Is there some mind-set thing that I am just missing? Is there some parallel-universe where this sort of stuff makes sense?
JAVA has a cool name. It sounds like coffee, which is very cool.
JAVA lets you do things that C++ does not, like give your variables really long names. That means that it is more powerful. (Same with PERL.)
JAVA development is replete with acronyms, which are very cool and technical sounding. People will think you are smart if you use terms that they don't understand.
JAVA takes well understood principles and obfuscates them. You must understand additional layers to develop in JAVA. Using more complicated and obscure tools makes you a more skillful programmer.
Does it occur to him that software designers might write "complex and hastily" code because expectations are high and time is short. And where, besides software, would computer security problems lie anyway? SCSI cables?
Re:though the suggestions might be usefull...
on
Homepage Usability
·
· Score: 1
I think eventually they switched to a dynamically generated table-based page
Wouldn't that pose a similar problem for the person saying "I saw this on your X webpage." That is, unless they were able to say "I saw this on your X?5214-0475889-1255478 page."
As for the author's credits, Nielsen is widely acknowledged to be a guru in the field. Check out his website, UseIt [useit.com], for lots of more usability-related stuff.
Just don't check it out for an example of a well designed site. Ack, that thing is a mess.
I'm guessing that the "it" in "useit" is FrontPage 98.
Publishing information about this does qualify as providing a mechanism to circumvent a copy control mechanism.
Every time I hear this, I am more convinced that it would never stand up against a 1st amendement challenge. So the information can potentially be missused. So what?
Whatever happened to the claims of fast reaction in the opensource industry vs. old-skool business?
This isn't a troll. ..
THIS is a troll. All that OSS jazz is FUD. Here is proof positive that OSS can't do any better than MS when it comes to releasing fixes, and that OSS is just as likely to try (and fail) at keeping vulnerabilities secret.
Hell, I thought that millions of OSS programmers were swarming all over the code 24/7, exposing bugs the second the code is released.
For proof, attend court someday and watch the carry-on. It's amazing. "The perpetrator left his wallet on the table when he tipped the stripper just before he held up the nightclub. We identified him using his drivers license." And it goes on and on. Crime, by and large, is committed on the spur-of-the-moment and against a target of opportunity; in other words, it doesn't involve a lot of advance planning, no matter what the movies say.
Even if this assertion were not completely false, I would like to point out that the FBI would not be conducting surveillance on impulse or opportunity criminals. They are developing these tools to fight the many sophisticated, technically savvy criminals that are out there. I say many, because why else woule the FBI bother to develop such a tool? I say sophisticated because this kind of tool is used to sniff encryption passwords. The fact that someone is using encryption to hide their crimes certainly indicates some level of spohistication to me, and certainly enough to run MacOS or Linux, etc.
Contrary to your experience at traffic court or wherever, criminals are not ALL like the ones you see on Cops or America's Dumbest. By definition, anyone you saw in court was not smart enough to evade capture, anyway, so they could hardly be among the smartest.
Not quite. What I meant was that if they can't use a worm/trojan to install the backdoor on a certain OS, they will use some other means to sniff your keystrokes.
The mass majority of criminals are going to use the OS used by the mass majority of consumers.
Criminals are not all stupid. Any criminal savvy enough to use encryption will be savvy enough to use an alternative OS.
You can be sure that this would NEVER happen.
Considering the rate at which rights we assumed we would always have are being eroded, I could NEVER be sure that something will NEVER happen. Nor should you.
MY OS will NEVER be vulnerable!! I will always, from some day about 3 years ago, use an OS which is Free where the code can be reviewed, modified and distributed. I can attach hooks into my TCP-IP stacks, network device drivers or any other level I wish to watch for the FBI (or anyone else) trying to track me (or gather any info) and block them at source, but I won't need to cause a 17 year old scandinavian will release a tool to do it for me which will be plastered over the non-US internet
Unless you control every network and device that you packets pass through, your security/privacy (from tracking) ends when you internet connection leaves you property.
I've yet to see the the "Is my phone tapped service(tm)" on ordinary phone lines. So why would any company trying to stay on the right side of the government be producing tools to aid potential criminals?
The idea of a cable modem and the pricing of the service, though, is not "you have 1.5Mbps and can use it at 100% 24/7", but rather "Here's 1.5Mbps to speed the times that you do use your PC"
Actually, it is whatever level of service is stated in the contract/service agreement with the customer. Regardless of the economic or technical realities the company faces, they are bound by the commitement that they make when they sell the service. If, as in their commercials, they sell 1.5Mbps and do not qualify that by explicitly outlining what duration to expect that level of service for, then the customer has every right to expect 1.5Mbps, 24/7. If the providers can't privide that level of service, they shouldn't sell it. If they can't sell a lesser level of service for what they want to charge, tough.
We are talking about email. Are you saying that you are terrorized by a piece of spam?
No. I am saying that a theoretical someone could feel threatend by the fact that there are people that they don't know compiling information about their personal lives.
