I'm wondering why they wouldn't just contract out with the Government and move the operation to a secure military installation somewhere in the DC area.
Because that won't actually make it any more secure than it is right now. The building access is just as restrictive as "high level security" facilities in the area.
Also, contrary to popular belief, every soldier is not walking around post packing heat. The weapons are locked up in an arms room, ammunition locked up in a different location, and the rank-in-file soldiers get to see them when getting ready to go to a firing range. Except for the MPs of course.
"Hiding" the building in plain sight keeps the random vandals away, other security keps them in one place until Fairfax County or Herndon Police (oops, did I say that?;-) arrive for them. Other means are available in the area to repel larger attacks, unless someone flies an airplane from Dulles into the building (check a map).
Besides, the 12 other servers in the country pickup the tasks if A goes down. And you need to take out a total of 8 to make a real impact on the net.
"The US Founding Fathers knew the value of a free people freely communicating. They established the post office to ensure that people could easily communicate over great distances, without regard to their economic status or resources.
Interesting way of looking at things, seeing as how we ignore the large bulk of what the founding fathers believed in. "
I am with you about the US system diverging greatly from the path that the Founding Fathers cut for us.
However, Article 1 Section 8 does make the creation of lines of communication an enumerated power with the "post offices and postal roads" clause.
I am against the government being the ISP too. But I can see a good arguement for government laying in the fiber and allowing competing ISPs to use it.
In the case of the article, I have to side with the cable companies, just as I was on the side of FedEx when the USPS went after them for delivering first class mail in packages they had no idea contained first class mail. That case was finally resolved when the head of the USPS stopped his inspectors from interfearing with the competition. The rare occurance of a responsive "civil servant."
If this idea were modified just a bit, e.g., the government lays the fiber and the ISPs pay reasonable rates for it's use (also allowing individuals anyplace on the network the same rate) then I could go along with it. Just like places that pay for roads through fuel taxes, people that do not use fuel do not pay taxes to maintain *most* roads.
rant The downside (like here in No. VA), the fuel taxes are used to subsidize ALL forms of transportation infrastructure, including those busses and trains that some of us rarely use. /ran
Sounds good, but other posters keep using the highway analogy, which is lacking. The "lines of communication analogy" is more to the point.
Government does, under the US Constitution, have the power "To establish post offices and post roads" (Article 1 Section 8) and it IS an enumerated power. Since Post Roads were the typical lines of communication of the day, this new internet scheme woulld fall into that category (communications) that government DOES have the power to mess with.
(Note, the "interstate highway system" is really the National Defense Interstate Highway System, covered under the common defense powers if the federal government)
That being said, I would still rather see several firms given equal access to the same easements, so we don't have to wait for city hall to replace the single loop of copper they decide is "what the community needs to take us to the 22nd century.
Which would be perfectly reasonable. Those have a large personal wealth must also make larger contributions back to the society. Unless they wish to renounce their membership in the society, which is, of course, completely permissible. Too bad you cannot do business with the members of the said society anymore then. "
It is NOT "perfectly reasonable." It is barbaric.
Sorry, Comrade, 20% of $1,000,000 is a larger amount than 20% of $50,000. If the tax tables were uniform then the "rich" would still pay more money. Making someone pay 40% of their income in taxes just because they make more than you is so backward that it is beyond comprehension.
As far as Capital Gaines Taxes go, they are mearly a tax on investments (realestate included) IN ADDITION TO YOUR INCOME TAX. It is also dual taxation, in some cases (yes this is a qualifier and part of the same sentence), dual taxation when applied to stock dividends and sales of stock. Hell, it is dual taxation when you sell a house that qualifies, since you paid tax on the money to buy the home with and all of the repairs made to the house BEFORE spending the money to make the purchases (house, labor, materials, etc)!
Not sure why you lefties want to punish people for being financially successful, hell, you want to punish people for being self sufficient too, but it is just stupid so knock it off. Some of us do not want to be wards of the state.
