I think the question americans should be asking themselves is this: are they themselves any freer now than before 9-11-2001? Mod this as flamebait if you must, but my point is valid. They have the Patriot act, which gives huge swathes of new powers to the government without judicial oversight. They have gulags where prisoners have been kept without legal representation for 3 years now. They have american citizens being held without trial. Its becoming increasingly obvious that the price of "freeing" the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan may be decreased freedom for americans.
I think I covered OpenGL in my post:) As for your other points, why do so many people on slashdot complain about lack of games on those platforms then?
Hardly, there are loads of Mac games around these days, and as for Linux, show me the cross card compatable DirectX-like graphics and audio api? That is why Windows is so dominent for gaming, because games only have to target for the api, not the card itself. Some do, and get better performance because of it, but most just require directx. OpenGL is not available across all cards, and thus is not really a viable alternative, although when it is used it is mostly better.
Linux needs a DirectX like API, otherwise it will remain a place where only certain games make an appearance. And then only if you have certain graphics cards.
I must disagree with you here, pretty much the sentiment about the Belgrano sinking was that it was justified and correct. Court cases brought against the UK government regarding the case have all failed.
For the people who arent aware of the story, the Belgrano was an Ex US battle cruiser sold to the Argentinian Navy after world war two. The Argentinians used the Belgrano during their invasion of the Falkland Islands, which the UK has owned for nearly 200 years, but the Argentinians have always claimed as their own.
The UK government authorised the Royal Navy submarine Conquerer to sink the Belgrano after it was decided that she played a great threat to the UK task force fleet sailing to free the Falkland Islands, even tho the Belgrano was outside the "area of interest" as defined by the UK government (she was sailing to intercept the task force when she was sunk, but was about 100 miles outside the exclusion zone around the islands). She was hit twice, and sunk. The two escort ships accompanying the Belgrano turned and fled, failing to pick up any survivors now in the water, and thus sealing a lot of deaths.
THe upside of it was that the UK Navy didnt have to deal with the Argentinian Navy any longer, they stayed in port during the entire conflict, leaving the defence of the Falkland Islands to the Argentinian airforce, who could fly from the mainland and had enough range to attack the falklands.
The reason that the strike was ordered while the ship was outside the exclusion zone was that she was about to pass into a shallow area of water, which the submarine would have to go around. IT was deemed too risky to the task force for Conquerer to attempt this and search for the Belgrano on the other side, so the descision was made to sink the Belgrano before she passed into this area.
The universe has been around for between 10 and 20 billion years. Human life has been around for 1 to 2 million years. Even if a civilisation started its evolution 5,000 years before us, they still have the possibility of being fantastically more advanced than us. And what if a civilisation began its evolution 10million years before us? 100million years? We are just a blot on the landscape really. None of this says anything about the possibility of life occuring, just that the chances of us finding a like civilisation is next to none.
You can have terms for the discussions entered, one of which may be confidentiality. THis happens all the time with big business, you approach them for a good deal and everything from then on is covered under pre agreement terms. You dont know what the Ohio University have signed, just that they HAVENT signed the actual agreement, therefor they can be discussing things under pre agreement terms, which are permissable in court. In the airline business, one company does not know how much their rivals paid for their airplanes, and will probably never know, due to these sorts of agreements. (EasyJet, a UK budget airline, is rumoured to have paid less than 10% sticker price for its fleet of 767 aircraft, thats $3million for a $30million aircraft, mainly due to them buying the planes post 9/11, and they wont discuss anything)
Ignore my previous comment on this, it is indeed if you have anything to do with a replacement, other than distribute it for free, or use it. The exact clause is thus:
(d) Notwithstanding any other terms in this License, this
License is not available to You if You and/or your
employer develop, produce, sell, and/or resell a
product which contains substantially similar capabil-
ities of the BitKeeper Software, or, in the reason-
able opinion of BitMover, competes with the BitKeeper
Software.
Also on my travels, I also notice that BK does not have this license available for reading anywhere other than within the BK install itself, you need to install BK and then run a command to view the license. Nasty.
And only limits you to not using BK itself to aid in the development of the replacement, IE storing development code for the replacement within BK. Using BK and a rival at the same time is perfectly OK, otherwise the Kernel wouldnt be able to be exported to CVS, as it is on a continuing basis.
