They are not ending support for 2007...buy a new one.
What's with people getting angst about a new product every 3-5 years? Adobe comes out with a new photoshop every 1-2 yeasr. Same with Intuit products. Not a big deal...keep using what you like. I still know many people who use office 2003. It works great.
The biggest group of users to use 2010 will be those who got brand new computers and don't have an older version.
Techies all of a sudden wanting to slow down progres...all in the hate of MS.
They still own the office space by:
1) producing the best office suite
2) locking down all their formats anyway
sure ATM its mostly 1 that keeps their OS top, but pretending that just because they don't hassle OEMs any more [citation needed] they don't do bad things is naive.
Yes...they make the "BEST" (according to you) product. That does not make for a monopoly. For all the people on/. who scream "competition to produce the best product"...now you say MS Office is the best product and this is a bad thing? Come on - it's like saying you love some songwriters music but you hate the songwriter because you love their songs.
What do you mean by locking formats? I can install open office on my windows box. As long as the company makes it so it can run in an x86 processor I can run whatever they offer.
Assuming MS does not hassle the OEMs anymore - what other bad things do they do? Obviously 3rd party competing vendors can make 1) Competing os', & 2) competing applications - what is the issue?
You're a little dense there, bucko. While Microsoft isn't actually forcing people to only produce games for Windows, they did have a big hand in establishing that condition in the first place. They illegally manipulated the markets to eliminate their competition and now reap the rewards of being the biggest player in the marketplace.
So yes, it is Microsoft's fault, if they hadn't pressured computer manufacturers into accepting anti-competitive distribution agreements, we likely wouldn't have a huge Operating System monoculture that self-sustains itself. Most people don't switch off of Windows because "everyone else" is using Windows. Most companies don't develop games for platforms other than Windows because all the gamers have Windows on their computer because that's where the games are.
I'm a little dense there bucko? You're argument on what MS did years ago (in an industry where 2 years is a lifetime away) makes as much sense as those who think affirmative action is still needed because race relations in the US make it so minorities can't get into colleges or get good jobs (nevermind Obama being in office, and some fire fighting offices are displaying reverse discrimination disfavoring whites).
Interesting though - you neglected to mention FireFox, iTunes (very prevalent on windows machines). FireFox spready like wildfire via grassroots. Then there is google search engine, google e-mail, and other google products which slame MSN/Hotmail into the ground.
So much for the unfair practices of microsoft...bucko.
Until Adobe and Steinberg and Native Instruments and EA and Valve and id Software and M-Audio and Boss and Tascam and Alesis and Mackie and Blizzard all start to support Linux development, Linux will never be a viable alternative.
Linux is a great OS for basic stuff. That's why it makes a lot of gains in netbooks, because that's a computer for simple stuff. Beyond that, where are the games? the multimedia production? driver support?
Let me be clear, this is not the fault of Linux, this is the fault of third parties. But until those third parties see a valid reason for porting their software and hardware drivers to work with Linux, it can't ever be a fully viable alternative to Windows.
Interesting Adobe, EA, Valve, id, Blizzard (I dont know the others) all support Apple. I guess Apple and MS share their monopoly together.
The lack of hardware/software support for linux is because those manufacturers want to go where their bread will get the most butter...in this case MS AND Apple. To add to your "fault" statement - this is not the fault of Linux, Apple or MS...it is the fault of third parties....(snip)....it can't ever be a fully viable alternative to Windows and Apple OS.
There are too many threads for me to reply to (all under mine). In the end it is not MS/Apple's fault most computer users would rather use Windows/Mac OS over Linux, Free BSD, etc. That is a market concern. If you want to blame someone blame the users...though honestly you can't really. If I want to play game X and it only plays on platform Y then I buy platform Y...I am not going to buy platform Z in case on day a game I want to play comes out for it.
Can I get my games working on it? If not, I'll be forced to use Windows, which I'd really rather not.
And unless it is a game produced by MS then it is not the fault of MS. Nothing stopped World of Warcraft from being played on apple and that is probably one of the biggest games out there.
A shame that a lot of the products people are looking for tend to be primarily Windows-only, which make those viable options, unviable.
