Microsoft makes a good bit of money selling software to people who make software, I wouldn't make any strong assumptions about what they would lobby for.
And in the EULA for their development products is a clause stating you cannot use it to develop anything remotely resembling an office suite, or anything resembling an operating system.
Don't know whether it's still there or not, but it was for a long time.
So..."Go ahead and develop software, but if you dare to compete with us....."
I'm not talking about those robotic driving challenges. They'd actually be harder than a driver's test.
Think about it: A driving test requires you to follow simple directions while not crashing into anything. They won't ask you to do anything dangerous, illegal, or stupid.
DARPA challenge requires the robot to plan it's route, negotiate around obstacles, figure out what's dangerous and what isn't, and act accordingly, all the while trying to make good time.
The first is easy for a computer program. The hell as if I could write a program to do the second, but an awful lot of human drivers can't do it, either, so I don't feel so bad about my programming skills...
.....make it a federal felony to use your blog, social media like MySpace and Facebook, or any other Web media 'to cause substantial emotional distress through "severe, repeated, and hostile" speech.' Rep. Sanchez and colleagues want to make it easier to prosecute any objectionable speech.....
Rep. Sanchez is a dick. Rep. Sanchez is a dick. Rep. Sanchez is a dick. Rep. Sanchez is a dick. Rep. Sanchez is a dick. Rep. Sanchez is a dick. Rep. Sanchez is a dick. Rep. Sanchez is a dick. Rep. Sanchez is a dick. Rep. Sanchez is a dick. Rep. Sanchez is a dick. Rep. Sanchez is a dick. Rep. Sanchez is a dick. Rep. Sanchez is a dick. Rep. Sanchez is a dick. Rep. Sanchez is a dick. Rep. Sanchez is a dick.
Hostile enough for ya?
(Apparently,/. filters already limit repeated speech, as I need to add a bunch of crap in to get past the "postercomment compression filter", whatever the hell that is. So/. is a giant government conspiracy, implementing constitution-destroying legislation before it's even proposed....)
However, licensing software developers probably isn't it. At least, not in the fscked up way any political body would inevitably do it.
If I write a small shell script for my computer to do backups automatically, do I need a licence? Do I need a licence if I give that same script to a friend to use? Selling commercial software, certainly should require a licence, if it came to that. But inevitably MS and other big players would lobby, and provide "valuable input" to the drafting of any such legislation, making the cost of licencing flat across the industry, so the $1,000,000+ a year fee would be peanuts for the established players, but completely shut out startups and small companies.
How about this:
There are plenty of people who can do everything right, follow every best practices guide, and lock down everything practical. But they can still get pwned, due to some unknown security hole in some piece of software they use.
So, we let people do whatever they want, as that's the whole beauty of the Internet. But, if you have 8 million records compromised, you'd better be damned sure you were following best practices. If you weren't, you should be financially liable for anything that comes from the breach.
If you were following best practices, and can prove it, then the software vendor that had the security hole should be financially liable for at least part of what happens. Unless they can show you were using their software for something not recommended, or in an improper manner, in which case it comes back to you again.
That would probably have the effect of reducing some of the "This software is not recommended for any purpose. If you use it at all, it's on your own head," type of EULAs, too. If it came down to this, some people (not all, as there are still idiots) would avoid software which was not recommended for anything, and start paying more attention to the fine print, rather than the advertising BS.
When it's your ass that's on the line, you can't get away with "Nobody got fired for buying Microsoft."
Would this lead to a lot of finger pointing, and nothing being done? It could, if not done properly. And there would always be the situations where nobody could figure out how the breach occurred, so there's no way to tell who's responsible. But this isn't any worse than what we've got now, and it's the worst case scenario.
The very rich buy things from the sorta rich (because other sorta-rich can't afford it) and the sorta-rich buy things from the somewhat-rich, and everyone gets money from ($tier+1) and spends money at ($tier-1).
