No, it isn't really a problem, because you have the option of returning the item if you don't agree to the terms inside the packaging. If you don't have that option, then the terms aren't binding.
What about someone who calls advice, advise? Or someone who writes "payed." I guess if we value posts based on the lack of spelling errors, there wouldn't be much worth reading here.
Re:Yay, covers the most overlooked parts of securi
on
The CISO Handbook
·
· Score: 1
Except that Art of Deception reads like a children's book. I doubt it would hold any executive's attention for long. I had to force myself to get through it, and I was actually interested in what Mitkin had to say.
The Libertarian candidate, OTOH, was commited to ending the War, cutting spending, and balancing the budget.
The LP presidential candidate in 2004 is an A1 Whack Job, and yes, I am basing that on personal conversations with him. His plan to end the war was somthing like, put all the GI's on a plane and bring them home. Who gives a fuck what happens next?
Cutting spending? All federal agencies go away, immediately. What do you mean unemployement just went off the charts? What charts?
I made the "petty" decision in '04 not to vote for a Whack Job.
Most libertarians have a bit more common sense than the LP. The LP platform is the definition of lunacy. 100% porous borders is an awesome idea. Not.
Talk to me when the LP wakes up to reality, and then again, when they actually come up with a transition plan that doesn't crater the world economy.
What makes the movies bad? Moments that are "Cringe-worthy" - yelling "Yippee!" for example.
Is "Yippee!" really that different than "Yahoo!" from A New Hope?
All the Star Wars movies had lame plots. They're all sappy novelas. People got way to cranked up about the second trillogy and were disappointed. Most of those people have never seen the original original trilogy (not the remanufactured original triolgy) on the big screen.
If MS Office uses shared API's, and OO doesn't, why should that count against MS Office? A tradeoff that OO makes to ensure portability should go in the - column. Portability should go in + column, and may or may not make up for it, but you shouldn't just call it a wash.
Re:"Ma Bell" should be called "Big Brother" instea
on
Ma Bell is Back
·
· Score: 1
I suggest that if there is anyone who does not want the police to come to your door at their whim
But it wasn't a "whim", you told us why they came.
claiming to have received an emergency call
Are you asserting that they did not receive such a call? You even gave us a technical explanation of how it may have happened.
and demanding to come in and do a warrantless search
So, when someone calls 911, you expect the police to stop on the way and get a warrant?
that you also have your telephone lines disconnected.
If they are really out to get you, so you think it will matter that you don't have a working phone?
My wife and I now have an excellent cellular telephone plan now that's actually cheaper than what we were paying to SBC.
You could have left out the whole first part of you post, and just posted this.
Re:"Ma Bell" should be called "Big Brother" instea
on
Ma Bell is Back
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The officer who claimed they didn't need a warrant was either grossly mistaken or lying through his teeth. Either one is indicative of the gradual failure of rights protection in the US.
The Register concludes that because Sun hasn't publicly announced any customer, that there aren't any. But, they based their conclusion on a false premise. Just because the standard agreement for this service contains a publicity clause, doesn't mean that it will remain in whatever contract is actually executed. If $customer came to Sun and said they wanted to use your service, only if they would strike the publicity clause from the contract, Sun may have been willing.
Once one of the parties is known, the cat's out of the bag. If a known terrorist is exchanging a bunch of encrypted VoIP (or a bunch of anything) with Joe and Bob, then we can guess that Joe and Bob are accomplices. Based on information we can gather about Joe and Bob (Joe is a pilot and Bob makes bombs) we can even begin to guess at the plan. Oh, look, Bob just took a trip to Sudan, maybe we should have customs stop him on the way back and check his luggage. Look, they found bomb making supplies!
Should an individual have the legal right to secretly break into another individual's computer or phone network and conduct a search or seizure of data? Does an individual have a moral right to do such a thing?
In an anarchist "natural rights" sense, yes, the individual has the right to do whatever he needs to do to protect himself. Even if that means searching your home. Absent a government or court system, what is the moral difference between him searching your home with or without your knowledge?
If not, then exactly what moral justification does an individual use to delegate that "right" to government? Does the process of democracy legitimize that "right"?
The individual (along with everyone else) delegates that right to government, so that government may fulfil the function of enforcing laws and protecting its citizens (also delegated from individuals).
Should government be allowed to enter and search your home without your permission, and without your knowledge? Without a court order? Why or why not? (If anyone wasn't aware, the "patriot act" provides government with exactly that power.)
The PATRIOT Act does no such thing. "Sneak and Peek" warrants have been around since at least the 1980's. The PATRIOT Act simply codified the requirements in statute.
