Even if you were, why exactly should this matter? The net isn't a democracy, and the petty laws passed in America can't be enforced elsewhere. So Americans can ban themselves the source code, like fools sticking their heads into the sand, without having any effect at all on any other nation on the planet.
College students are hardly a representative sample of anything. The problem is that college students, a tiny demographic whose spending habits are inconsequential compared even to *middle school students*, seem to have a vastly inflated notion of the importance of their actions all out of proportion to their actual impact. Sure, MTV is interested in what few dollars they have to spend, but the rest of the American public and business don't give a rats ass what the wet-behind-the-ears do or say.
It doesn't amount to anything in the long run, something former college students find out right quick once they enter the job market and have a few holes punched in their egos. Of course, this doesn't prevent the young and painfully naive from concluding that they're the center of the known universe while in college and that they can extrapolate something useful about the behavior of non-college-students simply by observing their peers.
Which is, I guess, why we see so many American line workers wearer baseball caps backwards and calling their bosses 'dude'.
Having worked at Symantec I can also tell you that some of its employees also *write* virus software. Why? Because Symantec pays (or used to, I don't the situation now) people to submit viruses so they can study them and learn to protect against them.
A few employees had a profitable little sideline where they'd write viruses, give them to friends, and have the friends submit them. Extra cash at the end of the month. And as most of these folks were actually on the AV team they knew precisely what to write to exploit vulnerabilities and get a pay-out. If a pay-out was denied they'd *release the virus into the wild* and then resubmit the virus for a virtually insured reward.
Trusting an AV company to care for your security without independent review seems like a recipe for disaster...especially when unscrupulous employees contribute to the problem for monetary gain.
Of course, this was something of an open secret, so I doubt Symantec considered it to be much of a problem. After all, these viruses justified the sale of upgrades!
On the other hand, you haven't presented anything like a convincing argument as to why we should ban the ability to access and study virus code, at our own discretion. Nor have you said anything remotely defensible as to who this study should be restricted to, and why we should think your personal opinion on the matter is worthy of a law.
The stance that it is somehow idealogically immoral to put constraints on the availability of dangerous information in our current society is not only without a rational defense, but completely ignores the reality that such information can directly lead to a massive amount of harm.
Sure there's a rational defense. The primary one being: who get's to decide what is 'dangerous information'? You? Why you and not me? What makes you more qualified to make this determination? I guarantee you that we won't agree on the definition, probably won't even come close; a compromise isn't possible when I see your argument as spitting all over the First Amendment, and therefore not worthy of serious consideration.
What has kept the world safe thus far has been a lack of easily- available information
Kept the world safe??? In case you haven't noticed human history is replete with the dangerously insane causing enormous amounts of harm. By your argument we could assert that learning how to fly a plane is 'dangerous information', after 9/11. Certainly far more dangerous that any virus to date, or any home-made bomb detonated in the name of terrorism.
Clearly the very availability of Napster enabled thousands and millions to break laws that they would have not broken previously.
When millions break the law, this says nothing about the morals of those millions but rather the immorality of the law. Unless, of course, you live in a country where the opinions of those millions don't count.
we are simply giving up our safe way of life.
I hate to break it to you, son, but life is never safe. It never has been and it never will be. And unlike you, I'm not willing to sell of freedoms for the illusion of more safety.
Although one might *want* to give arbitrary individuals access to all information, you're essentially allowing arbitrary individuals the power to do anything they desire.
And who gets to decide who is 'good enough' to have access to the information? You? Once again, what makes you more qualified to make these decisions than me?
This system will eventually lead to catastrophe, because you cannot make the entire world's population obey an honor system.
Clearly banning the publishing of code is a violation of First Amendment free speech. And once you start banning 'malicious code' (there is no such thing; only humans can be malicious) like viruses, the argument could be extended to ban code which might be used for other malicious purposes (e.g., Freenet, which *might also* be used for passing along virus code for study and isn't easily monitored by the government). Who gets to decide? I guarantee it won't be me, but rather some control-freak schmuck who gets a woody by forcing other people to do as he tells them to.
But then what do I know? I'm a gun-totin' American, and therefore a right-wing nutcase so far as most anti-self-protection loons are concerned.
Really? Are you so bad a shot that you don't feel confident shooting at a specific point on a target within 10 feet of you? Remember - these guys were in his living room.
I'm an expert shot. Very, very good at hitting whatever I aim at. But anyone who's had proper training with a gun of any kind knows that 'shooting to wound' is just plain stupid. If you shoot, you shoot to kill - anything else only encourages the enemy to pull a weapon of his or her own and shoot back.
