I don't think there's any money to give back. I'm guessing he is from East Germany? He seems to have a strong pro-communist bias, and seems to believe that everybody should just be able to take what they want in exchange for nothing...so if we were to apply his philosophy to everybody, including himself, then anybody in the world can just use his software anyways, regardless of the license terms.
I was surprised to learn that Winrar had that many users, considering it's a paid application. I'm one of those weirdos who did pay for it (they gave me a special for $15) even though I do indeed pirate a lot of stuff.
I have both 7zip and winrar installed, and I gotta say I much prefer using winrar over 7zip. The UI is just a lot more elegant and intuitive, and the shell integration works better.
It really depends on the monitor (some monitors are really bad at handling disconnecting/reconnecting digital inputs without a power cycle) the mouse/keyboard used (sometimes they flake out when disconnected and reconnected quickly) and most importantly, the drivers. Shitty drivers can easily cause hardware to become unresponsive when you do a quick disconnect and reconnect, which is what a KVM simulates.
It sounds like he's trying to manage a lot of PCs at once, in which case those applications are limited in the sense that alt-tabbing through them is a nightmare. I'd instead suggest running a guacamole server, and use VNC and/or RDP (depending on the OS) to manage them inside of browser tabs. Guacamole works REALLY nice, especially with RDP as the desktop resolution automatically fits your browser size perfectly.
The thing is, we can't control what people are going to do with themselves or what they are going to consume. If you illegalize it, that often has the effect of raising the spending.
We can however control what the government spends its money on.
Or some kind of faster than light communication. If we're expecting them to have interstellar communication, why wouldn't it be faster than light? We presently have all of about zero means of detecting that kind of communication.
Well not only is Apple maps preinstalled on iOS, but developers can't even publish certain apps for iOS if Apple deems it too competitive with their existing offerings. For example, their web browser, an alternative app store, etc.
I think Apple mostly gets away with it because the politicians and the mass media are basically enamored with them. For example, look at how they were able to get Samsung's products banned over patent issues, but when Apple infringed in the same way and a court ruled Samsung could ban theirs, the president fucking overrides it.
Actually Android has closer to 50% of the market, with iOS at about 47%, and Windows Phone at about 3%.
This isn't even remotely comparable to the Microsoft monopoly of yore where virtually 100% of all consumer desktops sold had Windows, and indeed, Microsoft even required OEMs to sign an agreement that a license must be paid to Microsoft for every computer sold, even if it didn't include Windows.
Android is nowhere near being that close to a monopoly.
Now, you could just tell them that none exist, and they wouldn't be able to force you to divulge them immediately, but if they later discovered evidence that you were holding back (e.g. Alice provides her side of the e-mail conversation), you'll find yourself in hot water in a hurry.
As far as I know, a court hasn't ever compelled anybody to provide the location of a body. Prosecution has by offering a reduced sentence if they turn it over (in the interest of preventing the possibility of appeals and/or providing closure to the victim's family) but I'm not aware of a judge issuing somebody an order to do so.
For example, Hans Reiser revealed the location of his murdered wife after the prosecution offered him a deal where he'd get a reduced conviction of second degree murder instead of his original conviction of first degree murder. The judge ultimately had to sign off on whether or not the deal was valid, but again, the judge didn't order it.
A somewhat opposing argument is that the documents (email, text messages, photographs, etc.) fall under "what you have", and that a court can compel you to produce those documents.
They can't compel you to turn over documents that they merely suspect to exist. They'd need not only proof of their existence, but also that they're relevant to the case. That's kind of hard to do without being able to decrypt them. I.e. simply saying "turn over all of your emails" isn't good enough if they can't A) prove that those emails exist to begin with, B) prove that those emails are relevant, assuming they exist, and pointing to blobs of an unreadable encrypted blob of data doesn't meet that standard.
Anybody who is even slightly versed in proper IT security terminology knows the difference between "who you are", "what you have" and "what you know" authentication factors. (Along with the difference between authentication, authorization, and accountability, and the concepts of integrity and nonrepudiation. If you don't know any one of these, then you haven't been properly trained in information security.)
A key is "what you have", whereas a fingerprint is "who you are". You can't claim the 5th on either of those. You can however claim the 5th on "what you know" which is what a password is. However if you, for example, write down the password somewhere, that can be considered a "what you have" and wouldn't be protected by the 5th.
