You're trying as hard as you can to miss my point.
I'm asking why we bother footing the bill for prosecuting trivialities as crimes.
It's like drug laws. Yes, they are there, but they're wasteful, functionally useless, and overly restrictive. Why do we pay for that nonsense?
no one should ever do anything ever because at some point in the future it will fail.
I know you're still trying your hardest to not get it, but there's a big difference between something that might not succeed and blindly repeating things you KNOW will fail.
Because those lying bits *are* fraud.
No, they are not. They're user-settable bits. They aren't valid ID, or data on a form you've promised to fill in correctly. It's like a nickname. That the equipment to set it is so rare you haven't heard of it isn't my problem.
How does it benefit us to pass ever more restrictive and totalitarian laws solely for the benefit of companies who won't even try to be secure?
We have laws in place making it functionally illegal. We should just clarify the laws.
But why? How does the public's balance sheet look any better at the end of the year for cracking down on caller-ID spoofing?
There won't ever be an incentive to provide actual security if you can simply punish people who expose your mistakes.
That's a separate and unrelated issue. If someone suffers a loss, then they should sue AT&T. If AT&T has an insecure policy as a standard policy, then all their customers should get together and sue them in a class action. But whether AT&T harmed their customers from a policy is unrelated to the fraud committed by those that abused that permissive policy.
But AT&T wouldn't be at fault because the action was illegal. So they'd have no incentive to fix it. They'd leave more customers at risk that way than if they had to fix this.
Again, you are defending the people committing fraud. Why?
No, I'm advocating for a state of reality where we would have encrypted cellphones because the government hadn't just mandated that listening to calls is illegal.
But now because you don't want to acknowledge the nature of caller-ID, especially versus ANI which is made for identifying the calling party for billing purposes, we're going to have more useless laws that penalize the law-abiding and do nothing but dumb down the population.
How does it benefit us to pass ever more restrictive and totalitarian laws solely for the benefit of companies who won't even try to be secure? Why should we foot the bill for something doomed to fail?
Why making faking some bits in a header fraud when they could just stop trusting customer data? There won't ever be an incentive to provide actual security if you can simply punish people who expose your mistakes.
This guy with 36 hours of work can produce something a bunch of people wanted.
Or we can all be taxed heavily to support the justice system being overloaded and bent to use a law meant to increase the public domain to instead block publication.
Yeah I see the law, but it's wrong. Written for a different era with different technologies. That genie will never go back in the bottle. The question is if we want to waste the rest of our once prosperous society by building tariff walls around our entrenched interests instead of changing with the times.
So now when it happens people will be convinced it's real.
It's exactly what they did with listening to cellular calls. They outlawed it early enough in adoption that most people didn't know their calls were broadcast in the clear - and it was illegal to show them proof.
As a consequence people were less safe than if eavesdropping were common, at least then they'd have known to take precautions or use a more-secure device.
Defining "spoofing" with the common and non-technical use of the word spoofing, all spoofing should be illegal. If you aren't authorized to use the number, it should be illegal to use it.
Oh you tax-and-spend authoritarians!
Where do you think the money comes from for the federal investigations of wire fraud every time someone calls a wrong number or manually edits a URL? What's the cost benefit to society of sentencing some punk kid to 900 years for 60K counts of hacking facebook instead of making facebook fix their problem?
How does it benefit society that we bail out companies who can't be bothered even try to be secure?
COBOL programmers earn a lot these days. Society thinks they're more relevant than you are.
But even they would be expected to know the state of the art before you'd pay them to write something. Otherwise they'd spend forever reinventing something and still screw it up.
But if you don't consider that one of the parents is a liar in the decision of who is the best parent, you're doing something wrong.
If you'll sleep around and endanger your spouse why should people believe you wouldn't leave your kids on the sidewalk outside the casino all night, or sell them for crack? Casual disregard for the welfare of others is rarely limited to just one target.
over the years I've watched my bank account grow to almost half-a-million
And the real value deflate to around $200K of those 1985 dollars.
