can it apply to books? and if so, does it still apply if the book was violating copyright? but how about if it WASN'T violating copyright where it was originally sold? It's a complicated issue. From a purely ethical/common sense standpoint it should be ok for him to sell it, but there may be laws bought onto the books that prevent it.
That being said, CISPA has loopholes that allow it to be abused, especially when it comes to Intellectual Property and privacy. Facebook says it will not do that, and will instead work on closing these loopholes."
How about not passing laws with known loopholes in them in the first place??!
Reason? Because a lot of the support for the laws while they were under debate demanded those loopholes. But they weren't going to abuse them. Really. Honest! They'll be removed as soon as the law is passed. We promise!
There are two different technologies at work here, gsm and cdma. one requires a sim, and has the convenience of moving your sim to another phone and your service follows it. (and you can have a phone with 2 or 3 sims installed in it, each with a different phone number, so like a business and personal phone all in one) The other just goes by hardcoded sn in the phone to identify itself, and you can't transfer it.
One ties the service plan directly to the handset, the other ties it to the sim card. But both types will have a handset serial number the tower sees in either case, so you can brick a cdma or gsm phone by blacklisting it's serial number. you can't unban the one by changing the sim card.
Canada is looking like a good alternative to the USA. At least when "bad laws" do manage to get passed, they bother to get rid of them from time to time. Here anyway, anything that makes the police's job easier is apparently considered an OK exception to the constitution.:(
oh, that. yes, that was it. I'm so tired of people trying to sell me products or services, and then claim a right to tell me how I will be using said products or services.
What this almost always boils down to is that the consumer has found a way to get better value out of the service/product than either party originally expected, and the provider/seller feels that this magically entitles them to an additional cut now that the product/service has become more valuable to the consumer. And unlike say, tethering, in this case the consumer's new use doesn't even create any additional expenses for the provider. They have no ground to stand on here besides perhaps a stray outdated law or two that weren't intended to be applied to this sort of situation.
While I see a need for.xxx I do not see a need for.brand suffixes. The best reason I see for top level suffixes is to tell what kind of a site it is. But considering the exhaustion of short names, I understand their pain. Lots of businesses are going with.net or.org or.cc etc simply because they can't find anything usable in under 25 characters. When faced with the best available.com being "ronshorsebarnseattle.com" or "horsebarn.org", the choice becomes obvious. But I think adding more available suffixes is going to cause more problems by public confusion than it solves for the website owners. I wish there were an option C.
As long as it's voluntary, compensated and not a long-term thing
agree, agree, and agree. Its not too different than being on-call. Getting paid to sleep, I would find that awesome. And if something does take a crap, mmmm I'd love to wake up to the smell of overtime pay:)
I have little sympathy for dealerships with staff that pull tricks to prevent you from leaving.
Then you must really hate casinos. They downright hide the exits, as well as making sure there isn't a clock in sight, so you have less chance to realize how much time you've spent in there already. Try it sometime, try to find a visible clock anywhere, in any casino. Or for that matter try to recognize where the exits are from almost anywhere on the floor. I still have no idea how that gets past fire regulation...
That would depend on the terms of service. If your broadband provider holds you responsible for the users you permit on to your connection, then a part of that responsibility would seem to be knowing who is using your connection and when.
Who your ISP holds responsible, and who the COURT holds legally responsible don't necessarily have anything in common. That TOS is just defraying their responsibility in the matter.
This is like a lady telling the officer that the purse snatcher ran into "that apartment building over there" and the cops somehow getting a search warrant for every apartment in the building. no, no, and NO.
They will not win this game. As long as the opportunity to make more money than invested exists, there will be spammers taking advantage of your system. Stopping one just makes a market opening for another. Trying to stop supply does nothing to stop demand, it just tends to make it more lucrative for new suppliers to get into the game when the reward for the demand goes up when the supply starts to shrink. Basic economics at work here.
The only long-term solution is one of a technical nature, that makes spam abuse on your system so much less productive that there's lower hanging fruit elsewhere. You must reduce the spammers' financial incentive to do their business at your expense.
