While I personally believe that we did land on the moon, there are those who think it was all a hoax. You can find more details of it on Wikipedia. One of the arguments deals with missing tapes, which apparently is confirmed by this article (that they were erased). Now I don't think this as evidence that the moon landing was a hoax, but it does raise the question: What idiot would be so careless with tapes involving such a monumental event? I can buy the story that someone may have stolen them so that they would have the only copy of video recordings of the landing, but... erased? Did some idiot tape their favorite sports game over it accidentally (this is not a serious question)?
While a stable climate might be great for sustaining life, it seems that the lack of change may also be the very detrimental from an evolutionary point of view since there is less of a need for adaptation. It makes me wonder what sort of life such a planet could sustain, assuming there is life. Would it be very diverse? Or would it be like a field of genetically engineered corn that could be wiped out with the slightest change in growing conditions?
WTF is a "power user"? Is someone selling illicit forms of "power" and I'm just not aware of it? Is this just someone who actually does more than click on the website to read their content? What sets a power user (as far as news-reading is concerned) from your "typical" user? Sounds to me like a lot of bullsh*t buzzwords to merely say that most people will choose to read whatever they want to read --
like a real newspaper. I don't read every little article written -- just whatever catches my fancy.
While you don't need to jail break your PS3 to hook it up to XBOX live, you (apparently) need to do so to run other applications). The real issue here is how Sony will fight this. _IF_ they plan to use the copyright argument, the surely they will not prevail.
To reiterate a quote from the GP:"The owner’s technological measure must protect the copyrighted material against an infringement of a right that the Copyright Act protects, not from mere use or viewing" If the jailbreaks somehow infringe on copyrighted material, then Sony has a case with respect to copyright. If I'm not mistaken, there were reports that the software used in some of the jailbreaking may have made use of an illegal copy of Sony's SDK.
It just doesn't make sound business sense to me to voluntarily implement this when there aren't other ISPs doing the same -- especially the major ones. Could this ISP be getting some incentive money to implement this?
I just hope the folks who are currently with them have an alternative high-speed alternative.
What is their definition of an ISP? Does a university essentially qualify, too, since they give out IPs and internet access to the students who live on campus?
Also, I can't help but wonder what sort of effect this will have with respect to creating a "new internet" (we already have Internet2 for government and research purposes). The current state of the internet right now sucks anyway. Maybe all of this will spur the evolution of the internet into something much better once people realize that they have to put up with too much crap with the current internet.
I'm not saying it isn't necessary. I'm questioning whether the current implementation is sufficient.
Again, the point isn't whether we should have layers of security, it's whether this extra layer of security is all that it should be. The car alarm and car door lock are two completely different methods of theft deterrent and therefore complement each other. He not only has to deal with the lock, but also the alarm as well.
If your front door has a lock on it and it gets picked, then having a lock on your bedroom door doesn't help all that much. To the thief, it's just another lock to pick. Chances are, it's not that much more difficult than the first lock.
I don't see current desktop firewalls (the way they're implemented in Windows, anyway) as being a complement to a server-based firewall. There's nothing different in that extra layer of "security."
Either they get through the garage door, in which case breaking into your car would be a joke, or they don't get through, in which case your car door had nothing to do with them not getting in.
You have to, of course, assume the person breaking through is determined to break in (and of course they will be with respect to computer systems).
You're missing the point.
The lock on your car door does NOT also act as the ignition to your car engine. The keys and the door lock, while related to one another, actually perform two important and yet DIFFERENT tasks. The fact that they are related (you need the key to unlock your door) does not remove the fact that you can get into someone's car if they forget to lock their doors, but you do not immediately have the ability to drive off with it. So in your case, there is an actual need to have both car locked AND the key protected -- both layers of security actually complement each other.
If your desktop firewall blocks all FTP traffic, and that same filter is also running on a serve-based firewall, then there is some redundancy that is akin to: you store your car in your garage, and you also lock your doors (to prevent someone from stealing, say, your CD player). Well, if they manage to break through your garage door, do you think your car's glass window or door locks are going to keep them out? Yes, it's another layer of protection, but how much more effective is it? Maybe if you had special glass windows, or special doors. So unless your desktop firewall provides some other feature that the server-based firewall does not (such as the key allowing you to drive off with the car versus just the door lock allowing you to get into the car) then I don't see the point in it.
