So then allowing gay student groups on school property is state support of gays?
Yes, it is. There is no constitutional prohibition on the support of gays, and public schools are free to support them, chess players, latin speakers and most any other group organized around the pursuit of legal activities except for religions.
Sorry, but I think that there is a fundamental difference between security software and individuals. Publicizing personal details is like a security company giving out a list of their customers, their IP addresses and a catalog of their hardware and software istallations so that anonymous individuals can examine them and offer "advice".
Individuals aren't the software, they are the users. Society and government are the software. I am all for an open source approach to government and maintaining society, but that should not mean that I have to live under constant and anonymous scrutiny.
Everyone should have complete access to all information about themselves retained by the government (and the private sector). At the same time, no-one should be allowed unauthorized access to the information of anyone else. Then, we would all be able to monitor the system without losing our privacy.
Fine, but the problem here is collusion among the labels and the distribution channels, not society's preference. How many of these public stations play popular music? It is not as though society is actively ignoring public alternatives.
Sure, artists want to be heard. They want to be heard because they want to make as much money as possible. Nothing noble in their intentions. So technology is limiting their ability to milk their talents in perpetuity. Big deal.
The fact is, artists and their labels are trying to extract more for their product than it is worth to the average consumer, and now the market is responding exactly as it should.
If I were using a technique to protect my privacy that could be cracked, I would want to know about it and it takes this kind of research to find out.
Having said that, this guy comes off as somewhat of a tool in this article. Not all people who wish to protect their privacy are criminals. Moreover, law enforcement does not necessarily represent the side of good (and corporations almost never do). This is also a method used by people to protect themselves from the abuses of both.
But regardless of the motives of the research, this knowledge will ultimately lead to more privacy through inovation. And if this guy can crack it, who's to say the FBI hasn't been doing it for years?
I don't see piracy posing the same problem for books as it does for music. True, text will be a lot faster to transfer than MP3 files. However, a book takes a lot longer to consume than a song. Even if people did bother to download thousands of texts, who would have time to read them all? One of the few benefits of E-Books is that they are searchable. People are more likely to use them for research, to find quotes, excerpts etc. No one goes out and pays retail for a book to use in this way, so the industry isn't losing any money. This story suggests that the people who actually plan to sit down and read a book are more likely to go out and buy the paper edition.
The book industry should be praying that "piracy" (file sharing) brings the kind of popularity to E-Books as it has to MP3.
One programmer's malicious script is potentially another programmer's utility.
It makes no sense to dilute programming/scripting languages just becuase some people abuse their functionality. How about we water down all languages so that no one can write viruses
?
Seems to me that VBScript is working just fine. Since when is it a scripting language's job to enforce security? If PDF allows mailicious script to run, it is PDF that is broken.
One of the few nice things about having a slow connection is that I can close pop-up windows before they even load their contents.
Even on a fast connection at work, they are a great way to improve peripheral vision and Alt Tab/Alt F4 response.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right. It's petty jealousy.
So then allowing gay student groups on school property is state support of gays?
Yes, it is. There is no constitutional prohibition on the support of gays, and public schools are free to support them, chess players, latin speakers and most any other group organized around the pursuit of legal activities except for religions.
Sorry, but I think that there is a fundamental difference between security software and individuals. Publicizing personal details is like a security company giving out a list of their customers, their IP addresses and a catalog of their hardware and software istallations so that anonymous individuals can examine them and offer "advice".
Individuals aren't the software, they are the users. Society and government are the software. I am all for an open source approach to government and maintaining society, but that should not mean that I have to live under constant and anonymous scrutiny.
Everyone should have complete access to all information about themselves retained by the government (and the private sector). At the same time, no-one should be allowed unauthorized access to the information of anyone else. Then, we would all be able to monitor the system without losing our privacy.
Fine, but the problem here is collusion among the labels and the distribution channels, not society's preference. How many of these public stations play popular music? It is not as though society is actively ignoring public alternatives.
Sure, artists want to be heard. They want to be heard because they want to make as much money as possible. Nothing noble in their intentions. So technology is limiting their ability to milk their talents in perpetuity. Big deal.
The fact is, artists and their labels are trying to extract more for their product than it is worth to the average consumer, and now the market is responding exactly as it should.
This is more about the perception of privacy.
If I were using a technique to protect my privacy that could be cracked, I would want to know about it and it takes this kind of research to find out.
Having said that, this guy comes off as somewhat of a tool in this article. Not all people who wish to protect their privacy are criminals. Moreover, law enforcement does not necessarily represent the side of good (and corporations almost never do). This is also a method used by people to protect themselves from the abuses of both.
But regardless of the motives of the research, this knowledge will ultimately lead to more privacy through inovation. And if this guy can crack it, who's to say the FBI hasn't been doing it for years?
I don't see piracy posing the same problem for books as it does for music. True, text will be a lot faster to transfer than MP3 files. However, a book takes a lot longer to consume than a song. Even if people did bother to download thousands of texts, who would have time to read them all? One of the few benefits of E-Books is that they are searchable. People are more likely to use them for research, to find quotes, excerpts etc. No one goes out and pays retail for a book to use in this way, so the industry isn't losing any money. This story suggests that the people who actually plan to sit down and read a book are more likely to go out and buy the paper edition.
The book industry should be praying that "piracy" (file sharing) brings the kind of popularity to E-Books as it has to MP3.
One programmer's malicious script is potentially another programmer's utility.
It makes no sense to dilute programming/scripting languages just becuase some people abuse their functionality. How about we water down all languages so that no one can write viruses ?
Seems to me that VBScript is working just fine. Since when is it a scripting language's job to enforce security? If PDF allows mailicious script to run, it is PDF that is broken.
One of the few nice things about having a slow connection is that I can close pop-up windows before they even load their contents.
Even on a fast connection at work, they are a great way to improve peripheral vision and Alt Tab/Alt F4 response.
The Patriots failed to stop quite a few SCUDS and I don't recall if they had any devices designed to elude interception.
If IRAQ had decided to attach nuclear warheads, only one would have had to make it through.