MS is a company notorious for making it hard for other companies to interface with their software. Shouldn't that incentivize these companies (who make games, productivity software, etc) to produce on other platforms which aren't so restrictive? Apparantly not because they produce first for MS and then for the other folks. So sue those companies.
I love the american dream - get big, get as big as possible..then when you are number one everyone will call you evil and sue you as much as possible... The real american dream = litigation.
...But they also have contracts with all the OEMs that make it so they can't bundle non-MS things with their machines or advertise non-MS systems otherwise MS increases the price of Windows to them that it becomes unprofitable to run a business. Add that in with a relatively stupid population that can't or won't install anything other than the defaults due to FUD by the media or by outdated experiences.
And for a post about how many browsers there are, you need to look more in depths at reports. Sure, Firefox seems to be lagging behind, but there are a ton of other browsers rather than IE, Chrome, Safari, Opera, etc.
Well, first, my version of windows came with many non MS products (trust me i wish it didn't) - including McAffee, Norton, AOL, Roxio and more
NOt sure about your statement proving that MS makes it unprofitable for a company to sell non-MS OS with their computers. Dell is one of the largest computer retailers and you can get ubuntu with their computers (http://www.dell.com/home/laptops#subcats=&navla=&a=51800~0~1932545).
I bought a desktop last November and had the option to get it with linux, XP, Vista, or no OS. It came from a "small" mom-n-pop shop. Windows cost me extra (OEM version).
I know about the other browsers, but wasn't going to list each one --- most people on/. know about them. I don't like Opera, not yet sold on Chrome enough to make the change from FireFox, I don't like Safari either. So for me, right now, it's between FireFox and IE but i am sticking with FF out of convenience.
So not sure where you got your "facts" unless it is an outdated one.
A monopoly is not just the lack of substitute (or competing) goods - it's about the lack of viable competing goods. So in this case, MS still fits the bill (e.g. Being the most popular platform, and with the win32 API being very heavily embedded in many products, targeting Windows is the only viable option for a lot of companies. It doesn't necessarily mean it's the only one)
OS-X is not a viable competing good? Are you also saying that google chrome is not a viable competing good? How is it MS fault Apple/Google cannot produce competing goods - they have the money to do it. THough I think they are competing goods. Being the most popular is not enough to be conisdered a monopoly. I think Wii is the most popular game console (it could be PS3 or Xbox depending on which report you read) - does that make Nintendo a monopoly? No.
While MS did some bad things in the past (using their power to ensure retailers only sold their OS) this has pretty much gone the way of the doe-doe bird.
Linx, OS-X, Chrome(yet to be proven) are all viable products.
Yes, yes it does. considering there are other OS' out there and apparantly a new one hitting the market. Considering there are other browsers out there, and apparantly a new one hitting the market. Considering there are other media players out there, and apparantly a new one hitting the market...the list goes on. Get the point? There are more options then you can throw a stick at.
BTW the current IE version is greater then the current FireFox version...I am contemplating switching back to IE8...but something about leaving FireFox for IE makes me feel unclean - but the proof is in the pudding and independent reports are saying it's time for IE (as of now that is).
SFTP...use it. That or make a torrent and set it so only those given the torrent can access it. Different torrnet programs have different privacy capabilities to allow you to utilize their program to transfer files, securely, from your computer to a specific recipient.
1) The application can only handle X amount of characters where X is less then the sentence
2) You need to have symbols in there (e.g. '*')
3) You need to change this once per month
4) You have multiple systems which require passwords
5) Passwords may not be repeated
All of this = reasons why your password method may not be the best.
There is a reason why ma-bell made phone numbers seven digits long and it's not because ma-bell anticipated the need to use every 10 million number combinations...it's because 7 digits is what the human brain can easily remember. Easily being "you remember this once" not "you need to remember a new number every month, including different character sizing, symbols, etc"
When a company makes the requirements so difficult. For example: Symbol, plus one caps, plus one lowercase, plus one number, and at least 8 characters, changed every month and never being able to repeat. Then this policy is applied to every system, which if they are not all AD (active directory) controlled means someone has to remember multiple passwords each month.
What happens? People WILL use post-it-notes with their passwords. Security can bitch and moan all they want about this but the alternative is people callign helpdesk 5 times a day saying "reset my password".
