You seem to think that merely having a swiss bank account is illegal. It's not.
If you're using the account to hide from the paying taxes, then I agree. But some people have them for other reasons. For instance, some people want their money in a place that, if the us banking system collapses (again) they can still get at it. Others might want to hide money from their spouse who might otherwise try and spend it.
Any way you slice it, releasing peoples account information is invasion of privacy. And you can't know someones reasons for having an account to justify it as "exposing criminals".
I think this is going to backfire on him. I think he believes that if he does something to help governments (allowing them to track down tax dodgers) that they may leave him alone.. I doubt it, usually national security trumps internal revenue.. but not always.
It's also going to backfire because many of his supporters believe strongly in personal privacy (while oddly, wanting full transparency for everything else), and they will view this as WikiLeaks invading personal privacy. (it's not just the filthy rich that have "hidden" bank accounts).
AFAIK the law doesn't mention anything about being able to control yourself.
Let's say you had some bizarre form of tourettes that caused yout pull the trigger of a gun in the presence of liberals. If you know that doing that is wrong, you would never carry a gun. Carrying the gun is a decision you made.
It depends on the type of planning. For example, planning an escape route is evidence of knowing that you have to get away quickly, thus knowing that there will be consequences that you need to flee from.
However, merely planning the best way to commit the murder doesn't show that you know it to be wrong.
No, Pre-planning has nothing to do with it. Insanity defense *might* be that he didn't know what he's doing, but that's not generally what an insanity defense tries to say.
In order to be found insane, you have to be found to be incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong, or at least the right and wrong of this given case. You may well know exactly what you're doing, but still be unable to know that doing so is wrong.
That's why an insanity defense is hard to prove, because it's not simply insanity.. Lots of insane people know the difference between right and wrong. It's only a special kind of insane that can use it as a defense.
Well, interestingly, iPhone 3G was the 2nd generation, and iPhone 3GS was the third, iPhone 4 isn't 4G (though a 4G version could come out.. probably called iPhone 4GS or something).
There was also the Mac 2, which was an open design (compared to the original Mac)
Interestingly, apple supposedly has a rule about naming anything "3", based on the failure of the Apple 3, which is why they went from Mac 2 to Mac Quadra (skipping anything that sounds like 3), but they seem to have violated that rule for the 3G and 3GS.
Actually, there's skype for the ipad, so you can make internet based calls if you want. You would have to use speakerphone mode, or get a wired headset though.
The nook color is also pretty hackable. Apprantely, the device comes with a bluetooth adapter that is disabled by default, and hacks have been able to re-enable it.
Yeah, I find it hard to believe too. The 6502 was heavily licensed to other companies, and was probably produced in more variations than anything short of the ARM. I would find it very difficult to believe that there aren't plenty of photolithographs stashed away in various files. Now, maybe an actual design document indicating what everything does might be missing, but there should be plenty of film available to reverse engineer from.
I'd feel special that you took the time to get so pissed off over what I wrote, but perusing your posting history shows you are pretty much a douche bag to everyone...
Which just makes your anger so everyday and commonplace. Good luck with that.
You have an exception environment. It's hard to get software updates, install software, and even use it in such environments in many situations.
If you choose to have such an environment, you should also realize that you're fighting upstream against the way all software is designed these days, and simply realize you have to deal with problems because of that.
If you choose to use a laptop computer on an archelogical dig in the middle of the sahara, you have to be prepared to deal with the issues that will bring. Not complain that every laptop isn't made to support using it in such an environment.
I simply call that crappy software. You have the same problem with abandonware software that doesn't work on new versions of OS's.
Macrovision is perhaps a bit of an exception, they pioneered the rootkit and other methods of copy protection. Not sure i'd call them either Activation or DRM, just crappy old copy protection techniques.
Actually, if you understand a little about how people write software, you would know this makes a certain amount of sense.
The window in question was most likely a hidden window used to accept messages passed to it. You shouldn't ever see it because it's supposed to be hidden. If it's not hidden, something goofy is going on. What was happening was that during shutdown, the window was becoming visible somehow and it wasn't supposed to do that.
I don't get it. I read stories like yours all the time. People complaining about activation and DRM.
I've never had a single issue with DRM or activation of any product. Ever. And i've dealt with hundreds of users needing products activated across dozens of hardware platforms. I've *heard* lots of stories, but never actually seen any of them personally.
Makes you wonder...
