If it's just to dink around with the old software, why not try it in VMWare or VirtualBox?
Not a bad idea, especially considering that the old PC setup would take only minimal resources on a modern VM.
OTOH, if you want the whole old-school experience, why not just trot down to the local Thrift Shop and snap up an ancient box for like $20 or so, and maybe spend $10 more for an old tube monitor, keyboard, and suchlike? At those prices, you could buy a second one for spare parts.
He should have remained silent. Being a lawyer he should have known that.
Sometimes lawyers think they're smarter than the average person in matters of law, and often in demonstrating their 'prowess' end up proving that they're not. It happens.
He said that he could decrypt the computers seized from his home, but refused to do so.
Just because he was a dumbass doesn't mean the rest of us have to be.
But let's say you want to be honest - here's a conceptual idea:
Encrypt your stuff on a drive with two-factor auth. The first is a key that expires after x number of days, renewing the expiration every time you access it (let's say 3 to 14 days, tops.) The second factor is a passphrase. Shouldn't be hard to cook up if you use a high-bit-count SSL certificate as your key, and the encryption software checks the date. Keep the key on a separate but random-looking USB stick, SD chip, whatever. When you're not using it, stick it in a camera, unused smartphone, or similarly hidden. To prevent BIOS/EFI tinkering, insure that the encryption software double-checks that the system time is within the window (between last successful access and new expiry date) on boot, and destroys the key if the date is outside that window. Same with insuring that the HDD is in the same hardware it originally sat in, destroying the key if the software detects that a series of MAC addys and serial numbers don't match up.
After the keypair expires (after all, you've been in jail all this time and unable to access it, so...) you can truthfully say that the data is unreachable by any means (though I do suggest that your statement not end with the phrase "...so suck it, copper!") Of course, this means *you* can't access it either, but one would hope you had a backup of the data stashed somewhere beyond the reach of a warrant or the authorities' knowledge, yes?
If they could find a way to imprison a corpoation, I'd immigrate to the UK tomorrow!
That's easy if you think about it: imprison the board of directors whenever there is sufficient malfeasance to warrant such a punishment. They hold shared responsibility for the company's actions (and benefits thereof), so let them share the consequences.
Let's have Parliament put a law into place that warns him whenever he incorporates someone else's ideas and philosophies in his speeches, and after the third time, put him in jail.
After all, can't have him "pirating" other peoples' intellectual property, now can we?
I'd say the aerospace industry is dealing with it a lot better than the software industry.
This is somewhat because the airline industry has been around for far longer, but mostly because their screw-ups usually generate large numbers of dead people.
Well what else is there to do? The Security guys have to deal with a plethora of headaches, including demanding (but clueless) PHBs, commercial software houses whose idea of secure code is to patch it only after holes are found/exploited, and the need to make these things usable.
I mean, seriously - you can make something uber-secure, but you still gotta use the thing.
Besides, the most substantial underlying problem isn't the software, but the idiot behind the keyboard, and there's no fixing that.
Mind you, I agree that software should be vetted for security flaws and issues. I detest asshat software houses who have the motto of 'Release Date Uber Alles'. I also agree that aggressive release schedules and the too-often-piss-poor implementation of Agile bears a very substantial chunk of the blame.
BUT - the days of glaringly obvious vulns are so rare now that they're pretty much nonexistent these days (with but a very small handful of exceptions.) There's also the problem that one can write the most secure software practical, but then $OS_Maker decides to patch/change something (esp. in memory-handling), which in turn opens a hole in your product that you could have never anticipated.
I think TFA did two things wrong - one, he focused on one thing when security requires focusing on multiple things he gave nary a mention to (including that big fat variable also known as the user), and two, I do think that while yeah it's fun to poke at developers and blame them for stuff, asking for them to be psychic is a bit of a stretch. I say this because most software houses are honest about how they write code, and they do at least a modicum of diligence in that direction... yet they get raked over the coals when some ungodly complex vuln pops up that no human being could have anticipated (but at least one human being managed to stumble across.)
Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the majority, stressed that it was a limited decision that will not “discourage the emergence or use of different kinds of technologies.”
They'll keep buying the games as fast as EA pushes them out.
Only for so long. Crap on your customers long enough with shoddy products, and eventually they avoid all of your products. See also Microsoft Windows in the mobile realm; where once they had a huge chunk of mobile device OS marketshare (viz. WinCE), they now have a share that is barely larger than statistical noise (2.1% by the most charitable metric I could find on short notice).