If that were true, the top tier of very rich would have noone to buy things from them, therefore rapidly becoming the bottom tier.
This obviously doesn't happen. The rich get richer, and the sorta rich have to buy things from the very rich more than the other way around.
I don't understand this hate towards rich people who run 'successful' companies. Direct your hate towards those who lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want- for example, all politicians.
There isn't enough hate to go around for all the politicians in the world.
But as for the hate towards the rich people who run successful companies?
Do you really think it costs "the poor" that you're talking about $150 to make a fancy shirt? Hell no, but "the rich" pay that, and when they do, who's taking money from whom?
When "the rich" upper management of Mercedes pay $150 for a fancy shirt, $120 of that goes to some "rich" clothing designer, $25 to some "rich" upscale boutique, and $5 goes to shipping companies and the Chinese manufacturer of said shirt. When "the rich" clothing designer then needs a new car, he goes to his local Mercedes dealership, buys an expensive car, and puts money back into the pocket of "the rich" upper management of Mercedes.
Rich people don't buy things at discount stores and family restaurants. They go to upscale boutiques, and $100 a plate ritzhouses. Discount store and family restaurant employees and owners don't buy Mercedes' and $100 a plate dinners. They go to family restaurants, fast food joints, and drive a used 1995 Chevy Beretta with leaking power steering and broken ABS.
There's some leakage back and forth, in the form of service people, manufacturing employees, and such, but on the whole, they're two distinct, separate economies.
any kind of test prior to watching tv to make sure you "intelligent" enough to do so.
I don't think "intelligent" is the word you're looking for there....;)
But I see your point. -Pay a fee, watch TV. -Pass a test, drive a car.
Although with driver licensing standards around here, I don't really think there's much difference. "Turn left here." "Change lanes here." "Parallel park here." I could write a pushbutton computer program that could pass a local driver's test. There's no need to think at all, other than being able to (sort of) judge other cars' speed and distance. But even at that, being overly paranoid and not turning left across oncoming traffic when you've got room for 4 cars to get through won't fail you, because you're being "cautious and safe," as opposed to "an incompetent lunatic who shouldn't be allowed to drive a golf cart."
In theory, they're not the same. In practice, they pretty much are.
I don't know of anywhere where you need a licence to develop software. Using a PC doesn't require a licence, but the troll included it in the list in an attempt to prove his point. Watching TV, however, does require a licence in a number of countries.
It doesn't matter if there are 85% less vulnerabilities than before. The fact that there are still 15% left means a targeted attack will still succeed!
All it takes is a single vulnerability, and you're security is useless.
Stop using the troll mod as a replacement for either: "That makes me uncomfortable." or "I don't understand that."
A couple of days ago, I posted a comment about how nobody takes this security shit seriously.
I was modded flamebait.
Now we find out hospital systems running medical equipment are connected to the Internet, unpatched, and apparently not running any decent antivirus software.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft makes a good bit of money selling software to people who make software, I wouldn't make any strong assumptions about what they would lobby for.
And in the EULA for their development products is a clause stating you cannot use it to develop anything remotely resembling an office suite, or anything resembling an operating system.
Don't know whether it's still there or not, but it was for a long time.
So..."Go ahead and develop software, but if you dare to compete with us....."
Ok...
10 PRINT "Sanchez and the other 13 behind the bill are dicks."
20 GOTO 10
Just out of curiosity, did you happen to see that ":)" at the end of my post?
You completely missed my point.
I haven't RTFA, and don't care to, as I'm not in the US. But, according to the summary, my previous post would probably be a felony.
Stupid? Yes. But, what do we expect from nanny-state politicians?
I'm not talking about those robotic driving challenges. They'd actually be harder than a driver's test.
Think about it:
A driving test requires you to follow simple directions while not crashing into anything. They won't ask you to do anything dangerous, illegal, or stupid.
DARPA challenge requires the robot to plan it's route, negotiate around obstacles, figure out what's dangerous and what isn't, and act accordingly, all the while trying to make good time.
