Every desktop has individual credentials for the local user, and except when unavoidable, you don't grant any network users (LDAP, etc.) any access.
This means no central provisioning of user accounts/etc. That is a non-starter in any big company. Anytime anybody needs access to another PC you have to send out an IT guy to grant access. Oh, and you need to keep track of admin passwords on 47,000 PCs somewhere, since there is no network account with access to all of them. Better keep it on paper too, otherwise you just created one of those high-value targets you are trying to avoid creating. Oh, and since you have 2000 support staff who need access to some of those PCs, expect a lot of copying and mailing of password lists, of course on paper again. Maybe when somebody needs help the guy who shows up happens to have the current password for that PC. Of course, forget changing those passwords regularly, since they aren't centralized.
Every desktop has a separate external hard drive used for backup.
Oh good - so that when the building catches on fire you lose the backup too. If the PC doesn't contain anything valuable, it doesn't need backup. If it does need backup, it needs something better than an external hard drive. Security isn't just about denying access to strangers - it is also about ensuring access to those who need it.
For shared projects, you have project servers, one per major project. Just like desktop machines, access is granted only to people working on the project. It has its own credentials, and it is backed up separately—ideally to an off-site server, and stored encrypted on that server.
This is a big company. Everything is a shared project, and everything needs all that backup anyway. Now the user has to remember multiple sets of credentials since they need a different password for every thing they work on since there are no network credentials in your firewalled paradise. Oh, you need to have one dedicated hardware box for every project - no VMs in your IT paradise. Looks like you need a dedicated backup box for each one too, since we don't want to have one backup box with credentials to thousands of servers. I guess the guys who change the tapes keep a big paper list of all the backup server passwords. Oh, and I guess you buy an LTO tape drive for each server too.:)
Every email not involving a mailing list is sent encrypted, so that it never exists in a decrypted form on a centralized server.
And of course there are no central credentials of any kind, and likely no way to recover lost keys for all those encrypted emails. Or are you going to tape a flash drive to each employee's paper personnel file or print an ascii-armored key? Oh, and presumably the user won't have any way to change his encryption key outside of your control, not that you can remotely connect to his PC to check in any automated fashion since again there aren't any kinds of centralized network credentials. I guess the email key auditor can pull out his photocopy of the client admin account log and check them one at a time. Oh, and good luck if somebody figures that out and puts a keylogger on his PC thus getting a copy of the entire admin password database.
None of those things should cost significant amounts of money. They're just simple policy decisions. And with a scheme like the above, you typically wouldn't see attacks like this being successful in the absence of a massive zero-day remote kernel exploit.
There is a reason that no big company has policies like these. Sure, it will make life a lot harder on anybody breaking in, but it will staying on top of all your PCs almost impossible. Oh, and the fact that you can't do an automated security audit of all your PCs makes that zero-day exploit far more likely - or rather the six-month-old exploit that you thought you patched six months ago
Or, the government could put this information on an encrypted card the person keeps on them thus removing the need for companies to keep (and lose) private medical information on hand.
Or better still just centralize all the medical records and have a national ID system. It isn't like the NSA isn't already tracking all this info spying on everybody 100% of the time anyway, and it isn't like they're ever going to stop. We might as well at least standardize things and make use of all that data for something beneficial.
Ambulance drives up and scans ID and up comes the person's essential medical data, ensuring the best possible first response. ER knows that patient is inbound while they're still inbound and doctors are looking over their history before they even come in the front door. Prioritization/triage is complete before they even arrive.
If they lose their ID, then the EMTs just scan their fingerprint and an emergency identification is performed.
People go nuts about big brother knowing everything about everybody, but everybody around here knows that big brother already knows everything about everybody already. Heck, I'd be shocked if the NSA didn't have a record of every digitized fingerprint taken anywhere in the world already, let alone US ones. All we're doing is preventing ourselves from benefiting from all this data. The folks who want to use it to do bad things already are doing it.
Gross domestic product / Number of citizens = the fair income per citizen.
Only if all citizens are equally productive (which they are not). The fair income per citizen is the income that said citizen has earned himself/herself.
No, I defined fair income as GDP / number of citizens - it has nothing to do with earning anything.
See, we can all play this arguing over definitions game all day long and get exactly nowhere with it.
