In plaintext -- encrypting it would be pointless. But the token could be limited to a specific IP address, specific requests to the remote server, and a specific time period, making it much harder for an attacker.
For example, Facebook uses this method when the user authenticates third-party web sites to act on their behalf.
The password is entered once to authenticate the local machine with the remote server. At that point, the remote server gives the local machine an identification token. The local machine then forgets the password the user entered.
The identification token can have limitations on what IP address it can be used from (if the local machine has a fixed IP address), what operations can be done using it, what times of day it can be used, and so on. For example, the user can enter their social network password on their phone to authenticate it to fetch incoming messages for them, but not for anything else, like changing settings.
Turing proved that it's not possible to write a program (or algorithm) that can examine *any* program and decide if it works correctly.
It's still possible to prove that individual program work correctly, but you may have to use a different method each time.
Much like proving mathematical theorems; there's no general algorithm for deciding if a theorem is true or false, so mathematicians will always have to use their own creativity.
In the case of business customers, though, they're usually presented with the EULA when they sign the contract for the software license. And it's businesses that suing for security bugs is most relevant for...
Lawsuits are one of the reasons health care is so expensive. And I think determining who's at fault in the case of software errors will be much harder.
Much like when Americans buy something in Euro with their credit card, or Europeans buy something in US$, in other words. The currencies are automatically exchanged, and the rates are usually a bit worse than you can get at an exchange kiosk. Your bank pockets the difference.
I guess the advantage is that you can use the same expense account for both your anonymous and your ordinary purchases. You don't need to transfer money manually between two accounts.
Laws have to be practical. We can't outlaw taking a peek through other people's windows, since people would break the law by mistake all the time, and there are legitimate reasons to take a peek at someone's house. We can, however, make it illegal to set up a camera to film through someone's window, since that's not something people normally do, and the only reason to do it is to spy on the people in that house.
Rich people could of course hire someone to peek through their windows 24/7, if they really wanted to, but that's such an extreme and unusual situation, the law can probably disregard it, and if it becomes a problem anyway, it could be handled through other laws, such as stalking.
Another difference is that filming creates a permanent record that can, for example, be viewed over and over again, or be uploaded to the Internet, so it risks leading to more severe invasions of privacy.
I wonder what those people said when they first heard of the Linux kernel...
"What crap is this? It only handles the most basic of hardware and has almost no optimisations!" "Who's going to use that? It's just a kernel, there's nothing you can run on it!" "Who needs this 'Linux' when there's Minix?"
* I would encourage everyone to NOT take SSRIs EVER unless they've already attempted or contemplated suicide. The only time in my life I ever thought about killing myself was when the doctor took me off the drug just as I was moving out of my foreclosed home. That is some seriously powerful stuff.
People react very differently to SSRIs, though. For some, they hardly make any difference at all. For me, getting off SSRIs makes me easily irritated, not suicidal.
Should we expect privacy from survillance cameras pointed at the windows of our houses?
After all, physics dictates that our bodies reflect electromagnetic radiation, so if we don't want to be caught on tape, we shouldn't walk in front of windows when the light is on.
It's my responsibility to monitor what my doctor is doing. I ask questions. Lots of questions. If he can't answer them then it doesn't happen. If he wants to try something different I ask for the reasons, the potential impact, and what studies have caused him to consider this as a viable treatment for me. Again, lack of solid answers means I don't accept it. It's my choice. And if the doctor takes offense or gets condescending I'll get a new doctor. I demand respect and give it in return.
Getting solid answers doesn't always help, since even a clear and unambiguous answer may be flat-out wrong. For example, the doctor may not know about the last few decades of research, but believes he knows everything there is to know, or doesn't want to appear uncertain in front of the patient. I've even had a doctor flat-out lie to play down the side effects of a medication. How do I know he lied on purpose? Well, I repeatedly questioned what he said, and he repeatedly insisted that's what medical science said, then suddenly changed his mind when I asked him to give it to me in writing.
And asking the doctor what studies they're basing the treatment on -- well, I'm glad it's worked out for you, but I've never come close to getting a doctor to motivate a treatment in medical terms, much less in terms of scientific studies. Where I live, the general attitude is that you should trust the doctor, because he knows more than you, and questioning him/her is taken as an insult. Going to another doctor doesn't help, since he/she has the same attitude.
I know enough to know that only a small minority of patients are a danger to others. Most tend to withdraw from society and keep to themselves. In particular, depressed patients rarely act out; they just become passive, and even taking their own life tends to require a huge effort for them. The average ex-convict is much more likely to commit acts of violence than the average mentally ill person.
Medical information tends to leak out to your family when they wonder where you're going or what the pills you're taking are for. It can, and will, be used against you in custody cases, for example. The court can then order the medical records to be opened.