There needs to be a balance when using passwords...too easy and you have little/no security, too difficult and you force people to find routes to remember their passwords (e.g. post-it notes) killing any security. You would be better off to have too easy of passwords.
If a company is that paranoid about password security then install fingerprint/eye-scanners. They are very inexpensive (sub $100 retail) and you will save users and help desk a world of hurt.
Armed forces are treated under a different set of rules in many circumstances, as you should know. For example you can drink, on a military base, at the age of 18...step off the military base and if you are drinking (and under age 21) you are breaking the law.
For the other folks who asked about "well what is considered under age, since each state is different". Honestly I don't know what the federal rules are...maybe it goes by the state in which you reside, maybe it goes by some federal limit - I don't ahve the answer - just relating an article.
For those worried about the proprieter of said services (be it drugs, prostitutes, etc) - don't worry the US can't and won't prosecute them. They are selling a product in their country and have to deal with their country laws. Only US citizens/companies have to worry about the US laws.
For those that mentioned college kids going to canada - yes they can be prosecuted for it, but prosecution has to prove there was intent to do so. Considering the offense is DUI (for those under 21 in the US, DUI is automatically given even if you are nowhere near a car) the prosection does not need to prove intent - they just say "we caught these kids in the US with alcohol in their blood." At that point nobody cares if they got their alcohol in canada (they would care if it is in the US since it's illegal to sell alcohol to minors in the US.
BTW the 21 Age limit is set by the state but every single state in the US has that 21 limit because the federal gov't gives bonus money to states which keep the age at 21 and older. So a state that keeps the age at 21 y/o+ gets federal money and makes organizations like MADD, DADD, and SADD happy. They piss off those under 21, but for the most part people under 21 don't vote, so it's a win-win for politicians.
Now I can have legally approved sex with a 13 year old AND listen to my downloaded Counting Crows album at the same time... *take a holiday in spain, leave my wings behind me*
I am sure you are joking but just an fyi - if you happen to be coming from the US - going to another country with the intent of doing something that would be considered illegal in the US (e.g. sex w/13 y/o) you would be convicted of doing that crime upon your arrival (assuming they 1) knew of your intent and 2) prove that you did it).
Well you made a post on/. so step 1 is out of the way:)
BTW there was, about 6 months ago, a trial where a guy sent e-mails to his friend talking about going to south america to get underage prostitutes. He did this. When he came back the cops arrested him. Not sure how they knew he actually did the deed (I don't remember) but they used his e-mails to show his intent. He is in jail.
Current situation: society as a whole does not know the vulnerability or it's scope, criminals might or might not know the vulnerability and might or might not be actively exploiting it.
Full disclosure:anyone with enough brains and guts can exploit the vulnerability, society at large can take steps to minimize the risk since it is now known what exactly the risk is.
Society as a whole does not know of the vulnerability. You are correct. Full disclosure of the vulnerability will allow those who have the desire/means to exploit it. No it won't be as easy as walking into a 7-11 with a shotgun, but there are plenty of computer geeks who would exploit such a loophole to make some cash.
Since we can't setup a security guard/cop by every ATm unit 24/7 until a patch is released criminals will be able to rob the machine...as simple as going to the unit at 4 Am with a ski mask and doing what needs to be done (assuming its not somethign that can be done remotely)
Releasing the hole does not hurt society, however, it does hurt Diebold customers and partners.
1) Diebold customers/partners did not cause this issue
2) If you use an ATM you are a diebold customer
3) Diebold will pass the cost to companies which use ATMs and they will pass the cost to you
4) It does hurt society as a whole to enable criminals. Just because you are not directly effected does not make you immune to the effects.
Step 1) Develop fix...duration days to months
Step 2) Test fix in test environment to make sure it doesn't cause other problems....duration days to months
Step 3) Implement fix in all ATM's....duration weeks to months
In the meantime criminals are stealing billions of dollars over the course of that time. It's easy to say "boo who sucks to be you" but allowing criminals to steal is abhorant. Even if the money stolen does not affect the consumer pocket-book in the end the cost of this will trickle down to the consumer.