Not only that, it's assinine to think that I'll 'shoot to wound', leaving the assailant alive to possibly kill my family if I miss, or if I hit and it doesn't take the son of a bitch down. Sometimes people drop dead on the spot from a little.22 hole in the right place, at other times they can take a.38 in the chest at point blank and not even notice it until they bleed out 20 minutes later - long after they've beaten me and my family to death. Best to aim at the vitals and keep squeezing the trigger until you here that 'click click' sound.
Frankly, I can't believe this is Canadian law - it's suicidally stupid in practice. I'd like to see a cite to this effect, and if such a one exists I have to wonder at the sheer naivete at the fools who wrote such a law.
In Oregon he could also have shot them. Forced entry into a home is assumed to be good reason to believe that you and your family are in immediate peril, and therefore you can use whatever means are at your disposal to eliminate the intruders. The fact that he didn't shoot them shows considerable restraint (me, I would've emptied the clip and worried about the ethical ramifications *after* they were dead and no longer a threat to my family).
In Oregon all you'd have to do is claim that you were 'in fear for your life' (which is actually the default argument when your home is invaded against your will) and you could've shot both the sons of bitches dead right there.
Now *that* would've sent a message to the bastards, I'm sure.
The majority doesn't mean jack shit. Market power means something when it comes to designing web sites, but 'market power' and 'majority' aren't interchangeable terms.
Like I said, this isn't a democracy. And whether or not *you* like *that* is entirely irrelevant.
If they have decent logging software activated they'll notice a signficant number of front-page hits without attempts to follow front-page links. As a designer this would tip me off that something was wrong (i.e., for whatever reason the front page was encouraging users to leave the site without further exploration).
Just because some group and stands up and says "we make the standards" doesn't mean that's a standard.
Sure it does. This isn't a democracy and the majority don't rule - especially when the majority are utterly clueless.
This is a good thing. The clueless have no business voting on something they know nothing about, so the fact that this isn't a democracy is a blessing.
Max
Re:Getting tired of this....
on
XP, Phone Home
·
· Score: 1
So run linux and fuck Microsoft!!!
Max
Re:Getting tired of this....
on
XP, Phone Home
·
· Score: 2
If they want to know I do searches on their stuff, Linux, Digital Cameras and things like that then so what!
The point is simple, and one some people seem to miss time and again. I decide what my computer does and does not do; I decide who gets to access it. You don't get to decide and neither does Microsoft - it isn't your concern or theirs. It isn't your right or theirs.
My privacy is my own and I'm the one who makes up the rules about it. If you object, then pass a law that invalidates my rules. Otherwise it isn't your business, and it isn't Microsoft's business.
And before you say anything about a EULA, please not that a EULA is not a valid contractual agreement in the United States.
Repeat after me: in the U.S. EULAs are not laws and they are not legal contracts. They never have been.
Max
Re:If you don't like it DONT USE WINDOWS!
on
XP, Phone Home
·
· Score: 2
A) Its not illegal and probably never will be
According to recently passed laws, accessing a computer without permission is now a federal offense and an act of terrorism. I see no provision exempting Microsoft from these laws.
Max
Re:What a non story! A waste of space!
on
XP, Phone Home
·
· Score: 1
Excuse me, but how does it improve my searching ability by sending the details of my search to Microsoft???
Max
Re:Surprised? No. Opportunity? Yes.
on
XP, Phone Home
·
· Score: 2
EULA's aren't legal contracts in the United States. They never have been. The only attempt to enforce a EULA in court in the U.S. ended with the provisions of the EULA being struck down.
I don't remember giving MS permission to request any information off my computer without my consent. In general, if someone steals this information without asking you first (regardless of what the information is) we call it 'criminal electronic trespass' - now a felony *and* an act of terrorism.
Max
Re:Space Defense Initiative (SDI)
on
Space Wars
·
· Score: 1
I'm only going to express my disappointment at wasting my time trying to enter into a useful debate with someone so obviously childish as yourself.
Debating an egomaniac who's certain that he's innately superior to everyone who isn't as successful as he himself is doesn't strike me as a whole lot of fun there, Tonto. It's about as useful as trying to convince a skinhead that blacks really aren't inferior to whites.
Perhaps when you grow up you'll be able to hold a meaningful discussion with your betters without devolving into inane ranting.
Son, you have never been, and never will be, my better. Not in this life or the next.
I guess if you insist your login be 'cool' you might have some problems - but these are all self-inflicted and trivial. Now me, I could use 'maxpublic10568' and be perfectly happy.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if you were, why exactly should this matter? The net isn't a democracy, and the petty laws passed in America can't be enforced elsewhere. So Americans can ban themselves the source code, like fools sticking their heads into the sand, without having any effect at all on any other nation on the planet.
