Something to think about is that anyone with root (on a Unix-esque system) can make a system insecure. This doesn't just apply to Unix, however. Anyone with super-user access to a system can demolish the security of any operating system, however. There are just too many things that can be done to leave nearly any system wide open.
There are also more than a few reasons to intentionally make a system insecure. Perhaps the system is part of a trusted network, with limited physical access. In that case, system security does not really matter much. Security also didn't matter much when the Internet/DARPAnet was designed -- a time and place issue.
While eliminating SUID/SGID scripts is probably a pretty good idea, I definitely want to retain the ability to make my own assessment of security and make the requisite changes to my system. Maybe there's a really good reason to have a TFTP, RSH, or Telnet server on a system.
Like I said, removing SUID/SGID scripts is probably a good thing, but I definitely want developers to be as cautious as possible in how they remove features. Perhaps rather than completely removing certain features, they should be disabled by default. My fear is that if this catches on with other developers, we could end up with quite a few systems like MacOS pre 10, where there is a definite lack of configuration (and hacking) options.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not bitching. Rather, I'm simply pointing out how this can go awry if it's unchecked.
What, do you think all government printing presses are free too?
How's about this then, how much will it cost for content filtering? What is the bandwidth cost for truckers downloading porn?
Bandwidth is very cheap these days, and usually, the most expensive part is the cost for the last-mile. If that's been laid and paid for already, what's the point in content filtering? I'm guessing that there was some newspaper story about truckers with wireless laptops jackin' it to porn in the back of their cab, available over state lines. Some moralist group likely said "not with my tax dollars!" and lobbied their state government. Now, there's a dumbass bill on the books to spend extra dollars in order to filter their content so they can't (*gasp*) get their rocks off using the state's Internet connection.
If it costs $1 to deliver the porn, and $10 to do a miserable job of filtering the content, which is the smart way to spend taxpayer dollars? (Hint, if you're not an impractical moralist, pick the first one)
OTOH, from looking at the bill, the primary goal was to filter content in prisons and jails, and all other public property sorta got tacked onto it (typical government pork). I'm not sure how I feel about inmates being given Internet access in the first place. I suppose it's better than a riot.
but replacing it with a Mac will minimize the distraction it represents
Oh come on, you'll totally get distracted by those pretty bouncing icons;)
Good point though, there probably are other people out there who will go after a platform for their lack of game support. I have a feeling, however, that this is even smaller than the (already relatively small) market with a prerequisite for games. This makes me think though -- what other features would people pay to not have?
It's the #1 issue...for you and I, but we're not really representative of the marketplace. Most OS buyers don't look for broad video gaming support. I'm also not convinced that building in support for all kinds of gaming hardware will bring wide support for games to the Apple either. It's all about market share, and Apple just doesn't have it. In fact, the latest and greatest Apples will run all of the necessary bleeding edge hardware, but there's little incentive for game developers to sink the necessary amount of cash into developing for the Apple platform.
You could just try dropping by their office, if you're anywhere near Blue Springs, MO (I assume that you are, since they're all about their local business).
They list their address on their website:
Office Address:
(Not open to the public)
Jump Domain, LLC
1700 W 40 HWY
Blue Springs, MO 64015
Although they say it's not open to the public, I'll bet that popping by would yield better results than you've experienced previously. You probably want to be on your best, most diplomatic behavior; and most importantly, never show that you are angry (by raising your voice, calling names, making physical threats, wise cracks that can be misinterpreted). Ask the receptionist if you can speak with someone in support. If she gives you a hard time, politely ask to speak with her supervisor. Whomever you speak with, explain that your showing up there was a last resort, as your support requests were not being handled. This place sounds like a pretty small operation, so there is likely a single support person -- and I doubt that they'll just laugh in your face in person.
In the unlikely event that he/she does give you a hard time, politely ask to speak with their manager. If the manager gives you a hard time, take down their name, and politely inform them that you will be disputing all charges with your credit card issuer, as well as disputing the issue with ICANN, and reporting them to the local BBB chapter. Then thank them for their time, excuse yourself, and be on your way. Most places don't want to deal with bureaucratic headaches, whether with credit card issuers, ICANN, or the BBB. Lastly, you can spend $100 and get an attorney to simply write a letter (you don't want to retain counsel, since that will be incredibly expensive compared to your potential returns, but a letter can have massive sway). Again, they probably just don't want to deal with the hassle. They'll give you what you want and you can part ways as pleasnatly as possible.
