Normally, your phone is not reachable by the public network, the attacker has to be within the LAN to sent an XML packet to your phone. And if you have a SIP phone reachable from the outside, it still sits behind a Session Border Controller, which only forwards SIP, but not XML.
So yes, the severity is low, as the attacker has to be within your LAN in almost all scenarios.
The problem I have with laws like this is that you ONLY catch the stupid people anyway.
Always remember: They have to succeed only once. Yes, a smart criminal might get away again and again -- until he doesn't get away any longer because of some stupid mistake. Outside of our special talents, knowledge and education, all of us are stupid.
You know that the last Cod War was just 40 years ago, right? Iceland prevailed in three Cod Wars between 1958 and 1976 against the UK and (later on) also Germany.
Just because a police officer in the UK has the right to arrest and interrogate suspects, it is not legal for him to arrest and interrogate people in other countries too. And the lawsuits are in other countries.
Irrelevant. The moment they aren't banned in other countries and getting to be the norm there because of decreasing accidents, less traffic jams, better utilization of roads and lower impact on the environment, some will rethink their stance and reintroduce them again. It might be a 10 years delay, but I think self driving cars will be the norm.
I for instance would buy one as soon as they are affordable.
The Thirty Years War is in fact a series of several wars fought in parallel or in succession. But it started out as an inner German civil war, and until 1631 it mainly was. Bohemia was multilingual, true, but it was a domain of the Habsburgs, which in turn were Germans. The mainly protestant Bohemians seceded from Habsburg and choose Frederick V, Elector Palatine in 1618 as their new king, who was German too, which started the war (and caused Frederick V to be called "winter king", because his reign endet in the Spring of 1619). Then Germany was split into two alliances, the League (the Habsburgian Emperor and mainly catholic German countries) and the Union (the protestant German countries with the exception of Saxony).
The League tried to conquer the Union states with two armies, the Bavarian army led by Gen. Tilly, and the Imperial army lead by Gen. Wallenstein (Waldstejn), who was Bohemian despite his German name. They devastated most German protestant countries till 1631, when the King of Sweden entered the battle to "save Protestantism".
When France entered the battle, it was trying to oust the Habsburgs from Spain or at least to weaken the Habsburg influence in Europe.
First of all: Software has a special place in the world. Software is a distilled form of knowing how to do things. Software is a way to actually store work: You do the work once and then use it again and again without further effort. Software itself doesn't degrade, it just might lose its uses. Software can be endlessly replicated with an effort that is minuscle compared to the effort necessary to create it in the first place. Once in the world, software is not a scarce good.
And yes, it is your choice what do do with the software you write yourself. No one will ever tell you different, except your employer. It is also your choice to smoke, to tell racist jokes, to not ask for help, to let your house rot away and to spend all your money on blackjack and hookers. Richard M. Stallman has no rights to your software at all.
But you too have no right to other people's software, because they have the same rights to do with their software as they like. If you want to get access to it, you have to play nice. You can spend huge amounts of money, which is the market economy way of doing things. But why? Software per se is no scarce good. The only reason you would have to spend huge amounts of money for a good that is easily replicated again and again is because other people don't play nice too.
Richard M. Stallman set up some rules how to play nice when it comes to software. You are not required to play nice. But then expect others not to be nice to you too.
Europa's leaders always could talk to each other, because they came from the same set of aristocrate families and because they spoke either Latin in the Middle Ages or French later. The German Emperor Wilhelm II. for instance was the grandson of Queen Victoria of Great Britain, nonetheless they waged World War I against each other. And during the Hundred Years War between England and France, the kings of England were still talking French as their native tongue, as they were descendents of northern french dukes (and they were in fact battling for their continental heirloom in Northern and Western France, the so called Angevin Empire). The Thirty Years War, the most devastating war until the World Wars in Europe, was mainly fought between Germans.
What ever the reason was for the many wars in Europa, the different languages weren't.
As far as I know, every organic material is sensitive to UV light, thus this is no new problem. Plastics degrade in the sun. All of them. This resin is no different.
Actually, there is no EU law to forbid data retention. To the contrary, there was a EU law (a directive) that every member state has to have a data retention law. And this directive was pulled because in the current form, it was considered unconstitutional. Thus no member state is required to have data retention anymore, and if they have, it has to conform to the verdict of the European High Court.
First, the EU directive on which this law was built upon, itself was already pulled because of being too unbalanced. Thus the Netherlands are no longer required to have a data retention law at all. So, from an EU point of view, no one in Brussels actually cares anymore if the Netherlands have a data retention law. They can do so if they want, but that's an entirely different matter (and even a new one has to take into account the verdict of the European High Court which pulled the old directive).
