I haven't read the nearly 2.000 page bill. Does it stop insurance companies from having high "activation fees" for people getting new insurance?
Even if it does, if you wait until you're sick to get insurance, you may already wait too long. You probably aren't including regular checkups in your cost analysis, either. Maybe you don't think those are important. I don't know, really. But once you hit 30 or so, there are lots of things you want to get checked yearly so that you catch them early, and past 45, the list just blows up.
I don't see how that follows, though while searching to see if I missed a link to the muppetlabs page, I did note that someone mentions it in the comments.
The summary is still unnecessarily confusing, as it conflates the two pages.
It's worse than that. The third link isn't even by the same author. It's just another example of making a tiny ELF executable, and it appears to be completely unrelated to the MIT student's example.
TFS is very confusing because it links to two seemingly different examples of how to create a tiny executables on Linux. There's the MIT one by Jessica McKellar (second link in the summary) which is an example of a Hello World. Then there's the third link in the summary which appears to be by Brian Raiter. This third link is just creating the smallest ELF program possible--it just returns the number 42 to the OS without printing anything.
I didn't think we were talking about the general public, but
people who bitch and moan about what a hassle Linux is to set up and get figured out, while they waste hours and hours of their time and money cleaning out their Windows installs, setting up anti-malware programs that waste even more time in the form of annoying pop-up reminders and eaten CPU cycles, and even reinstalling their O.S.;
In other words, skilled people who choose to spend their energy wrestling with Windows rather than learning something that will be simpler in the long run.
My six year old son is autistic. You have no idea what you're saying. You have no idea what causes autism and have no idea how desperate a parent is for answers, solutions, or even a little respite care. I'd rather my son get measles than continue to have autism, and you are absolutely not qualified to opine on his quality of life with zero education or information on this matter. If you want to know more, you can ask for it, but the level of ignorance you're displaying is repugnant, you insensitive clod.
That's a good example. Please look up the recent study as to how breast cancer exams are costing billions of unnecessary dollars annually. It was determined that the costs for all the exams outweigh the costs of treating the disease in nearly all cases. Look it up.
Not the original poster, but I was curious to know if you think that there is a link between vaccines and autism, or if you just think that being rude about it and calling it BS is uncalled for due to the sensitive nature of the condition?
I can get that it would be hard. I mean, in a very small way, I can get it. I doubt I could possibly understand how hard it would be unless I was a parent of a child with autism. And I can definitely understand desperately trying to find an answer to the question "Why?!"
The problem is that sometimes there's no answer. Sometimes bad things happen to good people. It's not fair, but it happens. But campaigning against vaccines is wrong. They unequivocally save more lives than they harm, even if there is a link to autism. And the supposed link is full of holes; it comes from a correlation of interpreted data over time. It's exactly the same type of correlation that people joke about when they say that as piracy goes down, global warming goes up. I can feel very sorry for someone who has to raise a child with autism without being okay about them trying to get others to stop vaccinating their own children. Pain or not, they are causing damage with their claims.
Misguided people can cause problems, even if they don't mean to.
I think it's a credible threat. I've had my password compromised (as part of a larger compromise) 4-5 times in my life that I know of. Realistically, it's probably happened more than that. Re-using passwords would have meant that I'd want to change my password at umpteen sites (many of which I probably wouldn't remember.)
Changing your password mitigates a compromise in both of those ways, and one additional one: the one where the attacker doesn't want you to know that your password was compromised, so they don't change it. This could be important in the case where verification of your right to the account is possible (without e.g. security questions, but perhaps by showing up in person with an ID.) For example, gaining access to a user's e-mail account in order to spam can be useful, and the attacker might not change the password to try to avoid detection for as long as possible. Gaining access to a user's IMAP account could get them lots of really useful information and access to other resources (through password reset forms.)
As you point out, the attacker could also get a copy of the password file, but take a long time in breaking it.
Lastly, an attacker could get a large list of passwords but not use them all right away, preferring to cycle through accounts slowly in the hopes of avoiding detection of the mass breech. I've personally been involved with this sort of attack. Several of my users (in serial) started reporting strange things with their accounts. Each time, we reset the password, and the odd behavior went away (but then moved on to a new user.) It turned out that someone had scraped a bunch of passwords in cleartext and was using them one-by-one, moving on as each was reset.
For example, the typical home user's computer has no chance of being physically attacked.