If YOU think the government deserves more of everybody's money there is NOTHING stoping YOU from sending in your whole paycheck.
Going to try the same theory for Germany and the rest of Western Europe or do you have something else up your sleve?
While you are at it, kick in some domestic political conspiracy theory for our contued presence in South Korea, bases and support in the Phillipnes long after WWII.
When complete, please come up with something for the Medeteranian.
Perhaps you want to review your interpritation of the Constitution?
The US Constitution sets limits on government and enumerates powers of the government. It is not a list of rights and privleges for the people and the States.
Also note this other post about the Ammendment IX http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=30123&cid= 3235 177
We do not have to make a "right to privacy" law, we have already restricted the government from legally invading our privacy. Some of us think that the courts interperit the governmental power of privacy encroachment too liberally (yes, invasion of privacy is a liberal use of governmental power), but the point is that if privacy is not mentioned in the document then it's absance makes it a RIGHT not a privelage.
In refrence to what I was speaking of in the advanced tech realm is (not remembering exactly) what the Supreme Court ruled was that the police can not use thermal/IR imageing, laser tapping windows, etc. without obtaining a warrant, i.e., technology can not be used as a warrant circumvention device.
Perhaps someone with some refrences will respont and educate us on this.
oops! My bad for not reading the article first! The article mentions government use.
Above points are valid, but not that pertinant to the post they are attached to.
The real point is you have no expectation of privacy in a public place, as others have pointed out.
However, there may be something here in the recent Supreme Court ruling about law enforcement using extraordinary technology in an effort to avoid obtaining a warrant that otherwise would be needed. Doubt it, but it is a possibility.
What the heck? This is an insane idea, its just giving away everybody's right to privacy, if you're in a cafe reading a book and there's a cellphone with this technology.. you just lost your right to privacy when the info is transmitted..
In the USA your "right ot privacy" is actually a prohabition on government from snooping on you. There are exceptions too numerous to go into.
It is NOT a prohabition on citizens (non cops/agents of the government) from looking at others in places of public accomodation, like the hypothetical cafe you mention.
It is NOT a prohabition on other citizens from writing down your license plate number.
It is NOT a prohabition on other citizens from recording your picture and selling ot for profit (that is covered under other laws, not 4th Amendment).
It is NOT a prohabition on your neighbor looking out the open window of his home, into your open window and watching you do whatever you are doing there.
AND Certainly NOT a prohabition on a citizen from pointing a camera at you and looking up who you are based on your facial features.
If you had incorperated some element of government ABUSE of your privacy then you would have a valid point.
Re:Mmmm.. FUN! And a legal nightmare..
on
Spy v. Spy
·
· Score: 2
You seem to ignore the fact that this program did this without any warning at all.
I have not read their EULA, but they certainly did not mind linking to the MSNBC article on their website: http://www.winwhatwhere.com/w3i4/review/ index.htm
You also seem to be ignoring the fact that despite the claims made by the snoopware company, WhosWatchingMe does NOT prevent the snoopware from working. It merely lets the person *KNOW* that he's being snooped.
So?
This is a basic right as far as I'm concerned.
So? I is *not* a basic right in most jurisdictions of the USA. Most employers (if you have one) inform you in your new hire packet and in published company policy that your computer may be monitored at any time and that only authorized software and hardware may be run.
YOUR concern is noted and can be ignored. Plus, I did qualify my statement.
There's a reason there's all those signs in public places saying, "Warning, these premises are under surveilence" - those signs are legally required.
Yea, and if you really knew how to apply what you are talking about you would know that those signs serve the same purpose as that employee agreement you signed, informing you that the company network and resources belong to the company and you have no expectation of privacy.
Re:Mmmm.. FUN! And a legal nightmare..
on
Spy v. Spy
·
· Score: 2
Okay, this is your employer's computer. You purchase a piece of software that is supposed to detect snooping software hiding out on their machine. Said snooping software destroys your anti-snooper, interfering with its proper operation and generally depriving you of its service that you have paid for.Shouldn't you be fired?
