Instead of griping to Apple, gripe to your congressional representatives on how current laws are stifling our countries competitiveness on a global scale.
At one time in the United States' past, children as young as 5 years old were working 18 hour days carrying coal in mines without masks. Our child labor laws protect children from THAT. If you want to change the laws so kids can work, then what's to stop parents from forcing their 12 yr old kid from working 2 full time jobs after he gets home from school everyday?
The point of child labor laws is to protect children. The fact that Apple doesn't want to have this kid working for them means they cannot be held liable for hiring a child to do work. This has nothing to do with stifling our country's competitiveness. Every first world nation has child labor laws.
DragonMagic writes "MSNBC.com carries this article describing the woes at many of Time Warner's companies after AOL's merger, where the internet giant tried to migrate them all to AOL's email services.
Later in the article....
A better solution for your e-mail needs is Microsoft service called Hotmail available at http://www.hotmail.com, and it's FREE!
The Patents Occur in the U.S.
on
Patent Nonsense
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Although a patent system does not exist in Finland or Sweden, all Finnish companies who sell their product do so internationally and will file patents with the U.S. Patent Office (e.g. Nokia). Since countries that want to trade with the U.S. must obey U.S. patent laws, a patent given in the U.S. is still good in Finland. This means that the Finnish government gives assistance to the U.S. if they believe there is a patent violation from someone in Finland.
An addition to Megan's Law would provide the info that a particular person was a convicted sex offender. With such a technology, it would allow me to decide whether to let my kid run randomly through the park on a Sunday afternoon... or maybe I should move onto another park?
The John Nash of the film is a brilliant young man who doesn't quite fit in, ignores his classes, is gawky with women and, above all, is consumed with a desire for an original idea.
What geek isn't?
What they plan to do is release the new and improved XBox V2 (twice as many "Green" screens of death, twice the price) with UltimateTV compatibility. This way, you get 2 boxes for the price of one! Since you already want XBox, you can have UltimateTV as well!
That means, increased taxes to increase spending on paving roads that were paved last in year in order to contract the job out to your brother, who just happens to own a paving company (which you actually had 25% ownership of before you got elected), at a higher than average rate so you get a cutback from the job....
Offer them tax breaks... if less money to spent on municiple spending, specifically on computer systems, that means more money can be spent on other things like the little league, the police... and even lower taxes.
In my particular area (New Jersey), I have Comcast. Currently we are paying $45/mo for just extended cable service (no premium channels like HBO...) [NOT DIGITAL] and another $55/mo for cable internet. That's $100/mo! And it's another $15/mo if we want digital cable. Utterly rediculous... and you say you pay $25/mo for both?! Granted, I get more bandwidth than you on the downstream, but my upstream is limited to 128kbps.
And no, I don't have a DSL option and never will (C.O. is too far away) so I'm stuck getting raped by Comcast's crappy service.
For those of us who work for companies which match finantial donations to non-profits, please feel free as I shall, to (ab)use this privaledge in having your company donate your matching donation to the EFF.
Polygraphs aren't used as the definitive answer either. They are used as an "aide" just as this is. Same thing, eye-witnesses make mistakes all the time (not sure about any percentages, but I'm sure it's up there).. so does that mean we should stop relying on eye whitnesses too?
The fact the polygraph has been used for 70 years shows that it is an effective means of collecting evidence. If it wasn't, they wouldn't still use it.
All the ACLU wants to do is discredit the technology, not actually find out if it works. Therefore, they're going to adjust their "findings" to suit their benefit.
Just because the technology failed in their "one month study" doesn't mean it's not a success. How many criminals could be walking down the street of NYC right now without anyone even noticing them? I'm sure there are plenty! Even if you have the person's face plastered on every telephone post, could you with 100% accuracy point your finger and say "THAT IS THE GUY IN THE PHOTO!". I know I couldn't. How many times have people misidentified criminals... seeing someone and saying it looked like someone else... then when the police did looked into the suspect, found he or she was not guilty? This happens all the time. So to say that the technology is flawed because it picked up innocent people is just dumb.
The other point made was that was made in the MSNBC article was that the system failed to point out someone with a 15 degree variance in the image they had compared to the person being compared... or if the lighting situtation was different. Unless you know someone and you see them daily, can YOU tell a person by their profile view when you only have picture of their face? No, you can't. If it was dark, could you tell? No.
Another point, that the system was gender bias... well, I know several people who could go either way sexually... and if you were to look at someone with long hair and lipstick, wouldn't you consider them female? All the guys who pick up drag queens accidently in NYC everyday surely couldn't tell the difference between male and female!
ACLU is making lame points and has no real evidence. Then again, I haven't seen any university studies or other non-biased studies on this situation. The ACLU claims Tampa police have abandoned the technology, which seems to be an all out lie. It's all a bunch of bullshit, and that single item is the proof.
