Hang on a sec... this guy says he has a revolutionary new encryption algorithm that's as secure as a one-time pad? Now, even for people who don't have the first clue about cryptography*, that sounds like the inventor needs a breath of fresh air and a healthy dose of reality, never mind a patent lawyer.
Hint: Encryption systems only become revolutionary after they've been in the public domain for 5-10 years. Even then, they won't get used if there's a patent attached.
One-time pad? Bull. Crypto inventions come at a rate of one every 5 years, and the next one due is quantum cryptography. Think the idea is so smart it's better than quantum? Even claiming it's comparable to elliptic-curve crypto is one hell of a claim, and not something to be believed until it's published in a journal. Several times. And reviewed by people we've heard of. Even then, we won't believe it's unbreakable until the inventor has been imprisoned by the FBI for publishing it.
Nevermind the patent issue: there's a common-sense issue to be solved first. Thousands of crackpots a year come up with unbreakable [by them] encryption; having a patent doesn't make it any less snake-oil.
*Clues to be found in: Book: Applied cryptography Book: Secrets and Lies Article: Phil Zimmerman's writings on the PGP page Helpfile: PGP helpfile
yes, that's quite true. The point being made, however, is that the cameras did not *prevent* the abduction and subsequent murder. Re-read the post.
No he's right, I didn't know about the camera evidence being useful to solve those crimes. And we'd be optomistic indeed to think that the mall security would have been able to react in time to stop that.
A better solution would have to be something like the amber-alerts in the US: "Anyone sees white van KD22 3SS phone the police now" on electronic roadsigns and radio stations. When the kidnapping was reported, the store could have played-back the people leaving by car, and reported the license-plate details to be released in such a method.
Beliving that a Jewish State should not exist is not the same as being appalled to see palastinian hospitals shot at, nor at seeing peoples homes and towns demolished by invaders, nor at seeing palastinian children killed by well-armed, well-funded soldiers firing rockets into civillian crowds from US-supplied helicopters.
Even those of us who would support the idea of an israelite homeland cannot possibly not be sickened by the foreign policy of the current prime minister. As you say, it's not anti-sematism.
All they really do is helping MS finetuning their DRM system before it gets to he PC.
Very true. However, they are also demonstrating legitimate uses of mod-chips, legitimate uses of hacking proprietry hardware, and legitimate reasons for cracking hardware protection. Best of all, they are doing so in a manner which can easily be recognised by the general public (of which judges are a subset) - "Cracking hardware is good: look, you get to run this mainstream, competitive, and popular OS distribution.
A couple years ago, you'd have taken a modchip to court and the judge would say, "well yes, this is just for playing illegal games isn't it", but now you can take the same modchip along and the judge will see "yeah, that can be used to load the office-suite my son uses". Big difference.
Well, gosh, you've proven it there. Because in those incidents the cameras didn't "solve" the crime, clearly cameras are useless. But I'm curious: What information would they have without the cameras?
My point was that CCTV footage has rarely to never been used to solve crimes. The specific example being a TV camera watching a girl's kidnapping. Despite being able to identify many people walking down that street, no clues were ever provided which helped to find the person.
More famous example: we've all seen the CCTV footage of two teenagers kidnapping a young boy from a shopping mall. Can anyone tell me how useful they were then? Did security staff react? Did the police react? No, they showed it on the evening news.
Example from work: Colleague's car was vandalised. In a well-lit private carpark with cameras every 50 metres. Nobody was ever caught.
Another example from that same office: same well-lit, surveilled car park. Stack of unix machines were stolen from the office, and carried through bushes to a car at the nearby motorway. Cameras missed it all. Nobody was ever caught.
Personal example: my bike was stolen from luggage-van of a train. Station CCTV cameras have a clear, close-up view of the faces of each and every person involved in that theft. Was the bike found? No. Were any of the thieves found? No.
Your point seems obvious: surely cameras are better than no cameras. A chance piece of evidence is better than no chance. That is arguably true, but only if you discount cost.
Outdoor high-street surveillance cameras cost a lot more than anything you'd use in your office-security. High-res cameras, remote-control servos, and the sheer installation cost of taking up the street and planting a tower in it add up to a lot of cost. I see quotes of $4000 upwards for even the smallest cameras, without installation or cabling.
Policemen on £40,000 per year are then paid to watch these cameras. At several policemen per installation (often in a control room shared between several towns), that's a lot of money per hour. Add the cost of data-connections and the control-room itself, plus a beaurocratic overhead.