It is clear that all citizens are not equally productive. IMHO that is all the more reason that income should only be loosely related to what each person "earns." I'd say that you're entitled to 100% of the income you've earned only if you earned the abilities you have that enable you to earn that income. Did you earn the fact that you weren't born a mentally-retarded quadriplegic? Then why should you have a higher income than one?
In the end I think it makes far more sense to have a system where everybody has incentive to accomplish things, but nobody ends up living like a slave simply because they aren't good at math or whatever.
(Cost of Government) / (Number of Citizens) = the fair tax per citizen.
Gross domestic product / Number of citizens = the fair income per citizen.
If you're going to argue "fair" then let's talk fair. The way things work is that the general population of the country you live in lets you keep what you earn instead of mobbing you, and in exchange you help pay for homeless shelters for them to live in.
Last I checked all my utilities other than water are private companies. My taxes won't pay my electric, gas or phone bill. If I don't pay any of them then they get shut off.
Also I pay my water bill to my local city and it's not even part of my taxes.
Sounds great. Now what will you do when I show up at your house with a gun and steal your stuff?
Oh, that's right, local government covers that, not Federal government. It is just Federal taxes that are bad. Well, what happens when I retreat with my stolen goods across the county line? Oh, and what happens if I hop in a helicopter with the stolen TV? Are you going to have a locally funded air force, or are you going to instead have a locally-funded antiaircraft battery with local taxes for anybody flying into your township air defense identification zone?
Better still, why don't we privatize all that stuff? The next airliner that flies over my quarter acre plot can be transferred to my ATC service and pay the $10k transit fee for the 50ms journey over my yard.
None of these public services live in a vacuum. Your local electric utility only functions because people can't charge them to run wires over their yard, and because the local police stop people from cutting down the poles and wires to sell them on the black market. The local police function because they only have to deal with idiots with guns and not armies with howitzers. The federal government functions only because due to public education (or what passes for it) the vast majority of the population is employed and not rioting over food all day long.
In the end we're all stuck with each other, so trying to save $5 on infrastructure that makes the world a far better place to live in is a bad move.
Corporations love to socialize the risks and privatize the benefits. If some Pharma company releases a drug that kills a bunch of people, I don't hear the libertarians calling for liability for anybody who had money in a 401k that was partially invested in a mutual fund that had.5% of its shares in the company 5 years ago when the decisions were made that led to the problem.
And this is why corporations make short-term decisions. The person making the decision gets his bonus today. The shareholders get their dividends today. The consequences (if any) come for the shareholders 5 years from today.
That's just $1.08 per student per hour, assuming (falsely) that teachers don't actually work outside of school hours. You can't get a *babysitter* for $1.08/hour (it's actually illegal to pay them that little), much less someone who is expected to *teach* the kids something useful.
You're comparing a/student/hr rate to a/hr rate. Teachers are paid by the hour at a decent rate. If half their class is sick and doesn't show up to school, the teacher still gets the full rate for the day.
If I get paid $100/hr and send 100 emails per hour, that doesn't mean that the $1/email/hr is an unfair wage, especially since my wage has nothing to do with the number of emails I send.
Heck, $600 per iPad is high. If you are dictating all the software anyway, why not buy from a Vendor who develops for cheaper hardware? Maybe get a sweetheart deal from MS who is desperate to sell tablets, or go Android where you can buy tablets for $100. It doesn't even need to be Google-licensed hardware - no need for the Play Store if you're running your own software and can just sideload it all or likely get your vendor to do it for you.
but then again, these are folks so disillusioned with their local police, so cut off from their local government, that they no longer trust anything the local authorities tell them.
Agree 100% that this incident only because what it did because of the larger picture. However, if people don't trust the police there is all the more reason to record them. Where there are abuses the recording will improve behavior. Where there was already good behavior the recordings will help restore the public trust.
Maybe. There will always be cases in the gray areas, but at least we'll be dealing with gray area cases and not flagrant abuses of power.
I do agree that people will tend to see what they want to see. However, I think that the accountability over time will improve the situation. People see police brutality because they are expecting police brutality, and they probably expect it because it happens a lot. If you can start reversing that cycle you may be able to get somewhere, eventually.
I still don't like the fact that you can get rid of the error by just dropping SSL entirely. Is that really an improvement?
Don't get me wrong - I picked a Buffalo router so that I could flash OpenWRT on it and avoid all this nonsense (the DD-WRT on it was decent but they stopped issuing updates and it is vulnerable to heartbleed, which potentially could impact WPA2 handshakes so it could be a real issue). I also thing we need to get past all this CA nonsense and move to DNSSEC for certificate distribution.
