Or perhaps DoD should have secondary network physically separated from internet, where workstations with important data are kept.
We do. I'll not go into any specifics, but yeah, we do.
Home alarm systems seems pretty pointless anyway, don't they?
As a friend of mine put it...the home alarm is not to keep people out, or to hope that the police get there in time, but rather to give the household members a minute or two advance warning if anyone is breaking in. That minute or two warning can be crucial. You can be awake and armed (gun, baseball bat, whatever), instead of fast asleep.
The only thing I'm suprised is to expect any attack to be from one place... I'd expect it to be distributed.
Any single attack will be from one place/person/country. They/he may use distributed means to do it, but it will originate in one place. Spam, for instance. Yes, it comes in via multiple paths/zombies/botnets...but any 1 specific spam originates from one dude or company. The trick is finding that one dude. And that's what the DoD is trying to do.
1) 16- and 17-year-olds are by no means "children."
Some aren't. Most, maybe. But by no means all. And that is the problem. The law has to put a line somewhere. Not all kids develop at the same rate. So some are mature enough, and some aren't, at the arbitrary dividing line.
2) These laws were made to protect minors from older perverts, not from themselves.
Very true. But the letter of the law says "Anyone convicted of sending pictures of naked children..." Key word 'anyone'.
3) This is stupid.
Get the laws changed. (So that a very mature 17 year old can coerce his very immature 16 year old friend to pose nude) Problems, problems.
It seems awfully simple to me, really. If something, whether it be blueprints, books, records or whatnot is not available via the marketplace from any supplier, there seems to be little financial damage done to anyone when someone duplicates 'em.
Aircraft are a little different, though. You need an exact, verified, updated from the manufacturer copy. You might die otherwise.
Future archaeologists will be able to identify a "Vista Upgrade Layer" when they go through our landfill sites
Number of people wo will buy Vista retail - tiny
Number of people who will upgrade an old PC just to run Vista that they just bought - tinier
Number of people upgrading who will toss out perfectly good vid cards/monitors rather than building a secondary PC - all 3 of you.
I'm not saying I would necessarily support the legislation, but parents absolutely need access to online content posted by their children.
Right. And as a parent, that is up to ME to determine how that is done.
I question how the requirement to have parental permission would be enforced, but again in theory it's not such a bad idea IMO.
Ok...you as an adult...how do YOU prove you're not a child trying to log on or create a website?
We're not talking about adults here, and the reality is that until you're 18, your parents determine what rights they think you should have and which you shouldn't.
illegal for the owner or operator of a social networking Web site to allow minors to create or maintain a Web page without parental permission
And how, precisely, do you intend to enforce that? One of the reasons the CDA, in 1996 and 1997, and the COPA in 1998 and 1999, were shot down was because this concept is unworkable. Then and now. You simply cannot verify who is sitting at the keyboard.
And then of course we get into the weird definitions. What is a 'social networking site'? Just Facebook and MySpace? Or/., Digg, and Fark as well? And of course, this does nothing for a site based offshore somewhere.
And cruise missiles are much harder and expensive to deploy and have a shorter range. That this is not perfect against any and all types of threats does not make it useless.
The threat from North Korea TO South Korea, yes. The threat to Japan, Hawaii, or maybe even Alaska or Seattle is another matter. Why do you think Kim has been trying to shoot those missiles out into the Pacific? Not much success so far, but he may get it to work eventually.
Look at any similar development. The air-to-air missile, for instance. The standard AIM-9 has gone through many, many improvements over the years. None worked perfectly, in all realms, against all countermeasures, the very first shot. Get it to actually 'hit' the target first, then work on the other parts.
If you were selling copies without a license, I might take legal action as a point of financial strategy, but that's because I'm a greedy bastard rather than because I think I have some special right to your profits.
And that is precisely what ROMS/Allofmp3.com is doing. Selling it without license. No, you don't have any particular rights to their profits. But neither do they have any special rights to gain profits from your hard work.
How many lusers will buy the upgrade edition, then after it crashes buy the full edition?
A tiny, tiny percentage.