When you issue a search term to Google, it's giving its opinion of what it thinks you're looking for. French law says "that opinion is forbidden." When you forbid an opinion, that's censorship in every bit the same way. Quit trying to sugar coat it and let's call a spade a spade for once.
No - this is data removal about a given person at that person's request to be 'forgotten'. The government is enforcing that person's wishes about the data pertaining to that person.
That doesn't make shit for sense. Why would they be asking Google to remove it instead of its original publisher? This is about respecting that person's wishes, right? Google is simply offering its opinion of what link you're looking for, and itself doesn't possess the information that the person is wanting to remove.
I mean shit, most of these removal requests are for European newspapers, so they're even more under the EU jurisdiction than Google is.
Quit pretending that this isn't about censoring speech that somebody like.
You've got it completely backwards. This isn't about keeping people in France from seeing something.
No, you've got it backwards. If Google had to remove every single piece of data that every world government says shouldn't be visible anywhere in the world, then the internet would be limited to information available from the least free country in the world.
And unless there's some kind of treaty saying otherwise, no country's laws are automatically applied to every other country in the world.
Another problem I'm having with this is that when you look at the way other countries handle information they don't like (that is, national firewalls) why is it that France doesn't just step up to the plate and create a GFW around their own border routers to prevent their citizens from accessing undesirable Google pages? Why is it Google's responsibility to make sure that French citizens can't see what their government doesn't want them to see?
With China being a MUCH bigger market and all, I could see Google just outright leaving France if it came down to it. Maybe Jacques Chirac would finally get his wish of a French owned search engine.
A point that I think they're probably missing here, is that having a political opinion (which is essentially what denial is) is as an ironclad rule of sorts, protected by the first amendment. Simply saying you're against it is just speech, so I'm trying to figure out what they're going to RICO them for. Might that be voting in favor of their opinions?
I think hell would freeze over before that would ever fly.
Slashdot Mirror
The heartbleed name made perfect sense actually. It targeted the OpenSSL Heartbeat feature, and the exploit caused it to leak sensitive data.
I can't claim to know why stagefright got it's name though as I don't know all of the details about it.
I don't think there's any money to give back. I'm guessing he is from East Germany? He seems to have a strong pro-communist bias, and seems to believe that everybody should just be able to take what they want in exchange for nothing...so if we were to apply his philosophy to everybody, including himself, then anybody in the world can just use his software anyways, regardless of the license terms.
I was surprised to learn that Winrar had that many users, considering it's a paid application. I'm one of those weirdos who did pay for it (they gave me a special for $15) even though I do indeed pirate a lot of stuff.
I have both 7zip and winrar installed, and I gotta say I much prefer using winrar over 7zip. The UI is just a lot more elegant and intuitive, and the shell integration works better.
It really depends on the monitor (some monitors are really bad at handling disconnecting/reconnecting digital inputs without a power cycle) the mouse/keyboard used (sometimes they flake out when disconnected and reconnected quickly) and most importantly, the drivers. Shitty drivers can easily cause hardware to become unresponsive when you do a quick disconnect and reconnect, which is what a KVM simulates.
I've never had latency issues with Guacamole.
http://guac-dev.org/
It sounds like he's trying to manage a lot of PCs at once, in which case those applications are limited in the sense that alt-tabbing through them is a nightmare. I'd instead suggest running a guacamole server, and use VNC and/or RDP (depending on the OS) to manage them inside of browser tabs. Guacamole works REALLY nice, especially with RDP as the desktop resolution automatically fits your browser size perfectly.
http://guac-dev.org/
The thing is, we can't control what people are going to do with themselves or what they are going to consume. If you illegalize it, that often has the effect of raising the spending.
We can however control what the government spends its money on.
Just cancel the F-35 project. That will buy you about 5 trips to Mars.
Or some kind of faster than light communication. If we're expecting them to have interstellar communication, why wouldn't it be faster than light? We presently have all of about zero means of detecting that kind of communication.
Well not only is Apple maps preinstalled on iOS, but developers can't even publish certain apps for iOS if Apple deems it too competitive with their existing offerings. For example, their web browser, an alternative app store, etc.
I think Apple mostly gets away with it because the politicians and the mass media are basically enamored with them. For example, look at how they were able to get Samsung's products banned over patent issues, but when Apple infringed in the same way and a court ruled Samsung could ban theirs, the president fucking overrides it.
Actually Android has closer to 50% of the market, with iOS at about 47%, and Windows Phone at about 3%.