Sure, but in the US we don't allow summary execution for robbery. The fact that the guy who was gunned down is a scumbag isn't really relevant to the question as to whether there was misuse of lethal force.
Burning down the city isn't an appropriate response to all of this nonsense, but this was really just the spark that lit a powder keg. Cameras and openness make for good relationships in general. Lots of cities have cases where black people get shot by white cops and there aren't these kinds of reactions because the police have good relationships with the people being policed. Even so, I advocate cameras everywhere. They help defend the innocent as much as they indict the guilty.
Mozilla's doing the Right Thing by blocking such a pathetically weak certificate.
Only if they also block non-SSL connections as well.
I'm fine with a clear indicator when an SSL site has reduced security, such as being unauthenticated or using weak encryption. I don't like that we treat such sites as being less secure than sites that don't use SSL at all, when they are in fact more secure all the same.
It just makes sense to record these interactions. It protects everybody who is in the right, and deters people from being in the wrong. It gets rid of the whole he-said/she-said nonsense and restores public confidence in policing.
If the shooting in Ferguson was captured on video there would have been no protests. If the video showed a harmless man being gunned down in cold blood then the cop would be on trial for murder and the public would see justice being served - there would certainly be complaints but nothing like what we saw. If the video showed a credible threat against the officer's or the public's safety with a measured response, then that would take the wind out of the sails of most of the protests. In the absence of conclusive evidence either way everybody gets to invent their own story of what happened.
Meh, effectively the same. Which would you rather see, a picture of the officer shooting his gun at somebody, or a picture of what the guy who got shot was doing right before he got shot? If we had the latter in Ferguson there would probably be a lot less looting going on regardless of what the footage showed.
FOIA laws only require departments to produce documents that are requested IF they already exist. A well-crafted retention policy could make this fairly manageable, and FOIA also allows agencies to charge reasonable charges for documents they produce (think $1/page).
Yup. Just charge $100 for each hour of video requested (the cost to locate and review the footage for appropriateness). That gets paid up-front before a determination is made as to whether the video is acceptable to release. For a high-profile shooting the press/etc won't have any trouble coming up with the cash. If a random idiot wants to request 3 years worth of footage they're welcome to pay for the department to hire 50 temps to stare at screens for six months straight.
Really? If they do so well why are in so much trouble for massive collateral damage and the inability to distinguish combatants and civilians? How is it entire villages get wiped out entirely and mislabeled as combatants on reports as indicated by wikileaks? Why did the US invasion in Iraq indirectly kill millions of Iraqi's via destroyed infrastructure like facilities that do things like purify water?
No argument that these are problems, but they're really irrelevant to the use of drones on the battlefield. War is just the result when people can't agree on things and they feel that the issue at stake matters more than life itself. Since the decision was already made that accomplishing the mission matters more than life, the matter of whose life ends up getting lost ends up being of tertiary importance.
The only way to really get rid of war is to eliminate all issues that significant numbers of people are willing to die over.
I remember Fyodor of nmap claimed that any software that parsed the output from nmap was a derived work.
It sure seems like a stretch, but until there is some case law around this issue, nobody can say for sure.
Generally speaking a derived work has to contain some part of the work that it is derived from. For example, this comment is a derived comment of yours since I quoted you (though it is clearly fair use). If I didn't quote you, then it wouldn't be a derived work at all. I'm pretty sure that this is a fairly clear legal concept, but I could be wrong.
Anybody can claim anything at any time. I could claim that I own your house.
Stop trying to pin scarlet letters on people. It should disqualify you for a TIME, not forever.
In the US having a criminal conviction basically disqualifies you from ever getting a job that will pay more than Walmart. You'll be on food stamps for the rest of your life. That is, assuming ex cons are eligible for those (I believe some welfare programs exclude convicts, which makes zero sense - no jobs, and no assistance - wonder what they'll do for money...).
Maybe as ADS-B gets less expensive, that'd be the way to go. However, at present, ADS-B pricing is utterly ludicrous for hobby.
An ADS-B is just a GPS, a microcontroller, a modem, and a radio. Guess what is present in every disposable $30 feature phone?
Regulation is the only reason that it is expensive. The government could bid out a contract to design a reference model with open specs, and then sell the resulting modules for $50. Then you might actually see ADS-B adoption everywhere.
