Then they probably should be aware enough not to trust communication to an insecure protocol. In this case the network is only as secure as its weakest application.
GCCS is a CLOSED network using Secret Internet Protocol Routing. The network is only as secure as the weakest application? The applications aren't the ones doing the encrypting, the SIPR layer is. No matter how "weak" MS Chat may be, there's no way to exploit that weakness. The app can't talk to the outside. Even if some nefarious villain could somehow sneak a "back door" or a trojan into the chat client, what could it do? It can't send out info "in the clear" because the network protocol iteself is encrypted; and even if it COULD, to whom would it send this info?
Basic Training may not change much from what it is now; however, once soldiers get to their units and they see their officers using their fancy GPS machines, they are going to wonder why they ever learned how to read a stupid old paper map in the first place. That's when the military is going to be in trouble.
You're looking at it wrong. GPS units aren't used as replacements for maps. They're used to supplement them. GPS doesn't show terrain features, so planning unit movements still often requires separate maps. Even if these maps are kept totally online someday, the ability to READ a map will still have to be taught. Basic military training will always include basic navigation skills.
I wouldn't worry. Marines refer to the 7 inch combat knife as the most reliable weapon they carry since it has no moving parts and no electronics. The Army still has a bayonet course in basic training, they still teach land navigation with map and compass. Some Navy quartermasters can still plot a position with sextant and chronometer. Much of basic training still emphasizes the mental and the physical.
And don't forget the Air Force! They still learn to make their beds by hand and walk together in a straight line. Also, on one day of their training, they go out to a rifle range and are shown which end of the M-16 is the dangerous one, so that if they happen upon one they won't accidentally kill someone.
Without a contract, installing most modern proprietary software is prohibited by copyright law, 17 USC 1201(a) (which seems to have nullified 17 USC 117(a) in part), because the user does not "the authority of the copyright owner" to run the decryption.
Actually, it's a license that is required, and the license is granted through contract. The contract aspect, however, may be anything from a signed piece of paper to an implied contract from the act of purchasing the product. All the DMCA does is ensure that the end-user did indeed click "I agree" when the EULA popped up. This in no way changes whether the contents of the EULA are enforceable. Illegal provisions in a contract are still illegal.
Many provisions of Title 17 (copyright law) say "Notwithstanding any provision of the antitrust laws".
Those sections deal specifically with limitations and scope of exclusive rights and the distribution of royalty payments. They certainly do not give copyright holders carte blanche to violate antitrust law any way they see fit. Essentially, there's no way Apple can force you to use their OS on Apple-made machines only via a click-through EULA. The DMCA does nothing to change this, as only a miniscule percentage of computer users would even be ABLE to figure out a way to install the OS without having to see the EULA click-through. The DMCA here is practically irrelevant.
But this contract, being 1) a shrink-wrap EULA , and 2) limiting the use of enclosed product unlawfully, is pretty much unenforceable.
What about "the Software comes encrypted, and the DMCA prohibits you from decrypting this Software without agreeing to this License"?
Totally irrelevant. The DMCA is about copyright. Nothing in the DMCA has anything to do with contracts. A click-through contract attached to a decrypting installation program is no more binding than any other click-through EULA. The DMCA ensures that you have to click-through because bypassing it (as part of the decryption) would be illegal, but it doesn't make the EULA any more powerful than any other EULA. What one has to look at here is basic contract law. 1) The legal "strength" of a contract is pretty feeble in the case of shrink-wrap or click-through EULAs. Real contracts are ones which signed and witnessed, preferrably after the advice of legal counsel. EULAs are effectively little more than disclaimers because the end user didn't sign them, thus making it impossible for the plaintiff to produce a signed contract as evidence in court. The Law is pretty clear in that it greatly prefers paper, as it can show the paper to the defendant and ask "did you sign this?" 2) The licensing of OS X allows you to use one installation of it on one machine. That's perfectly legal. The part where they say "one machine of our manufacture" is legally unenforceable. Say, for example, you had a cover band and you wanted to pulicly play a song owned by XYZ Music Corp. They say "sure, that's $100; but you can only play it if your band uses XYZ Corp guitars, drums, etc." That's illegal (see the Sherman Antitrust Act) and unenforceable. Apple can no more force you to install OS X on only Apple-manufactured systems than GM can force you to install GM manufactured parts on your GM car. Doing either will likely void the waranty, but that's about it.