That's the real issue here -- whether the desktop firewall is merely duplicating (on a weaker level) the same thing as server-based firewall, or does it actually provide an extra function with respect to security.
No, there is enough of a distinction between the functions of an air-bag and a seat belt that actually warrants having them both. A seat belt will keep you inside your car as opposed to flying through the windshield. An air bag protects you from smashing up hard against the dash, but it will likely not keep you inside your car should your car overturn, roll, or you get hit so hard you would normally fly through w/out a seat belt.
On the other hand, a desktop firewall and a server-based firewall has too much of an overlap in terms of their function.
This is only true if your desktop firewall actually filters out something that the server-based solutions do not. There is often-times a lot of overlap, so that the desktop filters are made redundant.
It's system resources that could be better put to use, however little (that gets used by the desktop firewall) this may be.
My personal reason for not really caring for Windows' built-in firewall setup is that there is almost no configuration beyond clicking a button that says "turn on" or "turn off" the feature and a list in which you can add program exceptions. The problem with a completely configurable firewall is that most users don't know what the hell they have to do to set up good rules. On the other hand, having merely a button that says "turn on the firewall" just doesn't cut it either because you have absolutely no control over what is being blocked. Where's the happy medium?
I'm just curious how many of us who use Google on a regular basis has already turned this feature off. From having read the 20 or so posts here, it looks like a "vast" majority.
Why aren't these types of devices just set up to require setting a password prior to usage? Sure, you might forget the password, but it sure as heck beats out having some random stranger take control over such an important device from God-knows-where. At the same time, if the device must play an important role, why not just have a physical key that overrides passwords if you need to get to the system.
What am I leaving out here? This seems like a pretty sure way to fix this problem.
The author seems shocked to read a news article that did not receive enough research from the reporter before being published. Why is he upset about this? It happens all the time.
Maybe I'm just jaded, but I always approach news stories as only containing a grain of truth, with a heavy slant towards the agenda of the reporter / reporting agency.
Why is this being modded insightful? Did you completely ignore the last bit? From the article itself:
"It's not just bad journalism to take someone at their word and publish glowing articles, in this case it's downright dangerous. Real people inside Iran could have been endangered by this over-hyped piece of software."
Slashdot Mirror
While I personally believe that we did land on the moon, there are those who think it was all a hoax. You can find more details of it on Wikipedia. One of the arguments deals with missing tapes, which apparently is confirmed by this article (that they were erased). Now I don't think this as evidence that the moon landing was a hoax, but it does raise the question: What idiot would be so careless with tapes involving such a monumental event? I can buy the story that someone may have stolen them so that they would have the only copy of video recordings of the landing, but ... erased? Did some idiot tape their favorite sports game over it accidentally (this is not a serious question)?
While a stable climate might be great for sustaining life, it seems that the lack of change may also be the very detrimental from an evolutionary point of view since there is less of a need for adaptation. It makes me wonder what sort of life such a planet could sustain, assuming there is life. Would it be very diverse? Or would it be like a field of genetically engineered corn that could be wiped out with the slightest change in growing conditions?
WTF is a "power user"? Is someone selling illicit forms of "power" and I'm just not aware of it? Is this just someone who actually does more than click on the website to read their content? What sets a power user (as far as news-reading is concerned) from your "typical" user? Sounds to me like a lot of bullsh*t buzzwords to merely say that most people will choose to read whatever they want to read -- like a real newspaper. I don't read every little article written -- just whatever catches my fancy.
That should have been "they surely not prevail if there were no copyright violations."
While you don't need to jail break your PS3 to hook it up to XBOX live, you (apparently) need to do so to run other applications). The real issue here is how Sony will fight this. _IF_ they plan to use the copyright argument, the surely they will not prevail.
To reiterate a quote from the GP:"The owner’s technological measure must protect the copyrighted material against an infringement of a right that the Copyright Act protects, not from mere use or viewing" If the jailbreaks somehow infringe on copyrighted material, then Sony has a case with respect to copyright. If I'm not mistaken, there were reports that the software used in some of the jailbreaking may have made use of an illegal copy of Sony's SDK.
It just doesn't make sound business sense to me to voluntarily implement this when there aren't other ISPs doing the same -- especially the major ones. Could this ISP be getting some incentive money to implement this? I just hope the folks who are currently with them have an alternative high-speed alternative.
What is their definition of an ISP? Does a university essentially qualify, too, since they give out IPs and internet access to the students who live on campus?
