For the ISPs.... the shit is hitting the fan. They don't like it. Poor babies. My heart bleeds.
Alternately, ISP's and cellular vendors can stop selling something they don't want to deliver: fake 'unlimited' plans.
My hosting provider (asmallorange) sells unlimited functionality (no limits on accounts, aliases, dbs, etc) but has a tiered plan that sets my quota on drivespace and bandwidth. They've been in business long enough I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they've proven that it is possible to make a business work by being honest with customers. Hell, it might even be advantageous, since you don't have to charge 90% of your customers a bit more because of the few trying to set a new record for 'all you can consume'.
FWIW, my parents opted to go DVD-only (and end their streaming Netflix) because dad needs closed-caption to enjoy TV -- sometimes decisions boil down to rather narrow niche needs.
Part of officer training involves handling such situations properly.
Ah, I see yer problem right here. You think that managers get managerial training.
I've seen formalized mentoring or training at a few places. Many will encourage MBA's without guiding the new manager toward programs that focus on managing tech and budgets'. But too often, tech managers are created via a concept whose mere mention may date me -- the Peter Principle. They did job-X well, so they got promoted and everyone else suffers while they try to figure out what this managerial job entails. Based on my experiences, many low-level managers never make the leap.
I took several minutes to read this 2 days ago when I first saw the news (2 days... slashdot, what's happened to you?) and it actually looked damned uncontroversial and careful.
First, I'd say calling this censorship is a red herring.
Censorship = removal of information without recourse or alternative.
Opt-in filtering = giving parents and the squeamish a way to preemptively hide images, with user-controlled overrides.
The categories sought for filtering is also intended to be peer-managed within wikipedia, which should prevent this from becoming a tool for governmental / corporate / ISP censorship. IOW, if users guide the categorization of data (tagging images as sexually explicit, violent, etc) then a gov/corp/ISP can't 'sneak in' the censorship of an article on Turkey, Israel, Net Neutrality, Codomo, China-vs-Taiwan, China-vs-Tibet, Egyptian unrest or whatever.
The call for comments generated by Wiki* also discussed their desire to make whatever they do overridable.
(disclaimer: I think I've edited wiki* a few dozen times, but doubt it was anything censor-worthy).
Have scanned the comments, am not seeing discussion of Notaries.
If you're not talking notaries, or you're saying 'Moxie didn't describe his alternative', it just means you missed (or were asleep / hung over) at the Defcon panel by Marlinspike & Diffie (and questions from Hoyt Kesterson, a former chair of x.509 standards). Go back and reread the 2nd link, especially the last few paragraphs. Moxie's April blog entry didn't get into Convergence, which is an attempt to flip the model upside down.
Everyone talking about trust and signing parties, congratulations: you pretty much independently arrived at M&D's conclusion about them. Ditto MITM. Ditto DNSSEC (both as a spooky single point of failure and the flaw of shoehorning too much shit into DNS records).
In a nutshell, what drove Moxie nuts was watching as there were NO REPERCUSSIONS when Comodo screwed things up terribly. And since web browsers can't/won't just arbitrarily screw all the corps that buy Comodo crap by dumping Comodo from their CA list, nothing will change.
So, he flipped the model around. Users... well, actually, clients... get to revoke trust relationships. And we would do it via the idea of Notaries. The notary pool might vary based on nationality of users (many people in countryX may not care enough to have a notary that focusses on vouching for countryZ websites), or it might introduce a bit of paranoia: As the panelists mentioned and Naked Security restates, clients might even choose a mutually-distrustful set of Notaries to trust: the US Dept of Homeland Security and a branch of the Peoples Republic of China.
Here's my notes on how Convergence works: an SSL page gets the cert from the website, and requests the cert in parallel from notaries. If there's no match or if one of them flags it, you'd get an alert: distrusted by NotaryX. The distrust mechanism is immediate (a Notary can revoke and know that all future use of that cert will be flagged), and if a notary refuses to revoke a cert after a monumental screwup like Comodo's, the users or client-code developer can comparison-shop and find a notary that recognizes the flip-around in nature of their job (vouching for the validity of 3rd-party certs TO US, not trying to keep getting payments by those who currently buy certs).