Holy crap. Must these trolls appear in every article remotely related to DNS posting anti-American bullshit? Control of the . zone is not remotely like "control of the net."
They were installed by union electricians. If they designed the system in such a way that it was nearly maintenence free, they would be cutting off all of the union electricians who would otherwise be hired to maintain it.
No more than your comment. In fact, that's my point. You make ASSumptions that you have no basis to make, and then you draw conslusions from them. You'd be much safer assuming that publishers know more about publishing than you do, than assuming the opposite. But since you're a programmer, you only think in terms of strict logic, and the logic of this doesn't appeal to you. However, that is just because your premises are wrong.
But I don't expect you to take my word for it. That was the other point of my post.
I wonder how long it will be before the publishers realize that Google (like paper libraries before them) are really doing the publishers a favor. I've bought a whole lot of books in my life, and I'd guess about half of them I read in whole or in part at a library before I bought them.
I wonder how long it will be before the population of/. realizes that the people running $industry know more about what is good and bad for $industry than they do.
Actually, they're key to the debate. Most people don't know about the root, and DNS (and the internet) works despite that. Any change to DNS that's going to work needs to factor that in. That means the control of ICANN is much more relevant and important than just setting up an alt-root or two - without changing ICANN, effectively nothing changes on a global scale because most people won't switch because of ignorance or inertia. Things not changing pisses off many of the governments of the 95% of the world that doesn't live in the US. That leads to more radical options, like a split root and mandatory assignment to a new one by governments, which would be extremely messy for all concerned.
So, it boils down to:
--The current system is not broken, so we must come up with a new system that is equally not broken. --The people who actually use the Internet are almost all happy with the status quo, so we need governments to change it. --The UN hasn't gotten anything right up until now, so let's give them something really, really, important.
I don't give a flip what the EU ministers think we should do with the Internet. I'll be more likely to care when the big ISPs get behind transplanting the root
If the President of the US were an elected dictator ruling by fiat, then I would not be worrying about who had root on the root.
If I were one of the naive millions who still thinks that the UN can accomplish jack shit, and I gave a rat's ass what Iran thinks about anything, I still think I'd have more important things to worry about.
I think that it's really sad that the UN will likely be more succesful in convincing the US to give up control of "." (it will happen evetually), than they will be in convincing NoKor or Iran into giving up Nukes, or in convincing China to stop crushing its citizens under tanks. The fact that so much effort is being devoted to this is just another great example of how irretrievably useless a body the UN is.
The discussion of incompetant DNS administrators is besides the point. Anyone who wants out of the ICANN root can get out today. Anyone who doesn't want out (because either they like the current system, don't care, or don't know any better) is irrelevant to this debate.
Currently, the US department of commerce can tell ICANN who gets to host ccTLD's. So any country's entire DNS system - for example, the.iq domain for iraq - can be arbitrarily turned off or assigned to a new registrar. And there's nothing that country can do about it. Haiti had to wait 2 years to get its domain assigned to the registrar of its choice, for example.
And this situation won't change just because you replace ICANN with some other keeper of the root. You still must have one root, and that means one entity that decides who is in and who is out. If someone were proposing a technologically feasible method whereby.iq could go to whomever the government (which one?) of Iraq chose without an intermediary, but that isn't the case. The current argument is along the lines of, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss." And if you think the EU, UN, US DoC or any other government bureacracy is any more or less likely to fuck things up, then you haven't been paying attention for very long.
The problem with the alternative roots is that software makers like microsoft only support the 'official' ICANN system out of the box.
Do you mean in clients or servers? The DNS client doesn't know anything about roots, and just queries whatever server it's pointed at. A DNS server (even Windows) can trivially be configured to point at any root. Anyone running a DNS server who doesn't know how to modify root.hints should be banned from the Internet on principle.
Of course - and that's exactly what the EU and UN might end up doing if they can't get agreement from the US.
Do the EU and the UN run an awfull lot of nameservers for use by others? I'm thinking no. This isn't a government issue. If you want to get DNS delegated from someone other than ICANN, set up your own DNS server and point it at one of the alternative roots, or talk to your ISP.
Imagine if the US DoC decided that France was generally a bad idea (for example), and instructed ICANN to stop resolving.fr for a while.
ICANN does not actually run the servers (OK, they run one of 13) that serve the zone file, they just publish the file. If ICANN did something like delete the NS entries for.fr, I'm sure none of the root operators (who actually serve the zone) would accept it.
Anarchy and DNS are incompatible. You must have a single root, or it will not work. There is no compromise around that. Have a look at the history of.biz for an illustration.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it isn't.
