Intellectual property isn`t knowledge, it`s various forms of monopoly rights. Copyright is a monopoly right to make copies. Trademarks are a monopoly right to use certain forms of signs. Patents are monopoly rights to make use of various inventions.
The idea of monopolies as goods that can be traded is a little abstract, but it`s similar to lots of other contracts. If you deposit money in a bank, they only need to return it to you because of an abstract concept of ownership. Nothing really changed hands in most cases, you and the bank just agreed on a contract.
That's just not true. I wouldn't consider Fox News to be news media, but it's certainly conservative media. And this is on the front page of their web site.
"Complete and utter bullshit", because the GP was talking about a different kind of gun owner than you? You're actually supporting the claim of hysteria in the original article.
Actually, that also seems like a rational point of view, for someone who values money more than safety.
It would be odd if people all agreed that computers were better drivers and that being a passenger in a computer-driven car was more fun than driving it, yet still wouldn't accept an 80% reduction in their insurance premium to let it happen. *That* would be irrational.
This seems to me to be a completely rational point of view:
- I think I am a better driver than a computer.
- I think insurance companies are not going to reduce my premiums if I let a computer drive my car, because I'm a safer driver than a computer would be.
- You say they'll reduce my premiums by 80%? Well, maybe I was wrong, and I'll actually trust the computer to drive. After all, insurance companies aren't going to reduce my premiums by 80% unless the risk from claims is reduced by at least that much.
I think the problem with wysiwyg is that it is not "what you see is what you mean". LaTeX rendering only works because the code says what you mean. It is very, very hard to design a wysiwyg editor that forces you to type what you mean, instead of what you think you want it to look like.
Any LaTeX user who has co-authored something with a Scientific Word user knows this: the LaTeX it outputs is nonsensical, but it looks sort of okay when rendered. Just not as good as LaTeX from someone who speaks it as a native.
So instead of busting the door in, you just pick the lock, copy the drive, and you're able to decrypt all future messages. I'd guess the NSA would prefer to be able to decrypt all future messages over being able to decrypt all past messages.
Since the change was not approved, and had no submitter attached to it, there is no entity to be accused which could then plausibly deny. Its a clear cut case of malicious action.
It was not approved, but it did have a submitter attached to it. The name was apparently forged.
Unless somebody has proof that somebody was trying to create a back door then stop with all of the "X-Files" shit. It could have been a hacker trying to put that code in. How was the system that hosted the CVS repository managed? Was it hacked? Was there any investigation or was it possibly somebody that did something stupid and now everybody thinks it's somehow tied to the NSA?!?!?
Yes, there was an investigation. The name attached to the log entries belonged to someone who said he didn't make the changes.
Can you state the names of the treaties that the NSA is specifically violating?
There's the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, specifically Article 31, "Inviolability of the consular premises", and Article 35, "Freedom of communication". The USA ratified that in 1969.
If the admin keeps Subversion working copies of each project in Z:\, then developers can indeed just copy the top level directory of each project from Z to C and get their own working copy.
There's so much wrong with that quote. There's only one crime mentioned in this scenario--the one Bob is accused of. By saying Alice can be sent to jail, the implication is she will be convicted of the crime Bob may have committed.
Alice may be charged with obstruction of justice or contempt of court. The statement, "but Alice is innocent!" is too much to take seriously. Just because Bob, and not Alice, may have committed the initial crime, there's no reason to assume Alice cannot commit a different crime during the investigation of Bob.
I thought it was quite clear that Alice could go to jail for contempt of court or obstruction of justice. She is innocent until she refuses to answer the question that implicates Bob. Bob is guilty, but he can refuse to answer the question.
I agree with most of the rest of your post, by the way. "Paradox" is the wrong word. Bennett Haselton's articles suck.
The consumer, just like they do for other consumer electronics items and computers.
Right, and the problem with that is that it's a lot slower than having someone at the company do it early. Most stuff they send to market will be crap like it is from the other vendors.
Simply put, if the NSA thinks that a particular encryption method is vulnerable, you should be paying attention very closely and likely be shifting to something else.
And Bruce Schneier is saying that since the NSA is encouraging you to use elliptic curve encryption, that's an indication that you shouldn't use it.
So don't use what they recommend, and don't use what they don't recommend. Makes the choice easy, doesn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
That's 200 false matches to each of the 100 targets. 200*100 = 20000.
Intellectual property isn`t knowledge, it`s various forms of monopoly rights. Copyright is a monopoly right to make copies. Trademarks are a monopoly right to use certain forms of signs. Patents are monopoly rights to make use of various inventions.
The idea of monopolies as goods that can be traded is a little abstract, but it`s similar to lots of other contracts. If you deposit money in a bank, they only need to return it to you because of an abstract concept of ownership. Nothing really changed hands in most cases, you and the bank just agreed on a contract.
That's just not true. I wouldn't consider Fox News to be news media, but it's certainly conservative media. And this is on the front page of their web site.
