Once I buy the DVD (insert any other media here), it's mine. I can watch it any way I want, and as long as I don't re-distribute, I'm free to add or delete whatever I want (if I'm technologically competent enough to do it).
Personally, I think films are meant to be watched in their intended format, but if someone wants to watch all 2 minutes of Faces of Death without violence, let 'em.
I really all depends on the subscription you select. Some (like Nextel) include a certain number of mssages received per month (500 in my case) in your plan for free, with overages charged per message received. I think very few plans offer the ability to send text messages at no extra charge. You generally have to opt up for a higher plan to get the capability, and then it's capped with overage fees. If you really worked it out, you could figure out the cost per message, but they're generally included, and most folks don't use text messaging. It costs less here to make a call than it does to text.
My wish most certainly has not been granted. My wish is for people to behave on flights and for the airlines themselves to take a stronger stance on ensuring compliance.
For the record, air marshalls existed long before two years ago. Term Deputy US Marshals existed in the 70's and were assigned to the Anti-Air Piracy Service. The article in Time about consequences, etc. was misleading. The individuals mentioned were on loan from another agency. Their behavior reflects poorly on the originating agency rather than the TSA. It's the originating agency's fault for not putting fresh agents on detail. Anyway, their guns were *not* openly available. They *were* stowed in bags under the seat. If you didn't know that the guy sitting next to you was a marshal, you wouldn't know what was in his bag, would you? The only people on that plane who know who a marshal is are the flight crew.
For the matter of air marshals enforcing seatbelt laws, etc., who are you kidding? You haven't even been on a plane in close to two years. What they do is prevent someone from going apeshit.
Just for semantics sake, they don't have the "right", they have the "authorization to perform the duties of their office in accordance with the laws of the United States and the regulations of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security". I should know, my credentials say something similar.
Before you add more to the conversation, consider what you know and have observed personally, rather than what you think they should do and how you think they should behave. Unless you work for El Al, you're in no place to comment on how anyone in the Air Marshal service should act.
Well, and even more to the point, people don't care to find out the reason for the rule before they break it. It's not just a lack of understanding. It's a lack of understanding coupled with a self-centric attitude. It seems to be a kind of "that rule doesn't apply to me" attitude.
I personally think it's the result of too much of "the customer is always right". Perhaps I'm stretching things a bit, but the customer isn't always right and you should respect the rules of whatever environment you're in. Some folks seem to think that they can set their own rules and they know what's best for themself. The fact of the matter is that in most instances, rules have been put into place because either there exists a problem or they are trying to prevent one.
Cell phones on the plane are no exception. For me, it really doesn't matter why they don't want me to use one. While I am on board that plane, I need to abide by the rules they set, no matter if I think they are right or wrong. It makes no difference if I paid to be on the plane or not. It's part of the deal.
Unfortunately, there is a lack of enforcement for folks who break the rules. For example, if the airline banned individuals who talked on their phones from flying their airline for 1 month, fewer people would do it. However, they won't. The one exception is Continental and their refusal to carry Congresswoman Lee. Good for them, and I wish they would start doing it more often to assholes who fly and make flights miserable for the rest of us.
All they need is a gnutella client and a fast connection to poke around and find people with huge collections. That's why all you need is WASTE and a few friends who are voracious media buyers with seperate tastes.
Of course, I just bought the new Snoop CD ($5) and the Matrix Reloaded DVD ($10) on the corner outside my office today. At those prices, it's almost worth it not to have to jack around with finding non-corrupted files online.
Just to add a little more interest to the conversation, the +4 number generally corresponds to a tract/block (I can't remember which) number from the US Census Bureau. The USPS maintains something called the MAF (Master Address File) that contains a list of every address in the US. The MAF is constantly updated by the Census Bureau through their ongoing surveying efforts (they do surveys more than every 10 years). The MAF doesn't contain personal information (names, etc.) but your address is in there.
...but not for others. Great for entering URLs you've visited before or text messaging, but suh-ucks in word processing. Thanks, I can write a sentence (or in this case, 1 word) for myself.
True. I think Intel absolutely freaked when they found out what he was up to. They started the "what if" cycle, and decided they needed to tack his hide to the fence post as a warning to others who might not be acting in the company's best interests. It's just unfortunate for him that he was the one that was made an example of.
Totally agreed. My point (albeit on a much higher level than I originally made) was that people inherently know what's wrong. It's just that a lot of times they push their conscience to the side and take the attitude that, "I know it's wrong, but I can do it until someone tells me it's wrong and makes me stop". Unfortunately, America is also the home of the weasel that will put more effort into evading consequences rather than considering actions before they are undertaken.