No, it isn't really a problem, because you have the option of returning the item if you don't agree to the terms inside the packaging. If you don't have that option, then the terms aren't binding.
What about someone who calls advice, advise? Or someone who writes "payed." I guess if we value posts based on the lack of spelling errors, there wouldn't be much worth reading here.
Except that Art of Deception reads like a children's book. I doubt it would hold any executive's attention for long. I had to force myself to get through it, and I was actually interested in what Mitkin had to say.
The Libertarian candidate, OTOH, was commited to ending the War, cutting spending, and balancing the budget.
The LP presidential candidate in 2004 is an A1 Whack Job, and yes, I am basing that on personal conversations with him. His plan to end the war was somthing like, put all the GI's on a plane and bring them home. Who gives a fuck what happens next?
Cutting spending? All federal agencies go away, immediately. What do you mean unemployement just went off the charts? What charts?
I made the "petty" decision in '04 not to vote for a Whack Job.
Most libertarians have a bit more common sense than the LP. The LP platform is the definition of lunacy. 100% porous borders is an awesome idea. Not.
Talk to me when the LP wakes up to reality, and then again, when they actually come up with a transition plan that doesn't crater the world economy.
What makes the movies bad? Moments that are "Cringe-worthy" - yelling "Yippee!" for example.
Is "Yippee!" really that different than "Yahoo!" from A New Hope?
All the Star Wars movies had lame plots. They're all sappy novelas. People got way to cranked up about the second trillogy and were disappointed. Most of those people have never seen the original original trilogy (not the remanufactured original triolgy) on the big screen.
Sharks are absolutely fish, in the class Chondrichthyes, AKA cartilage-fish.
If MS Office uses shared API's, and OO doesn't, why should that count against MS Office? A tradeoff that OO makes to ensure portability should go in the - column. Portability should go in + column, and may or may not make up for it, but you shouldn't just call it a wash.
I suggest that if there is anyone who does not want the police to come to your door at their whim
But it wasn't a "whim", you told us why they came.
claiming to have received an emergency call
Are you asserting that they did not receive such a call? You even gave us a technical explanation of how it may have happened.
and demanding to come in and do a warrantless search
So, when someone calls 911, you expect the police to stop on the way and get a warrant?
that you also have your telephone lines disconnected.
If they are really out to get you, so you think it will matter that you don't have a working phone?
My wife and I now have an excellent cellular telephone plan now that's actually cheaper than what we were paying to SBC.
You could have left out the whole first part of you post, and just posted this.
The officer who claimed they didn't need a warrant was either grossly mistaken or lying through his teeth. Either one is indicative of the gradual failure of rights protection in the US.
Google "exigent circumstances".
HAND.
The Register concludes that because Sun hasn't publicly announced any customer, that there aren't any. But, they based their conclusion on a false premise. Just because the standard agreement for this service contains a publicity clause, doesn't mean that it will remain in whatever contract is actually executed. If $customer came to Sun and said they wanted to use your service, only if they would strike the publicity clause from the contract, Sun may have been willing.
Once one of the parties is known, the cat's out of the bag. If a known terrorist is exchanging a bunch of encrypted VoIP (or a bunch of anything) with Joe and Bob, then we can guess that Joe and Bob are accomplices. Based on information we can gather about Joe and Bob (Joe is a pilot and Bob makes bombs) we can even begin to guess at the plan. Oh, look, Bob just took a trip to Sudan, maybe we should have customs stop him on the way back and check his luggage. Look, they found bomb making supplies!
Traffic analysis is actually very useful.
Should an individual have the legal right to secretly break into another individual's computer or phone network and conduct a search or seizure of data? Does an individual have a moral right to do such a thing?
In an anarchist "natural rights" sense, yes, the individual has the right to do whatever he needs to do to protect himself. Even if that means searching your home. Absent a government or court system, what is the moral difference between him searching your home with or without your knowledge?
If not, then exactly what moral justification does an individual use to delegate that "right" to government? Does the process of democracy legitimize that "right"?
The individual (along with everyone else) delegates that right to government, so that government may fulfil the function of enforcing laws and protecting its citizens (also delegated from individuals).
Should government be allowed to enter and search your home without your permission, and without your knowledge? Without a court order? Why or why not? (If anyone wasn't aware, the "patriot act" provides government with exactly that power.)
The PATRIOT Act does no such thing. "Sneak and Peek" warrants have been around since at least the 1980's. The PATRIOT Act simply codified the requirements in statute.
Holy crap. Must these trolls appear in every article remotely related to DNS posting anti-American bullshit? Control of the . zone is not remotely like "control of the net."
