sort of thing is just going to piss someone off, and cause them to actually make the p2p "dns" cloud the parent described.
In the end, the pirates will win, because every time a measure like this is put in place, someone will come up with a way to bypass it. The real question becomes how much damage will the MAFIAA and their paid for politicians cause before this all ends?
About describing images: Which way would it go - Short and to the point, or trying to recreate the image? "Blonde hair caresses a woman's shoulders, her exposed skin seems to quiver in the air. Her nipples are concealed beneath her slightly spread hands, tempting you to imagine what lies beneath her palms. Her eyes are staring directly at you, and her lips are curved into a seductive half-smile, inviting and tempting you to fall into her. Her face seems to say, you want me. Have me." sounds a lot more inviting then "A naked woman, hiding her exposed nipples with her hands whilst staring into the camera".
While I understand that you aren't passing judgment, there are reasons for cracking other than pen-testing
I have a friend who works as a computer techie at a school. In most cases, if you were to ask a teacher what type of computer they had, they would answer "a white one".
What he often finds is that when a teacher wants something fixed (read: they somehow found their way to the control panel and messed something up, or want something installed) on their laptop, they give it to him and then leave without telling him the password to the damn thing so that he can log in and either install what they want or undo whatever changes they made.
Long story short, the only way that he can actually do his job short of hunting down the teacher every single time this happens is to use a linux boot cd or a password cracker to either recover or reset the password.
Even if something has no purpose other then breaking into a system, there are situations where it's required. Security tools are just that. Tools, like a tazer or a lockpick - while both are unarguably single-purposed, the reasons for using them can vary. A tazer could be used to assault someone, but it could also be used in self defense. A lockpick can be used to break into someone's house, but it can also be used by a locksmith in the course of their work.
Computerworld ran the SunSpider JavaScript benchmark suite in Windows Vista Business three times for each browser, then averaged the scores.
Does anyone else see a problem here? It must have been hell to run the test - the cancel or allow dialogue box would have made it maddeningly annoying, for one thing...
A similar thing happened to Lori Drew with the Megan Meier suicide. They charged her under laws meant to stop hacking (unauthorized access - she breached the ToS of myspace), and it was later overturned when it was realised just how ridiculous it was.
Now, I don't agree with what she did, and I don't like the actions of this asshat either. But twisting the law to get a prosecution? Perhaps I'm naive, but the democratic process is screwed when stuff like this happens.
(Seriously, unless you're prepared to suspend freedom of religion in this country, sufficiently smart voters won't happen even if you invest 100% of our state and federal dollars in education).
If I'm misreading this then I apologize, but what do you mean freedom of religion? Granted, there is a small minority of people who have rather extreme views based on their religion, but the majority of people can still think logically about things. Just because somebody believes the world was created in 7 days, or because they worship some 2000 year old guy who pissed off the religious authorities of the time (the second one I do, by the way) doesn't mean that they can't also come to a reasoned opinion. Not every Christian is a raving lunatic that thinks Obama is the antichrist. Not every Muslim is an extremist who wanted to see the twin towers burn. Freedom of religion doesn't need to be suspended. People are opinionated and prone to believing FUD regardless of what religion (if any) that they adhere to.
That said, I do agree with the rest of it. The day that the parent's dreams come true will be the day that unicorns frolic in the grass whilst it rains beer.
It's an isolated network. But, assuming that you knew that and mean if it wasn't properly cleaned, or managed to escape by some other method, it just requires some planning beforehand. Write conditions in so that it will only activate at a certain date (so after a few days it's benign). Or conversely, if the system clock doesn't match the date, then it deletes itself.
It just means that safeguards need to be placed.
Not just ISPs. Think large websites as well. Can you imagine what would happen if they targeted YouTube? While they are prompt with dealing with it, all it would take would be some paperwork going to the wrong spot to make it it look like they're ignoring the takedown notice, and they could seriously piss off the Google behemoth. The fireworks would be quite entertaining.
Actually, what would happen if there was some internal screw-up and they hit the wrong website? I mean, not even one that's remotely related, I mean something such as... I don't know... a dentist? It would only take a typo, and then all hell would break loose.
Now, I would agree with you, except for the fact that humans are not incorruptible. I'm sure that they have the best intentions with the law, but that isn't to say that some future group will not take advantage of the wording to further their own agendas.
The problem here isn't that there is some conspiracy that the government will use this to destroy freedoms; it's that it may lessen the protection that these laws offer in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
... then I realized that the reason they rejected it had nothing to do with the fact that this sort of thing is bad =(
Yeah because using a bunch of prewritten programs and a livecd made by someone else makes you a total 1337 h4x0r, right?
No, it just means that you're not a complete idiot, and you're aware of the basic steps that you should take if you don't want to be tracked down.
How secure *is* our secret data? Hopefully banning USB drives is just one layer and they are taking greater steps to securing who has access to such data.
Really, all your post says to me is that it's impossible to properly secure it. No matter what security protocols you put in place, someone will find a way around them. Even if they are followed properly and don't lax over time (and we all know how likely that's going to be), there will always be a hole that someone who is persistent enough will find.