The reason this hindering, rather than being irrelevant to safety, is: This is money not being spent on improving the safety of our streets. Good street-lighting, building design, town design, police patrols, special constables, neighbourhood-watch, these are the measures which are proven to reduce crime, and these are the measures which are having their funding cut to pay for CCTV cameras.
What use is a town with not enough money to keep a police station open, if they have five-thousand-pound camera installations in every corner of every road? Even places as large as Nottingam, it's not unknown to have 3 or 4 police on duty at night, to cover vast swathes of the city. Break-ins occur at the same time/same place every night, and there was simply not enough police resource to send a guy there to arrest the burglars. Response times of many hours are typical. "Sorry we're late, but you're looking at the night-watch, both of us" a young policeman told me last time they responded to a call, 9 hours later.
I hope that some of those answers clarify my question a bit better: surveillance cameras are bad not because of the implicit somebody-watching-you (police patrols watch you too), but because they simply don't work, and divert valuable resources from schemes that do work.
So, in answer to "But I'm curious: What information would they have without the cameras?"
They'd have information from the patrol cars driving around.
"I'd hope that Big Brother wouldnt spy on us outside our legal rights"
The article mentions hidden video cameras in the bathroom [toilet] of hotels. I have actually seen these in UK service-stations (2mm hole in smoke detectors), and everyone who hears about them is disgusted at the concept.
Larger-scale, towns all over the country are rushing to install cameras. Our high-street has a particularly prominent mast being installed, which looks far too spookily like the panopticon in its placement. They don't solve crimes, they don't prevent crimes, they don't make the streets safer.
This has been proven. Video cameras covered the alleged kidnapping of a girl in our town last year, and they were no use whatever with the police investigation. We have video-footage of several thefts, and car-vandalism, again, these have not been used to solve any crimes.
Local councellors are pleading with government for money to install these things without even a clue as to their lack of effectiveness at any sort of real crime.
Italian-job style jammers may be nice playing with these cameras, ultraviolet ones like the US Army is using to permanently blind people would be better, but what can people actually do if the local council (and every other) says you will live in a surveilled society and put up with it?
"I dont' see the problem with terminating access to outside Kazaa servers, then cracking down on the local ones."
The problem is that they're part of the internet infrastructure, and they're involved in distributing protected speech.
Your analogy would be bombing Interstate-90 to prevent people from speeding on it. Speeding is illegal, and pretty much everyone on that road is speeding. So it would make sense to destroy the road, and you stop all of those crimes. The number of non-infringing uses (people driving at the speed limit) is negligible, just as with KaZaA.
Doesn't seem so smart when you translate it to the real world?
Okay. Fair enough. So your website then, the one generating money from adverts. Availing yourself of the french market? Enjoying coming to France and doing business in france? Right. You've lost your freedom to hold nazi views.
Enjoying coming to Germany and availing yourself of the German market? Excellent. You've lost your right to compare your product with others in adverts.
Website accessible from Zimbabwe? Sorry, lost your right to critisize the government there. Ditto in Burma and America.
Availing yourself of the japanese market by benefitting from showing them adverts? Congratulations, you can display child-porn there. Unfortunately, you're still doing business in America, France, Germany, Burma, and Zimbabwe, each of which prohibits it. Moreover, you're doing business in Saudi Arabia, where the penalty is beheading. As you yourself say, policemen in your own country have an obligation to enforce the laws of the country where you do business.
Any more? If your banner-ad statistics show that you get paid for chineese web-browsers accessing the adverts, you'd better take the christian literature off the site. And of course, any criticism of the chineese government.
Pretty much the only place you're safe is Russia, because the US police will protect you from Russian law, and Australia, because they're firewalled and can't access the internet.
Welcome to the free market. Aren't American legal ideas great?
"It was interesting as it showed the Internet both failing at and succeeding in its primary designed function, as a communications and information network that could survive a major catastrophe."
More to the point, succeeding in its designed role as a distributed peer-to-peer system, and failing in the commercial idea of centralised publishers.
If you click it twice real fast, it's called (You still with me?) "Double Clicking".
Yeah, let the original commentor try double-clicking with a pen-and-tablet.
Got that? Still with me? Now try right-click-dragging (to create shortcuts in windows). How accurate were you? Did you manage to select the left-click menu that follows, or did your finger slip off the button whilst dragging?
Double Clicking opens up this program. This program is called [foo]. It does [bar].