FWIW, I wasn't completely convinced by Moxie, though not because of Kesterson's good question (What stops this from becoming another economic race to the bottom, like where SSL certs are bought on price, since the buyers evidently aren't technoliterate enough to grok SSL and flee Comodo like they should). Mine's along the line of Schneier's axiom on how crypto is hard: even an easy and promising alternative needs a bit of hard scrutiny to make sure it isn't just creating a different set of problems.
(whew, talk about tl;dr)
One last thing: when the defcon vids get published, this one's worth watching just for Whitfield Diffie's bit on Defcon presentations needing a glass of scotch whisky vs authenticity of his remarks. Priceless.
And I'd be there for you, if it were IN your HOUSE.
Seems to me that the ongoing 'Privatization' of commons spaces is the problem here; if asked, most people would say BART is a public agency, regardless of the nuance of corporate/governmental ownership. Likewise, most people are surprised to learn that stadiums (built with public money, often), malls (which used to get considerable tax breaks), subdivisions, post offices (some of 'em) and so many other places aren't public.
And don't get me started on 'designated protest zones'. Call me crazy, but the right to peaceably assemble sure seems *abridged* if it can only happen in exceptional circumstances and locations with a permit and n days prior notice.
There's something starkly orwellesque about 'the man' rationalizing everything from 'corporations ARE people' to how it's not that bad that they're fighting organized protests.
Trial by jury. Defense. Education. Public defenders.
It'd be easier to ask you to enumerate rights that come without a cost to anyone else. Instead of your flavor of sophistry, we can all show how everything ends up costing someone else something. It'd all be bullshit pushed to silly extremes, but that's your claim, too.
ahem: the right to assistance of counsel. Last phrase.
Way to miss the part where no individual is pressed into slavery when we, as a society, agree that we will tax ourselves to fund minimum standards. We as a nation decided to share the small cost that guarantees that nobody goes without certain services.
In my book, that's a crux concept in both civilization and society: sharing. We share the cost of military, police, travel, environmental protections, parks, fire and emergency services, medical services, governance, schools, utilities, and methods of information dissemination (postal services, libraries). Oh, and public defenders.
Re:IBM = Innovator? Not in my lifetime.
on
IBM Turns 100
·
· Score: 1
Architecture != chip. Neither OS9 nor OSX are pc-compatible in any way, shape, size or form. Architecture by definition cannot be exclusive of OS, libraries, kernel.
Re:IBM = Innovator? Not in my lifetime.
on
IBM Turns 100
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
'There is a reason...' is something of a historical mess of a sentence. At the release of 8088-based IBM computers, one could still buy Apples (6502, not macs), trs-80's, commodore systems, atari, several 8080 and z80 systems/OS's (mostly CP/M), international alternatives (Acorns, Sinclairs), and niche business systems (wasn't OS-9 out by this time?). Apologies to fellow oldsters for not digging up a comprehensive list or missing your pet system -- many more existed when the IBM PC was released.
Skip ahead a few years, and there were newer commodores, apples, ataris, other brands and various Radio Shack schlockery. There'd also been all sorts of changes on OS's, all sorts of changes under the hood. By then, there was a burgeoning PC-compatible market... and it was beginning to be clear that 'PC-compatible' was going to dominate the future. But the category didn't exist initially, and pretending that it was ever an apple/ibm/microsoft triumvirate is just silly.
Having said that, around this time (1977-1985) nobody seriously considered IBM innovative. Their dominant strength was in delivering stodgy b-side computational function that companies could rationalize buying. Any innovation seen pc-side sprang to life as a 3rd-party product. After a few years, IBM might deign to make their own version.
During their existence, Apple deservedly gets credit for innovation, even if part of their genius has been recognizing underappreciated good ideas and pushing them (xerox parc, etc.).
Through all of this, many other companies should get credit for innovation in networks, printing, software (visicalc, sidekick, turbo * compilers), modems, displays, input, storage, etc.
I'll leave the tinfoil antifederalism to someone else, but you asked what data recording would answer?
