In theory, forced password changes leads to more security, as it narrows a window of compromise.
In practice, a force password change often leads to less security. The basic problem is that it's hard to memorize passwords.
If forced passwords are too frequent, people will change 'mypassword' to 'mypassword2', then 'mypassword3'. Or change to a new more secure string unrelated to the previous one. Perhaps 'Xoolu3j3e'. However, in the case of too frequent changes here, its hard to keep track of the passwords, so perhaps they get written on a sticky, or saved in the browser. Possibly a keychain on your computer helps, though then what do you do with a lost pc? write them down? assume that you can reset by some email verification ?
I wonder how often forced password changes really leads to better security.
Lobbying undermines the democracy for the same reason that illegal bribery undermines the democracy.
Without such external money, the officials would tend to represent the voters. With such external money, and a system that requires expensive campaigns, the officials will tend to represent those who fund the campaign.
One way (the ideal, most democratic solution) to fix the problem is to eliminate political donations entirely, and only have government funded election information broadcasts (debates, candidate info pages, candidate Q/A,...), on common media (internet, tv, magazines,...).
Another way to fix the problem is enforce a per-person donation limit. Either count a corporation as a single person or multiple people. If corporation is counted as multiple people, then the corporation should be required to have people within the corporation (stockholders and/or employees) sign off on the donation. The donation amount would be limited according to the number of people that agree to it.
But any reform would be helpful at this point. The current systems allows a few at the top of a large corporation or organization to have a disproportionate influence in elections and the creation of legislation.
The article below, while saying China is pulling away from India, still lists china as only getting a moon rock sample in 2017. That is an unmanned mission. China has pledged to put a man on the moon by 2025. But I suspect China and India are racing for 2020.
The cause is a constant flow of money from corporations to government officials.
This undermines the democracy, as officials tend to represent those who elect them.
Without such external money, the officials would tend to represent the voters. With such external money, and a system that requires expensive campaigns, the officials will tend to represent those who fund the campaign.
One way to fix the problem is to eliminate political donations entirely, and only have government funded election information broadcasts (debates, candidate info pages, candidate Q/A,...), on common media (internet, tv, magazines,...).
Another way to fix the problem is enforce a per-person donation limit, and realize that a corporation is multiple people. A corporation would be required to have people within the corporation (stockholders and/or employees) sign off on the donation. The donation amount would be limited according to the number of people that agree to it.
A Blueray/DVD player that one may purchase at Best Buy also decrypts the disc. Is that circumvention also?
What exactly is the difference between a commercial player and an open source player (which also must decrypt the disc)?
The main difference that I see is that one is using the official specification, and one is using an unofficial specification.
But using an unofficial specification is not illegal.
Perhaps, If some are claiming that an open source player plays "BlueRay" or "DVD" discs, then that may be a Trademark violation, as it has not been certified.
Is that what you are implying? a Trademark violation?
America is not rich because of patents and copyrights. There is no evidence of that. America is rich because of innovation.
While initially, the sole purpose of copyright and patent law was to encourage innovation, it is no longer the case. Extending copyright from 56 to 75 years (as was done in the 70's) or from 75 to 95-120 years (as was done in the 90's), was about expanding profits, not innovation. Software patents are often reinvention of the wheel. In the dot-com era, old ideas were re-patented with "on the internet" attached. These days, old ideas are reinvented with "on a mobile device" attached. This type of "invention" monopoly only slows innovation. Each company now may accidentally run into patents, as patents are often very trivial.
Most here are not advocating completely abolishing copyright and patent law. Just reforming it so that it actually encourages new ideas.
Unless your house is open to the public and you allow people free access to your display model PC, as the Apple store allows.
A customer entering the store has signed no contract, and there are no given rules of what a customer should be doing on the display models.
If caught, Apple could at most ask the customer to leave, as this is not illegal activity, and no property is damaged. The customer visited a website allowing the device to be demoed more freely with non-syndicated applications.
