How do you feel about the fact that many people think of the World Wide Web and the Internet as the same thing?
Email, FTP and even chat protocols seem to be more and more mediated by an HTTP interface. Is this just the price of making the 'Net available to more people, or do you think there is a chance for a non WWW or WWW-workalike to get significant public use?
I'll be intrigued to see what SCOTUS does. The Rheinquist court has a tendency to say "I know this is bad, stupid, awful law that only proves our legislators are brain-dead, pointy-haired pusilanimetes who should be night-managing the local Sonic, but we can't do anything about bad law."
OTOH, this court has had a tendency to look at *any* extension of Congressional mandate as overturnable. And extending copyright past the originally intended limit does seem to be an attempt by Congress to increase its mandate. We'll see...
Sigh... I've been watching DoD pour money down these stupid projects for years now. While the Army has been chasing ridiculous mega-howitzers and us dumb jarheads have been forgetting to check the hydraulics on our Ospreys, we've managed to procure a strike fighter that doesn't satisfy any branch's needs.
There's a strange doublespeak going on in military procurement (yeah, I know, what else is new? But this is more than usual): OT1H, everybody is supposed to be stripping down for the "new wars" we'll be fighting -- the Army is re-strengthening the regiment; the Corps is retasking the brigade -- OTOH, we're still purchasing large, centrally maintained, slow, high-tech "warfighting solutions" that were really only supposed to prove our phalli were bigger than the Soviets'.
It makes a little more sense when you remember that procurement for all these systems began ~15 years ago, when it looked like JSFs and 200mm howitzers and Ospreys were a good idea (then again, a non-crashing Osprey would probably be great for brushfire deployments).
But regardless, every dollar that gets spent on Operation Crossbow Redux and other toys is money that doesn't get spent training soldiers how to comb Himalayan caves for crippled one-eyed fanatics on dialysis or Marines how to spot suicide bombers paddling towards battleships in stolen Zodiac boats. I know Marines who still have Korean war-surplus deuce gear... though at least they finally updated last year the 1969 vintage camouflage I mucked around in my whole tour.
Another example of why our decades-long military procurement process is broken.
IANA x86 assembly programmer, but if I recall, a lot of instructions with a size_t (or whatever its equivalent in Windows is called) param have that in EDX, and a few callback pointers are in EDI. It would take some tinkering with, but if the right instruction was waiting for your new EDX/EDI values you could probably get a real exploit.
The right to trial by jury "of your peers" is part of British commonlaw, not American law. That phrase is there so that noblepersons can't get tried by peasants, plebians and other proles.
"You could have said 'Dennis'"
"I didn't know you were called Dennis"
"Well you didn't bother to find out, did you?"
Now I am wondering: what if the bank did not fix this problem the next day? And what if some cracker/con-artist used your publically-disclosed exploit to cause significant damage to the accounts of one or more bank's customers?
If I went to my bank and noticed the door to the vault was open, I would tell the manager about it.
If I came back the next day and it was still open, I would close my account. I would also feel ethically obliged to tell all the other customers at that bank that their money isn't secure.
A: Do you agree with that, in the terms of the analogy? (physical bank; physical door)
B: Does the analogy become any different when a computer is involved?
One person, and one person only, is responsible for a malicious exploit: the person who performed the exploit.
Networking protocols were designed for sharing information. There are (relatively) easy ways to ensure that only authorized recipients get information through these protocols. If a security system allows me access to parts of an internetwork, I have no reason to think I'm an unauthorized recipient of the information on that network.
I'm not sure. Is the essence of theft denying an owner his property (in which case piracy is not theft), or is it the thief's getting something without permission (in which case it is)?
Everybody seems to have an opinion about which one theft is (the/. "party line" seems to be the first one), but I just don't know the case law on this at all, and I don't see anybody bringing it up.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you feel about the fact that many people think of the World Wide Web and the Internet as the same thing?
Email, FTP and even chat protocols seem to be more and more mediated by an HTTP interface. Is this just the price of making the 'Net available to more people, or do you think there is a chance for a non WWW or WWW-workalike to get significant public use?
I'll be intrigued to see what SCOTUS does. The Rheinquist court has a tendency to say "I know this is bad, stupid, awful law that only proves our legislators are brain-dead, pointy-haired pusilanimetes who should be night-managing the local Sonic, but we can't do anything about bad law."
OTOH, this court has had a tendency to look at *any* extension of Congressional mandate as overturnable. And extending copyright past the originally intended limit does seem to be an attempt by Congress to increase its mandate. We'll see...
Sigh... I've been watching DoD pour money down these stupid projects for years now. While the Army has been chasing ridiculous mega-howitzers and us dumb jarheads have been forgetting to check the hydraulics on our Ospreys, we've managed to procure a strike fighter that doesn't satisfy any branch's needs.
There's a strange doublespeak going on in military procurement (yeah, I know, what else is new? But this is more than usual): OT1H, everybody is supposed to be stripping down for the "new wars" we'll be fighting -- the Army is re-strengthening the regiment; the Corps is retasking the brigade -- OTOH, we're still purchasing large, centrally maintained, slow, high-tech "warfighting solutions" that were really only supposed to prove our phalli were bigger than the Soviets'.
It makes a little more sense when you remember that procurement for all these systems began ~15 years ago, when it looked like JSFs and 200mm howitzers and Ospreys were a good idea (then again, a non-crashing Osprey would probably be great for brushfire deployments).
But regardless, every dollar that gets spent on Operation Crossbow Redux and other toys is money that doesn't get spent training soldiers how to comb Himalayan caves for crippled one-eyed fanatics on dialysis or Marines how to spot suicide bombers paddling towards battleships in stolen Zodiac boats. I know Marines who still have Korean war-surplus deuce gear... though at least they finally updated last year the 1969 vintage camouflage I mucked around in my whole tour.
Another example of why our decades-long military procurement process is broken.
IANA x86 assembly programmer, but if I recall, a lot of instructions with a size_t (or whatever its equivalent in Windows is called) param have that in EDX, and a few callback pointers are in EDI. It would take some tinkering with, but if the right instruction was waiting for your new EDX/EDI values you could probably get a real exploit.
"right to a trial by jury of your peers"
The right to trial by jury "of your peers" is part of British commonlaw, not American law. That phrase is there so that noblepersons can't get tried by peasants, plebians and other proles.
"You could have said 'Dennis'"
"I didn't know you were called Dennis"
"Well you didn't bother to find out, did you?"
...this fake distinction really bugs me.
Then change the Constitution! We live in, by word and act, a REPUBLIC thank you!
Democracy and Republic are orthogonal descriptions. There are democratic republics and non-democratic republics. Ours is democratic.
If I went to my bank and noticed the door to the vault was open, I would tell the manager about it.
If I came back the next day and it was still open, I would close my account. I would also feel ethically obliged to tell all the other customers at that bank that their money isn't secure.
A: Do you agree with that, in the terms of the analogy? (physical bank; physical door)
B: Does the analogy become any different when a computer is involved?
One person, and one person only, is responsible for a malicious exploit: the person who performed the exploit.
Networking protocols were designed for sharing information. There are (relatively) easy ways to ensure that only authorized recipients get information through these protocols. If a security system allows me access to parts of an internetwork, I have no reason to think I'm an unauthorized recipient of the information on that network.
I'm not sure. Is the essence of theft denying an owner his property (in which case piracy is not theft), or is it the thief's getting something without permission (in which case it is)?
/. "party line" seems to be the first one), but I just don't know the case law on this at all, and I don't see anybody bringing it up.
Everybody seems to have an opinion about which one theft is (the