Second: If a new directive was in place which conforms to the verdict of the European High Court, the member states have to work out new data retention laws which also conform to the verdict and to their respective constitutions. If they don't manage to do so, they will be sued for EU contract violation, and then they have to argue why their new data retention law is not in place yet. This could even work out to the theoretical new directive being pulled too, if not enough member states are able to create constitutionally acceptable data retention laws.
But all those laws define requirements for telcos and internet providers, they totally leave out the ability or the legality of secret service agencies to gain access to the data and create their own data retention. My guess is that the whole data retention bruhaha came up because the spy agencies already did all those things without a legal base, and now the governments wanted them to be legalized in a way that the results could be used in the open. Maybe some envy between police forces and spy agencies also played a role, and the police wanted to have the same abilities.
The problem was that with ever changing hardware due to hotplugging during the runtime of a system, the concept of different runlevels was rendered obsolete.
You can't have a runlevel for every hardware configuration that is possible. And if you have mobile devices, you have to take care of different power states, of connectivity, power saving modes and lots of other things that change during runtime. You simply can't solve that with a concept that was developed under the premise that the system gets powered up once and then runs forever without any further changes, until it has to be powered down for hardware maintenance.
So there was a system required that while running can adapt to different hardware configurations on the fly and automaticly solves the interdependencies for different demons, drivers and configurations.
While that is in principle possible with a set of scripts, it easily becomes un-maintenable, as every new hardware or state to support might need a hands-on on every script that might directly or indirectly affected by it, and you'll soon get runtime errors because a required service is not started, or a service, that is no longer required, is eating resources that long should have been freed. There was a system necessary for each demon and service and driver to report their requirements, and to calculate the new set of required resources and running processes, and to automaticly stop, reconfigure and start the approbriate things.
No, there are experiments on evolution that are not experiments in intelligent design.
For instance we look which common properties two species have, and we calculate when the last common ancestor of those species must have lived, and then we go out and check mineral deposits of the approbriate age to look if we find fossils that are close to what we expect as the common ancestor.
I doubt it. Both France and UK are quite positive to nuclear (France gets 67% of her electricity from nuclear). And still Areva, a french company, is in turmoil. And UK is planning to build a new nuclear site and is securing 19 billion Euros in subsidies for it - why would they actually need all those subsidies, if nuclear is cheap? And even if the electricity produced is cheap -- the biggest part of the subsidies is the warranted price for the electricity produced of 11 euro-cents per kWh, about double the current market price. Then why's that?
The standard argument is that climate scientist have to claim the existence of AGW, otherwise they would lose their tenure, their grants or whatever their finance support is.
Now this just uses the same argument: Climate sceptics have to doubt AGW, because otherwise they would lose their financial founding. And to support that, the lawmakers want to actually know who founds the climate sceptics.
At one time, most people thought the earth was flat. That didn't make it factual.
The correct sentence should have been: "At one time, most people thought the people of former times thought the earth was flat. That didn't make it factual."
There never was a time when people, who were really interested in the actual shape of the earth thought it was flat. There have been models of a flat earth, but they existed solely because no one actually cared about the real shape. It was just assumed in the models to be flat because it wouldn't have made a difference anyway. Old Germans believed the world was a tree -- but just in the sense that the World Tree Yggdrasil made for some nice stories. They never tried to map their trips assuming they would be walking along the bark of an actual oak.
As soon as the necessity arised to know about the real shape, it was pretty clear from the beginning that the earth was round.
They just play the denier's game. Attacking AGW folks because of funding was one of the first games the deniers played, as they couldn't come up with enough solid science on their side.
When the buggy whip makers went out of business, the car industry was already in full swing. They were already outputting enough cars to replace the buggies. The buggy whip makers could actually see the workers working to make them obsolete. At this time, it was wellknown how many jobs the automobile industry was creating. And it was wellknown that the new automobile not only replaced the horse carriage, it actually made it better, allowing for more trips, for more load hauled, for higher speed. The car helped to make the whole transportation business to grow more productive, and not just a few percent, it was a multitude of improvement. The demand for transportation at the same time was also growing because transportation got so much cheaper that goods or persons which would never have been transported so far and so often before, now could. Replacing the buggy with the car as the means of transport actually increased the transporting market.
Buggy whip makers didn't need to imagine the new jobs. They knew what the new jobs were, as they could see their neigbours already having them.
But if you just replace a worker by a machine, there is not necessarily a new job opening waiting. The manufacturer of the machine already has the people to make the machine, as he was able to built it. And it's not as if his business has to be growing, as the market for his worker-replacement-machines is limited to the number of workers his machines can replace. It happens that not only the worker who is replaced by the machine is out of the job, also the people installing the machine are also out of a job, because their job is now finished. And maintaining the machine surely will require either less man-power or less qualified man-power than the man-power it is replacing. Otherwise there would be no point in actually replacing them.