Where I live, employers also tend to scrutinise your work history closely. If you have long periods of sick leave, they'll ask for the reason, which means they'll find out about your medical history, unless you're prepared to outright lie to them.
Disregarding the law in the context of psychiatric treatment is also a well-known problem. It doesn't matter much what the law says in theory, if the person who complains about the breach is simply ignored.
Well, there're often other interests behind the government's action, but those interests are usually also American.
For example, the American media industry lobbies the US government to do something about foreign Internet piracy. US diplomats, in turn, pressure foreign governments to change their laws and practices to curb piracy (this was one of many things revealed in the Cablegate leak).
There you have it, an absolute right to free speech in perfectly plain English. Any law which imposes a fine or punishment, or any other penalty, as a response to any speech on any subject whatsoever is unconstitutional.
Unfortunately, US courts do not agree with that interpretation. It's not allowed to "yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre". There are military and state secrets. There are defamation laws. There are gag orders.
I don't have any sympathy for this guy. It's good that he got sent down. The only WTF in this case, as far as I can see, is that there's no law on the books directly for that kind of thing. Probably there should be.
Regardless of what he deserves, it's dangerous when the government can stretch the law to convict for something which is otherwise considered legal. If it's done in other cases too, it can be used to imprison anyone the government doesn't like, anytime they like.
The flimsy excuse the pirate bay has for instance is that it's "just an indexing site" and can just as happily be used for legal material... when you are going out and looking for pirated stuff to link to, "merely" leaves the table.
The Pirate Bay didn't actively go out and find material to index or link. Their users did it for them. You may be right about SurfTheChannel.com, though.
Actually, the GP is wrong -- there is legislation that can't be changed by the elected government in the UK. The European Convention On Human Rights has been signed by almost all European nations, and it trumps national law. It imposes restrictions on what the national governments can and cannot do against their own and other's citizens. It's upheld by the International Court in Haag, and can be used to nullify national laws which violate it, so it's a law in every sense of the word.
The European Convention On Human Rights is much older than the European Union, and independent from it. It doesn't presuppose a government "above" the national, so it doesn't contain trade clauses, like the American Constitution does.
Slashdot Mirror
In plaintext -- encrypting it would be pointless. But the token could be limited to a specific IP address, specific requests to the remote server, and a specific time period, making it much harder for an attacker.
For example, Facebook uses this method when the user authenticates third-party web sites to act on their behalf.
The password is entered once to authenticate the local machine with the remote server. At that point, the remote server gives the local machine an identification token. The local machine then forgets the password the user entered.
The identification token can have limitations on what IP address it can be used from (if the local machine has a fixed IP address), what operations can be done using it, what times of day it can be used, and so on. For example, the user can enter their social network password on their phone to authenticate it to fetch incoming messages for them, but not for anything else, like changing settings.
Turing proved that it's not possible to write a program (or algorithm) that can examine *any* program and decide if it works correctly.
It's still possible to prove that individual program work correctly, but you may have to use a different method each time.
Much like proving mathematical theorems; there's no general algorithm for deciding if a theorem is true or false, so mathematicians will always have to use their own creativity.
In the case of business customers, though, they're usually presented with the EULA when they sign the contract for the software license. And it's businesses that suing for security bugs is most relevant for...
Lawsuits are one of the reasons health care is so expensive. And I think determining who's at fault in the case of software errors will be much harder.
Much like when Americans buy something in Euro with their credit card, or Europeans buy something in US$, in other words. The currencies are automatically exchanged, and the rates are usually a bit worse than you can get at an exchange kiosk. Your bank pockets the difference.
I guess the advantage is that you can use the same expense account for both your anonymous and your ordinary purchases. You don't need to transfer money manually between two accounts.
Laws have to be practical. We can't outlaw taking a peek through other people's windows, since people would break the law by mistake all the time, and there are legitimate reasons to take a peek at someone's house. We can, however, make it illegal to set up a camera to film through someone's window, since that's not something people normally do, and the only reason to do it is to spy on the people in that house.
Rich people could of course hire someone to peek through their windows 24/7, if they really wanted to, but that's such an extreme and unusual situation, the law can probably disregard it, and if it becomes a problem anyway, it could be handled through other laws, such as stalking.
Another difference is that filming creates a permanent record that can, for example, be viewed over and over again, or be uploaded to the Internet, so it risks leading to more severe invasions of privacy.
Welcome to Slashdot, troll.
* all artists are starving. That's why they look good in music videos.
Meatloaf?
That sounds scary. Where have you heard about this?
I wonder what those people said when they first heard of the Linux kernel...
"What crap is this? It only handles the most basic of hardware and has almost no optimisations!"
"Who's going to use that? It's just a kernel, there's nothing you can run on it!"
"Who needs this 'Linux' when there's Minix?"
MusOpen is for music recordings, not sheet music.
