Precisely; and some would argue that creating an unprotected wifi hotspot in a public location, for which the router has authorised access and provided network resources (as a webserver does), would count as "public access wifi".
Except that said arguement relies on pretending that an unlocked door is in fact permission to pass through it. Which, as I noted and you agreed, is not true under all circumstances (public versus private). Those that make the argument harp on the "router authorizing acess", but that is merely confusing different kinds of permission. A router is a piece of inanimate hardware, it can no more grant legal authority than can an equally inanimate doorknob.
Something interesting happened once. I walked into a house in the town thinking it was a shop. I quickly left when it didn't seem very shop like, but was I trespassing? Many shops over here kinda look a bit like a small house... particularly small computer hardware shops. They're not usually particularly commercial looking, tiny windows and not much of a label on the door if any.
Under the law? You certainly were (trespassing) - you entered private property without permission. What the shop looks like or doesn't look like is irrelevant. In reality (under those circumstances), if you were charge you'd probably get off with a stern lecture from the judge for lack of good judgement (at least the first time).
How precisely is an analogy that has nothing whatsoever to do with the situation better? The seat on public transport is public property. The bandwith and router involved here are private property.
Public, private, two very different words with very different meanings.
It's no different than plugging your RV into my electric outlet or running a hose from my water spigot to your pool. Connecting to the network is using resources (bandwidth) and property (the router) that I pay for. Under the law - using someone elses resources and property without their permission or outside the conditions they set, is theft. It's not really such a hard concept to understand.
The reviewer starts off talking about books on the history of technology - but the impression I took away from the review is that "Myths of Innovation" isn't a history book, but a self help/motivation book that uses historical anecdotes and case studies to support it's conclusions. A bit of apples and oranges really.
Independent tests do not support the army's conclusions.
Nor do they cleanly invalidate them. The article plainly states (in several places) that these tests were not the equivalent of the Army tests, and the Dragon Skin vests were not subjected (by the independent investigator) to the full range of enviromental tests that the Army requires.
I don't think just repeating the army's conclusions (or quoting the Washington Compost as doing so) really proves anything.
And repeating MSN's conclusions without (seemingly) understanding the caveats they place on each and every page proves what exactly? That sources you approve of are intrinsically better than sources you disaprove of?
(Disclaimer: I don't much care about the debate either way. Not that the disclaimer will sway anyone - politics are generally more important than intellectual honesty.)
explaining how leaving your keys in the ignition and the doors unlocked is implicit permission to for them to take your car for a joyride.
Your insurance company sure thinks it is. Ask them if they will pay out under these circumstances?
If my car is taken for a joyride, it's extremely unlikely my insurance company will have to pay anything. (I specified joyriding - not theft, vandalism, or damage.)
In any event, yes - my insurance company will pay if payment is required. And the joyriders will be prosecuted if caught. That's the law - take my car without my permission, even temporarily, and you have comitted a crime. Whether or not I have secured it is irrelevant.
This whole issue is starting to bother me greatly. Sure, if it wasn't an open AP, it would be stealing. If free Wi-Fi wasn't so common an average person might know better. Even in the case of it not being offered to customers, how are you supposed to know? That is tantamount to telling a police officer that you left a bag of $20 bills on a park bench yesterday, and when you went back to get it today it was gone. If you had locked it in the trunk of your car, that would be different.
Actually - under the law it isn't any different. The bag of $20 bills remains your property no matter where you left it. If the person who took the bag of bills can be identified (and the bag is unequivocally proveable as belonging to you) they can be prosecuted for theft.
Lets make it more palatable; Say you left a bag of candy bars on a park bench where 100s of children play daily. When you go back the next day to retrieve it, it's gone. What would the police say? Naturally they would hide their laughter until you turn your back to them.
Whether the police laugh at you or not - that doesn't change the fact that a crime has been committed. The same principle applies as with the bag of money above - your property remains your property unless you *explicitly* give it up. (Your property can be implicity given up - but only under a narrow range of circumstances. I suspect forgetting it on a park bench would not meet those circumstances.)
I walk into unlocked front doors everyday without explicit permission. These places are called stores.
You don't need explicit permission, as the act of creating a public space grants implicit permission. This is in no way comparable (under the law) to an unlocked front door on a private residence.