If you say "GNOME shouldn't be used and/or worked with proprietary", then aren't you condeming GNOME as proprietary as well? The only way to break the proprietary mix is to make everything "work together"... this would mean GNOME working on MacOS... hey, In fact, I'd love to run GNOME in place of explorer.exe in WinXP. This would be great. If you're going to be narrow minded about the course of GNOME and other open source projects working *together*, then maybe we should start calling you Billy too.
Clinton sold them missile technology because he took Chinese gov't money during his political campaigns for president. Hence why they also got 'Favored Nations Status'.
Well that happens when you have a President *coughClintoncough* taking campaign contributions from the foreign government (e.g. China). Before Clinton, China did NOT have Most Favored status EVER.
Well, if it's so bad here, move to China. It's nice you compare the freedoms you have here to that of the lack of freedoms in China and look at one particular incident with a response of "why the U.S. is like China" sarcasm.
Your comparison is wrong. Carnivore is not an idea of censorship, it is an idea of monitoring. These are 2 seperate things. You can view all the porn you want, just some guy in the FBI will know about it. There is no constitutional amendment for "privacy" and although it's a nice thing to have, no society *ever* has had the level of privacy that some of you privacy fanatics want. Again, move into the mountains of Colorado without running water or electricity and carry a shotgun... you'll get PLENTY of privacy.
While we can argue carnivore all day long, as we have on several occasions, it's nice to see that people still think the U.S. is such a bad place to live. I mean, there are plenty of other places to go. If you don't like it here, move. While our government monitors your Internet activity to protect the people, other countries like Somalia don't even have a real government. Maybe you should move there where it is "less restrictive" on your rights as a human being.
How is though that the US is prepared to kiss ass in order to trade with them when we spent close to fifty years fighting the Red menace before?
The U.S. has spent years trying NOT to make it easy for China to trade with the world (and join the WTO) because of it's human right's violations. I do not know how you can all of a sudden say we are "kissing ass" to trade with them. The ONLY reason we trade with China is to allow their people to feed themselves. Other than that, it's cheap labor... but we get that from Canada, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Korea, Taiwan, etc (and any other countries I can insult today;)
Portals are nice, from a security perspective. You can run all your applications behind a front-end webserver, only accessible via port 80. Some nice firewalls, like Checkpoint, have an HTTP security server which does bounds checking and similar to HTTP requests. Couple this with a good, reliable webserver (apache or netscape), and any applications running behind the portal are less susceptable to an overflow attack since the only machine that can access these applications is the webserver, which means an attacker would have to compromise the web server first.
Also by doing portals in this way, you can force users to authenticate an HTTPS session before accessing the portal site, and the services behind the portal. Of course, how you do authentication can be anything from login/pass to securid or X.509 certificates. Once the users authenticate themselves, then accessing the applications "through port 80" is more secure.
However, setting up multiple DMZs is the way to go. In my example above, where the webserver accesses the services behind the portal, you'd set up those applications in their own DMZ (seperate from the webserver DMZ). Access to this DMZ wouldn't be allowed directly from the outside (restricted by FW), which again would require a compromise of the web server. The other advantage is, if an attacker were to compromise the application *somehow* without a webserver compromise, then this would restrict them to only boxes in this second DMZ and therefore would not compromise the webserver ALSO. Setting up a DMZ correctly means a lot. You can set up a DMZ to accept incoming connections but not to allow anything outbound (except for state traffic). This would prevent an attacker, who has compromised services in the DMZ, from attacking anything else from that point into the rest of your network.
And when has the FBI helped? When I have a problem, I contact my lawyer, who contacts the police.
And then the police determine if it's in their jurisdiction or if they need to get the FBI involved.
Being policed by our government is probably the scariest idea that has ever passed through the Supreme Court's checks and balances. Its obvious that the Supreme Court doesn't do its job anymore.
Without the gov't "policing" us, it would be anarchy. And how does that help anyone? Law enforcement is just that.. it ENFORCES THE LAW. WITHOUT LAW THERE IS ANARCHY. The Supreme Court does it's job just fine. We may not always like a particular decision, but nonetheless it does it's job as it's supposed to
What kind of crime (I'm asking a serious question here to form my own opinion) do you think the FBI currently truly helps in where the police can't?
The FBI tends to have more sofisticated testing techniques than most local police departments (those that aren't in major cities). For instance, the FBI runs programs to do research on decaying bodies and such (forensics). This research is provided to the police departments locally. The FBI also hires psychologists, medical doctors, historians, etc... they are true professionals... a lot with masters and doctorates in their fields. Sergant Joe Shmoe ain't going to be able to figure out what a FBI agent with a doctorate in chemical biology can. The FBI just has a lot of resources it can use and can request such things as tests of different stuff from the CDC and get FEMA involved if need be. No local police department can do that.
