Nope, there are around 22 other phone satelite systems in operation or being planned (see here).
That also includes a link on what to do if you have an Iridium phone. Apparently a school is taking Iridium phone donations so they can use them in electronics lab about satellite stuff.
I'll throw a word out here: "intent". When I wrote this, 5/322 posts used it.
The difference with porn banner ads? They're not going up to a 12 year old kid and saying "psst... wanna know where you can get porn?"
Or... what if an upset drunk person came up to you and said "My wife just slept with someone. Do you know where I can find a gun?". Would it be right for you to give them a link to a gun?
In each case, the link giver KNEW that the act of linking would most likely result in an illegal act. Maybe linking should be illegal in these cases (aiding in a crime). If cases where intent can't be shown (eg. random porn ads, search engines, maybe newspapers, and file-swappers that can't discriminate), maybe it shouldn't be illegal.
(Feel free to disagree with me, I don't believe this either)
Apparently they want that story, it's on the front page.
A lot of people have written in regarding the announcement from scientists at the University of Texas @ Austin discovering "invisibilty". Well, sort of. What it does do is make small areas of skin (humans have not been tested) transparent for a short amount of time. By transparent, I mean 1/10 mm of transparency - not exactly enough to make me Inside Out Boy. Yet.
I don't know how they pick stories either. Maybe a shorter description?
Maybe they don't really try to get all the good stories because there's too many to look through?
Set up an email account in norway that forwards everything to Russia. Send encrypted emails to the bouncer.
Or hide a message in some cutesy pictures and send them with a message that says "Here's some pictures from my trip, I'm having so much fun, I miss you".
Or send some perl code that, when run with the "I'm a silly goose" piped to STDIN, prints out the message via some many weird calls between subroutines. The email it's attached to says "Here's the code update you asked for. Sorry it took so long, Vlachko's module had some weirdness in it."
Disclaimer: I realize that not all spies are Russian.
(does this sort of low-tech communication still have a place in today's espionage?)
IANASA, but there's an infinite number of covert channels available via the internet that would allow for instant communication that's almost undetectable, so I don't know why they wouldn't use something in meatspace that's slow and more detectable.
There are endless ways to create stream-wrappers at both ends. Kinda like a mini-VPN that scrambles the info on your end and descrambles it on the other end. As long as both ends use the same method, they can communicate.
If millions of such obfuscators are written, I don't see how they can detect or shut them down because the users can always change to another one.
Google's cache will give you the text of pages... why weren't they considered a censorware workaround? I guess you can't see images, but there's still a lot you can get that would be considered objectionable.
It's not designed to give coders nightmares. Mp3board was sued for having a web-to-gnutella gateway. If MP3board loses, they want AOL to have to cover some of the costs since AOL created the thing in the first place.
It's simply a childish "but he did it first!" act. They just wanna cover their butt, not make a moral stand against anyone who creates software that goes against their personal idea of right-and-wrong (they seem pro-pirating anyway).
As a sidenote, I don't think this suit will go anywhere. If the law decides that you've done something wrong, and you did it of your own will (not entrapment or mental sickness), then you get punished, regardless of what some other party did.
"It's not our preference to say Gnutella is infringing or that our search of Gnutella is infringing," said Ira Rothken, MP3Board's attorney. "But if a court finds that it is, we believe that AOL should share part of the blame."
But it goes on to argue that if it loses the suit, AOL and Time Warner should help shoulder any penalties because of their indirect role in creating Gnutella.
The goal is not to let the author gain as much money as possible. The goal is to provide an incentive to create and publish. Why should the question of "how much incentive?" be determined by how much commercial life a published work has?
I didn't realize it until now, but the way that I knew a webpage was loading was that the disk started banging.
That doesn't happen with K-Meleon, so sometimes I click and think that it didn't get my click because it's so quiet, when it's really just waiting on the network.
You didn't pay for the content... If you did, you could sell it to whomever you wanted.... What you paid for was the right to view the DVD in a manner consistent with a myriad of copyright laws and licensing agreements, and those laws and agreements say that you can't use an unlicensed player.
I beleive "fair use" applies here. It's commonly accepted that it's within an author's rights to prevent redistribution. But the author can't make arbitrary restrictions (except maybe under DMCA). For instance, what if a DVD EULA said that people of color can't watch the movie?
Which is worse? Having a security hole in your firewall but not knowing it? Or being blissfully ignorant because the vendor is sitting on its butt?
It seems like the DMCA, if upheld, would make things like Bugtraq illegal.
From the bugtraq faq:
Benefits include:
A large number of individuals get to review the system for security weaknesses.
Vendors are pressured into providing security fixes quickly.
Programmers and system designers can learn from others mistakes.
Users can identify similar vulnerabilities on systems other than the original.