Can any security researchers tell me what GPG key length I should be using in the real world to give me a good trade-off between computational simplicity and future security please? I'm only using crypto for email and secure file storage.
In reality? You probably don't need any crypto at all. Or, in other words; What are you trying to hide that needs to be hidden forever? (Maybe you shouldn't be doing it.) Or are you one of those folks who feels he needs encryption just to get street cred among his fellow geeks - and the larger the key the larger your E-penis is?
Let's bury all the cables, because terrorists have demonstrated that they want to blow up electric towers. Now they will just aim for the generation facilities.
Ah yes - the old recourse of the ignorant, "We can't stop all attacks, so why bother to try at all?". I guess that since so few policemen get shot at - none of them should wear bulletproof vests. All those rarely used liferafts on ships? Into the trash bin with them!
Ah, yes. Unless the laptop in question has the mega resolution of the modern desktop - it's not useable. The fact that 800x400 (or 640x480) worked quite well for thousands (millions?) of PCs for years is simply irrelevant.
Those millions of PCs were not being marketed as a platform for reading to replace the paper books and the associated distribution costs in third-world countries, replacing them with electronic distribution and duplication.
Nor is the resolution unsuited for that. Text is quite readable at 800x400.
The role that the OLPC is aimed it is not the role that computers were used in when they first started to be used widely in US schools, so comparing them with, say, those computers isn't all that reasonable.
Had I suggested that comparision - you'd have a point. But I didn't.
My identity is being used without my permission. My choice of which sites to browse is being used for profit. The important thing to realize here is that Mozilla is doing so without informing me and without obtaining my consent.
No matter how much you try and spin it - to do so is wrong.
According to Intel, the screen resolution is 800x400. This pales compared to the OLPC's 1200x900 resolution. 800x400 seems barely usable.
Ah, yes. Unless the laptop in question has the mega resolution of the modern desktop - it's not useable. The fact that 800x400 (or 640x480) worked quite well for thousands (millions?) of PCs for years is simply irrelevant.
Additionally, Intel shows students straining to read the screen.
'Straining' is a subjective judgement - not a fact that can be discerned from the picture.
Which would you rather use?
Which I would use is utterly irrelevant, as the criteria for my machine are vastly different from the criteria by which an educational machine should be judged.
In other words, you don't actually have any evidence. You just make shit up (your original post), then handwave and smokescreen (the post I am replying to) in an attempt to cover that fact up.
The fact that Mozilla sets that affiliate ID to a reasonable default (support the browser you're using) when you explicitly use the built in Amazon search box is a feature, not a bug.
How, precisely, is it a feature to do something without my consent? I don't object to donating to a cause I support - I object to donating without having consented to doing so. It doesn't matter if the company is Mozilla or Microsoft, the principle remains the same. (I know that makes me unusual nowadays - not only in having principles, but in applying them without favoritism.)
Of course they don't talk about it. The F/OSS movement generally regards software doing something without the users informed to be evil. Making money off of someone, without telling them, is (IMO) a characteristic of spyware or malware - not software I want to use.
Not really. Ownership in F/OSS is a diffuse thing, you can 'own' a chunk of software - but you don't really have any legal rights over that software. You give them up under whichever F/OSS licence you use. When you 'own' a trademark, you retain your legal rights, you can direct how the trademark is used, and you can prevent others from using it.
A random fluctuation in internal traffic levels seems equally unlikely. Why? Because it has worked for some time, and I doubt the reactor was doing anything unusual at the time. A true network storm is unlikely - the term exists, but describes an astronomically rare situation.
When investigating an accident you cannot ground rule out an occurence that is unlikely or rare - unless you have positive evidence that said unlikely or rare condition did not occur, or positive evidence of another cause. "Unlikely" and "rare" are not synonyms for impossible.
In other words, this is a gross programming error that the coders and managers are desperately trying to blame on something - anything - other than their own ineptness.
Absent any facts (as opposed to opinions presented as facts), what precisely is your evidence for this conclusion?
"The integrated control system (ICS) network is not connected to the network outside the plant, but it is connected to a very large number of controllers and devices in the plant," Johnson said. "You can end up with a lot of information, and it appears to be more than it could handle."
Seriously, how stupid do you have to be to think "OMG, Haxxors?" Answer: work at Homeland inSecurity, or be a Congresscritter.