Last summer, I served on a jury involving motorcycle-vs-dump-truck. A few million dollars in damages (a severed leg, lots of crush / shatter injuries, and reconstructive work at young enough ages that it's a given that the repairs to the injured people will need rework every 10-20 years), a truck driver, two twenty-somethings on the motorcycle, truck driver's employer, and everyone's insurance companies *ALL* have a life-changing stake in what was decided.
So, what did we have to try to decide fault from? Skid marks, an accident report that was secondary to first-responders' efforts to save 2 lives, photos, vaguely-similar crash-test data, wreckage and 2 conflicting models. One model (defendant) was predicated on the motorcycle speeding, then using everything possible to slow down a woman's post-impact trajectory to make the biggest possible speed to fit x= vt - 1/2at^2 (where the negative acceleration came from a severed leg, tearing vs cutting, whether her body skidded or bounced on impact, impact absorbed by the bike's impact and deformation, etc). The other model (plaintiff) was predicated on a lower speed and a clean sever, no bounce (like a sack of flour or sand was the analogy offered), tire-skid length, and the elevation difference between the roadway and where the woman came to rest. One model had the motorcycle going 70+ MPH, the other model had them at or below the speed limit. Neither was a sure thing because there were contradictory witness stories about speed and what happened.
Even just time/speed data from a black box would have *seriously* changed the discussion in the jury room.
FWIW, so would universal healthcare: the case was high profile and the money was huge because the costs involved were huge. Things would be better if the employer doesn't get bankrupted, the driver doesn't get blacklisted for bankrupting his boss, the injured people get orthopedics or incremental reconstructive surgery as needed and job retraining from their strenuous careers (nursing) to something suited to their handicap.
Don't think you have anything to dread. Charge 1 or 2 electric cars nightly (or a family with driving-age teens, or someone whose lifestyle fits charging twice a day) and suddenly the whole neighborhood gets usage extremes and variations that will drown out mere growlights. Especially LED units -- my wife got one recently for sprouting tomatoes.
Hear, Hear! Or usenet. Or telephony. Or telegraphs, television, radio, newspapers, cars, rail, airlines, mail, various tea or trading companies, the british empire, the spanish, romans, greeks, persians, etc.
Shows to go ya, that nothing's unstoppable.
Sticking just to computers, I was going to go further than Usenet, mentioning fidonet, tymnet, bitnet, compuserv and other proprietary 'nets, but usenet put the 'inter' into network parlance. Until usenet created by-subject forums that'd span the globe (and forced us to build & maintain gateways), nets were fiefdoms by comparison.
level of Security or a System is inverse to its level of Accessibility.
Not really.
Using ftp smells like using scp/sftp, but the level of security is increased by encrypting traffic. Calling that diminished accessibility implies that a regular user *needed* to sniff traffic to use FTP in it's intended fashion, which is absurd.
Ditto (by degrees) randomization of packet counter increments, antispoofing, switched networks vs hubs, dedicated encrypted tunnels for untrusted-network communication, logging, log-monitoring, IPS/IDS, SIEM, SSL, proxies, scanning, pentests, smart cards, active directory, SSO, group policy, disabling unused services and nearly every other security best practice. Some diminish accessibility, but seldom significantly. Some stop nonwork activity, which is unpopular but prudent. And *many* are transparent or irrelevant to the user's work-related needs.
As for TFA, I've avoided researching the issue, but am I right that neither side seems to believe Childs had criminal intent? That'd make me think he hardly deserves a million-dollar penalty.
... and by 1997, I was using OLE, active-X and IE3 (or was it IE4) on Win NT servers and Win95/98 workstations to create a web interface for serial-attached laboratory equipment: GC's, scales, sensors, automated sample feeds, etc. That was just one component of a rather exhaustive collection of active-x-based webpages that handled a big corporation's little high-tech subsidiary's materials tracking, accounting, contract data, quality monitoring and god knows how many other things.
I was never a fan or an expert, but I thought active-X was entirely a pretty container designed around OLE functionality. It *was* guaranteed that monitoring and controlling these systems was possible from any browser that could reach the web server.
