There is a problem with determining identity with MAC addresses though, the fact that some devices (such as my firewall) have dynamic MAC addresses which can be set by the user. Any programmer worth his networking salt can easily pick up your MAC address by watching your packets fly by, spoof it on his machine and tap into your network. Sucks to be you, doesn't it?
If you wanted to limit the access to your network, you'd need some hefty encryption at the very least.
The primary problem with this method is that it is implemented in hardware, which produces quite a few problems.
1) No known seed. One of the primary characteristics of a good random number generator is that the results are reproduceable. If I want to run the same experiment twice during some sort of simulation, I need to be able to generate the same stream of random numbers twice. Second it is always useful to have a random number generator with a [very large] full period, this obviously is not periodic, which makes it hard to determine if the system which is using the variate generation is chaotic or stable.
2) Hardware random number generators are often difficult to port to all systems, and to interface with existing programming languages. A good solid pseudo-random number generator (like a Lehmer one) is based on a mathematical algorithm which is reproducable in just about any environment.
There are many other problems with this approach as well, too numerous to name. In general hardware random number generators are a bad idea.
I dl'ed the test and tried it, and frankly I found it to be annoying, innacurate, an eye strain, and MUCH slower than normal typing if you want to avoid errors. Plus it is missing key features such as backspace.
The thing that makes this even better is the fact that quite a few of those supposed combinations aren't even worth mentioning because they will NEVER be used. Like putting pink and green next to each other in combination. And I have news for those dumb-ass Palm guys. 64,000 has a number of combinations as well, way more than 4,096 colors does. Wake up, you can't compare completely different metrics.
I had a similar experience with Palm. My fiancee bought me a Palm Vx, and the battery didn't work much at all, had a life of around 5 hours. They initially wouldn't replace it, and it took a LOT of arguing. What ever happened to "the customer is always right"? Guess it got lost behind the Almighty Dollar... to bad.:(
It doesn't even matter if you are paying by the byte. They aren't selling that to you, what they are selling you is a connection to the internet, and it DOES have a maximum upload/download capacity, because the vast majority of companies cap their usage.
I do agree that comparing this to electricity is a bad comparison, it is a lease of the upload/download capacity. Saying you can't attach a Wi-Fi node is as bad as some ISP's saying you can't host a webserver. I can do what I like with the leased item, but in the end, YOU can't charge me for the web server, I am providing it. Likewise in the end you can't charge me for Wi-Fi, I am providing that. The cable company provides no additional services for the charge, so they shouldn't be able to argue at all. I'd like to see a terminated customer sue so we can get some presidence for such cases.
Actually there is a very concrete and inarguable definition for integral:
(in'ti-gr&l) Mathematics a. A number computed by a limiting process in which the domain of a function, often an interval or planar region, is divided into arbitrarily small units, the value of the function at a point in each unit is multiplied by the linear or areal measurement of that unit, and all such products are summed. b. A definite integral. c. An indefinite integral.
:) Sorry for the math joke, but somebody had to say it:)
Yes the amendments quoted are vauge, they were left intentionally vauge by the founding fathers because they understood the need for extensibility beyond the adding of an amendment to the constitution. The supreme court has often used the "elastic amendments" to rule for things which seem intuitive rights, but which are not as of yet, provided for in the current government. The fact that they are not amendments does not make them any less important.
Yes it would be nice to have an amendment which protects our privacy, but I doubt such a thing will happen anytime in the near future. Amendments are not added on a whim, they take time, and often (unfortunatly) suffering. Our privacy is just beginning to be truly broken, and it will take some large transgressions before an amendment will be considered, as well as a different world climate. I am afraid many of our national leaders would fear that an amendment for privacy would be seen as pro-terrorist. It's a shame that everything we see this days is cast in that light.
It's not only the definition of integral that opens a loophole, but also the notion of consent. Does a EULA provide consent? Further more notice that it requires you to OPT-OUT! Why should I be required to opt-out of something I am not interested in? Shouldn't I be asked to opt in? How would you like it if you were sent letters from tons of magazines every month saying "You have been added to our subscription list, please send an opt-out notice to our address to remove yourself, otherwise a charge of $21.99 will be billed to your credit card company as payment for services rendered".