I can see EA losing their grip in a couple of years. After all, you can only crap out so many iterations of "Madden", no?
A lot of it boils down to legacy union shops that have grown too large and inefficient.
I don't normally do a "FTFY", but this one sort of needed it.
Most car companies are on par with each other insofar as management and the organization thereof, with a few degrees of slop either way. The big variable is that the Toyota/Kia/Hyundai/etc plants in the US are generally non-union shops in "Right to Work" states. The advantage of that is while they still pay a decent wage, they don't have to pay the massive UAW-blessed wage and headcount demands, let alone the added drag of bureaucracy, negotiations, etc.
Dunno - BART ain't that bad, and is much better than most as far as public transportation goes (the MAX/TriMet up here in PDX has it beat, but that's about it for West Coast.)
Seriously - it's workable enough that I don't even bother to rent a car when I fly to SanFran.
most likely someone will hire illegals to hold the spots and take the money. and people will be forced to pay ridiculous amounts of money just to park at home for the night
Do that in LA, and the unfortunate illegal would be dodging lead... folks in SoCal are evil about that sort of thing.
(mind you, that's Portland's setup that I linked, but I'm willing to wager that SanFran has a similar deal going where they themselves rent out dedicated parking spots on a temporary basis.)
Yes but even if you buy you can not be entirely sure there's no lawsuit lurking.
Doesn't matter - if you buy it from a reputable site, you're fairly indemnified by showing the receipt and pointing to the site you procured it from. It's up to the site at that point to do their own fighting.
Basically, the photographer would have to send a C&D letter, cough up a few thousand bucks for a retainer and good luck making it all worth while in the end - from the phoographer's point of view
Depends on who does the ripping-off. Some small-time business? It's easier to just shame them on social media (and that business' local newspaper) and once word filters out, the business suffers accordingly until they apologize and/or pay you back. You can also send a DMCA complaint to the hosting company, and the site goes down until they fix it (which will hurt them immediately, and get them to pay attention much sooner.) If they lie to the hosting company and say it's theirs, you file a counter-claim and it goes down yet again.
Now let's say that some Fortune 500 corp rips your work off... you'll have your pick of lawyers willing to fight it on contingency (because most will have seven-figure dollar-signs in their eyes.)
Ditto here... There are so many pro-level stock photo sites out there which you can draw from that it's almost silly not to use them for the minor stuff like clipart and smaller image elements.. For the major stuff, hire a local photog, so that you can get local imagery, results you can tweak and tune, and so that you have a contract all spelled out and notarized.
This would be checked authority, by definition, since it was reviewed by a court as being in keeping with the law as written. It's almost like all 3 parts of the government played exactly the roles they were supposed to.
Yes and no.
In concept, yes. In practice, it required someone with a whole lot of money and legal expertise to perform that check. The Judicial system as a check should be a near-last resort, not the first thing you do to chuck a bad and un-legislated law.
And NOT enforcing, say, banking or clean air regulations.
Existing regulations (as approved by Congress) is one thing. Adding new categories to those regulations and demanding they be enforced minus legislative oversight is another.
This "study" is garbage. Most people have always said that advertising doesn't effect them.
So how does one account for click-through counters? Sure, one can say that the ad may not get clicked on but the thought is implanted, etc... but there is (unlike radio and TV) at least one metric advertisers can use to determine how effective an online ad is.
Depends - As the default IT support dude in my own family, I made double-damned certain that everyone who asks for help in browser performance installed and uses AdBlock Plus, the element helper, the DoNotTrackMe extension... got nothing but rave reviews after they put them in, so I'm certain that at least on their part, word has spread (not like it's hard to install the stuff).
I won;t claim anything beyond 20-30%, but I'm pretty sure that it would be fairly close to it.
The only dynamic I can think of to counter that is the mobile side of things, where the ability to block ads is almost nonexistent (unless you can jailbreak the thing, or find an add-on browser that supports it, etc.)
Slashdot Mirror
If it's just to dink around with the old software, why not try it in VMWare or VirtualBox?
Not a bad idea, especially considering that the old PC setup would take only minimal resources on a modern VM.
OTOH, if you want the whole old-school experience, why not just trot down to the local Thrift Shop and snap up an ancient box for like $20 or so, and maybe spend $10 more for an old tube monitor, keyboard, and suchlike? At those prices, you could buy a second one for spare parts.
