I doubt it. All information I hear indicates that it's a DNS-level block, and every ISP I've ever used runs it's own DNS servers. Haven't used Exetel, but I doubt they're an exception. Telsta/Optus just provide access to the infrastructure for most of those arrangements, no service on top of it.
Nobody with a choice and a clue goes with them anyway (and there is quite a lot of choice in the DSL market in Australia). While I'm vehemently opposed to government enforced filtering, I have no problem with individual ISPs doing it - as long as they inform their customers that they're doing so. As long as we don't have the market collapse into a duopoly, and there's no government-mandated filter, those who want a clean feed have that choice.
Well not necessarily, I don't completely agree with his point, but I can't disagree either. If the vendor succesfully hides the vulnerabilities until they are patched, then that is = to a bug in an open source product that wasn't noticed until it was patched
Well yes, that's entirely my point. Those bugs you don't know about until they're patched, so it's impossible to factor them into your consideration when evaluating a product. If you're looking at two products, an open source system with 100 open issues, and a closed source with 5, you cannot compare the two based on disclosed vulnerabilities - they're tracking different things. The open source metric is a representation of known bugs. The closed source metric is a representation of known bugs that the developer has chosen to disclose.
Nobody's trying to say open source is a panacea (except possibly the AC, to setup a straw man). What they're saying is that the fact there is an old bug in open source software, doesn't necessarily mean open source is inferior to closed - especially when there's no sure way of knowing about comparable bugs in closed source software.
Isn't the 13 year existence of a security bug in open source code a valid argument that open source does not really mean a product is more secure?
(Emphasis added)
Not unless you have some measurement of non open-source code against which you can compare. Which the OP pointed out . And you (or some other AC, can't really tell you guys apart) flamed him for.
Uh, crypt_blowfish is pretty definitely not written in PHP. You know you can't just scan the summary for buzzwords and draw conclusions without actually reading and comprehending it don't you?
Well, yeah, nobody's saying a government can't spend more than it takes in - that is obviously false. What they're asking is, is it sustainable behaviour? Just like a family living on credit can spend far more than it takes in - until it's interest repayments start outpacing it's total income. From what I know, the cost of servicing the US debts has long since exceeded the amount garnered from taxing the income of its citizens, and its only getting worse.
Sounds good to me. Haven't heard of any legislations passed recently that actually solves any problems held by the people of the United States. A government that does nothing, except in situations important enough to overcome partisanship, sounds almost ideal.
Account numbers aren't secret - you need to hand them out for people to transfer money to your account. I believe they're on cheques too. They're perfectly fine as an identifier for a resource.
Meh, so does Sony. It has a user experience to maintain that doesn't include OtherOS. So they pulled it. Apple's no different. They can pull whatever they want, and restrict their devices whenever they feel like it. That's the point. Their device, not yours. Apple retains control over, and thence, ownership over, the devices they "sell". You can use them only as long as Apple grants you permission to, and only in the manner in which Apple decides to let you.
No, I'm talking about the DUI checkpoint apps using crowdsourced data that Apple did ban.
Also, not how you're now taking this conversation away from its original topic. It was originally a discussion in the abstract, over whether Apple banning apps from their appstore was a dick move or not. Now you're arguing whether or not Apple did actually ban a particular app. Should I take this to mean that you agree, in the abstract, that Apple banning apps is a bad thing?
You could say that about any sale. And yet, successful businesses run sales all the time. They pay out for advertisements that are unlikely to directly recoup their costs, and they promote loss leaders that lose them money every time they're bought. The objective isn't to make lots of money in the short term, it's to increase the long-term prospects of the business.
No, I'm talking about Apple. It's a function of having the iPhone locked down to a single store. A week ago, people were able to install certain apps to do certain things; today, they can't. Because Apple restricts the applications able to be installed, they transitively restrict the function of the device whenever they forbid apps from their app store. And people who buy iPhones have no guarantees as to what Apple will, or will not allow or forbid in the future - they're entirely dependant on Apple's good will.
