If someone cracks your user password, you're probably as good as rooted anyway. Imagine the scenario:
1) Someone manages to guess your password. 2) That person makes a hidden directory. 3) That person installs a keylogger in that hidden directory. The keylogger's executable name is "ls", and it starts the process of logging keys, then issues an actual ls command using the arguments specified. 4) That person changes your path to point to the hidden directory first.
The first time you run ls after he has done all this, the keylogging begins. Sooner or later, you're bound to su to root in order to change something system-wide. As soon as the keylogger detects the "su" command, it starts logging and e-mails the cracker your password. What have you gained over sudo? The slim chance that you'll notice the rogue directory in an ocan of hidden files/directories or that your path has been altered.
Now you might not feel that the gains for sudo are worth it, but I posit this. If you are really concerned about weak passwords (and not willing to do anything about it, at that), you can set up your sudo account to run only a few commands that are useful for general maintanence. Emerging (if you use Gentoo) or apt-get, starting and stopping daemons, etc. For other tasks, you can just log in as Root. This may not be ideal for a remote box, but in that case you could allow SSH to root with ssh keys.
In a nutshell: The $2 is rare, so many people save them. This increases the rarity. The initial reason they are rare appears to have to do with the bills being unpopular, although there is no known reason for why this is.
My guess is that it's an odd denomination. The $1 makes sense because it's atomic (at least, as far as dollars go--of course you can divide them into cents). $5 is good because it accounts for several $1 bills, in essense saving space in your wallet. The rest of the bills follow this pattern, each one saving more space when compared to ones (though obviously less space when compared to the next lowest denomination). But what does a $2 bill save you? It's half the space in your wallet, true, but it just doesn't compare to the $5, $10, $20.. jumping up in the denominations just seems to make more sense (though the $20->$50 jump is certainly strange).
Interestingly, for a long time, race tracks had minimum bets of $2. This made $2 bills popular in those areas because they made for easy bets. This might also account for the $1 bill's popularity in modern times, where, despite 10-10-220's assertions to the contrary, you can get something for "a buck". Many US fast food restaurants have "dollar" menus (although they tend to be more like $1.08 menus--and $1.08 would be awful for a bill denomination).
In reality, what does it matter? I like $2s because of their rarity and scarcity, and because I tend to get odd looks when I spend them. I've never been turned down, but I have seen people ask for confirmation by other employees/managers.
I worked in a small-town movie rental store where we had the owner, one manager, and the slave labor. The slave labor that counted out money was based solely on seniority.
The policy was $5 over or under and we had to call the manager at home (at 11pm) to come re-count. Neither employee could leave until this was done, and the manager was not known for being speedy.
Most of the time, for significant overages or underages, the counter would just pocket the money or pay out of pocket to avoid calling the manager. There were lots and lots of $4.90-$4.99 miscounts, which led to the manager making a sting. He intentionally put far too much money in the till at the beginning of the day just to catch the counter in the act. From then on, there were spot-stings, so even if we counted out at $5.01 over or under, we called him.
The cost of invalidating a patent is so high that it cannot be afforded by anybody. So, if you are sued, you are screwed.
I'd be curious to see evidence of this claim.
Clearly the vague patent is better, because it is easier to start a lawsuit.
This is clearly absurd, as it's trivially easy to start a lawsuit. What you meant is probably that it is easier to start a lawsuit that won't be laughed out of court, and but that's what the OP was talking about. To your average Joe who knows nothing about patent law, yes, it's expensive. But if you can go before the judge and say, "This patent is too vague" and point out why, you can swing things to your side enough to at least get it reexamined.
You sure made a lot of assumptions about what I'd be willing to have:
So you don't mind if, for example, the police come in and look through your house, as long as they do when you're gone so as not to inconvience you and it's against the law for them to report on your porno?
That's a pretty big stretch from passive RFID everywhere, and if you'd read my entire post, you'd have seen that I do, in fact, care about privacy. See the part about mistrust of the state.