Re:Before we all start the bashing..
on
New IE Zero Day
·
· Score: 1
Umm.. ok. If you mean "sandboxing as chrome has" rather than "sandboxing, as chrom has". IE has protected mode, which is a form of sandboxing. Not the same as chrome, but they both have sandboxing. Chrome doesn't do what IE does either.
Re:net zero; +1 MS -1 for MS
on
New IE Zero Day
·
· Score: 1
While it's unfortunate that the exploit writer could find something that isn't ASLR'd and use it as a jumping off point, it's not really the flaw here. The flaw itself is in MSHTM that allowed access to mscorie.dll.
DEP is a great tool, but it can't be used for everything. Same with ASLR.
You are misunderstanding that article. The article is not saying that the vulnerability is in mscorie.dll, but that the exploit uses the non ALSR'd mscorie.dll because the base addresses are known.
The vulnerability in mshtml.dll allows the exploit access to mscorie.dll, which is not protected because it cannot normally be accessed remotely in this manner.
This is like saying there's a vulnerability in a banks safety deposit boxes because the vault itself let people with specialized tools capable of breaking into them walk in through a hole in the floor.
maybe mscorie.dll should be ALSR'd, but the fact that it's not is not the vulnerability itself, it's just an avenue of exploiting the real vulnerability.
If you actually read the advisory, you would see that the default configurations of every new Windows OS released since 2003 have mitigated the vulnerability, making it either unexploitable, or useless to the exploiter (due to signicantly lower user rights of the exploited code).
So it only affects idiots who turn off UAC, or who are still running XP.
Yet time after time we hear from the peanut gallery that UAC is useless, that protected mode is pointless, that it's just security theater. Funny how every time there is a vulnerability, people using those "useless" and "pointless" technologies aren't affected.
By the way, side note. It appears that remote code execution vulernabilities in IE have become such a rare event that when they happen, they are now front page news. Interesting.
Yes, but someone else could come along and claim they're "the real anonops" and target porn sites and take all the free porn off the internet (Best SNL sketch ever).
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to think that merely having a swiss bank account is illegal. It's not.
If you're using the account to hide from the paying taxes, then I agree. But some people have them for other reasons. For instance, some people want their money in a place that, if the us banking system collapses (again) they can still get at it. Others might want to hide money from their spouse who might otherwise try and spend it.
Any way you slice it, releasing peoples account information is invasion of privacy. And you can't know someones reasons for having an account to justify it as "exposing criminals".
How many times have we told you not to post Slashdot from work, Homer?
- Mr. Burns.
I think this is going to backfire on him. I think he believes that if he does something to help governments (allowing them to track down tax dodgers) that they may leave him alone.. I doubt it, usually national security trumps internal revenue.. but not always.
It's also going to backfire because many of his supporters believe strongly in personal privacy (while oddly, wanting full transparency for everything else), and they will view this as WikiLeaks invading personal privacy. (it's not just the filthy rich that have "hidden" bank accounts).
AFAIK the law doesn't mention anything about being able to control yourself.
Let's say you had some bizarre form of tourettes that caused yout pull the trigger of a gun in the presence of liberals. If you know that doing that is wrong, you would never carry a gun. Carrying the gun is a decision you made.
It depends on the type of planning. For example, planning an escape route is evidence of knowing that you have to get away quickly, thus knowing that there will be consequences that you need to flee from.
However, merely planning the best way to commit the murder doesn't show that you know it to be wrong.
No, Pre-planning has nothing to do with it. Insanity defense *might* be that he didn't know what he's doing, but that's not generally what an insanity defense tries to say.
In order to be found insane, you have to be found to be incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong, or at least the right and wrong of this given case. You may well know exactly what you're doing, but still be unable to know that doing so is wrong.
That's why an insanity defense is hard to prove, because it's not simply insanity.. Lots of insane people know the difference between right and wrong. It's only a special kind of insane that can use it as a defense.
An insanity defense has nothing to do with whether it was pre-planned or not.
Insanity is about whether the defendant knew what he was doing was wrong. Not whether or not it was planned.
Well, interestingly, iPhone 3G was the 2nd generation, and iPhone 3GS was the third, iPhone 4 isn't 4G (though a 4G version could come out.. probably called iPhone 4GS or something).
There was also the Mac 2, which was an open design (compared to the original Mac)
Interestingly, apple supposedly has a rule about naming anything "3", based on the failure of the Apple 3, which is why they went from Mac 2 to Mac Quadra (skipping anything that sounds like 3), but they seem to have violated that rule for the 3G and 3GS.
