It's interesting that when counting votes, the attitude is "close enough is good enough"; compare that to the attitude to money, where every last cent is accounted for. Why is it that counting votes is so much more difficult than counting money?
the U.S. side of the company must obey U.S. laws, and "give permission" to the feds to get data from the UK... data protection act or no data protection act.
This is exactly the heart of the matter. In the words of the Privacy Commissioner "the Patriot Act knows no borders"
1. Thanks for the superfluous geography lecture. Note that I wrote about the climate in the UK and not the weather in London.
2. I never said the tap water in UK wasn't as good as it gets (Coca-cola have learned something about the quality of tap water), but drugs in the water is a legitimate concern. Even if the specific claims about prozac, for example, are truly unfounded, it's still right that consumers continue to demand the highest standards possible, especially when the industry is run by private corporations.
The climate may be wet, but don't think that there isn't also a great deal of treatment/recycling going on. Legend has it that in central London, the water coming out of the taps has on average passed through seven bodies before it reaches you.
This becomes a particular concern when you think about what people put in their waste water that can't easily be filtered by treatment plants, drugs such as antibiotics or contraceptives, for example.
That would be the same blatantly politically-motivated ACLU that recently supported Rush Limbaugh would it? Or are you perhaps just demonstrating your own blatant political motivation?
Bruce Schneider, who I think happens to know something about security, freely admits to carrying a list of his passwords written on a piece of paper in his wallet.
Indeed. Note that writing down a password on a piece of paper turns something you know into something you have. Nothing wrong with that, provided you have appropriate protection on that piece of paper.
In a business setting, it makes sense that they would want control over the private key - if the employee is unable to provide it (sacked, dead, whatever), then they're going to have a *real* hard time breaking the GPG encryption. No business should want to allow themselves to be held hostage to an employee in that way.
[hundreds of hijackings since 1967, though none in the US for more than a decade]
(Hint: "four is" not "a good guess".)
You're right, four is not a "good guess", it's actually the exactly correct answer. Every one of the incidents covered in the figures above was a hijacking in the classical sense - a group of attackers uses violence and/or the threat of violence as a negotiating position (often, the release of prisoners). Having a separate cockpit door makes absolutely no difference to the threat of "we'll kill all these hostages unless...". The devastating novelty of 9/11, using airplanes as weapons, can only be a one-off : there's no negotiating position in "we'll steer this aircraft into that target unless...", not least since the standard response since Sep 2001 is to shoot down such aircraft.
I see now that our misunderstanding is my fault for being too concise - I should have realised when you thoughtfully provided a definition of "hijack" - when I wrote about passengers "seizing control", there was an implied "...with the intention of using the aircraft as a weapon", which you obviously missed. That's kinda the reason I didn't use the word "hijack" in the first place.
If we were serious about airplane safety, I'd say make the cockpit a SEPERATE compartment with no access from the passengers.
A sepArate cockpit may significantly reduce the possibility that passengers can seize control of the aircraft, but that doesn't increase "airplane safety". Think about the reasons cabin/flight crew may have to move between cockpit and cabin (I'll start you off with "medical emergency on the flight deck"). Now consider how many times your examples occur in a year. Now compare that to how often passengers seize control of the plane (hint : "four" is a good guess). A separate cockpit may mitigate some hijack threats, but it creates a whole class of new threats to the safety of the airplane. Overall, it *decreases* the safety.
[cf Having armed marshalls on board. The problem of "how to get a weapon on board" is transformed into "how to overpower the marshall and seize his/her weapon". This is a *decrease* in security]
I have first hand experience that piracy DOES effect [sic]the software developer
Oh, you're a sailor are you? Either that, or you're just demonstrating the kind of simplistic thinking that tries to use pejorative language to muddy the issues.
I learned that taking things without permission is wrong when I was in preschool.
Even before preschool, I was taught to share. It's a key part of what makes us civilised human beings. Note that it's not the *taking* of things without permission that's wrong, it's the *depriving* another of something they have. If this truly is to be an "ownership society" in the information age, we need to recognise the fundamental difference between tangible property and information.
Not "much larger", "comparable" is probably closer to the mark, but the exact figures are the subject of some debate (for example, fluctuating exchange rates make a significant difference).
Another slashdotter who is clueless re bookmaking
on
Odds-on Science
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Stalk Steven Hawking, bet what he bets.... Or just knock him down and take his winnings.
No, quite the oppposite : you bet what Hawking *doesn't* bet. If you win, great. If you lose, then he wins, so *then* you knock him down. The bookie's term for this is "laying off" the bet.
Speeding may or may not be the root cause of an incident, but it dramatically affects the outcome, since the energy involved is proportional to the *square* of the velocity. Speeding turns minor collisions into major ones, and injurious collisions into fatal ones.
More speed => more serious collisions => more insurance costs. This is neither rocket science nor a conspiracy, just simple physics and economics.