I rather think the problem is that too many assholes can't figure out flying around airports (or over 400 feet) was a bad idea. Just look at the number of assholes who cannot figure out shining lasers at airliners on approach or leaving airports is a bad idea, yet they still do it; now why would that be....why, why, why?
No argument, but banning drones is likely to be about as effective as banning shooting lasers at plans (which is already banned).
They need to focus more on the technology for avoidance. There is no reason that the government can't sell a collision-avoidance module for $50 and make it mandatory on anything that flies. The problem is that the regulatory environment drives up costs without providing practical options which makes most of the pilots try to evade regulation to the greatest extent possible. ADS-B has been around for a while now but most small aircraft don't have it since the regulations drive the costs into the thousands for a transmitter, despite the necessary electronics being present in $30 feature phones.
RPC allows proprietary software to leverage the functionality of your GPL software, which might go against your intent, as RPC becomes the de facto interface of increasing number of components...
Honestly, I don't buy into the whole non-GPL can't link GPL argument in the first place.
Suppose I were to tell you to grab your copy of the 3rd paperback printing of Game of Thrones and look at the second sentence on page 320. Does posting that sentence make this post a violation of GRRM's copyright? Of course not - I didn't copy anything in his book - simply mentioning that it exists and that it contains a page 320 in no way makes this post a derivative work.
Well, when you link a binary to a shared object, all you do is write a bunch of cross references saying that this function call should be replaced with an address associated with this symbol. Then a linker will replace those references when your code is loaded. None of this involves copying anything. Assuming the shared object is in RAM already being used by something else, your OS isn't even copying the GPL code at all when this happens, but even if a copy were made it is an unmodified copy of the shared object which isn't being redistributed - ie it is permitted by the GPL.
Sure, everybody says that you can't link non-GPL code to GPL code, but I am not convinced that a court is certain to uphold this. I could see issues if you try to bundle GPL and non-GPL software into a single larger work, but if you distribute the non-GPL stuff without the GPL content that problem goes away.
Slashdot Mirror
Every desktop has individual credentials for the local user, and except when unavoidable, you don't grant any network users (LDAP, etc.) any access.
This means no central provisioning of user accounts/etc. That is a non-starter in any big company. Anytime anybody needs access to another PC you have to send out an IT guy to grant access. Oh, and you need to keep track of admin passwords on 47,000 PCs somewhere, since there is no network account with access to all of them. Better keep it on paper too, otherwise you just created one of those high-value targets you are trying to avoid creating. Oh, and since you have 2000 support staff who need access to some of those PCs, expect a lot of copying and mailing of password lists, of course on paper again. Maybe when somebody needs help the guy who shows up happens to have the current password for that PC. Of course, forget changing those passwords regularly, since they aren't centralized.
Every desktop has a separate external hard drive used for backup.
Oh good - so that when the building catches on fire you lose the backup too. If the PC doesn't contain anything valuable, it doesn't need backup. If it does need backup, it needs something better than an external hard drive. Security isn't just about denying access to strangers - it is also about ensuring access to those who need it.
For shared projects, you have project servers, one per major project. Just like desktop machines, access is granted only to people working on the project. It has its own credentials, and it is backed up separately—ideally to an off-site server, and stored encrypted on that server.
This is a big company. Everything is a shared project, and everything needs all that backup anyway. Now the user has to remember multiple sets of credentials since they need a different password for every thing they work on since there are no network credentials in your firewalled paradise. Oh, you need to have one dedicated hardware box for every project - no VMs in your IT paradise. Looks like you need a dedicated backup box for each one too, since we don't want to have one backup box with credentials to thousands of servers. I guess the guys who change the tapes keep a big paper list of all the backup server passwords. Oh, and I guess you buy an LTO tape drive for each server too. :)
Every email not involving a mailing list is sent encrypted, so that it never exists in a decrypted form on a centralized server.
And of course there are no central credentials of any kind, and likely no way to recover lost keys for all those encrypted emails. Or are you going to tape a flash drive to each employee's paper personnel file or print an ascii-armored key? Oh, and presumably the user won't have any way to change his encryption key outside of your control, not that you can remotely connect to his PC to check in any automated fashion since again there aren't any kinds of centralized network credentials. I guess the email key auditor can pull out his photocopy of the client admin account log and check them one at a time. Oh, and good luck if somebody figures that out and puts a keylogger on his PC thus getting a copy of the entire admin password database.