*Try* a door anywhere and you're fine. When you walk in, it's trespassing. It doesn't matter that you did/didn't take anything. The fact that you're in the building without the owner's permission makes it illegal, regardless of the intent. It's up to the owner of the building to decide not to press charges once you get caught.
My statement perhaps should have been modified to carry some background information. A large percentage of the work I've done in my career has been for the US government in both civilian and military agencies. In those environments, it works more like a whitelist. You don't have access to anything and are then whitelisted as the situation necessitates. The culture where I've been has dictated that you don't attempt to access systems that you know you haven't been whitelisted for. I was suggesting a similar mentality. That's SOP and common sense for us. Maybe I was too liberal in my assumption that everyone could internalize that and operate that way.
I do agree that some rules of evidence should be set, but the place for that is in case law.
The terms I use have meaning to me in my environment. Authorized means that you've gone through some sort of procedure to become that way. Use of the term authorized and then describing what I consider it to mean is not pedantic. The use was not nonchalant, as it has specific meaning to me.
implicit means not formally stated, but also means without doubt. Consider the second meaning and re-read the post.
Ringing the doorbell is one thing. Opening the door and walking around is another. For that matter, would you just assume that you could walk into whatever building you wanted because there isn't a sign that says, "Dude, I don't know you. Go Away." Well, you might. I don't know.
The lack of a sign that says "No Trespassing" won't keep you from getting shot when you trespass.
For the most part, I totally agree with you. It's up to me to secure my servers, workstations, etc. If I don't, then I deserve whatever happens.
I would suggest modifying your example by removing the "neighbour" part, and they didn't give you a key. Say it's a random house you just walked by, or one you heard about while hanging out in a coffee shop, or one you found on a map. You walk up to the house, and discover that there are no locks on the doors. Either it wasn't designed with them, or the owner decided not to install them (or didn't know about locks until a security company told him). It would not be ethical or responsible to go in and look around just because you could. You know you shouldn't be there, but I agree that all people wouldn't think that way.
However, it's the owner's problem when the neighbourhood kids walk in and trash the place. Once they get into the house, you can bet they'll find the chest and try to open it, too.
Thanks for posting that link. I read his story, and he admits that he made several mistakes. All I can say is that he really should have known better. I'll give you that he was acting with the best intentions of the company in mind, but copying both Oracle and system password files and then cracking them without anyone's knowledge! Come on. If I did that, I would be canned and have my clearance revoked.
The moral of his story is make sure that someone alays knows what you're doing, especially if you're a contractor (there's the common sense part). In his case, he used to work with the people whose password files he copied. He could have just stopped by and given them an "FYI" about what he was doing and either gotten an OK or smacked. He got smacked, and frankly has a pretty good attitude about it.
The simple fact of the matter is that you're responsible for securing your computer. Now, I'm not saying that a person should be arrested or prosecuted if they get exploited and used as a node, but something should happen.
Say you didn't lock your car doors and left the key in the ignition when someone stole it and ran it into a busload of Nuns and killed them all?
Are you liable for not locking your car? No.
Is GM liable, even though there were locks on the car? No.
Is the the guy who stole the car with the simple intent of joyriding liable? Absolutely.
You wouldn't be liable, but you'd sure feel like an arse for not securing the car.
...dictates that it means that you're somewhere where you're not supposed to be. If you're not authorized (given permission, implicitly or otherwise), then don't access. Don't split hairs about the meaning of authorized or access. Usually, if you're attempting unauthorized access, you know it.
I'll be interested to see how this plays legally with the hack-back technologies the RIAA and MPAA are currently developing/considering.
I attended the hearing
on
Shuttle Politics
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Let me say, as someone who actually attended the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee hearing, that this cynical Barton- and government- bashing is ridiculous. What the Yahoo article failed to point out was that Barton unequivocally affirmed his support for manned space flight and ambitious space exploration, and has in fact supported every NASA budget request (read: every ill-designed, failed NASA initiative) over the last ten years.
His remarks were made thoughtfully and deliberately, not banging a shoe on the table. And as to remarks by MagusAptus that "Just goes to show that we elect the brightest and the best to congress. It would just seem reasonable that if we had to have these committees on everything, then the members of those committees should have at least *some* knowledge or background in the area," Congessman Barton has actually been on the S&A Subcommittee since the early '80s; he served when the Challenger crashed. And he also earned a B.A. in Industrial Engineering from Texas A&M.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, I could just watch it.
Once I buy the DVD (insert any other media here), it's mine. I can watch it any way I want, and as long as I don't re-distribute, I'm free to add or delete whatever I want (if I'm technologically competent enough to do it).
Personally, I think films are meant to be watched in their intended format, but if someone wants to watch all 2 minutes of Faces of Death without violence, let 'em.