You're right they don't deserve it - but giving information to criminals to make it easier for them to steal - thus hurting society as a whole - is not the answer. Unfortunately the security of ATM's is greater then these researches desire to present their work.
I think he is referring to the growing trend of police/themselves/ believing you cant film them or take pictures of them. I don't know how many times I have seen video of cops confiscating cameras and or arresting civilians for taking pictures of them.
Well thats a different topic, and one that I agree with. Cops do not have the right to confiscate cameras though depending on the situation I can see their point (e.g. you took a picture of an undercover drug cop with his family and your goal is to post it on tv, but this would put the cops family at risk from say drug dealers he has been fooling). In the case of uniformed cops, however, there shouldn't be an issue. This isn't a problem with the law so much as it is a problem of the officer him/her-self.
Cops need to be educated better.
Taking pictures of classified material is a big no-no and I agree with this. Too many people think their right to information (which really boils down to "I want to know the secret, how come you won't tell me the secret, it's like when my sister never told me her secret and i had to steal her diary") is above national security. Sorry - no dice. I understand the need to make sure we are not screwing our people over (e.g. kidnapping innocent civilians and killing them) but releasing a secret agents identity, which not only puts their lives at great risk, but prevents us from getting information from global terrorists is just dumb.
Anyhow I am derailing myself. If you can catch a picture of this eye-in-the-sky I think you will be OK and not get prosecuted.
Building.
Imagine you have a house and a backyard. Surrounding your backyard you have a 10 foot wood fence that you couldn't see through (no gaps between the wooden slates). You, however, do not have a roof on your backyard so someone flying overhead could see your smoking hot wife naked tanning next to your olympic sized swimming pool. No privacy protection from eye's in the sky. So while they are checking out your hot wifes rack they are also watching you perform that drug deal and sending in swat to bust you. Again i may be remembering wrong, this was a long time ago.
So now what I do in my lawn is not considered privacy anymore? Great.
THis issue has been discussed for years now, and there were court cases about it a few decades ago (helicopter + camera). I may be wrong but I believe the courts ruled that your backyard (even if it has wooden fences) does not enjoy privacy protection from top view cameras, but your home skylight roof does enjoy protection. I may be wrong since i am going from memory of a long time ago.
But as soon as an individual points a camera at this aircraft, you can bet that police will be telling them they're not allowed to do it, that they must delete the photos, or arresting them on some terrorism charge (at least, that's what would happen in the UK).
It's as if objects, buildings and so on have more of an expectation of privacy than individuals do...
Not sure why your post would be marked insightful since it is pure speculation. There are valid concerns with top secret items and the gov't not wanting you to take pictures of them. For example if the gov't came out with a new plane that had some new, awesome and secret technology it makes sense they don't want you taking a picture of it. This technology is nothing new...it's been featured in games, tv shows, and hell is just a combination of technology that's been around for decades with some relatively new technology (HD TV).
Feel free to take all the pictures you want of this aircraft...once the military sells something to civies it loses it's top secret status.
BTW this technology amounts to an RC airplane + HD cam corder + a transmitter of the cam corder. I'd imagine someone here on/. could make said device...it may not be as good as what these cops will have - then again they have hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend on professional gear - but it will do the same thing.
This is nothing new. Police helicopters + cameras have been around for decades. THis guy is excited because instead of analog (vhs) tapes which are grainy and don't do well when trying to enlarge a picture they are not using digital technology which is easier to mainpulate.
Privacy concerns from eyes in the sky were settled decades ago.
Privacy outside of a building is not constitutionally mandated. Walking on the street? Anyone can take pictures of you - media, gov't, private citizens and you have zero privacy claims. There is no expectation of privacy when you leave the protection of a building.
There were some issues, in the past, with aerial photos of people in their backyard which had walls (and obviously no ceilings). I don't recall what the ruling was but I think it was ruled that if there is no roof there is no expectation of privacy....so you may want to make sure your drug deals are done within 5 enclosed walls:)
Slashdot Mirror
They are not ending support for 2007...buy a new one.
What's with people getting angst about a new product every 3-5 years? Adobe comes out with a new photoshop every 1-2 yeasr. Same with Intuit products. Not a big deal...keep using what you like. I still know many people who use office 2003. It works great.