The first is easy for a computer program. The hell as if I could write a program to do the second, but an awful lot of human drivers can't do it, either, so I don't feel so bad about my programming skills...
.....make it a federal felony to use your blog, social media like MySpace and Facebook, or any other Web media 'to cause substantial emotional distress through "severe, repeated, and hostile" speech.' Rep. Sanchez and colleagues want to make it easier to prosecute any objectionable speech.....
Rep. Sanchez is a dick.
Rep. Sanchez is a dick.
Rep. Sanchez is a dick.
Rep. Sanchez is a dick.
Rep. Sanchez is a dick.
Rep. Sanchez is a dick.
Rep. Sanchez is a dick.
Rep. Sanchez is a dick.
Rep. Sanchez is a dick.
Rep. Sanchez is a dick.
Rep. Sanchez is a dick.
Rep. Sanchez is a dick.
Rep. Sanchez is a dick.
Rep. Sanchez is a dick.
Rep. Sanchez is a dick.
Rep. Sanchez is a dick.
Rep. Sanchez is a dick.
Hostile enough for ya?
(Apparently, /. filters already limit repeated speech, as I need to add a bunch of crap in to get past the "postercomment compression filter", whatever the hell that is. So /. is a giant government conspiracy, implementing constitution-destroying legislation before it's even proposed....)
I agree, we need to do something.
However, licensing software developers probably isn't it. At least, not in the fscked up way any political body would inevitably do it.
If I write a small shell script for my computer to do backups automatically, do I need a licence? Do I need a licence if I give that same script to a friend to use?
Selling commercial software, certainly should require a licence, if it came to that. But inevitably MS and other big players would lobby, and provide "valuable input" to the drafting of any such legislation, making the cost of licencing flat across the industry, so the $1,000,000+ a year fee would be peanuts for the established players, but completely shut out startups and small companies.
How about this:
There are plenty of people who can do everything right, follow every best practices guide, and lock down everything practical. But they can still get pwned, due to some unknown security hole in some piece of software they use.
So, we let people do whatever they want, as that's the whole beauty of the Internet. But, if you have 8 million records compromised, you'd better be damned sure you were following best practices. If you weren't, you should be financially liable for anything that comes from the breach.
If you were following best practices, and can prove it, then the software vendor that had the security hole should be financially liable for at least part of what happens. Unless they can show you were using their software for something not recommended, or in an improper manner, in which case it comes back to you again.
That would probably have the effect of reducing some of the "This software is not recommended for any purpose. If you use it at all, it's on your own head," type of EULAs, too. If it came down to this, some people (not all, as there are still idiots) would avoid software which was not recommended for anything, and start paying more attention to the fine print, rather than the advertising BS.
When it's your ass that's on the line, you can't get away with "Nobody got fired for buying Microsoft."
Would this lead to a lot of finger pointing, and nothing being done? It could, if not done properly. And there would always be the situations where nobody could figure out how the breach occurred, so there's no way to tell who's responsible. But this isn't any worse than what we've got now, and it's the worst case scenario.
Brings a whole new meaning to "anal leakage."
Eeeww.
If the Grimm Brothers' "The Emperor's New Clothes" had happened IRL. . .
Actually, Hans Cristian Andersen wrote that.
Not if he really believes it was the Grimm Brothers!
The very rich buy things from the sorta rich (because other sorta-rich can't afford it) and the sorta-rich buy things from the somewhat-rich, and everyone gets money from ($tier+1) and spends money at ($tier-1).
If that were true, the top tier of very rich would have noone to buy things from them, therefore rapidly becoming the bottom tier.
This obviously doesn't happen. The rich get richer, and the sorta rich have to buy things from the very rich more than the other way around.
If the money is good, you can soothe a hurt conscience pretty easy.
Undoubtedly using expensive wine from a restaurant....
