Why wouid any remotely reputable place that has any genuinely confidential information about a person be using third party javascript hosted elsewhere linked from a page where such confidential information might be getting used?
JS still runs in sandbox and can't access any information stored on your local machine that is not provided to it by the browser, nor, if the browser is running javascript correctly, will the browser's JS interpreter allow access to any information outside the page or any of its frames, that it is presenting to the user from where the javascript code started.
I don't see how any of these proposed attacks would affect somebody who, whenever they are going to go to a site that they may regularly use or have bookmarked, and which may have some confidential information, always manually opens a new tab or window first for the page to load in.
How is even a malicious javascript code on one web page going to see the the content of a page that I have manuallly opened up in an entirely separate window?
This. I've actually personally witnessed a case where a java test application outperformed a (roughly) equivalent C++ application by a startling amount. The two applications were more of a benchmark program than a real app, since it was only testing the timing characteristics of allocating many thousands of objects on the heap, discarding some of them, allocating more, then discarding more, and so on.... The C++ version used the default new and delete operators, while the java version just used the normal new keyword and left the discarding of memory of old objects to the GC. The Java version outperformed the C++ version by more than a factor of 10. Altering the C++ version so that it used custom new and delete operators for the objects, pooling unused objects instead of always just returning them to the heap as the default delete operator did, the C++ version of the application sped up considerably, outperforming the Java version only slightly over a period of about one billion allocations. In consideration of this experience, I think that one is left with answering the question for themselves of whether spending the extra time to specifically optimize a C++ program is truly worth the marginally improved performance. Sometimes it might be... but sometimes it won't.
True... but the primary problem with "undue care' is that it is so extremely subjective that a more rigidly defined law which can be expressed in physical terms, rather than psychological ones, may be useful.
Far from it.... speaking strictly physiologically, it's abundantly clear that human beings evolved to function primarily in well-lit conditions. Most significantly, the density of rods in the human retina readily shows that human beings, especially when compared with retina from creatures which are nocturnal, simply are not going to be anywhere nearly as effective at seeing in low-light conditions, which is what would persist at night under a strictly "natural" setting, and would be comparably crippled in functionality for any visually oriented tasks. it follows that for human beings, it's being awake when the sun *ISN'T* out is the thing that is the unnatural thing.
You may not be a green plant... but you're not an owl either.
Well, it *COULD* have been a great toy... if his son seemed to show any interest in the simulator, or airplanes in general. According to TFA, it's "unclear" what his son thinks.
As it sits right now, it's a toy for the dad. He should have constructed this in his garage... not his son's bedroom unless the boy was actively interested in this sort of thing.
I think may be ever-so-slightly shy about your estimate of being one double away from true "retina" level resolutions. The human eye has a resolution of about 1 arc minute, which although that does indeed work out to about 1/300 of an inch at a distance of 12 inches, but the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem would suggest from this that we need at least 600 dpi for that distance. Although that would suggest that doubling alone might be sufficient, not everybody actually holds a device 12 inches away from their face. 8 inches, in particular, is not that uncommon, and at that distance, one arc minute is about 1/430 of an inch, and the corresponding Nyquist limit for this distance would require a pixel spacing of no more than about 1/860th of an inch. Device resolutions need to be roughly triple what they are right now to be truly "retina".
Either way, they are well within an order of magnitude of what is required. I expect we'll see such displays within the next 3 to 4 years.
So what you do is create a more general law governing activities while driving, prohibiting the driver from operating absolutely *ANY* device, whether hands-free or not, or the manipulation of absolutely *ANY* object, and which is not ordinarily part of the normal operating of the vehicle, which in duty of such operation either 1) requires one to disengage either hand from firmly holding the steering wheel for periods of longer than, say, 2 seconds (typical minimum safe car following distance); or 2) requires one to not have their visual focus on their surroundings outside of the vehicle, unless the usage of the device or object is for purposes of clear and present emergency.
Google Glass might pass on the first point, but fails on the second point, since although one's line of sight is not changed, one's focal distance is still largely affected, and because driving is such a visually-oriented task, this would invariably still be a major consideration.
