Depending on the complexity, it'd be highly unlikely that even the same person could write exactly the same code twice. If it's a problem that required a complicated solution (which it sounds like the case may be here), then it's REALLY unlikely that the code would be identical. There probably wouldn't be a need for a second coder to "translate" the ideas.
Heh.. agreed, to some extent... but I was referring to the method of problem solving, not the line-by-line copying of a module of code... If the engineer had solved the problem previously, then he had a good idea how to engineer the solution to the current problem.
There's no need to reinvent the wheel every time a new problem must be solved. System architectures, code implementation, design diagrams.. all these build on previously established models. It wouldn't be possible to develop a program if each time you solved a problem, you had to implement the solution in an entirely novel way...
What rights? The right to privacy. The right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. The right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. The right to free speech without fear of imprisonment.
From the CDT analysis: ... the DOJ has proven its determination since September 11 to arrest people based on the kinds of innocent coincidences that data mining may flag and hold them in jail even after concluding that they were unrelated to any terrorism and in some cases (the material witnesses) had committed no legal violation at all. ...Under the new guidelines, even before opening a preliminary inquiry, the FBI can go to mosques and political meetings. How will it decide which ones to go to -- we fear it will be on the basis of politics. ...The types of inquiry that the FBI will now have almost unbridled power to maintain include broad fishing expeditions into any and all associations and according to any and all criteria that the FBI chooses as long as it is for the permitted purpose. License plates of all people attending a place of worship may be noted down. So may the presence of people at political, intellectual, academic or theological discussions. The FBI may tape the sermons or other proceedings during worship services. It may use commercial databases and data-mining services and software to collect information about movements, habits and tastes to generate patterns and lists of individuals, according to the broadest criteria.
While the stated intention of the new guidelines is to identify terrorist activity, they contain no protection against misuse against persons who hold disfavored political or religious opinions. That these concerns are not far-fetched is borne out by the exactly analogous FBI abuses, the "COINTELPRO" program among others, which led to adoption of the guidelines in the first instance. Under that program civil rights, labor and peace groups were systematically spied upon by the FBI, in collaboration with local police and private groups.
I never compared wording of the Patriot act to the recent actions of the Duma. I just said that with the way the US Patriot act was worded, our rights are slowly being eaten away as well.
It's not the fact that it's restricting hate-speech. It's the fact that the vague wording gives any government entity the right to disrupt any private or public organization's web access, based on a vague definition of "disruptive speech."
This could easily be used to political ends. That's where the concern comes in.
Well, we'll see how much longer our internet rights here in the US last... With the increasingly vague wording of "anti-terrorism" laws and statutes, the same thing could happen here in the forseeable future.
Information security! Not just antivirus, but actual data and network security. Learning how to configure and deploy SECURED web, mail, ftp servers on as many platforms as possible will make you infinately valuable to any company. Learning how to manage Windows security policies will make you valuable as well.
Even if it IS mostly due to media-induced infoparanoia (oh no! Those evil h4X0rS are going to 0wN my.jpg files!) the information security field is booming. Companies simply can't find enough people who are diligent and knowledgeable enough to protect their systems. Salaries in that area continue to climb. I'm one of the lucky ones who jumped on the infosec ship early.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Depending on the complexity, it'd be highly unlikely that even the same person could write exactly the same code twice. If it's a problem that required a complicated solution (which it sounds like the case may be here), then it's REALLY unlikely that the code would be identical. There probably wouldn't be a need for a second coder to "translate" the ideas.
Guess we'd have to ask the bnetd guys about this one... Or Vivendi/Blizzard, since they seem to know how to prosecute this sort of thing...
Heh.. agreed, to some extent... but I was referring to the method of problem solving, not the line-by-line copying of a module of code... If the engineer had solved the problem previously, then he had a good idea how to engineer the solution to the current problem.
It's probably not considered reverse engineering if the same programmer made both programs. :)
There's no need to reinvent the wheel every time a new problem must be solved. System architectures, code implementation, design diagrams.. all these build on previously established models. It wouldn't be possible to develop a program if each time you solved a problem, you had to implement the solution in an entirely novel way...
What rights? The right to privacy. The right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. The right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. The right to free speech without fear of imprisonment.
... the DOJ has proven its determination since September 11 to arrest people based on the kinds of innocent coincidences that data mining may flag and hold them in jail even after concluding that they were unrelated to any terrorism and in some cases (the material witnesses) had committed no legal violation at all.
...Under the new guidelines, even before opening a preliminary inquiry, the FBI can go to mosques and political meetings. How will it decide which ones to go to -- we fear it will be on the basis of politics.
...The types of inquiry that the FBI will now have almost unbridled power to maintain include broad fishing expeditions into any and all associations and according to any and all criteria that the FBI chooses as long as it is for the permitted purpose. License plates of all people attending a place of worship may be noted down. So may the presence of people at political, intellectual, academic or theological discussions. The FBI may tape the sermons or other proceedings during worship services. It may use commercial databases and data-mining services and software to collect information about movements, habits and tastes to generate patterns and lists of individuals, according to the broadest criteria.
From the CDT analysis:
While the stated intention of the new guidelines is to identify terrorist activity, they contain no protection against misuse against persons who hold disfavored political or religious opinions. That these concerns are not far-fetched is borne out by the exactly analogous FBI abuses, the "COINTELPRO" program among others, which led to adoption of the guidelines in the first instance. Under that program civil rights, labor and peace groups were systematically spied upon by the FBI, in collaboration with local police and private groups.
I never compared wording of the Patriot act to the recent actions of the Duma. I just said that with the way the US Patriot act was worded, our rights are slowly being eaten away as well.
Cites/sites? Sure. Enjoy.
_ militias/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.html
d =12250
d =12489
d =12246
American Civil Liberties Union:
http://www.aclu.org/congress/patriot_chart.html
Electronic Frontier Foundation:
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism
Center for Democracy and Technology:
http://www.cdt.org/security/010911response.shtml
http://www.cdt.org/wiretap/020530guidelines.shtml
Molly Ivans (political columnist):
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemi
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemi
Robert Scheer (political columnist):
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemi
Need more? I've got 'em.
It's not the fact that it's restricting hate-speech. It's the fact that the vague wording gives any government entity the right to disrupt any private or public organization's web access, based on a vague definition of "disruptive speech." This could easily be used to political ends. That's where the concern comes in.
Well, we'll see how much longer our internet rights here in the US last... With the increasingly vague wording of "anti-terrorism" laws and statutes, the same thing could happen here in the forseeable future.
Information security! Not just antivirus, but actual data and network security. Learning how to configure and deploy SECURED web, mail, ftp servers on as many platforms as possible will make you infinately valuable to any company. Learning how to manage Windows security policies will make you valuable as well. Even if it IS mostly due to media-induced infoparanoia (oh no! Those evil h4X0rS are going to 0wN my .jpg files!) the information security field is booming. Companies simply can't find enough people who are diligent and knowledgeable enough to protect their systems. Salaries in that area continue to climb. I'm one of the lucky ones who jumped on the infosec ship early. :)