If you use generalizations, if somebody can come up with a single example where said generalization is wrong, then the generalization is wrong.
That's not true in the case where the generalization is clearly intended to apply to the vast majority of cases, not to all cases.
Ha! I've proved you wrong. Hoist with your own petard!
"Complete and utter bullshit", because the GP was talking about a different kind of gun owner than you? You're actually supporting the claim of hysteria in the original article.
Actually, that also seems like a rational point of view, for someone who values money more than safety.
It would be odd if people all agreed that computers were better drivers and that being a passenger in a computer-driven car was more fun than driving it, yet still wouldn't accept an 80% reduction in their insurance premium to let it happen. *That* would be irrational.
This seems to me to be a completely rational point of view:
- I think I am a better driver than a computer.
- I think insurance companies are not going to reduce my premiums if I let a computer drive my car, because I'm a safer driver than a computer would be.
- You say they'll reduce my premiums by 80%? Well, maybe I was wrong, and I'll actually trust the computer to drive. After all, insurance companies aren't going to reduce my premiums by 80% unless the risk from claims is reduced by at least that much.
Sure you can trust him. An AC said he found the same thing.
No, I've never tried TeXmacs. I think the "WYSIWYM" line is probably in Lamport's LaTeX book, but I don't have a copy here to check.
I think the problem with wysiwyg is that it is not "what you see is what you mean". LaTeX rendering only works because the code says what you mean. It is very, very hard to design a wysiwyg editor that forces you to type what you mean, instead of what you think you want it to look like.
Any LaTeX user who has co-authored something with a Scientific Word user knows this: the LaTeX it outputs is nonsensical, but it looks sort of okay when rendered. Just not as good as LaTeX from someone who speaks it as a native.
So instead of busting the door in, you just pick the lock, copy the drive, and you're able to decrypt all future messages. I'd guess the NSA would prefer to be able to decrypt all future messages over being able to decrypt all past messages.
Since the change was not approved, and had no submitter attached to it, there is no entity to be accused which could then plausibly deny. Its a clear cut case of malicious action.
It was not approved, but it did have a submitter attached to it. The name was apparently forged.
Unless somebody has proof that somebody was trying to create a back door then stop with all of the "X-Files" shit. It could have been a hacker trying to put that code in. How was the system that hosted the CVS repository managed? Was it hacked? Was there any investigation or was it possibly somebody that did something stupid and now everybody thinks it's somehow tied to the NSA?!?!?
Yes, there was an investigation. The name attached to the log entries belonged to someone who said he didn't make the changes.
Hurricane Ingrid made landfall and killed dozens of people. But it didn't make landfall in your country, so I guess things are fine.
There were 6 predicted, and 10 happened.
Sandy was category 3, though it had weakened to category 1 when it hit the US. It was the 2nd costliest Atlantic hurricane ever.
in a year which has had no Atlantic hurricanes
Which year was that? 2013 has had Humberto and Ingrid so far.
the past couple of years of almost no hurricanes
Right, in 2012 there were only Sandy and 9 others. Almost none.
Can you state the names of the treaties that the NSA is specifically violating?
There's the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, specifically Article 31, "Inviolability of the consular premises", and Article 35, "Freedom of communication". The USA ratified that in 1969.
Sorry, but "Anonymous Cowards" are not allowed to use the "I" pronoun. There is no "I" there.
If the admin keeps Subversion working copies of each project in Z:\, then developers can indeed just copy the top level directory of each project from Z to C and get their own working copy.
There's so much wrong with that quote. There's only one crime mentioned in this scenario--the one Bob is accused of. By saying Alice can be sent to jail, the implication is she will be convicted of the crime Bob may have committed.
Alice may be charged with obstruction of justice or contempt of court. The statement, "but Alice is innocent!" is too much to take seriously. Just because Bob, and not Alice, may have committed the initial crime, there's no reason to assume Alice cannot commit a different crime during the investigation of Bob.
I thought it was quite clear that Alice could go to jail for contempt of court or obstruction of justice. She is innocent until she refuses to answer the question that implicates Bob. Bob is guilty, but he can refuse to answer the question.
I agree with most of the rest of your post, by the way. "Paradox" is the wrong word. Bennett Haselton's articles suck.
And who is killing the bad ideas now?
The consumer, just like they do for other consumer electronics items and computers.
Right, and the problem with that is that it's a lot slower than having someone at the company do it early. Most stuff they send to market will be crap like it is from the other vendors.
And who is killing the bad ideas now?
Simply put, if the NSA thinks that a particular encryption method is vulnerable, you should be paying attention very closely and likely be shifting to something else.
And Bruce Schneier is saying that since the NSA is encouraging you to use elliptic curve encryption, that's an indication that you shouldn't use it.
So don't use what they recommend, and don't use what they don't recommend. Makes the choice easy, doesn't it?
Competitive Apple fetishism. Duh.
I guess you didn't RTFM, especially this line:
She runs good old Windows and the Silicon Imaging SiliconDVR software off of an internal solid state drive.