It's not the data your company has, it's the unique ID that can be used to trace you anywhere you go. And you are sorely naieve if you think your company will never give out your information, and it will never be stolen.
Its unique to my company, and thats it. Its not unique globally or probably even locally. And it certainly contains no data that can be used to track me even 1% accurately. And no, my company will never give out such data, know why? Because if they did they would get a very hefty fine from the government. Also, this doesnt scare me, because the laws in my country are such that I can go into any private establishment, or government facility, and demand to have a copy of all the data they store on me, for a very reasonable 20 a request. This includes any electronically stored data such as computer records or CCTV footage. I live in a sane country where I dont need to fear technology, because bad usage is already covered under current law.
Your right to swing your fists in the air must give way to my right not to have it end up in my face. Just as a property owner's right to protect his property can't completely trample my rights.
You are very true with the fist statement, but totally wrong with the property owners statement. If you dont like being subject to certain terms when on someone elses property, then leave. Its as simple as that. Or do you think that your rights to free association and movement (applicable in the US and other countries) allow you to assert those rights on private property? Let me inform you, they dont, you are on private property, and so long as the property owner does not break any laws, you have no arguement. If RMS doesnt like using RFID then he should leave. If you dont like using an RFID based pass system, then you should ensure that you only go places where you dont need to use such systems.
Look, if you don't think anybody has the right to any privacy, then at least be honest and say so, rather than trying to pretend that RFID won't invade your privacy.
I do think people have a right to privacy, but not to the extent that that privacy damages my right to protect my property. When on my property, your privacy is limited to what doesnt affect my security, and that is exactly what MIT has implemented. RFID is no more an invasion of privacy as is having a unique numberplate on your motor vehicle, or having unique facial expressions (and you think you cant be tracked automatically using facial recognition? Think again, its already on the streets of the UK, US and in use in airports around the world.).
Do you think that someones privacy superceeds the right to your own protection? Im talking about criminal records being made available to airlines, so they can turn away potentially dangerous passengers, im talking about day care centers being able to check employees for sex offences, im talking about free press being able to investigate what they want.
No, quite the contrary. Your name is not unique, while a RFID tag is. So, tatooing your name on your forehead is actually a less privacy-intruding method. It's also less privacy intruding because reading from your forehead can't be done automatically, so it wouldn't lend itself to the automated removal of your privacy.
Actually, the only way an RFID tag would be unique is if its issued by the government, and in that case I do agree with you. Retail RFIDs are going to be unique to that chain and supplier only, RFIDs used elsewhere (such as in security systems like that at MIT) have their identifiers set by the issuing body, not some central authority, and there are going to be millions of conflicts across single countries, because those RFIDs are only supposed to be used for one purpose.
No, it's not interesting, and it's not releated in even the tiniest way. P2P has nothing to do with someone's right to privacy. And you look like an idiot for even trying to make that arguement.
Yes, and the same reasoning could be applied to explain why you need to have somebody following you around, recording your every move all day, every day.
Hardly. MIT have a need to protect the building, and that is what they are doing. They have a right to know who is in the building and using their facilities. Or would you be more happy with 20 security guards manning the building, day and night? Security guards who could do a lot more than keeping track of whos in the building. Infact, are you in favour of any protection of property?
RMS didn't say there was no reason to do it, he said it can be just as secure as the rest of the campus without the RFID... Therefore, no justification for the additional privacy-intruding security measures. It's like you're arguing against something completely different.
Actually, from the last link in the story, RMS is incorrect when he says that without RFID the building would have the same security as the rest of the campus. MIT say right there that most of the other buildings in the campus already have RFID access systems, and from people I know who go to MIT, thats true. I think this is a case of "now it might affect me, Im going to moan about it" on RMS part, as usual.
And it completely disables itself when you leave the property, right??? Right??? RIGHT????
No need. I think I would notice the person who is within 50cm of me who is trying to scan the card. Plus only my company would benifit from it, as the card only contains the site ID and the card ID, everything else is held on the companys computers. What next, complaints against the fact that you have to carry a uniquely identifying Passport to pass between countries? Or that your credit card can be tied to your credit account? Stop being a cry baby.
Really now, since when has it been a property owner's right to take away your rights? surely you would be upset if you had to have your name tatooed on your forehead. It's about the same thing here.
