You do realize they still use unencrypted AM radios to communicate right?
And that's pretty bad too — can't wait for some journalist to exploit that hole, so it gets plugged as well. With today's communications gear a properly encrypted point-to-point channel is perfectly possible in most places, where aircraft are regularly flying — and AM radio can still be used as a backup on the rest of the planet.
Heck, using the pilot's cellular phone would be a better choice, even without hardening of the device.
They broadcast ADS-B
Not all of the broadcasted information needs to be broadcasted at all, and some of what does need to be, can be modified to make tracking impossible or, at least, much harder. This is, largely, a solved problem for web-users, for example.
If you have to give the same key to everyone why even bother?
I don't, so let's not bother with that strawman...
Whether something has been known for 5 or 22 centuries is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is correct.
I'm not going to listen through rap arguments, but the quoted quip about opponent being "five centuries regressed" in his reasoning is bullshit. Equally bullshit would've been dismissing Eratosthenes as a dead White slave-owner.
We're basically talking about how the US compares to other counties in the basic medium that allows us to compete as a world economy
Is that it? The faster your fooking Netflix movie loads, the better America's position against China? Seriously? Yes, decent Internet bandwidth is important, but only to a point — you aren't going to triple a worker's productivity by upping their "broadband" from 15Mbps to 45Mbps. You would not even double it — see diminishing returns.
YES, IT IS AUTOMATICALLY VERY FUCKING BAD.
Fix your CAPS LOCK button, ASSHOLE.
suggesting our country should be able to compete with the rest of the world while they move ahead and we're stuck looking at the inside of our colon is just stupider than shit.
I can't parse the above "insightful" part, but, if you really are worried about America's competitiveness, you should be focusing on things like ease of doing business here.
Broadband in the United States still lags behind similar service in other industrialized countries
Is this a race or something? Is such "lagging behind" — whether it is even true or not — automatically bad?
Of course, the ISPs want the threshold to be as low as possible so it's easier for them to qualify for government subsidies.
Still think, government can fix all the problems? When businesses try to win a government subsidy instead of my favor, life begins to suck... Can we, please, have the free market back?
But was it free in 1984? Wikipedia says it didn't start to become free software until 1991
"Free" is not the point. Your software came with the source-code, not "binaries only", that's all that matters. Incidentally, GPL does not mean free of charge either — it is Ok to charge money for GPL-software, you just have to provide source-code with it. In this regard the two licenses aren't different.
Once Linux was combined with what the GNU project had produced by the early 1990s, it succeeded in part because of the legal uncertainty surrounding BSD prior to the 1993 settlement
That uncertainty was surrounding BSD as in "Berkley Software Distribution" — a particular body of code, not BSD-license — a legal document. Maybe, one didn't want to use Berkley's code because of the lawsuits — and had to reimplement it — but it did not mean, the reimplementation had to have a different license.
If gcc and other tools incorporated into Linux in those early 1990ies used BSD-license, a vast duplication of effort would've been avoided. Sadly, the influence of Stallman-the-gifted-programmer allowed Stallman-the-activist to lure people into using GPL instead... Our world today is slightly worse because of it.
If i forge an actual wrench out of metal, and drop it on the ground, any human can then come along and use it.
Only with your permission and only one at a time.
If you build software that is designed to only reap profit then yes that is WRONG AND SHAMEFUL.
False. The only "shameful" kind of profit, is when it is derived from people forced by your efforts to either pay you or work for you. I struggle to imagine an example of software (or hardware), that would be "designed to only reap profit" without doing something people actually want done.
Software should be a tool in the hand, not a leash around the neck.
Huh? What do you have against leashes? My dog has 5 different ones, we willingly paid for them all, which, no doubt, allowed the manufacturers to make profit.
Profit is fine, its the extremes of profit
Define "extreme"... Try to avoid comparisons to your own income and success...
the walled gardens
1990-ies called, asking for the anti-AOL rhetoric back. But, now that you mention it, GPL software is an example of a walled garden. BSD code be used in a GPL project, but not the other way around. That GPL is not even making any profit off such a situation, only makes it worse...
Stallman says no profit because there are legions of people just like you who refuse to condemn commercial software's alchemist methods.