With other OS's like Windows, Linux or even OSX proper, you are not in "jail", meaning that you can write and install your own software without permission from the warden. With the iphone and similar devices, you need to find a security flaw in order to escape, and utilize your device more freely.
Every few years, there are efforts to remove X, to address a perception that X is a source of bloat. GTK has a few framebuffer backends, for example.
They ultimately fail for a few reasons.
The primary reason is that the non-X version of the toolkit will not be commonly used, and fall out of date quickly. The secondary reason is that removing X requires reinvention of things like window management, key focus and direction, direct graphics/opengl access.
I assume that a solution like the Wayland display server will have more success.
If your website offers a inexpensive, non-DRM downloads of the book at a reasonable price, then people just pay the small amount rather than going to the trouble of getting copy at some temporary, hard to find, possibly illegal web site.
If, on the other hand, you do not offer downloads, and or make the download hard to find, or DRM'd, then that would be less convenient than a copy somewhere else.
In short, give the customer what they want, at a fair price. Learn from the mistakes of online music.
It is worth noting that each item relates to interfaces to proprietary hardware and/or proprietary media.
This is the weak point of open source for obvious reasons.
If standards and specifications are open, then an implementation can be implemented with N man hours of work. However if reverse engineering is required, then N*10 - N*100 man hours is required, depending on how much effort was put into obscuring the hardware/software interface.
This is basically a struggle between Computer Science, where we build from the work of our peers and Computer Scientology, where only those who pay great sums of money get access to the secret information.
Open-source is the baseline of what software technology is currently publicly available.
One can profit by one of the following: - build upon publicly available technology in non-obvious ways. - provide support and maintenance for existing technology.
Neither of these are harmed by open source.
Of course if company is profiting from obscurity rather than advancement, there may be a conflict with open source. If your company company is selling some software that is based on obvious or trivial ideas, then perhaps you should worry.
This is the nature of an advancing society. This is not unique to open source. It applies to all sciences.
The alternative, if you would like to continue profiting from old ideas is to:
- use protectionist patents.
- use obscure file formats or encryption schemes to maintain monopoly control
- buy a congress person, and pass some laws to protect your outdated business model.
IFPI says: "Copyright exists to ensure that everyone in the creative world from the artist to the record label, from the independent film producer to the TV program maker - can choose how their creations are distributed and get fairly rewarded for their work."
This is false.
Copyright exists (from a US Constitution perspective) "to promote the progress of science and useful arts".
Individual financial compensation is not the purpose. Promoting science and art for the good of the public was the purpose. Of course, we are now closer to the medieval Stationers publishing monopoly than we are the intent of copyright. A 95 year publishing retirement package was not the intent of the Constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
Warning: A third party plugin, PluginNameHere, has been installed without user consent:
DELETE KEEP
In theory, forced password changes leads to more security, as it narrows a window of compromise.
In practice, a force password change often leads to less security. The basic problem is that it's hard to memorize passwords.
If forced passwords are too frequent, people will change 'mypassword' to 'mypassword2', then 'mypassword3'.
Or change to a new more secure string unrelated to the previous one. Perhaps 'Xoolu3j3e'. However, in the case of too frequent changes here, its hard to keep track of the passwords, so perhaps they get written on a sticky, or saved in the browser. Possibly a keychain on your computer helps, though then what do you do with a lost pc? write them down? assume that you can reset by some email verification ?
I wonder how often forced password changes really leads to better security.
Can we fix the rhyme and avoid the happy-birthday-to-you-copyright-or-trademark-fee?
It's on like Donkey Con.
Or Donkey Cohn, depending or which way you say it.
This is an elaborate scheme to finally stop the Hamburglar, the masked hamburger stealer, who the company strangely uses as a commercial icon.
As with everything else, reuse is most always better than recycling.
Royalty-free standards should be created for battery shapes and connectors, and a garbage tax should be placed on non-standard batteries.