Since when has it been a third persons right to remove the right of a property owner to protect his own property? Its always been a property owners right to protect their property, and if you dislike that, then you are not welcome on any property of mine. Carrying an RFID card around is hardly in the same league as having your name tattooed on your forehead, and the latter gives third persons a bit more info than the RFID card, and is a damn sight more readable in any case. If you have to carry an RFID card and are concerned that someone out there might want to know its contents, wrap freaking tinfoil around it, you only have to use it to get in and out of the building.
su is a complete non-issue:
Yes, I know how to overcome this issue, oh and heres another good way: DONT USE THE GNU SU UTILITY. My point was more of his point of view, that it was childlike and basically stupidly ideological. He basically agrees with the owner of a system not being able to limit the rights of the users of the system, which is ludicrous.
Incidentally, I'm no RMS fan, but I do hate RFID.
Interesting how the haters of RFID have such a loud voice, shouting out against ANY use of RFID basically because it has potential (and sofar unseen) privacy concerns, yet when a similiar niche argument is made against Peer2Peer networking applications, that they are used to distribute unlawful copies of goods, the argument is decried because "it has the potential to be used for legitimate programs" even though this vastly outweighed by the amount of illegitimate goods on the networks.
Go get some proper arguments against RFID, then we will talk. Until then, I dont want to hear your currently unfounded fears.
Now I think RMS jsut has his knickers in a twist, simply because people will listen.
Some quotes: "There is no legitimate justification for keeping track of who opens these doors," Stallman says. "You can just leave these doors open, and the building would have the same amount of security as most of the rest of the campus." MIT says most buildings use the RFID cards.
Well, actually, there are legitimate justifications for keeping track of who opens the doors. If something gets nicked from the lab, you can find out who was in the building and from there you can start to investigate the theft (by that I mean, ask those people if theysaw anything or anyone suspicious etc). If someone props open the doors, as he also hints on, then you can see who the last person was to open those doors using the card and take matters from there.
We have a Proximity card solution at work, and its fine. Yes, you can get tracked, but then you are on private property, and tracking isnt always foolproof because you are not required to beep in if you are part of a group.
Stallman says that MIT could have implemented a different system that protected the visitors' privacy. Instead, he says, the Institute chose only convenience, and he's ready to call it a day and take his research elsewhere. "The big sacrifice is leaving MIT," he says. "I am prepared to make that sacrifice."
Well, MIT arent exactly making the visitors details public knowledge, now are they? From the situation with GNUs su program not supporting wheel (link), I think its clear that RMS has a dubious and somewhat iffy personal view on security, and that much alone makes me want to dismiss him out of hand when he talks about security related matters. If hes prepared to "make that sacrifice" instead of allowing MIT to implement a bit of security to protect their building and valuables inside said building, then good riddence is all I can say.
Also the Eurofighter is the first multirole combat aircraft designed with Supercruise in mind, although the F22 had it back ported on when they upgraded the engine specification, and will be the first aircraft in active duty with it. Its also the first fighter aircraft to be able to use the targeting computer of its wingman aircraft to select, paint and shoot at targets. It may be several years overdue, but they kept tacking on extras like the project was never going to end.
Actually, the Buran was fully automated from launch to landing. From the link you gave: The autopilot that landed the shuttle was able to overcome a 34 mph crosswind to land within 5 feet of the runway center line. Also, of the 38,000 heat shield tiles that covered Buran, only 5 were missing.
While being more technologically advanced, it was also just as expensive as the American shuttle, and the post Soviet government cancelled the project, having decided to upgrade the much cheaper Soyuz capsules. The energia booster flew once more and was also shelved, but only because no buyers could be found who needed that much capacity in a booster.
Its interesting to note that the Russians scrapped Buran because it was too expensive, and focused on upgrading its capsule fleet, and this is almost exactly what Bush announced he was going to fund, a cancellation of shuttle flights and development of a Crew Exploration Vehicle, which will be a bigger and more versatile version of the Apollo capsule type, unknown yet if it is to be reusable.
The reason the shuttle was necessary was because the US military demanded that it have the capability to glide to a precise landing point when on classified missions, and this is one ofthe main reasons that the shuttles budget exploded. Once you remove this feature requirement, the need for a reentry vehicle to have wings is pretty much gone, and a reusable capsule with a disposable cargo pod is a much better solution.
If virus and worm writers followed these guidelines, then I doubt there would be as many problems as there is now:
Authors like to stamp the worms with their own signiture, as then they can boast about it with proof.