Although it costs an extra $80, the MegaRAID SATA 150-6 is really one of the best of its kind on the market simply due to its available battery backup support. IME, battery backup can really make the difference in terms of reliability, especially when you have controller caching enabled (particularly if you are using a DB/transaction work with RAID 5). Just a thought.
So they laid you off, and asked you to sign another agreement, and you agreed?
Usually, these are required for a severance agreement. No signature? No severance. It's also pretty difficult to negotiate these things. I got laid off from a dot-com gig in 2001, and wasn't compensated for the vacation time that I didn't use. They were well within their rights was in to withhold it (according to state employment laws), but I worked hard for them, and didn't take any of it; so I tried to negotiate for what I thought was the right thing to do. They said no, and that was the end of it. I signed the severance agreement, took the money, and ran. The cash was more important than not signing an reasonable agreement out of spite.
In the case of the OP, his company wasn't trying to screw him by making him sign an agreement not to steal anything from the company. That's standard procedure in any business...and smart business.
If you are out of school, dont sign your future away, they will let you go when times get tough, look after yourself first.
It's unfortunate that people have to get laid off, and it's unfortunate that some of us have to sign NDA's. It's also a bummer that some people sell or release trade secrets and companies have to protect themselves. However, this is the world that we live in. People need jobs, and (I'm guessing that) most of us in the technical field chose it knowing of at least some of these pitfalls. I haven't found a job or field where at least some compromises need to be made to get work (like signing signing NDA's).
I find that the trick with compromises is choose my battles carefully. For example, I will not take a drug test. Sometimes, this has made it difficult to find work, but I feel strongly about my personal privacy. I don't like NDA's, but I understand why they exist and will sign one if it means the difference between gainful employment and not making ends meet.
It seems like the OP may not have tried to contact his former employer and asked for some help on this. I've found that if you did good work during your tenure, you're cool when you leave (avoiding burning any bridges behind you); many employers will be quite cooperative and understanding in situations like this.
Common mistake - open source does not mean that 1, 2 or 3 have to be fulfilled to the general public, indeed I can opensource a project of mine and supply the binary and code to my one sole customer, it would still be open source. There is nothing in any of the GNU licenses or the OSI opproved licenses that says 'you must supply this to the general public for it to be an opensource project', you can keep an entire GPLed codebase within a tight group of people, so long as the binary isnt distributed outside that group.
So how is this any different than their shared source initiative?
I don't get this conspiracy-theory fear about RFID.
I'm with you that the technology isn't all bad. Where it becomes a concern is where RFID tags can be scanned from long distances without our knowledge. For example, my EZ-Pass can be scanned from about 20-30 meters away. Some people have issues with being monitored from a distance electronically, and without their knowledge, so they won't use an EZ-Pass. For those people, this is a concious choice, so it's easy. International travelers don't have a choice -- they will not be able to carry their passport and maintain that same low profile. Worst care scanario: those people become targets for kidnappers. As far as I'm concerned, I just like to know when my identification is being scanned. I want to know when I'm identified positively and if I'm being watched. I'm not a criminal and don't wish to be treated or scrutinized like one -- especially without my knowledge.
I didn't catch what the range was of these embedded devices...but why RFID? Is there some company pushing it? Why not barcode, or even a smartcard? Why does it have to be a "wireless" solution? I understand and appreciate why this is being done, but does it really make a difference if the agencies in question use a different "wired" technology?
Supposedly, putting an RFID tag in a microwave will kill it (make it no longer workable). This is an easy fix for those who don't want people nearby to read their passport info.
Damaged, Defective or Otherwise Nonfunctioning Electronic Chip
Section 51.6 of Title 22, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), governs the validity of damaged United States passports. This rule would amend 51.6 by adding new language providing that a damaged, defective, or otherwise nonfunctioning electronic chip may be grounds for invalidating a United States passport. A passport with an intact data page but a nonfunctioning electronic chip would still be used as a travel document. However, detected attempts to alter chip data or to substitute a different electronic chip would result in invalidation.
That sort of answers a few of your questions (although it's sort of an ambigous answer -- disabling the RFID is grounds for invalidation, but you can travel without the RFID? I don't get it). Have you submitted your comments yet?
Slashdot should stop screwing around with lame April Fools pranks and just swap the home page with a copy of Last Measure. Everything else is just screwing around...and the Last Measure thing would really get everyone;)
Which kind of makes much hard for conspiracy theories that the FBI/NSA/Secret Service require all these back doors into encryption software and/or operating systems.