How many will 'buy' Vista on its own? Not many. Most will get it on a new PC. How many of THOSE will think they need to buy a whole other (full) copy if it crashes? Maybe 3 people.
I'm not sure that the legally fixed royalty model is correct, but it definitely is at least as fair as the "monopoly rights owner sets the price however they want" model.
Let's bring this down to a personal level. You create something. I tell you that you must allow me to buy it at whatever price *I* set, or I will just use it anyway. Still convinced of the fairness?
But, under Russian law, *making* the offer was the only requirement to sell music.
Right. But is that 'right'? Let's assume you are the sole creator/artist/producer/distributor of a musical work. ROMS/Allofmp3.com approaches you with an offer: "We would like to sell your music. We will give you $0.05 per copy that well sell." If you say "No, I'd rather distribute it on my own terms", does that make it ok for them to 'sell' it anyway? How is that not extortion? 'We will give you a kickback, or we will just keep all the money ourselves.'
If I go to another merchant and buy the same item at the price I want, the first merchant has no right to complain about it.
The only reason the second merchant can sell it at a price that 'you' want is because his overhead is so low. Why? Because he is not paying his suppliers.
They're not realy selling music. You are simply paying them for the profit and bandwidth.
So basicaly you say that security through obscurity is a good thing.
Up to a point, yes. Many, many military operations were successful because the details were hidden. Obviously, that is not a total solution to security. But why give your 'enemy' all the advantages? Military and special forces commanders throughout history up to and including Saddam in Desert Storm would have given their left nut for detailed overhead pics of potential targets.
I am just curious how many terrorist attacs are done with the help of Google Earth.
Probably none so far. But do YOU want to be the CEO of the company whose programs and data were used to recon a target? MS FLight Simulator was supposedly used in planning for 9/11.
Just like a good lock on your door will prevent a burgelary in your house, yet is does not prevent the robber going to your neighbours house.
If all the houses are 'mine', then directing him towards one of my less valuable targets IS in my best interests.Would you like the detailed floor plan and security data for your house posted online?
Yes, there are probably a LOT of beneficial uses of detailed, free, publically available pics of sensitive locations such as are found in Google. There are also potentially bad uses of that data too. Finding the balance is the key.
They think that dropping the deal from $10 to $5 really is a compromise.
But...it's their product, to sell as they please. If you go to a bazaar and haggle, the merchant is under no obligation to sell you a product at a price only you want. If he won't come down, and you won't come up...no sale.
Allofmp3.com and ROMS could 'offer' whatever they choose. The music industry is under no obligation to accept that offer.
It's like a terrorist's shopping list. Grab Google and zoom around the map. Mark blurred areas on map. Bomb area.
So they know that there is 'something' under that blur that might be vulnerable. How to attack? No idea. The thing is.."terrorists" are not much good at bombing at any distance. Even a couple hundred yards is problematic. That requires more equipment than can be hidden under a coat.
So...deny them easily accessible photo intel (Google Earth), and force them to actually come to the location to recon. Where they might be noticed and hopefully stopped.
By jerry-rigged I mean building an ad-hoc wireless network that has not been tested or certified for non interference with aircraft equipment. Building your own wireless network on a plane is probably not a good idea.
...that the grass is not always greener. Maybe now we can drop all the posts and stories about how the Koreans have it so much better with their massively fast pipes, and how the US is sooo far behind.
I wonder if they'll have a problem with me using that on the plane?
Do YOU have verification that it would not mess with the aircraft avionics?
[pilot to cabin]: "We seem to be experiencing some electronics trouble. Our primary altimeter is reading about 5'000 feet too high. As we are presently crossing the Apls, this may present a slight difficulty. If anyone is using any unauthorized broadcasting equipment in the cabin, PLEASE TURN IT OFF!"
Slashdot Mirror
Or perhaps DoD should have secondary network physically separated from internet, where workstations with important data are kept. We do. I'll not go into any specifics, but yeah, we do.
Home alarm systems seems pretty pointless anyway, don't they?
As a friend of mine put it...the home alarm is not to keep people out, or to hope that the police get there in time, but rather to give the household members a minute or two advance warning if anyone is breaking in. That minute or two warning can be crucial. You can be awake and armed (gun, baseball bat, whatever), instead of fast asleep.