Perhaps we should implement a system whereby any company requiring us to opt-out is also required to pay us for the time spent opting out. Even assuming a low baseline salary for computer professionals of $50,000 a year, thats $24/hour spent. If I spend 15 minutes reading the agreement, and writing the e-mail, that's still a good $6 that they owe me for the time they have stolen from my day.
Actually the supreme court has ruled many times that these amendments guarrentee a reasonable right to privacy (reasonable giving the government the right to revoke said rights if a search warrent can be obtained, or other such documents which produce the claim that there is a high probability that illegal activities could be occuring).
This is absolutely outrageous, I do hope someone takes this up with the state court system so that it can be overturned. It is a disturbing time we live in when people consider the right to be suspicious more important than the personal rights as citizens. It seems our government has forgotten so quickly the times when we were under the rule of britain and fought for our freedom from these self same violations.
IMHO, this is exactly analogous to what is going to start happening in our computers if the good Senator's bill is passed.
What bothers me most is that I think he will pass his bill, given that he can market it under false pretenses to both sides. By far the most disturbing part of this proposed bill however, is what they deem "nonsensitive information", namely my name, address, and shopping/surfing habits.
Don't be fooled, your name and address are two of the most sensitive peices of information you posses! In the hands of malicious people, it can simply be taken down to the DMV to bring up your file, and the unfortunate state of things is that most people list their social security number as their drivers ID (I changed mine to an anonymous number after taking a class in privacy, when we learned about the growing number of cases of identity theft). The fact of the matter is, I don't want people to have access to this sort of thing unless I give them it expressly. I also don't want information on my shopping and surfing habits getting released as it leads to phone soclicitations, as well as spam. What happened to the rights of the consumer? Why does congress allow bribes to give corperations the upper hand?
The world is changing rapidly, and our time is increasingly sucked away by meaningless adds. My parents can still remember a time not so long ago when junk mail was practically unheard of. Now we are saturated with it.
I think we ought to push for a bill which affords us a form of personal protection akin to the laws against tresspassing. In my opinion all cookies, spyware, etc that are installed on a computer without express permission from the user (EULA's are no good as no one reads them, and besides, we would be outraged if everyday were provided with a huge list of random comments, buried within which was a grant to tresspass on our property if we exit our house), should subject their makers to a fine. As a computer professional, my machines are a place I spend a considerable ammount of time, and I have a right to not have others intrude on my privacy.
As a final point, I realize that you can disable cookies, and most spyware, but it is ridiculous to assume that this makes them all right. Many people do not know how to do so, and above all else, we should never have to arm our computers with defenses just to preserve our rights. That is analogous to requiring everyone to bring a body guard when they left the house, or it would be legal to mug them.
*steps off of soapbox*, Sorry my wife is an IP lawyer and deals with this stuff everyday. We need more computing professionals in the government and law.
I think he's brought up a valid point, who has more rights here, users or companies distributing software?
As a user I have a right to my personal privacy, and a right not to have my information distributed without my knowledge. Yes they may say it's spyware in the EULA, but I rarely read those for "small" programs (read not an OS or major application). Do I have a right to modify code which violates my personal rights? Or does the company producing the software have a right to their intellecutal property remaining intact to give them a revenue stream?
Unfortunatly I'm not a lawyer and can't begin to answer these questions, but I think they are important ones we as a society need to consider.
The hype around viruses are by far the largest problem to me, and to many of my fellow tech savy coworkers. Most of us run home web servers, and when Code Red came out our ISP's premptively closed port 80 on all of it's customers to "prevent Code Red from damaging our ability to run a personal web server", wait a minute here... you're shutting down our web servers... so that Code Red can't shut down our web servers... good job guys. That totally ignores the fact that I run Apache too... oh well, cloaked redirection for me.
Really though, I serve as a virus debunker for many of my less than computer literate friends, but it would be nice if there was a public site for this sort of thing, that picked up e-mail hoaxes and displayed them for what they are, meanwhile addressing real problems and how to fix them. There are a couple for the more technologically gifted (such as Norton's anti-viral research labs) but there really needs to be a good "for the average user" site.
