If it didn't work that way, it would be a bug that caused a crash, not arbitrary code execution, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Not every vulnerability that leads to code execution is deliberate, is it? Without looking at the source, how can anyone claim to be certain this is deliberate?
Actually, Gibson is saying he doesn't know if previous versions are exploitable or not. In fact he's counting on not, since that's the only way to determine when the "backdoor" was inserted. Gibson is a bomb thrower. There's no evidence other than his opinion that this is a deliberate backdoor.
Re:Big Brother and the iTunes Company
on
iTunes is Malware?
·
· Score: 1
An analogy would be if I bought a book from Amazon. I'd fully expect them to keep records that I bought it. I would not expect them to have a database of every time I picked the book up and read it, though--that would just be creepy.
They also keep records of what you've searched for, what you've looked at, what you haven't bought, what's on your wishlist, etc.
Frankly I don't see how this is news. I rarely use iTunes, or the music store, but I've always just assumed that it would do this.
Re:Big Brother and the iTunes Company
on
iTunes is Malware?
·
· Score: 2, Funny
they're entitled to assume it will not contain anything they need to know about unless their attention is drawn to it
And in your mind, calling it "README" doesn't count as drawing their attention?
Who cares if the people making the nominations don't get to see the movie, since when are these awards handed out for the content anyway? The movie will get nominated anyway because of the buzz, and Spielberg.
I'd argue that in this day and age it is their responsibility to conceal from satellites anything they don't want to be seen, otherwise it's fair game.
Fortunately, I don't think "they" care much what you'd argue. Are you going to decide what methods of concealment they use too? What if they want to conceal it by pointing a really bright LASER at your imager? Or maybe, they want to conceal it by sending a couple of MIBs to "eliminate" the problem? Any of those alternatives are much simpler than putting a tent over an airforce base.
If you had RTFA first, you would have known that it isn't the cell companies selling the data, and in many cases it is being sold out the back door by dishonest employees.
So really, the problem with this for me is that I don't see the two "alternatives" as being different, but as I'm not a lawcritter I could be missing a somewhat subtle distinction here.
Just because the two alternatives have some premises in common doesn't mean they aren't different, since they also have some premises not in common.
example: A can be charged with the murder of B on the alternate theories that 1) A killed B with intent, or if he didn't have intent, then 2) A killed B by acting in a reckless manner exhibiting indifference to the value of human life. These are both valid alternate theories of the crime of B's murder by A. A can defend against the theories seperately by attacking their seperate premises ("A didn't have intent, nor was A reckless"), or he can defend against them together by attacking the common premise ("A didn't kill B"), or he can do both. Same thing here.
-- I was pissed! Anyway, check out the knee defender.
Wow, what a perfect product for assholes! I like that they have a card that you can give to the passenger in front of you, whose flight you just ruined. I like even more that the card instructs the other passenger to complain to the airline! Yeah, I'll complain to the airline, about you. If you have a problem with the seat spacing, then you complain to the airline. Don't interfere with my ability to recline my seat. Instead of buying $15 seat chocks, pissing off the passenger in front of you, and then giving him a card explaining why he should be pissed off at someone else, why not just ask him nicely to be considerate of your knees?
I'm an anarchocapitalist, and I hate knowing that DNS will likely be the control system our governments user to censor the information out there. I'm constantly trying to find theories in how we could use the Internet without central regulation (such as DNS), and I feel that networks are becoming more and more transparent to domain names as time goes on.
Do you have any idea how DNS works? Do you know what alternative roots are? DO you use them?
At least around here, toll roads are built using money from the sale of bonds [i]backed up[/i] by public funds. IOW, public funds don't pay for much of anything unless the toll authority defaults. The bonds are repaid from the tolls. This serves both to shortcut the funding process and to shift the burden from the general population to those who actually use the road.
It depends on what you mean by "prove". In this context, it just means you have to convince a jury. If the owner of the computer says he didn't click it, and the jury doesn't believe him, you've sufficiently proved it. It might be difficult to prove who clicked the mouse on a public kiosk, but on a computer in your house? Not very difficult at all.
This section is about offers which are ambiguous as to the method of acceptance. I do not think that either of my examples were ambiguous.
1. The Restatement is not law. 2. See also, Section 45 -- Option Contract Created by Part Performance or Tender 3. Have a look at the official comments to the referenced sections. 4. Google, "unilateral contract"
Most nice guys in high political offices are seen as "soft in the head" but it's silly in light of his accomplishments to this day to think he doesn't know that presidents don't get 3 terms.
Are you sure? He pronounces "nuclear" as "nucular" and we all know that is a clear sign of idiocy.
Slashdot Mirror
What's news is that someone expects respondants in a self-reporting survey to honest answer questions about possible illegal activity.
RMS spouting bullshit?!?!?!? Someone alert the media!
If it didn't work that way, it would be a bug that caused a crash, not arbitrary code execution, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Not every vulnerability that leads to code execution is deliberate, is it? Without looking at the source, how can anyone claim to be certain this is deliberate?
Paraniod speculation. Much like the current story.
Actually, Gibson is saying he doesn't know if previous versions are exploitable or not. In fact he's counting on not, since that's the only way to determine when the "backdoor" was inserted. Gibson is a bomb thrower. There's no evidence other than his opinion that this is a deliberate backdoor.