We all know that in computer security, whitelisting is more secure then blacklisting - with blacklisting, there's always another threat out there that was missed, and once one knows the system sufficiently it becomes trivially easy to bypass it (ask any school student who wants to access a blocked website at school).
It's a situation like this, which means the only way to maintain the system's security is by blacklisting known security vulnerabilities - banning removable media, and so on. But of course that method is flawed. Sooner or later someone will come up with a new way to breach the security. And if they're smart enough not to brag about it and lucky enough not to get caught, then there's no easy way to tell what the security hole is.
*sigh*
Who, please name ONE SINGLE person who got killed! One would do.
Repeating spin over and over is not making it any more correct.
Well, they might have gotten someone killed over it...
Fixed that for you. I think that's what you were trying to say, right? Conjecture without any objective evidence is just detrimental to everyone.
Now, I think you're secretly have a ruber birdo fetish. Of course, you'll just deny it, and I have no way to prove it because you wouldn't release a picture of you with it that someone could identify. Who knows? If I could find out that you use 4chan (perhaps you mentioned it previously under your alias? Google is my friend here), then that puts you on the site this was fished from.
If I were to actually try and say something like this seriously, or suggest you might have thought about molesting children (after all, who knows what's going through your mind?), you would slam me for libel - I have no evidence to back up either of these things. To keep repeating the baseless sound bite that Assange has blood on his hands is of the same family of comments.
If the information is available to the public, then there's a greater risk of someone crying foul about any 'tweaks' that are made to the story. Also, it also means that it isn't a he said/she said thing. 'Scientific journalism' is good because it allows different news outlets to draw their own conclusions based on the actual leak, rather then passing through a game of Chinese Whispers. For example, an Australian Labour Party power broker passed on information, tipping the US off about Julia Gillard taking over Kevin Rudd's role as PM a year before it actually happened. I've seen everything on it from condemning it as pandering to the US, to passing it off as business as usual - explaining that it's important to share information to keep diplomatic lines open.
The fact that the leak is out there for anyone to see means that spin can be kept to a minimum at least, they can't outright lie because people will check the facts against the evidence.
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Foreign Correspondent ran a documentary on china's mass production. I'll leave people to draw their own conclusions on the matter.
The youtube (Aussies can see it on the foreign correspondent website as well - it's called "Dirty Secrets") video is here, split into Part 1 and Part 2
It sounds like you actually read the article before posting.
He must be new here
I've had a little bit of a tinker in a LiveCD (UNE) with it, and from what I can see, it's different - as in, "swapping from windows to linux for the first time" different. It's seems to be designed for touch interfaces - using a mouse in it just feels... wrong, for lack of a better term. There is a left hand panel with squares showing application icons and a blank one at the top of the screen (from memory, I think that it houses your status things like time and network connections in the right hand corner). The left-hand panel is very "windows 7-ish" - your open programs appear on there and you just click on them to bring them back into focus, or start if they aren't open. There's not much you can do to customize the thing - you can change the programs on the left panel and the background, but it's really quite locked down. Also, it's a pain to customize anything - for example, if I wanted to change my background, I can't just right click on it and select change like you can in GNOME. Instead, you go to the applications browser (see below), system, Appearance Preferences.
The folders interface has moved away from natalius as well - they're going for a "search-based" system, as opposed to the tried and true files and folders system. So, to find files you type into a search bar. Same for applications - if you want to pull up a program that isn't on the left panel, you go into what looks like the file browser, but has apps instead of files and folders.
Different is the only word to describe it. It's not what I'd be looking for in a desktop - for touch devices like tablets and the new netvertibles that are coming out, it seems like it would work brilliantly. Although, as I said, this was with the netbook edition of 10.10. It might hopefully move a little bit back towards mouse and keyboard navigation for the desktop.
Hell, I can't really remember . . . are the tactical shotguns for shooting bears or salmon . . . I guess it don't matter . . .
I think that the shotguns were to shoot the bears that were catching the salmon. Remember, "John West endures the worst to bring you the best"
Wikileaks would be slammed by everyone if the leaks weren't edited - remember Amnesty International's response to the war logs? I don't like some of his practices any more than you do, but it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation with editing the leaks - if it isn't edited, then you could be actually endangering lives. If it is, then you get slammed for pushing your own agenda.
I know that wikileaks has it's own adgenda, but so does everybody. In cases like the "collateral murder" video, the spin put on it was a bit much. But the original, full-length video was also available for anyone who didn't want to see the annotated and edited version.
That said, I do agree that the trickle of leaks is irresponsible - it does seem to be purely to piss off the US Government, something that should be a side affect of Wikileak's work rather than a deliberate act.
That point of view is fucked up.
Pun intended?
I think that the grandparent's argument of the boils down to the fact that stealing physical goods deprives the owner of those goods, whilst copying it does not deprive them of the ability to use it. However, seizing the domain names deprives the owner of their use. No hypocrisy is required.
