Your linksys config "webserver" IS accessible to the outside world.
Mine certainly isn't. I believe you have to specifically enable remote access, otherwise it only accepts requests from your internal LAN. The password is in cleartext; much better to use an ssh tunnel or other means if you need to access the configuration from outside.
Of course, if your provider dhcp's you, knowing the IP address if you're not there is half the battle.
It's pretty easy to write a script that will periodically grab your assigned IP and upload it to an accessible machine.
Absolutely correct, and I just want to emphasize that this is an example of how the *lack* of capitalism (via Sony using the coercive power of government to prevent free trade) results in consumers being screwed.
That's what we do to store a bunch of XML documents in our database. Our applications which access them use business logic classes which transparently compress and decompress the data. We use gzip and get an 80-90% reduction in size, with no noticeable effect on performance.
With the republican administration, sponsored by corporate America, we can't expect the government to control any of this.
Yeah, because the Democrats were very respectful of ordinary citizens' rights. Who was it that signed the DMCA again? Which party gets the vast majority of Hollywood's contributions? Democrats long ago gave up their claim to be defenders of civil liberties.
Once again, the EFF is our only hope. Open those check books wide.
That we can agree on. It's probably about time for my annual donation.
I've been coming to the same conclusion myself. If I were a lobbyist for the book or sporting goods industries, I would be enthusiastically supporting strong TV copy protection legislation.
Restricting what kind of crypto can be exported doesn't do a damned thing to the domestic market
Absolutely, completely, 100% false. Export restrictions have an enormous effect on domestic software. If they are in effect and I write an open source app that uses strong encryption, I can't put it on a public ftp site for download. Instead, I have to beg for permission from the NSA and implement some sort of mechanism to insure that only US citizens are granted access. Most software vendors will simply not bother, and that is a key reason why encryption has never achieved mainstream use in the US.
but as far as I'm concerned one life saved would be enough to justify exportation laws.
"if it saves just one life" is right up there with "for the children" as a logical argument. Here are some positions logically implied by it:
- National ID cards, to be presented upon demand to law enforcement.
- Routing of all Internet traffic through government systems.
- Subdermal tracking implants for all citizens.
- Speed governors on all cars preventing them from exceeding 40 mph.
Only in a police state will you have perfect security, and probably not even then. Especially not from the police.
So, in this situation at least, the fact that strong encryption was not redily available did do some good.
Yes, in this case it did *some* good. (Not a tremendous amount, since the perp was already apprehended.) But do you have any idea of the costs of export controls? They have denied effective privacy and security to millions of law-abiding Americans, and limited the competitiveness of US software companies. A single case of a benefit doesn't mean that the costs are outweighed.
We're not talking about restricting domestic encryption here.
Of course we are. The export regulations effectively prevented Americans from having access to strong crypto, because few software vendors were able to jump through all the hoops to be able to distribute US-only versions.
The old argument of "They won't use handicapped software" doesn't seem to hold as much water as it used to.
They won't anymore. Just like no airline pilots or passengers are going to cooperate with hijackers again. Some tricks only work once.
The fact that they did not have strong encryption shows that the policy of export controls was in fact productive.
I'll grant that it had a limited benefit in this particular case. "Limited" because the terrorist in question was already caught, and breaking the encryption only allowed us to get additional information about him. But can you honestly assert that the benefits of encryption regulations outweigh the costs to the privacy and security of millions of law-abiding citizens?
``Users should be in control of how their data is used,'' Gates wrote. ``It should be easy for users to specify appropriate use of their information including controlling the use of e-mail they send.''
Ok, what the heck does that mean? Unless Microsoft plans on solving the trusted client problem, once I send you an email there is no way I can control how you use it. The only thing I can think of is letting users add a header to outgoing email, and if it was present Outlook would not allow copying or saving when the recipient viewed it. Of course anything like this is trivial to defeat, resulting in the illusion of privacy rather than actual privacy.
You may have purchased a copy of the software, but you have not purchased the right to use that copy. See, to use it, you generally have to copy it to your hard disk
Section 117 of the Copyright Act was supposed to prevent this kind of idiocy by clarifying that users can make copies of software if that is an "essential step" in its use (like copying to a hard drive or RAM). Unfortunately as this article shows, copyright holders have managed to convince some judges that the law doesn't mean what it says.