Ironically, users needed so many activex controls registered with their desktop OS that it was as un-WORA as web code could be. That would have kept any outsider from causing trouble. That, and a near-airgap of a corporate firewall mentality (forget web access... just 3% of users had external email access).
(Ah, the things we sometimes have to do for a paycheck)
'have made it over to Boise' makes it sound like they're currently slowly marching eastward from PDX. Let me add another data point: I've been stompin' hobos in Pocatello (Eastern Idaho) since the late 80's.
When I bought a house in Idaho Falls (elevation 4600, 3 hrs east of Boise) in 1997, we'd catch 15-18 per NIGHT in glue traps. Stupid prior homeowner had landscaped with literally hundreds of square feet of 3/4"-4" river rock, and the interstitial spaces were the best damn hobo habitat I've ever seen (2-5 per shovelful, or an estimated 10 per square foot).
As for JonySuede: Hobo-bite necrosis and their huge presence in eastern Idaho isn't anecdotal... start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_Vest, then hit the website his family has maintained since his disappearance.
RTFM. It includes a call to create the technical remedies that'd allow sharing without damaging 'the commons'. It talks about needing tech remedies for greedy leeching and hacking. It isn't a call for 'ignoring' security. It isn't opening a pathway for botnets (if one narrowly allows visitor-to-internet access, nothing gets pwned). Nobody's being 'told to let others use it for free'; the idea is that we shouldn't be so paranoid that we deny strangers the proverbial sip from our garden hose. And if guest access is throttled, THAT is why everyone would buy access rather than leech. Again, it is a call to embrace tech measures that enable a wireless commons, not 'don't be secure'. And worries about bandwidth caps are tied to greedy leeching again.
Last of all, people shouldn't be treated by criminals or have their door broken down for sharing a wifi connection. I'm not even buying 'hassled' -- that's akin to being held accountable for any other criminal act done with your stuff -- see wikipedia entry 'mens rea'.
yeah, really it is alarmist. Your location is tracked constantly due to cellphone-to-tower chatter. IOW, if your signal-strength meter is working, The Man knows where you are.
Security Theater -- no longer limited to airports, courthouses and queues.
Like $ and anonymity and so many other things, online mechanisms like FB don't destroy character. They just sometimes reveal it -- in your case, a bit too coarsely.
Divorced coworker raged against ex wife. Overgeneralized. Said something he might regret. Meh, it happens. If he's unrepentant, it's like the guy that trashed your apartment while drunk at a party: you just exclude him from those circumstances and consider it an expensive lesson learned. Or inexpensive, in your case. Cheap as hell.
FB's value is in rekindling friendships with people who seemed cool years ago and who've stayed the course -- it's fun to rediscover kindred spirits. Alas, we've also all learned stuff we can't unlearn about others. And we all keep hoping FB or something else will let us keep tabs without enduring the fluff-- Life narratives need a freakin' editor.
You're close to agreement, but the road isn't the vulnerability. Traits of the road can cause (and eliminate) vulnerability, and they'll each come back to the mechanism that'd be exploited, not the road itself.
A security patrol, barriers, countersurveillance, removing the ability to loiter and eavesdrop and monitoring systems can mitigate or remove vulnerabilities. The road can remain, you just have to mitigate the vulnerabilities it creates.
Maybe what's snagging you up is that sometimes the best mitigation idea is to close a road. But that's not because of the road, per se. It's because roads are maliciously-useful in so many ways. Some circumstances just create a broad spectrum of overlapping vulnerabilities: roads, unattended bank kiosks (I'm thinking of a bank branch in an unsecured kiosk in a student union), hacker conventions, or other whac-a-mole (that's a technical term) situations. If a black hat hacker's eyes widen with 'oh-sweet-FSM-so-many-choices', you should start to doubt whether it's possible to recognize all the vulnerabilities. Put into a cliche: sometimes the best strategy is to retreat to safer ground, or to reduce the available services to a manageable, crux few.
Slashdot Mirror
Depressing. Thanks for pointing this out, though.
For the ISPs.... the shit is hitting the fan. They don't like it. Poor babies. My heart bleeds.