And I bet if Xbox owners woke up one day to find that Microsoft had removed all the later Halo titles from their store, after they'd bought an Xbox with the expectation of being able to play them, they'd be pissed too.
Yeah, because dirt foreign drugs are all going to be poisoned, am I right? It should only be the big corporations allowed to exploit free trade to save money, not good little consumers. Besides, based on your wikipedia link, buying Tylenol in Chicago should be outlawed, not Korea.
Too bad - I didn't advertise that my freezer didn't allow bean storage when you bought it. I decided that after-sale, and retrospectively removed that functionality.
I sell freezers. At some point, I decide I don't like beans. I engineer my freezers such that if you try and put beans in there, it will spit them back out again. Despite "owning" the freezer, you are not allowed to decide what to put in it. I am.
Who cares about legal legs, am I a self-absorbed jerk with control issues?
Why is this tired and meaningless argument that " a pirate has a boat and a wooden leg" trotted out again and again?
Um, possibly because the original usage of "pirate" is still valid andineverydayuse? You see, that's the problem with hijacking existing language for emotional manipulation - it prevents clear communication because people have to derive from context whether you mean nasty-copying-without-permission-pirate, or shoot-up-boats-and-kidnap-people-pirate. When the context is as short as a headline, sometimes there is not enough of it to correctly gauge the meaning.
"...unless the terms are part of a news story" - you know, the bit from the article that the summary deliberately neglected to mention, in order to provoke reactions just like yours. In fact, the law isn't even aimed at Facebook or Twitter, it just happens to encompass them.
The law is intended to prevent "news" programs from stuffing their stories full of product placement.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt it. All information I hear indicates that it's a DNS-level block, and every ISP I've ever used runs it's own DNS servers. Haven't used Exetel, but I doubt they're an exception. Telsta/Optus just provide access to the infrastructure for most of those arrangements, no service on top of it.
Nobody with a choice and a clue goes with them anyway (and there is quite a lot of choice in the DSL market in Australia). While I'm vehemently opposed to government enforced filtering, I have no problem with individual ISPs doing it - as long as they inform their customers that they're doing so. As long as we don't have the market collapse into a duopoly, and there's no government-mandated filter, those who want a clean feed have that choice.
Yeah. At that ISP. Somehow I see that ISP being out-competed rather quickly.
Which is fine, since nobody was claiming that
Well not necessarily, I don't completely agree with his point, but I can't disagree either. If the vendor succesfully hides the vulnerabilities until they are patched, then that is = to a bug in an open source product that wasn't noticed until it was patched
Well yes, that's entirely my point. Those bugs you don't know about until they're patched, so it's impossible to factor them into your consideration when evaluating a product. If you're looking at two products, an open source system with 100 open issues, and a closed source with 5, you cannot compare the two based on disclosed vulnerabilities - they're tracking different things. The open source metric is a representation of known bugs. The closed source metric is a representation of known bugs that the developer has chosen to disclose.
Nobody's trying to say open source is a panacea (except possibly the AC, to setup a straw man). What they're saying is that the fact there is an old bug in open source software, doesn't necessarily mean open source is inferior to closed - especially when there's no sure way of knowing about comparable bugs in closed source software.
based upon vulnerability disclosures and compromises
So the more vulnerabilities the vendor hides, the more you are convinced to buy their software. Sounds like a plan!
Isn't the 13 year existence of a security bug in open source code a valid argument that open source does not really mean a product is more secure?
(Emphasis added)
Not unless you have some measurement of non open-source code against which you can compare. Which the OP pointed out . And you (or some other AC, can't really tell you guys apart) flamed him for.
Uh, crypt_blowfish is pretty definitely not written in PHP. You know you can't just scan the summary for buzzwords and draw conclusions without actually reading and comprehending it don't you?
Uh-huh. Because "In a sign that many eyes don't really make (security) bugs shallow" is such an unbiased opening for the story.
No, it's also generally used to indicate the start of a list.
