I'm wondering why we figure that guns and weapons should be the first large scale open-source use of 3D printing. Why not farm equipment? Pump machinery. Energy production equipment. Medical equipment. Vehicle parts. Household appliances. Why are we going straight to weaponry?
If the FBI was realistically trying to build a database of them, there is no way at this point they would ONLY have 12 Million.
You're assuming they got everything the FBI has? They claimed to have stolen a CSV file that was sitting on some guy's desktop in his machine, that doesn't exactly sound like the sum total of knowledge possessed by the FBI. Excel wouldn't be able to open a CSV file with that many records in it, so the data probably is destined for a database import script somewhere. This is more data for the database, not the entire database.
12 million is more easily explained by being leaked from a developer
Sure, like a single developer sending their data to the FBI for inclusion in the larger database. That would definitely explain why an FBI agent would have a CSV file containing "only" 12 million UDIDs sitting on his desktop.
The data it's self was incomplete. Some had legit names and addresses while most were just a ID code. If this was from a official source then there would have been a lot more data on most of these.
I don't know what you mean by "official source", but why wouldn't they compare this data with what they already have to see if they can add new records or update existing ones? If the ID is all they have then that's all they have, if there's more information associated with it then they'll add that to their records. Like you said, some have legit names and addresses.
Sure the FBI can be shady, but of the law enforcement agencies out there I would honestly have to say they are the least shady of the bunch and tend to release information without bending the truth too much, even when it has the possibility of embarrassing them. Not saying they ALWAYS do it, just saying they tend to be more forthcoming than other government agencies.
Yeah, that's just a ringing endorsement for why we should trust the FBI instead of people who have previously attacked the government claiming to now be attacking the FBI.
There's really no reason to believe either of them, frankly. Either side lying would suit their ends. I see less of a threat of AntiSec lying because it would damage their reputation more than if the FBI was caught in a lie. People expect the FBI to lie about things like this, if AntiSec wants to be taken seriously then they can't have a reputation for lying about where they get their data.
You're going to have to prove that they ignored the problem internally, rather than simply not sending a reply to the letter. I don't reply to every bug report, but I still fix them. Considering that they already released a patch for this issue yesterday though, it sounds like a moot point. Obviously they didn't ignore it.
The entire aircraft rotates, not just the wing. It is a fixed wing aircraft. More specifically, the aircraft just performs a yaw while the engines on top rotate to continue pointing in the direction of travel. After the yaw is complete the structures that used to be the "wings" are now pointing forward and back, and the structures that used to point forward and back, including the cockpit, are now the "wings".
The acceleration felt by passengers during the rotation would be less than.1 G. It seems like it would be a little disorienting to the pilots though, maybe they shutter the windows and use cameras on the side of the aircraft now facing forward to project a view of what it would look like if they were still at the "front" of the plane.
Proving that they intentionally disregarded it when they have a fix planned for the October update would be pretty difficult. I don't think you can charge a company with a crime because they have a 4-month patch cycle. Instead I would like to see browser vendors make a move to block the Java plugins by default and require explicit user activation to enable them on a 1-time-use basis (obviously with advanced options to fine tune this behavior). If Oracle doesn't want to update Java frequently fine, but someone needs to protect the users if it's not Oracle.
I can tell you're trying to make a point, possibly that people use religion to excuse their bad behaviour.
More like people tend to act however the hell they want anyway, and if that conflicts with their religion then they find an easy way to rationalize it and avoid guilt. Or, they just go to confession and then they feel good about themselves while going about their selfish lives. Then they make sure to apply a sticker to the back of their car to let everyone know how pious they are.
So you take all the credit for willfully being an ass on yourself?
That's some weird grammar, but yes I take responsibility for my own actions. I don't blame some invisible being that no one can see or talk to for the bad things that I or anyone else do in the world. Likewise, I understand that if good things are going to be done that I and other people have to be proactive about doing them. Good things don't happen on their own, they happen because people make an effort to do them. I also understand that hope and prayer are not a strategy.
That can lead to serious problems, like we see in this case. The judge provided a description of what constitutes prior art, and the foreman decided that his experience was more valuable and used a different definition. He's ignoring the judge's instructions in favor of his own (incorrect) experience. That's obviously a problem.
If you and or your jury decided that 'can't consider anything other than the evidence'
I don't know why you're quoting that, I didn't say that. I said we can't consider any evidence other than what was presented in court. Not that we can't consider anything other than the evidence.