True - you could say it was put into place to prevent corporate espionage, but that would be a toughie to sell.
He should have remained silent. Being a lawyer he should have known that.
Sometimes lawyers think they're smarter than the average person in matters of law, and often in demonstrating their 'prowess' end up proving that they're not. It happens.
From TFS:
He said that he could decrypt the computers seized from his home, but refused to do so.
Just because he was a dumbass doesn't mean the rest of us have to be.
But let's say you want to be honest - here's a conceptual idea:
Encrypt your stuff on a drive with two-factor auth. The first is a key that expires after x number of days, renewing the expiration every time you access it (let's say 3 to 14 days, tops.) The second factor is a passphrase. Shouldn't be hard to cook up if you use a high-bit-count SSL certificate as your key, and the encryption software checks the date. Keep the key on a separate but random-looking USB stick, SD chip, whatever. When you're not using it, stick it in a camera, unused smartphone, or similarly hidden. To prevent BIOS/EFI tinkering, insure that the encryption software double-checks that the system time is within the window (between last successful access and new expiry date) on boot, and destroys the key if the date is outside that window. Same with insuring that the HDD is in the same hardware it originally sat in, destroying the key if the software detects that a series of MAC addys and serial numbers don't match up.
After the keypair expires (after all, you've been in jail all this time and unable to access it, so...) you can truthfully say that the data is unreachable by any means (though I do suggest that your statement not end with the phrase "...so suck it, copper!") Of course, this means *you* can't access it either, but one would hope you had a backup of the data stashed somewhere beyond the reach of a warrant or the authorities' knowledge, yes?
Fun mental exercise either way. :)
I'd like to know what this moron's bank account looks like.
...would that be before or after the media lobbyists have stopped by his office?
If they could find a way to imprison a corpoation, I'd immigrate to the UK tomorrow!
That's easy if you think about it: imprison the board of directors whenever there is sufficient malfeasance to warrant such a punishment. They hold shared responsibility for the company's actions (and benefits thereof), so let them share the consequences.
Let's have Parliament put a law into place that warns him whenever he incorporates someone else's ideas and philosophies in his speeches, and after the third time, put him in jail.
After all, can't have him "pirating" other peoples' intellectual property, now can we?
I'd say the aerospace industry is dealing with it a lot better than the software industry.
This is somewhat because the airline industry has been around for far longer, but mostly because their screw-ups usually generate large numbers of dead people.
Well what else is there to do? The Security guys have to deal with a plethora of headaches, including demanding (but clueless) PHBs, commercial software houses whose idea of secure code is to patch it only after holes are found/exploited, and the need to make these things usable.
I mean, seriously - you can make something uber-secure, but you still gotta use the thing.
Besides, the most substantial underlying problem isn't the software, but the idiot behind the keyboard, and there's no fixing that.
Mind you, I agree that software should be vetted for security flaws and issues. I detest asshat software houses who have the motto of 'Release Date Uber Alles'. I also agree that aggressive release schedules and the too-often-piss-poor implementation of Agile bears a very substantial chunk of the blame.
BUT - the days of glaringly obvious vulns are so rare now that they're pretty much nonexistent these days (with but a very small handful of exceptions.) There's also the problem that one can write the most secure software practical, but then $OS_Maker decides to patch/change something (esp. in memory-handling), which in turn opens a hole in your product that you could have never anticipated.
I think TFA did two things wrong - one, he focused on one thing when security requires focusing on multiple things he gave nary a mention to (including that big fat variable also known as the user), and two, I do think that while yeah it's fun to poke at developers and blame them for stuff, asking for them to be psychic is a bit of a stretch. I say this because most software houses are honest about how they write code, and they do at least a modicum of diligence in that direction... yet they get raked over the coals when some ungodly complex vuln pops up that no human being could have anticipated (but at least one human being managed to stumble across.)
Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the majority, stressed that it was a limited decision that will not “discourage the emergence or use of different kinds of technologies.”
...and he's certain of that - how?
They'll keep buying the games as fast as EA pushes them out.
Only for so long. Crap on your customers long enough with shoddy products, and eventually they avoid all of your products. See also Microsoft Windows in the mobile realm; where once they had a huge chunk of mobile device OS marketshare (viz. WinCE), they now have a share that is barely larger than statistical noise (2.1% by the most charitable metric I could find on short notice).
I can see EA losing their grip in a couple of years. After all, you can only crap out so many iterations of "Madden", no?