And you have no problems with random areas of roads designed with a much lower speed limit, and automated sensors to send people tickets?
That falls pretty squarely under the inconvience clause, doesn't it? I don't mind automated ticketing; I would mind artificially lowering the speed limit in order to do so.
I'm just wondering here. You seem to have fallen into the mindset that the law exists to serve the police.
Again, you seem to be pulling this out of thin air. My example are pretty clear, I think. I don't want the police in my business when it's not relevent to solving a crime (first example with going to an adult entertainment venue). Also, reading through my second example with the stolen car...I guess I didn't mention that the logs of cars passing the RFID checkpoints OTHER than the stolen car should be purged--I guess I thought it was clear from my previous examples. My apologies for assuming a higher intellect than you clearly have.
The rest of your post is unsupported enough that I don't feel the need to reply, other than to ask for a citation on your yellow light study. I've never heard of it, and it sounds rather interesting.
This is pretty surprising.. I looked around for a notice that Nintendo or the artist had approved the mirror.. I didn't find it. Not that I think linking is wrong, but in the past, it seems like Slashdot tried not to do.
Didn't we already decide, as a nation, we didn't want the police randomly checking if we were criminals?
I'm sorry, when did we decide this?
There are a few things I don't want. I don't want the state knowing where I go at any given time. It's not their business. I'm not doing anything wrong, but if I want to go to an adult entertainment store, it's no one's business--although people think it is--and should I run for office one day, I don't want my personal business being brought up by people who think that what I do in my spare time is relevant to my ability as a public servant.
I also don't want to be severely inconvienced by law enforcement. By this, I mean I don't want checkpoints where I have to stop for 5 minutes take a breathalyzer despite the fact that I was not drinking and was driving safely. I don't want to be stopped because, as another poster put it, I'm a young black man driving a nice car.
What is acceptable would be a "random check" wherein if a car is stolen, it can be flagged and as soon as it comes in contact with an RFID reader, the police can be dispatched. What is also acceptable is using RFID to track speed on a limited basis--i.e. keeping the data around long enough to know that I've clearly broken the speed limit, but erasing it as soon as it is determined that I have not done so (so as to avoid tracking). The problem, of course, is that we can't place our trust in the government to abide by such regulations.
It's sad, but one only has to look at the DNA collection practices of some states, or the ability for law enforcement to demand to see your papers (identification) to realize that we can't trust the government with our privacy.
But he had more cause because it was, in fact, his name. Furthermore, he was using the domain, not trying to scam (but I don't think that should be a factor--honestly, it should be first-come, first-served, and you're SOL if the domain you want is taken.)
I'm glad that it's one less sleezy domain, but I don't particularly care for the precedent that a person (or probably more accurately, a celebrity) can yank a domain from someone just because they have a piece of the name. I imagine that if one of the other Hillary Clintons had tried this tactic, they would have been laughed out of court.
The same could be said of the Internet in general. I've heard estimates that 1/3 of all Internet traffic is Bittorrent. If we can then assume that 1/6 +.0001% of all Internet traffic is non-Bittorrent copyright-violating filesharing, then you could s/BitTorrent/the Internet/ in your post and it would remain true. Given the huge piracy outlet on Usenet, I don't think it's that unreasonable an assumption.
I stopped "respecting" copyright when they stopped sharing it back with the public. Remember that bit? Copyright is supposed to be a limited monopoly, but large copyright owners such as Disney keep pushing it back by purchasing new laws. And it's even been held up in court.
No, I don't download because I don't want to get sued. But I can't accept copyright as it exists today.
Is this supposed to be an argument for government subsidization? Television?
Telephones I'll grant you (though how instrumental was the government in getting these everywhere is something I'm not sure of). And I guess you skipped my entire point about roads, so I guess you'll probably just pick and choose from this post as well, meaning I may as well just stop here and let you continue deluding yourself with false arguments.
Your response is in jest based on the OP, but it certainly brings up some really interesting points.