Interchangeable parts were key to the industrial revolution. Sometimes we forget.
Officials tend to represent those who elect them.
Lobbying undermines the democracy for the same reason that illegal bribery undermines the democracy.
Without such external money, the officials would tend to represent the voters.
With such external money, and a system that requires expensive campaigns, the officials will tend to represent those who fund the campaign.
One way (the ideal, most democratic solution) to fix the problem is to eliminate political donations entirely, and only have government funded election information broadcasts (debates, candidate info pages, candidate Q/A,...), on common media (internet, tv, magazines,...).
Another way to fix the problem is enforce a per-person donation limit. Either count a corporation as a single person or multiple people. If corporation is counted as multiple people, then the corporation should be required to have people within the corporation (stockholders and/or employees) sign off on the donation. The donation amount would be limited according to the number of people that agree to it.
But any reform would be helpful at this point. The current systems allows a few at the top of a large corporation or organization to have a disproportionate influence in elections and the creation of legislation.
The article below, while saying China is pulling away from India, still lists china as only getting a moon rock sample in 2017. That is an unmanned mission. China has pledged to put a man on the moon by 2025.
But I suspect China and India are racing for 2020.
http://www.peopleforum.cn/viewthread.php?tid=40438
I think China is on schedule:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1653384&cid=32219866
Chang'e 2 - 2010, second lunar orbiter
Chang'e 3 - 2013, lunar lander
Chang'e 4 - 2017, return lunar sample to earth
Chang'e 5 - 2020-2025 - manned mission
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Lunar_Exploration_Program
Given the roots of Mandriva/Mandrake, perhaps merging with Fedora should be considered.
Or perhaps Ubuntu may be interested.
I don't think there is a need for this thing to live independently.
The cause is a constant flow of money from corporations to government officials.
This undermines the democracy, as officials tend to represent those who elect them.
Without such external money, the officials would tend to represent the voters.
With such external money, and a system that requires expensive campaigns, the officials will tend to represent those who fund the campaign.
One way to fix the problem is to eliminate political donations entirely, and only have government funded election information broadcasts (debates, candidate info pages, candidate Q/A,...), on common media (internet, tv, magazines,...).
Another way to fix the problem is enforce a per-person donation limit, and realize that a corporation is multiple people. A corporation would be required to have people within the corporation (stockholders and/or employees) sign off on the donation. The donation amount would be limited according to the number of people that agree to it.
> Some of us haven't ruined their taste buds with bad beers ... If you can't tell the difference, please go back to drinking Budweiser.
You mean the fake Budweiser sold in the US, or beer sold in eské Budjovice (German: Budweis) in the Czech Republic?
Foursquare is cool.
But you should give Kickball a try.
Surely you must know at least one theme from "Aktuh and Melota".
"legally play a Blueray" (same question for DVD)
What exactly does that mean?
A Blueray/DVD player that one may purchase at Best Buy also decrypts the disc. Is that circumvention also?
What exactly is the difference between a commercial player and an open source player (which also must decrypt the disc)?
The main difference that I see is that one is using the official specification, and one is using an unofficial specification.
But using an unofficial specification is not illegal.
Perhaps, If some are claiming that an open source player plays "BlueRay" or "DVD" discs, then that may be a Trademark violation, as it has not been certified.
Is that what you are implying? a Trademark violation?
America is not rich because of patents and copyrights. There is no evidence of that. America is rich because of innovation.
While initially, the sole purpose of copyright and patent law was to encourage innovation, it is no longer the case. Extending copyright from 56 to 75 years (as was done in the 70's) or from 75 to 95-120 years (as was done in the 90's), was about expanding profits, not innovation. Software patents are often reinvention of the wheel. In the dot-com era, old ideas were re-patented with "on the internet" attached. These days, old ideas are reinvented with "on a mobile device" attached. This type of "invention" monopoly only slows innovation. Each company now may accidentally run into patents, as patents are often very trivial.