You see, one can put absolutely anything in a contract, and even if someone signs it, they are under no obligation to abide by the illegal parts of the contract.
1) "Illegal" and "violation of contract" are two different things.
Actually, a violation of contract is illegal under US and (I believe) international law.
Violation of a lawful contract is cause for civil liability, yes. But this contract, being 1) a shrink-wrap EULA , and 2) limiting the use of enclosed product unlawfully, is pretty much unenforceable. Its only purpose, really, is to limit Apple's liability for damages due to "misuse".
2) Shrink-wrap licenses have NEVER been held to be valid in court.
Actually, I remember reading about a case involving stock-broking software (Sorry, I forget the name; it was ~1 year ago) where their EULA said "They cannot be held liable for any damages incured as a result of the use of said software". And, due to a bug, someone lost upwards of $50,000.
Perfect example. The end user was not prosecuted, nor was he found civilly liable for breaking said contract. Rather, this is a completely different situation, wherein the software writers were able to use the EULA to show that they were not liable for losses resulting from use of said software. See the difference? The EULA's status as a contract was irrelevant-- the case had to do with the EULA being valid as a disclaimer.
Two very different things, my friend.
43 years on, the US is still using the same basic spyplane that Gary Powers flew - the U-2. Sure, they've been improved over that time quite a bit, but they're still basically the same craft. Missiles have improved too...
True, the U-2R is essentially the same airframe. The point I was trying to make (somewhat unclearly, I admit) was that Powers was shot down because the DOD/CIA/whomever assumed that the U-2 flew so high it was invincible. Like the first guy to shoot his own propellor off in a biplane, you only need to make that error once to really learn your lesson!
Re:But the problem with aircraft. . .
on
Satellite Imagery
·
· Score: 1
Gosh, Dun Malg's right. I mean Powers was flying a U2, and we don't fly *those* any more. And we haven't had a propeller driven spy plane shot down in over two years now!
And their planes, missiles and computers haven't gotten any better.
First of all, that Navy EP-3E wasn't "shot down", it was hit by a jackass chinese fighter jock. He was playing Tough Guy and trying to scare them by disturbing the airflow over the wing by pulling up in front of it and got caught in the prop. Besides, I never said anything about prop-driven spy planes; I was making an analogy.
Second, you've missed my point regarding the U-2. While the US does indeed use what is essentially the same aircraft that Powers was shot down flying, they no longer arrogantly assume that whomever they are overflying "doesn't have missiles that go that high". It wasn't bad luck that got Powers, it was the hubris of the DOD/CIA thinking they were invincible at that altitude. The fact that no U-2's have been shot down since is my point-- like the first guy to put a machine gun on his biplane shooting the propellor, it was a ridiculously stupid mistake the first time and not something one does twice.
I'm as happy as anyone to see Saddam's reign over, but he did not have WMD
Saddam's regime freely admitted to having certain quantities of WMDs after Gulf War I. The regime could not account for even those it admitted to having previously. Essentially, they said "what we had we destroyed, but we forget what we did with the destroyed stuff." I find that suspicious. Don't you?
Re:But the problem with aircraft. . .
on
Satellite Imagery
·
· Score: 1
with cameras, well, ask Francis Gary Powers.
Pfff! You do realize that that was 43 years ago, yes? Saying that's the problem with reconnaisance aircraft is like saying that the problem with guns on fighter aircraft is that they shoot their own propeller off.
Russian's not that hard; even Russians can speak it.
Heh. You're not far off. The best way to cover up the fact that you don't remember the proper casal endings for words is to drink plenty of vodka. Once you're good and drunk, you'll be slurring the endings of words so badly that you'll sound just like a real Russian and nobody will know you don't know the "right way" to say something.