Now try double-clicking. Try it in an application like WS_FTP, where double-clicking the wrong thing can delete a page off your website. Notice how when you click on one thing, then right-click for a menu, that counts as a double-click?
Try it in a different application. How about visual basic? Click to select a control, drag to move it. Oops, looks like you did that too fast: it got counted as a double-click, and now you've opened a code-editing window.
( Don't forget you can set windows to operate in single-click mode. (View::Folder options::web-style). But your common dialog boxes will still be double-click )
And suddenly my grandmother can check her e-mail.
Honestly? If someone has trouble using a mouse, you could do worse than giving them Pine as an email program, and Links as a browser. Unplug your mouse someday, and try using your standard programs.
"That's as ludicrous as saying every author writing a book needs to have it translated and published into every foreign language in common use"
We provide the translators. It's equivalent to saying you can't publish a book which prevents people from reading it aloud to their blind friends.
"The fact is, many sites right now are quite browser-dependent"
In that case, I find it extremely useful that ADA is forcing such sites to sort their act out and get a professional site that actually works.
"If we didn't have Javascript, web sites would be much less useful."
Javascript is obsolete for exactly that reason: it hardly ever works. back in 1998 when IE was king, everyone had to disable javascript completely because of security risks. Now that we have mozilla, most people allow javascript to run with restrictions on it (no popups...). However, anybody who needs active content has already updated their sites to use server-side scripting which works regardless of browser.
Simple example: a javascript website will not only look like a p.o.s. to anyone with scripts turned off (try it sometime) but won't even show up on google.
"If this had to be presented as pure HTML... (rant about difficulty)"
Give me your javascript source, and I'll show you how easy it is to convert to PHP.
"This is a question of whether we want to let government dictate requirements for every site we build."
Okay, final analogy:
"Voting today will be done with touch-screens. Our apologies to blind people, but we do not have the resources to test our machines with a wide range of people. This voting machine is optimised for eyeball explorer(tm)."
Heh. cut-n-paste. script it. perl-search for slashdot buzzwords. Example:
"The model from the software industry is that it's very important to have flaws in the software to give you a reason to upgrade and buy the new version - though my friends in the software world will deny that they ever do it that way."
"You can't unilaterally and retroactively change the terms of a contract"
Can't you? Lawyers at most software companies, and even most websites think that you can.
Why isn't my software listed on TuCows? Because their user agreement would have required me to automatically accept any unilateral changes to their contract. Yahoo, hotmail, passport, ebay, are all the same.
That type of contract is like signing a blank cheque (which also has no legal protection), and if you see such a clause, don't agree to it. Most places will relax a EULA or ToS if people make it clear that they will not accept the condition, and if not, it's still not worth the risk of agreeing to the contract.
To quote: (for those thinking that the report criticized apache and IIS equally)
"Web administrators too often conclude that since Microsoft's Internet Information Server (IIS) is exceptionally prone to compromise (see W1. Internet Information Server), the open-source Apache web server is completely secure. While the comparison with IIS may be true, and although Apache has a well-deserved reputation for security, it has not proved invulnerable under scrutiny."
Easiest way: loser pays costs. It works in europe, doesn't waste congressional time trying to do wording for an anti-SLAPP law, and best of all, there are no loopholes in it. If you bring a POS case in Britain, you pay for it yourself.
Is it not ridiculous that in a country where innocence is presumed, that people have to spend thousands proving it by defending against spurious claims?
What use is "innocent until proven guilty" if it only applies to the rich?
Re:five years of lost discussions
on
Slashdot Turns 5
·
· Score: 1
A google search on your sig returns the entire discussion: then all you need do is Ctrl-F for your username, or (if you're logged on) set the limit to +5, and your posts will be displayed regardless of rating.
As for time limits, google's advanced options allow you to select only recent files, although you can't specify time periods in the past.
Slashdot Mirror
Hang on a sec... this guy says he has a revolutionary new encryption algorithm that's as secure as a one-time pad? Now, even for people who don't have the first clue about cryptography*, that sounds like the inventor needs a breath of fresh air and a healthy dose of reality, never mind a patent lawyer.
Hint: Encryption systems only become revolutionary after they've been in the public domain for 5-10 years. Even then, they won't get used if there's a patent attached.
One-time pad? Bull. Crypto inventions come at a rate of one every 5 years, and the next one due is quantum cryptography. Think the idea is so smart it's better than quantum? Even claiming it's comparable to elliptic-curve crypto is one hell of a claim, and not something to be believed until it's published in a journal. Several times. And reviewed by people we've heard of. Even then, we won't believe it's unbreakable until the inventor has been imprisoned by the FBI for publishing it.