Max
College students are hardly a representative sample of anything. The problem is that college students, a tiny demographic whose spending habits are inconsequential compared even to *middle school students*, seem to have a vastly inflated notion of the importance of their actions all out of proportion to their actual impact. Sure, MTV is interested in what few dollars they have to spend, but the rest of the American public and business don't give a rats ass what the wet-behind-the-ears do or say.
It doesn't amount to anything in the long run, something former college students find out right quick once they enter the job market and have a few holes punched in their egos. Of course, this doesn't prevent the young and painfully naive from concluding that they're the center of the known universe while in college and that they can extrapolate something useful about the behavior of non-college-students simply by observing their peers.
Which is, I guess, why we see so many American line workers wearer baseball caps backwards and calling their bosses 'dude'.
Max
Having worked at Symantec I can also tell you that some of its employees also *write* virus software. Why? Because Symantec pays (or used to, I don't the situation now) people to submit viruses so they can study them and learn to protect against them.
A few employees had a profitable little sideline where they'd write viruses, give them to friends, and have the friends submit them. Extra cash at the end of the month. And as most of these folks were actually on the AV team they knew precisely what to write to exploit vulnerabilities and get a pay-out. If a pay-out was denied they'd *release the virus into the wild* and then resubmit the virus for a virtually insured reward.
Trusting an AV company to care for your security without independent review seems like a recipe for disaster...especially when unscrupulous employees contribute to the problem for monetary gain.
Of course, this was something of an open secret, so I doubt Symantec considered it to be much of a problem. After all, these viruses justified the sale of upgrades!
Max
On the other hand, you haven't presented anything like a convincing argument as to why we should ban the ability to access and study virus code, at our own discretion. Nor have you said anything remotely defensible as to who this study should be restricted to, and why we should think your personal opinion on the matter is worthy of a law.
Max
I feel fine letting Symantec et al worry about studying viruses.
And I don't. So why should we use your opinion to form laws and not mine?
Max
The stance that it is somehow idealogically immoral to put constraints on the availability of dangerous information in our current society is not only without a rational defense, but completely ignores the reality that such information can directly lead to a massive amount of harm.
Sure there's a rational defense. The primary one being: who get's to decide what is 'dangerous information'? You? Why you and not me? What makes you more qualified to make this determination? I guarantee you that we won't agree on the definition, probably won't even come close; a compromise isn't possible when I see your argument as spitting all over the First Amendment, and therefore not worthy of serious consideration.
What has kept the world safe thus far has been a lack of easily- available information
Kept the world safe??? In case you haven't noticed human history is replete with the dangerously insane causing enormous amounts of harm. By your argument we could assert that learning how to fly a plane is 'dangerous information', after 9/11. Certainly far more dangerous that any virus to date, or any home-made bomb detonated in the name of terrorism.
Clearly the very availability of Napster enabled thousands and millions to break laws that they would have not broken previously.
When millions break the law, this says nothing about the morals of those millions but rather the immorality of the law. Unless, of course, you live in a country where the opinions of those millions don't count.
we are simply giving up our safe way of life.
I hate to break it to you, son, but life is never safe. It never has been and it never will be. And unlike you, I'm not willing to sell of freedoms for the illusion of more safety.
Although one might *want* to give arbitrary individuals access to all information, you're essentially allowing arbitrary individuals the power to do anything they desire.
And who gets to decide who is 'good enough' to have access to the information? You? Once again, what makes you more qualified to make these decisions than me?
This system will eventually lead to catastrophe, because you cannot make the entire world's population obey an honor system.
A system based on whose idea of honor?
Max
Clearly banning the publishing of code is a violation of First Amendment free speech. And once you start banning 'malicious code' (there is no such thing; only humans can be malicious) like viruses, the argument could be extended to ban code which might be used for other malicious purposes (e.g., Freenet, which *might also* be used for passing along virus code for study and isn't easily monitored by the government). Who gets to decide? I guarantee it won't be me, but rather some control-freak schmuck who gets a woody by forcing other people to do as he tells them to.
But then what do I know? I'm a gun-totin' American, and therefore a right-wing nutcase so far as most anti-self-protection loons are concerned.
Max
Really? Are you so bad a shot that you don't feel confident shooting at a specific point on a target within 10 feet of you? Remember - these guys were in his living room.