Manual controls that are mounted on the steering wheel such as controlling the stereo or other electronics would be okay, as would any controls that are required to be manipulated to normally operate the car (stick shift, hand brake, turning signal, etc), but the above generalization would cover pretty much everything that I can think of. It would also allow for such things as manual hand signals when the vehicle's turning signals are broken, since such signals would be considered part of operating the vehicle safely.
It would then also implicitly ban Google Glass unless it were directly being used as part of the car's operation.
Of course, such a law could also effectively ban eating while driving, or drinking anything at all, and depending on interpretation, possibly even smoking.
If they were given the code that was under the GPL under conditions that diverged from the GPL, then they are only in violation of the GPL if they further distribute it under different conditions from the GPL.
One analogy that I'm particularly fond of in this matter is that if you receive a counterfeit bill and you somehow become aware that it is counterfeit, if you still try to spend it knowing that it is counterfeit, you are actually breaking the law. If you don't know that it's counterfeit, you aren't breaking the law, but you still don't have any legitimate right to try to use it as if it were genuine.
Since this company evidently now knows (or should know) it is in violation of the GPL, they now have a choice... either comply with the terms of the GPL when they distribute the works, or simply cease distributing it completely. Anyone who already received illegitimate copies of the work before they were aware that it was supposed to be GPL'd have no more real recourse than people who might have come into possession of counterfeit currency when there was no knowledge of its counterfeit nature at the time of transfer.
And how long was it before they got in shit for this?
Because unless those tellers who are forced to remain after their shift has ended are on salary, requiring that an employee stay on premises and not paying them for their time is illegal in every province in Canada.
Such places are breaking the law just as much as Apple is. They are only getting away with it because nobody's done anything about it.
If the employee must be on site, then they must be paid. The law is very clear on this point. Personally, I think it's appalling that it ever got as far as a class action suit, when a simple call to the regional employment standards office to file a formal complaint would have resolved the situation relatively quickly, and without any court costs.
More specifically, you can sue your employer for doing something that is against the law... which in this case would be not paying you for time that they are demanding from you as condition for employment. No employer/employee agreement can overrule what is actually permitted by law.
Why would this practice have gone on long enough to create a class action suit? It's illegal, plain and simple. Since no employer/employee contract can override the law, so regardless of what a person supposedly agreed to participate in when they were hired, if they ever actually come out and say that the person isn't allowed to leave after their paid period has ended until they've been checked, it's just one simple call to the employment standards office afterwards to file a formal complaint. After they've been investigated for the practice, it's a fairly safe bet they won't be doing it again. If they need to inspect people before they leave, then any extra time that it takes them to take care of that had better be paid
...because now, they'll feel like they don't really have to. Or at least they'll feel like they don't need to hurry up about it.
Meanwhile, people will continue to be vulnerable to (an admittedly smaller number than what might have existed had the exploit details actually been published) criminals who *don't* rely on publicly released information for knowledge for a longer period of time than they would if details of the flaw had become public, forcing Volkswagen to attend to the problem immediately. Plus, of course... this is stealing cars we're talking about here. It's not exactly something that very many people just go about doing just because they can, because even if you the mechanics of know how to steal the car, that doesn't automatically mean you're going to know how to not get caught.
"ASCAP also alleges that Pandora has no intention of operating KXMZ to serve the public interest, but is rather only interested in obtaining lower royalty rates"
Even if true (and I actually have little doubt that it is), does it even matter? If owning and operating a radio station gives them lower royalty rates, as long as they are actually carry out operating such a station, what difference does their incentive make?
In particular, the only things that can ever potentially be copyrighted are creative works. Facts are not in any way creative works, fox news notwithstanding.
That's kind of my point.... I'd be willing to bet that there's a negligible statistically significant difference between talking with somebody who isn't in the car and talking with somebody who you can't see, and is otherwise not concerned with what else may be going on outside the vehicle.