Nevermind the patent issue: there's a common-sense issue to be solved first. Thousands of crackpots a year come up with unbreakable [by them] encryption; having a patent doesn't make it any less snake-oil.
*Clues to be found in:
Book: Applied cryptography
Book: Secrets and Lies
Article: Phil Zimmerman's writings on the PGP page
Helpfile: PGP helpfile
It's known either as Planet X, or a name that starts with N [nemesis]
Try the astronomy pages for an explanation of why this is considered crap.
(p.s. More interestingly, read about our weird 'moon', Cruithne - stranger than fiction!
yes, that's quite true. The point being made, however, is that the cameras did not *prevent* the abduction and subsequent murder. Re-read the post.
No he's right, I didn't know about the camera evidence being useful to solve those crimes. And we'd be optomistic indeed to think that the mall security would have been able to react in time to stop that.
A better solution would have to be something like the amber-alerts in the US: "Anyone sees white van KD22 3SS phone the police now" on electronic roadsigns and radio stations. When the kidnapping was reported, the store could have played-back the people leaving by car, and reported the license-plate details to be released in such a method.
Anti-Zionism != Anti-Semitism != Human rights
Beliving that a Jewish State should not exist is not the same as being appalled to see palastinian hospitals shot at, nor at seeing peoples homes and towns demolished by invaders, nor at seeing palastinian children killed by well-armed, well-funded soldiers firing rockets into civillian crowds from US-supplied helicopters.
Even those of us who would support the idea of an israelite homeland cannot possibly not be sickened by the foreign policy of the current prime minister. As you say, it's not anti-sematism.
All they really do is helping MS finetuning their DRM system before it gets to he PC.
Very true. However, they are also demonstrating legitimate uses of mod-chips, legitimate uses of hacking proprietry hardware, and legitimate reasons for cracking hardware protection. Best of all, they are doing so in a manner which can easily be recognised by the general public (of which judges are a subset) - "Cracking hardware is good: look, you get to run this mainstream, competitive, and popular OS distribution.
A couple years ago, you'd have taken a modchip to court and the judge would say, "well yes, this is just for playing illegal games isn't it", but now you can take the same modchip along and the judge will see "yeah, that can be used to load the office-suite my son uses". Big difference.
Well, gosh, you've proven it there. Because in those incidents the cameras didn't "solve" the crime, clearly cameras are useless. But I'm curious: What information would they have without the cameras?
My point was that CCTV footage has rarely to never been used to solve crimes. The specific example being a TV camera watching a girl's kidnapping. Despite being able to identify many people walking down that street, no clues were ever provided which helped to find the person.
More famous example: we've all seen the CCTV footage of two teenagers kidnapping a young boy from a shopping mall. Can anyone tell me how useful they were then? Did security staff react? Did the police react? No, they showed it on the evening news.
Example from work: Colleague's car was vandalised. In a well-lit private carpark with cameras every 50 metres. Nobody was ever caught.
Another example from that same office: same well-lit, surveilled car park. Stack of unix machines were stolen from the office, and carried through bushes to a car at the nearby motorway. Cameras missed it all. Nobody was ever caught.
Personal example: my bike was stolen from luggage-van of a train. Station CCTV cameras have a clear, close-up view of the faces of each and every person involved in that theft. Was the bike found? No. Were any of the thieves found? No.
Your point seems obvious: surely cameras are better than no cameras. A chance piece of evidence is better than no chance. That is arguably true, but only if you discount cost.
Outdoor high-street surveillance cameras cost a lot more than anything you'd use in your office-security. High-res cameras, remote-control servos, and the sheer installation cost of taking up the street and planting a tower in it add up to a lot of cost. I see quotes of $4000 upwards for even the smallest cameras, without installation or cabling.
Policemen on £40,000 per year are then paid to watch these cameras. At several policemen per installation (often in a control room shared between several towns), that's a lot of money per hour. Add the cost of data-connections and the control-room itself, plus a beaurocratic overhead.
The reason this hindering, rather than being irrelevant to safety, is: This is money not being spent on improving the safety of our streets. Good street-lighting, building design, town design, police patrols, special constables, neighbourhood-watch, these are the measures which are proven to reduce crime, and these are the measures which are having their funding cut to pay for CCTV cameras.