One important technique in cryptanalysis (or intel/counter-intel) is to always keeping your target guessing. If the NSA has already broken RSA, they would be well served to keep their mouths shut about it and keep cracking away...or maybe show the public some distributed cracking system that runs on cheap commodity hardware. This way people will think that the conspiracy theories are BS (grin), and continue on (because after all, our keys are secure, so we're immune to this technique, no?).
Sueing the people who are lying that they offer 911 (opps but we don't, sorry read the TOS) I think is acceptable.
Lying is a completely inaccurate term here. Your suggestion that their lying is an even bigger lie, by your definition. They do offer 911 service. Users just need to sign up for it. The reason that subscribers need to sign up is because their service does not tie to a physical location. Do you subscribe to Vonage? I do, and I knew exactly how it worked from the start. I read the agreement before I signed up, and there was not a single piece of misinformation in the TOS, or the FAQ. They are explicit in this in all of their dealings.
I'm seeing the same thing - it looks like some variants of the Netsky ("SomeFool" as ClamAV's database calls it) virus manage to elude ClamAV somehow. I spotted several references to this happening to other people poking around on Google, and there doesn't seem to be a fix for it yet
I submitted a few of these to the ClamAV team. They came back and said that they were code fragments, and did not contain any executable code and were thus harmless (regardless of Norton's findings).
please don't honor the concept of "voting with one's wallet". It is meant to sound like democracy in action, but it is actually just the opposite of democratic control....In a democracy, everyone gets one vote. Voting with one's wallet means rich people get more "votes" than poor people (who may get no vote at all). Hence, voting with one's wallet is a means of reinforcing the power of the rich to regulate how culture will be used by everyone else.
Don't you think that's a bit overzealous in it's PC'ness? Voting with one's feet is not particularly democratic either, and people who are unable to walk really get less votes than those who can. Furthermore, wealthy people may be more mobile than those attached to a long-term blue-collar gig.
In a capitalist democracy (or free market democratic republic, or whatever you want to call the USA), voting with one's wallet is more valid than ever. Especially when it comes to donating to PACs or using a lobbyist. In this case, it doesn't apply to the DRM conversation. However, it is what it is, and doesn't have to be fair to be a real concept. Like it or not, politics revolves around money. The more you look for it, the more you will find.
In this instance, the poster was referring to the marketplace. Both rich people and poor people buy stuff, and I don't see any indicator of the grandparent poster's social class (perhaps I missed something). Since consumers have a choice as to what their purchases (particularly entertainment purchases), all consumers' purchase decisions influence the marketplace. Do wealthy people have more influence in this way? Maybe, but I doubt that it is nefarious. Is it unfair? Maybe. Is it any less valid of a concept? I do not believe so. What else would you prefer we call it? ("I'm going to use my personal marketplace influence to kill DRM.") Is changing the nomenclature going to make the concept any different?
If there's a fire I have to: 1. Break Glass/Open Cabinet, 2. Read Terms of Service, 3. Discover that this handle I'm about to pull is non-functional because the emergency service hasn't been properly activated... Then expect to be sued into the stone age by everyone who gets hurt in the fire, and lose. Badly.
Your logic doesn't work. See, you're supposed to read the terms of service before there's a fire. The same way that you need to read contracts before signing them, and the same reason why you need to make yourself familiar with the operation of any emergency equipment before an emergency occurs. Vonage is very clear about this before you set up service. In this case, the user needed to take responsibility and set up their 911 service, and they didn't. Furthermore, their POTS line, even if disconnected, is required by law to service 911 calls at no cost to the user. If they had thought ahead, they could have plugged a phone into the POTS line and had full 911 service...or even opted in for free E911 service via Vonage. They did neither, and now, there's an AG blaming everyone but the people who didn't plan ahead for emergencies like they should have.
I'll agree that something needs to be done, but fingerpointing lawsuits aren't it. Maybe mandating cooperation between LEC's, 911 call centers, and VoIP providers would do it...but suing the nearest company is just counterproducitve and dumb.
They still need to let people know about the limitation, even if it isn't their fault.
They do -- and they are very clear about it. This Texas AG is suing the wrong people, and shouldn't be suing anyone over this. What needs to happen is cooperation between the emergency call centers and Vonage (apparently, the number where the 911 call gets routed to is a secret). Furthermore, Vonage customers who want 911 service need to update their location whenever they move their phones to a different location. If that takes annoying legislation, sobeit.