I agree you with this, releasing it from a traceable system is stupid.
If the authors did this, then a major benifit of them releasing the worm/virus is gone. Most of these things are done for bragging rights, and are not malicious. How many worms etc actually cause permanent damage to data or computer systems? Very few, most use exploits to spread themeselves further, and a couple shut down the PC. Few actaully install malicious programs and fewere still wipe data.
There are other people who follow exactly the same procedure as you laid out, for example the "Deepthroat" whistle blower in the Nixon Watergate scandle is still unknown precisely because he followed the above, and demanded secrecy from those he could trust enough to tell.
You dont have to use VS.net at all, as someone else replied, you can download the.net framework and SDKs free of charge, and they include all compilers etc etc.
For a decent IDE, look at Sharp Develop, covers much of what you would expect, and very competant to boot.
They can already limit bonus material to UK ISPs, check to see if your ISP has access to the BBCi bonus material. Basically, most UK ISPs peer with the BBC internally, thus non of this limited audience material actually goes out over the internet per se. If your IP does not match a certain range, you dont get access.
While I agree that the Bnetd issue was fairly lame, this one is more in a gray
area. The FastTrack clients dont run on an independant network, and KCeasys interoperability
with the FastTrack network means interacting with Sharman Networks servers to auth the user and
provide various other facilities while the Bnetd solution produced a fully independant network,
where people could join without
any interaction with Blizzards servers at all, and that is the major difference in this case.
I dont think "Reverse engineering to be another on the list of rights that have fallen by the wayside?"
is a valid concern here, because the main issue seems to be that KCeasy interacts with SN servers, in
a way that SN has not authorised or granted consent to. If KCeasy produced a fully seperate
network, that simply used the FastTrack protocol, then my view would be different, but it doesnt, so it isnt.
KCeasy is using the FastTrack network and Sharman Networks servers without consent, simple really.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the question americans should be asking themselves is this: are they themselves any freer now than before 9-11-2001? Mod this as flamebait if you must, but my point is valid. They have the Patriot act, which gives huge swathes of new powers to the government without judicial oversight. They have gulags where prisoners have been kept without legal representation for 3 years now. They have american citizens being held without trial. Its becoming increasingly obvious that the price of "freeing" the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan may be decreased freedom for americans.
I think I covered OpenGL in my post :) As for your other points, why do so many people on slashdot complain about lack of games on those platforms then?
Hardly, there are loads of Mac games around these days, and as for Linux, show me the cross card compatable DirectX-like graphics and audio api? That is why Windows is so dominent for gaming, because games only have to target for the api, not the card itself. Some do, and get better performance because of it, but most just require directx. OpenGL is not available across all cards, and thus is not really a viable alternative, although when it is used it is mostly better.
Linux needs a DirectX like API, otherwise it will remain a place where only certain games make an appearance. And then only if you have certain graphics cards.
US billion == One thousand million (1,000,000,000)
:)
UK billion == One million million (1,000,000,000,000)
Hope that helps
I must disagree with you here, pretty much the sentiment about the Belgrano sinking was that it was justified and correct. Court cases brought against the UK government regarding the case have all failed.
For the people who arent aware of the story, the Belgrano was an Ex US battle cruiser sold to the Argentinian Navy after world war two. The Argentinians used the Belgrano during their invasion of the Falkland Islands, which the UK has owned for nearly 200 years, but the Argentinians have always claimed as their own.
The UK government authorised the Royal Navy submarine Conquerer to sink the Belgrano after it was decided that she played a great threat to the UK task force fleet sailing to free the Falkland Islands, even tho the Belgrano was outside the "area of interest" as defined by the UK government (she was sailing to intercept the task force when she was sunk, but was about 100 miles outside the exclusion zone around the islands). She was hit twice, and sunk. The two escort ships accompanying the Belgrano turned and fled, failing to pick up any survivors now in the water, and thus sealing a lot of deaths.
THe upside of it was that the UK Navy didnt have to deal with the Argentinian Navy any longer, they stayed in port during the entire conflict, leaving the defence of the Falkland Islands to the Argentinian airforce, who could fly from the mainland and had enough range to attack the falklands.
The reason that the strike was ordered while the ship was outside the exclusion zone was that she was about to pass into a shallow area of water, which the submarine would have to go around. IT was deemed too risky to the task force for Conquerer to attempt this and search for the Belgrano on the other side, so the descision was made to sink the Belgrano before she passed into this area.