This isn't even remotely comparable to the Microsoft monopoly of yore where virtually 100% of all consumer desktops sold had Windows, and indeed, Microsoft even required OEMs to sign an agreement that a license must be paid to Microsoft for every computer sold, even if it didn't include Windows.
Android is nowhere near being that close to a monopoly.
Now, you could just tell them that none exist, and they wouldn't be able to force you to divulge them immediately, but if they later discovered evidence that you were holding back (e.g. Alice provides her side of the e-mail conversation), you'll find yourself in hot water in a hurry.
Yes, and that's obstruction of justice.
As far as I know, a court hasn't ever compelled anybody to provide the location of a body. Prosecution has by offering a reduced sentence if they turn it over (in the interest of preventing the possibility of appeals and/or providing closure to the victim's family) but I'm not aware of a judge issuing somebody an order to do so.
For example, Hans Reiser revealed the location of his murdered wife after the prosecution offered him a deal where he'd get a reduced conviction of second degree murder instead of his original conviction of first degree murder. The judge ultimately had to sign off on whether or not the deal was valid, but again, the judge didn't order it.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/...
A somewhat opposing argument is that the documents (email, text messages, photographs, etc.) fall under "what you have", and that a court can compel you to produce those documents.
They can't compel you to turn over documents that they merely suspect to exist. They'd need not only proof of their existence, but also that they're relevant to the case. That's kind of hard to do without being able to decrypt them. I.e. simply saying "turn over all of your emails" isn't good enough if they can't A) prove that those emails exist to begin with, B) prove that those emails are relevant, assuming they exist, and pointing to blobs of an unreadable encrypted blob of data doesn't meet that standard.
No, not at all.
Anybody who is even slightly versed in proper IT security terminology knows the difference between "who you are", "what you have" and "what you know" authentication factors. (Along with the difference between authentication, authorization, and accountability, and the concepts of integrity and nonrepudiation. If you don't know any one of these, then you haven't been properly trained in information security.)
A key is "what you have", whereas a fingerprint is "who you are". You can't claim the 5th on either of those. You can however claim the 5th on "what you know" which is what a password is. However if you, for example, write down the password somewhere, that can be considered a "what you have" and wouldn't be protected by the 5th.
When you issue a search term to Google, it's giving its opinion of what it thinks you're looking for. French law says "that opinion is forbidden." When you forbid an opinion, that's censorship in every bit the same way. Quit trying to sugar coat it and let's call a spade a spade for once.
No - this is data removal about a given person at that person's request to be 'forgotten'. The government is enforcing that person's wishes about the data pertaining to that person.
That doesn't make shit for sense. Why would they be asking Google to remove it instead of its original publisher? This is about respecting that person's wishes, right? Google is simply offering its opinion of what link you're looking for, and itself doesn't possess the information that the person is wanting to remove.
I mean shit, most of these removal requests are for European newspapers, so they're even more under the EU jurisdiction than Google is.
Quit pretending that this isn't about censoring speech that somebody like.
You've got it completely backwards. This isn't about keeping people in France from seeing something.
No, you've got it backwards. If Google had to remove every single piece of data that every world government says shouldn't be visible anywhere in the world, then the internet would be limited to information available from the least free country in the world.
And unless there's some kind of treaty saying otherwise, no country's laws are automatically applied to every other country in the world.
Another problem I'm having with this is that when you look at the way other countries handle information they don't like (that is, national firewalls) why is it that France doesn't just step up to the plate and create a GFW around their own border routers to prevent their citizens from accessing undesirable Google pages? Why is it Google's responsibility to make sure that French citizens can't see what their government doesn't want them to see?
I don't see a need to leave ALL of Europe. It's just French law that seems to have a problem.
Think of it like how Google simply closed Google News in Spain last year. They didn't need to close it down for all of Europe.
With China being a MUCH bigger market and all, I could see Google just outright leaving France if it came down to it. Maybe Jacques Chirac would finally get his wish of a French owned search engine.
A point that I think they're probably missing here, is that having a political opinion (which is essentially what denial is) is as an ironclad rule of sorts, protected by the first amendment. Simply saying you're against it is just speech, so I'm trying to figure out what they're going to RICO them for. Might that be voting in favor of their opinions?
I think hell would freeze over before that would ever fly.
Oh and by the way, other than copyright issues, here's another way to break the internet.
http://urlhosted.graphicore.de...