It would be great if the EFF could take up this issue, although I suppose they have their hands full at the moment dealing with other insane copyright laws.
IANAL, but as far as I'm concerned, having already purchased the software, whatever buttons I do or do not click on are of no legal significance whatsoever. If a software publisher wants we to agree to ludicrous licensing terms, they are free to present me with a contract before selling me their product.
(Of course, whether a judge agrees with this is another matter entirely.)
Apple has made modifications to gcc to support "Objective C++", which allows Objective C code to use C++ syntax and classes. Hopefully these changes will eventually be merged into the main gcc sources.
Hmm... I could risk a flamebait moderation and note that this might explain classic Liberals...
Heh, that was the first thought I had too. It would explain their hysterical opposition to tax cuts that benefit "the rich" in any way, even when the poor benefit proportionally more.
Let's face it, folks: there is no right to anonymity. Check the Constituion if you want. It's not there.
Of course there is, and the Supreme Court has upheld it. Freedom of speech includes the right to not be compelled to speak things one does not want to, such as one's identity. And the Constitution does not grant rights; it enumerates the specific powers of the federal government. The question should not be "does the Constitution grant individuals the right to do X" but "does the Constitution empower the government to regulate X".
Having said that, I agree with you on the particulars of these cases; people who engage in spamming or violate their contractual obligations should be held accountable for their actions.
Nah, Apple's lawyers are probably busy preparing a nuclear strike on Time's headquarters. I can't imagine Steve showed Time the unit without a very strict NDA.
It's the G4 Sphere! Well, the G4 Hemisphere. Unlike the cube, it's reasonably priced and has a market, so it should do much better.
Re:Did someone hire Sculley back?
on
Apple PDA?
·
· Score: 2
And then there was WebObjects (or whatever the heck it was called) that we bought for a nice chunk of change that never really worked and finally got abandoned.
WebObjects is definitely not abandoned. Although you have my sympathy if you bought a deployment license for $50k before it was reduced to $700.
Re:Are some people complaining a bit too much?
on
The Eyes Have It
·
· Score: 2
However, I'm getting happier with the security. Delays Shmelays. That's what I say. I think they should do whatever it takes to make flying safe.
Fair enough. Like I said, people can disagree on the proper balance between privacy and security. But I'm concerned when people altogether stop considering the balance and assume that anything done in the name of security is automatically good. That sort of thinking is what allowed the Patriot Act to pass with virtually no debate on its several questionable provisions.
Re:Are some people complaining a bit too much?
on
The Eyes Have It
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
With the danger involved in operating an airline in hand, I agree that whatever security measures they choose to implement are fair and reasonable.
Really? You preemptively agree that anything they do is ok? To take an extreme example, what about strip-searching all passengers? Rational people can and do disagree about which specific methods are reasonable, but handing a blank check to the authorities is never a good idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Mine certainly isn't. I believe you have to specifically enable remote access, otherwise it only accepts requests from your internal LAN. The password is in cleartext; much better to use an ssh tunnel or other means if you need to access the configuration from outside.
Of course, if your provider dhcp's you, knowing the IP address if you're not there is half the battle.
It's pretty easy to write a script that will periodically grab your assigned IP and upload it to an accessible machine.
Absolutely correct, and I just want to emphasize that this is an example of how the *lack* of capitalism (via Sony using the coercive power of government to prevent free trade) results in consumers being screwed.
That's what we do to store a bunch of XML documents in our database. Our applications which access them use business logic classes which transparently compress and decompress the data. We use gzip and get an 80-90% reduction in size, with no noticeable effect on performance.
Yeah, because the Democrats were very respectful of ordinary citizens' rights. Who was it that signed the DMCA again? Which party gets the vast majority of Hollywood's contributions? Democrats long ago gave up their claim to be defenders of civil liberties.
Once again, the EFF is our only hope. Open those check books wide.
That we can agree on. It's probably about time for my annual donation.
I've been coming to the same conclusion myself. If I were a lobbyist for the book or sporting goods industries, I would be enthusiastically supporting strong TV copy protection legislation.
Absolutely, completely, 100% false. Export restrictions have an enormous effect on domestic software. If they are in effect and I write an open source app that uses strong encryption, I can't put it on a public ftp site for download. Instead, I have to beg for permission from the NSA and implement some sort of mechanism to insure that only US citizens are granted access. Most software vendors will simply not bother, and that is a key reason why encryption has never achieved mainstream use in the US.