The biggest group of users to use 2010 will be those who got brand new computers and don't have an older version.
Techies all of a sudden wanting to slow down progres...all in the hate of MS.
They still own the office space by: 1) producing the best office suite 2) locking down all their formats anyway sure ATM its mostly 1 that keeps their OS top, but pretending that just because they don't hassle OEMs any more [citation needed] they don't do bad things is naive.
Yes...they make the "BEST" (according to you) product. That does not make for a monopoly. For all the people on /. who scream "competition to produce the best product"...now you say MS Office is the best product and this is a bad thing? Come on - it's like saying you love some songwriters music but you hate the songwriter because you love their songs.
What do you mean by locking formats? I can install open office on my windows box. As long as the company makes it so it can run in an x86 processor I can run whatever they offer.
Assuming MS does not hassle the OEMs anymore - what other bad things do they do? Obviously 3rd party competing vendors can make 1) Competing os', & 2) competing applications - what is the issue?
You're a little dense there, bucko. While Microsoft isn't actually forcing people to only produce games for Windows, they did have a big hand in establishing that condition in the first place. They illegally manipulated the markets to eliminate their competition and now reap the rewards of being the biggest player in the marketplace. So yes, it is Microsoft's fault, if they hadn't pressured computer manufacturers into accepting anti-competitive distribution agreements, we likely wouldn't have a huge Operating System monoculture that self-sustains itself. Most people don't switch off of Windows because "everyone else" is using Windows. Most companies don't develop games for platforms other than Windows because all the gamers have Windows on their computer because that's where the games are.
I'm a little dense there bucko? You're argument on what MS did years ago (in an industry where 2 years is a lifetime away) makes as much sense as those who think affirmative action is still needed because race relations in the US make it so minorities can't get into colleges or get good jobs (nevermind Obama being in office, and some fire fighting offices are displaying reverse discrimination disfavoring whites).
Interesting though - you neglected to mention FireFox, iTunes (very prevalent on windows machines). FireFox spready like wildfire via grassroots. Then there is google search engine, google e-mail, and other google products which slame MSN/Hotmail into the ground.
So much for the unfair practices of microsoft...bucko.
Until Adobe and Steinberg and Native Instruments and EA and Valve and id Software and M-Audio and Boss and Tascam and Alesis and Mackie and Blizzard all start to support Linux development, Linux will never be a viable alternative. Linux is a great OS for basic stuff. That's why it makes a lot of gains in netbooks, because that's a computer for simple stuff. Beyond that, where are the games? the multimedia production? driver support? Let me be clear, this is not the fault of Linux, this is the fault of third parties. But until those third parties see a valid reason for porting their software and hardware drivers to work with Linux, it can't ever be a fully viable alternative to Windows.
Interesting Adobe, EA, Valve, id, Blizzard (I dont know the others) all support Apple. I guess Apple and MS share their monopoly together.
The lack of hardware/software support for linux is because those manufacturers want to go where their bread will get the most butter...in this case MS AND Apple. To add to your "fault" statement - this is not the fault of Linux, Apple or MS...it is the fault of third parties....(snip)....it can't ever be a fully viable alternative to Windows and Apple OS.
There are too many threads for me to reply to (all under mine). In the end it is not MS/Apple's fault most computer users would rather use Windows/Mac OS over Linux, Free BSD, etc. That is a market concern. If you want to blame someone blame the users...though honestly you can't really. If I want to play game X and it only plays on platform Y then I buy platform Y...I am not going to buy platform Z in case on day a game I want to play comes out for it.
Can I get my games working on it? If not, I'll be forced to use Windows, which I'd really rather not.
And unless it is a game produced by MS then it is not the fault of MS. Nothing stopped World of Warcraft from being played on apple and that is probably one of the biggest games out there.
A shame that a lot of the products people are looking for tend to be primarily Windows-only, which make those viable options, unviable.
MS is a company notorious for making it hard for other companies to interface with their software. Shouldn't that incentivize these companies (who make games, productivity software, etc) to produce on other platforms which aren't so restrictive? Apparantly not because they produce first for MS and then for the other folks. So sue those companies.
