I didn't quite say what you said, what i said is you can legislate (especially against government agencies), but if you are not going to enforce it, what is the point of even more legislature that you are not going to enforce. What I understood you said is you can't legislate at all.
Then again I don't know why you where modded down, it wasn't rude or said just to get a negative reaction. And don't assume people hate you, I definitely don't, I don't even know you. Modding is a little bit random. When things like that happen to me I just blame it on chance, sure people may hate me but thinking that way only leads me to be upset, I have no real evidence either way, so it is best for my sanity to live in blissful ignorance rather than unhappy ignorance.
Most software bugs do not result blocking internet access or any virus like behavior, they may crash your game, they may not allow you to do particular thing in your application you are running. They don't generally send out key log information, allow a remote attacker to gain to your computer (sometimes they do but usually not), make your computer part of a DOS attach.
By the original definition
Any software is malware when it does something other than the user intended.
all software bugs are malware, because they probably do what the at least one user doesn't want. In fact, this definition is so broad that, even an application that has no bugs is probably defined as malware, if it has a single feature that the any user doesn't like, no matter how innocuous, e.g. uses a font that the user doesn't like.
The users best interest is far to vague, you could say the NSA spying on you is in the users best interest as well because they are trying to protect you. You could say selling your information to advertisers is in the users best interest because it lets you buy product that you want.
There needs to be a list of user rights that should not be violated unless granted explicit opt-in rights. Here is a list of some.
1. Right to privacy, no information should be recorded unless it is apparent to the so. So entering data in a form on a web page is ok, recording keystrokes when using your computer in your text editor is not. 2. Do not use the users computing resources, CPU, memory, bandwidth, for anything other than the stated intent of the applications.
There is a difference between software that tracks, and collects information about you and redirects you to sights in order to gather advertising revenue, and software that implements functionality in a way that you don't agree with. When you implement something you have to choose a way implement it, some people may not agree with that implementation but does make it malware, choices have to be made. Systemd may have been the wrong choice but I don't believe it was a bad choice made out of malice, or a desire to make money of its users.
Society tends to think that throwing money a problem will somehow improve things. Don't get me wrong up to a point it does, but after that there is very little return for dollar spent. And in most schools, in most first world countries that point has long since been reached especially ones that can afford computers for every student.
Currently computers are no replacement for the two way communication that happens when an actual person is teaching you.
They already capture and store data that should have a warrant, without one. This will just add another law that will be ignored. What is needed to start the ball rolling is people being prosecuted for breaking the existing laws.
You are right that a system that says ahhh you are about to crash into an on coming car human driver take control is unfeasible. However a car that says you are about to drive on a gravel road (or from the article road works), I can't handle that, you take control in 2 minutes. The key is that any situation the car cannot handle must allow plenty of warning.
That system may save lots of lives for the situation that it can handle until we can get cars that can handle any situation better than a human.
Compiled code would only slow you down slightly in obtaining the salt if you knew what you where doing. The purpose of a salt is that 1 brute forced hash to password lookup table wouldn't work for every password file in existence
That may be true and as a site they can do what they want. What is wrong is using there position as the producer of Chrome to do it. That is why no company should get to much control.
You are right suggesting the universe is a computer simulation no more scientific than believing there is a god (unless you have a way to prove it). There is nothing wrong with thinking about alternatives. The problem comes when you base your actions that cannot prove or disprove, and force other people to believe your speculation. Or state it as the "gospel truth" when it is just speculation.
It may well be that I am imagining everybody else, but the moment I start killing other people because they are not really real it becomes a problem.
I am not actually saying that working someone to death is not worse than just killing them. It might well be. I am saying the motive of greed is not as bad intentionally trying to kill someone, because you hate them.
To me a large part what drives how someone should be punished is what drives them to do it, e.g. if someone accidentally kill you then the punishment should be less than if they intentionally do it.
If I was planning to do a bank robbery or murder, I would not base my plans of a TV show, while they may show some actual police processes they are probably full of make believe too. While I am not familiar with actual crime investigations processes I can tell there are lot of flaws things I know about.
One example seems to be how they almost always seem to send in two people to apprehend a known armed criminal, when I would think a swat team would usually sent in. I know this is to build drama, but I doubt it is realistic.
Or the hacker that can seem to hack anything, my favorite scene is from NCIS when they are defending against a hacker. The other guy starts typing on the same keyboard in order to help. http://www.snotr.com/video/809... Besides that if you where hacking someones computer why would make windows flash up on someones screen, and if you for some reason wanted and could do that, why would you even let them type. This is to build suspense (in this case maybe comedy) not to to accurately portray reality.