That comment is wrong in many ways. The AC above me makes the legal points why your comment is nonsense. In my own experience on a jury, we couldn't even get the judge to clarify his instructions to us. Every time we asked the bailiff to clarify a certain instruction she would go to the judge to discuss it and she always came back with the response for us to read the instruction again and follow it as best we could. In no instance did the judge ever reword the instruction or give any other details. The instruction was there in relatively plain language, and we needed to follow that instruction. We weren't allowed to assume the instructions meant anything other than what was specifically stated. The same goes for the evidence, we weren't allowed to consider any evidence other than what was presented in court. We could question each side's interpretation of the evidence to determine how relevant it was, but we were only allowed to consider what was presented to us. That made all the difference too, the relatively young prosecutor had a minor problem with one of her charges that caused us to find the defendant not guilty of that specific charge, when in fact he should have been found guilty of something that he wasn't charged with. We were not allowed to reinterpret that charge or the judge's instructions in order to find the defendant guilty of what he actually did versus what he was being charged with. We deliberated for hours on that until it became clear exactly what we were being asked to do, and after that it took minutes to reach a verdict.
Totally. We can ship our bombs up there and store them on our side, I can't see any other country having an issue with that. Then of course Russia would match us and store their own bombs there too, and whenever war breaks out we'll just bomb the other side of the ISS. That'll teach 'em. Hopefully the falling hulk will land on Russia, for good measure (or great justice).
Then there's the issue of changing orbit, which lets assume takes 1 orbit.
Right, let's just assume that the ISS is able to quickly change orbit at will so that it fits the point we're trying to make. Let's also ignore the fact that the only engines built into the ISS are in the Russian Zvezda module, and that it takes 3 hours over 2 orbits to simply adjust to a higher orbit (which is the only movement it does). Let's also assume that the computer that controls the entire ISS is inside the American section instead of the Russian section.
I'm sorry, that's not the way my religion works. I steal from other people, not the other way around. That's what all of my guns are for. You see, I get to interpret my religion to fit my pre-existing worldview and lifestyle, and everybody is happy. Well, I'm happy anyway, I don't really care about other people. My religion suggests that I should, but I've found a way around that one also.
I know one thing, though: my god definitely likes me and approves of what I do. It's part of his plan. Who am I to question his plan?
I tend to think that those vulnerabilities are there already, whether you use them or not. Browsers support SVG and whatnot, so those are already there whether beneficial developers are using them or not. I don't think there are vulnerabilities specific to individual toolkits like jQuery or Prototype, I assume that they all deal with the vulnerabilities inherent in the browser itself. So it's up to the browser vendors to fix those, and for the most part they are doing a decent job at it. Oddly enough, Microsoft in particular is taking security very seriously in IE9+ (a little too seriously in some cases, throwing out the baby with the bathwater). So the way I see it, you already have the vulnerabilities present in the browser and adding plugins like Java or Acrobat are just going to increase the attack surface. Using technologies like SVG or WebGL or other relatively new and high-level things aren't going to add any new vulnerabilities, because they're there whether you use them or not, but eliminating Java or Acrobat or Flash should in theory make you safer. Flash is the only one of the three major infection vectors that I'm not completely ready to divorce just yet.
So God is your creator, and all of the people are his children, and it's not for any man to decide which other man gets to live or die, unless you're in warfare then you're free to decide which of your creator's children get to die. Got it, thanks for the clarification. What about the adultery one, can we say that that one meant that we're just not allowed to have sex with animals, but it's ok to bone another woman when you're married? That would make it easier to call myself a Christian. Also, the lying one. And the whole stealing thing. And the lord's name in vain one. And the business with the sabbath. And the envy thing, because you see it turns out my neighbor has this great vibrator that plays "Oh Come, All Ye Faithful", and I'm really jealous.
In addition to the above, how about this: if he's a religious engineer building a missile launcher, and he prescribes to a creator religion, then that religion probably has a rule that it's not ok to kill the creator's creations. So either he's ignoring his religion in order to build weapons to kill people, or he's following his religious laws and sabotaging the weapons so that they don't work. Either way, he's being dishonest. Taking the track of "I'm only building one part of the system that kills people, and I don't actually push the button" is the "ignoring your religion" part.
all he's saying is that believing in it didn't make him suck at his job, which happens to be an engineering job?
No, that's not what he said. This is what he said, which is what I quoted and replied to:
I do not see how my belief in a creator undermines the engineering of this missile launcher I'm working on.
Key word being "undermines". Depending on his particular belief system, his beliefs may very well undermine the building of a missile launcher. Maybe even consciously so. Maybe he's designing it to fail, so that it doesn't kill people. That hypothetical engineer would not be one that I would want building anything, lest his system of beliefs undermine the purpose of his job.