I'm specifically against government-sponsored WiFi because it's a much more specialized market. Everyone who works uses roads--if they don't drive on them, they ride on them (the special cases where people work at home aside.) Even people who don't use roads to get to work tend to use them to get to the market, even if it's just walking across a street or two.
WiFi is a much more specialized. I have to have a computer of some sort in order to use it. Nothing I was born with allows me to naturally take advantage of this service. In fact, what we'll see is either a tax on computers being used to pay for the WiFi service (fair, but I'd rather pay for my own wired broadband if possible) or we'll see people who have no way of using the service (the poor who can't afford personal computers) paying for the rich who can. In general, I'm against such taxes, but that's probably how it will end up as any installation of this size will require significant maintenance which means a continual source of revenue.
The case has nothing to do with whether he had the right to sell Dos to Microsoft. It's only about defamation and failing to give credit in a published work.
Interesting points, and definitely something to think about. "Identity hijacking"?
I happen to agree that corporations in America are gaining far too much power. but all that's a thread for a different time. This is Slashdot, one's about to pop up in a few minutes.
You said "identity infringment", but you are obviously refering to infringment as it is used in regard to copyright, as you also mention "content owners".
Referring? Perhaps. Comparing? Absolutely not. I did not intend to imply "Identify copyright infringement" or "copying identities". I mentioned content owners simply because that's the hot topic where Slashdotters cry foul at false terminology. Perhaps it was unfortunate that I used the word infringement, however it was appropriate and intentionally chosen, not to imply copying, but because its definition perfectly fits.
Theft does not accurately describe copyright infringment, but it does accurately describe identity theft.
That's still subjective. "Theft" does not describe "identity assumption" (ooh, there's an even better one) as well as "vandalism." You use my information, you still have not taken my identity from me. You have assumed it, mocked it, fraudently used it, possibly even destroyed it, but you have not stolen it.
Fair enough, can't have it both ways can I? Yes, since he was testing the system, he either should have tried to fly the second place or not even bothered.
Actually, reading through your post, it suddenly becomes clear to me that John didn't fly the second time because that would have weakened his case. He got me duped on that one, though I appreciate you clearing that up.
Of course, the point is no longer the "papers, please" issue, it's the "secret law" issue.
Your problem is a failure to read. I never used the word "copy" or "copyright" in my original post.
infringement Pronunciation Key (n-frnjmnt) n.
1. A violation, as of a law, regulation, or agreement; a breach.
2. An encroachment, as of a right or privilege. See Synonyms at breach.
Let's break down your stupidity. I said the word "infringement" referring to my new favorite term, "identity infringement." You assumed the word "copy" in there somewhere for some reason and began to get hostile regarding the post based on that assumption.
Then later, when I said that infringement had nothing to do with copying, you reply that "Copyright infringement IS copying." Well no shit. Again, I said "infringement" and you inserted the word "copyright" there all on your own.
I was wrong. You may well have a sense of humor, but that's not the problem here. You're just a dumbass.
So let me get this straight: At the first airport, he was at first rejected, then told he would be allowed on the plane if he submitted to a search, then once he submitted to the search, he was rejected again.
And you're surprised that he didn't ask to be searched at the second airport? And you really expect that he would have been let on the plane that time when he wasn't the first time?
He's not arguing that he should be able to fly without ID. He's arguing that he should be able to read the law that says that he has to show ID to fly. Maybe if you'd even made a cursory glance at the details of this case, you'd have understood that.
Or do you actually think that secret rules and regulations are acceptable for the Federal Government?
Slashdot Mirror
If someone cracks your user password, you're probably as good as rooted anyway. Imagine the scenario:
1) Someone manages to guess your password.
2) That person makes a hidden directory.
3) That person installs a keylogger in that hidden directory. The keylogger's executable name is "ls", and it starts the process of logging keys, then issues an actual ls command using the arguments specified.
4) That person changes your path to point to the hidden directory first.