Because the new tech is always hyped on Slashdot, then everyone forgets about it for years until an 'Ask Slashdot' is posted wondering where all this cool shit went.
Now that yo umention it, where are our flying cars?
Christ almighty, someone mod parent up! This is the funniest joke I've ever heard, it's not based on specs of products from 3 years ago, and what's more I've never heard this joke before!
Speak for yourself. I buy those items in groups of around 10 or 20, so adding $.02 to a $20 bill doesn't add up al lthat fast.
Do you really think that if pennies disappeared, all the stuff you buy would keep its non-divisible-by-five price and the rounding to the nearest nickel would happen at the cash register? Think again, man. They're gonna round the price of EACH ITEM in that group of 10 or 20 up to the nearest five. It is, however, an entirely moot point because the way our state/county/city sales tax system works pretty much requires a full decimal system down to the penny. The only reason this worked in france is that they have a nasty VAT tax system where the end price includes all taxes. US sales taxes always "add on". Few (if any!) cash registers support rounding, so it'll have to be done "on the fly" by the cashier. And what if you're paying by check or credit/debit card? Do they still round the price up/down? No, we'll never be able to get rid of the penny until we run into an inflationary situation like mexico did when they had to switch to "new pesos" in order to cut 3 zeros off the end.
Because, of course, you only plan to buy ONE THING, ONE TIME, for the REST OF YOUR LIFE. Think about it: evry pack of gum. Every can of soup. Every gallon of gas. One buys quite a few individual items every day. Is the "convenience" of not having a jar of pennies on your dresser really worth the $50-$100 a year it'd cost you? I'll take the jar and the fifty, please.
So what you're saying is that it really makes no difference whether the coinage is in nice multiples of fives and tens. They're going to use a calculator either way...
Yeah, some people will ALWAYS need a calculator. I think the downside of different coinnage would be that EVERYONE will need a calculator.
My employees'/etc/hosts so that slashdot resolves to 127.0.0.1 Seriously, if I'm managing you and you are getting paid to do 8 hours of work, then you are going to do EIGHT HOURS OF WORK.
It's exactly that sort of attitude that pushes workers to find ways of slacking. Unless you are running an assembly line, how are you going to quantify that 8 hours' work? Demanding that all 8 hours be spent actively working on something is unrealistic. People don't work that way, and NEVER HAVE. Take, for example, digging trenches. You ever seen a highway construction guy leaning on his shovel? You probably think he's a slacker. Well, you're wrong. If you're shovelling dirt all day, you spend 5-10 minutes resting for every 5-10 minutes shovelling (I know from experience). This is pretty much a physical limitation on the human body. Likewise, difficult mental work requires periodic rests. PHB types like you who require all their robots to be moving at all times don't seem to understand this. That's why rational humans like us develop "slacking" skills, such as the "shovel edge scrape" (noisy, requires no effort) or the "tech ref drool-over" (prop head up over tech manual). Idiot managers like you are the actual problem because dammit, humans require a little fucking slack now and then!
Seriously, there's got to be a way to trick everyone into thinking that you are at school while your at home coding or whatever.
Sorry. High-school and below is very differfent from work. Work requires only that the work get done, whereas school is actually Child Prison. The only function of school anymore is to keep kids off the street until they are 18, which means performance is nothing, attendance is everything. You'll have to wait until college to seriously study slacking.
or at least hire on of these[link to picture of a maid]
Already have one. For the sake of brain damaged children like you who obviously can't even read an entire comment, I will repeat the last line:
(please note: the mess visible in the background is the result of packing for a move and is not indicative of the normal state of my living quarters. I got enough snide comments regarding that the last time I posted this link, thank you very much.)
OK, seriously, how many of the Slashdot crowd would actually buy this?
Not me. I've already made something like that for my own personal amusement. (please note: the mess visible in the background is the result of packing for a move and is not indicative of the normal state of my living quarters. I got enough snide comments regarding that the last time I posted this link, thank you very much.)
Tell me which one is still working (and motherboard) and then tell me who makes a more reliable "better" chip. The AMD will toast itself, more then likely the board, and whatever else it can get its pins onto. The Intel will underclock itself and save your system.
