If the passwords are encrypted, they'll have to go through the effort of cracking them to notice the postfix is there.
That's a big "if". I guess Slashdot's probably is encrypted, because they're nerds. Facebook's probably is as well. Not sure about any others - if a giant tech company like Sony stores them unencrypted, then anyone might. And in France, you're not allowed by law to one-way-hash them.
I've considered using the postfix system (ie. $kurg^is42 would become $kurg^is42_fb on facebook, $kurg^is42_sd on/., etc), but haven't gotten around to actually doing it yet. Probably should.
I do something like that, and I have a few variants of the cryptic prefix as well. I have occasional moments of paranoia that someone will get both Slashdot and Facebook's databases and notice the similarity between my passwords, but really, I'm not that interesting a target for that much effort.
They probably do that because by French law you have to store them in plain text or something fungible, no one-way-hashing of passwords is allowed in France.
Haven't you watched The Simpsons? It's short for "superintendent", as in "Superintendent Chalmers", the guy that Skinner is usually showing around doing inspections.
"My" doesn't always indicate absolute ownership. "My Social Security number", "My country", "My congressman", "My right not to be enslaved". These are all things that we can't give to someone else to use.
Because most people are happy that there are "safe harbours" created by law that enable companies to offer services. Without legal protection, some services of this nature would be unprofitable, and thus there would be no Netflix. It's a difficult balance, and there may be a case to be made that such services could exist without such protection if they "got their business model right rather than legislating to protect a redundant business model", but you asked, and that's the answer. Because people want it. Or, more accurately: because, if the case were put to people in detail, they would realise that it is a worthwhile trade-off. Are your rights really infringed because you can't share your contractual relationship with someone else?
At first I thought that this was just aimed at companies that had a relationship with Apple, but it doesn't look that way upon further inspection. Maybe this is a trademark thing, they are policing usage of their trademarks, including images of the product. So you can say "Free tablet computer" with no image, and there's probably nothing they can do about that, but as soon as you say "Free Apple iPad" then you are using their trademarks to promote your business.
I think the broad theory is that each computer on a network behaves like an ant, passing information to other computers about the network environment. If one computer starts misbehaving, the others can communicate this information and avoid the infected machine or the source of the incoming traffic. If the security software on the infected PC is compromised, they might even be able to force the infected machine to run some different security software that can help combat the threat. This is all just off the top of my head, and no, of course I didn't read the fine article.
I disagree, for the same reason that I won't use RAID-0. If the OS goes down and I have to recover my data on another machine, I just want to be able to plug the drive into another PC and have it readable. If I have RAID-0 or if I have some "smart" dynamic moving of files from one device to another hidden behind a single drive letter, are the devices going to be individually readable? I've had too many drives fail to trust "smart" systems like that. I know, backing up is the only way to avoid data loss, but I'd rather have the intermediate option available for the drives that didn't fail.
Having said that, I'm tempted to get a Drobo, which is RAID, as a backup device. But that's
Looks to me like it says "since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU FDL." So it isn't saying "don't use it because it is incompatible with the GPL."
Of course it isn't. It's a different licence because the GPL is not appropriate for documentation. If it were GPL compatible, there would be no need for it as you could just use the GPL.
You can use GPL or LGPL software in any way that you want, and the user's rights are protected by the licence. The software is also protected from being made proprietary, so that users will always be free from the danger of a proprietary variant supplanting the original via "embrace, extend, extinguish". Freedom does not mean anarchy, anarchy does not provide freedom.
Only if you were aware of the details of the superinjunction, I would assume. If I find out that X is having an affair with Y, but am unaware that X has taken out a superinjunction, surely I am not breaking the law by saying so. The papers and news broadcasters are still not allowed, due to the injunction, to say "Ryan Giggs had an affair with Imogen Thomas", but they can now say "Ryan Giggs has been named as the footballer who took out a superinjunction over allegations of an affair with Imogen Thomas". This is because they know that it was Ryan Giggs, and they know that the superinjunction applies to them. I don't know for a fact that it was Ryan Giggs, I have never been ordered not to say it, because the superinjunction was supposed to prevent me from even knowing in the first place, so telling me not to say it would break the superinjunction. Phew. Did any of that make any sense, semantically or legally?
Don't suppose the EU would be interested in making MS open the Skype protocol.
I guess we'll have to wait and see if Microsoft abuse it in a monopolistic fashion. i.e. if they use the market dominance position of Skype to advance their dominance of another market e.g. WinMo, XBoxLive, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
If the passwords are encrypted, they'll have to go through the effort of cracking them to notice the postfix is there.
That's a big "if". I guess Slashdot's probably is encrypted, because they're nerds. Facebook's probably is as well. Not sure about any others - if a giant tech company like Sony stores them unencrypted, then anyone might. And in France, you're not allowed by law to one-way-hash them.
I've considered using the postfix system (ie. $kurg^is42 would become $kurg^is42_fb on facebook, $kurg^is42_sd on /., etc), but haven't gotten around to actually doing it yet. Probably should.