I've actually found that Linksys has very good support for Linux with their products, the most notable example would have to be their PCMCIA Ethernet card (Model EC2T) which has worked absolutely flawlessly for me, with no hassle. In contrast, I have only been able to get the same card to work correctly under windows about 20% of the time. Go figure, made for windows but works for Linux.
As far as printers go, I unfortunatly haven't had much luck with Lexmark (my choice brand), while I can get their printers to work, I've had trouble enabling color support (for the Z51), which is a large detractor. The lab I work in has had a lot of luck with HP's however (laser models).
Slashdot Mirror
MS: I gots a question for you Ms. Judge
Judge: Yes, the ruling is final however
MS: Jus' one question. Ever seen Bill Gates
Judge: Um... yeah, why?
MS: Does he look like a bitch?
Judge: Um... I don't see what this has to do with anything...
MS: DOES HE LOOK LIKE A BITCH!?
Judge: No... not really but I still don't...
MS: Then why did you fuck him like a bitch?
There is a problem with determining identity with MAC addresses though, the fact that some devices (such as my firewall) have dynamic MAC addresses which can be set by the user. Any programmer worth his networking salt can easily pick up your MAC address by watching your packets fly by, spoof it on his machine and tap into your network. Sucks to be you, doesn't it?
If you wanted to limit the access to your network, you'd need some hefty encryption at the very least.
The primary problem with this method is that it is implemented in hardware, which produces quite a few problems.
1) No known seed. One of the primary characteristics of a good random number generator is that the results are reproduceable. If I want to run the same experiment twice during some sort of simulation, I need to be able to generate the same stream of random numbers twice. Second it is always useful to have a random number generator with a [very large] full period, this obviously is not periodic, which makes it hard to determine if the system which is using the variate generation is chaotic or stable.
2) Hardware random number generators are often difficult to port to all systems, and to interface with existing programming languages. A good solid pseudo-random number generator (like a Lehmer one) is based on a mathematical algorithm which is reproducable in just about any environment.
There are many other problems with this approach as well, too numerous to name. In general hardware random number generators are a bad idea.
I dl'ed the test and tried it, and frankly I found it to be annoying, innacurate, an eye strain, and MUCH slower than normal typing if you want to avoid errors. Plus it is missing key features such as backspace.
Good idea, bad implementation.
I had a similar experience with Palm. My fiancee bought me a Palm Vx, and the battery didn't work much at all, had a life of around 5 hours. They initially wouldn't replace it, and it took a LOT of arguing. What ever happened to "the customer is always right"? Guess it got lost behind the Almighty Dollar... to bad. :(
It doesn't even matter if you are paying by the byte. They aren't selling that to you, what they are selling you is a connection to the internet, and it DOES have a maximum upload/download capacity, because the vast majority of companies cap their usage.
I do agree that comparing this to electricity is a bad comparison, it is a lease of the upload/download capacity. Saying you can't attach a Wi-Fi node is as bad as some ISP's saying you can't host a webserver. I can do what I like with the leased item, but in the end, YOU can't charge me for the web server, I am providing it. Likewise in the end you can't charge me for Wi-Fi, I am providing that. The cable company provides no additional services for the charge, so they shouldn't be able to argue at all. I'd like to see a terminated customer sue so we can get some presidence for such cases.
Actually there is a very concrete and inarguable definition for integral:
(in'ti-gr&l) Mathematics a. A number computed by a limiting process in which the domain of a function, often an interval or planar region, is divided into arbitrarily small units, the value of the function at a point in each unit is multiplied by the linear or areal measurement of that unit, and all such products are summed. b. A definite integral. c. An indefinite integral.
Yes it would be nice to have an amendment which protects our privacy, but I doubt such a thing will happen anytime in the near future. Amendments are not added on a whim, they take time, and often (unfortunatly) suffering. Our privacy is just beginning to be truly broken, and it will take some large transgressions before an amendment will be considered, as well as a different world climate. I am afraid many of our national leaders would fear that an amendment for privacy would be seen as pro-terrorist. It's a shame that everything we see this days is cast in that light.
