...from the article it is unclear if any of the discovered bugs are remotely exploitable. The one concrete example given is just a local privilege escalation, which is not really all that serious.
The way that I'm reading the article one would have to be at the keyboard of the Mac in order to exploit the security flaws. For most home users this in not a big issue, if an issue at all, due to the fact that 'strangers' would have to break into the house to be able to exploit the flaws. Further, it appears to me that one would have to have an account on the mac in question, as well as physical access in order to exploit the flaws. If you've no account then you've no access. Of course someone that uses 123456 as their password is seriously screwed, but that's a different security issue.
To be called lazy is a major insult in America. The thing is that lazy is generally used to indicate physical laziness. My problem with this is that while physical laziness is not a good thing, intellectual laziness is far worse, and worse still is moral laziness.
My problem is that I'm quite physically lazy, but I'm neither intellectually, nor morally lazy. Society readily forgives all manner of moral laziness, and generally doesn't give a rodents posterior about intellectual rigor. However, if your yard is not manicured, and your clothes aren't pressed you must be a lazy slob. And whatever you do don't make folks have to think through the logical implications of their preconceptions, as thinking is painful.
EXAMPLE
You think that too many people are running red lights, then bring on red light cameras. Hey it's technology and it's going to give us a quick fix to what ails us. We don't need to concern ourselves with the details because we're honest, God fearing citizens, and thus we have nothing to fear from red light cameras.
Of course when you point out that technology is never perfect, and that criminal law requires an individual to be charged, not a vehicle the immediate responses is to change the law to allow for cameras. Then you point out that to change the law the charge must be changed from a criminal to a civil charge, and the response is: what's the big deal with that. You then point out that proof beyond a reasonable doubt holds only in criminal offenses, and not civil offenses, and you're then labeled a trouble maker, and indeed your are. You are causing them to have to think things through, and that is most troublesome.
Alternatively they could download MP3s of the music they already had on vinyl, whatever the letter of copyright law might have to say about that.
An excellent point. Whatever the copyright law, jurors are not going to be very sympathetic to the RIAA and its associated minions if they sue someone that's owns the vinyl version. If they own say the vinyl version and an old eight-track, or cassette of the same album they're jurors are going to view the fat-cats as rapacious $#*@&!*s, and find against the plaintiff.
Even if the plaintiff should appeal I suspect that they would run into tough sledding in the appellate process. The MAJOR problem that would develop would be if a number of cases were consistently decided by juries against the plaintiffs. This would set off a public furor, and be a PR nightmare for the recording industry. All their moral platitudes would be instantly revealed to be completely disingenuous, and totally self-serving.
The bottom line is that at that point the public would really make the U.S. Congress feel the heat.
"When you hold their feet to the fire, you don't have to make them see the light, just feel the heat" --Ronald Wilson Reagan, April 29, 1983, Houston, Texas
You'll notice that there is *never* any mention make of the use of portable storage devices, flash memory sticks etc., for the exchange of music files. Give the increase in the amount of storage that these devices are being upgraded to it becomes very convenient to copy MP.3s to these devices at your friends house etc. and to transfer such files to your computer, then iPod etc..
A draconian crackdown in online file sharing will only result the movement of file-sharing to an offline model.
I well recall the music industry wailing and gnashing their collective teeth in the late 70s, early 80s because of 'pirate' taping. There was much fuss, 'n feathers about electronics manufactures marketing dual well cassette decks. In the end CDs came along killing the cassette. Thus, the industry was placated for a couple of decades. Given the convenience of the CD, and the quality of the sound folks bought into the audio CD with a vengeance. They started replacing their music collection which had been on vinyl with CDs. This caused the recording corporations to reap a windfall, without having to develop new artist, paying for new albums etc.. About the time that the internet, especially broadband, got cranked up and really going the folks that were updating their music libraries to CD got caught up. Thereby causing a dip in CD sales. This was inevitable. Not that that placated the shareholders of the recording companies. Well the CEOs etc. in the industry had their backs against the wall, as they had failed to point out to shareholders that the retool to CDs was not going to last forever, and the CEOs had been operating on cruise control as per developing new sales. So recording industry fat-cats were staring doom in the face, heads were going to roll...