YES!
My word, the others on/. seem to have forgotten the difference between harware owned by others and their own hardware.
Not sure what it is, perhaps a clue is in the responses to that last Katz article where they flamed Katz for mentioning a "tech boom" and so many of the people posting were unemployed.
No doubt they are still wondering why they are still unemployed!
Bottom line, if it ain't your box then you don't make the rules for what is loaded.
Re:This is a trojan horse, plain and simple.
on
Spy v. Spy
·
· Score: 2
... then he violates the law in almost every civilized nation on earth.
I am either missing something (easily) or you are (equally easy).
If an employer pays for and installs software on machines owned by the firm, just what laws (be precise please) is he violating in the USA, Japan and England?
This is given that said company only allows company authorized software on it's machines.
A huge increase in "homeland security" spending not only by governments, but among biotech firms as the country expects and prepares for attacks potentially more lethal than those on New York and Washington.
Ahem... If you are referring to the anthrax attacks, then yes, New York and Washington belong in the sentance, especially when speaking of biotech. However, the anthrax attacks were not all that lethal, with just a handful of casualties. Besides, you left out Florida, another forgotten land in the attack discussions.
If, however, you are referring to the incredibly lethal aircraft attacks, those occurred in New York, NY and ARLINGTON VIRGINIA!!! Yes, folks, the Pentagon is in Arlington Virginia.
The DC 2600 meetings are in Arlington, VA also (right across the highway from the Pentagon), but we do that just to trick "the man";-)
The most frequent response (defense of Castro) to the true statements you write is: "The USA embargo is keeping Cuba in poverty."
Never mind that the whole world besides the US trades with Cuba, the Castro supporters/America haters here just can't apply any objectivity to the situation.
Just goes to show ya, I should follow my own advice at least *some* of the time.
I was going to do almost the same thing, a couple of years ago. The only people that heard about it were my friends in Northern VA and East TN that were going to participate.
Primary difference was that the finished product would be licensed only to be cut or "bleeped" for use on broadcast medium or to satisfy policy requirements of sites that served it. No other editing. No additional material could be added. But, like Cringly, all origonal material would be available.
Yes, I knew full well that people may cut/chop/enhance/otherwise-butcher in spite of the license, but all a license really amounts to is a "wish" in writing, so no big deal there.
Now I have an apartment full of various computers in various states of disrepair (projects that delayed work on the show) and never got to step 2 of getting the "Montag and Scary Dave Show" onto the small screen (step 2, get a camera).
Anyway, my advice to others is to write this stuff down, publish it on the net and let others use your idea no matter if you ever get going on the project. Well, let others use it if it is going to be an Open project that is.
Slashdot has that handy journal thingie, use that if you don't want to mess with anything else (yes, mine is still empty).
(yes, bad for quoting myself) The bells at feeding time was one of the other experiments. He also did the showing of shapes to mean different upcoming events. One was an oval, the other a circle. Then he gradually rounded the oval until the dog could not distinguish between them.
The bells at feeding time was one of the other experiments. He also did the showing of shapes to mean different upcoming events. One was an oval, the other a circle. Then he gradually rounded the oval until the dog could not distinguish between them.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm wondering why they wouldn't just contract out with the Government and move the operation to a secure military installation somewhere in the DC area.
;-) arrive for them. Other means are available in the area to repel larger attacks, unless someone flies an airplane from Dulles into the building (check a map).
Because that won't actually make it any more secure than it is right now. The building access is just as restrictive as "high level security" facilities in the area.
Also, contrary to popular belief, every soldier is not walking around post packing heat. The weapons are locked up in an arms room, ammunition locked up in a different location, and the rank-in-file soldiers get to see them when getting ready to go to a firing range. Except for the MPs of course.
"Hiding" the building in plain sight keeps the random vandals away, other security keps them in one place until Fairfax County or Herndon Police (oops, did I say that?