Alternately, ISP's and cellular vendors can stop selling something they don't want to deliver: fake 'unlimited' plans.
My hosting provider (asmallorange) sells unlimited functionality (no limits on accounts, aliases, dbs, etc) but has a tiered plan that sets my quota on drivespace and bandwidth. They've been in business long enough I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they've proven that it is possible to make a business work by being honest with customers. Hell, it might even be advantageous, since you don't have to charge 90% of your customers a bit more because of the few trying to set a new record for 'all you can consume'.
FWIW, my parents opted to go DVD-only (and end their streaming Netflix) because dad needs closed-caption to enjoy TV -- sometimes decisions boil down to rather narrow niche needs.
Part of officer training involves handling such situations properly.
Ah, I see yer problem right here. You think that managers get managerial training.
I've seen formalized mentoring or training at a few places. Many will encourage MBA's without guiding the new manager toward programs that focus on managing tech and budgets'. But too often, tech managers are created via a concept whose mere mention may date me -- the Peter Principle. They did job-X well, so they got promoted and everyone else suffers while they try to figure out what this managerial job entails. Based on my experiences, many low-level managers never make the leap.
I took several minutes to read this 2 days ago when I first saw the news (2 days... slashdot, what's happened to you?) and it actually looked damned uncontroversial and careful.
First, I'd say calling this censorship is a red herring.
Censorship = removal of information without recourse or alternative.
Opt-in filtering = giving parents and the squeamish a way to preemptively hide images, with user-controlled overrides.
The categories sought for filtering is also intended to be peer-managed within wikipedia, which should prevent this from becoming a tool for governmental / corporate / ISP censorship. IOW, if users guide the categorization of data (tagging images as sexually explicit, violent, etc) then a gov/corp/ISP can't 'sneak in' the censorship of an article on Turkey, Israel, Net Neutrality, Codomo, China-vs-Taiwan, China-vs-Tibet, Egyptian unrest or whatever.
The call for comments generated by Wiki* also discussed their desire to make whatever they do overridable.
(disclaimer: I think I've edited wiki* a few dozen times, but doubt it was anything censor-worthy).
Have scanned the comments, am not seeing discussion of Notaries.
If you're not talking notaries, or you're saying 'Moxie didn't describe his alternative', it just means you missed (or were asleep / hung over) at the Defcon panel by Marlinspike & Diffie (and questions from Hoyt Kesterson, a former chair of x.509 standards). Go back and reread the 2nd link, especially the last few paragraphs. Moxie's April blog entry didn't get into Convergence, which is an attempt to flip the model upside down.
Everyone talking about trust and signing parties, congratulations: you pretty much independently arrived at M&D's conclusion about them. Ditto MITM. Ditto DNSSEC (both as a spooky single point of failure and the flaw of shoehorning too much shit into DNS records).
In a nutshell, what drove Moxie nuts was watching as there were NO REPERCUSSIONS when Comodo screwed things up terribly. And since web browsers can't/won't just arbitrarily screw all the corps that buy Comodo crap by dumping Comodo from their CA list, nothing will change.
So, he flipped the model around. Users... well, actually, clients... get to revoke trust relationships. And we would do it via the idea of Notaries. The notary pool might vary based on nationality of users (many people in countryX may not care enough to have a notary that focusses on vouching for countryZ websites), or it might introduce a bit of paranoia: As the panelists mentioned and Naked Security restates, clients might even choose a mutually-distrustful set of Notaries to trust: the US Dept of Homeland Security and a branch of the Peoples Republic of China.
Here's my notes on how Convergence works: an SSL page gets the cert from the website, and requests the cert in parallel from notaries. If there's no match or if one of them flags it, you'd get an alert: distrusted by NotaryX. The distrust mechanism is immediate (a Notary can revoke and know that all future use of that cert will be flagged), and if a notary refuses to revoke a cert after a monumental screwup like Comodo's, the users or client-code developer can comparison-shop and find a notary that recognizes the flip-around in nature of their job (vouching for the validity of 3rd-party certs TO US, not trying to keep getting payments by those who currently buy certs).