I do not see how my belief in a creator undermines the engineering of this missile launcher I'm working on.
While your belief system may not affect the quality of your work (although I'm not suggesting that it does not), did you ever consider if your "creator" wanted you to work on a missile launcher? Which faith do you subscribe to? Is it one with an admonition like "don't kill people"?
Like the SVG Remote Execution Exploit in Safari, or the SVG Font Manipulation Vulnerability in Opera, or Mozilla's cross-origin data theft canvas vulnerability or the AJAX Javascript hijacking bug found by Fortify that affected applications built with Xajax, GWT, jQuery, Prototype, Dojo, Moo.fx, Yahoo.UI, Microsoft Atlas, MochiKit, etc...
Just out of curiosity, what percentage of infections are the result of attacking those exploits? Java is responsible for 37% of infections on Windows machines, how many infections were caused by exploiting Xajax, or MochiKit? Can you point to a reference for anyone using Safari who got an infection via SVG?
More importantly, does installing Java eliminate all of those other vulnerabilities, or does it just add new ones?
In all fairness, Java is no less secure than.NET or any other middleware.
In all fairness, that statement is crap without any supporting data. It is in fact possible for some middleware to be designed and built more poorly than other middleware. That's like saying that, in all fairness, Duke Nukem Forever is every bit as stable and well-designed as any other game.
All above tools only create mashed soup on top of html with different browser specific quirks.
...while eliminating all security issues around Java. If you think that's a bad tradeoff, please point to the Java version of Facebook, or the Java version of Youtube, or Gmail, etc.
You should be able to successfully able to sue a door / window manufacturer for failing to provide the request product (i.e. seal the opening).
They provided the product, it's not their fault how the product was actually used or installed. It's not the manufacturer's fault that the person responsible for the actual installation was on his first day on the job after reading several tutorials online. It's the responsibility of whoever sets up a computer to secure that computer, you can't sue the manufacturer of your CPU because it executed malicious code that deleted your files.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm wondering why we figure that guns and weapons should be the first large scale open-source use of 3D printing. Why not farm equipment? Pump machinery. Energy production equipment. Medical equipment. Vehicle parts. Household appliances. Why are we going straight to weaponry?
If the FBI was realistically trying to build a database of them, there is no way at this point they would ONLY have 12 Million.
You're assuming they got everything the FBI has? They claimed to have stolen a CSV file that was sitting on some guy's desktop in his machine, that doesn't exactly sound like the sum total of knowledge possessed by the FBI. Excel wouldn't be able to open a CSV file with that many records in it, so the data probably is destined for a database import script somewhere. This is more data for the database, not the entire database.
12 million is more easily explained by being leaked from a developer
Sure, like a single developer sending their data to the FBI for inclusion in the larger database. That would definitely explain why an FBI agent would have a CSV file containing "only" 12 million UDIDs sitting on his desktop.
The data it's self was incomplete. Some had legit names and addresses while most were just a ID code. If this was from a official source then there would have been a lot more data on most of these.
I don't know what you mean by "official source", but why wouldn't they compare this data with what they already have to see if they can add new records or update existing ones? If the ID is all they have then that's all they have, if there's more information associated with it then they'll add that to their records. Like you said, some have legit names and addresses.
Sure the FBI can be shady, but of the law enforcement agencies out there I would honestly have to say they are the least shady of the bunch and tend to release information without bending the truth too much, even when it has the possibility of embarrassing them. Not saying they ALWAYS do it, just saying they tend to be more forthcoming than other government agencies.
Yeah, that's just a ringing endorsement for why we should trust the FBI instead of people who have previously attacked the government claiming to now be attacking the FBI.
There's really no reason to believe either of them, frankly. Either side lying would suit their ends. I see less of a threat of AntiSec lying because it would damage their reputation more than if the FBI was caught in a lie. People expect the FBI to lie about things like this, if AntiSec wants to be taken seriously then they can't have a reputation for lying about where they get their data.
You're going to have to prove that they ignored the problem internally, rather than simply not sending a reply to the letter. I don't reply to every bug report, but I still fix them. Considering that they already released a patch for this issue yesterday though, it sounds like a moot point. Obviously they didn't ignore it.
The entire aircraft rotates, not just the wing. It is a fixed wing aircraft. More specifically, the aircraft just performs a yaw while the engines on top rotate to continue pointing in the direction of travel. After the yaw is complete the structures that used to be the "wings" are now pointing forward and back, and the structures that used to point forward and back, including the cockpit, are now the "wings".