Hitler was worse, while I am able believe more people where killed in rubber plantations than death camps. The main purpose of the death camps was to kill, they specifically had gas chambers to kill people. While the plantations being cruel and inhumane, (well all forms of slavery really) their primary purpose was to make money, so greed was the driving factor not hate.
The group selected to die, about three-quarters of the total, included almost all children, women with small children, all the elderly, and all those who appeared on brief and superficial inspection by an SS doctor not to be completely fit.
If you wanted a work force you would not kill the children, since they would grow up to be labor. In fact why would you even capture them if you didn't want them to work. The fact is Hilter wanted them all dead, if he could get some work out of them while killing them why not.
This is the difference between murder and manslaughter, and to me murder is much worse.
To me worth (to the economy) is how much your net to contribution to the economy will be in the future. Not how much money you have now, earned in the past, or where given. If you are simply collecting rent, on old ideas, or property, you are worthless to society no matter how much net worth you have.
Money builds nothing, it is the people who build, design the plant, mine the material, provide logistics,... that provide benefit to the economy, the guy that goes and says: right transfer that money does very little but gets the most reward. If they died tomorrow someone else would get that money and could do exactly the same thing.
But you can make up any arbitrary meaning of worth you like, I suppose. The currently most accepted one "surprisingly" favors the wealthy, even though it does not seem to be the most logical one.
No the money you create goes directly to the rich, then "trickles down" to the poor so in the end the poor have less as a proportion of the total money.
Even if you give the money directly to the poor that money will quickly be sucked up the rich by charging more for goods and services.
That is why I believe funding of trials should not be done by pharmaceutical companies. It is a conflict of interest from beginning. Somethings by their very nature should be funded by taxes, because it is too important to simply let the organization with the biggest wallet win.
When you target people "yankin it" you are targeting the significant majority (yes women do it too, they may not be "yankin it" but they use other methods). The only way I can see stopping is if everyone can have sex with whoever they want whenever they want, ain't going to happen. The desire for sex is a fundamental part of human nature, you are fooling yourself if you believe you can just ban it.
Drugs have been around for a long time, from wikipedia, at least 10,000 years, if you are being honest with yourself you would include alcohol in that, so once again you are trying to ban something that the vast majority of people do.
The question remains what is wrong with people "yankin it" or taking drugs as long as they are not significantly hurting someone else.
While true I believe it is true in the short term ignoring it does not make the issue go away. If it is recurring issue then it is much better the long run to express your feelings, and sometimes that feeling is anger.
Of course there are limits, you need to find a middle ground (don't go beating anyone up). Letting people walk all over you does lead to a happy life either.
I would say the number is quite low, Ok I am just guessing, but murder rates (even in the US) are low, 4.7 per 100,000 you are more than twice as likely to kill yourself. To me to get rates that low it is more than just fear of getting caught. And the rates are not based on punishment, countries with much more liberal penal systems have much lower crime rates. I go to a market every week, you could easily steal from but most people don't, that's why it works. Make people live well enough, and feel valued then most people will not rob that liquor store.
Society works because the vast majority of people are honest most of the time. It is a huge waste of resources if you did not trust anyone, and checked everything anybody ever said to you. Yes psychopaths can take advantage of that, but if you get a high percentage of them people will soon stop trusting and psychopaths would loose their advantage.
Secondly why would you want to rob a liquor store anyway how much money would you get? If it became a real problem they would just move to electronic payment only, then there would be no cash at all to steel.
The parties are all guilty, the politicians, the lobbyists, and the system that allows it. If I hire an assassin am I not doing anything wrong because I don't actually commit the murder.
Sure people should be allowed to say what you want, but do it from the street corner or on your blog, or some other public forum. The moment you can have a private chat with a senator then it is wrong. I am all for informing politicians, but if you do so it should be done publicly so people who disagree with can have a mechanism to raise objections to your point of view. The only exception to this is national security however even then the conversion should eventually be released once the information is no longer critical.
I am not for the statement: you have nothing to worry about, if you have nothing to hide, but when it comes to people who's decisions can easily effect hundreds of millions of peoples lives, then the "information" they are being given should be up for public scrutiny.
Counterfeiting should be illegal, if you are not the creator then you should have to say so. But this problem is largely self inflicted, charging insane prices (compared to actual cost), imposing unreasonable restrictions on products. In a free market and there is money to be made the market will provide, that is the brilliance of the free market. If it is illegal it will just become a black market with higher profits for the criminals.
Anyway I don't actually see how anybody could make money by selling pirated movies or songs when it they are available easily for free. Unless they are claiming they are not pirated, then of course they are committing fraud anyway. I am sure this has been a big boost to VPN providers though.
Slashdot Mirror
I think Brussels to Sidney is just an example, of a long flight, They will have any route that is economically feasible.