You sound like a weirdo friend of mine who drives an old Volvo. He tries to justify the money he spends by going off on its safety features. A thermistor on the CPU does not in itself make Intel's product a better performer.
If I lock my door because I don't want your filthy magazine, Kirby Vacuum, Security System, Candy, Pest Conrol selling ass in my house, who are you to sue me?
Or, even more absurd, who are you to be suing some third party who told me what you looked like and that you were a salesman?
I work at a company that has a blog-like recap of political news
From the look of the site, I don't think that would be considered a 'blog, as such. Think more along the lines of/. here: if any fool with an opinion can post commentary which (though moderated) is not deleted or editted, it's probably a 'blog.
Cisco has a system for using ethernet over regular phone wire up to 5k feet with 5-15mbps performace
Well, from looking at their rudimentary diagram, it appears to me that it's more of a peer-to-peer version of DSL. The only reason they call it "long-reach ethernet" is that you can send ethernet into one box, have the data go X number of feet over Crappy Copper to another box, and have the same ethernet come out (and vice versa). I guarantee that they're not using ethernet to send the data over a POTS pair. I reckon its just an inexpensive SDSL-type system that doesn't require you to buy a 32-port DSLAM for one end when all you want/need is a single 10baseT connection somewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
GCCS is a CLOSED network using Secret Internet Protocol Routing. The network is only as secure as the weakest application? The applications aren't the ones doing the encrypting, the SIPR layer is. No matter how "weak" MS Chat may be, there's no way to exploit that weakness. The app can't talk to the outside. Even if some nefarious villain could somehow sneak a "back door" or a trojan into the chat client, what could it do? It can't send out info "in the clear" because the network protocol iteself is encrypted; and even if it COULD, to whom would it send this info?
You're looking at it wrong. GPS units aren't used as replacements for maps. They're used to supplement them. GPS doesn't show terrain features, so planning unit movements still often requires separate maps. Even if these maps are kept totally online someday, the ability to READ a map will still have to be taught. Basic military training will always include basic navigation skills.
And don't forget the Air Force! They still learn to make their beds by hand and walk together in a straight line. Also, on one day of their training, they go out to a rifle range and are shown which end of the M-16 is the dangerous one, so that if they happen upon one they won't accidentally kill someone.
Actually, it's a license that is required, and the license is granted through contract. The contract aspect, however, may be anything from a signed piece of paper to an implied contract from the act of purchasing the product. All the DMCA does is ensure that the end-user did indeed click "I agree" when the EULA popped up. This in no way changes whether the contents of the EULA are enforceable. Illegal provisions in a contract are still illegal.
Many provisions of Title 17 (copyright law) say "Notwithstanding any provision of the antitrust laws".
Those sections deal specifically with limitations and scope of exclusive rights and the distribution of royalty payments. They certainly do not give copyright holders carte blanche to violate antitrust law any way they see fit. Essentially, there's no way Apple can force you to use their OS on Apple-made machines only via a click-through EULA. The DMCA does nothing to change this, as only a miniscule percentage of computer users would even be ABLE to figure out a way to install the OS without having to see the EULA click-through. The DMCA here is practically irrelevant.
What about "the Software comes encrypted, and the DMCA prohibits you from decrypting this Software without agreeing to this License"?
Totally irrelevant. The DMCA is about copyright. Nothing in the DMCA has anything to do with contracts. A click-through contract attached to a decrypting installation program is no more binding than any other click-through EULA. The DMCA ensures that you have to click-through because bypassing it (as part of the decryption) would be illegal, but it doesn't make the EULA any more powerful than any other EULA. What one has to look at here is basic contract law.
1) The legal "strength" of a contract is pretty feeble in the case of shrink-wrap or click-through EULAs. Real contracts are ones which signed and witnessed, preferrably after the advice of legal counsel. EULAs are effectively little more than disclaimers because the end user didn't sign them, thus making it impossible for the plaintiff to produce a signed contract as evidence in court. The Law is pretty clear in that it greatly prefers paper, as it can show the paper to the defendant and ask "did you sign this?"