Automatisation of jobs in general does not create new jobs. It just frees up human labor. If that allows for huge gains in productivity (and we are talking huge gains. The mechanical loom improved the productivity tenfold, and so did the spinning machine), there might be new markets and thus there might be new demand, creating new jobs. But just replacing the human by a machine does not. Having cheaper sport news does not increase the market for sport news. The replacement of the financial advisor by a computer does not increase the demand for financial advise, because the requestor does not get a tenfold improvement on his ROI. As a maximum, he saves the few percents the human financial advisor got as his premium. The same is valid for legal expertise. People will not want to have more need for legal advise just because it is cheaper. Most people prefer not to be involved in legal quagmires at all. Compare that with the demand for cars! People love to buy cars. Or at least, they used to love it. But the demand for new cars is already shrinking at least in some parts of the world. Young people in Europe list the desire to own a car quite low in their priorities already. A similar trend can be seen in the U.S.. And which new job is replacing the car manufacturer's job? Simply none. Completely different than it was when the welder's job at a car factory replaced the buggy whip maker.
Slashdot Mirror
So yes, the severity is low, as the attacker has to be within your LAN in almost all scenarios.
You can still deplete your supply of renewables by using more than the refill rate - at least temporarily.
The problem I have with laws like this is that you ONLY catch the stupid people anyway.
Always remember: They have to succeed only once. Yes, a smart criminal might get away again and again -- until he doesn't get away any longer because of some stupid mistake. Outside of our special talents, knowledge and education, all of us are stupid.
You know that the last Cod War was just 40 years ago, right? Iceland prevailed in three Cod Wars between 1958 and 1976 against the UK and (later on) also Germany.
The last time, Iceland waged war (the Cod Wars), it prevailed - despite not having a fleet nor an army. Be careful!
Just because a police officer in the UK has the right to arrest and interrogate suspects, it is not legal for him to arrest and interrogate people in other countries too. And the lawsuits are in other countries.
I for instance would buy one as soon as they are affordable.
The League tried to conquer the Union states with two armies, the Bavarian army led by Gen. Tilly, and the Imperial army lead by Gen. Wallenstein (Waldstejn), who was Bohemian despite his German name. They devastated most German protestant countries till 1631, when the King of Sweden entered the battle to "save Protestantism".
When France entered the battle, it was trying to oust the Habsburgs from Spain or at least to weaken the Habsburg influence in Europe.
I doubt that Anita Sarkeesian ever wants to be seen in the same camp than SCO. It's just a silly attempt of you to try a "guilty by association".
Why should they reward SCO with any money?
And yes, it is your choice what do do with the software you write yourself. No one will ever tell you different, except your employer. It is also your choice to smoke, to tell racist jokes, to not ask for help, to let your house rot away and to spend all your money on blackjack and hookers. Richard M. Stallman has no rights to your software at all.
But you too have no right to other people's software, because they have the same rights to do with their software as they like. If you want to get access to it, you have to play nice. You can spend huge amounts of money, which is the market economy way of doing things. But why? Software per se is no scarce good. The only reason you would have to spend huge amounts of money for a good that is easily replicated again and again is because other people don't play nice too.
Richard M. Stallman set up some rules how to play nice when it comes to software. You are not required to play nice. But then expect others not to be nice to you too.
What ever the reason was for the many wars in Europa, the different languages weren't.
As far as I know, every organic material is sensitive to UV light, thus this is no new problem. Plastics degrade in the sun. All of them. This resin is no different.
Yes, right, In my native language, it's called differntly, thus the translation back into English failed.
Actually, there is no EU law to forbid data retention. To the contrary, there was a EU law (a directive) that every member state has to have a data retention law. And this directive was pulled because in the current form, it was considered unconstitutional. Thus no member state is required to have data retention anymore, and if they have, it has to conform to the verdict of the European High Court.
First, the EU directive on which this law was built upon, itself was already pulled because of being too unbalanced. Thus the Netherlands are no longer required to have a data retention law at all. So, from an EU point of view, no one in Brussels actually cares anymore if the Netherlands have a data retention law. They can do so if they want, but that's an entirely different matter (and even a new one has to take into account the verdict of the European High Court which pulled the old directive).
Second: If a new directive was in place which conforms to the verdict of the European High Court, the member states have to work out new data retention laws which also conform to the verdict and to their respective constitutions. If they don't manage to do so, they will be sued for EU contract violation, and then they have to argue why their new data retention law is not in place yet. This could even work out to the theoretical new directive being pulled too, if not enough member states are able to create constitutionally acceptable data retention laws.