Locks are more effective against theft than laws. It's just that basic.
It's a fine line between being charged of negligence in disclosure due to insufficiency of the same, vs. being sued for negligence in disclosure due to possible customer backlash and financial loss.
Horse has already left, too late to close the barn door. They had a "fiduciary duty to it shareholders", which they failed at by allowing the breach. They already screwed up and through their negligence damaged the company brand, stock prices, customer goodwill, etc. The responsible behavior of disclosing the breach to users that need to know that they've been exposed to risk just comes as another effect of the breach.
The problem here is like you, companies don't understand the need for disclosure, and that they've already committed the mistake that is going to trigger the bad P.R. as a result of full disclosure. It's too late to correct that mistake, and attempting shady "damage control / spin" is very likely to backfire when people who were victimized by unexpected fraud come looking for compensation. Because of the pinheads in management that think that they can "contain" this bad P.R., it's necessary to force disclosure to prevent them from gambling with their customers' futures since they have nothing to lose if they fail.
Compare it to say, the law requiring motorists to report accidents and to stay at an accident scene until the cops arrive. (usually in excess of a fixed amount, such as $100/300/500) Before those laws existed, it was in their best interest to try to get away, hit-and-run was more common, because there was no penalty for hit-and-run. It was in their best interest to flee and hope no one can identify you. If they got caught, they haven't lost anything, so they have nothing to lose and a lot to gain by trying to flee. This was such a problem that hit-and-run and damage-report laws were put on the books to make it illegal to try to sneak away from an accident you may have fault in. In addition to large fines, most (all?) states pull your license if you are convicted of hit&run. This is a fairly effective deterrent.
This hacking situation is very similar. Almost everyone attempts to sneak away quietly and hope nobody saw them. If they get outed, owell, take the regular hit. But why volunteer to take the hit when you can gamble on getting away with it, with no penalty if you fail to escape? The laws need to be changed to prevent this abuse because right now the companies are just doing what makes statistical financial sense.
This is the standard boilerplate reply from almost any organization that has been publicly exposed as being compromised. They'll continue to tell the world it's the most minor, harmless possible case until lolsec, wikileaks, etc posts a dump of 10k credit cards or something, and only then will they begin to admit the actual scale of the breach.
In addition to laws that punish groups for being negligent in their security of private data, I'd like to see additional punishments passed out to companies that outright lie about the severity of security breaches. A bit like how the judicial system comes down harder on you if you are convicted after pleading innocent. Tried to game the system? Lost? --> Additional punishment, to discourage others from trying it as a standard response, "because they have nothing to lose"
You are talking "energy density" as density relates to weight. Unless you're talking spacecraft, energy density related to volume is usually a lot more important. Look at your car's design. When the engineers designed your car, were they more worried about the WEIGHT of the gas in the tank, or the VOLUME of the gas tank? If the weight of the gas went up 50%, probably not all that big of a deal, make stronger tank straps and maybe reinforce the tank a little. But imagine the tank SIZE going up 50%. OK now we're seriously eating into your trunk space. Or look at that in reverse, if the manufacturer wants to double battery life in your MP3 player, he can make it twice as heavy or twice as BIG, which do you think he will want to do, which product will people buy, the heavier one or the big brick? Here down on earth, size matters. Weight is more important if you're going to orbit it.
One reason storing it is such a big deal is because generating it can be expensive. Make hydrogen easier to produce and it lowers the demands on storage.
Color menus (arrow key), user-editable disk database, remote updates, authenticated email relaying, support for multiple drives, auto-detect and add, speed and capacity testing during add, performance and history graphing, quite a lot really.;) It's a big'un. I make the most of whatever language I use. The incremental scan nature of the script itself requires a good deal of code. There have also been numerous changes to be as certain as possible that the script cannot get hung. Failing hard drives are very good at hanging apps on the system they are installed into. So there are threads and signals flying around too. It's also very modular, I actually have bash libraries that dynamically load, but this has those rolled up into it since that's unnecessary there. www.vftp.net/wd.zip if you dare:)
The point is to know whether it's faulty now at the time of arrival rather then 2 weeks down the line where it becomes a problem.