2) The licensing of OS X allows you to use one installation of it on one machine. That's perfectly legal. The part where they say "one machine of our manufacture" is legally unenforceable. Say, for example, you had a cover band and you wanted to pulicly play a song owned by XYZ Music Corp. They say "sure, that's $100; but you can only play it if your band uses XYZ Corp guitars, drums, etc." That's illegal (see the Sherman Antitrust Act) and unenforceable. Apple can no more force you to install OS X on only Apple-manufactured systems than GM can force you to install GM manufactured parts on your GM car. Doing either will likely void the waranty, but that's about it.
You see, one can put absolutely anything in a contract, and even if someone signs it, they are under no obligation to abide by the illegal parts of the contract.
Actually, a violation of contract is illegal under US and (I believe) international law.
Violation of a lawful contract is cause for civil liability, yes. But this contract, being 1) a shrink-wrap EULA , and 2) limiting the use of enclosed product unlawfully, is pretty much unenforceable. Its only purpose, really, is to limit Apple's liability for damages due to "misuse".
2) Shrink-wrap licenses have NEVER been held to be valid in court.
Actually, I remember reading about a case involving stock-broking software (Sorry, I forget the name; it was ~1 year ago) where their EULA said "They cannot be held liable for any damages incured as a result of the use of said software". And, due to a bug, someone lost upwards of $50,000.
Perfect example. The end user was not prosecuted, nor was he found civilly liable for breaking said contract. Rather, this is a completely different situation, wherein the software writers were able to use the EULA to show that they were not liable for losses resulting from use of said software. See the difference? The EULA's status as a contract was irrelevant-- the case had to do with the EULA being valid as a disclaimer. Two very different things, my friend.
True, the U-2R is essentially the same airframe. The point I was trying to make (somewhat unclearly, I admit) was that Powers was shot down because the DOD/CIA/whomever assumed that the U-2 flew so high it was invincible. Like the first guy to shoot his own propellor off in a biplane, you only need to make that error once to really learn your lesson!
And their planes, missiles and computers haven't gotten any better.
First of all, that Navy EP-3E wasn't "shot down", it was hit by a jackass chinese fighter jock. He was playing Tough Guy and trying to scare them by disturbing the airflow over the wing by pulling up in front of it and got caught in the prop. Besides, I never said anything about prop-driven spy planes; I was making an analogy.
Second, you've missed my point regarding the U-2. While the US does indeed use what is essentially the same aircraft that Powers was shot down flying, they no longer arrogantly assume that whomever they are overflying "doesn't have missiles that go that high". It wasn't bad luck that got Powers, it was the hubris of the DOD/CIA thinking they were invincible at that altitude. The fact that no U-2's have been shot down since is my point-- like the first guy to put a machine gun on his biplane shooting the propellor, it was a ridiculously stupid mistake the first time and not something one does twice.
Saddam's regime freely admitted to having certain quantities of WMDs after Gulf War I. The regime could not account for even those it admitted to having previously. Essentially, they said "what we had we destroyed, but we forget what we did with the destroyed stuff." I find that suspicious. Don't you?
Pfff! You do realize that that was 43 years ago, yes? Saying that's the problem with reconnaisance aircraft is like saying that the problem with guns on fighter aircraft is that they shoot their own propeller off.
Heh. You're not far off. The best way to cover up the fact that you don't remember the proper casal endings for words is to drink plenty of vodka. Once you're good and drunk, you'll be slurring the endings of words so badly that you'll sound just like a real Russian and nobody will know you don't know the "right way" to say something.
Now that yo umention it, where are our flying cars?
Christ almighty, someone mod parent up! This is the funniest joke I've ever heard, it's not based on specs of products from 3 years ago, and what's more I've never heard this joke before!