What use is a town with not enough money to keep a police station open, if they have five-thousand-pound camera installations in every corner of every road? Even places as large as Nottingam, it's not unknown to have 3 or 4 police on duty at night, to cover vast swathes of the city. Break-ins occur at the same time/same place every night, and there was simply not enough police resource to send a guy there to arrest the burglars. Response times of many hours are typical. "Sorry we're late, but you're looking at the night-watch, both of us" a young policeman told me last time they responded to a call, 9 hours later.
I hope that some of those answers clarify my question a bit better: surveillance cameras are bad not because of the implicit somebody-watching-you (police patrols watch you too), but because they simply don't work, and divert valuable resources from schemes that do work.
So, in answer to "But I'm curious: What information would they have without the cameras?"
They'd have information from the patrol cars driving around.
Bottom of Electronic Frontiers Australia (can't find more recent links, but then australia's internet blocking was never my specialist subject.)
"I'd hope that Big Brother wouldnt spy on us outside our legal rights"
The article mentions hidden video cameras in the bathroom [toilet] of hotels. I have actually seen these in UK service-stations (2mm hole in smoke detectors), and everyone who hears about them is disgusted at the concept.
Larger-scale, towns all over the country are rushing to install cameras. Our high-street has a particularly prominent mast being installed, which looks far too spookily like the panopticon in its placement. They don't solve crimes, they don't prevent crimes, they don't make the streets safer.
This has been proven. Video cameras covered the alleged kidnapping of a girl in our town last year, and they were no use whatever with the police investigation. We have video-footage of several thefts, and car-vandalism, again, these have not been used to solve any crimes.
Local councellors are pleading with government for money to install these things without even a clue as to their lack of effectiveness at any sort of real crime.
Italian-job style jammers may be nice playing with these cameras, ultraviolet ones like the US Army is using to permanently blind people would be better, but what can people actually do if the local council (and every other) says you will live in a surveilled society and put up with it?
The real reason we are going to war with Iraq is because Saddam downloaded Episode II off Kazaa.
Actually, it's to prevent Saddam from making a cameo appearance in Episode 3.
Two words: South Park
Next war: hell...
"I dont' see the problem with terminating access to outside Kazaa servers, then cracking down on the local ones."
The problem is that they're part of the internet infrastructure, and they're involved in distributing protected speech.
Your analogy would be bombing Interstate-90 to prevent people from speeding on it. Speeding is illegal, and pretty much everyone on that road is speeding. So it would make sense to destroy the road, and you stop all of those crimes. The number of non-infringing uses (people driving at the speed limit) is negligible, just as with KaZaA.
Doesn't seem so smart when you translate it to the real world?
Okay. Fair enough. So your website then, the one generating money from adverts. Availing yourself of the french market? Enjoying coming to France and doing business in france? Right. You've lost your freedom to hold nazi views.
Enjoying coming to Germany and availing yourself of the German market? Excellent. You've lost your right to compare your product with others in adverts.
Website accessible from Zimbabwe? Sorry, lost your right to critisize the government there. Ditto in Burma and America.
Availing yourself of the japanese market by benefitting from showing them adverts? Congratulations, you can display child-porn there. Unfortunately, you're still doing business in America, France, Germany, Burma, and Zimbabwe, each of which prohibits it. Moreover, you're doing business in Saudi Arabia, where the penalty is beheading. As you yourself say, policemen in your own country have an obligation to enforce the laws of the country where you do business.
Any more? If your banner-ad statistics show that you get paid for chineese web-browsers accessing the adverts, you'd better take the christian literature off the site. And of course, any criticism of the chineese government.
Pretty much the only place you're safe is Russia, because the US police will protect you from Russian law, and Australia, because they're firewalled and can't access the internet.
Welcome to the free market. Aren't American legal ideas great?
"If you can't get to the site, how can the Google spider?"
It got there first. Look at your website logs someday, and see how often googlebot appears.
"It was interesting as it showed the Internet both failing at and succeeding in its primary designed function, as a communications and information network that could survive a major catastrophe."
More to the point, succeeding in its designed role as a distributed peer-to-peer system, and failing in the commercial idea of centralised publishers.
"It's illegal to format a legal document."
Her Majesty's Stationary Office seems to cope pretty well with releasing laws in nicely-formatted HTML.
If you click it twice real fast, it's called (You still with me?) "Double Clicking".
Yeah, let the original commentor try double-clicking with a pen-and-tablet.
Got that? Still with me? Now try right-click-dragging (to create shortcuts in windows). How accurate were you? Did you manage to select the left-click menu that follows, or did your finger slip off the button whilst dragging?