The acceleration felt by passengers during the rotation would be less than .1 G. It seems like it would be a little disorienting to the pilots though, maybe they shutter the windows and use cameras on the side of the aircraft now facing forward to project a view of what it would look like if they were still at the "front" of the plane.
Proving that they intentionally disregarded it when they have a fix planned for the October update would be pretty difficult. I don't think you can charge a company with a crime because they have a 4-month patch cycle. Instead I would like to see browser vendors make a move to block the Java plugins by default and require explicit user activation to enable them on a 1-time-use basis (obviously with advanced options to fine tune this behavior). If Oracle doesn't want to update Java frequently fine, but someone needs to protect the users if it's not Oracle.
I can tell you're trying to make a point, possibly that people use religion to excuse their bad behaviour.
More like people tend to act however the hell they want anyway, and if that conflicts with their religion then they find an easy way to rationalize it and avoid guilt. Or, they just go to confession and then they feel good about themselves while going about their selfish lives. Then they make sure to apply a sticker to the back of their car to let everyone know how pious they are.
So you take all the credit for willfully being an ass on yourself?
That's some weird grammar, but yes I take responsibility for my own actions. I don't blame some invisible being that no one can see or talk to for the bad things that I or anyone else do in the world. Likewise, I understand that if good things are going to be done that I and other people have to be proactive about doing them. Good things don't happen on their own, they happen because people make an effort to do them. I also understand that hope and prayer are not a strategy.
That can lead to serious problems, like we see in this case. The judge provided a description of what constitutes prior art, and the foreman decided that his experience was more valuable and used a different definition. He's ignoring the judge's instructions in favor of his own (incorrect) experience. That's obviously a problem.
If you and or your jury decided that 'can't consider anything other than the evidence'
I don't know why you're quoting that, I didn't say that. I said we can't consider any evidence other than what was presented in court. Not that we can't consider anything other than the evidence.
That comment is wrong in many ways. The AC above me makes the legal points why your comment is nonsense. In my own experience on a jury, we couldn't even get the judge to clarify his instructions to us. Every time we asked the bailiff to clarify a certain instruction she would go to the judge to discuss it and she always came back with the response for us to read the instruction again and follow it as best we could. In no instance did the judge ever reword the instruction or give any other details. The instruction was there in relatively plain language, and we needed to follow that instruction. We weren't allowed to assume the instructions meant anything other than what was specifically stated. The same goes for the evidence, we weren't allowed to consider any evidence other than what was presented in court. We could question each side's interpretation of the evidence to determine how relevant it was, but we were only allowed to consider what was presented to us. That made all the difference too, the relatively young prosecutor had a minor problem with one of her charges that caused us to find the defendant not guilty of that specific charge, when in fact he should have been found guilty of something that he wasn't charged with. We were not allowed to reinterpret that charge or the judge's instructions in order to find the defendant guilty of what he actually did versus what he was being charged with. We deliberated for hours on that until it became clear exactly what we were being asked to do, and after that it took minutes to reach a verdict.
Totally. We can ship our bombs up there and store them on our side, I can't see any other country having an issue with that. Then of course Russia would match us and store their own bombs there too, and whenever war breaks out we'll just bomb the other side of the ISS. That'll teach 'em. Hopefully the falling hulk will land on Russia, for good measure (or great justice).
Then there's the issue of changing orbit, which lets assume takes 1 orbit.
Right, let's just assume that the ISS is able to quickly change orbit at will so that it fits the point we're trying to make. Let's also ignore the fact that the only engines built into the ISS are in the Russian Zvezda module, and that it takes 3 hours over 2 orbits to simply adjust to a higher orbit (which is the only movement it does). Let's also assume that the computer that controls the entire ISS is inside the American section instead of the Russian section.
I'm sorry, that's not the way my religion works. I steal from other people, not the other way around. That's what all of my guns are for. You see, I get to interpret my religion to fit my pre-existing worldview and lifestyle, and everybody is happy. Well, I'm happy anyway, I don't really care about other people. My religion suggests that I should, but I've found a way around that one also.
I know one thing, though: my god definitely likes me and approves of what I do. It's part of his plan. Who am I to question his plan?
Linking to a server via IP address on Slashdot, huh? Yeah, that's going to hold up.
Well, that was a very measured response.