Besides, the 12 other servers in the country pickup the tasks if A goes down. And you need to take out a total of 8 to make a real impact on the net.
Well, if you didn't read the article...
They never mention the Herndon, VA address of the facility.
oops! did I say Herndon, VA?
"The US Founding Fathers knew the value of a free people freely communicating. They established the post office to ensure that people could easily communicate over great distances, without regard to their economic status or resources.
Interesting way of looking at things, seeing as how we ignore the large bulk of what the founding fathers believed in. "
I am with you about the US system diverging greatly from the path that the Founding Fathers cut for us.
However, Article 1 Section 8 does make the creation of lines of communication an enumerated power with the "post offices and postal roads" clause.
I am against the government being the ISP too. But I can see a good arguement for government laying in the fiber and allowing competing ISPs to use it.
In the case of the article, I have to side with the cable companies, just as I was on the side of FedEx when the USPS went after them for delivering first class mail in packages they had no idea contained first class mail. That case was finally resolved when the head of the USPS stopped his inspectors from interfearing with the competition. The rare occurance of a responsive "civil servant."
If this idea were modified just a bit, e.g., the government lays the fiber and the ISPs pay reasonable rates for it's use (also allowing individuals anyplace on the network the same rate) then I could go along with it. Just like places that pay for roads through fuel taxes, people that do not use fuel do not pay taxes to maintain *most* roads.
rant
The downside (like here in No. VA), the fuel taxes are used to subsidize ALL forms of transportation infrastructure, including those busses and trains that some of us rarely use.
/ran
Sounds good, but other posters keep using the highway analogy, which is lacking. The "lines of communication analogy" is more to the point.
Government does, under the US Constitution, have the power "To establish post offices and post roads" (Article 1 Section 8) and it IS an enumerated power.
Since Post Roads were the typical lines of communication of the day, this new internet scheme woulld fall into that category (communications) that government DOES have the power to mess with.
(Note, the "interstate highway system" is really the National Defense Interstate Highway System, covered under the common defense powers if the federal government)
That being said, I would still rather see several firms given equal access to the same easements, so we don't have to wait for city hall to replace the single loop of copper they decide is "what the community needs to take us to the 22nd century.
"higher capital gains tax
Which would be perfectly reasonable. Those have a large personal wealth must also make larger contributions back to the society. Unless they wish to renounce their membership in the society, which is, of course, completely permissible. Too bad you cannot do business with the members of the said society anymore then. "
It is NOT "perfectly reasonable." It is barbaric.
Sorry, Comrade, 20% of $1,000,000 is a larger amount than 20% of $50,000. If the tax tables were uniform then the "rich" would still pay more money. Making someone pay 40% of their income in taxes just because they make more than you is so backward that it is beyond comprehension.
As far as Capital Gaines Taxes go, they are mearly a tax on investments (realestate included) IN ADDITION TO YOUR INCOME TAX. It is also dual taxation, in some cases (yes this is a qualifier and part of the same sentence), dual taxation when applied to stock dividends and sales of stock. Hell, it is dual taxation when you sell a house that qualifies, since you paid tax on the money to buy the home with and all of the repairs made to the house BEFORE spending the money to make the purchases (house, labor, materials, etc)!
Not sure why you lefties want to punish people for being financially successful, hell, you want to punish people for being self sufficient too, but it is just stupid so knock it off. Some of us do not want to be wards of the state.
If YOU think the government deserves more of everybody's money there is NOTHING stoping YOU from sending in your whole paycheck.
If a paper map gets shot it still works.
If you get shot paper can be used (in a pinch) as a field dressing.
Going to try the same theory for Germany and the rest of Western Europe or do you have something else up your sleve?
While you are at it, kick in some domestic political conspiracy theory for our contued presence in South Korea, bases and support in the Phillipnes long after WWII.
When complete, please come up with something for the Medeteranian.