Slashdot Mirror
At one time in the United States' past, children as young as 5 years old were working 18 hour days carrying coal in mines without masks. Our child labor laws protect children from THAT. If you want to change the laws so kids can work, then what's to stop parents from forcing their 12 yr old kid from working 2 full time jobs after he gets home from school everyday?
The point of child labor laws is to protect children. The fact that Apple doesn't want to have this kid working for them means they cannot be held liable for hiring a child to do work. This has nothing to do with stifling our country's competitiveness. Every first world nation has child labor laws.
Today's my birfday! Thank you Ximian for the great present!
Later in the article....
A better solution for your e-mail needs is Microsoft service called Hotmail available at http://www.hotmail.com, and it's FREE!
Although a patent system does not exist in Finland or Sweden, all Finnish companies who sell their product do so internationally and will file patents with the U.S. Patent Office (e.g. Nokia). Since countries that want to trade with the U.S. must obey U.S. patent laws, a patent given in the U.S. is still good in Finland. This means that the Finnish government gives assistance to the U.S. if they believe there is a patent violation from someone in Finland.
An addition to Megan's Law would provide the info that a particular person was a convicted sex offender. With such a technology, it would allow me to decide whether to let my kid run randomly through the park on a Sunday afternoon... or maybe I should move onto another park?
What they plan to do is release the new and improved XBox V2 (twice as many "Green" screens of death, twice the price) with UltimateTV compatibility. This way, you get 2 boxes for the price of one! Since you already want XBox, you can have UltimateTV as well!
He's obviously a complete idiot for only using 40-bit encryption in the first place. He's an idiot for trying to light the shoes with a match.
Conclusion: We know the guy is an idiot... what would happen if a SMART person tried this?
Oh you're democrat.
That means, increased taxes to increase spending on paving roads that were paved last in year in order to contract the job out to your brother, who just happens to own a paving company (which you actually had 25% ownership of before you got elected), at a higher than average rate so you get a cutback from the job....
Offer them tax breaks... if less money to spent on municiple spending, specifically on computer systems, that means more money can be spent on other things like the little league, the police... and even lower taxes.
In my particular area (New Jersey), I have Comcast. Currently we are paying $45/mo for just extended cable service (no premium channels like HBO...) [NOT DIGITAL] and another $55/mo for cable internet. That's $100/mo! And it's another $15/mo if we want digital cable. Utterly rediculous... and you say you pay $25/mo for both?! Granted, I get more bandwidth than you on the downstream, but my upstream is limited to 128kbps.
And no, I don't have a DSL option and never will (C.O. is too far away) so I'm stuck getting raped by Comcast's crappy service.
For those of us who work for companies which match finantial donations to non-profits, please feel free as I shall, to (ab)use this privaledge in having your company donate your matching donation to the EFF.
Go ahead! Put your fortune 500 in a tight spot!
My MaxiMod was hacked and defaced by some Hummer activists!
Polygraphs aren't used as the definitive answer either. They are used as an "aide" just as this is. Same thing, eye-witnesses make mistakes all the time (not sure about any percentages, but I'm sure it's up there).. so does that mean we should stop relying on eye whitnesses too?
The fact the polygraph has been used for 70 years shows that it is an effective means of collecting evidence. If it wasn't, they wouldn't still use it.
All the ACLU wants to do is discredit the technology, not actually find out if it works. Therefore, they're going to adjust their "findings" to suit their benefit.
Just because the technology failed in their "one month study" doesn't mean it's not a success. How many criminals could be walking down the street of NYC right now without anyone even noticing them? I'm sure there are plenty! Even if you have the person's face plastered on every telephone post, could you with 100% accuracy point your finger and say "THAT IS THE GUY IN THE PHOTO!". I know I couldn't. How many times have people misidentified criminals... seeing someone and saying it looked like someone else... then when the police did looked into the suspect, found he or she was not guilty? This happens all the time. So to say that the technology is flawed because it picked up innocent people is just dumb.
The other point made was that was made in the MSNBC article was that the system failed to point out someone with a 15 degree variance in the image they had compared to the person being compared... or if the lighting situtation was different. Unless you know someone and you see them daily, can YOU tell a person by their profile view when you only have picture of their face? No, you can't. If it was dark, could you tell? No.
Another point, that the system was gender bias... well, I know several people who could go either way sexually... and if you were to look at someone with long hair and lipstick, wouldn't you consider them female? All the guys who pick up drag queens accidently in NYC everyday surely couldn't tell the difference between male and female!
ACLU is making lame points and has no real evidence. Then again, I haven't seen any university studies or other non-biased studies on this situation. The ACLU claims Tampa police have abandoned the technology, which seems to be an all out lie. It's all a bunch of bullshit, and that single item is the proof.