In your world, everyone is nice and there are no bad people. Here in the Real World, people can be mean and do bad things.
Wait! I thought I was the paranoid one, and you were the one who vanquished harrasing messages with a tap on your delete key.
In my world, everyone is NOT nice. Spammers, for instance, are NOT nice.
Deleting 50 phone messages is just as easy as deleting one too. Are you saying that stalkers don't terrorize their victims? By your logic, the victim should just deal with the inconvenience of ignoring them.
Amen. And, how 'bout we make the maroons who fail to take *reasonable* steps to secure their computers (ie, at least keep up with patches), responsible for their own messes? Is that too much to ask?
Legally speaking, yes. It is not the property owners responsibility to make his security meet the requirements of the trespasser. You are not allowed on my property regardless of whether or not it is secured, as long as I clearly mark it as mine.
While someone may be accountable to a third party if their negligence results in a loss (to the third party), they are under no obligation to protect themselves. The trespasser/thief is wholly responsible for his acts and liable for any damage.
For example. If I leave my car unlocked, you are not entitled to enter it and steal my stereo. Even if I leave the door open with the engine running, you would be committing a crime if you drove it off.
Get some perspective and learn to keep your hands to yourself. You have no legal or moral recourse if you get busted intruding on someone elses property, regardless of how lax their security is.
Terrorists are people who try to kill and/or harm people.
Get it straight. Terrorists are people who TERRORIZE people. Period.
Terror is diverse and subjective. Most are terrified of death or bodily harm. Some are also terrified of losing their privacy. Which perception is broad enough to characterize terrorism is for the law to decide on a case by case basis.
Don't you see? If we allow the threat of cybercrime to force us to change the way we manage our landing lights, THE CYBERCRIMINALS HAVE WON!
Improving security is an admission that our resolve to enforce security as it is has weakened. We must continue to live our lives, connect everything possible to the public network regardless of how vital or sensitive, and protect our assets with poorly concieved security mechanisms. To do anything else would show that the hackers and the rest of the terrorists have won!
Slashdot Mirror
JAVA has a cool name. It sounds like coffee, which is very cool.
JAVA lets you do things that C++ does not, like give your variables really long names. That means that it is more powerful. (Same with PERL.)
JAVA development is replete with acronyms, which are very cool and technical sounding. People will think you are smart if you use terms that they don't understand.
JAVA takes well understood principles and obfuscates them. You must understand additional layers to develop in JAVA. Using more complicated and obscure tools makes you a more skillful programmer.
Score: -1, Obvious
Score: -1, Kick in the Head Obvious
Does it occur to him that software designers might write "complex and hastily" code because expectations are high and time is short. And where, besides software, would computer security problems lie anyway? SCSI cables?
I think eventually they switched to a dynamically generated table-based page
Wouldn't that pose a similar problem for the person saying "I saw this on your X webpage." That is, unless they were able to say "I saw this on your X?5214-0475889-1255478 page."
As for the author's credits, Nielsen is widely acknowledged to be a guru in the field. Check out his website, UseIt [useit.com], for lots of more usability-related stuff.
Just don't check it out for an example of a well designed site. Ack, that thing is a mess.
I'm guessing that the "it" in "useit" is FrontPage 98.
It was probably a form threatening-letter. They just haven't updated it since the DMCA was passed.
Publishing information about this does qualify as providing a mechanism to circumvent a copy control mechanism.
Every time I hear this, I am more convinced that it would never stand up against a 1st amendement challenge. So the information can potentially be missused. So what?
Whatever happened to the claims of fast reaction in the opensource industry vs. old-skool business?
.
This isn't a troll. .
THIS is a troll. All that OSS jazz is FUD. Here is proof positive that OSS can't do any better than MS when it comes to releasing fixes, and that OSS is just as likely to try (and fail) at keeping vulnerabilities secret.
Hell, I thought that millions of OSS programmers were swarming all over the code 24/7, exposing bugs the second the code is released.
For proof, attend court someday and watch the carry-on. It's amazing. "The perpetrator left his wallet on the table when he tipped the stripper just before he held up the nightclub. We identified him using his drivers license." And it goes on and on. Crime, by and large, is committed on the spur-of-the-moment and against a target of opportunity; in other words, it doesn't involve a lot of advance planning, no matter what the movies say.
Even if this assertion were not completely false, I would like to point out that the FBI would not be conducting surveillance on impulse or opportunity criminals. They are developing these tools to fight the many sophisticated, technically savvy criminals that are out there. I say many, because why else woule the FBI bother to develop such a tool? I say sophisticated because this kind of tool is used to sniff encryption passwords. The fact that someone is using encryption to hide their crimes certainly indicates some level of spohistication to me, and certainly enough to run MacOS or Linux, etc.
Contrary to your experience at traffic court or wherever, criminals are not ALL like the ones you see on Cops or America's Dumbest. By definition, anyone you saw in court was not smart enough to evade capture, anyway, so they could hardly be among the smartest.
These are basically the same prediction.