The first time you run ls after he has done all this, the keylogging begins. Sooner or later, you're bound to su to root in order to change something system-wide. As soon as the keylogger detects the "su" command, it starts logging and e-mails the cracker your password. What have you gained over sudo? The slim chance that you'll notice the rogue directory in an ocan of hidden files/directories or that your path has been altered.
Now you might not feel that the gains for sudo are worth it, but I posit this. If you are really concerned about weak passwords (and not willing to do anything about it, at that), you can set up your sudo account to run only a few commands that are useful for general maintanence. Emerging (if you use Gentoo) or apt-get, starting and stopping daemons, etc. For other tasks, you can just log in as Root. This may not be ideal for a remote box, but in that case you could allow SSH to root with ssh keys.
But if the files were ONLY shared on I2, how did the RIAA know they were there, or who to sue?
Answers
In a nutshell:
The $2 is rare, so many people save them. This increases the rarity. The initial reason they are rare appears to have to do with the bills being unpopular, although there is no known reason for why this is.
My guess is that it's an odd denomination. The $1 makes sense because it's atomic (at least, as far as dollars go--of course you can divide them into cents). $5 is good because it accounts for several $1 bills, in essense saving space in your wallet. The rest of the bills follow this pattern, each one saving more space when compared to ones (though obviously less space when compared to the next lowest denomination). But what does a $2 bill save you? It's half the space in your wallet, true, but it just doesn't compare to the $5, $10, $20.. jumping up in the denominations just seems to make more sense (though the $20->$50 jump is certainly strange).
Interestingly, for a long time, race tracks had minimum bets of $2. This made $2 bills popular in those areas because they made for easy bets. This might also account for the $1 bill's popularity in modern times, where, despite 10-10-220's assertions to the contrary, you can get something for "a buck". Many US fast food restaurants have "dollar" menus (although they tend to be more like $1.08 menus--and $1.08 would be awful for a bill denomination).
In reality, what does it matter? I like $2s because of their rarity and scarcity, and because I tend to get odd looks when I spend them. I've never been turned down, but I have seen people ask for confirmation by other employees/managers.
I worked in a small-town movie rental store where we had the owner, one manager, and the slave labor. The slave labor that counted out money was based solely on seniority.
The policy was $5 over or under and we had to call the manager at home (at 11pm) to come re-count. Neither employee could leave until this was done, and the manager was not known for being speedy.
Most of the time, for significant overages or underages, the counter would just pocket the money or pay out of pocket to avoid calling the manager. There were lots and lots of $4.90-$4.99 miscounts, which led to the manager making a sting. He intentionally put far too much money in the till at the beginning of the day just to catch the counter in the act. From then on, there were spot-stings, so even if we counted out at $5.01 over or under, we called him.
Even in Europe?
The cost of invalidating a patent is so high that it cannot be afforded by anybody. So, if you are sued, you are screwed.
I'd be curious to see evidence of this claim.
Clearly the vague patent is better, because it is easier to start a lawsuit.
This is clearly absurd, as it's trivially easy to start a lawsuit. What you meant is probably that it is easier to start a lawsuit that won't be laughed out of court, and but that's what the OP was talking about. To your average Joe who knows nothing about patent law, yes, it's expensive. But if you can go before the judge and say, "This patent is too vague" and point out why, you can swing things to your side enough to at least get it reexamined.
You sure made a lot of assumptions about what I'd be willing to have:
So you don't mind if, for example, the police come in and look through your house, as long as they do when you're gone so as not to inconvience you and it's against the law for them to report on your porno?
That's a pretty big stretch from passive RFID everywhere, and if you'd read my entire post, you'd have seen that I do, in fact, care about privacy. See the part about mistrust of the state.
And you have no problems with random areas of roads designed with a much lower speed limit, and automated sensors to send people tickets?
That falls pretty squarely under the inconvience clause, doesn't it? I don't mind automated ticketing; I would mind artificially lowering the speed limit in order to do so.
I'm just wondering here. You seem to have fallen into the mindset that the law exists to serve the police.