I love the american dream - get big, get as big as possible..then when you are number one everyone will call you evil and sue you as much as possible... The real american dream = litigation.
...But they also have contracts with all the OEMs that make it so they can't bundle non-MS things with their machines or advertise non-MS systems otherwise MS increases the price of Windows to them that it becomes unprofitable to run a business. Add that in with a relatively stupid population that can't or won't install anything other than the defaults due to FUD by the media or by outdated experiences. And for a post about how many browsers there are, you need to look more in depths at reports. Sure, Firefox seems to be lagging behind, but there are a ton of other browsers rather than IE, Chrome, Safari, Opera, etc.
Well, first, my version of windows came with many non MS products (trust me i wish it didn't) - including McAffee, Norton, AOL, Roxio and more
/. know about them. I don't like Opera, not yet sold on Chrome enough to make the change from FireFox, I don't like Safari either. So for me, right now, it's between FireFox and IE but i am sticking with FF out of convenience.
NOt sure about your statement proving that MS makes it unprofitable for a company to sell non-MS OS with their computers. Dell is one of the largest computer retailers and you can get ubuntu with their computers (http://www.dell.com/home/laptops#subcats=&navla=&a=51800~0~1932545).
I bought a desktop last November and had the option to get it with linux, XP, Vista, or no OS. It came from a "small" mom-n-pop shop. Windows cost me extra (OEM version).
I know about the other browsers, but wasn't going to list each one --- most people on
So not sure where you got your "facts" unless it is an outdated one.
A monopoly is not just the lack of substitute (or competing) goods - it's about the lack of viable competing goods. So in this case, MS still fits the bill (e.g. Being the most popular platform, and with the win32 API being very heavily embedded in many products, targeting Windows is the only viable option for a lot of companies. It doesn't necessarily mean it's the only one)
OS-X is not a viable competing good? Are you also saying that google chrome is not a viable competing good? How is it MS fault Apple/Google cannot produce competing goods - they have the money to do it. THough I think they are competing goods. Being the most popular is not enough to be conisdered a monopoly. I think Wii is the most popular game console (it could be PS3 or Xbox depending on which report you read) - does that make Nintendo a monopoly? No.
While MS did some bad things in the past (using their power to ensure retailers only sold their OS) this has pretty much gone the way of the doe-doe bird.
Linx, OS-X, Chrome(yet to be proven) are all viable products.
their monopoly sucks badly
Yes, yes it does. considering there are other OS' out there and apparantly a new one hitting the market. Considering there are other browsers out there, and apparantly a new one hitting the market. Considering there are other media players out there, and apparantly a new one hitting the market...the list goes on. Get the point? There are more options then you can throw a stick at.
BTW the current IE version is greater then the current FireFox version...I am contemplating switching back to IE8...but something about leaving FireFox for IE makes me feel unclean - but the proof is in the pudding and independent reports are saying it's time for IE (as of now that is).
SFTP...use it. That or make a torrent and set it so only those given the torrent can access it. Different torrnet programs have different privacy capabilities to allow you to utilize their program to transfer files, securely, from your computer to a specific recipient.
1) The application can only handle X amount of characters where X is less then the sentence
2) You need to have symbols in there (e.g. '*')
3) You need to change this once per month
4) You have multiple systems which require passwords
5) Passwords may not be repeated
All of this = reasons why your password method may not be the best.
There is a reason why ma-bell made phone numbers seven digits long and it's not because ma-bell anticipated the need to use every 10 million number combinations...it's because 7 digits is what the human brain can easily remember. Easily being "you remember this once" not "you need to remember a new number every month, including different character sizing, symbols, etc"
When a company makes the requirements so difficult. For example: Symbol, plus one caps, plus one lowercase, plus one number, and at least 8 characters, changed every month and never being able to repeat. Then this policy is applied to every system, which if they are not all AD (active directory) controlled means someone has to remember multiple passwords each month.
What happens? People WILL use post-it-notes with their passwords. Security can bitch and moan all they want about this but the alternative is people callign helpdesk 5 times a day saying "reset my password".
There needs to be a balance when using passwords...too easy and you have little/no security, too difficult and you force people to find routes to remember their passwords (e.g. post-it notes) killing any security. You would be better off to have too easy of passwords.