A lot of it boils down to legacy union shops that have grown too large and inefficient.
I don't normally do a "FTFY", but this one sort of needed it.
Most car companies are on par with each other insofar as management and the organization thereof, with a few degrees of slop either way. The big variable is that the Toyota/Kia/Hyundai/etc plants in the US are generally non-union shops in "Right to Work" states. The advantage of that is while they still pay a decent wage, they don't have to pay the massive UAW-blessed wage and headcount demands, let alone the added drag of bureaucracy, negotiations, etc.
Dunno - BART ain't that bad, and is much better than most as far as public transportation goes (the MAX/TriMet up here in PDX has it beat, but that's about it for West Coast.)
Seriously - it's workable enough that I don't even bother to rent a car when I fly to SanFran.
most likely someone will hire illegals to hold the spots and take the money. and people will be forced to pay ridiculous amounts of money just to park at home for the night
Do that in LA, and the unfortunate illegal would be dodging lead... folks in SoCal are evil about that sort of thing.
What, and horn in on the city's profit center? Are you nuts?
(mind you, that's Portland's setup that I linked, but I'm willing to wager that SanFran has a similar deal going where they themselves rent out dedicated parking spots on a temporary basis.)
including contracts and rights information (RMS Rights Management System).
Somewhere, somehow, I am certain that Mr. Stallman just shuddered in horror...
Yes but even if you buy you can not be entirely sure there's no lawsuit lurking.
Doesn't matter - if you buy it from a reputable site, you're fairly indemnified by showing the receipt and pointing to the site you procured it from. It's up to the site at that point to do their own fighting.
Basically, the photographer would have to send a C&D letter, cough up a few thousand bucks for a retainer and good luck making it all worth while in the end - from the phoographer's point of view
Depends on who does the ripping-off. Some small-time business? It's easier to just shame them on social media (and that business' local newspaper) and once word filters out, the business suffers accordingly until they apologize and/or pay you back. You can also send a DMCA complaint to the hosting company, and the site goes down until they fix it (which will hurt them immediately, and get them to pay attention much sooner.) If they lie to the hosting company and say it's theirs, you file a counter-claim and it goes down yet again.
Now let's say that some Fortune 500 corp rips your work off... you'll have your pick of lawyers willing to fight it on contingency (because most will have seven-figure dollar-signs in their eyes.)
Ditto here... There are so many pro-level stock photo sites out there which you can draw from that it's almost silly not to use them for the minor stuff like clipart and smaller image elements.. For the major stuff, hire a local photog, so that you can get local imagery, results you can tweak and tune, and so that you have a contract all spelled out and notarized.
I'm waiting for them to bad dihydrogen monoxide from all foods.
Joking aside, you made my point, and then pointed out that this is not a new thing.
The Lone Ranger, John Carter, and Cowboys & Aliens might disagree with you on that ... though your point still remains mostly valid.
In those cases they weren't overestimating the stupidity of the masses, but were instead overestimating their capacity for poor taste. ;)
This would be checked authority, by definition, since it was reviewed by a court as being in keeping with the law as written. It's almost like all 3 parts of the government played exactly the roles they were supposed to.
Yes and no.
In concept, yes. In practice, it required someone with a whole lot of money and legal expertise to perform that check. The Judicial system as a check should be a near-last resort, not the first thing you do to chuck a bad and un-legislated law.
And NOT enforcing, say, banking or clean air regulations.
Existing regulations (as approved by Congress) is one thing. Adding new categories to those regulations and demanding they be enforced minus legislative oversight is another.
This "study" is garbage. Most people have always said that advertising doesn't effect them.
So how does one account for click-through counters? Sure, one can say that the ad may not get clicked on but the thought is implanted, etc... but there is (unlike radio and TV) at least one metric advertisers can use to determine how effective an online ad is.
Depends - As the default IT support dude in my own family, I made double-damned certain that everyone who asks for help in browser performance installed and uses AdBlock Plus, the element helper, the DoNotTrackMe extension... got nothing but rave reviews after they put them in, so I'm certain that at least on their part, word has spread (not like it's hard to install the stuff).
I won;t claim anything beyond 20-30%, but I'm pretty sure that it would be fairly close to it.
The only dynamic I can think of to counter that is the mobile side of things, where the ability to block ads is almost nonexistent (unless you can jailbreak the thing, or find an add-on browser that supports it, etc.)