The problem isn't that UCITA gives software makers sweeping powers to do this or that. The real problem is that it treats the shrinkwrap/clickware contract as an actual contract. You can specify many things in actual contracts. For example, "You can not say bad things about X" or "You will give us $100 every time you use this product". Don't like it? Don't use the product. Of course this is wrong, but it's also now law. Yay! Our lawmakers should come with point-of-sale terminals, so that buying them is more convenient.
It's likely that the numbers read aloud were meant to apply to a one-time pad carried by agents in the field. There are obviously some issues, though. For example, if agents are composing communiques, how do they synchronize such that the stream is meaningful? Do they just use a sliding window when decoding, to find which part of the OTP stream gives English? Did they have neat toys to make xor-like operations less tedious? (I think that James Bamford's The Puzzle Palace mentioned some kind of square biscuit-thing used by a Soviet-controlled British agent) Of course, it's not a problem that can be solved without some insider helping.
Ok, so first, the EU enacts privacy laws that do a good job of protecting the privacy of citizens. Then, it sets crypto free, which also helps with the first goal, making sure that information that is transferred is secure.
Meanwhile, the US goes on with its laissez faire "privacy" laws (feel free to collect anything you want, and to cross-correlated to your heart's content). Furthermore, we have these lame crypto export restrictions, making secure interoperability on the Internet difficult.
Can anyone call the United States the "Land of the Free" without a touch of sarcasm?
I would imagine the server decides (or specifies in the policy) what happens if you refuse one of its requests, but it doesn't have to be complete denial of entry. Sure, the server decides. Still, for the website creator, there's often a "fast" implementation before a "right" one. Often the one that only works for MSIE or that requires javascript or P3P or something else, because it's expedient. It happens.
Want to see the future abuses of P3P? Look at the present situation with javascript. Try turning javascript off. You'll do pretty well on many sites, but I guarantee you'll run into a site (depending on what you need to do) that requires javascript. They provide helpful "instructions" on how to view the site: "Pull down your pants and try again!" Gee, thanks.
I'm sure that big companies and other marketing hellholes will check personal information (personal bet: javascript will allow you to check whether or not the user would need to be prompted for certain personal information). At some point, one of these dilbertoid winners is going to figure out that people are "surfing our site anonymously"! "Can we stop this?", it will ask. (wheels turn) Yeah, we can just redirect them, if they don't have P3P set to promiscuous mode.
Thank ghod for that. I think the best thing that could happen would be for this virus writer to get off scot free. Why? Because after the media's done pissing and moaning about it, people will realize that the only way to protect yourself is to give a rat's ass about security. Right now, I get the feeling that the law is a bit of a crutch for people.
This is the same as putting an icon on the desktop that reformats your hard drive. Of course an educated user wouldn't slip and accidentally click on that little icon you can't delete, would they? You never know when you'll spaz and at that moment, you're as "dumb" as the rest of "them". That's the first fruit of Microsoft's freedom to innovate: the icon on the desktop that reformats your drive, or the link in Outlook that trashes your machine.
Yes, but the bug facilitated this damage, in the same way that having oxygen in the atmosphere facilitated World War II. If the oxygen wasn't there, or if this "feature" didn't exist, the malicious author would require help from other quarters ("I breathe CO2!" or "Hey, look, smtp in NT has a buffer overflow problem!"). The thing is, this is the one people use because it's so amazingly easy. It's like fighting World War II when your side has hand-held disintegrators. When you make it this easy, I think that assigning responsibility to that facilitator is reasonable.
Re:I hate to be the one to break this to you...
on
The Eroded Self
·
· Score: 1
I've got to say, I agree with you, but I'm also very happy that dissenters aren't censored. For an example of how oppressive this can be, check out just about any corporate site, or something like Freevibe. Want to express a different point of view? Good luck getting past the editors...
Just watch for mutating licenses
on
Who Owns Dmoz?
·
· Score: 2
If you're looking for examples of how something open can turn into something closed, just check the whole CDDB mess. Mirrors and a GNU license aren't enough to protect you when suits get in the way.