I tend to think that those vulnerabilities are there already, whether you use them or not. Browsers support SVG and whatnot, so those are already there whether beneficial developers are using them or not. I don't think there are vulnerabilities specific to individual toolkits like jQuery or Prototype, I assume that they all deal with the vulnerabilities inherent in the browser itself. So it's up to the browser vendors to fix those, and for the most part they are doing a decent job at it. Oddly enough, Microsoft in particular is taking security very seriously in IE9+ (a little too seriously in some cases, throwing out the baby with the bathwater). So the way I see it, you already have the vulnerabilities present in the browser and adding plugins like Java or Acrobat are just going to increase the attack surface. Using technologies like SVG or WebGL or other relatively new and high-level things aren't going to add any new vulnerabilities, because they're there whether you use them or not, but eliminating Java or Acrobat or Flash should in theory make you safer. Flash is the only one of the three major infection vectors that I'm not completely ready to divorce just yet.
So God is your creator, and all of the people are his children, and it's not for any man to decide which other man gets to live or die, unless you're in warfare then you're free to decide which of your creator's children get to die. Got it, thanks for the clarification. What about the adultery one, can we say that that one meant that we're just not allowed to have sex with animals, but it's ok to bone another woman when you're married? That would make it easier to call myself a Christian. Also, the lying one. And the whole stealing thing. And the lord's name in vain one. And the business with the sabbath. And the envy thing, because you see it turns out my neighbor has this great vibrator that plays "Oh Come, All Ye Faithful", and I'm really jealous.
In addition to the above, how about this: if he's a religious engineer building a missile launcher, and he prescribes to a creator religion, then that religion probably has a rule that it's not ok to kill the creator's creations. So either he's ignoring his religion in order to build weapons to kill people, or he's following his religious laws and sabotaging the weapons so that they don't work. Either way, he's being dishonest. Taking the track of "I'm only building one part of the system that kills people, and I don't actually push the button" is the "ignoring your religion" part.
I guess it's up to him and his creator whether building weapons designed to kill people "counts" as far as divine rules go.
all he's saying is that believing in it didn't make him suck at his job, which happens to be an engineering job?
No, that's not what he said. This is what he said, which is what I quoted and replied to:
I do not see how my belief in a creator undermines the engineering of this missile launcher I'm working on.
Key word being "undermines". Depending on his particular belief system, his beliefs may very well undermine the building of a missile launcher. Maybe even consciously so. Maybe he's designing it to fail, so that it doesn't kill people. That hypothetical engineer would not be one that I would want building anything, lest his system of beliefs undermine the purpose of his job.
I do not see how my belief in a creator undermines the engineering of this missile launcher I'm working on.
While your belief system may not affect the quality of your work (although I'm not suggesting that it does not), did you ever consider if your "creator" wanted you to work on a missile launcher? Which faith do you subscribe to? Is it one with an admonition like "don't kill people"?
Like the SVG Remote Execution Exploit in Safari, or the SVG Font Manipulation Vulnerability in Opera, or Mozilla's cross-origin data theft canvas vulnerability or the AJAX Javascript hijacking bug found by Fortify that affected applications built with Xajax, GWT, jQuery, Prototype, Dojo, Moo.fx, Yahoo.UI, Microsoft Atlas, MochiKit, etc...
Just out of curiosity, what percentage of infections are the result of attacking those exploits? Java is responsible for 37% of infections on Windows machines, how many infections were caused by exploiting Xajax, or MochiKit? Can you point to a reference for anyone using Safari who got an infection via SVG?
More importantly, does installing Java eliminate all of those other vulnerabilities, or does it just add new ones?
In all fairness, Java is no less secure than .NET or any other middleware.
In all fairness, that statement is crap without any supporting data. It is in fact possible for some middleware to be designed and built more poorly than other middleware. That's like saying that, in all fairness, Duke Nukem Forever is every bit as stable and well-designed as any other game.
All above tools only create mashed soup on top of html with different browser specific quirks.
...while eliminating all security issues around Java. If you think that's a bad tradeoff, please point to the Java version of Facebook, or the Java version of Youtube, or Gmail, etc.
I wonder why Samsung wouldn't just leave US market
Did you see the recent stories about Apple being valued higher than any other company? That's probably why Samsung wants a piece.
This is news because dinofish.com needed a link to their site on Slashdot.
You're happy about not having an option that a lot of other people have and some take advantage of. Got it. Fewer options for you is a good thing.
You know what one of the good things about a mod is? You can uninstall it if you don't like it. I've got that option also.
You should be able to successfully able to sue a door / window manufacturer for failing to provide the request product (i.e. seal the opening).
They provided the product, it's not their fault how the product was actually used or installed. It's not the manufacturer's fault that the person responsible for the actual installation was on his first day on the job after reading several tutorials online. It's the responsibility of whoever sets up a computer to secure that computer, you can't sue the manufacturer of your CPU because it executed malicious code that deleted your files.