Thanks!
Perhaps you want to review your interpritation of the Constitution?
= 3235 177
The US Constitution sets limits on government and enumerates powers of the government. It is not a list of rights and privleges for the people and the States.
Also note this other post about the Ammendment IX
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=30123&cid
We do not have to make a "right to privacy" law, we have already restricted the government from legally invading our privacy. Some of us think that the courts interperit the governmental power of privacy encroachment too liberally (yes, invasion of privacy is a liberal use of governmental power), but the point is that if privacy is not mentioned in the document then it's absance makes it a RIGHT not a privelage.
Interesting and very valid stuff.
In refrence to what I was speaking of in the advanced tech realm is (not remembering exactly) what the Supreme Court ruled was that the police can not use thermal/IR imageing, laser tapping windows, etc. without obtaining a warrant, i.e., technology can not be used as a warrant circumvention device.
Perhaps someone with some refrences will respont and educate us on this.
oops! My bad for not reading the article first! The article mentions government use.
Above points are valid, but not that pertinant to the post they are attached to.
The real point is you have no expectation of privacy in a public place, as others have pointed out.
However, there may be something here in the recent Supreme Court ruling about law enforcement using extraordinary technology in an effort to avoid obtaining a warrant that otherwise would be needed. Doubt it, but it is a possibility.
What the heck? This is an insane idea, its just giving away everybody's right to privacy, if you're in a cafe reading a book and there's a cellphone with this technology.. you just lost your right to privacy when the info is transmitted..
In the USA your "right ot privacy" is actually a prohabition on government from snooping on you. There are exceptions too numerous to go into.
It is NOT a prohabition on citizens (non cops/agents of the government) from looking at others in places of public accomodation, like the hypothetical cafe you mention.
It is NOT a prohabition on other citizens from writing down your license plate number.
It is NOT a prohabition on other citizens from recording your picture and selling ot for profit (that is covered under other laws, not 4th Amendment).
It is NOT a prohabition on your neighbor looking out the open window of his home, into your open window and watching you do whatever you are doing there.
AND Certainly NOT a prohabition on a citizen from pointing a camera at you and looking up who you are based on your facial features.
If you had incorperated some element of government ABUSE of your privacy then you would have a valid point.
You seem to ignore the fact that this program did this without any warning at all.
/ index.htm
I have not read their EULA, but they certainly did not mind linking to the MSNBC article on their website:
http://www.winwhatwhere.com/w3i4/review
You also seem to be ignoring the fact that despite the claims made by the snoopware company, WhosWatchingMe does NOT prevent the snoopware from working. It merely lets the person *KNOW* that he's being snooped.
So?
This is a basic right as far as I'm concerned.
So? I is *not* a basic right in most jurisdictions of the USA. Most employers (if you have one) inform you in your new hire packet and in published company policy that your computer may be monitored at any time and that only authorized software and hardware may be run.
YOUR concern is noted and can be ignored. Plus, I did qualify my statement.
There's a reason there's all those signs in public places saying, "Warning, these premises are under surveilence" - those signs are legally required.
Yea, and if you really knew how to apply what you are talking about you would know that those signs serve the same purpose as that employee agreement you signed, informing you that the company network and resources belong to the company and you have no expectation of privacy.
Okay, this is your employer's computer. You purchase a piece of software that is supposed to detect snooping software hiding out on their machine. Said snooping software destroys your anti-snooper, interfering with its proper operation and generally depriving you of its service that you have paid for.Shouldn't you be fired?
/. seem to have forgotten the difference between harware owned by others and their own hardware.
YES!
My word, the others on
Not sure what it is, perhaps a clue is in the responses to that last Katz article where they flamed Katz for mentioning a "tech boom" and so many of the people posting were unemployed.
No doubt they are still wondering why they are still unemployed!
Bottom line, if it ain't your box then you don't make the rules for what is loaded.
... then he violates the law in almost every civilized nation on earth.