But Wait! We're not bad CEOs etc., it's those evil internet downloaders that are causing the drop in profit!
The fact is that the RIAA and its minion are doing *nothing* but scapegoating of a new technology, and its users so that oligarchs entrenched in an economic sector that is doomed for the scrape-heap of obsolescence can hang around long enough to be able to pop their golden parachutes.
It's not about morality, nor ethics. In the final analysis it ALL about $$$$$$ and maintain the oligarch's tasteless, but stately pleasure domes.
He's statement specified shelf life in stores. I'm just going on his statement. FWIW.
The ooo yuck was an atempt at humor as in stright from the mouth and thus oooh yuck.
A couple of weeks ago I was in Mack's Discount Tackle in Lindale, Texas. While there a fellow that's a manager with the local Dr Pepper bottler came in. Being a Diet DP drinker I ask about DDP switching to sucralose. He said that all soft drink companies were trying to make the switch to sucralose.
Not necessarily because it tastes better, but rather because it has a shelf life that is twice as long as aspartame. 60 days vs. 30 days.
Now, personally I think the US "everyone pays their own fees" system sucks, because it's wide open to abuse by large and well-funded organisations in this sort of context, but that's a separate problem.
The real problem with the state of civil litigation is that corporations are allow to act as a "person". It's a matter of an inequity of resources. A corporation typically has enormous financial, and legal resources compared to an individual.
The real solution is to treat corporations as the commercial organizational entities that they truly are, rather than as persons. For that matter governmental organizational entities also ought to be treated as such.
There needs to be a change to the civil standard between individuals from *proof by a preponderance of evidence* to a more rigorous standard. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is too strong a standard a civil standard between individuals, or between organizational entities. In a civil case between an organizational entity, and an individual where the organizational entity is the plaintiff, then the *reasonable doubt* standard ought to hold.
Part of the reason for the *proof beyond a reasonable doubt* standard in criminal cases is to prevent malicious prosecution. A high standard for burden of proof in criminal cases reduces the potential for false witness to be used as a means to 'get even with', harass, or intimidate individuals. The high standard lessens the potential impact of 'frame ups'.
It is relevant to the IP Address question to discuss recent moves in Texas by several municipalities to have traffic law changed so that they (the municipalities) could install red light cameras, and use them to bust red light runners.
Under Texas Law a criminal prosecution based on the image of a auto license plate made by a red light camera is useless in a criminal prosecution. This because of the *proof beyond a reasonable doubt* standard in criminal cases. There has been a move in the Texas Legislature to enact provisions of statute that would allow red light running to be treated as a civil offense due to the lower standard of evidence in a civil procedure. Specifically, to proof by a preponderance of evidence.
The question arises then, if an IP Address is sufficient to meet the civil standard. In other words does this constitute a preponderance of evidence. Further, it will be incumbent upon the RIAA to show that their discovery of the files in question was done in a manner that respected the rights of the alleged file holder. IOW, did the RIAA run afoul of the law in their snooping? If so then the RIAA has problems that may be of a criminal nature. If this is the case then the IP Address will likely be ruled inadmissible in court. I would not bet against such a ruling.
>The only way to stop this type of injustice is to change the civil legal system in various possible >ways, such as: > >1.Have court-appointed attorneys, just like in criminal cases. >2.Make it so loser automatically pays winner's legal fees. >3.Change the burden of proof to be GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT rather than a >preponderance of the evidence. >4.Allow a person in a civil trial to plead the 5th without negative inferences.
I sympathize with your sense of injustice. However, allow me to point out that there are some problems with your four recommendations.
1. This is highly impracticable. There are simply too many civil case. The expense would be enormous.
2., 3., & 4.
Are all problematic with regard to having individuals sue large corporations.
The real problem with the state of civil litigation is that corporations are allow to act as a "person". It's a matter of an inequity of resources. A corporation typically has enormous financial, and legal resources compared to an individual.
The real solution is treat corporations as the commercial organizational entities that they truly are, rather than as persons. For that matter governmental organizational entities also ought to be treated as such.