Those on-screen keyboards were there to thwart software key loggers. And then they were defeated by malware taking screenshots every second (or more frequently) to get the password that way.
Likewise, there's no real security reason to password protect your account on your home computer that nobody but you uses, and no security reason to not use autologin.
That's not entirely true, either. Never have houseguests? I do frequently, and I may not want them snooping around on my computer (this is the digital equivalent of a guest rooting through your medicine cabinet.) What if the computer is stolen? Maybe you'll be glad that you encrypted the disk, then.
It's all about trade-offs. If the security is highly transparent (how long does it take to log in?) then why not do it?
Personally, I buy things with the intent of running Linux on them. That means I have to take more care in researching before purchase, but in the end, it makes so many things so much easier.
I never have to hunt down drivers. 99% of my software comes from one place, and the updates are handled automatically. Frankly, when you buy the right hardware, everything just works far better than Windows.
I have heard that on Facebook, friends of friends can see your profile. That's why I'm not on Facebook.
Also, I wonder how strongly a court would trust a twitter accounting of your whereabouts. I've been spreading disinformation for years to keep burglars and data miners off of their game.
It's relevant because other court decisions have set the precedent that the 4th amendment does not apply where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
... and yet we're fine with ripping and distributing the information to which we are granted an explicit license to listen / watch the work when that license was sold to us.
Well... I'm not fine with it, but the truth is that there are different standards applied to government, corporations, and individuals. Well, the latter two are somewhat conflated in law these days, but you get the point.
The government, having immense power, is restricted from doing certain things in an attempt to prevent abuse of that power. Corporations, honestly, should be treated similarly as they enjoy immense power, and have for over 100 years.
Then there's the morality issue. Copyright is supposed to be limited (per the Constitution) but is effectively unlimited (per various laws and judicial rulings.) So expecting individuals to respect a practically (if not technically) unconstitutional copyright is not reasonable.
But then, what do I know? I'm the one feeding a Score: -1 Troll post.
Encryption can only be useful for emails when people use it for all or most of communications, so that one does not instantaneously flag communications of interest.
Well in this particular case, the encryption would have prevented the opportunistic attack on his privacy. Instead of going after the third party, they would have had to demand his keys, which is an action he could have fought in court. Encrypting those e-mails which "incriminated" him would have sufficed.
That's reasonable if only because you can still be subpoenaed for that information. It's far easier to get private records through a civil subpoena than a federal one. Or rather, it used to be.
When the word "reasonable" is applied to law, it means "What would most reasonable people consider to be the case." My guess is that most people think that e-mail is private.
For that matter, the "Overrated" moderation is used when a post is moderated way up and the content is obviously not that great or wrong. It is not used to drop a "Score:1" down to 0. When I moderate I try not to drop Score:2's to 1 as well, as most people read so anything 3 and above displays, so they still wouldn't see that post.
You know that the score you see and the score I see can be different, right? You can change the value of a moderation in your preferences. For example, I changed Funny mods to be negative, because I can't stand the "funny" one-liner posts that get so much attention on every story. It made Slashdot way more readable.
So I might give a bonus for insightful, upping the score (from my perspective) of a poorly moderated post. I can slap Overrated on it to drop it back DOWN to a 2. But from your perspective, it drops it from a 2 to a 1.
Really the only way you’re going to be able to ensure that your scan is reliable is by using an external (trusted) device, whether it be a black box that tells you the true amount of RAM, or that keeps an accurate time, or seeds your randomizer, or whatever, or a whole separate computer to which you attach your secondary storage devices and scan them.
Common sense would show that installing (copying) the software onto multiple computers is not the intended use. And believe it or not, courts often use common sense (it's the nonsensical decisions that get the most press.) I'm well aware of the laws regarding intellectual property, though I have other thoughts on the morality of those laws.
As to the libertarian comment... My understanding is that the term "property" applied to ideas is relatively new (say, within the past 150 years, and only gaining a lot of traction within the past 60 or so.) It's not an awful thing to say that you own the copyright or patent to an idea, but we're entering an era where people conflate that with owning the idea itself. Intellectual property is not meant to last forever, but in practice, copyrights do.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't read the nearly 2.000 page bill. Does it stop insurance companies from having high "activation fees" for people getting new insurance?