Double Clicking opens up this program. This program is called [foo]. It does [bar].
Now try double-clicking. Try it in an application like WS_FTP, where double-clicking the wrong thing can delete a page off your website. Notice how when you click on one thing, then right-click for a menu, that counts as a double-click?
Try it in a different application. How about visual basic? Click to select a control, drag to move it. Oops, looks like you did that too fast: it got counted as a double-click, and now you've opened a code-editing window.
( Don't forget you can set windows to operate in single-click mode. (View::Folder options::web-style). But your common dialog boxes will still be double-click )
And suddenly my grandmother can check her e-mail.
Honestly? If someone has trouble using a mouse, you could do worse than giving them Pine as an email program, and Links as a browser. Unplug your mouse someday, and try using your standard programs.
"That's as ludicrous as saying every author writing a book needs to have it translated and published into every foreign language in common use"
We provide the translators. It's equivalent to saying you can't publish a book which prevents people from reading it aloud to their blind friends.
"The fact is, many sites right now are quite browser-dependent"
In that case, I find it extremely useful that ADA is forcing such sites to sort their act out and get a professional site that actually works.
"If we didn't have Javascript, web sites would be much less useful."
Javascript is obsolete for exactly that reason: it hardly ever works. back in 1998 when IE was king, everyone had to disable javascript completely because of security risks. Now that we have mozilla, most people allow javascript to run with restrictions on it (no popups...). However, anybody who needs active content has already updated their sites to use server-side scripting which works regardless of browser.
Simple example: a javascript website will not only look like a p.o.s. to anyone with scripts turned off (try it sometime) but won't even show up on google.
"If this had to be presented as pure HTML... (rant about difficulty)"
Give me your javascript source, and I'll show you how easy it is to convert to PHP.
"This is a question of whether we want to let government dictate requirements for every site we build."
Okay, final analogy:
"Voting today will be done with touch-screens. Our apologies to blind people, but we do not have the resources to test our machines with a wide range of people. This voting machine is optimised for eyeball explorer(tm)."
Full text of the act -- now if only the DOJ would actually learn HTML and/or writing skills.
"Heh, we're so web-savvy, we just dumped 160Kb of unformatted crap on our website"
Heh. cut-n-paste. script it. perl-search for slashdot buzzwords. Example:
"The model from the software industry is that it's very important to have flaws in the software to give you a reason to upgrade and buy the new version - though my friends in the software world will deny that they ever do it that way."
"Beggars can't be choosers ... If you buy the program, you can develop whatever you like with it."
So which license did you choose for that £600 version of microsoft office?
If your beggars can't be choosers, neither can rich and generous customers in the EULA-software world.
"You can't unilaterally and retroactively change the terms of a contract"
Can't you? Lawyers at most software companies, and even most websites think that you can.
Why isn't my software listed on TuCows? Because their user agreement would have required me to automatically accept any unilateral changes to their contract. Yahoo, hotmail, passport, ebay, are all the same.
That type of contract is like signing a blank cheque (which also has no legal protection), and if you see such a clause, don't agree to it. Most places will relax a EULA or ToS if people make it clear that they will not accept the condition, and if not, it's still not worth the risk of agreeing to the contract.
/Links/Dir/Privacy/Anonymisers/
Just a list from my site.
F.F.S.: I wouldn't be surprised if Slashdot showed up top result for goatse.cx, the number of people linking to it from here...
To quote: (for those thinking that the report criticized apache and IIS equally)
"Web administrators too often conclude that since Microsoft's Internet Information Server (IIS) is exceptionally prone to compromise (see W1. Internet Information Server), the open-source Apache web server is completely secure. While the comparison with IIS may be true, and although Apache has a well-deserved reputation for security, it has not proved invulnerable under scrutiny."
"We NEED a law to deal with idiotic lawsuits."
Easiest way: loser pays costs. It works in europe, doesn't waste congressional time trying to do wording for an anti-SLAPP law, and best of all, there are no loopholes in it. If you bring a POS case in Britain, you pay for it yourself.
Is it not ridiculous that in a country where innocence is presumed, that people have to spend thousands proving it by defending against spurious claims?
What use is "innocent until proven guilty" if it only applies to the rich?
A google search on your sig returns the entire discussion: then all you need do is Ctrl-F for your username, or (if you're logged on) set the limit to +5, and your posts will be displayed regardless of rating.
As for time limits, google's advanced options allow you to select only recent files, although you can't specify time periods in the past.