Swifter, higher, stronger - what could be a more straight forward definition than the motto of the olympics? Swimming is an olympic sport, diving is not. Sprinting and weight lifting are olympic sports, ice dancing and gymnastics are not. Throwing an item and measuring the distance is an olympic sport. Awarding marks for the manner in which an item is thrown is not.
the fact you got burned becomes a natural consequence of your attempt to break the law
I am reminded of how my school sports teacher explained the off-side rule in shinty (a hockey-like game, similar to hurling) - that a player in an off-side position is not afforded the protection of any of the other laws of the game, and therefore a defender is free to remonstrate with the illegally-placed player in any manner desired (eg application of stick to attacker's head). Don't know whether this is actually true or not (I suspect not), but I've often thought that this rule might be a useful addition to other sports, since it really really encourages players to stay on-side.
[SOCAN is] a lobby for the Canadian recording artists.
It's also interesting to note that SOCAN wanted royalties on all downloads. Though there are a number of Canadian performers, it's fair to say that the majority of downloads is likely material that is not Canadian in origin. In other words, SOCAN, not content with leeching Canadians on every media purchase, wanted to leech off the entire world. I'm delighted that the court has treated the leeches with the response they deserve - the direct application of a lighed cigarette.
There's little point in getting dragged into an argument about what "cryptic" means in a particular context. I was just pointing out the reason that nix commands are often not "regular" English words. And it's a good reason too (what, you think the original designers just pulled random strings out of their arses to piss people off?)
*nix commands are not cryptic, they're just (typically) not English words, and for very good reason : words carry a range of meaning and novice users may be tempted to believe that some of those connotations spill over into the command. Single words having a range of meanings is anathema to computing, where precise definitions are absolutely essential.
Slashdot Mirror
It's interesting that when counting votes, the attitude is "close enough is good enough"; compare that to the attitude to money, where every last cent is accounted for. Why is it that counting votes is so much more difficult than counting money?
the U.S. side of the company must obey U.S. laws, and "give permission" to the feds to get data from the UK... data protection act or no data protection act.
This is exactly the heart of the matter. In the words of the Privacy Commissioner "the Patriot Act knows no borders"
I've heard this expressed as "dogs have owners; cats have staff"
I don't get it. Only Seven bodies - since when?
Since it was vapour in the air and then fell as rain; before it goes back to the sea as water, there to evaporate once more...
1. Thanks for the superfluous geography lecture. Note that I wrote about the climate in the UK and not the weather in London.
2. I never said the tap water in UK wasn't as good as it gets (Coca-cola have learned something about the quality of tap water), but drugs in the water is a legitimate concern. Even if the specific claims about prozac, for example, are truly unfounded, it's still right that consumers continue to demand the highest standards possible, especially when the industry is run by private corporations.
While the UK is lucky in that it always rains...
The climate may be wet, but don't think that there isn't also a great deal of treatment/recycling going on. Legend has it that in central London, the water coming out of the taps has on average passed through seven bodies before it reaches you.
This becomes a particular concern when you think about what people put in their waste water that can't easily be filtered by treatment plants, drugs such as antibiotics or contraceptives, for example.
What is air worth? Some things have great value, but simply trying to measure that value in dollars is to misunderstand the nature of that value.
the politically motivated ACLU
That would be the same blatantly politically-motivated ACLU that recently supported Rush Limbaugh would it? Or are you perhaps just demonstrating your own blatant political motivation?
Bruce Schneider, who I think happens to know something about security, freely admits to carrying a list of his passwords written on a piece of paper in his wallet.
Indeed. Note that writing down a password on a piece of paper turns something you know into something you have. Nothing wrong with that, provided you have appropriate protection on that piece of paper.
In a business setting, it makes sense that they would want control over the private key - if the employee is unable to provide it (sacked, dead, whatever), then they're going to have a *real* hard time breaking the GPG encryption. No business should want to allow themselves to be held hostage to an employee in that way.
You're right, four is not a "good guess", it's actually the exactly correct answer. Every one of the incidents covered in the figures above was a hijacking in the classical sense - a group of attackers uses violence and/or the threat of violence as a negotiating position (often, the release of prisoners). Having a separate cockpit door makes absolutely no difference to the threat of "we'll kill all these hostages unless...". The devastating novelty of 9/11, using airplanes as weapons, can only be a one-off : there's no negotiating position in "we'll steer this aircraft into that target unless...", not least since the standard response since Sep 2001 is to shoot down such aircraft.
I see now that our misunderstanding is my fault for being too concise - I should have realised when you thoughtfully provided a definition of "hijack" - when I wrote about passengers "seizing control", there was an implied "...with the intention of using the aircraft as a weapon", which you obviously missed. That's kinda the reason I didn't use the word "hijack" in the first place.
Dude #1 starts attack... air marshall stops attack. Now... air marshall is identified... proceed with stage 2.