I'd like to also add: Organizations that have a lot at stake can realize that they're vulnerable and doing something quickly to remove the risk while a fix is being developed.
Nobody uses the Cathedral style of development when they're developing a program soley for their own consumption. If they keep their code closed-source, it's not out of greed or desire for control, it's out of laziness.
That situation is uninteresting since it's already decided. I assumed the article was dealing with the more interesting case.
In this paper, I will relate my experiences in the Cathedral to attempt to explain why the Open Source model produces better software.
Since the author is trying to make a useful comparison between the two models, I assumed that the situations were similar. The Cathedral model usually entails others using the product (so the author can make money).
Bazaar = loud group of people consuming and participating in things that interest them
Also, code reviews were mentioned in the article. They don't seem very useful if you're the only one who's going to use or maintain the program.
Boss: I've got a new project for you. It involves VB and MS-Windows. Employee: No, I won't do it. I'm morally opposed to using VB or MS-Windows. Boss: Okay......
There's... not being able to use a language or OS because you don't have enough knowledge... or asking your boss to reconsider because you think they're the wrong tools to use in that situation... but this is entirely different.
What if I signed with a record company that promised me that they would prevent my music from being sold in used record stores. Would that make it immoral for used record stores to exist?
I'm saying that just because a company promises you something in a contract, that it's not automatically right. Especially if they promise something illegal or infeasible.
Though I'm still worried that technical details might keep it from being widely accepted.
Jini can run on top of Bluetooth. TCP/IP is optional for Bluetooth. Theoretical bandwidth of 720kbps. Range of 30 feet, so would need repeaters throughout the house.
That the commonly held belief that the cognitive prosesses of all human beings possess a common logical structure which operates prior to and independently of comunication through language is erroneous. It is Whorf's view that the linguistic patterns themselves determine what the individual perceives in this world and how he thinks about it., Since these patterns vary widely, the modes of thinking and perceiving in groups utilizing different linguistic systems will result in basically different world views (Fearing, 1954)
In other words, a person's language restricts what one can think about.
No one language is -- or could ever be -- the best at everything. The reason for that is fundamental: to be optimal for a given task, a given system, and a given group of programmers, a language must be specialized for each. This is achieved at the cost of generality or efficiency. Conversely, generality and efficiency carry a cost of complexity. Consequently, most corporations rely on a combination of special-purpose and general-purpose languages.
... Restrictive tools designed to prevent the worst programmers from failing often prevent the best programmers from succeeding. Conversely, unsupportive languages and tools can make average programmers unproductive.
So it's possible that a Japanese's mentalese is different from the American's, and it prohibits him from seeing the situation in the same way that an American would see it, and visa versa.
I think the Whorfian hypothesis is false, but it's an opinion held by many psychologists, so who am I to argue?
I don't think ISP's should restrict you at all, other than capping your bandwidth. Once they give you the pipe, anything else is unenforcible if the user has enough time on their hands. --
How would they know if you're running a VPN? Even if there's a signature, you could run both sides through a proxy that XORs everything by a fixed string. It wouldn't secure it any more, but it might be enough to go past their hardcoded filters. Or are they doing something more sophisticated to detect VPNs? --
They could enforce it at the TCP/IP level... have the router block any incoming SYN packets.
Any ports though? Like... the open ports that ICQ uses so that all messages don't have to go through the server? Or open windows filesharing ports that everyone accidentally leaves open? Do they ever check? --
Slashdot Mirror
That also includes a link on what to do if you have an Iridium phone. Apparently a school is taking Iridium phone donations so they can use them in electronics lab about satellite stuff.
The difference with porn banner ads? They're not going up to a 12 year old kid and saying "psst... wanna know where you can get porn?"
Or... what if an upset drunk person came up to you and said "My wife just slept with someone. Do you know where I can find a gun?". Would it be right for you to give them a link to a gun?
In each case, the link giver KNEW that the act of linking would most likely result in an illegal act. Maybe linking should be illegal in these cases (aiding in a crime). If cases where intent can't be shown (eg. random porn ads, search engines, maybe newspapers, and file-swappers that can't discriminate), maybe it shouldn't be illegal.
(Feel free to disagree with me, I don't believe this either)
I don't know how they pick stories either. Maybe a shorter description?
Maybe they don't really try to get all the good stories because there's too many to look through?
Set up an email account in norway that forwards everything to Russia. Send encrypted emails to the bouncer.
Or hide a message in some cutesy pictures and send them with a message that says "Here's some pictures from my trip, I'm having so much fun, I miss you".
Or send some perl code that, when run with the "I'm a silly goose" piped to STDIN, prints out the message via some many weird calls between subroutines. The email it's attached to says "Here's the code update you asked for. Sorry it took so long, Vlachko's module had some weirdness in it."