"if it saves just one life" is right up there with "for the children" as a logical argument. Here are some positions logically implied by it:
- National ID cards, to be presented upon demand to law enforcement.
- Routing of all Internet traffic through government systems.
- Subdermal tracking implants for all citizens.
- Speed governors on all cars preventing them from exceeding 40 mph.
Only in a police state will you have perfect security, and probably not even then. Especially not from the police.
So, in this situation at least, the fact that strong encryption was not redily available did do some good.
Yes, in this case it did *some* good. (Not a tremendous amount, since the perp was already apprehended.) But do you have any idea of the costs of export controls? They have denied effective privacy and security to millions of law-abiding Americans, and limited the competitiveness of US software companies. A single case of a benefit doesn't mean that the costs are outweighed.
Of course we are. The export regulations effectively prevented Americans from having access to strong crypto, because few software vendors were able to jump through all the hoops to be able to distribute US-only versions.
The old argument of "They won't use handicapped software" doesn't seem to hold as much water as it used to.
They won't anymore. Just like no airline pilots or passengers are going to cooperate with hijackers again. Some tricks only work once.
I'll grant that it had a limited benefit in this particular case. "Limited" because the terrorist in question was already caught, and breaking the encryption only allowed us to get additional information about him. But can you honestly assert that the benefits of encryption regulations outweigh the costs to the privacy and security of millions of law-abiding citizens?
Ok, what the heck does that mean? Unless Microsoft plans on solving the trusted client problem, once I send you an email there is no way I can control how you use it. The only thing I can think of is letting users add a header to outgoing email, and if it was present Outlook would not allow copying or saving when the recipient viewed it. Of course anything like this is trivial to defeat, resulting in the illusion of privacy rather than actual privacy.
Section 117 of the Copyright Act was supposed to prevent this kind of idiocy by clarifying that users can make copies of software if that is an "essential step" in its use (like copying to a hard drive or RAM). Unfortunately as this article shows, copyright holders have managed to convince some judges that the law doesn't mean what it says.
It would be great if the EFF could take up this issue, although I suppose they have their hands full at the moment dealing with other insane copyright laws.
(Of course, whether a judge agrees with this is another matter entirely.)
Apple has made modifications to gcc to support "Objective C++", which allows Objective C code to use C++ syntax and classes. Hopefully these changes will eventually be merged into the main gcc sources.
True, but Monopoly is a zero-sum game, while the economy is not.
Heh, that was the first thought I had too. It would explain their hysterical opposition to tax cuts that benefit "the rich" in any way, even when the poor benefit proportionally more.
That is strange. Looks like IE doesn't know how to handle image/png mimetypes.
Of course there is, and the Supreme Court has upheld it. Freedom of speech includes the right to not be compelled to speak things one does not want to, such as one's identity. And the Constitution does not grant rights; it enumerates the specific powers of the federal government. The question should not be "does the Constitution grant individuals the right to do X" but "does the Constitution empower the government to regulate X".
Having said that, I agree with you on the particulars of these cases; people who engage in spamming or violate their contractual obligations should be held accountable for their actions.
I just tried the PNG Test Icons in IE 5.1 on OS X and they worked fine.
Done. You can run a fullscreen X server, or run it rootless so X and Aqua windows are side by side.
Nah, Apple's lawyers are probably busy preparing a nuclear strike on Time's headquarters. I can't imagine Steve showed Time the unit without a very strict NDA.
It's the G4 Sphere! Well, the G4 Hemisphere. Unlike the cube, it's reasonably priced and has a market, so it should do much better.
WebObjects is definitely not abandoned. Although you have my sympathy if you bought a deployment license for $50k before it was reduced to $700.
Fair enough. Like I said, people can disagree on the proper balance between privacy and security. But I'm concerned when people altogether stop considering the balance and assume that anything done in the name of security is automatically good. That sort of thinking is what allowed the Patriot Act to pass with virtually no debate on its several questionable provisions.
Really? You preemptively agree that anything they do is ok? To take an extreme example, what about strip-searching all passengers? Rational people can and do disagree about which specific methods are reasonable, but handing a blank check to the authorities is never a good idea.
The Mac Plus was even better, it used a 68000 and can run up to System 7.5.5, which was released when PowerPC 604 Macs were out.