Aren't the people jacked up on a quarter million dollars of debt actually the more rational? The value of the dollar is plummeting because everyone is in debt past their eyeballs, and then they've bought their own debt, repackaged it, and resold it. The government continuing bailouts means it's not going to change. Buying a plasma TV(/house) today and paying with future devalued money only makes sense.
And yeah, can you blame them? Why would they watch what they doing? There aren't any consequences because there's always someone like you with handy cash reserves to tax.
society takes the hits for even a few idiots [...] So long as there are bail outs
Well yeah. As long as we're bailing one very specific class out for their failures no matter how they were caused by carelessness or corruption, and letting everyone else fail even while we tax them for the bailouts.
The profit in banking is supposed to be there because they handle the risk of loans. If they aren't going to handle the risk (losing sometimes) why do we give them a chance to take the profit?
There are many potential systems for nationalizing the banks and as long as we've taken the risks we should take the profits as well.
Currently, to a bank, the costs of arresting, trying, and holding a debtor, as well as their lost opportunity to help society, are invisible. They don't give a shit if they ruin a life with debt and they get all the profit on the way. If society ran the banks we'd be directly paying the support costs as well so we wouldn't have the incentive to drive this massive debt-bubble or hurt the uneducated.
As long as the government prints the money they need to run the banking.
what you really just said is the fundamental flaw is that the whole US economy can't work, period.
Yeah. Without massive rework. It's doomed as it is to continual spirals of ruin without huge outside cash infusions. It's like a swimming pool that's leaking (right into Lehman Brothers' pockets). You need to keep filling it constantly or it'll dry up.
So, are you a troll or a commie?
So there's only communism and whatever-the-USA-does?
Hint - there are far more than two and hardly any are polar opposites.
Put me down as concerned citizen who'd like a functioning country.
I'm not really trying to make you look like either one here, but if we give the benefit of a doubt as to trolling, I think it's only fair to warn you you have reasoned your way to a point where the entire republican right would call you a dirty commie commie hippy libtard.
Anyone who'd identify with either of the two main parties in the USA is an uneducated and dangerous lunatic. That sort of thing is exactly why.
As soon as you start examining the failures of society, seeing how they're hugely corruption based, and try to discuss these failures the entrenched interests attack. The first and simplest way is to label. Any slur is good enough, all are equivalent because they're devoid of actual meaning.
Yep, computers now are almost exactly like computers were 60 years ago.
No Sparky, but information is. We haven't added any new bits since '1' back in the 40s, just after the war.
Knuth's books are closer to textbooks on discrete math than "how to use a computer". He doesn't waste any time on the trivial or the proprietary.
It's your choice if you want live your life appealing to authority and living submissively in another man's shadow, just don't try to get in the way of the people who have their own ideas and goals.
Promise me something. Not everyone is as... whatever you are... as you. Promise me you won't change. Never read a book. Don't let the man bring you down.
No, it's doing exactly the opposite of what was intended. To encourage publishing, copyright grants monopoly rights. Not to enrich the author, but to encourage publishing.
Here something was published, a new something (based on an old something) and copyright is being used to deprive the public of it. Copyright should never be used to reduce the amount of works available to the public.
Copyright law is just busted. If it said "right to profit" they'd let the guy publish and sue for his profits.
That said though, a large part of the C&D is very likely the trademark - which they do (legally) need to pursue.
If you really did cheat, as in lie to your partner about having sex with someone else while supposedly monogamous with them, and risk infecting them with something, then you wouldn't be a very good parent.
The problem seems to be treating all sex with others, which you may be having openly (especially during this separated year), as cheating even if it is not.
If you've cheated your partner, at business or love, you should get less out of it. It's called cheating because it's implicitly done behind your spouse's back. By definition they don't know about the health risks they're being exposed to, etc.