Just keep an eye on the licensing terms. If they start to mutate to the point where you think there should be a schism, take the last good version and set out on your own. But until that happens, why not follow the leader?
When combined with a broadband cellular connection, the only thing missing from the wearable computing experience is a good output device. Most display devices I've seen are either confusing or blinding.
Voice recognition can be done by server-side DSPs on the other end of the "phone". In the U.S., the real problem is that broadband phones aren't here, while the infrastructure's already in place in Europe and Asia. Sure, you can get the occasional high-speed wireless solution, but you can't roam the countryside with it. Why? Because.
L. Ron Hubbard's "legacy" is an interest example of the weirdness of the human mind. Want more? Check out The Kooks' Museum, Donny Kossy's excellent look into the minds of the truly weird.
The amazing Duron(tm) non-stick processor. So hot you can fry an egg on it! And its patented non-stick coating means no scraping and easy cleaning.
The product namespace is getting so crowded that we're eventually going to end up driving Dodge Urethras and using computers with the new Pederast Pro processor.
Police a "protective layer between the citizenry and judges"?????
... They let people off with a warning regardless of the eventual sentence they would get, probably to avoid their paperwork.
You answered your own question about what I meant here. Judges can theoretically set aside sentences, too, but they generally don't. I simply meant that police are occasionally a firebreak between "I did something bad" and "I'm going to jail".
I don't have any special love for or trust of cops, but I think you see what I mean, at least.
A combination of mandatory minimums and these roving judges could make our lead in per-capita imprisoning even more solid. Right now, the police act as a protective layer between the citizenry and judges. "Throw out the joint, buddy, and I won't bust you."
Unfortunately, this sort of leniency gives police too much power, but eliminating the police as a stop-gap means everyone will get screwed.
Judges aren't about forgiveness, they're about ensuring that laws are enforced. Who would want a roving judge and jury posse? It smacks of the Convenient Police State.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem isn't that UCITA gives software makers sweeping powers to do this or that. The real problem is that it treats the shrinkwrap/clickware contract as an actual contract. You can specify many things in actual contracts. For example, "You can not say bad things about X" or "You will give us $100 every time you use this product". Don't like it? Don't use the product. Of course this is wrong, but it's also now law. Yay! Our lawmakers should come with point-of-sale terminals, so that buying them is more convenient.
It's likely that the numbers read aloud were meant to apply to a one-time pad carried by agents in the field. There are obviously some issues, though. For example, if agents are composing communiques, how do they synchronize such that the stream is meaningful? Do they just use a sliding window when decoding, to find which part of the OTP stream gives English? Did they have neat toys to make xor-like operations less tedious? (I think that James Bamford's The Puzzle Palace mentioned some kind of square biscuit-thing used by a Soviet-controlled British agent) Of course, it's not a problem that can be solved without some insider helping.
Ok, so first, the EU enacts privacy laws that do a good job of protecting the privacy of citizens. Then, it sets crypto free, which also helps with the first goal, making sure that information that is transferred is secure.
Meanwhile, the US goes on with its laissez faire "privacy" laws (feel free to collect anything you want, and to cross-correlated to your heart's content). Furthermore, we have these lame crypto export restrictions, making secure interoperability on the Internet difficult.
Can anyone call the United States the "Land of the Free" without a touch of sarcasm?
I would imagine the server decides (or specifies in the policy) what happens if you refuse one of its requests, but it doesn't have to be complete denial of entry.
Sure, the server decides. Still, for the website creator, there's often a "fast" implementation before a "right" one. Often the one that only works for MSIE or that requires javascript or P3P or something else, because it's expedient. It happens.
Want to see the future abuses of P3P? Look at the present situation with javascript. Try turning javascript off. You'll do pretty well on many sites, but I guarantee you'll run into a site (depending on what you need to do) that requires javascript. They provide helpful "instructions" on how to view the site: "Pull down your pants and try again!" Gee, thanks.
I'm sure that big companies and other marketing hellholes will check personal information (personal bet: javascript will allow you to check whether or not the user would need to be prompted for certain personal information). At some point, one of these dilbertoid winners is going to figure out that people are "surfing our site anonymously"! "Can we stop this?", it will ask. (wheels turn) Yeah, we can just redirect them, if they don't have P3P set to promiscuous mode.