If a company is that paranoid about password security then install fingerprint/eye-scanners. They are very inexpensive (sub $100 retail) and you will save users and help desk a world of hurt.
Armed forces are treated under a different set of rules in many circumstances, as you should know. For example you can drink, on a military base, at the age of 18...step off the military base and if you are drinking (and under age 21) you are breaking the law.
For the other folks who asked about "well what is considered under age, since each state is different". Honestly I don't know what the federal rules are...maybe it goes by the state in which you reside, maybe it goes by some federal limit - I don't ahve the answer - just relating an article.
For those worried about the proprieter of said services (be it drugs, prostitutes, etc) - don't worry the US can't and won't prosecute them. They are selling a product in their country and have to deal with their country laws. Only US citizens/companies have to worry about the US laws.
For those that mentioned college kids going to canada - yes they can be prosecuted for it, but prosecution has to prove there was intent to do so. Considering the offense is DUI (for those under 21 in the US, DUI is automatically given even if you are nowhere near a car) the prosection does not need to prove intent - they just say "we caught these kids in the US with alcohol in their blood." At that point nobody cares if they got their alcohol in canada (they would care if it is in the US since it's illegal to sell alcohol to minors in the US.
BTW the 21 Age limit is set by the state but every single state in the US has that 21 limit because the federal gov't gives bonus money to states which keep the age at 21 and older. So a state that keeps the age at 21 y/o+ gets federal money and makes organizations like MADD, DADD, and SADD happy. They piss off those under 21, but for the most part people under 21 don't vote, so it's a win-win for politicians.
Now I can have legally approved sex with a 13 year old AND listen to my downloaded Counting Crows album at the same time... *take a holiday in spain, leave my wings behind me*
I am sure you are joking but just an fyi - if you happen to be coming from the US - going to another country with the intent of doing something that would be considered illegal in the US (e.g. sex w/13 y/o) you would be convicted of doing that crime upon your arrival (assuming they 1) knew of your intent and 2) prove that you did it).
/. so step 1 is out of the way :)
Well you made a post on
BTW there was, about 6 months ago, a trial where a guy sent e-mails to his friend talking about going to south america to get underage prostitutes. He did this. When he came back the cops arrested him. Not sure how they knew he actually did the deed (I don't remember) but they used his e-mails to show his intent. He is in jail.
Current situation: society as a whole does not know the vulnerability or it's scope, criminals might or might not know the vulnerability and might or might not be actively exploiting it. Full disclosure:anyone with enough brains and guts can exploit the vulnerability, society at large can take steps to minimize the risk since it is now known what exactly the risk is.
Society as a whole does not know of the vulnerability. You are correct. Full disclosure of the vulnerability will allow those who have the desire/means to exploit it. No it won't be as easy as walking into a 7-11 with a shotgun, but there are plenty of computer geeks who would exploit such a loophole to make some cash.
Since we can't setup a security guard/cop by every ATm unit 24/7 until a patch is released criminals will be able to rob the machine...as simple as going to the unit at 4 Am with a ski mask and doing what needs to be done (assuming its not somethign that can be done remotely)
Releasing the hole does not hurt society, however, it does hurt Diebold customers and partners.
1) Diebold customers/partners did not cause this issue
2) If you use an ATM you are a diebold customer
3) Diebold will pass the cost to companies which use ATMs and they will pass the cost to you
4) It does hurt society as a whole to enable criminals. Just because you are not directly effected does not make you immune to the effects.
Step 1) Develop fix...duration days to months
Step 2) Test fix in test environment to make sure it doesn't cause other problems....duration days to months
Step 3) Implement fix in all ATM's....duration weeks to months
In the meantime criminals are stealing billions of dollars over the course of that time. It's easy to say "boo who sucks to be you" but allowing criminals to steal is abhorant. Even if the money stolen does not affect the consumer pocket-book in the end the cost of this will trickle down to the consumer.
You're right they don't deserve it - but giving information to criminals to make it easier for them to steal - thus hurting society as a whole - is not the answer. Unfortunately the security of ATM's is greater then these researches desire to present their work.