You missed the third option: Someone who actually knows something about real security - rather than believing that the FUD about security constantly spewed on Slashdot constitutes informed discussion about the issues.
Even though the SCADA network isn't connected outside of the plant - that does not mean that various nasties couldn't have come in accidentally (or maliciously) across the sneakernet or via malicious physical or [internal] network acess to the PLC that is believed to have caused the failure. It's not nearly so simple as "network not connected to the outside world, hacking ruled out by default".
The wonderful lesson to teach a child is that he can be any one of them and will have 40 or 50 years to do it. In the mean time prepare for life as an adult rather than pretending to be one.
In other words - "You can be anything you want, in the future, so long as you conform to your parents stereotypes now. What you want to do or are interested in doesn't matter, my beliefs in what you should want or be interested in override everything".
You have completely missed my point.
No, I get your point fully. All that matters, to you, is that the child follow some stereotyped expectations of yours. His views and interests simply don't matter. You are no better than the parent who forces his son to play football or her daughter to be in the kitchen. You, and them, are doing nothing but forcing the child to be a stereotype. (In some ways, you are notably worse. The two cases cited above rarely use flowery buzzwords and doublethink to disguises their hypocrisy.)
Ah, yes - what a wonderful lesson to teach your child; "You know all those times I said you could be anything you wanted to? Well, I lied. If you want to be a CEO at 13 - you can't be. You want to teach yourself programming? No! Get outdoors. Interested in chemistry? No! Go play with your friends." Etc... Etc...
Of course the fact that things have improved enormously is no reason assume that perfection has been reached and nothing more needs to be done.
I find it interesting that you seem to define 'perfection' (or at least 'better than now') to be 'forcing a child into my preconcieved notion of what childhood should be like'.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that said arguement relies on pretending that an unlocked door is in fact permission to pass through it. Which, as I noted and you agreed, is not true under all circumstances (public versus private). Those that make the argument harp on the "router authorizing acess", but that is merely confusing different kinds of permission. A router is a piece of inanimate hardware, it can no more grant legal authority than can an equally inanimate doorknob.
Under the law? You certainly were (trespassing) - you entered private property without permission. What the shop looks like or doesn't look like is irrelevant. In reality (under those circumstances), if you were charge you'd probably get off with a stern lecture from the judge for lack of good judgement (at least the first time).
How precisely is an analogy that has nothing whatsoever to do with the situation better? The seat on public transport is public property. The bandwith and router involved here are private property.
Public, private, two very different words with very different meanings.
It's no different than plugging your RV into my electric outlet or running a hose from my water spigot to your pool. Connecting to the network is using resources (bandwidth) and property (the router) that I pay for. Under the law - using someone elses resources and property without their permission or outside the conditions they set, is theft. It's not really such a hard concept to understand.
The reviewer starts off talking about books on the history of technology - but the impression I took away from the review is that "Myths of Innovation" isn't a history book, but a self help/motivation book that uses historical anecdotes and case studies to support it's conclusions. A bit of apples and oranges really.
Nor do they cleanly invalidate them. The article plainly states (in several places) that these tests were not the equivalent of the Army tests, and the Dragon Skin vests were not subjected (by the independent investigator) to the full range of enviromental tests that the Army requires.
And repeating MSN's conclusions without (seemingly) understanding the caveats they place on each and every page proves what exactly? That sources you approve of are intrinsically better than sources you disaprove of?
(Disclaimer: I don't much care about the debate either way. Not that the disclaimer will sway anyone - politics are generally more important than intellectual honesty.)
If my car is taken for a joyride, it's extremely unlikely my insurance company will have to pay anything. (I specified joyriding - not theft, vandalism, or damage.)
In any event, yes - my insurance company will pay if payment is required. And the joyriders will be prosecuted if caught. That's the law - take my car without my permission, even temporarily, and you have comitted a crime. Whether or not I have secured it is irrelevant.
Actually - under the law it isn't any different. The bag of $20 bills remains your property no matter where you left it. If the person who took the bag of bills can be identified (and the bag is unequivocally proveable as belonging to you) they can be prosecuted for theft.
Whether the police laugh at you or not - that doesn't change the fact that a crime has been committed. The same principle applies as with the bag of money above - your property remains your property unless you *explicitly* give it up. (Your property can be implicity given up - but only under a narrow range of circumstances. I suspect forgetting it on a park bench would not meet those circumstances.)