Well, yeah, nobody's saying a government can't spend more than it takes in - that is obviously false. What they're asking is, is it sustainable behaviour? Just like a family living on credit can spend far more than it takes in - until it's interest repayments start outpacing it's total income. From what I know, the cost of servicing the US debts has long since exceeded the amount garnered from taxing the income of its citizens, and its only getting worse.
It'd gridlock otherwise
Sounds good to me. Haven't heard of any legislations passed recently that actually solves any problems held by the people of the United States. A government that does nothing, except in situations important enough to overcome partisanship, sounds almost ideal.
Account numbers aren't secret - you need to hand them out for people to transfer money to your account. I believe they're on cheques too. They're perfectly fine as an identifier for a resource.
Nah, it just implies that they want their customers to believe they're hiring people a little better than expendable.
Meh, so does Sony. It has a user experience to maintain that doesn't include OtherOS. So they pulled it. Apple's no different. They can pull whatever they want, and restrict their devices whenever they feel like it. That's the point. Their device, not yours. Apple retains control over, and thence, ownership over, the devices they "sell". You can use them only as long as Apple grants you permission to, and only in the manner in which Apple decides to let you.
That's why it's a bad thing.
No, I'm talking about the DUI checkpoint apps using crowdsourced data that Apple did ban.
Also, not how you're now taking this conversation away from its original topic. It was originally a discussion in the abstract, over whether Apple banning apps from their appstore was a dick move or not. Now you're arguing whether or not Apple did actually ban a particular app. Should I take this to mean that you agree, in the abstract, that Apple banning apps is a bad thing?
You could say that about any sale. And yet, successful businesses run sales all the time. They pay out for advertisements that are unlikely to directly recoup their costs, and they promote loss leaders that lose them money every time they're bought. The objective isn't to make lots of money in the short term, it's to increase the long-term prospects of the business.
No, I'm talking about Apple. It's a function of having the iPhone locked down to a single store. A week ago, people were able to install certain apps to do certain things; today, they can't. Because Apple restricts the applications able to be installed, they transitively restrict the function of the device whenever they forbid apps from their app store. And people who buy iPhones have no guarantees as to what Apple will, or will not allow or forbid in the future - they're entirely dependant on Apple's good will.
And I bet if Xbox owners woke up one day to find that Microsoft had removed all the later Halo titles from their store, after they'd bought an Xbox with the expectation of being able to play them, they'd be pissed too.
Yeah, because dirt foreign drugs are all going to be poisoned, am I right? It should only be the big corporations allowed to exploit free trade to save money, not good little consumers. Besides, based on your wikipedia link, buying Tylenol in Chicago should be outlawed, not Korea.
Too bad - I didn't advertise that my freezer didn't allow bean storage when you bought it. I decided that after-sale, and retrospectively removed that functionality.
Yay, analogy time! How's this one?
I sell freezers. At some point, I decide I don't like beans. I engineer my freezers such that if you try and put beans in there, it will spit them back out again. Despite "owning" the freezer, you are not allowed to decide what to put in it. I am.
Who cares about legal legs, am I a self-absorbed jerk with control issues?
Fine, so it was hijacked a long time ago. That makes a difference how?
Why is this tired and meaningless argument that " a pirate has a boat and a wooden leg" trotted out again and again?
Um, possibly because the original usage of "pirate" is still valid and in everyday use? You see, that's the problem with hijacking existing language for emotional manipulation - it prevents clear communication because people have to derive from context whether you mean nasty-copying-without-permission-pirate, or shoot-up-boats-and-kidnap-people-pirate. When the context is as short as a headline, sometimes there is not enough of it to correctly gauge the meaning.
So you don't actually define a standard until it's already implemented. Wish I could get away with writing my specs like that.
"...unless the terms are part of a news story" - you know, the bit from the article that the summary deliberately neglected to mention, in order to provoke reactions just like yours. In fact, the law isn't even aimed at Facebook or Twitter, it just happens to encompass them.
The law is intended to prevent "news" programs from stuffing their stories full of product placement.