The universe has been around for between 10 and 20 billion years. Human life has been around for 1 to 2 million years. Even if a civilisation started its evolution 5,000 years before us, they still have the possibility of being fantastically more advanced than us. And what if a civilisation began its evolution 10million years before us? 100million years? We are just a blot on the landscape really. None of this says anything about the possibility of life occuring, just that the chances of us finding a like civilisation is next to none.
You can have terms for the discussions entered, one of which may be confidentiality. THis happens all the time with big business, you approach them for a good deal and everything from then on is covered under pre agreement terms. You dont know what the Ohio University have signed, just that they HAVENT signed the actual agreement, therefor they can be discussing things under pre agreement terms, which are permissable in court. In the airline business, one company does not know how much their rivals paid for their airplanes, and will probably never know, due to these sorts of agreements. (EasyJet, a UK budget airline, is rumoured to have paid less than 10% sticker price for its fleet of 767 aircraft, thats $3million for a $30million aircraft, mainly due to them buying the planes post 9/11, and they wont discuss anything)
(d) Notwithstanding any other terms in this License, this License is not available to You if You and/or your employer develop, produce, sell, and/or resell a product which contains substantially similar capabil- ities of the BitKeeper Software, or, in the reason- able opinion of BitMover, competes with the BitKeeper Software.
Also on my travels, I also notice that BK does not have this license available for reading anywhere other than within the BK install itself, you need to install BK and then run a command to view the license. Nasty.
And only limits you to not using BK itself to aid in the development of the replacement, IE storing development code for the replacement within BK. Using BK and a rival at the same time is perfectly OK, otherwise the Kernel wouldnt be able to be exported to CVS, as it is on a continuing basis.
It's not the data your company has, it's the unique ID that can be used to trace you anywhere you go. And you are sorely naieve if you think your company will never give out your information, and it will never be stolen.
Its unique to my company, and thats it. Its not unique globally or probably even locally. And it certainly contains no data that can be used to track me even 1% accurately. And no, my company will never give out such data, know why? Because if they did they would get a very hefty fine from the government. Also, this doesnt scare me, because the laws in my country are such that I can go into any private establishment, or government facility, and demand to have a copy of all the data they store on me, for a very reasonable 20 a request. This includes any electronically stored data such as computer records or CCTV footage. I live in a sane country where I dont need to fear technology, because bad usage is already covered under current law.
Your right to swing your fists in the air must give way to my right not to have it end up in my face. Just as a property owner's right to protect his property can't completely trample my rights.
You are very true with the fist statement, but totally wrong with the property owners statement. If you dont like being subject to certain terms when on someone elses property, then leave. Its as simple as that. Or do you think that your rights to free association and movement (applicable in the US and other countries) allow you to assert those rights on private property? Let me inform you, they dont, you are on private property, and so long as the property owner does not break any laws, you have no arguement. If RMS doesnt like using RFID then he should leave. If you dont like using an RFID based pass system, then you should ensure that you only go places where you dont need to use such systems.
Look, if you don't think anybody has the right to any privacy, then at least be honest and say so, rather than trying to pretend that RFID won't invade your privacy.
I do think people have a right to privacy, but not to the extent that that privacy damages my right to protect my property. When on my property, your privacy is limited to what doesnt affect my security, and that is exactly what MIT has implemented. RFID is no more an invasion of privacy as is having a unique numberplate on your motor vehicle, or having unique facial expressions (and you think you cant be tracked automatically using facial recognition? Think again, its already on the streets of the UK, US and in use in airports around the world.).
Do you think that someones privacy superceeds the right to your own protection? Im talking about criminal records being made available to airlines, so they can turn away potentially dangerous passengers, im talking about day care centers being able to check employees for sex offences, im talking about free press being able to investigate what they want.
No, quite the contrary. Your name is not unique, while a RFID tag is. So, tatooing your name on your forehead is actually a less privacy-intruding method. It's also less privacy intruding because reading from your forehead can't be done automatically, so it wouldn't lend itself to the automated removal of your privacy.