For myself, although I realize that this evidence is anecdotal, I find no difference at all between using my car's speaker that connects wirelessly to my cell phone and talking to somebody next to me. I realize that I might take the task of driving more seriously than most, but I won't engage in conversation with anyone, at all, if I find that traffic is sufficiently unpredictable. If I'm on my cell phone at such times, that generally amounts to blurting out something to the effect of "I'm in some heavy traffic, I'll call you later", and letting them hang up to disconnect the call. I would no more be able to conduct a coherent conversation with a person in the car at such times either. Ordinarily, however, traffic outside the vehicle is sufficiently spaced and exhibiting predictable enough behavior that this is not the case and conversation is usually possible. I find I'm about equally willing to completely mentally disconnect from either kind of conversation the instant something happens outside the car which requires any additional concentration, so I really can't see any difference between the two, given that a person has actually mentally delegated the task of driving as their primary attentive duty in the first place, as I always strive to do.
While it's certainly true that publishing an exploit does increase awareness among criminals on how to go about breaking the law, it also increases awareness among people who might be better in a position to try to mitigate how the exploit will affect them.
It also damn well puts a fire under the asses of people who need to get a fix out as quickly as possible... letting them dilly-dally around while they figure out just how high priority they need to treat the situation just leaves a lot of people vulnerable for a far longer period to criminals who *DON'T* rely on publicly published media for their information.
And you know that stealing cars is already illegal, right? And that it's not exactly something that is always just as easy to get away with as, say, remotely hacking into somebody's computer. Especially in cities that have instituted bait car programs.
"your brain for some reason treats the two different" [citation needed]
"and the passenger has their own eyes to compensate or add attention to the road" This is generally only the case if the passenger happens to also regularly drive. or otherwise do not place any implicit trust on the driver.
I mean, I know that they traditionally used audio levels to detect when the commercial breaks start and end, but now there are quite a few networks which do not practice this (which is nice for people that don't want to have to manually turn down the tv volume whenever commercials start when they are watching live programming and turn the volume back up when the show starts again).
What if you're not selling the works, but are simply making many thousands of cheap copies of an otherwise good quality work to flood the market so that the (presumably much smaller) entity that was trying to make a profit from them is no longer viably able to?
Peculiar that your dog would watch television, unless it is a very new one with an extremely high speed refresh, since dogs eyes have a different persistence of vision characteristics to humans and would not perceive motion on a regular television the same way we do
Slashdot Mirror
Why wouid any remotely reputable place that has any genuinely confidential information about a person be using third party javascript hosted elsewhere linked from a page where such confidential information might be getting used?
JS still runs in sandbox and can't access any information stored on your local machine that is not provided to it by the browser, nor, if the browser is running javascript correctly, will the browser's JS interpreter allow access to any information outside the page or any of its frames, that it is presenting to the user from where the javascript code started.
I don't see how any of these proposed attacks would affect somebody who, whenever they are going to go to a site that they may regularly use or have bookmarked, and which may have some confidential information, always manually opens a new tab or window first for the page to load in.
How is even a malicious javascript code on one web page going to see the the content of a page that I have manuallly opened up in an entirely separate window?
This. I've actually personally witnessed a case where a java test application outperformed a (roughly) equivalent C++ application by a startling amount. The two applications were more of a benchmark program than a real app, since it was only testing the timing characteristics of allocating many thousands of objects on the heap, discarding some of them, allocating more, then discarding more, and so on.... The C++ version used the default new and delete operators, while the java version just used the normal new keyword and left the discarding of memory of old objects to the GC. The Java version outperformed the C++ version by more than a factor of 10. Altering the C++ version so that it used custom new and delete operators for the objects, pooling unused objects instead of always just returning them to the heap as the default delete operator did, the C++ version of the application sped up considerably, outperforming the Java version only slightly over a period of about one billion allocations. In consideration of this experience, I think that one is left with answering the question for themselves of whether spending the extra time to specifically optimize a C++ program is truly worth the marginally improved performance. Sometimes it might be... but sometimes it won't.