You don't need explicit permission, as the act of creating a public space grants implicit permission. This is in no way comparable (under the law) to an unlocked front door on a private residence.
explaining how leaving your keys in the ignition and the doors unlocked is implicit permission to for them to take your car for a joyride.
Only a lunatic, or someone supremely ignorant of history, believes that the current Adminstration is unusual in this respect.
In reality? You probably don't need any crypto at all. Or, in other words; What are you trying to hide that needs to be hidden forever? (Maybe you shouldn't be doing it.) Or are you one of those folks who feels he needs encryption just to get street cred among his fellow geeks - and the larger the key the larger your E-penis is?
Ah yes - the old recourse of the ignorant, "We can't stop all attacks, so why bother to try at all?". I guess that since so few policemen get shot at - none of them should wear bulletproof vests. All those rarely used liferafts on ships? Into the trash bin with them!
Welcome to Slashdot - where unpleasant facts are modded flamebait.
Nor is the resolution unsuited for that. Text is quite readable at 800x400.
Had I suggested that comparision - you'd have a point. But I didn't.
My identity is being used without my permission. My choice of which sites to browse is being used for profit. The important thing to realize here is that Mozilla is doing so without informing me and without obtaining my consent.
No matter how much you try and spin it - to do so is wrong.
Of course he's paranoid and scared. If Intel drives the OLPC project into bankruptcy, then his tidy little political agenda no longer has a platform.
Ah, yes. Unless the laptop in question has the mega resolution of the modern desktop - it's not useable. The fact that 800x400 (or 640x480) worked quite well for thousands (millions?) of PCs for years is simply irrelevant.
'Straining' is a subjective judgement - not a fact that can be discerned from the picture.
Which I would use is utterly irrelevant, as the criteria for my machine are vastly different from the criteria by which an educational machine should be judged.
In other words, you don't actually have any evidence. You just make shit up (your original post), then handwave and smokescreen (the post I am replying to) in an attempt to cover that fact up.
How, precisely, is it a feature to do something without my consent? I don't object to donating to a cause I support - I object to donating without having consented to doing so. It doesn't matter if the company is Mozilla or Microsoft, the principle remains the same. (I know that makes me unusual nowadays - not only in having principles, but in applying them without favoritism.)
Of course they don't talk about it. The F/OSS movement generally regards software doing something without the users informed to be evil. Making money off of someone, without telling them, is (IMO) a characteristic of spyware or malware - not software I want to use.
Not really. Ownership in F/OSS is a diffuse thing, you can 'own' a chunk of software - but you don't really have any legal rights over that software. You give them up under whichever F/OSS licence you use. When you 'own' a trademark, you retain your legal rights, you can direct how the trademark is used, and you can prevent others from using it.
When investigating an accident you cannot ground rule out an occurence that is unlikely or rare - unless you have positive evidence that said unlikely or rare condition did not occur, or positive evidence of another cause. "Unlikely" and "rare" are not synonyms for impossible.
Absent any facts (as opposed to opinions presented as facts), what precisely is your evidence for this conclusion?
You missed the third option: Someone who actually knows something about real security - rather than believing that the FUD about security constantly spewed on Slashdot constitutes informed discussion about the issues.
Even though the SCADA network isn't connected outside of the plant - that does not mean that various nasties couldn't have come in accidentally (or maliciously) across the sneakernet or via malicious physical or [internal] network acess to the PLC that is believed to have caused the failure. It's not nearly so simple as "network not connected to the outside world, hacking ruled out by default".
In other words - "You can be anything you want, in the future, so long as you conform to your parents stereotypes now. What you want to do or are interested in doesn't matter, my beliefs in what you should want or be interested in override everything".
No, I get your point fully. All that matters, to you, is that the child follow some stereotyped expectations of yours. His views and interests simply don't matter. You are no better than the parent who forces his son to play football or her daughter to be in the kitchen. You, and them, are doing nothing but forcing the child to be a stereotype. (In some ways, you are notably worse. The two cases cited above rarely use flowery buzzwords and doublethink to disguises their hypocrisy.)
I find it interesting that you seem to define 'perfection' (or at least 'better than now') to be 'forcing a child into my preconcieved notion of what childhood should be like'.