Actually, the only way an RFID tag would be unique is if its issued by the government, and in that case I do agree with you. Retail RFIDs are going to be unique to that chain and supplier only, RFIDs used elsewhere (such as in security systems like that at MIT) have their identifiers set by the issuing body, not some central authority, and there are going to be millions of conflicts across single countries, because those RFIDs are only supposed to be used for one purpose.
No, it's not interesting, and it's not releated in even the tiniest way. P2P has nothing to do with someone's right to privacy. And you look like an idiot for even trying to make that arguement.
I wasnt ar
Yes, and the same reasoning could be applied to explain why you need to have somebody following you around, recording your every move all day, every day.
Hardly. MIT have a need to protect the building, and that is what they are doing. They have a right to know who is in the building and using their facilities. Or would you be more happy with 20 security guards manning the building, day and night? Security guards who could do a lot more than keeping track of whos in the building. Infact, are you in favour of any protection of property?
RMS didn't say there was no reason to do it, he said it can be just as secure as the rest of the campus without the RFID... Therefore, no justification for the additional privacy-intruding security measures. It's like you're arguing against something completely different.
Actually, from the last link in the story, RMS is incorrect when he says that without RFID the building would have the same security as the rest of the campus. MIT say right there that most of the other buildings in the campus already have RFID access systems, and from people I know who go to MIT, thats true. I think this is a case of "now it might affect me, Im going to moan about it" on RMS part, as usual.
And it completely disables itself when you leave the property, right??? Right??? RIGHT????
No need. I think I would notice the person who is within 50cm of me who is trying to scan the card. Plus only my company would benifit from it, as the card only contains the site ID and the card ID, everything else is held on the companys computers. What next, complaints against the fact that you have to carry a uniquely identifying Passport to pass between countries? Or that your credit card can be tied to your credit account? Stop being a cry baby.
Really now, since when has it been a property owner's right to take away your rights? surely you would be upset if you had to have your name tatooed on your forehead. It's about the same thing here.
Since when has it been a third persons right to remove the right of a property owner to protect his own property? Its always been a property owners right to protect their property, and if you dislike that, then you are not welcome on any property of mine. Carrying an RFID card around is hardly in the same league as having your name tattooed on your forehead, and the latter gives third persons a bit more info than the RFID card, and is a damn sight more readable in any case. If you have to carry an RFID card and are concerned that someone out there might want to know its contents, wrap freaking tinfoil around it, you only have to use it to get in and out of the building.
su is a complete non-issue:
Yes, I know how to overcome this issue, oh and heres another good way: DONT USE THE GNU SU UTILITY. My point was more of his point of view, that it was childlike and basically stupidly ideological. He basically agrees with the owner of a system not being able to limit the rights of the users of the system, which is ludicrous.
Incidentally, I'm no RMS fan, but I do hate RFID.
Interesting how the haters of RFID have such a loud voice, shouting out against ANY use of RFID basically because it has potential (and sofar unseen) privacy concerns, yet when a similiar niche argument is made against Peer2Peer networking applications, that they are used to distribute unlawful copies of goods, the argument is decried because "it has the potential to be used for legitimate programs" even though this vastly outweighed by the amount of illegitimate goods on the networks.
Go get some proper arguments against RFID, then we will talk. Until then, I dont want to hear your currently unfounded fears.
Those MIT/MS guys just like to make things more complex and expensive than they really need to be.
Thats GNU/MIT/MS to you, matey :)
Now I think RMS jsut has his knickers in a twist, simply because people will listen.
Some quotes:
"There is no legitimate justification for keeping track of who opens these doors," Stallman says. "You can just leave these doors open, and the building would have the same amount of security as most of the rest of the campus." MIT says most buildings use the RFID cards.
Well, actually, there are legitimate justifications for keeping track of who opens the doors. If something gets nicked from the lab, you can find out who was in the building and from there you can start to investigate the theft (by that I mean, ask those people if theysaw anything or anyone suspicious etc). If someone props open the doors, as he also hints on, then you can see who the last person was to open those doors using the card and take matters from there.
We have a Proximity card solution at work, and its fine. Yes, you can get tracked, but then you are on private property, and tracking isnt always foolproof because you are not required to beep in if you are part of a group.
Stallman says that MIT could have implemented a different system that protected the visitors' privacy. Instead, he says, the Institute chose only convenience, and he's ready to call it a day and take his research elsewhere. "The big sacrifice is leaving MIT," he says. "I am prepared to make that sacrifice."