Most here are not advocating completely abolishing copyright and patent law. Just reforming it so that it actually encourages new ideas.
The comparison is not valid.
Unless your house is open to the public and you allow people free access to your display model PC, as the Apple store allows.
A customer entering the store has signed no contract, and there are no given rules of what a customer should be doing on the display models.
If caught, Apple could at most ask the customer to leave, as this is not illegal activity, and no property is damaged. The customer visited a website allowing the device to be demoed more freely with non-syndicated applications.
With other OS's like Windows, Linux or even OSX proper, you are not in "jail", meaning that you can write and install your own software without permission from the warden. With the iphone and similar devices, you need to find a security flaw in order to escape, and utilize your device more freely.
Every few years, there are efforts to remove X, to address a perception that X is a source of bloat. GTK has a few framebuffer backends, for example.
They ultimately fail for a few reasons.
The primary reason is that the non-X version of the toolkit will not be commonly used, and fall out of date quickly.
The secondary reason is that removing X requires reinvention of things like window management, key focus and direction, direct graphics/opengl access.
I assume that a solution like the Wayland display server will have more success.
Such a lighting whip could not only allow you to cut cars in half, but also the super human strength to throw the cars and protection against injury.
Here is the current direction of the space program ... in China
Chang'e 2 - 2010, second lunar orbiter
Chang'e 3 - 2013, lunar lander
Chang'e 4 - 2017, return lunar sample to earth
Chang'e 5 - 2020-2025 - manned mission
Japan, India and Russia may also be competing for the 2020-2025 moon race.
And in doing so, "discovered" how to write portable code.
I guess that pretty good, for a manager.
> You spend less time with a broken browser, and more time enjoying a cold one.
I still prefer Firefox over a cold browser.
If your website offers a inexpensive, non-DRM downloads of the book at a reasonable price, then people just pay the small amount rather than going to the trouble of getting copy at some temporary, hard to find, possibly illegal web site.
If, on the other hand, you do not offer downloads, and or make the download hard to find, or DRM'd, then that would be less convenient than a copy somewhere else.
In short, give the customer what they want, at a fair price.
Learn from the mistakes of online music.
It is worth noting that each item relates to interfaces to proprietary hardware and/or proprietary media.
This is the weak point of open source for obvious reasons.
If standards and specifications are open, then an implementation can be implemented with N man hours of work.
However if reverse engineering is required, then N*10 - N*100 man hours is required, depending on how much effort was put into obscuring the hardware/software interface.
This is basically a struggle between Computer Science, where we build from the work of our peers and Computer Scientology, where only those who pay great sums of money get access to the secret information.
Only if your company is reinventing wheels.
Open-source is the baseline of what software technology is currently publicly available.
One can profit by one of the following:
- build upon publicly available technology in non-obvious ways.
- provide support and maintenance for existing technology.
Neither of these are harmed by open source.
Of course if company is profiting from obscurity rather than advancement, there may be a conflict with open source. If your company company is selling some software that is based on obvious or trivial ideas, then perhaps you should worry.
This is the nature of an advancing society. This is not unique to open source. It applies to all sciences.
The alternative, if you would like to continue profiting from old ideas is to:
- use protectionist patents.
- use obscure file formats or encryption schemes to maintain monopoly control
- buy a congress person, and pass some laws to protect your outdated business model.
IFPI says:
"Copyright exists to ensure that everyone in the creative world from the artist to the record label, from the independent film producer to the TV program maker - can choose how their creations are distributed and get fairly rewarded for their work."
This is false.
Copyright exists (from a US Constitution perspective) "to promote the progress of science and useful arts".
Individual financial compensation is not the purpose. Promoting science and art for the good of the public was the purpose.
Of course, we are now closer to the medieval Stationers publishing monopoly than we are the intent of copyright.
A 95 year publishing retirement package was not the intent of the Constitution.