But all those laws define requirements for telcos and internet providers, they totally leave out the ability or the legality of secret service agencies to gain access to the data and create their own data retention. My guess is that the whole data retention bruhaha came up because the spy agencies already did all those things without a legal base, and now the governments wanted them to be legalized in a way that the results could be used in the open. Maybe some envy between police forces and spy agencies also played a role, and the police wanted to have the same abilities.
It does in the second link: District court of The Hague.
So there was a system required that while running can adapt to different hardware configurations on the fly and automaticly solves the interdependencies for different demons, drivers and configurations.
While that is in principle possible with a set of scripts, it easily becomes un-maintenable, as every new hardware or state to support might need a hands-on on every script that might directly or indirectly affected by it, and you'll soon get runtime errors because a required service is not started, or a service, that is no longer required, is eating resources that long should have been freed. There was a system necessary for each demon and service and driver to report their requirements, and to calculate the new set of required resources and running processes, and to automaticly stop, reconfigure and start the approbriate things.
It is not claimed to be a new species, but the earlies known remains from a wellknown genus: Homo. It probably is from a very early Homo habilis.
For instance we look which common properties two species have, and we calculate when the last common ancestor of those species must have lived, and then we go out and check mineral deposits of the approbriate age to look if we find fossils that are close to what we expect as the common ancestor.
Face it: nuclear is expensive.
Now this just uses the same argument: Climate sceptics have to doubt AGW, because otherwise they would lose their financial founding. And to support that, the lawmakers want to actually know who founds the climate sceptics.
At one time, most people thought the earth was flat. That didn't make it factual.
The correct sentence should have been: "At one time, most people thought the people of former times thought the earth was flat. That didn't make it factual."
There never was a time when people, who were really interested in the actual shape of the earth thought it was flat. There have been models of a flat earth, but they existed solely because no one actually cared about the real shape. It was just assumed in the models to be flat because it wouldn't have made a difference anyway. Old Germans believed the world was a tree -- but just in the sense that the World Tree Yggdrasil made for some nice stories. They never tried to map their trips assuming they would be walking along the bark of an actual oak.
As soon as the necessity arised to know about the real shape, it was pretty clear from the beginning that the earth was round.
They just play the denier's game. Attacking AGW folks because of funding was one of the first games the deniers played, as they couldn't come up with enough solid science on their side.
When the buggy whip makers went out of business, the car industry was already in full swing. They were already outputting enough cars to replace the buggies. The buggy whip makers could actually see the workers working to make them obsolete. At this time, it was wellknown how many jobs the automobile industry was creating. And it was wellknown that the new automobile not only replaced the horse carriage, it actually made it better, allowing for more trips, for more load hauled, for higher speed. The car helped to make the whole transportation business to grow more productive, and not just a few percent, it was a multitude of improvement. The demand for transportation at the same time was also growing because transportation got so much cheaper that goods or persons which would never have been transported so far and so often before, now could. Replacing the buggy with the car as the means of transport actually increased the transporting market.
Buggy whip makers didn't need to imagine the new jobs. They knew what the new jobs were, as they could see their neigbours already having them.
But if you just replace a worker by a machine, there is not necessarily a new job opening waiting. The manufacturer of the machine already has the people to make the machine, as he was able to built it. And it's not as if his business has to be growing, as the market for his worker-replacement-machines is limited to the number of workers his machines can replace. It happens that not only the worker who is replaced by the machine is out of the job, also the people installing the machine are also out of a job, because their job is now finished. And maintaining the machine surely will require either less man-power or less qualified man-power than the man-power it is replacing. Otherwise there would be no point in actually replacing them.
Automatisation of jobs in general does not create new jobs. It just frees up human labor. If that allows for huge gains in productivity (and we are talking huge gains. The mechanical loom improved the productivity tenfold, and so did the spinning machine), there might be new markets and thus there might be new demand, creating new jobs. But just replacing the human by a machine does not. Having cheaper sport news does not increase the market for sport news. The replacement of the financial advisor by a computer does not increase the demand for financial advise, because the requestor does not get a tenfold improvement on his ROI. As a maximum, he saves the few percents the human financial advisor got as his premium. The same is valid for legal expertise. People will not want to have more need for legal advise just because it is cheaper. Most people prefer not to be involved in legal quagmires at all. Compare that with the demand for cars! People love to buy cars. Or at least, they used to love it. But the demand for new cars is already shrinking at least in some parts of the world. Young people in Europe list the desire to own a car quite low in their priorities already. A similar trend can be seen in the U.S.. And which new job is replacing the car manufacturer's job? Simply none. Completely different than it was when the welder's job at a car factory replaced the buggy whip maker.