Also, I can't help but wonder what sort of effect this will have with respect to creating a "new internet" (we already have Internet2 for government and research purposes). The current state of the internet right now sucks anyway. Maybe all of this will spur the evolution of the internet into something much better once people realize that they have to put up with too much crap with the current internet.
I'm not saying it isn't necessary. I'm questioning whether the current implementation is sufficient. Again, the point isn't whether we should have layers of security, it's whether this extra layer of security is all that it should be. The car alarm and car door lock are two completely different methods of theft deterrent and therefore complement each other. He not only has to deal with the lock, but also the alarm as well. If your front door has a lock on it and it gets picked, then having a lock on your bedroom door doesn't help all that much. To the thief, it's just another lock to pick. Chances are, it's not that much more difficult than the first lock. I don't see current desktop firewalls (the way they're implemented in Windows, anyway) as being a complement to a server-based firewall. There's nothing different in that extra layer of "security."
Either they get through the garage door, in which case breaking into your car would be a joke, or they don't get through, in which case your car door had nothing to do with them not getting in. You have to, of course, assume the person breaking through is determined to break in (and of course they will be with respect to computer systems).
You're missing the point. The lock on your car door does NOT also act as the ignition to your car engine. The keys and the door lock, while related to one another, actually perform two important and yet DIFFERENT tasks. The fact that they are related (you need the key to unlock your door) does not remove the fact that you can get into someone's car if they forget to lock their doors, but you do not immediately have the ability to drive off with it. So in your case, there is an actual need to have both car locked AND the key protected -- both layers of security actually complement each other. If your desktop firewall blocks all FTP traffic, and that same filter is also running on a serve-based firewall, then there is some redundancy that is akin to: you store your car in your garage, and you also lock your doors (to prevent someone from stealing, say, your CD player). Well, if they manage to break through your garage door, do you think your car's glass window or door locks are going to keep them out? Yes, it's another layer of protection, but how much more effective is it? Maybe if you had special glass windows, or special doors. So unless your desktop firewall provides some other feature that the server-based firewall does not (such as the key allowing you to drive off with the car versus just the door lock allowing you to get into the car) then I don't see the point in it. That's the real issue here -- whether the desktop firewall is merely duplicating (on a weaker level) the same thing as server-based firewall, or does it actually provide an extra function with respect to security.
No, there is enough of a distinction between the functions of an air-bag and a seat belt that actually warrants having them both. A seat belt will keep you inside your car as opposed to flying through the windshield. An air bag protects you from smashing up hard against the dash, but it will likely not keep you inside your car should your car overturn, roll, or you get hit so hard you would normally fly through w/out a seat belt. On the other hand, a desktop firewall and a server-based firewall has too much of an overlap in terms of their function.
This is only true if your desktop firewall actually filters out something that the server-based solutions do not. There is often-times a lot of overlap, so that the desktop filters are made redundant.
It's system resources that could be better put to use, however little (that gets used by the desktop firewall) this may be. My personal reason for not really caring for Windows' built-in firewall setup is that there is almost no configuration beyond clicking a button that says "turn on" or "turn off" the feature and a list in which you can add program exceptions. The problem with a completely configurable firewall is that most users don't know what the hell they have to do to set up good rules. On the other hand, having merely a button that says "turn on the firewall" just doesn't cut it either because you have absolutely no control over what is being blocked. Where's the happy medium?
I'm just curious how many of us who use Google on a regular basis has already turned this feature off. From having read the 20 or so posts here, it looks like a "vast" majority.
Why aren't these types of devices just set up to require setting a password prior to usage? Sure, you might forget the password, but it sure as heck beats out having some random stranger take control over such an important device from God-knows-where. At the same time, if the device must play an important role, why not just have a physical key that overrides passwords if you need to get to the system. What am I leaving out here? This seems like a pretty sure way to fix this problem.
The author seems shocked to read a news article that did not receive enough research from the reporter before being published. Why is he upset about this? It happens all the time. Maybe I'm just jaded, but I always approach news stories as only containing a grain of truth, with a heavy slant towards the agenda of the reporter / reporting agency.
Why is this being modded insightful? Did you completely ignore the last bit? From the article itself: "It's not just bad journalism to take someone at their word and publish glowing articles, in this case it's downright dangerous. Real people inside Iran could have been endangered by this over-hyped piece of software."