Do the laws of physics you are familiar with work similar to these ones?
6. People will find some way around it, even if it does go ahead.
Technology can't solve a social problem.
No matter what they do, it will never work. You can't fix a social "problem" with technology. It's just another step up in the arms race that is copyright protection - The only people who are going to be hurt by this are the people like grandma who think that "proxy" means some type of skin disease. This sort of thing is just going to piss someone off, and cause them to actually make the p2p "dns" cloud the parent described.
In the end, the pirates will win, because every time a measure like this is put in place, someone will come up with a way to bypass it. The real question becomes how much damage will the MAFIAA and their paid for politicians cause before this all ends?
About describing images: Which way would it go - Short and to the point, or trying to recreate the image?
"Blonde hair caresses a woman's shoulders, her exposed skin seems to quiver in the air. Her nipples are concealed beneath her slightly spread hands, tempting you to imagine what lies beneath her palms. Her eyes are staring directly at you, and her lips are curved into a seductive half-smile, inviting and tempting you to fall into her. Her face seems to say, you want me. Have me." sounds a lot more inviting then "A naked woman, hiding her exposed nipples with her hands whilst staring into the camera".
Anyone want to try this for Goatse or Tubgirl?
While I understand that you aren't passing judgment, there are reasons for cracking other than pen-testing
I have a friend who works as a computer techie at a school. In most cases, if you were to ask a teacher what type of computer they had, they would answer "a white one".
What he often finds is that when a teacher wants something fixed (read: they somehow found their way to the control panel and messed something up, or want something installed) on their laptop, they give it to him and then leave without telling him the password to the damn thing so that he can log in and either install what they want or undo whatever changes they made.
Long story short, the only way that he can actually do his job short of hunting down the teacher every single time this happens is to use a linux boot cd or a password cracker to either recover or reset the password.
Even if something has no purpose other then breaking into a system, there are situations where it's required. Security tools are just that. Tools, like a tazer or a lockpick - while both are unarguably single-purposed, the reasons for using them can vary. A tazer could be used to assault someone, but it could also be used in self defense. A lockpick can be used to break into someone's house, but it can also be used by a locksmith in the course of their work.
Computerworld ran the SunSpider JavaScript benchmark suite in Windows Vista Business three times for each browser, then averaged the scores.
Does anyone else see a problem here? It must have been hell to run the test - the cancel or allow dialogue box would have made it maddeningly annoying, for one thing...
A similar thing happened to Lori Drew with the Megan Meier suicide. They charged her under laws meant to stop hacking (unauthorized access - she breached the ToS of myspace), and it was later overturned when it was realised just how ridiculous it was.
Now, I don't agree with what she did, and I don't like the actions of this asshat either. But twisting the law to get a prosecution? Perhaps I'm naive, but the democratic process is screwed when stuff like this happens.
(Seriously, unless you're prepared to suspend freedom of religion in this country, sufficiently smart voters won't happen even if you invest 100% of our state and federal dollars in education).
If I'm misreading this then I apologize, but what do you mean freedom of religion? Granted, there is a small minority of people who have rather extreme views based on their religion, but the majority of people can still think logically about things. Just because somebody believes the world was created in 7 days, or because they worship some 2000 year old guy who pissed off the religious authorities of the time (the second one I do, by the way) doesn't mean that they can't also come to a reasoned opinion. Not every Christian is a raving lunatic that thinks Obama is the antichrist. Not every Muslim is an extremist who wanted to see the twin towers burn. Freedom of religion doesn't need to be suspended. People are opinionated and prone to believing FUD regardless of what religion (if any) that they adhere to.
That said, I do agree with the rest of it. The day that the parent's dreams come true will be the day that unicorns frolic in the grass whilst it rains beer.
It's an isolated network. But, assuming that you knew that and mean if it wasn't properly cleaned, or managed to escape by some other method, it just requires some planning beforehand. Write conditions in so that it will only activate at a certain date (so after a few days it's benign). Or conversely, if the system clock doesn't match the date, then it deletes itself.
It just means that safeguards need to be placed.
http://xkcd.com/750/
Not just ISPs. Think large websites as well. Can you imagine what would happen if they targeted YouTube? While they are prompt with dealing with it, all it would take would be some paperwork going to the wrong spot to make it it look like they're ignoring the takedown notice, and they could seriously piss off the Google behemoth. The fireworks would be quite entertaining.
Actually, what would happen if there was some internal screw-up and they hit the wrong website? I mean, not even one that's remotely related, I mean something such as... I don't know... a dentist? It would only take a typo, and then all hell would break loose.
The vote doesn't count if you don't mark it correctly, not sure about your specific example. Anyone that's interested in the specifics should have a look at the Australian Electoral Commission's website
Now, I would agree with you, except for the fact that humans are not incorruptible. I'm sure that they have the best intentions with the law, but that isn't to say that some future group will not take advantage of the wording to further their own agendas.
The problem here isn't that there is some conspiracy that the government will use this to destroy freedoms; it's that it may lessen the protection that these laws offer in the future.