Even if it does, if you wait until you're sick to get insurance, you may already wait too long. You probably aren't including regular checkups in your cost analysis, either. Maybe you don't think those are important. I don't know, really. But once you hit 30 or so, there are lots of things you want to get checked yearly so that you catch them early, and past 45, the list just blows up.
I don't see how that follows, though while searching to see if I missed a link to the muppetlabs page, I did note that someone mentions it in the comments.
The summary is still unnecessarily confusing, as it conflates the two pages.
It's worse than that. The third link isn't even by the same author. It's just another example of making a tiny ELF executable, and it appears to be completely unrelated to the MIT student's example.
TFS is very confusing because it links to two seemingly different examples of how to create a tiny executables on Linux. There's the MIT one by Jessica McKellar (second link in the summary) which is an example of a Hello World. Then there's the third link in the summary which appears to be by Brian Raiter. This third link is just creating the smallest ELF program possible--it just returns the number 42 to the OS without printing anything.
Kids these days would never have survived the 8-bit era. Rabblerabblegetoffmylawn.
That's one of my pet peeves.
I didn't think we were talking about the general public, but
people who bitch and moan about what a hassle Linux is to set up and get figured out, while they waste hours and hours of their time and money cleaning out their Windows installs, setting up anti-malware programs that waste even more time in the form of annoying pop-up reminders and eaten CPU cycles, and even reinstalling their O.S.;
In other words, skilled people who choose to spend their energy wrestling with Windows rather than learning something that will be simpler in the long run.
Witness the whole autism-vaccine BS.
My six year old son is autistic. You have no idea what you're saying. You have no idea what causes autism and have no idea how desperate a parent is for answers, solutions, or even a little respite care. I'd rather my son get measles than continue to have autism, and you are absolutely not qualified to opine on his quality of life with zero education or information on this matter. If you want to know more, you can ask for it, but the level of ignorance you're displaying is repugnant, you insensitive clod.
That's a good example. Please look up the recent study as to how breast cancer exams are costing billions of unnecessary dollars annually. It was determined that the costs for all the exams outweigh the costs of treating the disease in nearly all cases. Look it up.
Not the original poster, but I was curious to know if you think that there is a link between vaccines and autism, or if you just think that being rude about it and calling it BS is uncalled for due to the sensitive nature of the condition?
I can get that it would be hard. I mean, in a very small way, I can get it. I doubt I could possibly understand how hard it would be unless I was a parent of a child with autism. And I can definitely understand desperately trying to find an answer to the question "Why?!"
The problem is that sometimes there's no answer. Sometimes bad things happen to good people. It's not fair, but it happens. But campaigning against vaccines is wrong. They unequivocally save more lives than they harm, even if there is a link to autism. And the supposed link is full of holes; it comes from a correlation of interpreted data over time. It's exactly the same type of correlation that people joke about when they say that as piracy goes down, global warming goes up. I can feel very sorry for someone who has to raise a child with autism without being okay about them trying to get others to stop vaccinating their own children. Pain or not, they are causing damage with their claims.
Misguided people can cause problems, even if they don't mean to.
I'd love to see a real study on whether password aging actually increases security. Unfortunately, security is difficult to measure.
I think it's a credible threat. I've had my password compromised (as part of a larger compromise) 4-5 times in my life that I know of. Realistically, it's probably happened more than that. Re-using passwords would have meant that I'd want to change my password at umpteen sites (many of which I probably wouldn't remember.)
Changing your password mitigates a compromise in both of those ways, and one additional one: the one where the attacker doesn't want you to know that your password was compromised, so they don't change it. This could be important in the case where verification of your right to the account is possible (without e.g. security questions, but perhaps by showing up in person with an ID.) For example, gaining access to a user's e-mail account in order to spam can be useful, and the attacker might not change the password to try to avoid detection for as long as possible. Gaining access to a user's IMAP account could get them lots of really useful information and access to other resources (through password reset forms.)
As you point out, the attacker could also get a copy of the password file, but take a long time in breaking it.
Lastly, an attacker could get a large list of passwords but not use them all right away, preferring to cycle through accounts slowly in the hopes of avoiding detection of the mass breech. I've personally been involved with this sort of attack. Several of my users (in serial) started reporting strange things with their accounts. Each time, we reset the password, and the odd behavior went away (but then moved on to a new user.) It turned out that someone had scraped a bunch of passwords in cleartext and was using them one-by-one, moving on as each was reset.
That put a real smile on my face, thanks!
For example, the typical home user's computer has no chance of being physically attacked.