The only thing I'm suprised is to expect any attack to be from one place... I'd expect it to be distributed.
Any single attack will be from one place/person/country. They/he may use distributed means to do it, but it will originate in one place. Spam, for instance. Yes, it comes in via multiple paths/zombies/botnets...but any 1 specific spam originates from one dude or company. The trick is finding that one dude. And that's what the DoD is trying to do.
1) 16- and 17-year-olds are by no means "children."
Some aren't. Most, maybe. But by no means all. And that is the problem. The law has to put a line somewhere. Not all kids develop at the same rate. So some are mature enough, and some aren't, at the arbitrary dividing line.
2) These laws were made to protect minors from older perverts, not from themselves.
Very true. But the letter of the law says "Anyone convicted of sending pictures of naked children..." Key word 'anyone'.
3) This is stupid.
Get the laws changed. (So that a very mature 17 year old can coerce his very immature 16 year old friend to pose nude) Problems, problems.
Kids really DO like it out there. If we let them. (I'm looking at YOU, frightened mom that lives down the street)
It seems awfully simple to me, really. If something, whether it be blueprints, books, records or whatnot is not available via the marketplace from any supplier, there seems to be little financial damage done to anyone when someone duplicates 'em.
Aircraft are a little different, though. You need an exact, verified, updated from the manufacturer copy. You might die otherwise.
Future archaeologists will be able to identify a "Vista Upgrade Layer" when they go through our landfill sites
Number of people wo will buy Vista retail - tiny
Number of people who will upgrade an old PC just to run Vista that they just bought - tinier
Number of people upgrading who will toss out perfectly good vid cards/monitors rather than building a secondary PC - all 3 of you.
Duh - you just require a credit card.
100% of adults over 18 have credit cards.
A) No, 100% of adults do not have credit cards.
B) Little Timmy 'borrows' moms credit card from her purse for 5 minutes.
I don't think many minors are reading /.
More than zero.
I'm not saying I would necessarily support the legislation, but parents absolutely need access to online content posted by their children.
Right. And as a parent, that is up to ME to determine how that is done.
I question how the requirement to have parental permission would be enforced, but again in theory it's not such a bad idea IMO.
Ok...you as an adult...how do YOU prove you're not a child trying to log on or create a website?
We're not talking about adults here, and the reality is that until you're 18, your parents determine what rights they think you should have and which you shouldn't.
Exactly. Parents determine...
illegal for the owner or operator of a social networking Web site to allow minors to create or maintain a Web page without parental permission
/., Digg, and Fark as well? And of course, this does nothing for a site based offshore somewhere.
And how, precisely, do you intend to enforce that? One of the reasons the CDA, in 1996 and 1997, and the COPA in 1998 and 1999, were shot down was because this concept is unworkable. Then and now. You simply cannot verify who is sitting at the keyboard.
And then of course we get into the weird definitions. What is a 'social networking site'? Just Facebook and MySpace? Or
This would not bother a cruise missile.
And cruise missiles are much harder and expensive to deploy and have a shorter range. That this is not perfect against any and all types of threats does not make it useless.
why is it ok for us to have these missiles, but not ok for other countries?
Who says they can't?
The threat from North Korea TO South Korea, yes.
The threat to Japan, Hawaii, or maybe even Alaska or Seattle is another matter. Why do you think Kim has been trying to shoot those missiles out into the Pacific? Not much success so far, but he may get it to work eventually.
A few quibbles with this "test":
Look at any similar development. The air-to-air missile, for instance. The standard AIM-9 has gone through many, many improvements over the years. None worked perfectly, in all realms, against all countermeasures, the very first shot.
Get it to actually 'hit' the target first, then work on the other parts.
If you were selling copies without a license, I might take legal action as a point of financial strategy, but that's because I'm a greedy bastard rather than because I think I have some special right to your profits.
And that is precisely what ROMS/Allofmp3.com is doing. Selling it without license. No, you don't have any particular rights to their profits. But neither do they have any special rights to gain profits from your hard work.