Do you really think that if pennies disappeared, all the stuff you buy would keep its non-divisible-by-five price and the rounding to the nearest nickel would happen at the cash register? Think again, man. They're gonna round the price of EACH ITEM in that group of 10 or 20 up to the nearest five. It is, however, an entirely moot point because the way our state/county/city sales tax system works pretty much requires a full decimal system down to the penny. The only reason this worked in france is that they have a nasty VAT tax system where the end price includes all taxes. US sales taxes always "add on". Few (if any!) cash registers support rounding, so it'll have to be done "on the fly" by the cashier. And what if you're paying by check or credit/debit card? Do they still round the price up/down? No, we'll never be able to get rid of the penny until we run into an inflationary situation like mexico did when they had to switch to "new pesos" in order to cut 3 zeros off the end.
Yeah, that $.02 would really kill me.
Because, of course, you only plan to buy ONE THING, ONE TIME, for the REST OF YOUR LIFE. Think about it: evry pack of gum. Every can of soup. Every gallon of gas. One buys quite a few individual items every day. Is the "convenience" of not having a jar of pennies on your dresser really worth the $50-$100 a year it'd cost you? I'll take the jar and the fifty, please.
Yeah, some people will ALWAYS need a calculator. I think the downside of different coinnage would be that EVERYONE will need a calculator.
It's exactly that sort of attitude that pushes workers to find ways of slacking. Unless you are running an assembly line, how are you going to quantify that 8 hours' work? Demanding that all 8 hours be spent actively working on something is unrealistic. People don't work that way, and NEVER HAVE. Take, for example, digging trenches. You ever seen a highway construction guy leaning on his shovel? You probably think he's a slacker. Well, you're wrong. If you're shovelling dirt all day, you spend 5-10 minutes resting for every 5-10 minutes shovelling (I know from experience). This is pretty much a physical limitation on the human body. Likewise, difficult mental work requires periodic rests. PHB types like you who require all their robots to be moving at all times don't seem to understand this. That's why rational humans like us develop "slacking" skills, such as the "shovel edge scrape" (noisy, requires no effort) or the "tech ref drool-over" (prop head up over tech manual). Idiot managers like you are the actual problem because dammit, humans require a little fucking slack now and then!
Sorry. High-school and below is very differfent from work. Work requires only that the work get done, whereas school is actually Child Prison. The only function of school anymore is to keep kids off the street until they are 18, which means performance is nothing, attendance is everything. You'll have to wait until college to seriously study slacking.
didnt read that part of the comment... but thats cuz i clicked on your link to fast...
heh. no worries. Sorry about the "brain damaged children" thing... I was tired and cranky. :)
Nothing. I built it from scavenged parts.
I have a suggestion - next time take that money and effort and build one of these[link to vacuum cleaner]
Don't need to. I have a Roomba.
or at least hire on of these[link to picture of a maid]
Already have one. For the sake of brain damaged children like you who obviously can't even read an entire comment, I will repeat the last line:
(please note: the mess visible in the background is the result of packing for a move and is not indicative of the normal state of my living quarters. I got enough snide comments regarding that the last time I posted this link, thank you very much.)
dumbass.
Not me. I've already made something like that for my own personal amusement. (please note: the mess visible in the background is the result of packing for a move and is not indicative of the normal state of my living quarters. I got enough snide comments regarding that the last time I posted this link, thank you very much.)
You sound like a weirdo friend of mine who drives an old Volvo. He tries to justify the money he spends by going off on its safety features. A thermistor on the CPU does not in itself make Intel's product a better performer.
Or, even more absurd, who are you to be suing some third party who told me what you looked like and that you were a salesman?
From the look of the site, I don't think that would be considered a 'blog, as such. Think more along the lines of /. here: if any fool with an opinion can post commentary which (though moderated) is not deleted or editted, it's probably a 'blog.
Well, from looking at their rudimentary diagram, it appears to me that it's more of a peer-to-peer version of DSL. The only reason they call it "long-reach ethernet" is that you can send ethernet into one box, have the data go X number of feet over Crappy Copper to another box, and have the same ethernet come out (and vice versa). I guarantee that they're not using ethernet to send the data over a POTS pair. I reckon its just an inexpensive SDSL-type system that doesn't require you to buy a 32-port DSLAM for one end when all you want/need is a single 10baseT connection somewhere.