A less coherent sentence is a rarity indeed. Thank you very much!
you're only truly free if you have the right to use a gun to hold others captive
Actually, being unable to hold somebody — like a thief caught in your home — captive would be a violation of freedom. But your analogy is flawed and let's not use it.
The ability to revoke freedoms from others does not make one more free in any logical sense.
BSD revokes no freedoms from anyone.
Whatever is released under BSD remains so for ever. A new development may be made under a different license, but that can happen with GPL too. Heck, it did happen with GPL! The last gcc, for example, that's available under GPL2, is 4.2.1 — beyond that it is all GPL3.
GPL is a failure in what it set out to achieve, which was nothing less than world domination. It also harmed the software projects, that adopted it because a number of programmers refused to participate in them. And, I might add, these were the more mature developers. People, who programmed for the pleasure of it, rather than to spite KKKorporations... It also turned off those KKKorporations themselves. A lose-lose approach.
Whenever I look at the licenses in proprietary devices, I always find a GPL cut and paste job.
That's not a useful datum, even if it weren't anecdotal. How do you compare the "success" of GPL as evidenced by its presence in embedded devices with "success" of Mozilla license, for example, as evidenced by firefox or LibreOffice? You can't...
And if you compare the licenses by the sheer number of projects — useful and otherwise — using them, then MIT-license is the clear winner these days.
It was the right idea at the time. What you describe is precisely what was happening in the 1980s.
Bullshit. BSD existed since 1970-ies. Stallman — himself paid by the captive taxpayers — was motivated by the same disdain for profit cited above.
its sole target was to avoid just that duplication. For achieving this, I applaud GNU, no question.
This reminds of labor unions claiming credit for us not working on weekends... Bullshit, in other words.
But only because there always is an implied threat that such BSD/MIT projects can re-license to GPL. It keeps the industry at bay.
There we go — just can't contain your dislike of "industry", can you? Must threaten it... But you are factually wrong here too — development of X11, under MIT/X Consortium license, dates from 1983-84, whereas the very first GPL was published only 5 years later in 1989. Thus, any talk of GPL scaring KKKorporations into cooperating with freer licenses is just more bullshit.
There is no need for the "implied GPL threat" — any abuse, real or perceived — can always result in a fork of a project, as happened to OpenOffice/LibreOffice and XFree86/Xorg to cite two.
An enthusiast programmer spends hours/days/weeks on coding something because he likes it. Encouraging him to close the result with GPL is — and always was — destructive and limiting. It was a bad idea, which even according to you has outlived its alleged usefulness by about 20 years. Good riddance.
Most successful GPL program are "Infrastructure based"... the most popular one is under the Apache Open source license
APL is very different from GPL. The most successful GPL-program is gcc — which is waning now that there is clang, to which the evil KKKorporations can contribute without fear. You seem to conflate all open-source licenses together — and that's a mistake.
However GPL doesn't have too much in end use applications because they are solving rather narrow solutions
The MIT-licensed X11 is very "end user", Mozilla-licensed Libreoffice — even more so (do I need to mention firefox?) No, it is perfectly possible to have a popular open-sourced software offering. But adoption of GPL is a kiss of death.
What Stallman must've hoped for 30 years ago was the thinking like: "Ok, they use GPL, so we'll do so too to be able to use their code." What happened instead is: "Oh, they use GPL, so we'll have to implement the same functionality ourselves."
How was it a "right" idea? The society — and generations of programmers — were spending considerable efforts on software, which could not be used by all. This caused a substantial duplication of efforts and repulsed a substantial body of programmers, who preferred the truly free BSD-license instead. Instead of cooperating, people and groups ended up competing. And when the original GPL proved to not be "enough" — for example, it was still possible to use GPL2-licensed gcc in a BSD-project, Stallman doubled down with GPL3, forcing FreeBSD, for example, to switch from gcc to BSD-licensedclang.
put up against Corp Profit will never win sadly
Yep, these denunciations of "profit" is the very core of the problem. Generations of young idiots do not realize, that profit is simply a reward for doing something people want. There is nothing wrong or shameful about it and all efforts to "fight" it are misguided and destructive.
As this is Canada and The Netherlands, I doubt that they would do something like that.