None of those things should cost significant amounts of money. They're just simple policy decisions. And with a scheme like the above, you typically wouldn't see attacks like this being successful in the absence of a massive zero-day remote kernel exploit.
There is a reason that no big company has policies like these. Sure, it will make life a lot harder on anybody breaking in, but it will staying on top of all your PCs almost impossible. Oh, and the fact that you can't do an automated security audit of all your PCs makes that zero-day exploit far more likely - or rather the six-month-old exploit that you thought you patched six months ago
Or, the government could put this information on an encrypted card the person keeps on them thus removing the need for companies to keep (and lose) private medical information on hand.
Or better still just centralize all the medical records and have a national ID system. It isn't like the NSA isn't already tracking all this info spying on everybody 100% of the time anyway, and it isn't like they're ever going to stop. We might as well at least standardize things and make use of all that data for something beneficial.
Ambulance drives up and scans ID and up comes the person's essential medical data, ensuring the best possible first response. ER knows that patient is inbound while they're still inbound and doctors are looking over their history before they even come in the front door. Prioritization/triage is complete before they even arrive.
If they lose their ID, then the EMTs just scan their fingerprint and an emergency identification is performed.
People go nuts about big brother knowing everything about everybody, but everybody around here knows that big brother already knows everything about everybody already. Heck, I'd be shocked if the NSA didn't have a record of every digitized fingerprint taken anywhere in the world already, let alone US ones. All we're doing is preventing ourselves from benefiting from all this data. The folks who want to use it to do bad things already are doing it.
Gross domestic product / Number of citizens = the fair income per citizen.
Only if all citizens are equally productive (which they are not). The fair income per citizen is the income that said citizen has earned himself/herself.
No, I defined fair income as GDP / number of citizens - it has nothing to do with earning anything.
See, we can all play this arguing over definitions game all day long and get exactly nowhere with it.
It is clear that all citizens are not equally productive. IMHO that is all the more reason that income should only be loosely related to what each person "earns." I'd say that you're entitled to 100% of the income you've earned only if you earned the abilities you have that enable you to earn that income. Did you earn the fact that you weren't born a mentally-retarded quadriplegic? Then why should you have a higher income than one?
In the end I think it makes far more sense to have a system where everybody has incentive to accomplish things, but nobody ends up living like a slave simply because they aren't good at math or whatever.
(Cost of Government) / (Number of Citizens) = the fair tax per citizen.
Gross domestic product / Number of citizens = the fair income per citizen.
If you're going to argue "fair" then let's talk fair. The way things work is that the general population of the country you live in lets you keep what you earn instead of mobbing you, and in exchange you help pay for homeless shelters for them to live in.
Last I checked all my utilities other than water are private companies. My taxes won't pay my electric, gas or phone bill. If I don't pay any of them then they get shut off.
Also I pay my water bill to my local city and it's not even part of my taxes.
Sounds great. Now what will you do when I show up at your house with a gun and steal your stuff?
Oh, that's right, local government covers that, not Federal government. It is just Federal taxes that are bad. Well, what happens when I retreat with my stolen goods across the county line? Oh, and what happens if I hop in a helicopter with the stolen TV? Are you going to have a locally funded air force, or are you going to instead have a locally-funded antiaircraft battery with local taxes for anybody flying into your township air defense identification zone?
Better still, why don't we privatize all that stuff? The next airliner that flies over my quarter acre plot can be transferred to my ATC service and pay the $10k transit fee for the 50ms journey over my yard.
None of these public services live in a vacuum. Your local electric utility only functions because people can't charge them to run wires over their yard, and because the local police stop people from cutting down the poles and wires to sell them on the black market. The local police function because they only have to deal with idiots with guns and not armies with howitzers. The federal government functions only because due to public education (or what passes for it) the vast majority of the population is employed and not rioting over food all day long.
In the end we're all stuck with each other, so trying to save $5 on infrastructure that makes the world a far better place to live in is a bad move.
++
Corporations love to socialize the risks and privatize the benefits. If some Pharma company releases a drug that kills a bunch of people, I don't hear the libertarians calling for liability for anybody who had money in a 401k that was partially invested in a mutual fund that had .5% of its shares in the company 5 years ago when the decisions were made that led to the problem.
And this is why corporations make short-term decisions. The person making the decision gets his bonus today. The shareholders get their dividends today. The consequences (if any) come for the shareholders 5 years from today.