Actually, 911 support looked so sketchy when I looked into Vonage a couple months ago that I decided not to go with it. I don't think I would have had that impression if they were hiding something. Actually, that combined with reports of sketchy service and the fact that my POTS line has only been out of service once in several years and that was my fault (cut through my line while doing yard work.)
FWIW, you can get Vonage and use your old POTS line for 911-only calls. Even if you have your POTS line disconnected, the local utility is required by federal law to maintain it for emergency calling. You'll get the best of both worlds...cheap (Vonage) and safe (POTS 911). The only downside is that you're required to keep a second phone plugged into your land line.
No. The old Top Gear was about the cars. They tested cars, and gave viewers information about cars. The new show is about Jeremy Clarkson. I didn't watch Top Gear because it was "hilarious". I watched it because it was insighful and informative. The new show is just cheap entertainment for the Joe Sixpack.
No, from what I've seen the old Top Gear was similar goofy crap, although Tiff did seem more interested in talking about the car, he was totally opinionated the same way Clarkson is...it was funny then, and is still funny now. (Another bonus for the old show, Vicky Henderson was pretty hot). I think that Tiff was a bit funnier than the Clarkson hour. The thing is, squeezing a series of car reviews into a TV show can't touch the depth of any written article I've seen. I watch it to see cars like the Lotus Elise in a full drift.
The thing that's so compelling for me is that they do stuff that would be unheard of on American television. Senselessy smoking a car's tires in wild powerdrifts doesn't fall into the realm of American TV (although they'll do drag race burnouts and the like...but I don't care about that stuff). A minivan sprint race? No freaking way. I think that's too cool for us. An illegal, unsanctioned race across public roads matching a car up against a train/airplane? Absolutely forbidden in 21st century America -- too many liability issues.
Since I can't see Top Gear on TV here, I have to download the torrents, but I prefer it that way. I could care less about the cool board, and (being an Ameri-can) have never heard of 90% of the stars in reasonably priced cars (although it's funny to see some of them try to find the line on the test track while beating the snot out of that econo-box). If I download the unencumbered torrents, I can skip past whatever section I deem to be lame.
As far as your "cheap entertainment for Joe Sixpack" comment goes -- that's kind of a cheapshot, dont you think? Maybe it's just indicitave of classism in UK culture. We've got our fair share of shows that are strictly car reviews here in the US. Watch Car and Driver TV and Maryland Public Television's MotorWeek. IMO, those shows suck. Car and Driver TV just has truncated versions of their print articles, and Motorweek is horribly boring (no supercool track time, and no "challenges"). I want to see cars get hammered on the track, and arrogant reviewers get it all wrong and spin off the course. I want to see cool stunts, and shit blowing up. I want to see minivans go at it wheel-to-wheel with more contact than you can shake a stick at. I want to see a rally car try to best a bobsledder (or a kid on a skateboard)...and I definitely want to see a Toyota pickup get the torture test until it finally breaks.
No American show would dare air most of this stuff. Furthermore, there are plenty of other shows that are simply car reviews. I welcome the new Top Gear approach with open arms (and dig the hour long format, too).
They need to market Hybrid cars as an added HP bonus, like a turbo or blower, first and as an economy item second.
I'm a bit skeptical of this claim...not that they can produce additional horsies - they can. The real issue is that of overall performance. The hybrid system adds a significant amount of weight (secondary drivetrain, electric motor alongside the gasoline engine, batteries, generator, etc). As far as overall performance...to use an extreme example, semi trucks have better power and far better torque than, say, a Corvette. The 'Vette will still waste it in every performance category (save towing capacity and maximum range).
Then again, your implicit point may be totally valid; the average consumer may be more attracted to straight up power figures than power:weight ratios.
I would say that much of that if FUD rammed down our throats by people who want to sell us non-free products.
They say that Linux isn't necessarily the best choice for mainframes, which may be valid -- but for reasons that I don't agree with, and for FUD'ish reason that they fail to justify. I'll throw in a disclaimer that don't know a whole lot about mainframes, and even less about IBM's mainframe Linux, but what I do know is that there is stability and there is mainframe. Mainframes are usually incredibly robust (but a huge hassle when things go wrong). Running Linux on a mainframe is a pretty new concept, and given the audience, there is some risk involved with running Linux in that environment (in a relative way). The thing is, they're not even pushing mainframes. They're pushing Solaris, which is not a mainframe OS.