I don't understand this hate towards rich people who run 'successful' companies. Direct your hate towards those who lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want- for example, all politicians.
There isn't enough hate to go around for all the politicians in the world.
But as for the hate towards the rich people who run successful companies?
I can't
imagine
a company
doing
something
unethical or
illegal, that
screws
their
customers
for more
profit...
Do you really think it costs "the poor" that you're talking about $150 to make a fancy shirt? Hell no, but "the rich" pay that, and when they do, who's taking money from whom?
When "the rich" upper management of Mercedes pay $150 for a fancy shirt, $120 of that goes to some "rich" clothing designer, $25 to some "rich" upscale boutique, and $5 goes to shipping companies and the Chinese manufacturer of said shirt.
When "the rich" clothing designer then needs a new car, he goes to his local Mercedes dealership, buys an expensive car, and puts money back into the pocket of "the rich" upper management of Mercedes.
Rich people don't buy things at discount stores and family restaurants. They go to upscale boutiques, and $100 a plate ritzhouses.
Discount store and family restaurant employees and owners don't buy Mercedes' and $100 a plate dinners. They go to family restaurants, fast food joints, and drive a used 1995 Chevy Beretta with leaking power steering and broken ABS.
There's some leakage back and forth, in the form of service people, manufacturing employees, and such, but on the whole, they're two distinct, separate economies.
any kind of test prior to watching tv to make sure you "intelligent" enough to do so.
I don't think "intelligent" is the word you're looking for there.... ;)
But I see your point.
-Pay a fee, watch TV.
-Pass a test, drive a car.
Although with driver licensing standards around here, I don't really think there's much difference.
"Turn left here." "Change lanes here." "Parallel park here."
I could write a pushbutton computer program that could pass a local driver's test. There's no need to think at all, other than being able to (sort of) judge other cars' speed and distance.
But even at that, being overly paranoid and not turning left across oncoming traffic when you've got room for 4 cars to get through won't fail you, because you're being "cautious and safe," as opposed to "an incompetent lunatic who shouldn't be allowed to drive a golf cart."
In theory, they're not the same. In practice, they pretty much are.
Well, what else are you going to do when it's raining?
But, he's an idiot.
He should have asked for the $10 million in cash, using unmarked small bills..... :)
I wonder if Virginia will even notify everyone that is in the data.
How can they? They don't have the data to compile a list of compromised data.
Unless they just notified everybody in the state....
And if they break into the decoding computer, then they get the decryption key, and all access required to get to the data, anyway.
Besides...if the encrypted data is encrypted again to hold it hostage, what good does the initial encryption do?
Squat.
I don't know of anywhere where you need a licence to develop software.
Using a PC doesn't require a licence, but the troll included it in the list in an attempt to prove his point.
Watching TV, however, does require a licence in a number of countries.
No.
If it shuts people up about twitter, that might be one of my favorite taxes of all time.
If you're so angry about it, why don't you twitter to let people know?
In the case of random attacks, you're right.
But this is the military we're talking about. Pretty much 100% of their attacks will be targeted.
Nothing less than 100% secure will do.
Is it possible? No. But it's certainly possible to get a hell of a lot closer than "85% less holes than regular XP!"
You're security is useless?
ARRRGGHH!
Apparently, so is my grammar.
See? Piss me off, and I can't spell.
That must be my superhero weakness....
Modded troll by people who don't get security.
99% secure is 100% insecure.
It doesn't matter if there are 85% less vulnerabilities than before. The fact that there are still 15% left means a targeted attack will still succeed!
All it takes is a single vulnerability, and you're security is useless.
Stop using the troll mod as a replacement for either:
"That makes me uncomfortable."
or
"I don't understand that."
A couple of days ago, I posted a comment about how nobody takes this security shit seriously.
I was modded flamebait.
Now we find out hospital systems running medical equipment are connected to the Internet, unpatched, and apparently not running any decent antivirus software.
Flamebait? My ass.
It's not flamebait if it's the truth.