Not quite. What I meant was that if they can't use a worm/trojan to install the backdoor on a certain OS, they will use some other means to sniff your keystrokes.
The mass majority of criminals are going to use the OS used by the mass majority of consumers.
Criminals are not all stupid. Any criminal savvy enough to use encryption will be savvy enough to use an alternative OS.
You can be sure that this would NEVER happen.
Considering the rate at which rights we assumed we would always have are being eroded, I could NEVER be sure that something will NEVER happen. Nor should you.
MY OS will NEVER be vulnerable!! I will always, from some day about 3 years ago, use an OS which is Free where the code can be reviewed, modified and distributed. I can attach hooks into my TCP-IP stacks, network device drivers or any other level I wish to watch for the FBI (or anyone else) trying to track me (or gather any info) and block them at source, but I won't need to cause a 17 year old scandinavian will release a tool to do it for me which will be plastered over the non-US internet
Unless you control every network and device that you packets pass through, your security/privacy (from tracking) ends when you internet connection leaves you property.
I've yet to see the the "Is my phone tapped service(tm)" on ordinary phone lines. So why would any company trying to stay on the right side of the government be producing tools to aid potential criminals?
Maybe you HAVE seen the "Has my property been trespassed on service(tm)", or the "Can someone surveil me through my windows service"? People should have a right to protect their privacy and security without it being assumed that they are criminals, and companies should have a right to provide the tools to do so without being accused of abetting criminals.
Not all spies/intruders work for the FBI you know.
Do Home Security firms get in trouble when their devices tip a criminal to police presence on their property? I doubt it. How would this be different?
Here's why it IS your problem. If you think the FBI is going to limit their spying to Windows, you are pretty naive. Count on one of the following:
They will find a way to make it work in every consumer OS.
They will find some other way to acheive the same thing with other OSs.
They will outlaw the use of an OS that can be used to evade law enforcement.
LOL!! ;P
Holy shit you are a lamer!
He didn't say his English was perfect, he just said it was better than the translator's.
You'd get the traffic to your site no matter what server you run. Code Red would just pump up traffic from your site.
The idea of a cable modem and the pricing of the service, though, is not "you have 1.5Mbps and can use it at 100% 24/7", but rather "Here's 1.5Mbps to speed the times that you do use your PC"
Actually, it is whatever level of service is stated in the contract/service agreement with the customer. Regardless of the economic or technical realities the company faces, they are bound by the commitement that they make when they sell the service. If, as in their commercials, they sell 1.5Mbps and do not qualify that by explicitly outlining what duration to expect that level of service for, then the customer has every right to expect 1.5Mbps, 24/7. If the providers can't privide that level of service, they shouldn't sell it. If they can't sell a lesser level of service for what they want to charge, tough.
We are talking about email. Are you saying that you are terrorized by a piece of spam?
No. I am saying that a theoretical someone could feel threatend by the fact that there are people that they don't know compiling information about their personal lives.
In your world, everyone is nice and there are no bad people. Here in the Real World, people can be mean and do bad things.
Wait! I thought I was the paranoid one, and you were the one who vanquished harrasing messages with a tap on your delete key.
In my world, everyone is NOT nice. Spammers, for instance, are NOT nice.
Deleting 50 phone messages is just as easy as deleting one too. Are you saying that stalkers don't terrorize their victims? By your logic, the victim should just deal with the inconvenience of ignoring them.
Honestly, it is just a piece of email.
A harrassing phone call is just a phone call. 50 a day is a criminal matter.
Amen. And, how 'bout we make the maroons who fail to take *reasonable* steps to secure their computers (ie, at least keep up with patches), responsible for their own messes? Is that too much to ask?
Legally speaking, yes. It is not the property owners responsibility to make his security meet the requirements of the trespasser. You are not allowed on my property regardless of whether or not it is secured, as long as I clearly mark it as mine.
While someone may be accountable to a third party if their negligence results in a loss (to the third party), they are under no obligation to protect themselves. The trespasser/thief is wholly responsible for his acts and liable for any damage.
For example. If I leave my car unlocked, you are not entitled to enter it and steal my stereo. Even if I leave the door open with the engine running, you would be committing a crime if you drove it off.
Get some perspective and learn to keep your hands to yourself. You have no legal or moral recourse if you get busted intruding on someone elses property, regardless of how lax their security is.
Terrorists are people who try to kill and/or harm people.
Get it straight. Terrorists are people who TERRORIZE people. Period.
Terror is diverse and subjective. Most are terrified of death or bodily harm. Some are also terrified of losing their privacy. Which perception is broad enough to characterize terrorism is for the law to decide on a case by case basis.
Don't you see? If we allow the threat of cybercrime to force us to change the way we manage our landing lights, THE CYBERCRIMINALS HAVE WON!
Improving security is an admission that our resolve to enforce security as it is has weakened. We must continue to live our lives, connect everything possible to the public network regardless of how vital or sensitive, and protect our assets with poorly concieved security mechanisms. To do anything else would show that the hackers and the rest of the terrorists have won!