Ah yes, but this can be defeated by having a *second* air marshall who only responds to attacks on the first marshall. Ha ha!
Oh wait, that could be defeated by a group of three attackers
Um, how about having a third air marshall? Oops, that won't work for four or more attackers.
Look out for the new proposed law from the DHS - a federal requirement that air marshalls comprise a strict majority (50% + 1) on all flights.
If we were serious about airplane safety, I'd say make the cockpit a SEPERATE compartment with no access from the passengers.
A sepArate cockpit may significantly reduce the possibility that passengers can seize control of the aircraft, but that doesn't increase "airplane safety". Think about the reasons cabin/flight crew may have to move between cockpit and cabin (I'll start you off with "medical emergency on the flight deck"). Now consider how many times your examples occur in a year. Now compare that to how often passengers seize control of the plane (hint : "four" is a good guess). A separate cockpit may mitigate some hijack threats, but it creates a whole class of new threats to the safety of the airplane. Overall, it *decreases* the safety.
[cf Having armed marshalls on board. The problem of "how to get a weapon on board" is transformed into "how to overpower the marshall and seize his/her weapon". This is a *decrease* in security]
I have first hand experience that piracy DOES effect [sic]the software developer
Oh, you're a sailor are you? Either that, or you're just demonstrating the kind of simplistic thinking that tries to use pejorative language to muddy the issues.
I learned that taking things without permission is wrong when I was in preschool.
Even before preschool, I was taught to share. It's a key part of what makes us civilised human beings. Note that it's not the *taking* of things without permission that's wrong, it's the *depriving* another of something they have. If this truly is to be an "ownership society" in the information age, we need to recognise the fundamental difference between tangible property and information.
The EU has a much larger combined GDP than the US
Not "much larger", "comparable" is probably closer to the mark, but the exact figures are the subject of some debate (for example, fluctuating exchange rates make a significant difference).
No, quite the oppposite : you bet what Hawking *doesn't* bet. If you win, great. If you lose, then he wins, so *then* you knock him down. The bookie's term for this is "laying off" the bet.
Speeding may or may not be the root cause of an incident, but it dramatically affects the outcome, since the energy involved is proportional to the *square* of the velocity. Speeding turns minor collisions into major ones, and injurious collisions into fatal ones.
More speed => more serious collisions => more insurance costs. This is neither rocket science nor a conspiracy, just simple physics and economics.
most people don't have much valuable data on their drives. Face it, your porn, mp3s, and videos can be redownloaded. Your resume can be retyped.
For many people these days, it is pictures taken with digital cameras that are irreplaceable.
Citius, Altius, Fortius
Swifter, higher, stronger - what could be a more straight forward definition than the motto of the olympics? Swimming is an olympic sport, diving is not. Sprinting and weight lifting are olympic sports, ice dancing and gymnastics are not. Throwing an item and measuring the distance is an olympic sport. Awarding marks for the manner in which an item is thrown is not.
the fact you got burned becomes a natural consequence of your attempt to break the law
I am reminded of how my school sports teacher explained the off-side rule in shinty (a hockey-like game, similar to hurling) - that a player in an off-side position is not afforded the protection of any of the other laws of the game, and therefore a defender is free to remonstrate with the illegally-placed player in any manner desired (eg application of stick to attacker's head). Don't know whether this is actually true or not (I suspect not), but I've often thought that this rule might be a useful addition to other sports, since it really really encourages players to stay on-side.
[SOCAN is] a lobby for the Canadian recording artists.
It's also interesting to note that SOCAN wanted royalties on all downloads. Though there are a number of Canadian performers, it's fair to say that the majority of downloads is likely material that is not Canadian in origin. In other words, SOCAN, not content with leeching Canadians on every media purchase, wanted to leech off the entire world. I'm delighted that the court has treated the leeches with the response they deserve - the direct application of a lighed cigarette.
SPF is the answer. Unfortunately, nobody's discovered what the question is to go with that answer
I'll take Spam Solutions for one hundred, please. Question : what FUSSP is an anti-forgery technique that doesn't address the underlying problem, breaks forwarding and is simply defeated anyway by using the null envelope sender?
Ironically, these and other reasons may be an argument that SPF should be adopted
There's little point in getting dragged into an argument about what "cryptic" means in a particular context. I was just pointing out the reason that nix commands are often not "regular" English words. And it's a good reason too (what, you think the original designers just pulled random strings out of their arses to piss people off?)
*nix commands are not cryptic, they're just (typically) not English words, and for very good reason : words carry a range of meaning and novice users may be tempted to believe that some of those connotations spill over into the command. Single words having a range of meanings is anathema to computing, where precise definitions are absolutely essential.
please name a "serious vulnerability" for Bind 9
The ISC website lists the DoS_findtype bug, in all BIND versions prior to 9.2.1, and rates it "SERIOUS".