Wouldn't reckless endangerment be a good reason for a biased settlement?
We're often told how mercenary corporations are and how they'll be sued by shareholders for not being so, etc. How this is just business.
These companies see fixing bugs as 1) a wasted expense and 2) less incentive to pay for an upgrade.
Some companies do otherwise and provide patches and support but by the nature of markets they'll eventually be replaced by companies that spare that expense too.
When you buy software (without source) you're entering an adversarial relationship with an entity that benefits from keeping you unable to fix problems and on the upgrade treadmill.
And they saying we are the same, or are aimed at the same point? Because if we act like them in any way but hand-wave it away as "just one little thing" it soon won't be.
IMHO, to the degree we aren't like China, it's only because people react strongly and negatively to extending government power here.
If we had to wait until every abuse was so egregious it actually bothered the unconcerned and (often intentionally) unaware we'd never get anything done.
If there's nothing earlier from out of band, you don't, can't, and never will be able to trust someone in a situation like that even if there's a server in the middle.
But once you have their key fingerprint, perhaps typed into a 3d game chat window (how did you meet them?), you can keep your communications to them secret regardless of how your packets are routed or who eavesdrops.
Presumably in a p2p network, where everything is a potential mitm attack, you wouldn't be able to ignore the possibility of it and would thus build encryption, signing, and data hiding into the protocol.
Slashdot Mirror
You're trying as hard as you can to miss my point.
I'm asking why we bother footing the bill for prosecuting trivialities as crimes.
It's like drug laws. Yes, they are there, but they're wasteful, functionally useless, and overly restrictive. Why do we pay for that nonsense?
no one should ever do anything ever because at some point in the future it will fail.
I know you're still trying your hardest to not get it, but there's a big difference between something that might not succeed and blindly repeating things you KNOW will fail.
Because those lying bits *are* fraud.
No, they are not. They're user-settable bits. They aren't valid ID, or data on a form you've promised to fill in correctly. It's like a nickname. That the equipment to set it is so rare you haven't heard of it isn't my problem.
How does it benefit us to pass ever more restrictive and totalitarian laws solely for the benefit of companies who won't even try to be secure?
We have laws in place making it functionally illegal. We should just clarify the laws.
But why? How does the public's balance sheet look any better at the end of the year for cracking down on caller-ID spoofing?
There won't ever be an incentive to provide actual security if you can simply punish people who expose your mistakes.
That's a separate and unrelated issue. If someone suffers a loss, then they should sue AT&T. If AT&T has an insecure policy as a standard policy, then all their customers should get together and sue them in a class action. But whether AT&T harmed their customers from a policy is unrelated to the fraud committed by those that abused that permissive policy.
But AT&T wouldn't be at fault because the action was illegal. So they'd have no incentive to fix it. They'd leave more customers at risk that way than if they had to fix this.
Again, you are defending the people committing fraud. Why?
No, I'm advocating for a state of reality where we would have encrypted cellphones because the government hadn't just mandated that listening to calls is illegal.
But now because you don't want to acknowledge the nature of caller-ID, especially versus ANI which is made for identifying the calling party for billing purposes, we're going to have more useless laws that penalize the law-abiding and do nothing but dumb down the population.
How do we benefit from this?
You had to stretch a lot to get there.
How does it benefit us to pass ever more restrictive and totalitarian laws solely for the benefit of companies who won't even try to be secure? Why should we foot the bill for something doomed to fail?
Why making faking some bits in a header fraud when they could just stop trusting customer data? There won't ever be an incentive to provide actual security if you can simply punish people who expose your mistakes.
Obviously, yes. And it's obvious where they want to draw the line.
If it was China or the USA my answer would be 'nowhere'...
Heh, yeah. Right.
Alas and alack like a stab in the back I hack and I hack but I lack the knack to crack the stack.
To crack the stack there and back, without any flack or loss of slack, you merely need a gimmack.
So? How does that benefit society?