I do something like that, and I have a few variants of the cryptic prefix as well. I have occasional moments of paranoia that someone will get both Slashdot and Facebook's databases and notice the similarity between my passwords, but really, I'm not that interesting a target for that much effort.
They probably do that because by French law you have to store them in plain text or something fungible, no one-way-hashing of passwords is allowed in France.
OK, I was thinking of video calls. My mistake.
I'll have another look, I couldn't see one, maybe the descriptions aren't too clear. I had never heard of "Jingle", so I wasn't looking for that.
And when one of them says, "So what app can I use to video call you from my iPhone?", do you reply, "You shouldn't have got an iPhone!"?
Haven't you watched The Simpsons? It's short for "superintendent", as in "Superintendent Chalmers", the guy that Skinner is usually showing around doing inspections.
The legislation isn't, and shouldn't be, just about one service.
"My" doesn't always indicate absolute ownership. "My Social Security number", "My country", "My congressman", "My right not to be enslaved". These are all things that we can't give to someone else to use.
Because most people are happy that there are "safe harbours" created by law that enable companies to offer services. Without legal protection, some services of this nature would be unprofitable, and thus there would be no Netflix. It's a difficult balance, and there may be a case to be made that such services could exist without such protection if they "got their business model right rather than legislating to protect a redundant business model", but you asked, and that's the answer. Because people want it. Or, more accurately: because, if the case were put to people in detail, they would realise that it is a worthwhile trade-off. Are your rights really infringed because you can't share your contractual relationship with someone else?
At first I thought that this was just aimed at companies that had a relationship with Apple, but it doesn't look that way upon further inspection. Maybe this is a trademark thing, they are policing usage of their trademarks, including images of the product. So you can say "Free tablet computer" with no image, and there's probably nothing they can do about that, but as soon as you say "Free Apple iPad" then you are using their trademarks to promote your business.
Hm, looks like I replied to the wrong comment. Oh well.
I think the broad theory is that each computer on a network behaves like an ant, passing information to other computers about the network environment. If one computer starts misbehaving, the others can communicate this information and avoid the infected machine or the source of the incoming traffic. If the security software on the infected PC is compromised, they might even be able to force the infected machine to run some different security software that can help combat the threat. This is all just off the top of my head, and no, of course I didn't read the fine article.
I disagree, for the same reason that I won't use RAID-0. If the OS goes down and I have to recover my data on another machine, I just want to be able to plug the drive into another PC and have it readable. If I have RAID-0 or if I have some "smart" dynamic moving of files from one device to another hidden behind a single drive letter, are the devices going to be individually readable? I've had too many drives fail to trust "smart" systems like that. I know, backing up is the only way to avoid data loss, but I'd rather have the intermediate option available for the drives that didn't fail.
Having said that, I'm tempted to get a Drobo, which is RAID, as a backup device. But that's
They are actually making a product with their patents, so they aren't a troll.
Looks to me like it says "since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU FDL." So it isn't saying "don't use it because it is incompatible with the GPL."
So the FSF have taken a different definition of "user" than you.
Of course it isn't. It's a different licence because the GPL is not appropriate for documentation. If it were GPL compatible, there would be no need for it as you could just use the GPL.
You can try to redefine free all you want. If one party loses rights at the expense of the other, calling it "free" is disingenuous at best.
You are defining freedom as anarchy. Anarchy does not ensure freedom.
You can use GPL or LGPL software in any way that you want, and the user's rights are protected by the licence. The software is also protected from being made proprietary, so that users will always be free from the danger of a proprietary variant supplanting the original via "embrace, extend, extinguish". Freedom does not mean anarchy, anarchy does not provide freedom.
http://regmedia.co.uk/2007/12/19/ballmer_fester_bulb.jpg
My iPad has a clicky keyboard! :)
Only if you were aware of the details of the superinjunction, I would assume. If I find out that X is having an affair with Y, but am unaware that X has taken out a superinjunction, surely I am not breaking the law by saying so. The papers and news broadcasters are still not allowed, due to the injunction, to say "Ryan Giggs had an affair with Imogen Thomas", but they can now say "Ryan Giggs has been named as the footballer who took out a superinjunction over allegations of an affair with Imogen Thomas". This is because they know that it was Ryan Giggs, and they know that the superinjunction applies to them. I don't know for a fact that it was Ryan Giggs, I have never been ordered not to say it, because the superinjunction was supposed to prevent me from even knowing in the first place, so telling me not to say it would break the superinjunction. Phew. Did any of that make any sense, semantically or legally?
Don't suppose the EU would be interested in making MS open the Skype protocol.
I guess we'll have to wait and see if Microsoft abuse it in a monopolistic fashion. i.e. if they use the market dominance position of Skype to advance their dominance of another market e.g. WinMo, XBoxLive, etc.
Not going to be available on iOS or WinMo any time soon I guess.