FWIW, I wasn't completely convinced by Moxie, though not because of Kesterson's good question (What stops this from becoming another economic race to the bottom, like where SSL certs are bought on price, since the buyers evidently aren't technoliterate enough to grok SSL and flee Comodo like they should). Mine's along the line of Schneier's axiom on how crypto is hard: even an easy and promising alternative needs a bit of hard scrutiny to make sure it isn't just creating a different set of problems.
(whew, talk about tl;dr)
One last thing: when the defcon vids get published, this one's worth watching just for Whitfield Diffie's bit on Defcon presentations needing a glass of scotch whisky vs authenticity of his remarks. Priceless.
And I'd be there for you, if it were IN your HOUSE.
Seems to me that the ongoing 'Privatization' of commons spaces is the problem here; if asked, most people would say BART is a public agency, regardless of the nuance of corporate/governmental ownership. Likewise, most people are surprised to learn that stadiums (built with public money, often), malls (which used to get considerable tax breaks), subdivisions, post offices (some of 'em) and so many other places aren't public.
And don't get me started on 'designated protest zones'. Call me crazy, but the right to peaceably assemble sure seems *abridged* if it can only happen in exceptional circumstances and locations with a permit and n days prior notice.
There's something starkly orwellesque about 'the man' rationalizing everything from 'corporations ARE people' to how it's not that bad that they're fighting organized protests.
... thus 'The Year of Linux on the Desktop' takes another kick to the 'nads.
(Having snarked, thanks for the good debian advice; that's my OS of choice)
And then there's 'compulsory process'. Being subpoenaed is closer to slavery than anything else you're falsely equating it to.
Trial by jury. Defense. Education. Public defenders.
It'd be easier to ask you to enumerate rights that come without a cost to anyone else. Instead of your flavor of sophistry, we can all show how everything ends up costing someone else something. It'd all be bullshit pushed to silly extremes, but that's your claim, too.
ahem: the right to assistance of counsel. Last phrase.
Way to miss the part where no individual is pressed into slavery when we, as a society, agree that we will tax ourselves to fund minimum standards. We as a nation decided to share the small cost that guarantees that nobody goes without certain services.
In my book, that's a crux concept in both civilization and society: sharing. We share the cost of military, police, travel, environmental protections, parks, fire and emergency services, medical services, governance, schools, utilities, and methods of information dissemination (postal services, libraries). Oh, and public defenders.
Architecture != chip. Neither OS9 nor OSX are pc-compatible in any way, shape, size or form. Architecture by definition cannot be exclusive of OS, libraries, kernel.
'There is a reason...' is something of a historical mess of a sentence. At the release of 8088-based IBM computers, one could still buy Apples (6502, not macs), trs-80's, commodore systems, atari, several 8080 and z80 systems/OS's (mostly CP/M), international alternatives (Acorns, Sinclairs), and niche business systems (wasn't OS-9 out by this time?). Apologies to fellow oldsters for not digging up a comprehensive list or missing your pet system -- many more existed when the IBM PC was released.
Skip ahead a few years, and there were newer commodores, apples, ataris, other brands and various Radio Shack schlockery. There'd also been all sorts of changes on OS's, all sorts of changes under the hood. By then, there was a burgeoning PC-compatible market... and it was beginning to be clear that 'PC-compatible' was going to dominate the future. But the category didn't exist initially, and pretending that it was ever an apple/ibm/microsoft triumvirate is just silly.
Having said that, around this time (1977-1985) nobody seriously considered IBM innovative. Their dominant strength was in delivering stodgy b-side computational function that companies could rationalize buying. Any innovation seen pc-side sprang to life as a 3rd-party product. After a few years, IBM might deign to make their own version.
During their existence, Apple deservedly gets credit for innovation, even if part of their genius has been recognizing underappreciated good ideas and pushing them (xerox parc, etc.).
Through all of this, many other companies should get credit for innovation in networks, printing, software (visicalc, sidekick, turbo * compilers), modems, displays, input, storage, etc.
I'll leave the tinfoil antifederalism to someone else, but you asked what data recording would answer?