This guy with 36 hours of work can produce something a bunch of people wanted.
Or we can all be taxed heavily to support the justice system being overloaded and bent to use a law meant to increase the public domain to instead block publication.
Yeah I see the law, but it's wrong. Written for a different era with different technologies. That genie will never go back in the bottle. The question is if we want to waste the rest of our once prosperous society by building tariff walls around our entrenched interests instead of changing with the times.
So now when it happens people will be convinced it's real.
It's exactly what they did with listening to cellular calls. They outlawed it early enough in adoption that most people didn't know their calls were broadcast in the clear - and it was illegal to show them proof.
As a consequence people were less safe than if eavesdropping were common, at least then they'd have known to take precautions or use a more-secure device.
Defining "spoofing" with the common and non-technical use of the word spoofing, all spoofing should be illegal. If you aren't authorized to use the number, it should be illegal to use it.
Oh you tax-and-spend authoritarians!
Where do you think the money comes from for the federal investigations of wire fraud every time someone calls a wrong number or manually edits a URL? What's the cost benefit to society of sentencing some punk kid to 900 years for 60K counts of hacking facebook instead of making facebook fix their problem?
How does it benefit society that we bail out companies who can't be bothered even try to be secure?
When shown a new concept in logic you don't say "that's mathematical!" ...
Unsafe image search, by definition
Further reading
Or the Numa Numa guy.
You mean how he got famous and made a lot of money?
This video of this kid is no worse than anything shown on America's Funniest Home Videos. Better in that nobody gets hurt as the butt of the joke.
COBOL programmers earn a lot these days. Society thinks they're more relevant than you are.
But even they would be expected to know the state of the art before you'd pay them to write something. Otherwise they'd spend forever reinventing something and still screw it up.
As an overall standard, yes. Of course.
But if you don't consider that one of the parents is a liar in the decision of who is the best parent, you're doing something wrong.
If you'll sleep around and endanger your spouse why should people believe you wouldn't leave your kids on the sidewalk outside the casino all night, or sell them for crack? Casual disregard for the welfare of others is rarely limited to just one target.
over the years I've watched my bank account grow to almost half-a-million
And the real value deflate to around $200K of those 1985 dollars.
Aren't the people jacked up on a quarter million dollars of debt actually the more rational? The value of the dollar is plummeting because everyone is in debt past their eyeballs, and then they've bought their own debt, repackaged it, and resold it. The government continuing bailouts means it's not going to change. Buying a plasma TV(/house) today and paying with future devalued money only makes sense.
And yeah, can you blame them? Why would they watch what they doing? There aren't any consequences because there's always someone like you with handy cash reserves to tax.
society takes the hits for even a few idiots [...] So long as there are bail outs
Well yeah. As long as we're bailing one very specific class out for their failures no matter how they were caused by carelessness or corruption, and letting everyone else fail even while we tax them for the bailouts.
The profit in banking is supposed to be there because they handle the risk of loans. If they aren't going to handle the risk (losing sometimes) why do we give them a chance to take the profit?
There are many potential systems for nationalizing the banks and as long as we've taken the risks we should take the profits as well.
Currently, to a bank, the costs of arresting, trying, and holding a debtor, as well as their lost opportunity to help society, are invisible. They don't give a shit if they ruin a life with debt and they get all the profit on the way. If society ran the banks we'd be directly paying the support costs as well so we wouldn't have the incentive to drive this massive debt-bubble or hurt the uneducated.
As long as the government prints the money they need to run the banking.
what you really just said is the fundamental flaw is that the whole US economy can't work, period.
Yeah. Without massive rework. It's doomed as it is to continual spirals of ruin without huge outside cash infusions. It's like a swimming pool that's leaking (right into Lehman Brothers' pockets). You need to keep filling it constantly or it'll dry up.
So, are you a troll or a commie?
So there's only communism and whatever-the-USA-does?
Hint - there are far more than two and hardly any are polar opposites.