Well, MIT arent exactly making the visitors details public knowledge, now are they? From the situation with GNUs su program not supporting wheel (link), I think its clear that RMS has a dubious and somewhat iffy personal view on security, and that much alone makes me want to dismiss him out of hand when he talks about security related matters. If hes prepared to "make that sacrifice" instead of allowing MIT to implement a bit of security to protect their building and valuables inside said building, then good riddence is all I can say.
Also the Eurofighter is the first multirole combat aircraft designed with Supercruise in mind, although the F22 had it back ported on when they upgraded the engine specification, and will be the first aircraft in active duty with it. Its also the first fighter aircraft to be able to use the targeting computer of its wingman aircraft to select, paint and shoot at targets. It may be several years overdue, but they kept tacking on extras like the project was never going to end.
Actually, the Buran was fully automated from launch to landing. From the link you gave: The autopilot that landed the shuttle was able to overcome a 34 mph crosswind to land within 5 feet of the runway center line. Also, of the 38,000 heat shield tiles that covered Buran, only 5 were missing.
While being more technologically advanced, it was also just as expensive as the American shuttle, and the post Soviet government cancelled the project, having decided to upgrade the much cheaper Soyuz capsules. The energia booster flew once more and was also shelved, but only because no buyers could be found who needed that much capacity in a booster.
Its interesting to note that the Russians scrapped Buran because it was too expensive, and focused on upgrading its capsule fleet, and this is almost exactly what Bush announced he was going to fund, a cancellation of shuttle flights and development of a Crew Exploration Vehicle, which will be a bigger and more versatile version of the Apollo capsule type, unknown yet if it is to be reusable.
The reason the shuttle was necessary was because the US military demanded that it have the capability to glide to a precise landing point when on classified missions, and this is one ofthe main reasons that the shuttles budget exploded. Once you remove this feature requirement, the need for a reentry vehicle to have wings is pretty much gone, and a reusable capsule with a disposable cargo pod is a much better solution.
Start reading from the first half and continue with the second part.
:P
You must be new here, slashbots actually READING the article?! Having it in two parts just cements the fact that it wont get read
- Authors like to stamp the worms with their own signiture, as then they can boast about it with proof.
- I agree you with this, releasing it from a traceable system is stupid.
- If the authors did this, then a major benifit of them releasing the worm/virus is gone. Most of these things are done for bragging rights, and are not malicious. How many worms etc actually cause permanent damage to data or computer systems? Very few, most use exploits to spread themeselves further, and a couple shut down the PC. Few actaully install malicious programs and fewere still wipe data.
There are other people who follow exactly the same procedure as you laid out, for example the "Deepthroat" whistle blower in the Nixon Watergate scandle is still unknown precisely because he followed the above, and demanded secrecy from those he could trust enough to tell.The first possibility stands, as he has admitted writing and releasing the worm - BBC News article
I dunno, everything else has had its trial period in the kernel ;) (httpd etc etc etc :P)
You dont have to use VS .net at all, as someone else replied, you can download the .net framework and SDKs free of charge, and they include all compilers etc etc.
For a decent IDE, look at Sharp Develop, covers much of what you would expect, and very competant to boot.
No OS is free.
They can already limit bonus material to UK ISPs, check to see if your ISP has access to the BBCi bonus material. Basically, most UK ISPs peer with the BBC internally, thus non of this limited audience material actually goes out over the internet per se. If your IP does not match a certain range, you dont get access.
Interesting, any links to this incident? What did happen?
While I agree that the Bnetd issue was fairly lame, this one is more in a gray area. The FastTrack clients dont run on an independant network, and KCeasys interoperability with the FastTrack network means interacting with Sharman Networks servers to auth the user and provide various other facilities while the Bnetd solution produced a fully independant network, where people could join without any interaction with Blizzards servers at all, and that is the major difference in this case.
I dont think "Reverse engineering to be another on the list of rights that have fallen by the wayside?" is a valid concern here, because the main issue seems to be that KCeasy interacts with SN servers, in a way that SN has not authorised or granted consent to. If KCeasy produced a fully seperate network, that simply used the FastTrack protocol, then my view would be different, but it doesnt, so it isnt. KCeasy is using the FastTrack network and Sharman Networks servers without consent, simple really.
Does Gaim etc do it for non US mobiles? Im going to look into this!! I dont see how they can sustain free SMS/text messages to and from mobile phones.