I would disagree. I believe it's best to be able to identify the first moment a hard drive is starting to have problems, rather than the condition its in when you get it.
One reason is that most of your hard drives will eventually develop a problem, and only a small fraction of the drives you buy will arrive defective.
Another reason is that nothing of value is on the new drive, you are risking only purchase price. A year from now, you may have important, possibly irreplaceable or at least inconvenient things to replace.
I run a piece of custom software I wrote that does a slow "disk crawl", reading ~100mb every 5 minutes. Over the course of a month it has read every block on the drive, and starts over. I get an email if an i/o error OR slow performance is encountered. I store a lot here, I have somewhere around 25TB of storage under the roof at home. Over the years I've been notified ~8 times of a failing drive. In all cases I was able to replace it before it became inaccessible. One of them failed to spin up ever again the day after I removed it from service. I consider this a very good system, and am surprised not to see a similar commercial offering. (it's a 5,600 line bash script!)
SMART is only useful to possibly confirm that a drive has a problem. Only a fool relies on it to notify them when there's a problem. I've probably replaced somewhere around 750 hard drives here at work, and of those, under a dozen were still accessible and displaying a SMART failure. Many times I've had SMART toggle to failed while I was doing data recovery to a replacement drive, as I was fighting my way through I/O errors. Got some Cpt Obvious going on there I think.
I've been using rsync to back up 1/2 dozen machines here for some time now. Great for both local and remote (internet) backups. My mom's imac is 300 miles away. She has a little 500gb firewire drive locally backing up with time machine, which gives her instant recovery as well as application-spicific recalls (get that email back or that address book card back easily for example) as well as versions. Then a custom made cronjob to rsync to my server here runs nightly for offsite in case of fire/theft/etc. That's really the best of both worlds there, highly recommended. No recurring costs.
Slashdot Mirror
OK then all we need to do is get together enough guns or money to force this simple, common-sense reasoning to be applied. Good luck!
can it apply to books? and if so, does it still apply if the book was violating copyright? but how about if it WASN'T violating copyright where it was originally sold? It's a complicated issue. From a purely ethical/common sense standpoint it should be ok for him to sell it, but there may be laws bought onto the books that prevent it.
How about not passing laws with known loopholes in them in the first place??!
Reason? Because a lot of the support for the laws while they were under debate demanded those loopholes. But they weren't going to abuse them. Really. Honest! They'll be removed as soon as the law is passed. We promise!
There are two different technologies at work here, gsm and cdma. one requires a sim, and has the convenience of moving your sim to another phone and your service follows it. (and you can have a phone with 2 or 3 sims installed in it, each with a different phone number, so like a business and personal phone all in one) The other just goes by hardcoded sn in the phone to identify itself, and you can't transfer it.
One ties the service plan directly to the handset, the other ties it to the sim card. But both types will have a handset serial number the tower sees in either case, so you can brick a cdma or gsm phone by blacklisting it's serial number. you can't unban the one by changing the sim card.
Canada is looking like a good alternative to the USA. At least when "bad laws" do manage to get passed, they bother to get rid of them from time to time. Here anyway, anything that makes the police's job easier is apparently considered an OK exception to the constitution. :(
"Waaaaaah!"
oh, that. yes, that was it. I'm so tired of people trying to sell me products or services, and then claim a right to tell me how I will be using said products or services.
What this almost always boils down to is that the consumer has found a way to get better value out of the service/product than either party originally expected, and the provider/seller feels that this magically entitles them to an additional cut now that the product/service has become more valuable to the consumer. And unlike say, tethering, in this case the consumer's new use doesn't even create any additional expenses for the provider. They have no ground to stand on here besides perhaps a stray outdated law or two that weren't intended to be applied to this sort of situation.