And why do you doubt it? From police perspective, there wouldn't be anything wrong in it... Honest people, who "have nothing to hide", have nothing to fear, do they — while the crooks will be spooked...
I'm curious as to why any agency would announce that it could read these messages publicly?
To spread FUD and hurt the non-cooperating device-maker commercially:
— I'd like an iPhone.
— Sorry, company policy is to use Blackberry for all business communications.
— Ah, but police in two countries can crack it already, here is the link!
— Khm, Ok, maybe it is time to revise our policy — Apple and Android devices are so hip, I myself would like one...
Whether they can actually recover the plain text remains unclear from both TFS and TFA. And if they really can, it seems to require possession of the device (and the private key with it), so it is hardly a new flaw...
If they truly had that capability, I doubt, they would've advertised it. The announcement seems intended to scare people off using Blackberries — perhaps into some other devices, which the police actually has easier time with.
"we are capable of obtaining encrypted data from BlackBerry PGP devices"
Yep, just the sort of non-committal speak one would expect from the police. It sounds like they cracked it to a layman, but does not actually say so...
And even if they can, actually, recover the text, from the above quote it seems like they still need the sending and/or receiving Blackberry device to do so. In the latter case, the "cracking" would not be much of a feat at all, because that means possession of the recipient's private key...
You've reminded me of an excerpt from Herman Goring
21st century... The generation of children of the never-ending September grew up and the Godwin's law, instead of killing one's argument, now makes it "insightful"...
The fact is, we're not at threat from a horde of terrorists, or even a handful.
Sure, we are not. We have not enemies in the world — only friends, whose grievances we haven't addressed yet.
Me too. Mr. Eich was never observed expressing a fear of homosexuals, nor even any disapproval of them.
Yes, it is a very common trick to conflate opposition to gay marriage with such disapproval and even fear, but we are on/., so we wouldn't be partaking of such a fallacy, would we?
Moreover, when we catch somebody doing so elsewhere, we might be tempted to call them some derogatory names, would we not?
This makes for a much better conspiracy theory than most and would've warranted a Pulitzer-winning journalistic investigation, don't ya think? Was it really Mr. Eich's donation — made privately and in personal capacity — to a group opposing to "gay marriage", that ended his appointment?
Damn, am I ever so happy (as always) that the proven tech leader was ousted as Mozilla's CEO in favor of the former head of marketing.
Considering the chronology, one can make a very believable argument, that Brendan Eich's donation to an anti-gay marriage group was publicized because he was objecting to the DRM. Would make a good Hollywood plot some day.
The faggots, of course, think it was all about "homophobia".
We're not currently under a state of total war fighting for survival every single day.
The amount of hatred against us is, probably, only greater. That most of it is impotent, and we've grown so big and powerful, we barely notice it — heck, we even have the luxury of blaming ourselves for it at times — does not change the fact, that it is out there.
Thousands of minds — some of them brilliant — are thinking up ways to hurt us.
Well, you just described, why the whole ssh thing — which you download from somewhere to then run — is not secure... Is it?
I suppose, you trust the source of the ssh-distribution — you'd need a similar trust in the source of my hypothetical JS-library.
So no you really must authenticate the fist party site, or its game over.
ssh does not give you that either — not on the first connection. Unless the remote's fingerprint is published in a (secure) DNS. Khmm, maybe, that'd be the alternative for the small operators?
Yes, this really is me, but whether I am a legitimate business — that remains a question.
Slashdot Mirror
And that's pretty bad too — can't wait for some journalist to exploit that hole, so it gets plugged as well. With today's communications gear a properly encrypted point-to-point channel is perfectly possible in most places, where aircraft are regularly flying — and AM radio can still be used as a backup on the rest of the planet.
Heck, using the pilot's cellular phone would be a better choice, even without hardening of the device.
Not all of the broadcasted information needs to be broadcasted at all, and some of what does need to be, can be modified to make tracking impossible or, at least, much harder. This is, largely, a solved problem for web-users, for example.
I don't, so let's not bother with that strawman...
Maybe, now these guys will update the rules for these communications to be encrypted...
Whether something has been known for 5 or 22 centuries is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is correct.