On point 3.: There needs to be a change to the civil standard between individuals from *proof by a preponderance of evidence* to a more rigorous standard. Note that guilt is not in question in civil litigation, only in a criminal action. Second, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is too strong a standard a civil standard between individuals, or between organizational entities. In a civil case between an organizational entity, and an individual where the organizational entity is the plaintiff, then the *reasonable doubt* standard ought to hold.
Part of the reason for the *proof beyond a reasonable doubt* standard in criminal cases is to prevent malicious prosecution. A high standard for burden of proof in criminal cases reduces the potential for false witness to be used as a means to 'get even with', harass, or intimidate individuals. The high standard lessens the potential impact of 'frame ups'.
Nor am I a lawyer, but the phrase you thinking of is Nolo contendere. A nolo plea is something that is applicable in a criminal case, but not in a civil case.
Back in the day I took a history class that had as a reading assignment the reading of a book entitled "Nuclear War What's In It For You". I didn't read the book but took the test anywho. I ended up making the only 100 on the book exam in any of the history sections that made that assignment. Of course I was probably the only physics, and aerospace major in any of those sections.
The real hoot was that there was a question that ask what the temperature of of nuclear ignition was. I did not know, so I winged it by giving my answer in scientific notation, and Kelvins. My prof. marked it ok if you say so.
I've gotten a lot of laughs over the years from other physics types when I've told the story.
I'd like someone to research the light with a high quality optical range finder used in conjunction with a compass and GPS to locate the position of the lights. A small telescope with a spectrograph would also be interesting. Get the spectrum on these puppies.
Slashdot Mirror
I beg to differ...
I had a great deal of fun as a physics major.
Of course once you get your baccalaureate, and advanced degrees;
you get to have the real fun when people ask what your occupation is.
Avg. Joe: So what do you do for a living?
Physics Dude: I'm a physicist.
Avg. Joe: (Incredulous look) For real???
Physics Dude: Yep, afraid so.
Avg. Joe: (Look of awe and astonishment!) I barely passed high school physics...
Majoring in physics won't bring you love, but it will bring you respect.
ROFLMKO!!!!!
When out in public how can you tell a Grammar Nazi by just looking at them?
Simple, look for an adhesive label on their lapel with an upsidedown lower case 'e' on it.
By their schwa-stickers ye shall know them.
The way that I'm reading the article one would have to be at the keyboard of the Mac in order to exploit the security flaws. For most home users this in not a big issue, if an issue at all, due to the fact that 'strangers' would have to break into the house to be able to exploit the flaws. Further, it appears to me that one would have to have an account on the mac in question, as well as physical access in order to exploit the flaws. If you've no account then you've no access. Of course someone that uses 123456 as their password is seriously screwed, but that's a different security issue.
Could be a robotic SPAM duck decoy...
Oh Wait! You said it tastes good...
Never mind....
And the Democrats aren't?
As in I want to be President just like my hubby...
Or
I want to be President just like my brother, uncle, etc. JFK...
To be called lazy is a major insult in America. The thing is that lazy is generally used to indicate physical laziness. My problem with this is that while physical laziness is not a good thing, intellectual laziness is far worse, and worse still is moral laziness.
My problem is that I'm quite physically lazy, but I'm neither intellectually, nor morally lazy. Society readily forgives all manner of moral laziness, and generally doesn't give a rodents posterior about intellectual rigor. However, if your yard is not manicured, and your clothes aren't pressed you must be a lazy slob. And whatever you do don't make folks have to think through the logical implications of their preconceptions, as thinking is painful.
You think that too many people are running red lights, then bring on red light cameras. Hey it's technology and it's going to give us a quick fix to what ails us. We don't need to concern ourselves with the details because we're honest, God fearing citizens, and thus we have nothing to fear from red light cameras.
Of course when you point out that technology is never perfect, and that criminal law requires an individual to be charged, not a vehicle the immediate responses is to change the law to allow for cameras. Then you point out that to change the law the charge must be changed from a criminal to a civil charge, and the response is: what's the big deal with that. You then point out that proof beyond a reasonable doubt holds only in criminal offenses, and not civil offenses, and you're then labeled a trouble maker, and indeed your are. You are causing them to have to think things through, and that is most troublesome.
"Cardinal Fang! Fetch...THE COMFY CHAIR!"