While I see a need for .xxx I do not see a need for .brand suffixes. The best reason I see for top level suffixes is to tell what kind of a site it is. But considering the exhaustion of short names, I understand their pain. Lots of businesses are going with .net or .org or .cc etc simply because they can't find anything usable in under 25 characters. When faced with the best available .com being "ronshorsebarnseattle.com" or "horsebarn.org", the choice becomes obvious. But I think adding more available suffixes is going to cause more problems by public confusion than it solves for the website owners. I wish there were an option C.
agree, agree, and agree. Its not too different than being on-call. Getting paid to sleep, I would find that awesome. And if something does take a crap, mmmm I'd love to wake up to the smell of overtime pay :)
Then you must really hate casinos. They downright hide the exits, as well as making sure there isn't a clock in sight, so you have less chance to realize how much time you've spent in there already. Try it sometime, try to find a visible clock anywhere, in any casino. Or for that matter try to recognize where the exits are from almost anywhere on the floor. I still have no idea how that gets past fire regulation...
glad to hear you like it, please give me some feedback on it once you've had some time to play with it.
Now THAT is how copyright law is supposed to work! So refreshing to see it actually properly applied.
Who your ISP holds responsible, and who the COURT holds legally responsible don't necessarily have anything in common. That TOS is just defraying their responsibility in the matter.
This is like a lady telling the officer that the purse snatcher ran into "that apartment building over there" and the cops somehow getting a search warrant for every apartment in the building. no, no, and NO.
I'd also recommend changing the ssh listener port to something else, to keep the secure.log a little cleaner and easier to spot possible issues in.
443 is a fun one, few if any of the ssh bots even consider that one.
They will not win this game. As long as the opportunity to make more money than invested exists, there will be spammers taking advantage of your system. Stopping one just makes a market opening for another. Trying to stop supply does nothing to stop demand, it just tends to make it more lucrative for new suppliers to get into the game when the reward for the demand goes up when the supply starts to shrink. Basic economics at work here.
The only long-term solution is one of a technical nature, that makes spam abuse on your system so much less productive that there's lower hanging fruit elsewhere. You must reduce the spammers' financial incentive to do their business at your expense.
Locks are more effective against theft than laws. It's just that basic.
Horse has already left, too late to close the barn door. They had a "fiduciary duty to it shareholders", which they failed at by allowing the breach. They already screwed up and through their negligence damaged the company brand, stock prices, customer goodwill, etc. The responsible behavior of disclosing the breach to users that need to know that they've been exposed to risk just comes as another effect of the breach.
The problem here is like you, companies don't understand the need for disclosure, and that they've already committed the mistake that is going to trigger the bad P.R. as a result of full disclosure. It's too late to correct that mistake, and attempting shady "damage control / spin" is very likely to backfire when people who were victimized by unexpected fraud come looking for compensation. Because of the pinheads in management that think that they can "contain" this bad P.R., it's necessary to force disclosure to prevent them from gambling with their customers' futures since they have nothing to lose if they fail.
Compare it to say, the law requiring motorists to report accidents and to stay at an accident scene until the cops arrive. (usually in excess of a fixed amount, such as $100/300/500) Before those laws existed, it was in their best interest to try to get away, hit-and-run was more common, because there was no penalty for hit-and-run. It was in their best interest to flee and hope no one can identify you. If they got caught, they haven't lost anything, so they have nothing to lose and a lot to gain by trying to flee. This was such a problem that hit-and-run and damage-report laws were put on the books to make it illegal to try to sneak away from an accident you may have fault in. In addition to large fines, most (all?) states pull your license if you are convicted of hit&run. This is a fairly effective deterrent.
This hacking situation is very similar. Almost everyone attempts to sneak away quietly and hope nobody saw them. If they get outed, owell, take the regular hit. But why volunteer to take the hit when you can gamble on getting away with it, with no penalty if you fail to escape? The laws need to be changed to prevent this abuse because right now the companies are just doing what makes statistical financial sense.
This is the standard boilerplate reply from almost any organization that has been publicly exposed as being compromised. They'll continue to tell the world it's the most minor, harmless possible case until lolsec, wikileaks, etc posts a dump of 10k credit cards or something, and only then will they begin to admit the actual scale of the breach.