I'm not going to listen through rap arguments, but the quoted quip about opponent being "five centuries regressed" in his reasoning is bullshit. Equally bullshit would've been dismissing Eratosthenes as a dead White slave-owner.
Is that it? The faster your fooking Netflix movie loads, the better America's position against China? Seriously? Yes, decent Internet bandwidth is important, but only to a point — you aren't going to triple a worker's productivity by upping their "broadband" from 15Mbps to 45Mbps. You would not even double it — see diminishing returns.
Fix your CAPS LOCK button, ASSHOLE.
I can't parse the above "insightful" part, but, if you really are worried about America's competitiveness, you should be focusing on things like ease of doing business here.
The saddest part is, such things have to be posted anonymously...
Is this a race or something? Is such "lagging behind" — whether it is even true or not — automatically bad?
Still think, government can fix all the problems? When businesses try to win a government subsidy instead of my favor, life begins to suck... Can we, please, have the free market back?
I haven't — I stick to my culverines. Sheesh, you youngsters and your newfangled weapons...
That's pretty brutal — can it be blamed on American imperialism somehow?
What about Faux News?
Sigh... Haters gonna hate...
"Free" is not the point. Your software came with the source-code, not "binaries only", that's all that matters. Incidentally, GPL does not mean free of charge either — it is Ok to charge money for GPL-software, you just have to provide source-code with it. In this regard the two licenses aren't different.
That uncertainty was surrounding BSD as in "Berkley Software Distribution" — a particular body of code, not BSD-license — a legal document. Maybe, one didn't want to use Berkley's code because of the lawsuits — and had to reimplement it — but it did not mean, the reimplementation had to have a different license.
If gcc and other tools incorporated into Linux in those early 1990ies used BSD-license, a vast duplication of effort would've been avoided. Sadly, the influence of Stallman-the-gifted-programmer allowed Stallman-the-activist to lure people into using GPL instead... Our world today is slightly worse because of it.
Only with your permission and only one at a time.
False. The only "shameful" kind of profit, is when it is derived from people forced by your efforts to either pay you or work for you. I struggle to imagine an example of software (or hardware), that would be "designed to only reap profit" without doing something people actually want done.
Huh? What do you have against leashes? My dog has 5 different ones, we willingly paid for them all, which, no doubt, allowed the manufacturers to make profit.
Define "extreme"... Try to avoid comparisons to your own income and success...
1990-ies called, asking for the anti-AOL rhetoric back. But, now that you mention it, GPL software is an example of a walled garden. BSD code be used in a GPL project, but not the other way around. That GPL is not even making any profit off such a situation, only makes it worse...
A less coherent sentence is a rarity indeed. Thank you very much!
Actually, being unable to hold somebody — like a thief caught in your home — captive would be a violation of freedom. But your analogy is flawed and let's not use it.
BSD revokes no freedoms from anyone.
Whatever is released under BSD remains so for ever. A new development may be made under a different license, but that can happen with GPL too. Heck, it did happen with GPL! The last gcc, for example, that's available under GPL2, is 4.2.1 — beyond that it is all GPL3.
That's not a useful datum, even if it weren't anecdotal. How do you compare the "success" of GPL as evidenced by its presence in embedded devices with "success" of Mozilla license, for example, as evidenced by firefox or LibreOffice? You can't...
And if you compare the licenses by the sheer number of projects — useful and otherwise — using them, then MIT-license is the clear winner these days.
Bullshit. BSD existed since 1970-ies. Stallman — himself paid by the captive taxpayers — was motivated by the same disdain for profit cited above.
This reminds of labor unions claiming credit for us not working on weekends... Bullshit, in other words.
There we go — just can't contain your dislike of "industry", can you? Must threaten it... But you are factually wrong here too — development of X11, under MIT/X Consortium license, dates from 1983-84, whereas the very first GPL was published only 5 years later in 1989. Thus, any talk of GPL scaring KKKorporations into cooperating with freer licenses is just more bullshit.
There is no need for the "implied GPL threat" — any abuse, real or perceived — can always result in a fork of a project, as happened to OpenOffice/LibreOffice and XFree86/Xorg to cite two.
An enthusiast programmer spends hours/days/weeks on coding something because he likes it. Encouraging him to close the result with GPL is — and always was — destructive and limiting. It was a bad idea, which even according to you has outlived its alleged usefulness by about 20 years. Good riddance.