Again, you seem to be pulling this out of thin air. My example are pretty clear, I think. I don't want the police in my business when it's not relevent to solving a crime (first example with going to an adult entertainment venue). Also, reading through my second example with the stolen car...I guess I didn't mention that the logs of cars passing the RFID checkpoints OTHER than the stolen car should be purged--I guess I thought it was clear from my previous examples. My apologies for assuming a higher intellect than you clearly have.
The rest of your post is unsupported enough that I don't feel the need to reply, other than to ask for a citation on your yellow light study. I've never heard of it, and it sounds rather interesting.
This is pretty surprising.. I looked around for a notice that Nintendo or the artist had approved the mirror.. I didn't find it. Not that I think linking is wrong, but in the past, it seems like Slashdot tried not to do.
Didn't we already decide, as a nation, we didn't want the police randomly checking if we were criminals?
I'm sorry, when did we decide this?
There are a few things I don't want. I don't want the state knowing where I go at any given time. It's not their business. I'm not doing anything wrong, but if I want to go to an adult entertainment store, it's no one's business--although people think it is--and should I run for office one day, I don't want my personal business being brought up by people who think that what I do in my spare time is relevant to my ability as a public servant.
I also don't want to be severely inconvienced by law enforcement. By this, I mean I don't want checkpoints where I have to stop for 5 minutes take a breathalyzer despite the fact that I was not drinking and was driving safely. I don't want to be stopped because, as another poster put it, I'm a young black man driving a nice car.
What is acceptable would be a "random check" wherein if a car is stolen, it can be flagged and as soon as it comes in contact with an RFID reader, the police can be dispatched. What is also acceptable is using RFID to track speed on a limited basis--i.e. keeping the data around long enough to know that I've clearly broken the speed limit, but erasing it as soon as it is determined that I have not done so (so as to avoid tracking). The problem, of course, is that we can't place our trust in the government to abide by such regulations.
It's sad, but one only has to look at the DNA collection practices of some states, or the ability for law enforcement to demand to see your papers (identification) to realize that we can't trust the government with our privacy.
But he had more cause because it was, in fact, his name. Furthermore, he was using the domain, not trying to scam (but I don't think that should be a factor--honestly, it should be first-come, first-served, and you're SOL if the domain you want is taken.)
But there are other rulings that don't support what you're implying. See the Mike Rowe case.
I'm glad that it's one less sleezy domain, but I don't particularly care for the precedent that a person (or probably more accurately, a celebrity) can yank a domain from someone just because they have a piece of the name. I imagine that if one of the other Hillary Clintons had tried this tactic, they would have been laughed out of court.
The same could be said of the Internet in general. I've heard estimates that 1/3 of all Internet traffic is Bittorrent. If we can then assume that 1/6 + .0001% of all Internet traffic is non-Bittorrent copyright-violating filesharing, then you could s/BitTorrent/the Internet/ in your post and it would remain true. Given the huge piracy outlet on Usenet, I don't think it's that unreasonable an assumption.
I stopped "respecting" copyright when they stopped sharing it back with the public. Remember that bit? Copyright is supposed to be a limited monopoly, but large copyright owners such as Disney keep pushing it back by purchasing new laws. And it's even been held up in court.
No, I don't download because I don't want to get sued. But I can't accept copyright as it exists today.
Is this supposed to be an argument for government subsidization? Television?
Telephones I'll grant you (though how instrumental was the government in getting these everywhere is something I'm not sure of). And I guess you skipped my entire point about roads, so I guess you'll probably just pick and choose from this post as well, meaning I may as well just stop here and let you continue deluding yourself with false arguments.
Your response is in jest based on the OP, but it certainly brings up some really interesting points.
I'm specifically against government-sponsored WiFi because it's a much more specialized market. Everyone who works uses roads--if they don't drive on them, they ride on them (the special cases where people work at home aside.) Even people who don't use roads to get to work tend to use them to get to the market, even if it's just walking across a street or two.