Their qualifying of the mainframe statement was a bunch of FUD, however. Stuff like:
"We are concerned about security on an open standard environment like that."
"Also, we are somewhat cautious about what happened with Unix - it splintered into eight applications -- until McNealy (Scott McNealy, chief executive of Sun) finally announced he won the battle and had the one surviving Unix out there. We think Linux has the possibility of going the same route,"
Why are they concerned with about security? Doesn't Solaris use those same open standards? Also, since when have all of the other Unixes died? IIRC, there are other Unixes out there, and Sun didn't "win" anything. Scott McNealy's proclimation that they're the one surviving Unix has about as much validity as Michael Jackson declaring himself as the King of Pop.
It's pretty clear that there was financial motivation behind this announcement. I'm pretty certain that it's not as nefarious as most people here think it is (payoff). I'm guessing that EDS has had existing partnerships with those companies, and the majority of their onboard staff have expertise in those areas. I think that they were trying to justify their core competencies with some unmitigated chest-thumping. If I were a reseller for Brand-X hardware (and really knew my Brand-X stuff inside and out), I'd want to push that pretty hard too. I'll betcha that if I included EDS in an RFP to build a major IBM Mainframe Linux application, they'd bid on it in a heartbeat.
In short...there's nothing to see here. Move along people.
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of...oh, wait. Nevermind.
Something to think about is that anyone with root (on a Unix-esque system) can make a system insecure. This doesn't just apply to Unix, however. Anyone with super-user access to a system can demolish the security of any operating system, however. There are just too many things that can be done to leave nearly any system wide open.
There are also more than a few reasons to intentionally make a system insecure. Perhaps the system is part of a trusted network, with limited physical access. In that case, system security does not really matter much. Security also didn't matter much when the Internet/DARPAnet was designed -- a time and place issue.
While eliminating SUID/SGID scripts is probably a pretty good idea, I definitely want to retain the ability to make my own assessment of security and make the requisite changes to my system. Maybe there's a really good reason to have a TFTP, RSH, or Telnet server on a system.
Like I said, removing SUID/SGID scripts is probably a good thing, but I definitely want developers to be as cautious as possible in how they remove features. Perhaps rather than completely removing certain features, they should be disabled by default. My fear is that if this catches on with other developers, we could end up with quite a few systems like MacOS pre 10, where there is a definite lack of configuration (and hacking) options.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not bitching. Rather, I'm simply pointing out how this can go awry if it's unchecked.
Sounds like the truckers have a pretty firm grip!
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
How's about this then, how much will it cost for content filtering? What is the bandwidth cost for truckers downloading porn?
Bandwidth is very cheap these days, and usually, the most expensive part is the cost for the last-mile. If that's been laid and paid for already, what's the point in content filtering? I'm guessing that there was some newspaper story about truckers with wireless laptops jackin' it to porn in the back of their cab, available over state lines. Some moralist group likely said "not with my tax dollars!" and lobbied their state government. Now, there's a dumbass bill on the books to spend extra dollars in order to filter their content so they can't (*gasp*) get their rocks off using the state's Internet connection.
If it costs $1 to deliver the porn, and $10 to do a miserable job of filtering the content, which is the smart way to spend taxpayer dollars? (Hint, if you're not an impractical moralist, pick the first one)
OTOH, from looking at the bill, the primary goal was to filter content in prisons and jails, and all other public property sorta got tacked onto it (typical government pork). I'm not sure how I feel about inmates being given Internet access in the first place. I suppose it's better than a riot.
Oh come on, you'll totally get distracted by those pretty bouncing icons ;)
Good point though, there probably are other people out there who will go after a platform for their lack of game support. I have a feeling, however, that this is even smaller than the (already relatively small) market with a prerequisite for games. This makes me think though -- what other features would people pay to not have?
It's the #1 issue...for you and I, but we're not really representative of the marketplace. Most OS buyers don't look for broad video gaming support. I'm also not convinced that building in support for all kinds of gaming hardware will bring wide support for games to the Apple either. It's all about market share, and Apple just doesn't have it. In fact, the latest and greatest Apples will run all of the necessary bleeding edge hardware, but there's little incentive for game developers to sink the necessary amount of cash into developing for the Apple platform.