I am either missing something (easily) or you are (equally easy).
If an employer pays for and installs software on machines owned by the firm, just what laws (be precise please) is he violating in the USA, Japan and England?
This is given that said company only allows company authorized software on it's machines.
A huge increase in "homeland security" spending not only by governments, but among biotech firms as the country expects and prepares for attacks potentially more lethal than those on New York and Washington.
;-)
Ahem... If you are referring to the anthrax attacks, then yes, New York and Washington belong in the sentance, especially when speaking of biotech. However, the anthrax attacks were not all that lethal, with just a handful of casualties. Besides, you left out Florida, another forgotten land in the attack discussions.
If, however, you are referring to the incredibly lethal aircraft attacks, those occurred in New York, NY and ARLINGTON VIRGINIA!!! Yes, folks, the Pentagon is in Arlington Virginia.
The DC 2600 meetings are in Arlington, VA also (right across the highway from the Pentagon), but we do that just to trick "the man"
We must never forgive him for choosing to appear in the excrement-laden Robocop 2.
Great leaps in technology are sometimes followed by falling on your face.
The argument could be made that a recession is exactly the time to do such a thing, as it would be an economic stimulus if planned correctly.
Yea, too bad we are not in a recession now.
Peter Weller made the most convincing robot ever in Robocop!
Why are all of the overpowering media conglomerates keeping these magnificent creations out of the hands of the masses?
The embargo is the ONLY reason that I enjoy their cigars! If it were not for that I would be smoking Dominican Romeo y Juliettas!
The most frequent response (defense of Castro) to the true statements you write is: "The USA embargo is keeping Cuba in poverty."
Never mind that the whole world besides the US trades with Cuba, the Castro supporters/America haters here just can't apply any objectivity to the situation.
Perhaps he
just thought people would get the joke without needing tags.
Nice to see that *someone* (post by Kanon) gets what I submitted!
If you can get the armed thugs that are starving people right here on earth to stop:
1. Attacking UN and other humanitarian organizations from delivering the PLENYFUL food we already have
2. Stop the other nonsensical organizations that keep blaming the West for every ill in the world as they watch us attempt to feed the world
then...
You will not need this new process right here on earth and it can go into space where it belongs!
Just goes to show ya, I should follow my own advice at least *some* of the time.
I was going to do almost the same thing, a couple of years ago. The only people that heard about it were my friends in Northern VA and East TN that were going to participate.
Primary difference was that the finished product would be licensed only to be cut or "bleeped" for use on broadcast medium or to satisfy policy requirements of sites that served it. No other editing. No additional material could be added. But, like Cringly, all origonal material would be available.
Yes, I knew full well that people may cut/chop/enhance/otherwise-butcher in spite of the license, but all a license really amounts to is a "wish" in writing, so no big deal there.
Now I have an apartment full of various computers in various states of disrepair (projects that delayed work on the show) and never got to step 2 of getting the "Montag and Scary Dave Show" onto the small screen (step 2, get a camera).
Anyway, my advice to others is to write this stuff down, publish it on the net and let others use your idea no matter if you ever get going on the project. Well, let others use it if it is going to be an Open project that is.
Slashdot has that handy journal thingie, use that if you don't want to mess with anything else (yes, mine is still empty).
Not so fast...
(yes, bad for quoting myself)
The bells at feeding time was one of the other experiments. He also did the showing of shapes to mean different upcoming events. One was an oval, the other a circle. Then he gradually rounded the oval until the dog could not distinguish between them.
At that point the dog would go nuts!
Shapes and Tones experiments by Pavlov
Ref to just the bell experiments
Pavlov shock experiments
I do remember Skinner doing various things AFTER Pavlov, like teaching pidgeons to bowl(?) and such.
The bells at feeding time was one of the other experiments. He also did the showing of shapes to mean different upcoming events. One was an oval, the other a circle. Then he gradually rounded the oval until the dog could not distinguish between them.
At that point the dog would go nuts!