WiFi is a much more specialized. I have to have a computer of some sort in order to use it. Nothing I was born with allows me to naturally take advantage of this service. In fact, what we'll see is either a tax on computers being used to pay for the WiFi service (fair, but I'd rather pay for my own wired broadband if possible) or we'll see people who have no way of using the service (the poor who can't afford personal computers) paying for the rich who can. In general, I'm against such taxes, but that's probably how it will end up as any installation of this size will require significant maintenance which means a continual source of revenue.
The case has nothing to do with whether he had the right to sell Dos to Microsoft. It's only about defamation and failing to give credit in a published work.
Interesting points, and definitely something to think about. "Identity hijacking"?
I happen to agree that corporations in America are gaining far too much power. but all that's a thread for a different time. This is Slashdot, one's about to pop up in a few minutes.
Officer: Excuse me sir, you've broken the secret law. You will now be tried in a secret court.
Me: Ok, I'll hire a lawyer.
Officer: Don't bother, your lawyer will be appointed by the court. We can't have any old lawyers around, they might hear the secret laws.
Me: I want to see the judge! I want to face my accusers!
Judge: I'm afraid we can't have that. If you face your accusers, you may find out what law you've broken. We can't let out what law was broken.
Me: At least I get my day in court.
Judge: You will be tried outside your presence, because we can't have you hearing the sec...
Me: Yeah yeah, how do I know this law even exists?
Judge: Trust us.
You said "identity infringment", but you are obviously refering to infringment as it is used in regard to copyright, as you also mention "content owners".
Referring? Perhaps. Comparing? Absolutely not. I did not intend to imply "Identify copyright infringement" or "copying identities". I mentioned content owners simply because that's the hot topic where Slashdotters cry foul at false terminology. Perhaps it was unfortunate that I used the word infringement, however it was appropriate and intentionally chosen, not to imply copying, but because its definition perfectly fits.
Theft does not accurately describe copyright infringment, but it does accurately describe identity theft.
That's still subjective. "Theft" does not describe "identity assumption" (ooh, there's an even better one) as well as "vandalism." You use my information, you still have not taken my identity from me. You have assumed it, mocked it, fraudently used it, possibly even destroyed it, but you have not stolen it.
Fair enough, can't have it both ways can I? Yes, since he was testing the system, he either should have tried to fly the second place or not even bothered.
Actually, reading through your post, it suddenly becomes clear to me that John didn't fly the second time because that would have weakened his case. He got me duped on that one, though I appreciate you clearing that up.
Of course, the point is no longer the "papers, please" issue, it's the "secret law" issue.
Your problem is a failure to read. I never used the word "copy" or "copyright" in my original post.
infringement Pronunciation Key (n-frnjmnt)
n.
1. A violation, as of a law, regulation, or agreement; a breach.
2. An encroachment, as of a right or privilege. See Synonyms at breach.
Let's break down your stupidity. I said the word "infringement" referring to my new favorite term, "identity infringement." You assumed the word "copy" in there somewhere for some reason and began to get hostile regarding the post based on that assumption.
Then later, when I said that infringement had nothing to do with copying, you reply that "Copyright infringement IS copying." Well no shit. Again, I said "infringement" and you inserted the word "copyright" there all on your own.
I was wrong. You may well have a sense of humor, but that's not the problem here. You're just a dumbass.
So let me get this straight: At the first airport, he was at first rejected, then told he would be allowed on the plane if he submitted to a search, then once he submitted to the search, he was rejected again.
And you're surprised that he didn't ask to be searched at the second airport? And you really expect that he would have been let on the plane that time when he wasn't the first time?
You missed what someone posted here:
c id =11798819
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=140827&
He consented to the search and was still denied access. It's unclear whether this was in the first or second attempt to fly sans ID.
He's not arguing that he should be able to fly without ID. He's arguing that he should be able to read the law that says that he has to show ID to fly. Maybe if you'd even made a cursory glance at the details of this case, you'd have understood that.
Or do you actually think that secret rules and regulations are acceptable for the Federal Government?