In addition to laws that punish groups for being negligent in their security of private data, I'd like to see additional punishments passed out to companies that outright lie about the severity of security breaches. A bit like how the judicial system comes down harder on you if you are convicted after pleading innocent. Tried to game the system? Lost? --> Additional punishment, to discourage others from trying it as a standard response, "because they have nothing to lose"
Oh btw, you may have missed:
Hydrogen, liquid: Energy Density (MJ/L) = 8.491
Hydrogen, gas: Energy Density (MJ/L) = 0.01005
slight difference ;) "even as a gas" is not even in the same ballpark anymore.
You are talking "energy density" as density relates to weight. Unless you're talking spacecraft, energy density related to volume is usually a lot more important. Look at your car's design. When the engineers designed your car, were they more worried about the WEIGHT of the gas in the tank, or the VOLUME of the gas tank? If the weight of the gas went up 50%, probably not all that big of a deal, make stronger tank straps and maybe reinforce the tank a little. But imagine the tank SIZE going up 50%. OK now we're seriously eating into your trunk space. Or look at that in reverse, if the manufacturer wants to double battery life in your MP3 player, he can make it twice as heavy or twice as BIG, which do you think he will want to do, which product will people buy, the heavier one or the big brick? Here down on earth, size matters. Weight is more important if you're going to orbit it.
The same could be said of that coal fired electric plant across town from you. And yet somehow they still manage to move the coal around.
One reason storing it is such a big deal is because generating it can be expensive. Make hydrogen easier to produce and it lowers the demands on storage.
I assume you mean "every array controller that only enterprise-budget users can afford"?
(I got the impression from the OP that they weren't in that budget tier)
Color menus (arrow key), user-editable disk database, remote updates, authenticated email relaying, support for multiple drives, auto-detect and add, speed and capacity testing during add, performance and history graphing, quite a lot really. ;) It's a big'un. I make the most of whatever language I use. The incremental scan nature of the script itself requires a good deal of code. There have also been numerous changes to be as certain as possible that the script cannot get hung. Failing hard drives are very good at hanging apps on the system they are installed into. So there are threads and signals flying around too. It's also very modular, I actually have bash libraries that dynamically load, but this has those rolled up into it since that's unnecessary there. www.vftp.net/wd.zip if you dare :)
I've never seen a case of where extortion was successfully defended by claiming freedom of speech. Anyone have any examples?
I would disagree. I believe it's best to be able to identify the first moment a hard drive is starting to have problems, rather than the condition its in when you get it.
One reason is that most of your hard drives will eventually develop a problem, and only a small fraction of the drives you buy will arrive defective.
Another reason is that nothing of value is on the new drive, you are risking only purchase price. A year from now, you may have important, possibly irreplaceable or at least inconvenient things to replace.
I run a piece of custom software I wrote that does a slow "disk crawl", reading ~100mb every 5 minutes. Over the course of a month it has read every block on the drive, and starts over. I get an email if an i/o error OR slow performance is encountered. I store a lot here, I have somewhere around 25TB of storage under the roof at home. Over the years I've been notified ~8 times of a failing drive. In all cases I was able to replace it before it became inaccessible. One of them failed to spin up ever again the day after I removed it from service. I consider this a very good system, and am surprised not to see a similar commercial offering. (it's a 5,600 line bash script!)
SMART is only useful to possibly confirm that a drive has a problem. Only a fool relies on it to notify them when there's a problem. I've probably replaced somewhere around 750 hard drives here at work, and of those, under a dozen were still accessible and displaying a SMART failure. Many times I've had SMART toggle to failed while I was doing data recovery to a replacement drive, as I was fighting my way through I/O errors. Got some Cpt Obvious going on there I think.
I've been using rsync to back up 1/2 dozen machines here for some time now. Great for both local and remote (internet) backups. My mom's imac is 300 miles away. She has a little 500gb firewire drive locally backing up with time machine, which gives her instant recovery as well as application-spicific recalls (get that email back or that address book card back easily for example) as well as versions. Then a custom made cronjob to rsync to my server here runs nightly for offsite in case of fire/theft/etc. That's really the best of both worlds there, highly recommended. No recurring costs.