Last summer, I served on a jury involving motorcycle-vs-dump-truck. A few million dollars in damages (a severed leg, lots of crush / shatter injuries, and reconstructive work at young enough ages that it's a given that the repairs to the injured people will need rework every 10-20 years), a truck driver, two twenty-somethings on the motorcycle, truck driver's employer, and everyone's insurance companies *ALL* have a life-changing stake in what was decided.
So, what did we have to try to decide fault from? Skid marks, an accident report that was secondary to first-responders' efforts to save 2 lives, photos, vaguely-similar crash-test data, wreckage and 2 conflicting models. One model (defendant) was predicated on the motorcycle speeding, then using everything possible to slow down a woman's post-impact trajectory to make the biggest possible speed to fit x= vt - 1/2at^2 (where the negative acceleration came from a severed leg, tearing vs cutting, whether her body skidded or bounced on impact, impact absorbed by the bike's impact and deformation, etc). The other model (plaintiff) was predicated on a lower speed and a clean sever, no bounce (like a sack of flour or sand was the analogy offered), tire-skid length, and the elevation difference between the roadway and where the woman came to rest. One model had the motorcycle going 70+ MPH, the other model had them at or below the speed limit. Neither was a sure thing because there were contradictory witness stories about speed and what happened.
Even just time/speed data from a black box would have *seriously* changed the discussion in the jury room.
FWIW, so would universal healthcare: the case was high profile and the money was huge because the costs involved were huge. Things would be better if the employer doesn't get bankrupted, the driver doesn't get blacklisted for bankrupting his boss, the injured people get orthopedics or incremental reconstructive surgery as needed and job retraining from their strenuous careers (nursing) to something suited to their handicap.
Don't think you have anything to dread. Charge 1 or 2 electric cars nightly (or a family with driving-age teens, or someone whose lifestyle fits charging twice a day) and suddenly the whole neighborhood gets usage extremes and variations that will drown out mere growlights. Especially LED units -- my wife got one recently for sprouting tomatoes.
Hear, Hear! Or usenet. Or telephony. Or telegraphs, television, radio, newspapers, cars, rail, airlines, mail, various tea or trading companies, the british empire, the spanish, romans, greeks, persians, etc.
Shows to go ya, that nothing's unstoppable.
Sticking just to computers, I was going to go further than Usenet, mentioning fidonet, tymnet, bitnet, compuserv and other proprietary 'nets, but usenet put the 'inter' into network parlance. Until usenet created by-subject forums that'd span the globe (and forced us to build & maintain gateways), nets were fiefdoms by comparison.
Not really.
Using ftp smells like using scp/sftp, but the level of security is increased by encrypting traffic. Calling that diminished accessibility implies that a regular user *needed* to sniff traffic to use FTP in it's intended fashion, which is absurd.
Ditto (by degrees) randomization of packet counter increments, antispoofing, switched networks vs hubs, dedicated encrypted tunnels for untrusted-network communication, logging, log-monitoring, IPS/IDS, SIEM, SSL, proxies, scanning, pentests, smart cards, active directory, SSO, group policy, disabling unused services and nearly every other security best practice. Some diminish accessibility, but seldom significantly. Some stop nonwork activity, which is unpopular but prudent. And *many* are transparent or irrelevant to the user's work-related needs.
As for TFA, I've avoided researching the issue, but am I right that neither side seems to believe Childs had criminal intent? That'd make me think he hardly deserves a million-dollar penalty.
And you *don't* want to disregard the judge's order on this (Contempt of Court).
... and by 1997, I was using OLE, active-X and IE3 (or was it IE4) on Win NT servers and Win95/98 workstations to create a web interface for serial-attached laboratory equipment: GC's, scales, sensors, automated sample feeds, etc. That was just one component of a rather exhaustive collection of active-x-based webpages that handled a big corporation's little high-tech subsidiary's materials tracking, accounting, contract data, quality monitoring and god knows how many other things.
I was never a fan or an expert, but I thought active-X was entirely a pretty container designed around OLE functionality. It *was* guaranteed that monitoring and controlling these systems was possible from any browser that could reach the web server.