I bought Dogma at Wal-Mart. Unedited.
Once my mom finds out about this, I'm going to have to tell her what a DVD player is and how to use one of those, too.
Well, at least you get to keep them. With Sprint PCS, you rent _that's right, I said rent_ tones for $2 for 3 months. Total sham.
I really all depends on the subscription you select. Some (like Nextel) include a certain number of mssages received per month (500 in my case) in your plan for free, with overages charged per message received. I think very few plans offer the ability to send text messages at no extra charge. You generally have to opt up for a higher plan to get the capability, and then it's capped with overage fees. If you really worked it out, you could figure out the cost per message, but they're generally included, and most folks don't use text messaging. It costs less here to make a call than it does to text.
My wish most certainly has not been granted. My wish is for people to behave on flights and for the airlines themselves to take a stronger stance on ensuring compliance.
For the record, air marshalls existed long before two years ago. Term Deputy US Marshals existed in the 70's and were assigned to the Anti-Air Piracy Service. The article in Time about consequences, etc. was misleading. The individuals mentioned were on loan from another agency. Their behavior reflects poorly on the originating agency rather than the TSA. It's the originating agency's fault for not putting fresh agents on detail. Anyway, their guns were *not* openly available. They *were* stowed in bags under the seat. If you didn't know that the guy sitting next to you was a marshal, you wouldn't know what was in his bag, would you? The only people on that plane who know who a marshal is are the flight crew.
For the matter of air marshals enforcing seatbelt laws, etc., who are you kidding? You haven't even been on a plane in close to two years. What they do is prevent someone from going apeshit.
Just for semantics sake, they don't have the "right", they have the "authorization to perform the duties of their office in accordance with the laws of the United States and the regulations of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security". I should know, my credentials say something similar.
Before you add more to the conversation, consider what you know and have observed personally, rather than what you think they should do and how you think they should behave. Unless you work for El Al, you're in no place to comment on how anyone in the Air Marshal service should act.
Well, and even more to the point, people don't care to find out the reason for the rule before they break it. It's not just a lack of understanding. It's a lack of understanding coupled with a self-centric attitude. It seems to be a kind of "that rule doesn't apply to me" attitude.
I personally think it's the result of too much of "the customer is always right". Perhaps I'm stretching things a bit, but the customer isn't always right and you should respect the rules of whatever environment you're in. Some folks seem to think that they can set their own rules and they know what's best for themself. The fact of the matter is that in most instances, rules have been put into place because either there exists a problem or they are trying to prevent one.
Cell phones on the plane are no exception. For me, it really doesn't matter why they don't want me to use one. While I am on board that plane, I need to abide by the rules they set, no matter if I think they are right or wrong. It makes no difference if I paid to be on the plane or not. It's part of the deal.
Unfortunately, there is a lack of enforcement for folks who break the rules. For example, if the airline banned individuals who talked on their phones from flying their airline for 1 month, fewer people would do it. However, they won't. The one exception is Continental and their refusal to carry Congresswoman Lee. Good for them, and I wish they would start doing it more often to assholes who fly and make flights miserable for the rest of us.
All they need is a gnutella client and a fast connection to poke around and find people with huge collections. That's why all you need is WASTE and a few friends who are voracious media buyers with seperate tastes.
Of course, I just bought the new Snoop CD ($5) and the Matrix Reloaded DVD ($10) on the corner outside my office today. At those prices, it's almost worth it not to have to jack around with finding non-corrupted files online.
Just to add a little more interest to the conversation, the +4 number generally corresponds to a tract/block (I can't remember which) number from the US Census Bureau. The USPS maintains something called the MAF (Master Address File) that contains a list of every address in the US. The MAF is constantly updated by the Census Bureau through their ongoing surveying efforts (they do surveys more than every 10 years). The MAF doesn't contain personal information (names, etc.) but your address is in there.
Dude, great reference. Doubt many will get it, but it's still good.
This is where it all started. The International Belt Sander Drag Race Association.
The only exception is that browsers autocomplete based on a previous entry rather than based on speculation about what it thinks you're looking for.
...but not for others. Great for entering URLs you've visited before or text messaging, but suh-ucks in word processing. Thanks, I can write a sentence (or in this case, 1 word) for myself.
True. I think Intel absolutely freaked when they found out what he was up to. They started the "what if" cycle, and decided they needed to tack his hide to the fence post as a warning to others who might not be acting in the company's best interests. It's just unfortunate for him that he was the one that was made an example of.