Disclaimer: I realize that not all spies are Russian.
IANASA, but there's an infinite number of covert channels available via the internet that would allow for instant communication that's almost undetectable, so I don't know why they wouldn't use something in meatspace that's slow and more detectable.
If millions of such obfuscators are written, I don't see how they can detect or shut them down because the users can always change to another one.
Google's cache will give you the text of pages... why weren't they considered a censorware workaround? I guess you can't see images, but there's still a lot you can get that would be considered objectionable.
It's not designed to give coders nightmares. Mp3board was sued for having a web-to-gnutella gateway. If MP3board loses, they want AOL to have to cover some of the costs since AOL created the thing in the first place.
It's simply a childish "but he did it first!" act. They just wanna cover their butt, not make a moral stand against anyone who creates software that goes against their personal idea of right-and-wrong (they seem pro-pirating anyway).
As a sidenote, I don't think this suit will go anywhere. If the law decides that you've done something wrong, and you did it of your own will (not entrapment or mental sickness), then you get punished, regardless of what some other party did.
From the CNET article:
Or, as the LATimes puts it:
The goal is not to let the author gain as much money as possible. The goal is to provide an incentive to create and publish. Why should the question of "how much incentive?" be determined by how much commercial life a published work has?
That doesn't happen with K-Meleon, so sometimes I click and think that it didn't get my click because it's so quiet, when it's really just waiting on the network.
This is so great...
Here's an example all.js that helped me some.
I beleive "fair use" applies here. It's commonly accepted that it's within an author's rights to prevent redistribution. But the author can't make arbitrary restrictions (except maybe under DMCA). For instance, what if a DVD EULA said that people of color can't watch the movie?
Which is worse? Having a security hole in your firewall but not knowing it? Or being blissfully ignorant because the vendor is sitting on its butt?
It seems like the DMCA, if upheld, would make things like Bugtraq illegal.
From the bugtraq faq:
Vendors are pressured into providing security fixes quickly.
Programmers and system designers can learn from others mistakes.
Users can identify similar vulnerabilities on systems other than the original.
I'd like to also add: Organizations that have a lot at stake can realize that they're vulnerable and doing something quickly to remove the risk while a fix is being developed.
That situation is uninteresting since it's already decided. I assumed the article was dealing with the more interesting case.
Anyway, open-source seems to imply group
- In this paper, I will relate my experiences in the Cathedral to attempt to explain why the Open Source model produces better software.
Since the author is trying to make a useful comparison between the two models, I assumed that the situations were similar. The Cathedral model usually entails others using the product (so the author can make money).Bazaar = loud group of people consuming and participating in things that interest them
Also, code reviews were mentioned in the article. They don't seem very useful if you're the only one who's going to use or maintain the program.
- Boss: I've got a new project for you. It involves VB and MS-Windows.
There's... not being able to use a language or OS because you don't have enough knowledge... or asking your boss to reconsider because you think they're the wrong tools to use in that situation... but this is entirely different.Employee: No, I won't do it. I'm morally opposed to using VB or MS-Windows.
Boss: Okay......
In the bazaar, design decisions are often made by people who have no idea what the market wants.
Sorry, I'm not trying to be incredibly inflammatory, but my statement seems to be about as true as yours is.
I'm saying that just because a company promises you something in a contract, that it's not automatically right. Especially if they promise something illegal or infeasible.
Though I'm still worried that technical details might keep it from being widely accepted.
Jini can run on top of Bluetooth. TCP/IP is optional for Bluetooth. Theoretical bandwidth of 720kbps. Range of 30 feet, so would need repeaters throughout the house.
From http://www.isss.org/primer/whorf.htm:
In other words, a person's language restricts what one can think about.
Or, as Bjarne Stroustrup puts it:
... Restrictive tools designed to prevent the worst programmers from failing often prevent the best programmers from succeeding. Conversely, unsupportive languages and tools can make average programmers unproductive.
So it's possible that a Japanese's mentalese is different from the American's, and it prohibits him from seeing the situation in the same way that an American would see it, and visa versa.
I think the Whorfian hypothesis is false, but it's an opinion held by many psychologists, so who am I to argue?
~me
So... do you legally have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
--
I don't think ISP's should restrict you at all, other than capping your bandwidth. Once they give you the pipe, anything else is unenforcible if the user has enough time on their hands.
--
How would they know if you're running a VPN? Even if there's a signature, you could run both sides through a proxy that XORs everything by a fixed string. It wouldn't secure it any more, but it might be enough to go past their hardcoded filters. Or are they doing something more sophisticated to detect VPNs?
--
Any ports though? Like... the open ports that ICQ uses so that all messages don't have to go through the server? Or open windows filesharing ports that everyone accidentally leaves open? Do they ever check?
--