Put me down as concerned citizen who'd like a functioning country.
I'm not really trying to make you look like either one here, but if we give the benefit of a doubt as to trolling, I think it's only fair to warn you you have reasoned your way to a point where the entire republican right would call you a dirty commie commie hippy libtard.
Anyone who'd identify with either of the two main parties in the USA is an uneducated and dangerous lunatic. That sort of thing is exactly why.
As soon as you start examining the failures of society, seeing how they're hugely corruption based, and try to discuss these failures the entrenched interests attack. The first and simplest way is to label. Any slur is good enough, all are equivalent because they're devoid of actual meaning.
For not knowing the names? Sure. We don't even need Knuth's except that we wouldn't know to be excited he was releasing something new.
But the discussion is about someone who doesn't care about fire because some old dude invented it. That's funny.
Yep, computers now are almost exactly like computers were 60 years ago.
No Sparky, but information is. We haven't added any new bits since '1' back in the 40s, just after the war.
Knuth's books are closer to textbooks on discrete math than "how to use a computer". He doesn't waste any time on the trivial or the proprietary.
It's your choice if you want live your life appealing to authority and living submissively in another man's shadow, just don't try to get in the way of the people who have their own ideas and goals.
Promise me something. Not everyone is as ... whatever you are ... as you. Promise me you won't change. Never read a book. Don't let the man bring you down.
If he created a port, from scratch (including graphics) he would be able to distribute it - except for the name.
All they control here is the name and the graphics he copied. And maps if those are included.
No, it's doing exactly the opposite of what was intended. To encourage publishing, copyright grants monopoly rights. Not to enrich the author, but to encourage publishing.
Here something was published, a new something (based on an old something) and copyright is being used to deprive the public of it. Copyright should never be used to reduce the amount of works available to the public.
Copyright law is just busted. If it said "right to profit" they'd let the guy publish and sue for his profits.
That said though, a large part of the C&D is very likely the trademark - which they do (legally) need to pursue.
That doesn't serve society. Copyright should encourage publishing, NOT be usable as a stick to stop publishing.
At most they should be able to claim this guy's proceeds, but not prevent people from being able to consume to work.
If you really did cheat, as in lie to your partner about having sex with someone else while supposedly monogamous with them, and risk infecting them with something, then you wouldn't be a very good parent.
The problem seems to be treating all sex with others, which you may be having openly (especially during this separated year), as cheating even if it is not.
If you've cheated your partner, at business or love, you should get less out of it. It's called cheating because it's implicitly done behind your spouse's back. By definition they don't know about the health risks they're being exposed to, etc.
Wouldn't reckless endangerment be a good reason for a biased settlement?
We're often told how mercenary corporations are and how they'll be sued by shareholders for not being so, etc. How this is just business.
These companies see fixing bugs as 1) a wasted expense and 2) less incentive to pay for an upgrade.
Some companies do otherwise and provide patches and support but by the nature of markets they'll eventually be replaced by companies that spare that expense too.
When you buy software (without source) you're entering an adversarial relationship with an entity that benefits from keeping you unable to fix problems and on the upgrade treadmill.
And they saying we are the same, or are aimed at the same point? Because if we act like them in any way but hand-wave it away as "just one little thing" it soon won't be.
IMHO, to the degree we aren't like China, it's only because people react strongly and negatively to extending government power here.
If we had to wait until every abuse was so egregious it actually bothered the unconcerned and (often intentionally) unaware we'd never get anything done.
If there's nothing earlier from out of band, you don't, can't, and never will be able to trust someone in a situation like that even if there's a server in the middle.
But once you have their key fingerprint, perhaps typed into a 3d game chat window (how did you meet them?), you can keep your communications to them secret regardless of how your packets are routed or who eavesdrops.
Presumably in a p2p network, where everything is a potential mitm attack, you wouldn't be able to ignore the possibility of it and would thus build encryption, signing, and data hiding into the protocol.