Those on-screen keyboards were there to thwart software key loggers. And then they were defeated by malware taking screenshots every second (or more frequently) to get the password that way.
Likewise, there's no real security reason to password protect your account on your home computer that nobody but you uses, and no security reason to not use autologin.
That's not entirely true, either. Never have houseguests? I do frequently, and I may not want them snooping around on my computer (this is the digital equivalent of a guest rooting through your medicine cabinet.) What if the computer is stolen? Maybe you'll be glad that you encrypted the disk, then.
It's all about trade-offs. If the security is highly transparent (how long does it take to log in?) then why not do it?
Personally, I buy things with the intent of running Linux on them. That means I have to take more care in researching before purchase, but in the end, it makes so many things so much easier.
I never have to hunt down drivers. 99% of my software comes from one place, and the updates are handled automatically. Frankly, when you buy the right hardware, everything just works far better than Windows.
Good to know, thanks.
Waaaiit.... are you an FBI agent trying to get me to join Facebook?
I have heard that on Facebook, friends of friends can see your profile. That's why I'm not on Facebook.
Also, I wonder how strongly a court would trust a twitter accounting of your whereabouts. I've been spreading disinformation for years to keep burglars and data miners off of their game.
It's relevant because other court decisions have set the precedent that the 4th amendment does not apply where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
... and yet we're fine with ripping and distributing the information to which we are granted an explicit license to listen / watch the work when that license was sold to us.
Well... I'm not fine with it, but the truth is that there are different standards applied to government, corporations, and individuals. Well, the latter two are somewhat conflated in law these days, but you get the point.
The government, having immense power, is restricted from doing certain things in an attempt to prevent abuse of that power. Corporations, honestly, should be treated similarly as they enjoy immense power, and have for over 100 years.
Then there's the morality issue. Copyright is supposed to be limited (per the Constitution) but is effectively unlimited (per various laws and judicial rulings.) So expecting individuals to respect a practically (if not technically) unconstitutional copyright is not reasonable.
But then, what do I know? I'm the one feeding a Score: -1 Troll post.
Encryption can only be useful for emails when people use it for all or most of communications, so that one does not instantaneously flag communications of interest.
Well in this particular case, the encryption would have prevented the opportunistic attack on his privacy. Instead of going after the third party, they would have had to demand his keys, which is an action he could have fought in court. Encrypting those e-mails which "incriminated" him would have sufficed.
That's reasonable if only because you can still be subpoenaed for that information. It's far easier to get private records through a civil subpoena than a federal one. Or rather, it used to be.
When the word "reasonable" is applied to law, it means "What would most reasonable people consider to be the case." My guess is that most people think that e-mail is private.
For that matter, the "Overrated" moderation is used when a post is moderated way up and the content is obviously not that great or wrong. It is not used to drop a "Score:1" down to 0. When I moderate I try not to drop Score:2's to 1 as well, as most people read so anything 3 and above displays, so they still wouldn't see that post.
You know that the score you see and the score I see can be different, right? You can change the value of a moderation in your preferences. For example, I changed Funny mods to be negative, because I can't stand the "funny" one-liner posts that get so much attention on every story. It made Slashdot way more readable.
So I might give a bonus for insightful, upping the score (from my perspective) of a poorly moderated post. I can slap Overrated on it to drop it back DOWN to a 2. But from your perspective, it drops it from a 2 to a 1.
The latency check is performed by an external device which (presumably) know the timings of the RAM. Per the article.
Really the only way you’re going to be able to ensure that your scan is reliable is by using an external (trusted) device, whether it be a black box that tells you the true amount of RAM, or that keeps an accurate time, or seeds your randomizer, or whatever, or a whole separate computer to which you attach your secondary storage devices and scan them.
The article mentions using an external verifier.
Common sense would show that installing (copying) the software onto multiple computers is not the intended use. And believe it or not, courts often use common sense (it's the nonsensical decisions that get the most press.) I'm well aware of the laws regarding intellectual property, though I have other thoughts on the morality of those laws.
As to the libertarian comment...
My understanding is that the term "property" applied to ideas is relatively new (say, within the past 150 years, and only gaining a lot of traction within the past 60 or so.) It's not an awful thing to say that you own the copyright or patent to an idea, but we're entering an era where people conflate that with owning the idea itself. Intellectual property is not meant to last forever, but in practice, copyrights do.