That's just $1.08 per student per hour, assuming (falsely) that teachers don't actually work outside of school hours. You can't get a *babysitter* for $1.08/hour (it's actually illegal to pay them that little), much less someone who is expected to *teach* the kids something useful.
You're comparing a /student/hr rate to a /hr rate. Teachers are paid by the hour at a decent rate. If half their class is sick and doesn't show up to school, the teacher still gets the full rate for the day.
If I get paid $100/hr and send 100 emails per hour, that doesn't mean that the $1/email/hr is an unfair wage, especially since my wage has nothing to do with the number of emails I send.
Heck, $600 per iPad is high. If you are dictating all the software anyway, why not buy from a Vendor who develops for cheaper hardware? Maybe get a sweetheart deal from MS who is desperate to sell tablets, or go Android where you can buy tablets for $100. It doesn't even need to be Google-licensed hardware - no need for the Play Store if you're running your own software and can just sideload it all or likely get your vendor to do it for you.
but then again, these are folks so disillusioned with their local police, so cut off from their local government, that they no longer trust anything the local authorities tell them.
Agree 100% that this incident only because what it did because of the larger picture. However, if people don't trust the police there is all the more reason to record them. Where there are abuses the recording will improve behavior. Where there was already good behavior the recordings will help restore the public trust.
Maybe. There will always be cases in the gray areas, but at least we'll be dealing with gray area cases and not flagrant abuses of power.
I do agree that people will tend to see what they want to see. However, I think that the accountability over time will improve the situation. People see police brutality because they are expecting police brutality, and they probably expect it because it happens a lot. If you can start reversing that cycle you may be able to get somewhere, eventually.
Absolutely insane. The cameras are still necessary all the same, but...
I still don't like the fact that you can get rid of the error by just dropping SSL entirely. Is that really an improvement?
Don't get me wrong - I picked a Buffalo router so that I could flash OpenWRT on it and avoid all this nonsense (the DD-WRT on it was decent but they stopped issuing updates and it is vulnerable to heartbleed, which potentially could impact WPA2 handshakes so it could be a real issue). I also thing we need to get past all this CA nonsense and move to DNSSEC for certificate distribution.
they robbed store and that was on the camera.
WTF is going on in that ferguson????
Sure, but in the US we don't allow summary execution for robbery. The fact that the guy who was gunned down is a scumbag isn't really relevant to the question as to whether there was misuse of lethal force.
Burning down the city isn't an appropriate response to all of this nonsense, but this was really just the spark that lit a powder keg. Cameras and openness make for good relationships in general. Lots of cities have cases where black people get shot by white cops and there aren't these kinds of reactions because the police have good relationships with the people being policed. Even so, I advocate cameras everywhere. They help defend the innocent as much as they indict the guilty.
Mozilla's doing the Right Thing by blocking such a pathetically weak certificate.
Only if they also block non-SSL connections as well.
I'm fine with a clear indicator when an SSL site has reduced security, such as being unauthenticated or using weak encryption. I don't like that we treat such sites as being less secure than sites that don't use SSL at all, when they are in fact more secure all the same.
It just makes sense to record these interactions. It protects everybody who is in the right, and deters people from being in the wrong. It gets rid of the whole he-said/she-said nonsense and restores public confidence in policing.
If the shooting in Ferguson was captured on video there would have been no protests. If the video showed a harmless man being gunned down in cold blood then the cop would be on trial for murder and the public would see justice being served - there would certainly be complaints but nothing like what we saw. If the video showed a credible threat against the officer's or the public's safety with a measured response, then that would take the wind out of the sails of most of the protests. In the absence of conclusive evidence either way everybody gets to invent their own story of what happened.
Meh, effectively the same. Which would you rather see, a picture of the officer shooting his gun at somebody, or a picture of what the guy who got shot was doing right before he got shot? If we had the latter in Ferguson there would probably be a lot less looting going on regardless of what the footage showed.
FOIA laws only require departments to produce documents that are requested IF they already exist. A well-crafted retention policy could make this fairly manageable, and FOIA also allows agencies to charge reasonable charges for documents they produce (think $1/page).
Yup. Just charge $100 for each hour of video requested (the cost to locate and review the footage for appropriateness). That gets paid up-front before a determination is made as to whether the video is acceptable to release. For a high-profile shooting the press/etc won't have any trouble coming up with the cash. If a random idiot wants to request 3 years worth of footage they're welcome to pay for the department to hire 50 temps to stare at screens for six months straight.