They were installed by union electricians. If they designed the system in such a way that it was nearly maintenence free, they would be cutting off all of the union electricians who would otherwise be hired to maintain it.
No more than your comment. In fact, that's my point. You make ASSumptions that you have no basis to make, and then you draw conslusions from them. You'd be much safer assuming that publishers know more about publishing than you do, than assuming the opposite. But since you're a programmer, you only think in terms of strict logic, and the logic of this doesn't appeal to you. However, that is just because your premises are wrong.
But I don't expect you to take my word for it. That was the other point of my post.
I wonder how long it will be before the publishers realize that Google (like paper libraries before them) are really doing the publishers a favor. I've bought a whole lot of books in my life, and I'd guess about half of them I read in whole or in part at a library before I bought them.
/. realizes that the people running $industry know more about what is good and bad for $industry than they do.
I wonder how long it will be before the population of
Actually, they're key to the debate. Most people don't know about the root, and DNS (and the internet) works despite that. Any change to DNS that's going to work needs to factor that in. That means the control of ICANN is much more relevant and important than just setting up an alt-root or two - without changing ICANN, effectively nothing changes on a global scale because most people won't switch because of ignorance or inertia. Things not changing pisses off many of the governments of the 95% of the world that doesn't live in the US. That leads to more radical options, like a split root and mandatory assignment to a new one by governments, which would be extremely messy for all concerned.
So, it boils down to:
--The current system is not broken, so we must come up with a new system that is equally not broken.
--The people who actually use the Internet are almost all happy with the status quo, so we need governments to change it.
--The UN hasn't gotten anything right up until now, so let's give them something really, really, important.
I don't give a flip what the EU ministers think we should do with the Internet. I'll be more likely to care when the big ISPs get behind transplanting the root
If the President of the US were an elected dictator ruling by fiat, then I would not be worrying about who had root on the root.
If I were one of the naive millions who still thinks that the UN can accomplish jack shit, and I gave a rat's ass what Iran thinks about anything, I still think I'd have more important things to worry about.
I think that it's really sad that the UN will likely be more succesful in convincing the US to give up control of "." (it will happen evetually), than they will be in convincing NoKor or Iran into giving up Nukes, or in convincing China to stop crushing its citizens under tanks. The fact that so much effort is being devoted to this is just another great example of how irretrievably useless a body the UN is.
The discussion of incompetant DNS administrators is besides the point. Anyone who wants out of the ICANN root can get out today. Anyone who doesn't want out (because either they like the current system, don't care, or don't know any better) is irrelevant to this debate.
Currently, the US department of commerce can tell ICANN who gets to host ccTLD's. So any country's entire DNS system - for example, the .iq domain for iraq - can be arbitrarily turned off or assigned to a new registrar. And there's nothing that country can do about it. Haiti had to wait 2 years to get its domain assigned to the registrar of its choice, for example.
.iq could go to whomever the government (which one?) of Iraq chose without an intermediary, but that isn't the case. The current argument is along the lines of, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss." And if you think the EU, UN, US DoC or any other government bureacracy is any more or less likely to fuck things up, then you haven't been paying attention for very long.
And this situation won't change just because you replace ICANN with some other keeper of the root. You still must have one root, and that means one entity that decides who is in and who is out. If someone were proposing a technologically feasible method whereby
The problem with the alternative roots is that software makers like microsoft only support the 'official' ICANN system out of the box.
Do you mean in clients or servers? The DNS client doesn't know anything about roots, and just queries whatever server it's pointed at. A DNS server (even Windows) can trivially be configured to point at any root. Anyone running a DNS server who doesn't know how to modify root.hints should be banned from the Internet on principle.
Of course - and that's exactly what the EU and UN might end up doing if they can't get agreement from the US.
Do the EU and the UN run an awfull lot of nameservers for use by others? I'm thinking no. This isn't a government issue. If you want to get DNS delegated from someone other than ICANN, set up your own DNS server and point it at one of the alternative roots, or talk to your ISP.
Imagine if the US DoC decided that France was generally a bad idea (for example), and instructed ICANN to stop resolving .fr for a while.
.fr, I'm sure none of the root operators (who actually serve the zone) would accept it.
ICANN does not actually run the servers (OK, they run one of 13) that serve the zone file, they just publish the file. If ICANN did something like delete the NS entries for
Anarchy and DNS are incompatible. You must have a single root, or it will not work. There is no compromise around that. Have a look at the history of .biz for an illustration.
What? When was Michael Moore censored?
What's with the creationism trolls?