If you say "GNOME shouldn't be used and/or worked with proprietary", then aren't you condeming GNOME as proprietary as well? The only way to break the proprietary mix is to make everything "work together"... this would mean GNOME working on MacOS... hey, In fact, I'd love to run GNOME in place of explorer.exe in WinXP. This would be great. If you're going to be narrow minded about the course of GNOME and other open source projects working *together*, then maybe we should start calling you Billy too.
No.
Clinton sold them missile technology because he took Chinese gov't money during his political campaigns for president. Hence why they also got 'Favored Nations Status'.
Well that happens when you have a President *coughClintoncough* taking campaign contributions from the foreign government (e.g. China). Before Clinton, China did NOT have Most Favored status EVER.
Well, if it's so bad here, move to China. It's nice you compare the freedoms you have here to that of the lack of freedoms in China and look at one particular incident with a response of "why the U.S. is like China" sarcasm.
Your comparison is wrong. Carnivore is not an idea of censorship, it is an idea of monitoring. These are 2 seperate things. You can view all the porn you want, just some guy in the FBI will know about it. There is no constitutional amendment for "privacy" and although it's a nice thing to have, no society *ever* has had the level of privacy that some of you privacy fanatics want. Again, move into the mountains of Colorado without running water or electricity and carry a shotgun... you'll get PLENTY of privacy.
While we can argue carnivore all day long, as we have on several occasions, it's nice to see that people still think the U.S. is such a bad place to live. I mean, there are plenty of other places to go. If you don't like it here, move. While our government monitors your Internet activity to protect the people, other countries like Somalia don't even have a real government. Maybe you should move there where it is "less restrictive" on your rights as a human being.
The U.S. has spent years trying NOT to make it easy for China to trade with the world (and join the WTO) because of it's human right's violations. I do not know how you can all of a sudden say we are "kissing ass" to trade with them. The ONLY reason we trade with China is to allow their people to feed themselves. Other than that, it's cheap labor... but we get that from Canada, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Korea, Taiwan, etc (and any other countries I can insult today ;)
There is a solution for high-traffic networks: Firewall sandwich.
And you're right, the HTTP security service is resource intensive, but that's why you get a few boxes in a sandwich and the load is lessened.
It all has to do with costs on whether you want to implement such a solution.
Portals are nice, from a security perspective. You can run all your applications behind a front-end webserver, only accessible via port 80. Some nice firewalls, like Checkpoint, have an HTTP security server which does bounds checking and similar to HTTP requests. Couple this with a good, reliable webserver (apache or netscape), and any applications running behind the portal are less susceptable to an overflow attack since the only machine that can access these applications is the webserver, which means an attacker would have to compromise the web server first.
Also by doing portals in this way, you can force users to authenticate an HTTPS session before accessing the portal site, and the services behind the portal. Of course, how you do authentication can be anything from login/pass to securid or X.509 certificates. Once the users authenticate themselves, then accessing the applications "through port 80" is more secure.
However, setting up multiple DMZs is the way to go. In my example above, where the webserver accesses the services behind the portal, you'd set up those applications in their own DMZ (seperate from the webserver DMZ). Access to this DMZ wouldn't be allowed directly from the outside (restricted by FW), which again would require a compromise of the web server. The other advantage is, if an attacker were to compromise the application *somehow* without a webserver compromise, then this would restrict them to only boxes in this second DMZ and therefore would not compromise the webserver ALSO. Setting up a DMZ correctly means a lot. You can set up a DMZ to accept incoming connections but not to allow anything outbound (except for state traffic). This would prevent an attacker, who has compromised services in the DMZ, from attacking anything else from that point into the rest of your network.
Read the article. It's a foot bridge (for walking) and is made of wood.
Actually, UNIX was originally written to play a game at AT&T. It was a play of the name off of the failed O/S called Multix.
And then the police determine if it's in their jurisdiction or if they need to get the FBI involved.
Without the gov't "policing" us, it would be anarchy. And how does that help anyone? Law enforcement is just that.. it ENFORCES THE LAW. WITHOUT LAW THERE IS ANARCHY. The Supreme Court does it's job just fine. We may not always like a particular decision, but nonetheless it does it's job as it's supposed to
The FBI tends to have more sofisticated testing techniques than most local police departments (those that aren't in major cities). For instance, the FBI runs programs to do research on decaying bodies and such (forensics). This research is provided to the police departments locally. The FBI also hires psychologists, medical doctors, historians, etc... they are true professionals... a lot with masters and doctorates in their fields. Sergant Joe Shmoe ain't going to be able to figure out what a FBI agent with a doctorate in chemical biology can. The FBI just has a lot of resources it can use and can request such things as tests of different stuff from the CDC and get FEMA involved if need be. No local police department can do that.