How many lusers will buy the upgrade edition, then after it crashes buy the full edition?
A tiny, tiny percentage.
How many will 'buy' Vista on its own? Not many. Most will get it on a new PC.
How many of THOSE will think they need to buy a whole other (full) copy if it crashes? Maybe 3 people.
I'm not sure that the legally fixed royalty model is correct, but it definitely is at least as fair as the "monopoly rights owner sets the price however they want" model.
Let's bring this down to a personal level. You create something. I tell you that you must allow me to buy it at whatever price *I* set, or I will just use it anyway.
Still convinced of the fairness?
ROMS is at least as underhanded as the RIAA.
But, under Russian law, *making* the offer was the only requirement to sell music.
Right. But is that 'right'?
Let's assume you are the sole creator/artist/producer/distributor of a musical work. ROMS/Allofmp3.com approaches you with an offer: "We would like to sell your music. We will give you $0.05 per copy that well sell." If you say "No, I'd rather distribute it on my own terms", does that make it ok for them to 'sell' it anyway? How is that not extortion?
'We will give you a kickback, or we will just keep all the money ourselves.'
If I go to another merchant and buy the same item at the price I want, the first merchant has no right to complain about it.
The only reason the second merchant can sell it at a price that 'you' want is because his overhead is so low. Why? Because he is not paying his suppliers.
They're not realy selling music. You are simply paying them for the profit and bandwidth.
So basicaly you say that security through obscurity is a good thing.
Up to a point, yes. Many, many military operations were successful because the details were hidden. Obviously, that is not a total solution to security. But why give your 'enemy' all the advantages? Military and special forces commanders throughout history up to and including Saddam in Desert Storm would have given their left nut for detailed overhead pics of potential targets.
I am just curious how many terrorist attacs are done with the help of Google Earth.
Probably none so far. But do YOU want to be the CEO of the company whose programs and data were used to recon a target? MS FLight Simulator was supposedly used in planning for 9/11.
Just like a good lock on your door will prevent a burgelary in your house, yet is does not prevent the robber going to your neighbours house.
If all the houses are 'mine', then directing him towards one of my less valuable targets IS in my best interests.Would you like the detailed floor plan and security data for your house posted online?
Yes, there are probably a LOT of beneficial uses of detailed, free, publically available pics of sensitive locations such as are found in Google. There are also potentially bad uses of that data too.
Finding the balance is the key.
They think that dropping the deal from $10 to $5 really is a compromise.
But...it's their product, to sell as they please. If you go to a bazaar and haggle, the merchant is under no obligation to sell you a product at a price only you want. If he won't come down, and you won't come up...no sale.
Allofmp3.com and ROMS could 'offer' whatever they choose. The music industry is under no obligation to accept that offer.
It's like a terrorist's shopping list. Grab Google and zoom around the map. Mark blurred areas on map. Bomb area.
So they know that there is 'something' under that blur that might be vulnerable. How to attack? No idea. The thing is.."terrorists" are not much good at bombing at any distance. Even a couple hundred yards is problematic. That requires more equipment than can be hidden under a coat.
So...deny them easily accessible photo intel (Google Earth), and force them to actually come to the location to recon. Where they might be noticed and hopefully stopped.
AllofMP3.com has a decent business model
Yeah. It's called selling a product and making a profit without actually paying your suppliers.
By jerry-rigged I mean building an ad-hoc wireless network that has not been tested or certified for non interference with aircraft equipment. Building your own wireless network on a plane is probably not a good idea.
...that the grass is not always greener. Maybe now we can drop all the posts and stories about how the Koreans have it so much better with their massively fast pipes, and how the US is sooo far behind.
I wonder if they'll have a problem with me using that on the plane?
Do YOU have verification that it would not mess with the aircraft avionics?
[pilot to cabin]: "We seem to be experiencing some electronics trouble. Our primary altimeter is reading about 5'000 feet too high. As we are presently crossing the Apls, this may present a slight difficulty. If anyone is using any unauthorized broadcasting equipment in the cabin, PLEASE TURN IT OFF!"
Keep your jerry-rigged crap at home.