I think he is referring to the growing trend of police /themselves/ believing you cant film them or take pictures of them. I don't know how many times I have seen video of cops confiscating cameras and or arresting civilians for taking pictures of them.
Well thats a different topic, and one that I agree with. Cops do not have the right to confiscate cameras though depending on the situation I can see their point (e.g. you took a picture of an undercover drug cop with his family and your goal is to post it on tv, but this would put the cops family at risk from say drug dealers he has been fooling). In the case of uniformed cops, however, there shouldn't be an issue. This isn't a problem with the law so much as it is a problem of the officer him/her-self.
Cops need to be educated better.
Taking pictures of classified material is a big no-no and I agree with this. Too many people think their right to information (which really boils down to "I want to know the secret, how come you won't tell me the secret, it's like when my sister never told me her secret and i had to steal her diary") is above national security. Sorry - no dice. I understand the need to make sure we are not screwing our people over (e.g. kidnapping innocent civilians and killing them) but releasing a secret agents identity, which not only puts their lives at great risk, but prevents us from getting information from global terrorists is just dumb.
Anyhow I am derailing myself. If you can catch a picture of this eye-in-the-sky I think you will be OK and not get prosecuted.
Outside of a building or outside your property?
Building. Imagine you have a house and a backyard. Surrounding your backyard you have a 10 foot wood fence that you couldn't see through (no gaps between the wooden slates). You, however, do not have a roof on your backyard so someone flying overhead could see your smoking hot wife naked tanning next to your olympic sized swimming pool. No privacy protection from eye's in the sky. So while they are checking out your hot wifes rack they are also watching you perform that drug deal and sending in swat to bust you. Again i may be remembering wrong, this was a long time ago.
So now what I do in my lawn is not considered privacy anymore? Great.
THis issue has been discussed for years now, and there were court cases about it a few decades ago (helicopter + camera). I may be wrong but I believe the courts ruled that your backyard (even if it has wooden fences) does not enjoy privacy protection from top view cameras, but your home skylight roof does enjoy protection. I may be wrong since i am going from memory of a long time ago.
But as soon as an individual points a camera at this aircraft, you can bet that police will be telling them they're not allowed to do it, that they must delete the photos, or arresting them on some terrorism charge (at least, that's what would happen in the UK). It's as if objects, buildings and so on have more of an expectation of privacy than individuals do...
Not sure why your post would be marked insightful since it is pure speculation. There are valid concerns with top secret items and the gov't not wanting you to take pictures of them. For example if the gov't came out with a new plane that had some new, awesome and secret technology it makes sense they don't want you taking a picture of it. This technology is nothing new...it's been featured in games, tv shows, and hell is just a combination of technology that's been around for decades with some relatively new technology (HD TV).
/. could make said device...it may not be as good as what these cops will have - then again they have hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend on professional gear - but it will do the same thing.
Feel free to take all the pictures you want of this aircraft...once the military sells something to civies it loses it's top secret status.
BTW this technology amounts to an RC airplane + HD cam corder + a transmitter of the cam corder. I'd imagine someone here on
This is nothing new. Police helicopters + cameras have been around for decades. THis guy is excited because instead of analog (vhs) tapes which are grainy and don't do well when trying to enlarge a picture they are not using digital technology which is easier to mainpulate.
Privacy concerns from eyes in the sky were settled decades ago.
Privacy outside of a building is not constitutionally mandated. Walking on the street? Anyone can take pictures of you - media, gov't, private citizens and you have zero privacy claims. There is no expectation of privacy when you leave the protection of a building.
:)
There were some issues, in the past, with aerial photos of people in their backyard which had walls (and obviously no ceilings). I don't recall what the ruling was but I think it was ruled that if there is no roof there is no expectation of privacy....so you may want to make sure your drug deals are done within 5 enclosed walls
Can I work with you? Because my answer to someone who said we have to spend 18 million on a web is would be this, "So can you out run a bullet?"
If only wishing made it so. It would be an episode of the The Apprentice - with only the portion "You're Fired" followed up by a new episode of Weaponology - with only the portion of where they test the new weapons. Where they test this weapon: http://www.spareammo.com/posters/us-marine-firing-aa-12-full-auto-shotgun-aa12-machine-shotgun.jpg