I didn't quite say what you said, what i said is you can legislate (especially against government agencies), but if you are not going to enforce it, what is the point of even more legislature that you are not going to enforce. What I understood you said is you can't legislate at all.
Then again I don't know why you where modded down, it wasn't rude or said just to get a negative reaction. And don't assume people hate you, I definitely don't, I don't even know you. Modding is a little bit random. When things like that happen to me I just blame it on chance, sure people may hate me but thinking that way only leads me to be upset, I have no real evidence either way, so it is best for my sanity to live in blissful ignorance rather than unhappy ignorance.
Most software bugs do not result blocking internet access or any virus like behavior, they may crash your game, they may not allow you to do particular thing in your application you are running. They don't generally send out key log information, allow a remote attacker to gain to your computer (sometimes they do but usually not), make your computer part of a DOS attach.
By the original definition
Any software is malware when it does something other than the user intended.
all software bugs are malware, because they probably do what the at least one user doesn't want. In fact, this definition is so broad that, even an application that has no bugs is probably defined as malware, if it has a single feature that the any user doesn't like, no matter how innocuous, e.g. uses a font that the user doesn't like.
The users best interest is far to vague, you could say the NSA spying on you is in the users best interest as well because they are trying to protect you. You could say selling your information to advertisers is in the users best interest because it lets you buy product that you want.
There needs to be a list of user rights that should not be violated unless granted explicit opt-in rights. Here is a list of some.
1. Right to privacy, no information should be recorded unless it is apparent to the so. So entering data in a form on a web page is ok, recording keystrokes when using your computer in your text editor is not.
2. Do not use the users computing resources, CPU, memory, bandwidth, for anything other than the stated intent of the applications.
There is a difference between software that tracks, and collects information about you and redirects you to sights in order to gather advertising revenue, and software that implements functionality in a way that you don't agree with. When you implement something you have to choose a way implement it, some people may not agree with that implementation but does make it malware, choices have to be made. Systemd may have been the wrong choice but I don't believe it was a bad choice made out of malice, or a desire to make money of its users.
Society tends to think that throwing money a problem will somehow improve things. Don't get me wrong up to a point it does, but after that there is very little return for dollar spent. And in most schools, in most first world countries that point has long since been reached especially ones that can afford computers for every student.
Currently computers are no replacement for the two way communication that happens when an actual person is teaching you.
They already capture and store data that should have a warrant, without one. This will just add another law that will be ignored. What is needed to start the ball rolling is people being prosecuted for breaking the existing laws.
You are right that a system that says ahhh you are about to crash into an on coming car human driver take control is unfeasible. However a car that says you are about to drive on a gravel road (or from the article road works), I can't handle that, you take control in 2 minutes. The key is that any situation the car cannot handle must allow plenty of warning.
That system may save lots of lives for the situation that it can handle until we can get cars that can handle any situation better than a human.
Compiled code would only slow you down slightly in obtaining the salt if you knew what you where doing. The purpose of a salt is that 1 brute forced hash to password lookup table wouldn't work for every password file in existence
That may be true and as a site they can do what they want. What is wrong is using there position as the producer of Chrome to do it. That is why no company should get to much control.
Then it is still the first offense of the person who ignored requests to stop distributing too.
You are right suggesting the universe is a computer simulation no more scientific than believing there is a god (unless you have a way to prove it). There is nothing wrong with thinking about alternatives. The problem comes when you base your actions that cannot prove or disprove, and force other people to believe your speculation. Or state it as the "gospel truth" when it is just speculation.
It may well be that I am imagining everybody else, but the moment I start killing other people because they are not really real it becomes a problem.
I am not actually saying that working someone to death is not worse than just killing them. It might well be. I am saying the motive of greed is not as bad intentionally trying to kill someone, because you hate them.
To me a large part what drives how someone should be punished is what drives them to do it, e.g. if someone accidentally kill you then the punishment should be less than if they intentionally do it.
If I was planning to do a bank robbery or murder, I would not base my plans of a TV show, while they may show some actual police processes they are probably full of make believe too. While I am not familiar with actual crime investigations processes I can tell there are lot of flaws things I know about.
One example seems to be how they almost always seem to send in two people to apprehend a known armed criminal, when I would think a swat team would usually sent in. I know this is to build drama, but I doubt it is realistic.
Or the hacker that can seem to hack anything, my favorite scene is from NCIS when they are defending against a hacker. The other guy starts typing on the same keyboard in order to help. http://www.snotr.com/video/809... Besides that if you where hacking someones computer why would make windows flash up on someones screen, and if you for some reason wanted and could do that, why would you even let them type. This is to build suspense (in this case maybe comedy) not to to accurately portray reality.
Hitler was worse, while I am able believe more people where killed in rubber plantations than death camps. The main purpose of the death camps was to kill, they specifically had gas chambers to kill people. While the plantations being cruel and inhumane, (well all forms of slavery really) their primary purpose was to make money, so greed was the driving factor not hate.