APL is very different from GPL. The most successful GPL-program is gcc — which is waning now that there is clang, to which the evil KKKorporations can contribute without fear. You seem to conflate all open-source licenses together — and that's a mistake.
The MIT-licensed X11 is very "end user", Mozilla-licensed Libreoffice — even more so (do I need to mention firefox?) No, it is perfectly possible to have a popular open-sourced software offering. But adoption of GPL is a kiss of death.
What Stallman must've hoped for 30 years ago was the thinking like: "Ok, they use GPL, so we'll do so too to be able to use their code." What happened instead is: "Oh, they use GPL, so we'll have to implement the same functionality ourselves."
GPL is a failure, open source is not.
How was it a "right" idea? The society — and generations of programmers — were spending considerable efforts on software, which could not be used by all. This caused a substantial duplication of efforts and repulsed a substantial body of programmers, who preferred the truly free BSD-license instead. Instead of cooperating, people and groups ended up competing. And when the original GPL proved to not be "enough" — for example, it was still possible to use GPL2-licensed gcc in a BSD-project, Stallman doubled down with GPL3, forcing FreeBSD, for example, to switch from gcc to BSD-licensed clang.
Yep, these denunciations of "profit" is the very core of the problem. Generations of young idiots do not realize, that profit is simply a reward for doing something people want. There is nothing wrong or shameful about it and all efforts to "fight" it are misguided and destructive.
And why do you doubt it? From police perspective, there wouldn't be anything wrong in it... Honest people, who "have nothing to hide", have nothing to fear, do they — while the crooks will be spooked...
To spread FUD and hurt the non-cooperating device-maker commercially:
Whether they can actually recover the plain text remains unclear from both TFS and TFA. And if they really can, it seems to require possession of the device (and the private key with it), so it is hardly a new flaw...
If they truly had that capability, I doubt, they would've advertised it. The announcement seems intended to scare people off using Blackberries — perhaps into some other devices, which the police actually has easier time with.
Yep, just the sort of non-committal speak one would expect from the police. It sounds like they cracked it to a layman, but does not actually say so...
And even if they can, actually, recover the text, from the above quote it seems like they still need the sending and/or receiving Blackberry device to do so. In the latter case, the "cracking" would not be much of a feat at all, because that means possession of the recipient's private key...
21st century... The generation of children of the never-ending September grew up and the Godwin's law, instead of killing one's argument, now makes it "insightful"...
Sure, we are not. We have not enemies in the world — only friends, whose grievances we haven't addressed yet.
Me too. Mr. Eich was never observed expressing a fear of homosexuals, nor even any disapproval of them.
Yes, it is a very common trick to conflate opposition to gay marriage with such disapproval and even fear, but we are on /., so we wouldn't be partaking of such a fallacy, would we?
Moreover, when we catch somebody doing so elsewhere, we might be tempted to call them some derogatory names, would we not?
Well, look at the timeline:
This makes for a much better conspiracy theory than most and would've warranted a Pulitzer-winning journalistic investigation, don't ya think? Was it really Mr. Eich's donation — made privately and in personal capacity — to a group opposing to "gay marriage", that ended his appointment?
Considering the chronology, one can make a very believable argument, that Brendan Eich's donation to an anti-gay marriage group was publicized because he was objecting to the DRM. Would make a good Hollywood plot some day.
The faggots, of course, think it was all about "homophobia".
The amount of hatred against us is, probably, only greater. That most of it is impotent, and we've grown so big and powerful, we barely notice it — heck, we even have the luxury of blaming ourselves for it at times — does not change the fact, that it is out there.
Thousands of minds — some of them brilliant — are thinking up ways to hurt us.
Well, you just described, why the whole ssh thing — which you download from somewhere to then run — is not secure... Is it?
I suppose, you trust the source of the ssh-distribution — you'd need a similar trust in the source of my hypothetical JS-library.
ssh does not give you that either — not on the first connection. Unless the remote's fingerprint is published in a (secure) DNS. Khmm, maybe, that'd be the alternative for the small operators?
Yes, this really is me, but whether I am a legitimate business — that remains a question.