Actually, it's pretty well known that that isn't what happened at all.
An analogy would be if I bought a book from Amazon. I'd fully expect them to keep records that I bought it. I would not expect them to have a database of every time I picked the book up and read it, though--that would just be creepy.
They also keep records of what you've searched for, what you've looked at, what you haven't bought, what's on your wishlist, etc.
Frankly I don't see how this is news. I rarely use iTunes, or the music store, but I've always just assumed that it would do this.
they're entitled to assume it will not contain anything they need to know about unless their attention is drawn to it
And in your mind, calling it "README" doesn't count as drawing their attention?
I think it would have been cooler if he had restored the old paint job, and used the original earpiece. As it is, it's just an interesting shaped box.
Who cares if the people making the nominations don't get to see the movie, since when are these awards handed out for the content anyway? The movie will get nominated anyway because of the buzz, and Spielberg.
Your .sig makes no sense. And it would make the same lack of sense if you substituted "Bob" for "God".
I'd argue that in this day and age it is their responsibility to conceal from satellites anything they don't want to be seen, otherwise it's fair game.
Fortunately, I don't think "they" care much what you'd argue. Are you going to decide what methods of concealment they use too? What if they want to conceal it by pointing a really bright LASER at your imager? Or maybe, they want to conceal it by sending a couple of MIBs to "eliminate" the problem? Any of those alternatives are much simpler than putting a tent over an airforce base.
They cover changing out hardware and preventing leaks in their article. You may consider reading it next time. :)
Maybe he didn't want to wade through 11 pages of ads, to read one page worth of text? Has Tom ever heard of thumbnails?
Like any other internet legislation
You mean like any other US legislation.
If you had RTFA first, you would have known that it isn't the cell companies selling the data, and in many cases it is being sold out the back door by dishonest employees.
So really, the problem with this for me is that I don't see the two "alternatives" as being different, but as I'm not a lawcritter I could be missing a somewhat subtle distinction here.
Just because the two alternatives have some premises in common doesn't mean they aren't different, since they also have some premises not in common.
example: A can be charged with the murder of B on the alternate theories that 1) A killed B with intent, or if he didn't have intent, then 2) A killed B by acting in a reckless manner exhibiting indifference to the value of human life. These are both valid alternate theories of the crime of B's murder by A. A can defend against the theories seperately by attacking their seperate premises ("A didn't have intent, nor was A reckless"), or he can defend against them together by attacking the common premise ("A didn't kill B"), or he can do both. Same thing here.
...or providing reliable information.
-- I was pissed! Anyway, check out the knee defender.
Wow, what a perfect product for assholes! I like that they have a card that you can give to the passenger in front of you, whose flight you just ruined. I like even more that the card instructs the other passenger to complain to the airline! Yeah, I'll complain to the airline, about you. If you have a problem with the seat spacing, then you complain to the airline. Don't interfere with my ability to recline my seat. Instead of buying $15 seat chocks, pissing off the passenger in front of you, and then giving him a card explaining why he should be pissed off at someone else, why not just ask him nicely to be considerate of your knees?
-- from someone who knows a lot more than the Canton reporter ;)
But choses to post AC.
I'm an anarchocapitalist, and I hate knowing that DNS will likely be the control system our governments user to censor the information out there. I'm constantly trying to find theories in how we could use the Internet without central regulation (such as DNS), and I feel that networks are becoming more and more transparent to domain names as time goes on.
Do you have any idea how DNS works? Do you know what alternative roots are? DO you use them?
At least around here, toll roads are built using money from the sale of bonds [i]backed up[/i] by public funds. IOW, public funds don't pay for much of anything unless the toll authority defaults. The bonds are repaid from the tolls. This serves both to shortcut the funding process and to shift the burden from the general population to those who actually use the road.
Not objecting to something is not the same as being a proponent of that something.
It depends on what you mean by "prove". In this context, it just means you have to convince a jury. If the owner of the computer says he didn't click it, and the jury doesn't believe him, you've sufficiently proved it. It might be difficult to prove who clicked the mouse on a public kiosk, but on a computer in your house? Not very difficult at all.
Partial performance may fall under promissory estoppel
l , specifically Restatement (Second) Section 32 -- Invitation of Promise or Performance.
Yes, and promissory estoppel is a non-contract remedy.
Starting the work proposed by the offeror indicates acceptance of contract, and failure to complete would be breach of contract
Sometimes, in some jurisdictions. In others, beginning performance simply makes the offer irrevocable.
See http://www.law.unlv.edu/faculty/bam/k2000/r2k.htm
This section is about offers which are ambiguous as to the method of acceptance. I do not think that either of my examples were ambiguous.
1. The Restatement is not law.
2. See also, Section 45 -- Option Contract Created by Part Performance or Tender
3. Have a look at the official comments to the referenced sections.
4. Google, "unilateral contract"
Most nice guys in high political offices are seen as "soft in the head" but it's silly in light of his accomplishments to this day to think he doesn't know that presidents don't get 3 terms.
Are you sure? He pronounces "nuclear" as "nucular" and we all know that is a clear sign of idiocy.