Actually, there's skype for the ipad, so you can make internet based calls if you want. You would have to use speakerphone mode, or get a wired headset though.
Yeah, nobody has ever heard of the Apple 2. Right.
The nook color is also pretty hackable. Apprantely, the device comes with a bluetooth adapter that is disabled by default, and hacks have been able to re-enable it.
Yeah, I find it hard to believe too. The 6502 was heavily licensed to other companies, and was probably produced in more variations than anything short of the ARM. I would find it very difficult to believe that there aren't plenty of photolithographs stashed away in various files. Now, maybe an actual design document indicating what everything does might be missing, but there should be plenty of film available to reverse engineer from.
I'd feel special that you took the time to get so pissed off over what I wrote, but perusing your posting history shows you are pretty much a douche bag to everyone...
Which just makes your anger so everyday and commonplace. Good luck with that.
You have an exception environment. It's hard to get software updates, install software, and even use it in such environments in many situations.
If you choose to have such an environment, you should also realize that you're fighting upstream against the way all software is designed these days, and simply realize you have to deal with problems because of that.
If you choose to use a laptop computer on an archelogical dig in the middle of the sahara, you have to be prepared to deal with the issues that will bring. Not complain that every laptop isn't made to support using it in such an environment.
I simply call that crappy software. You have the same problem with abandonware software that doesn't work on new versions of OS's.
Macrovision is perhaps a bit of an exception, they pioneered the rootkit and other methods of copy protection. Not sure i'd call them either Activation or DRM, just crappy old copy protection techniques.
What it should say is "WIndows has found unknown hardare and is attempting to identify it and install it's software". It just got shortened.
Actually, if you understand a little about how people write software, you would know this makes a certain amount of sense.
The window in question was most likely a hidden window used to accept messages passed to it. You shouldn't ever see it because it's supposed to be hidden. If it's not hidden, something goofy is going on. What was happening was that during shutdown, the window was becoming visible somehow and it wasn't supposed to do that.
I don't get it. I read stories like yours all the time. People complaining about activation and DRM.
I've never had a single issue with DRM or activation of any product. Ever. And i've dealt with hundreds of users needing products activated across dozens of hardware platforms. I've *heard* lots of stories, but never actually seen any of them personally.
Makes you wonder...
Umm.. ok. If you mean "sandboxing as chrome has" rather than "sandboxing, as chrom has". IE has protected mode, which is a form of sandboxing. Not the same as chrome, but they both have sandboxing. Chrome doesn't do what IE does either.
While it's unfortunate that the exploit writer could find something that isn't ASLR'd and use it as a jumping off point, it's not really the flaw here. The flaw itself is in MSHTM that allowed access to mscorie.dll.
DEP is a great tool, but it can't be used for everything. Same with ASLR.
You are misunderstanding that article. The article is not saying that the vulnerability is in mscorie.dll, but that the exploit uses the non ALSR'd mscorie.dll because the base addresses are known.
The vulnerability in mshtml.dll allows the exploit access to mscorie.dll, which is not protected because it cannot normally be accessed remotely in this manner.
This is like saying there's a vulnerability in a banks safety deposit boxes because the vault itself let people with specialized tools capable of breaking into them walk in through a hole in the floor.
maybe mscorie.dll should be ALSR'd, but the fact that it's not is not the vulnerability itself, it's just an avenue of exploiting the real vulnerability.
If you actually read the advisory, you would see that the default configurations of every new Windows OS released since 2003 have mitigated the vulnerability, making it either unexploitable, or useless to the exploiter (due to signicantly lower user rights of the exploited code).
So it only affects idiots who turn off UAC, or who are still running XP.
Yet time after time we hear from the peanut gallery that UAC is useless, that protected mode is pointless, that it's just security theater. Funny how every time there is a vulnerability, people using those "useless" and "pointless" technologies aren't affected.
By the way, side note. It appears that remote code execution vulernabilities in IE have become such a rare event that when they happen, they are now front page news. Interesting.
And nobody had created anything as good as BitKeeper either until there was suddenly a need for someone to do so when the free license was pulled.
Of course that person that came along was Linus Torvolds, not your typical hack.
Yes, but someone else could come along and claim they're "the real anonops" and target porn sites and take all the free porn off the internet (Best SNL sketch ever).
Which makes doing the act in the name of Anonymous meaningless in itself, I guess.