.22 hole in the right place, at other times they can take a .38 in the chest at point blank and not even notice it until they bleed out 20 minutes later - long after they've beaten me and my family to death. Best to aim at the vitals and keep squeezing the trigger until you here that 'click click' sound.
I'm an expert shot. Very, very good at hitting whatever I aim at. But anyone who's had proper training with a gun of any kind knows that 'shooting to wound' is just plain stupid. If you shoot, you shoot to kill - anything else only encourages the enemy to pull a weapon of his or her own and shoot back.
Not only that, it's assinine to think that I'll 'shoot to wound', leaving the assailant alive to possibly kill my family if I miss, or if I hit and it doesn't take the son of a bitch down. Sometimes people drop dead on the spot from a little
Frankly, I can't believe this is Canadian law - it's suicidally stupid in practice. I'd like to see a cite to this effect, and if such a one exists I have to wonder at the sheer naivete at the fools who wrote such a law.
Max
In Oregon he could also have shot them. Forced entry into a home is assumed to be good reason to believe that you and your family are in immediate peril, and therefore you can use whatever means are at your disposal to eliminate the intruders. The fact that he didn't shoot them shows considerable restraint (me, I would've emptied the clip and worried about the ethical ramifications *after* they were dead and no longer a threat to my family).
Shoot 'em all and let Xenu sort it out....
Max
In Oregon all you'd have to do is claim that you were 'in fear for your life' (which is actually the default argument when your home is invaded against your will) and you could've shot both the sons of bitches dead right there.
Now *that* would've sent a message to the bastards, I'm sure.
Max
But hardly anybody used Napster for anything legitimate
And I'm sure you have some empirical evidence to back this claim up?
Max
The majority doesn't mean jack shit. Market power means something when it comes to designing web sites, but 'market power' and 'majority' aren't interchangeable terms.
Like I said, this isn't a democracy. And whether or not *you* like *that* is entirely irrelevant.
Max
If they have decent logging software activated they'll notice a signficant number of front-page hits without attempts to follow front-page links. As a designer this would tip me off that something was wrong (i.e., for whatever reason the front page was encouraging users to leave the site without further exploration).
Max
With a liberal helping of salt from a shaker labeled "all pundits are ultimately full of shit, always of their own making".
Max
Hell, boy, if you just used standard html it would render correctly in all three browsers. This isn't brain surgery.
Max
Just because some group and stands up and says "we make the standards" doesn't mean that's a standard.
Sure it does. This isn't a democracy and the majority don't rule - especially when the majority are utterly clueless.
This is a good thing. The clueless have no business voting on something they know nothing about, so the fact that this isn't a democracy is a blessing.
Max
So run linux and fuck Microsoft!!!
Max
If they want to know I do searches on their stuff, Linux, Digital Cameras and things like that then so what!
The point is simple, and one some people seem to miss time and again. I decide what my computer does and does not do; I decide who gets to access it. You don't get to decide and neither does Microsoft - it isn't your concern or theirs. It isn't your right or theirs.
My privacy is my own and I'm the one who makes up the rules about it. If you object, then pass a law that invalidates my rules. Otherwise it isn't your business, and it isn't Microsoft's business.
And before you say anything about a EULA, please not that a EULA is not a valid contractual agreement in the United States.
Max
Repeat after me: in the U.S. EULAs are not laws and they are not legal contracts. They never have been.
Max
A) Its not illegal and probably never will be
According to recently passed laws, accessing a computer without permission is now a federal offense and an act of terrorism. I see no provision exempting Microsoft from these laws.
Max
Excuse me, but how does it improve my searching ability by sending the details of my search to Microsoft???
Max
EULA's aren't legal contracts in the United States. They never have been. The only attempt to enforce a EULA in court in the U.S. ended with the provisions of the EULA being struck down.
Max
I don't remember giving MS permission to request any information off my computer without my consent. In general, if someone steals this information without asking you first (regardless of what the information is) we call it 'criminal electronic trespass' - now a felony *and* an act of terrorism.
Max
I'm only going to express my disappointment at wasting my time trying to enter into a useful debate with someone so obviously childish as yourself.
Debating an egomaniac who's certain that he's innately superior to everyone who isn't as successful as he himself is doesn't strike me as a whole lot of fun there, Tonto. It's about as useful as trying to convince a skinhead that blacks really aren't inferior to whites.
Perhaps when you grow up you'll be able to hold a meaningful discussion with your betters without devolving into inane ranting.
Son, you have never been, and never will be, my better. Not in this life or the next.
Max
I guess if you insist your login be 'cool' you might have some problems - but these are all self-inflicted and trivial. Now me, I could use 'maxpublic10568' and be perfectly happy.
Max