True... but the primary problem with "undue care' is that it is so extremely subjective that a more rigidly defined law which can be expressed in physical terms, rather than psychological ones, may be useful.
Far from it.... speaking strictly physiologically, it's abundantly clear that human beings evolved to function primarily in well-lit conditions. Most significantly, the density of rods in the human retina readily shows that human beings, especially when compared with retina from creatures which are nocturnal, simply are not going to be anywhere nearly as effective at seeing in low-light conditions, which is what would persist at night under a strictly "natural" setting, and would be comparably crippled in functionality for any visually oriented tasks. it follows that for human beings, it's being awake when the sun *ISN'T* out is the thing that is the unnatural thing.
You may not be a green plant... but you're not an owl either.
Well, it *COULD* have been a great toy... if his son seemed to show any interest in the simulator, or airplanes in general. According to TFA, it's "unclear" what his son thinks.
As it sits right now, it's a toy for the dad. He should have constructed this in his garage... not his son's bedroom unless the boy was actively interested in this sort of thing.
Either way, they are well within an order of magnitude of what is required. I expect we'll see such displays within the next 3 to 4 years.
So what you do is create a more general law governing activities while driving, prohibiting the driver from operating absolutely *ANY* device, whether hands-free or not, or the manipulation of absolutely *ANY* object, and which is not ordinarily part of the normal operating of the vehicle, which in duty of such operation either 1) requires one to disengage either hand from firmly holding the steering wheel for periods of longer than, say, 2 seconds (typical minimum safe car following distance); or 2) requires one to not have their visual focus on their surroundings outside of the vehicle, unless the usage of the device or object is for purposes of clear and present emergency.
Google Glass might pass on the first point, but fails on the second point, since although one's line of sight is not changed, one's focal distance is still largely affected, and because driving is such a visually-oriented task, this would invariably still be a major consideration.
Manual controls that are mounted on the steering wheel such as controlling the stereo or other electronics would be okay, as would any controls that are required to be manipulated to normally operate the car (stick shift, hand brake, turning signal, etc), but the above generalization would cover pretty much everything that I can think of. It would also allow for such things as manual hand signals when the vehicle's turning signals are broken, since such signals would be considered part of operating the vehicle safely.
It would then also implicitly ban Google Glass unless it were directly being used as part of the car's operation.
Of course, such a law could also effectively ban eating while driving, or drinking anything at all, and depending on interpretation, possibly even smoking.
*WRITTEN* history dates back over 7,000 years... so, uhmmm.... no.
One analogy that I'm particularly fond of in this matter is that if you receive a counterfeit bill and you somehow become aware that it is counterfeit, if you still try to spend it knowing that it is counterfeit, you are actually breaking the law. If you don't know that it's counterfeit, you aren't breaking the law, but you still don't have any legitimate right to try to use it as if it were genuine.
Since this company evidently now knows (or should know) it is in violation of the GPL, they now have a choice... either comply with the terms of the GPL when they distribute the works, or simply cease distributing it completely. Anyone who already received illegitimate copies of the work before they were aware that it was supposed to be GPL'd have no more real recourse than people who might have come into possession of counterfeit currency when there was no knowledge of its counterfeit nature at the time of transfer.
And how long was it before they got in shit for this?
Because unless those tellers who are forced to remain after their shift has ended are on salary, requiring that an employee stay on premises and not paying them for their time is illegal in every province in Canada.
If the employee must be on site, then they must be paid. The law is very clear on this point. Personally, I think it's appalling that it ever got as far as a class action suit, when a simple call to the regional employment standards office to file a formal complaint would have resolved the situation relatively quickly, and without any court costs.
More specifically, you can sue your employer for doing something that is against the law... which in this case would be not paying you for time that they are demanding from you as condition for employment. No employer/employee agreement can overrule what is actually permitted by law.