Ironically, users needed so many activex controls registered with their desktop OS that it was as un-WORA as web code could be. That would have kept any outsider from causing trouble. That, and a near-airgap of a corporate firewall mentality (forget web access... just 3% of users had external email access).
(Ah, the things we sometimes have to do for a paycheck)
'have made it over to Boise' makes it sound like they're currently slowly marching eastward from PDX. Let me add another data point: I've been stompin' hobos in Pocatello (Eastern Idaho) since the late 80's.
When I bought a house in Idaho Falls (elevation 4600, 3 hrs east of Boise) in 1997, we'd catch 15-18 per NIGHT in glue traps. Stupid prior homeowner had landscaped with literally hundreds of square feet of 3/4"-4" river rock, and the interstitial spaces were the best damn hobo habitat I've ever seen (2-5 per shovelful, or an estimated 10 per square foot).
As for JonySuede: Hobo-bite necrosis and their huge presence in eastern Idaho isn't anecdotal... start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_Vest, then hit the website his family has maintained since his disappearance.
RTFM. It includes a call to create the technical remedies that'd allow sharing without damaging 'the commons'. It talks about needing tech remedies for greedy leeching and hacking. It isn't a call for 'ignoring' security. It isn't opening a pathway for botnets (if one narrowly allows visitor-to-internet access, nothing gets pwned). Nobody's being 'told to let others use it for free'; the idea is that we shouldn't be so paranoid that we deny strangers the proverbial sip from our garden hose. And if guest access is throttled, THAT is why everyone would buy access rather than leech. Again, it is a call to embrace tech measures that enable a wireless commons, not 'don't be secure'. And worries about bandwidth caps are tied to greedy leeching again.
Last of all, people shouldn't be treated by criminals or have their door broken down for sharing a wifi connection. I'm not even buying 'hassled' -- that's akin to being held accountable for any other criminal act done with your stuff -- see wikipedia entry 'mens rea'.
yeah, really it is alarmist. Your location is tracked constantly due to cellphone-to-tower chatter. IOW, if your signal-strength meter is working, The Man knows where you are.
Security Theater -- no longer limited to airports, courthouses and queues.
FTFY.
Like $ and anonymity and so many other things, online mechanisms like FB don't destroy character. They just sometimes reveal it -- in your case, a bit too coarsely.
Divorced coworker raged against ex wife. Overgeneralized. Said something he might regret. Meh, it happens. If he's unrepentant, it's like the guy that trashed your apartment while drunk at a party: you just exclude him from those circumstances and consider it an expensive lesson learned. Or inexpensive, in your case. Cheap as hell.
FB's value is in rekindling friendships with people who seemed cool years ago and who've stayed the course -- it's fun to rediscover kindred spirits. Alas, we've also all learned stuff we can't unlearn about others. And we all keep hoping FB or something else will let us keep tabs without enduring the fluff-- Life narratives need a freakin' editor.
Edit, don't delete.
Yeah, it sucks -- but how is stripping purchaser rights different from every shrink-wrap license since the '80's ?
Full disclosure: I work 95% with Linux, own Apple, Win and Lin systems, and wish Apple wouldn't do this balkanization of SMB.
You're close to agreement, but the road isn't the vulnerability. Traits of the road can cause (and eliminate) vulnerability, and they'll each come back to the mechanism that'd be exploited, not the road itself.
A security patrol, barriers, countersurveillance, removing the ability to loiter and eavesdrop and monitoring systems can mitigate or remove vulnerabilities. The road can remain, you just have to mitigate the vulnerabilities it creates.
Maybe what's snagging you up is that sometimes the best mitigation idea is to close a road. But that's not because of the road, per se. It's because roads are maliciously-useful in so many ways. Some circumstances just create a broad spectrum of overlapping vulnerabilities: roads, unattended bank kiosks (I'm thinking of a bank branch in an unsecured kiosk in a student union), hacker conventions, or other whac-a-mole (that's a technical term) situations. If a black hat hacker's eyes widen with 'oh-sweet-FSM-so-many-choices', you should start to doubt whether it's possible to recognize all the vulnerabilities. Put into a cliche: sometimes the best strategy is to retreat to safer ground, or to reduce the available services to a manageable, crux few.