An excellent point. Whatever the copyright law, jurors are not going to be very sympathetic to the RIAA and its associated minions if they sue someone that's owns the vinyl version. If they own say the vinyl version and an old eight-track, or cassette of the same album they're jurors are going to view the fat-cats as rapacious $#*@&!*s, and find against the plaintiff.
Even if the plaintiff should appeal I suspect that they would run into tough sledding in the appellate process. The MAJOR problem that would develop would be if a number of cases were consistently decided by juries against the plaintiffs. This would set off a public furor, and be a PR nightmare for the recording industry. All their moral platitudes would be instantly revealed to be completely disingenuous, and totally self-serving.
The bottom line is that at that point the public would really make the U.S. Congress feel the heat.
"When you hold their feet to the fire, you don't have to make them see the light, just feel the heat" --Ronald Wilson Reagan, April 29, 1983, Houston, Texas
You'll notice that there is *never* any mention make of the use of portable storage devices, flash memory sticks etc., for the exchange of music files. Give the increase in the amount of storage that these devices are being upgraded to it becomes very convenient to copy MP.3s to these devices at your friends house etc. and to transfer such files to your computer, then iPod etc..
A draconian crackdown in online file sharing will only result the movement of file-sharing to an offline model.
I well recall the music industry wailing and gnashing their collective teeth in the late 70s, early 80s because of 'pirate' taping. There was much fuss, 'n feathers about electronics manufactures marketing dual well cassette decks. In the end CDs came along killing the cassette. Thus, the industry was placated for a couple of decades. Given the convenience of the CD, and the quality of the sound folks bought into the audio CD with a vengeance. They started replacing their music collection which had been on vinyl with CDs. This caused the recording corporations to reap a windfall, without having to develop new artist, paying for new albums etc.. About the time that the internet, especially broadband, got cranked up and really going the folks that were updating their music libraries to CD got caught up. Thereby causing a dip in CD sales. This was inevitable. Not that that placated the shareholders of the recording companies. Well the CEOs etc. in the industry had their backs against the wall, as they had failed to point out to shareholders that the retool to CDs was not going to last forever, and the CEOs had been operating on cruise control as per developing new sales. So recording industry fat-cats were staring doom in the face, heads were going to roll...
But Wait! We're not bad CEOs etc., it's those evil internet downloaders that are causing the drop in profit!
The fact is that the RIAA and its minion are doing *nothing* but scapegoating of a new technology, and its users so that oligarchs entrenched in an economic sector that is doomed for the scrape-heap of obsolescence can hang around long enough to be able to pop their golden parachutes.
It's not about morality, nor ethics. In the final analysis it ALL about $$$$$$ and maintain the oligarch's tasteless, but stately pleasure domes.
He's statement specified shelf life in stores. I'm just going on his statement. FWIW. The ooo yuck was an atempt at humor as in stright from the mouth and thus oooh yuck.
...of Rocket Scientist, Brain Surgeons, Nuclear Physicists, and Assundry Brainiacs,
by the dW/dt invested in my office; I hearby banish you from our hallowed ranks, for poor taste, and viewing habits unbefitting a Uber Genius.
A couple of weeks ago I was in Mack's Discount Tackle in Lindale, Texas. While there a fellow that's a manager with the local Dr Pepper bottler came in. Being a Diet DP drinker I ask about DDP switching to sucralose. He said that all soft drink companies were trying to make the switch to sucralose.
Not necessarily because it tastes better, but rather because it has a shelf life that is twice as long as aspartame. 60 days vs. 30 days.
ObsessiveMathsFreak...
A classic example of why you never send a mathematician to do a physicist's job.
That sounds like a veiled threat...
The real problem with the state of civil litigation is that corporations are allow to act as a "person". It's a matter of an inequity of resources. A corporation typically has enormous financial, and legal resources compared to an individual.
The real solution is to treat corporations as the commercial organizational entities that they truly are, rather than as persons. For that matter governmental organizational entities also ought to be treated as such.
There needs to be a change to the civil standard between individuals from *proof by a preponderance of evidence* to a more rigorous standard. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is too strong a standard a civil standard between individuals, or between organizational entities. In a civil case between an organizational entity, and an individual where the organizational entity is the plaintiff, then the *reasonable doubt* standard ought to hold.