DUDE, 21st century, dude, you just record the whole meeting and later search through the bits you want.
Or better still use a livescribe which does both at once...
having a criminal conviction basically disqualifies you from ever getting a job that will pay more than Walmart.
Mayor of Washington DC?
...with notable exceptions. :)
Really? If they do so well why are in so much trouble for massive collateral damage and the inability to distinguish combatants and civilians? How is it entire villages get wiped out entirely and mislabeled as combatants on reports as indicated by wikileaks? Why did the US invasion in Iraq indirectly kill millions of Iraqi's via destroyed infrastructure like facilities that do things like purify water?
No argument that these are problems, but they're really irrelevant to the use of drones on the battlefield. War is just the result when people can't agree on things and they feel that the issue at stake matters more than life itself. Since the decision was already made that accomplishing the mission matters more than life, the matter of whose life ends up getting lost ends up being of tertiary importance.
The only way to really get rid of war is to eliminate all issues that significant numbers of people are willing to die over.
I remember Fyodor of nmap claimed that any software that parsed the output from nmap was a derived work.
It sure seems like a stretch, but until there is some case law around this issue, nobody can say for sure.
Generally speaking a derived work has to contain some part of the work that it is derived from. For example, this comment is a derived comment of yours since I quoted you (though it is clearly fair use). If I didn't quote you, then it wouldn't be a derived work at all. I'm pretty sure that this is a fairly clear legal concept, but I could be wrong.
Anybody can claim anything at any time. I could claim that I own your house.
Stop trying to pin scarlet letters on people. It should disqualify you for a TIME, not forever.
In the US having a criminal conviction basically disqualifies you from ever getting a job that will pay more than Walmart. You'll be on food stamps for the rest of your life. That is, assuming ex cons are eligible for those (I believe some welfare programs exclude convicts, which makes zero sense - no jobs, and no assistance - wonder what they'll do for money...).
Maybe as ADS-B gets less expensive, that'd be the way to go. However, at present, ADS-B pricing is utterly ludicrous for hobby.
An ADS-B is just a GPS, a microcontroller, a modem, and a radio. Guess what is present in every disposable $30 feature phone?
Regulation is the only reason that it is expensive. The government could bid out a contract to design a reference model with open specs, and then sell the resulting modules for $50. Then you might actually see ADS-B adoption everywhere.
I rather think the problem is that too many assholes can't figure out flying around airports (or over 400 feet) was a bad idea. Just look at the number of assholes who cannot figure out shining lasers at airliners on approach or leaving airports is a bad idea, yet they still do it; now why would that be....why, why, why?
No argument, but banning drones is likely to be about as effective as banning shooting lasers at plans (which is already banned).
They need to focus more on the technology for avoidance. There is no reason that the government can't sell a collision-avoidance module for $50 and make it mandatory on anything that flies. The problem is that the regulatory environment drives up costs without providing practical options which makes most of the pilots try to evade regulation to the greatest extent possible. ADS-B has been around for a while now but most small aircraft don't have it since the regulations drive the costs into the thousands for a transmitter, despite the necessary electronics being present in $30 feature phones.
RPC allows proprietary software to leverage the functionality of your GPL software, which might go against your intent, as RPC becomes the de facto interface of increasing number of components...
Honestly, I don't buy into the whole non-GPL can't link GPL argument in the first place.
Suppose I were to tell you to grab your copy of the 3rd paperback printing of Game of Thrones and look at the second sentence on page 320. Does posting that sentence make this post a violation of GRRM's copyright? Of course not - I didn't copy anything in his book - simply mentioning that it exists and that it contains a page 320 in no way makes this post a derivative work.
Well, when you link a binary to a shared object, all you do is write a bunch of cross references saying that this function call should be replaced with an address associated with this symbol. Then a linker will replace those references when your code is loaded. None of this involves copying anything. Assuming the shared object is in RAM already being used by something else, your OS isn't even copying the GPL code at all when this happens, but even if a copy were made it is an unmodified copy of the shared object which isn't being redistributed - ie it is permitted by the GPL.
Sure, everybody says that you can't link non-GPL code to GPL code, but I am not convinced that a court is certain to uphold this. I could see issues if you try to bundle GPL and non-GPL software into a single larger work, but if you distribute the non-GPL stuff without the GPL content that problem goes away.