Totally agreed. My point (albeit on a much higher level than I originally made) was that people inherently know what's wrong. It's just that a lot of times they push their conscience to the side and take the attitude that, "I know it's wrong, but I can do it until someone tells me it's wrong and makes me stop". Unfortunately, America is also the home of the weasel that will put more effort into evading consequences rather than considering actions before they are undertaken.
*Try* a door anywhere and you're fine. When you walk in, it's trespassing. It doesn't matter that you did/didn't take anything. The fact that you're in the building without the owner's permission makes it illegal, regardless of the intent. It's up to the owner of the building to decide not to press charges once you get caught.
My statement perhaps should have been modified to carry some background information. A large percentage of the work I've done in my career has been for the US government in both civilian and military agencies. In those environments, it works more like a whitelist. You don't have access to anything and are then whitelisted as the situation necessitates. The culture where I've been has dictated that you don't attempt to access systems that you know you haven't been whitelisted for. I was suggesting a similar mentality. That's SOP and common sense for us. Maybe I was too liberal in my assumption that everyone could internalize that and operate that way.
I do agree that some rules of evidence should be set, but the place for that is in case law.
The terms I use have meaning to me in my environment. Authorized means that you've gone through some sort of procedure to become that way. Use of the term authorized and then describing what I consider it to mean is not pedantic. The use was not nonchalant, as it has specific meaning to me.
implicit means not formally stated, but also means without doubt. Consider the second meaning and re-read the post.
Ringing the doorbell is one thing. Opening the door and walking around is another. For that matter, would you just assume that you could walk into whatever building you wanted because there isn't a sign that says, "Dude, I don't know you. Go Away." Well, you might. I don't know.
The lack of a sign that says "No Trespassing" won't keep you from getting shot when you trespass.
For the most part, I totally agree with you. It's up to me to secure my servers, workstations, etc. If I don't, then I deserve whatever happens.
I would suggest modifying your example by removing the "neighbour" part, and they didn't give you a key. Say it's a random house you just walked by, or one you heard about while hanging out in a coffee shop, or one you found on a map. You walk up to the house, and discover that there are no locks on the doors. Either it wasn't designed with them, or the owner decided not to install them (or didn't know about locks until a security company told him). It would not be ethical or responsible to go in and look around just because you could. You know you shouldn't be there, but I agree that all people wouldn't think that way.
However, it's the owner's problem when the neighbourhood kids walk in and trash the place. Once they get into the house, you can bet they'll find the chest and try to open it, too.
Thanks for posting that link. I read his story, and he admits that he made several mistakes. All I can say is that he really should have known better. I'll give you that he was acting with the best intentions of the company in mind, but copying both Oracle and system password files and then cracking them without anyone's knowledge! Come on. If I did that, I would be canned and have my clearance revoked.
The moral of his story is make sure that someone alays knows what you're doing, especially if you're a contractor (there's the common sense part). In his case, he used to work with the people whose password files he copied. He could have just stopped by and given them an "FYI" about what he was doing and either gotten an OK or smacked. He got smacked, and frankly has a pretty good attitude about it.
The simple fact of the matter is that you're responsible for securing your computer. Now, I'm not saying that a person should be arrested or prosecuted if they get exploited and used as a node, but something should happen.
Say you didn't lock your car doors and left the key in the ignition when someone stole it and ran it into a busload of Nuns and killed them all?
Are you liable for not locking your car? No.
Is GM liable, even though there were locks on the car? No.
Is the the guy who stole the car with the simple intent of joyriding liable? Absolutely.
You wouldn't be liable, but you'd sure feel like an arse for not securing the car.
...dictates that it means that you're somewhere where you're not supposed to be. If you're not authorized (given permission, implicitly or otherwise), then don't access. Don't split hairs about the meaning of authorized or access. Usually, if you're attempting unauthorized access, you know it.
I'll be interested to see how this plays legally with the hack-back technologies the RIAA and MPAA are currently developing/considering.
Let me say, as someone who actually attended the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee hearing, that this cynical Barton- and government- bashing is ridiculous. What the Yahoo article failed to point out was that Barton unequivocally affirmed his support for manned space flight and ambitious space exploration, and has in fact supported every NASA budget request (read: every ill-designed, failed NASA initiative) over the last ten years.
His remarks were made thoughtfully and deliberately, not banging a shoe on the table. And as to remarks by MagusAptus that "Just goes to show that we elect the brightest and the best to congress. It would just seem reasonable that if we had to have these committees on everything, then the members of those committees should have at least *some* knowledge or background in the area," Congessman Barton has actually been on the S&A Subcommittee since the early '80s; he served when the Challenger crashed. And he also earned a B.A. in Industrial Engineering from Texas A&M.
Exactly. Look how well Ricochet did. It was built, and nobody came (no pun intended). It might make a comeback, as predicted, but we'll see.