You could just try dropping by their office, if you're anywhere near Blue Springs, MO (I assume that you are, since they're all about their local business).
They list their address on their website:
Although they say it's not open to the public, I'll bet that popping by would yield better results than you've experienced previously. You probably want to be on your best, most diplomatic behavior; and most importantly, never show that you are angry (by raising your voice, calling names, making physical threats, wise cracks that can be misinterpreted). Ask the receptionist if you can speak with someone in support. If she gives you a hard time, politely ask to speak with her supervisor. Whomever you speak with, explain that your showing up there was a last resort, as your support requests were not being handled. This place sounds like a pretty small operation, so there is likely a single support person -- and I doubt that they'll just laugh in your face in person.In the unlikely event that he/she does give you a hard time, politely ask to speak with their manager. If the manager gives you a hard time, take down their name, and politely inform them that you will be disputing all charges with your credit card issuer, as well as disputing the issue with ICANN, and reporting them to the local BBB chapter. Then thank them for their time, excuse yourself, and be on your way. Most places don't want to deal with bureaucratic headaches, whether with credit card issuers, ICANN, or the BBB. Lastly, you can spend $100 and get an attorney to simply write a letter (you don't want to retain counsel, since that will be incredibly expensive compared to your potential returns, but a letter can have massive sway). Again, they probably just don't want to deal with the hassle. They'll give you what you want and you can part ways as pleasnatly as possible.
Although it costs an extra $80, the MegaRAID SATA 150-6 is really one of the best of its kind on the market simply due to its available battery backup support. IME, battery backup can really make the difference in terms of reliability, especially when you have controller caching enabled (particularly if you are using a DB/transaction work with RAID 5). Just a thought.
Usually, these are required for a severance agreement. No signature? No severance. It's also pretty difficult to negotiate these things. I got laid off from a dot-com gig in 2001, and wasn't compensated for the vacation time that I didn't use. They were well within their rights was in to withhold it (according to state employment laws), but I worked hard for them, and didn't take any of it; so I tried to negotiate for what I thought was the right thing to do. They said no, and that was the end of it. I signed the severance agreement, took the money, and ran. The cash was more important than not signing an reasonable agreement out of spite.
In the case of the OP, his company wasn't trying to screw him by making him sign an agreement not to steal anything from the company. That's standard procedure in any business...and smart business.
It's unfortunate that people have to get laid off, and it's unfortunate that some of us have to sign NDA's. It's also a bummer that some people sell or release trade secrets and companies have to protect themselves. However, this is the world that we live in. People need jobs, and (I'm guessing that) most of us in the technical field chose it knowing of at least some of these pitfalls. I haven't found a job or field where at least some compromises need to be made to get work (like signing signing NDA's).
I find that the trick with compromises is choose my battles carefully. For example, I will not take a drug test. Sometimes, this has made it difficult to find work, but I feel strongly about my personal privacy. I don't like NDA's, but I understand why they exist and will sign one if it means the difference between gainful employment and not making ends meet.
It seems like the OP may not have tried to contact his former employer and asked for some help on this. I've found that if you did good work during your tenure, you're cool when you leave (avoiding burning any bridges behind you); many employers will be quite cooperative and understanding in situations like this.
So how is this any different than their shared source initiative?
The crack in the shuttle...NASA took a page from John DeLorean's book for funding their program. (Not too soon, I hope)
I'm with you that the technology isn't all bad. Where it becomes a concern is where RFID tags can be scanned from long distances without our knowledge. For example, my EZ-Pass can be scanned from about 20-30 meters away. Some people have issues with being monitored from a distance electronically, and without their knowledge, so they won't use an EZ-Pass. For those people, this is a concious choice, so it's easy. International travelers don't have a choice -- they will not be able to carry their passport and maintain that same low profile. Worst care scanario: those people become targets for kidnappers. As far as I'm concerned, I just like to know when my identification is being scanned. I want to know when I'm identified positively and if I'm being watched. I'm not a criminal and don't wish to be treated or scrutinized like one -- especially without my knowledge.
I didn't catch what the range was of these embedded devices...but why RFID? Is there some company pushing it? Why not barcode, or even a smartcard? Why does it have to be a "wireless" solution? I understand and appreciate why this is being done, but does it really make a difference if the agencies in question use a different "wired" technology?