According to the cnet article, they banned 317,377 users. By phreak-speak, at least, if Napster's not 31337 (eleet), at least they're eltett .
...Phillipino laws don't cover virus writing.
Thank ghod for that. I think the best thing that could happen would be for this virus writer to get off scot free. Why? Because after the media's done pissing and moaning about it, people will realize that the only way to protect yourself is to give a rat's ass about security. Right now, I get the feeling that the law is a bit of a crutch for people.
If you want "timely" and "open", just require that all code under development be posted on a daily basis to a website or a public cvs tree.
This is the same as putting an icon on the desktop that reformats your hard drive. Of course an educated user wouldn't slip and accidentally click on that little icon you can't delete, would they? You never know when you'll spaz and at that moment, you're as "dumb" as the rest of "them". That's the first fruit of Microsoft's freedom to innovate: the icon on the desktop that reformats your drive, or the link in Outlook that trashes your machine.
Yes, but the bug facilitated this damage, in the same way that having oxygen in the atmosphere facilitated World War II. If the oxygen wasn't there, or if this "feature" didn't exist, the malicious author would require help from other quarters ("I breathe CO2!" or "Hey, look, smtp in NT has a buffer overflow problem!"). The thing is, this is the one people use because it's so amazingly easy. It's like fighting World War II when your side has hand-held disintegrators. When you make it this easy, I think that assigning responsibility to that facilitator is reasonable.
I've got to say, I agree with you, but I'm also very happy that dissenters aren't censored. For an example of how oppressive this can be, check out just about any corporate site, or something like Freevibe. Want to express a different point of view? Good luck getting past the editors...
If you're looking for examples of how something open can turn into something closed, just check the whole CDDB mess. Mirrors and a GNU license aren't enough to protect you when suits get in the way.
Just keep an eye on the licensing terms. If they start to mutate to the point where you think there should be a schism, take the last good version and set out on your own. But until that happens, why not follow the leader?
When combined with a broadband cellular connection, the only thing missing from the wearable computing experience is a good output device. Most display devices I've seen are either confusing or blinding.
Voice recognition can be done by server-side DSPs on the other end of the "phone". In the U.S., the real problem is that broadband phones aren't here, while the infrastructure's already in place in Europe and Asia. Sure, you can get the occasional high-speed wireless solution, but you can't roam the countryside with it. Why? Because.
If you have some time and are curious about Scientology, the following are interesting:
A Piece of Blue Sky and Lonesome Squirrel.
L. Ron Hubbard's "legacy" is an interest example of the weirdness of the human mind. Want more? Check out The Kooks' Museum, Donny Kossy's excellent look into the minds of the truly weird.
Yeah, but Thunderbird doesn't really offer that much, when compared against AMD's next two offerings, Ripple and Night Train .
The amazing Duron (tm) non-stick processor. So hot you can fry an egg on it! And its patented non-stick coating means no scraping and easy cleaning.
The product namespace is getting so crowded that we're eventually going to end up driving Dodge Urethras and using computers with the new Pederast Pro processor.
Police a "protective layer between the citizenry and judges"?????
...
They let people off with a warning regardless of the eventual sentence they would get, probably to avoid their paperwork.
You answered your own question about what I meant here. Judges can theoretically set aside sentences, too, but they generally don't. I simply meant that police are occasionally a firebreak between "I did something bad" and "I'm going to jail".
I don't have any special love for or trust of cops, but I think you see what I mean, at least.
A combination of mandatory minimums and these roving judges could make our lead in per-capita imprisoning even more solid. Right now, the police act as a protective layer between the citizenry and judges. "Throw out the joint, buddy, and I won't bust you."
Unfortunately, this sort of leniency gives police too much power, but eliminating the police as a stop-gap means everyone will get screwed.
Judges aren't about forgiveness, they're about ensuring that laws are enforced. Who would want a roving judge and jury posse? It smacks of the Convenient Police State.