* I would encourage everyone to NOT take SSRIs EVER unless they've already attempted or contemplated suicide. The only time in my life I ever thought about killing myself was when the doctor took me off the drug just as I was moving out of my foreclosed home. That is some seriously powerful stuff.
People react very differently to SSRIs, though. For some, they hardly make any difference at all. For me, getting off SSRIs makes me easily irritated, not suicidal.
So there isn't any difference between looking through a window, and setting up a camera to film everything that's going on behind that window 24/7?
Should we expect privacy from survillance cameras pointed at the windows of our houses?
After all, physics dictates that our bodies reflect electromagnetic radiation, so if we don't want to be caught on tape, we shouldn't walk in front of windows when the light is on.
It's my responsibility to monitor what my doctor is doing. I ask questions. Lots of questions. If he can't answer them then it doesn't happen. If he wants to try something different I ask for the reasons, the potential impact, and what studies have caused him to consider this as a viable treatment for me. Again, lack of solid answers means I don't accept it. It's my choice. And if the doctor takes offense or gets condescending I'll get a new doctor. I demand respect and give it in return.
Getting solid answers doesn't always help, since even a clear and unambiguous answer may be flat-out wrong. For example, the doctor may not know about the last few decades of research, but believes he knows everything there is to know, or doesn't want to appear uncertain in front of the patient. I've even had a doctor flat-out lie to play down the side effects of a medication. How do I know he lied on purpose? Well, I repeatedly questioned what he said, and he repeatedly insisted that's what medical science said, then suddenly changed his mind when I asked him to give it to me in writing.
And asking the doctor what studies they're basing the treatment on -- well, I'm glad it's worked out for you, but I've never come close to getting a doctor to motivate a treatment in medical terms, much less in terms of scientific studies. Where I live, the general attitude is that you should trust the doctor, because he knows more than you, and questioning him/her is taken as an insult. Going to another doctor doesn't help, since he/she has the same attitude.
I know enough to know that only a small minority of patients are a danger to others. Most tend to withdraw from society and keep to themselves. In particular, depressed patients rarely act out; they just become passive, and even taking their own life tends to require a huge effort for them. The average ex-convict is much more likely to commit acts of violence than the average mentally ill person.
Medical information tends to leak out to your family when they wonder where you're going or what the pills you're taking are for. It can, and will, be used against you in custody cases, for example. The court can then order the medical records to be opened.
Where I live, employers also tend to scrutinise your work history closely. If you have long periods of sick leave, they'll ask for the reason, which means they'll find out about your medical history, unless you're prepared to outright lie to them.
Disregarding the law in the context of psychiatric treatment is also a well-known problem. It doesn't matter much what the law says in theory, if the person who complains about the breach is simply ignored.
Well, there're often other interests behind the government's action, but those interests are usually also American.
For example, the American media industry lobbies the US government to do something about foreign Internet piracy. US diplomats, in turn, pressure foreign governments to change their laws and practices to curb piracy (this was one of many things revealed in the Cablegate leak).
I agree. The two most important things for keeping your teeth healty, is regular, physical cleaning (brushing and dental sticks) and fluoride.
A lot of bacteria live in symbiosis with the human body, for example, in the digestive system.
The nazis didn't kill off Jews, Poles, homosexuals and the mentally to help them in the war. It mainly had to do with their ideology of racial purity.
There you have it, an absolute right to free speech in perfectly plain English. Any law which imposes a fine or punishment, or any other penalty, as a response to any speech on any subject whatsoever is unconstitutional.
Unfortunately, US courts do not agree with that interpretation. It's not allowed to "yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre". There are military and state secrets. There are defamation laws. There are gag orders.
I don't have any sympathy for this guy. It's good that he got sent down. The only WTF in this case, as far as I can see, is that there's no law on the books directly for that kind of thing. Probably there should be.
Regardless of what he deserves, it's dangerous when the government can stretch the law to convict for something which is otherwise considered legal. If it's done in other cases too, it can be used to imprison anyone the government doesn't like, anytime they like.
The flimsy excuse the pirate bay has for instance is that it's "just an indexing site" and can just as happily be used for legal material... when you are going out and looking for pirated stuff to link to, "merely" leaves the table.
The Pirate Bay didn't actively go out and find material to index or link. Their users did it for them. You may be right about SurfTheChannel.com, though.
Actually, the GP is wrong -- there is legislation that can't be changed by the elected government in the UK. The European Convention On Human Rights has been signed by almost all European nations, and it trumps national law. It imposes restrictions on what the national governments can and cannot do against their own and other's citizens. It's upheld by the International Court in Haag, and can be used to nullify national laws which violate it, so it's a law in every sense of the word.
The European Convention On Human Rights is much older than the European Union, and independent from it. It doesn't presuppose a government "above" the national, so it doesn't contain trade clauses, like the American Constitution does.