Perhaps we should implement a system whereby any company requiring us to opt-out is also required to pay us for the time spent opting out. Even assuming a low baseline salary for computer professionals of $50,000 a year, thats $24/hour spent. If I spend 15 minutes reading the agreement, and writing the e-mail, that's still a good $6 that they owe me for the time they have stolen from my day.
Actually the supreme court has ruled many times that these amendments guarrentee a reasonable right to privacy (reasonable giving the government the right to revoke said rights if a search warrent can be obtained, or other such documents which produce the claim that there is a high probability that illegal activities could be occuring).
IMHO, this is exactly analogous to what is going to start happening in our computers if the good Senator's bill is passed.
Don't be fooled, your name and address are two of the most sensitive peices of information you posses! In the hands of malicious people, it can simply be taken down to the DMV to bring up your file, and the unfortunate state of things is that most people list their social security number as their drivers ID (I changed mine to an anonymous number after taking a class in privacy, when we learned about the growing number of cases of identity theft). The fact of the matter is, I don't want people to have access to this sort of thing unless I give them it expressly. I also don't want information on my shopping and surfing habits getting released as it leads to phone soclicitations, as well as spam. What happened to the rights of the consumer? Why does congress allow bribes to give corperations the upper hand?
The world is changing rapidly, and our time is increasingly sucked away by meaningless adds. My parents can still remember a time not so long ago when junk mail was practically unheard of. Now we are saturated with it.
I think we ought to push for a bill which affords us a form of personal protection akin to the laws against tresspassing. In my opinion all cookies, spyware, etc that are installed on a computer without express permission from the user (EULA's are no good as no one reads them, and besides, we would be outraged if everyday were provided with a huge list of random comments, buried within which was a grant to tresspass on our property if we exit our house), should subject their makers to a fine. As a computer professional, my machines are a place I spend a considerable ammount of time, and I have a right to not have others intrude on my privacy.
As a final point, I realize that you can disable cookies, and most spyware, but it is ridiculous to assume that this makes them all right. Many people do not know how to do so, and above all else, we should never have to arm our computers with defenses just to preserve our rights. That is analogous to requiring everyone to bring a body guard when they left the house, or it would be legal to mug them.
*steps off of soapbox*, Sorry my wife is an IP lawyer and deals with this stuff everyday. We need more computing professionals in the government and law.
As a user I have a right to my personal privacy, and a right not to have my information distributed without my knowledge. Yes they may say it's spyware in the EULA, but I rarely read those for "small" programs (read not an OS or major application). Do I have a right to modify code which violates my personal rights? Or does the company producing the software have a right to their intellecutal property remaining intact to give them a revenue stream?
Unfortunatly I'm not a lawyer and can't begin to answer these questions, but I think they are important ones we as a society need to consider.
The hype around viruses are by far the largest problem to me, and to many of my fellow tech savy coworkers. Most of us run home web servers, and when Code Red came out our ISP's premptively closed port 80 on all of it's customers to "prevent Code Red from damaging our ability to run a personal web server", wait a minute here... you're shutting down our web servers... so that Code Red can't shut down our web servers... good job guys. That totally ignores the fact that I run Apache too... oh well, cloaked redirection for me.
Really though, I serve as a virus debunker for many of my less than computer literate friends, but it would be nice if there was a public site for this sort of thing, that picked up e-mail hoaxes and displayed them for what they are, meanwhile addressing real problems and how to fix them. There are a couple for the more technologically gifted (such as Norton's anti-viral research labs) but there really needs to be a good "for the average user" site.
I've actually found that Linksys has very good support for Linux with their products, the most notable example would have to be their PCMCIA Ethernet card (Model EC2T) which has worked absolutely flawlessly for me, with no hassle. In contrast, I have only been able to get the same card to work correctly under windows about 20% of the time. Go figure, made for windows but works for Linux.
As far as printers go, I unfortunatly haven't had much luck with Lexmark (my choice brand), while I can get their printers to work, I've had trouble enabling color support (for the Z51), which is a large detractor. The lab I work in has had a lot of luck with HP's however (laser models).