According to the proposal:
Damaged, Defective or Otherwise Nonfunctioning Electronic ChipSection 51.6 of Title 22, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), governs the validity of damaged United States passports. This rule would amend 51.6 by adding new language providing that a damaged, defective, or otherwise nonfunctioning electronic chip may be grounds for invalidating a United States passport. A passport with an intact data page but a nonfunctioning electronic chip would still be used as a travel document. However, detected attempts to alter chip data or to substitute a different electronic chip would result in invalidation.
That sort of answers a few of your questions (although it's sort of an ambigous answer -- disabling the RFID is grounds for invalidation, but you can travel without the RFID? I don't get it). Have you submitted your comments yet?
Slashdot should stop screwing around with lame April Fools pranks and just swap the home page with a copy of Last Measure. Everything else is just screwing around...and the Last Measure thing would really get everyone ;)
One important technique in cryptanalysis (or intel/counter-intel) is to always keeping your target guessing. If the NSA has already broken RSA, they would be well served to keep their mouths shut about it and keep cracking away...or maybe show the public some distributed cracking system that runs on cheap commodity hardware. This way people will think that the conspiracy theories are BS (grin), and continue on (because after all, our keys are secure, so we're immune to this technique, no?).
Lying is a completely inaccurate term here. Your suggestion that their lying is an even bigger lie, by your definition. They do offer 911 service. Users just need to sign up for it. The reason that subscribers need to sign up is because their service does not tie to a physical location. Do you subscribe to Vonage? I do, and I knew exactly how it worked from the start. I read the agreement before I signed up, and there was not a single piece of misinformation in the TOS, or the FAQ. They are explicit in this in all of their dealings.
I submitted a few of these to the ClamAV team. They came back and said that they were code fragments, and did not contain any executable code and were thus harmless (regardless of Norton's findings).
Don't you think that's a bit overzealous in it's PC'ness? Voting with one's feet is not particularly democratic either, and people who are unable to walk really get less votes than those who can. Furthermore, wealthy people may be more mobile than those attached to a long-term blue-collar gig.
In a capitalist democracy (or free market democratic republic, or whatever you want to call the USA), voting with one's wallet is more valid than ever. Especially when it comes to donating to PACs or using a lobbyist. In this case, it doesn't apply to the DRM conversation. However, it is what it is, and doesn't have to be fair to be a real concept. Like it or not, politics revolves around money. The more you look for it, the more you will find.
In this instance, the poster was referring to the marketplace. Both rich people and poor people buy stuff, and I don't see any indicator of the grandparent poster's social class (perhaps I missed something). Since consumers have a choice as to what their purchases (particularly entertainment purchases), all consumers' purchase decisions influence the marketplace. Do wealthy people have more influence in this way? Maybe, but I doubt that it is nefarious. Is it unfair? Maybe. Is it any less valid of a concept? I do not believe so. What else would you prefer we call it? ("I'm going to use my personal marketplace influence to kill DRM.") Is changing the nomenclature going to make the concept any different?
Your logic doesn't work. See, you're supposed to read the terms of service before there's a fire. The same way that you need to read contracts before signing them, and the same reason why you need to make yourself familiar with the operation of any emergency equipment before an emergency occurs. Vonage is very clear about this before you set up service. In this case, the user needed to take responsibility and set up their 911 service, and they didn't. Furthermore, their POTS line, even if disconnected, is required by law to service 911 calls at no cost to the user. If they had thought ahead, they could have plugged a phone into the POTS line and had full 911 service...or even opted in for free E911 service via Vonage. They did neither, and now, there's an AG blaming everyone but the people who didn't plan ahead for emergencies like they should have.
I'll agree that something needs to be done, but fingerpointing lawsuits aren't it. Maybe mandating cooperation between LEC's, 911 call centers, and VoIP providers would do it...but suing the nearest company is just counterproducitve and dumb.
They do -- and they are very clear about it. This Texas AG is suing the wrong people, and shouldn't be suing anyone over this. What needs to happen is cooperation between the emergency call centers and Vonage (apparently, the number where the 911 call gets routed to is a secret). Furthermore, Vonage customers who want 911 service need to update their location whenever they move their phones to a different location. If that takes annoying legislation, sobeit.
FWIW, you can get Vonage and use your old POTS line for 911-only calls. Even if you have your POTS line disconnected, the local utility is required by federal law to maintain it for emergency calling. You'll get the best of both worlds...cheap (Vonage) and safe (POTS 911). The only downside is that you're required to keep a second phone plugged into your land line.