Part of the reason for the *proof beyond a reasonable doubt* standard in criminal cases is to prevent malicious prosecution. A high standard for burden of proof in criminal cases reduces the potential for false witness to be used as a means to 'get even with', harass, or intimidate individuals. The high standard lessens the potential impact of 'frame ups'.
F = dp/dt
It is relevant to the IP Address question to discuss recent moves in Texas by several municipalities to have traffic law changed so that they (the municipalities) could install red light cameras, and use them to bust red light runners.
Under Texas Law a criminal prosecution based on the image of a auto license plate made by a red light camera is useless in a criminal prosecution. This because of the *proof beyond a reasonable doubt* standard in criminal cases. There has been a move in the Texas Legislature to enact provisions of statute that would allow red light running to be treated as a civil offense due to the lower standard of evidence in a civil procedure. Specifically, to proof by a preponderance of evidence.
The question arises then, if an IP Address is sufficient to meet the civil standard. In other words does this constitute a preponderance of evidence. Further, it will be incumbent upon the RIAA to show that their discovery of the files in question was done in a manner that respected the rights of the alleged file holder. IOW, did the RIAA run afoul of the law in their snooping? If so then the RIAA has problems that may be of a criminal nature. If this is the case then the IP Address will likely be ruled inadmissible in court. I would not bet against such a ruling.
>The only way to stop this type of injustice is to change the civil legal system in various possible >ways, such as:
>
>1.Have court-appointed attorneys, just like in criminal cases.
>2.Make it so loser automatically pays winner's legal fees.
>3.Change the burden of proof to be GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT rather than a >preponderance of the evidence.
>4.Allow a person in a civil trial to plead the 5th without negative inferences.
I sympathize with your sense of injustice. However, allow me to point out that there are some problems with your four recommendations.
1. This is highly impracticable. There are simply too many civil case. The expense would be enormous.
2., 3., & 4.
Are all problematic with regard to having individuals sue large corporations.
The real problem with the state of civil litigation is that corporations are allow to act as a "person". It's a matter of an inequity of resources. A corporation typically has enormous financial, and legal resources compared to an individual.
The real solution is treat corporations as the commercial organizational entities that they truly are, rather than as persons. For that matter governmental organizational entities also ought to be treated as such.
On point 3.: There needs to be a change to the civil standard between individuals from *proof by a preponderance of evidence* to a more rigorous standard. Note that guilt is not in question in civil litigation, only in a criminal action. Second, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is too strong a standard a civil standard between individuals, or between organizational entities. In a civil case between an organizational entity, and an individual where the organizational entity is the plaintiff, then the *reasonable doubt* standard ought to hold.
Part of the reason for the *proof beyond a reasonable doubt* standard in criminal cases is to prevent malicious prosecution. A high standard for burden of proof in criminal cases reduces the potential for false witness to be used as a means to 'get even with', harass, or intimidate individuals. The high standard lessens the potential impact of 'frame ups'.
Nor am I a lawyer, but the phrase you thinking of is Nolo contendere. A nolo plea is something that is applicable in a criminal case, but not in a civil case.
>"What about engineers who develop weapons?"
>
>The RIAA has no proof they downloaded any songs either.
LOL!!!!! Mod this up please!
Invasion of Canada eh?
Two words:
Back Bacon!
Dude, we're working on it!
Back in the day I took a history class that had as a reading assignment the reading of a book entitled "Nuclear War What's In It For You". I didn't read the book but took the test anywho. I ended up making the only 100 on the book exam in any of the history sections that made that assignment. Of course I was probably the only physics, and aerospace major in any of those sections.
The real hoot was that there was a question that ask what the temperature of of nuclear ignition was. I did not know, so I winged it by giving my answer in scientific notation, and Kelvins. My prof. marked it ok if you say so.
I've gotten a lot of laughs over the years from other physics types when I've told the story.
Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year
STB
I'd like someone to research the light with a high quality optical range finder used in conjunction with a compass and GPS to locate the position of the lights. A small telescope with a spectrograph would also be interesting. Get the spectrum on these puppies.