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The group selected to die, about three-quarters of the total, included almost all children, women with small children, all the elderly, and all those who appeared on brief and superficial inspection by an SS doctor not to be completely fit.
If you wanted a work force you would not kill the children, since they would grow up to be labor. In fact why would you even capture them if you didn't want them to work. The fact is Hilter wanted them all dead, if he could get some work out of them while killing them why not.
This is the difference between murder and manslaughter, and to me murder is much worse.
To me worth (to the economy) is how much your net to contribution to the economy will be in the future. Not how much money you have now, earned in the past, or where given. If you are simply collecting rent, on old ideas, or property, you are worthless to society no matter how much net worth you have.
Money builds nothing, it is the people who build, design the plant, mine the material, provide logistics, ... that provide benefit to the economy, the guy that goes and says: right transfer that money does very little but gets the most reward. If they died tomorrow someone else would get that money and could do exactly the same thing.
But you can make up any arbitrary meaning of worth you like, I suppose. The currently most accepted one "surprisingly" favors the wealthy, even though it does not seem to be the most logical one.
No the money you create goes directly to the rich, then "trickles down" to the poor so in the end the poor have less as a proportion of the total money.
Even if you give the money directly to the poor that money will quickly be sucked up the rich by charging more for goods and services.
That is why I believe funding of trials should not be done by pharmaceutical companies. It is a conflict of interest from beginning. Somethings by their very nature should be funded by taxes, because it is too important to simply let the organization with the biggest wallet win.
Sort answer no.
When you target people "yankin it" you are targeting the significant majority (yes women do it too, they may not be "yankin it" but they use other methods). The only way I can see stopping is if everyone can have sex with whoever they want whenever they want, ain't going to happen. The desire for sex is a fundamental part of human nature, you are fooling yourself if you believe you can just ban it.
Drugs have been around for a long time, from wikipedia, at least 10,000 years, if you are being honest with yourself you would include alcohol in that, so once again you are trying to ban something that the vast majority of people do.
The question remains what is wrong with people "yankin it" or taking drugs as long as they are not significantly hurting someone else.
While true I believe it is true in the short term ignoring it does not make the issue go away. If it is recurring issue then it is much better the long run to express your feelings, and sometimes that feeling is anger.
Of course there are limits, you need to find a middle ground (don't go beating anyone up). Letting people walk all over you does lead to a happy life either.
Simpler and more likely solution for the government, just watch everyone.
If not that, Oh yes, you bought a router for cash, definitely watching anyone who does that.
Well there is no bigger crime than potentially reducing the profits of corporations
I would say the number is quite low, Ok I am just guessing, but murder rates (even in the US) are low, 4.7 per 100,000 you are more than twice as likely to kill yourself. To me to get rates that low it is more than just fear of getting caught. And the rates are not based on punishment, countries with much more liberal penal systems have much lower crime rates. I go to a market every week, you could easily steal from but most people don't, that's why it works. Make people live well enough, and feel valued then most people will not rob that liquor store.
Society works because the vast majority of people are honest most of the time. It is a huge waste of resources if you did not trust anyone, and checked everything anybody ever said to you. Yes psychopaths can take advantage of that, but if you get a high percentage of them people will soon stop trusting and psychopaths would loose their advantage.
Secondly why would you want to rob a liquor store anyway how much money would you get? If it became a real problem they would just move to electronic payment only, then there would be no cash at all to steel.
The parties are all guilty, the politicians, the lobbyists, and the system that allows it. If I hire an assassin am I not doing anything wrong because I don't actually commit the murder.
Sure people should be allowed to say what you want, but do it from the street corner or on your blog, or some other public forum. The moment you can have a private chat with a senator then it is wrong. I am all for informing politicians, but if you do so it should be done publicly so people who disagree with can have a mechanism to raise objections to your point of view. The only exception to this is national security however even then the conversion should eventually be released once the information is no longer critical.
I am not for the statement: you have nothing to worry about, if you have nothing to hide, but when it comes to people who's decisions can easily effect hundreds of millions of peoples lives, then the "information" they are being given should be up for public scrutiny.
Counterfeiting should be illegal, if you are not the creator then you should have to say so. But this problem is largely self inflicted, charging insane prices (compared to actual cost), imposing unreasonable restrictions on products. In a free market and there is money to be made the market will provide, that is the brilliance of the free market. If it is illegal it will just become a black market with higher profits for the criminals.
Anyway I don't actually see how anybody could make money by selling pirated movies or songs when it they are available easily for free. Unless they are claiming they are not pirated, then of course they are committing fraud anyway. I am sure this has been a big boost to VPN providers though.