No, from what I've seen the old Top Gear was similar goofy crap, although Tiff did seem more interested in talking about the car, he was totally opinionated the same way Clarkson is...it was funny then, and is still funny now. (Another bonus for the old show, Vicky Henderson was pretty hot). I think that Tiff was a bit funnier than the Clarkson hour. The thing is, squeezing a series of car reviews into a TV show can't touch the depth of any written article I've seen. I watch it to see cars like the Lotus Elise in a full drift.
The thing that's so compelling for me is that they do stuff that would be unheard of on American television. Senselessy smoking a car's tires in wild powerdrifts doesn't fall into the realm of American TV (although they'll do drag race burnouts and the like...but I don't care about that stuff). A minivan sprint race? No freaking way. I think that's too cool for us. An illegal, unsanctioned race across public roads matching a car up against a train/airplane? Absolutely forbidden in 21st century America -- too many liability issues.
Since I can't see Top Gear on TV here, I have to download the torrents, but I prefer it that way. I could care less about the cool board, and (being an Ameri-can) have never heard of 90% of the stars in reasonably priced cars (although it's funny to see some of them try to find the line on the test track while beating the snot out of that econo-box). If I download the unencumbered torrents, I can skip past whatever section I deem to be lame.
As far as your "cheap entertainment for Joe Sixpack" comment goes -- that's kind of a cheapshot, dont you think? Maybe it's just indicitave of classism in UK culture. We've got our fair share of shows that are strictly car reviews here in the US. Watch Car and Driver TV and Maryland Public Television's MotorWeek. IMO, those shows suck. Car and Driver TV just has truncated versions of their print articles, and Motorweek is horribly boring (no supercool track time, and no "challenges"). I want to see cars get hammered on the track, and arrogant reviewers get it all wrong and spin off the course. I want to see cool stunts, and shit blowing up. I want to see minivans go at it wheel-to-wheel with more contact than you can shake a stick at. I want to see a rally car try to best a bobsledder (or a kid on a skateboard)...and I definitely want to see a Toyota pickup get the torture test until it finally breaks.
No American show would dare air most of this stuff. Furthermore, there are plenty of other shows that are simply car reviews. I welcome the new Top Gear approach with open arms (and dig the hour long format, too).
I stand corrected.
I'm a bit skeptical of this claim...not that they can produce additional horsies - they can. The real issue is that of overall performance. The hybrid system adds a significant amount of weight (secondary drivetrain, electric motor alongside the gasoline engine, batteries, generator, etc). As far as overall performance...to use an extreme example, semi trucks have better power and far better torque than, say, a Corvette. The 'Vette will still waste it in every performance category (save towing capacity and maximum range).
Then again, your implicit point may be totally valid; the average consumer may be more attracted to straight up power figures than power:weight ratios.
I would say that much of that if FUD rammed down our throats by people who want to sell us non-free products.
They say that Linux isn't necessarily the best choice for mainframes, which may be valid -- but for reasons that I don't agree with, and for FUD'ish reason that they fail to justify. I'll throw in a disclaimer that don't know a whole lot about mainframes, and even less about IBM's mainframe Linux, but what I do know is that there is stability and there is mainframe. Mainframes are usually incredibly robust (but a huge hassle when things go wrong). Running Linux on a mainframe is a pretty new concept, and given the audience, there is some risk involved with running Linux in that environment (in a relative way). The thing is, they're not even pushing mainframes. They're pushing Solaris, which is not a mainframe OS.
Their qualifying of the mainframe statement was a bunch of FUD, however. Stuff like:
Why are they concerned with about security? Doesn't Solaris use those same open standards? Also, since when have all of the other Unixes died? IIRC, there are other Unixes out there, and Sun didn't "win" anything. Scott McNealy's proclimation that they're the one surviving Unix has about as much validity as Michael Jackson declaring himself as the King of Pop.
It's pretty clear that there was financial motivation behind this announcement. I'm pretty certain that it's not as nefarious as most people here think it is (payoff). I'm guessing that EDS has had existing partnerships with those companies, and the majority of their onboard staff have expertise in those areas. I think that they were trying to justify their core competencies with some unmitigated chest-thumping. If I were a reseller for Brand-X hardware (and really knew my Brand-X stuff inside and out), I'd want to push that pretty hard too. I'll betcha that if I included EDS in an RFP to build a major IBM Mainframe Linux application, they'd bid on it in a heartbeat.
In short...there's nothing to see here. Move along people.