Why would this practice have gone on long enough to create a class action suit? It's illegal, plain and simple. Since no employer/employee contract can override the law, so regardless of what a person supposedly agreed to participate in when they were hired, if they ever actually come out and say that the person isn't allowed to leave after their paid period has ended until they've been checked, it's just one simple call to the employment standards office afterwards to file a formal complaint. After they've been investigated for the practice, it's a fairly safe bet they won't be doing it again. If they need to inspect people before they leave, then any extra time that it takes them to take care of that had better be paid
"....and respond to emergency alerts promptly."
What sort of time range would be considered "promptly" in this context?
Meanwhile, people will continue to be vulnerable to (an admittedly smaller number than what might have existed had the exploit details actually been published) criminals who *don't* rely on publicly released information for knowledge for a longer period of time than they would if details of the flaw had become public, forcing Volkswagen to attend to the problem immediately. Plus, of course... this is stealing cars we're talking about here. It's not exactly something that very many people just go about doing just because they can, because even if you the mechanics of know how to steal the car, that doesn't automatically mean you're going to know how to not get caught.
"ASCAP also alleges that Pandora has no intention of operating KXMZ to serve the public interest, but is rather only interested in obtaining lower royalty rates"
Even if true (and I actually have little doubt that it is), does it even matter? If owning and operating a radio station gives them lower royalty rates, as long as they are actually carry out operating such a station, what difference does their incentive make?
In particular, the only things that can ever potentially be copyrighted are creative works. Facts are not in any way creative works, fox news notwithstanding.
That's kind of my point.... I'd be willing to bet that there's a negligible statistically significant difference between talking with somebody who isn't in the car and talking with somebody who you can't see, and is otherwise not concerned with what else may be going on outside the vehicle.
For myself, although I realize that this evidence is anecdotal, I find no difference at all between using my car's speaker that connects wirelessly to my cell phone and talking to somebody next to me. I realize that I might take the task of driving more seriously than most, but I won't engage in conversation with anyone, at all, if I find that traffic is sufficiently unpredictable. If I'm on my cell phone at such times, that generally amounts to blurting out something to the effect of "I'm in some heavy traffic, I'll call you later", and letting them hang up to disconnect the call. I would no more be able to conduct a coherent conversation with a person in the car at such times either. Ordinarily, however, traffic outside the vehicle is sufficiently spaced and exhibiting predictable enough behavior that this is not the case and conversation is usually possible. I find I'm about equally willing to completely mentally disconnect from either kind of conversation the instant something happens outside the car which requires any additional concentration, so I really can't see any difference between the two, given that a person has actually mentally delegated the task of driving as their primary attentive duty in the first place, as I always strive to do.
Why?
While it's certainly true that publishing an exploit does increase awareness among criminals on how to go about breaking the law, it also increases awareness among people who might be better in a position to try to mitigate how the exploit will affect them.
It also damn well puts a fire under the asses of people who need to get a fix out as quickly as possible... letting them dilly-dally around while they figure out just how high priority they need to treat the situation just leaves a lot of people vulnerable for a far longer period to criminals who *DON'T* rely on publicly published media for their information.
And you know that stealing cars is already illegal, right? And that it's not exactly something that is always just as easy to get away with as, say, remotely hacking into somebody's computer. Especially in cities that have instituted bait car programs.
"your brain for some reason treats the two different" [citation needed]
"and the passenger has their own eyes to compensate or add attention to the road" This is generally only the case if the passenger happens to also regularly drive. or otherwise do not place any implicit trust on the driver.
I mean, I know that they traditionally used audio levels to detect when the commercial breaks start and end, but now there are quite a few networks which do not practice this (which is nice for people that don't want to have to manually turn down the tv volume whenever commercials start when they are watching live programming and turn the volume back up when the show starts again).
Parliament will vote on it, as required... the outcome will be that they voted no. End of story.
What if you're not selling the works, but are simply making many thousands of cheap copies of an otherwise good quality work to flood the market so that the (presumably much smaller) entity that was trying to make a profit from them is no longer viably able to?
Peculiar that your dog would watch television, unless it is a very new one with an extremely high speed refresh, since dogs eyes have a different persistence of vision characteristics to humans and would not perceive motion on a regular television the same way we do