Correct. Anyone can be arrested anywhere for any (or no) reason, and held without charges for however long it takes to get a complaint to the Supreme Court. At which time the government can finally press charges and the Court will then drop the case. Generally this time period would be a matter of years, certainly at least months. I'm hoping someone can bring a case against the government that extracts some kind of penalty from them for pulling this kind of trick, but I'm not optimistic at the moment.
The Supremes have to wait for someone to bring it up, they can't just go out and start challenging laws that they think are bad. And that's a good thing! If Congress were to pull the commerce clause out to force RFID implants, I'm sure the ACLU would be happy to represent the plaintiff.
It has the advantage of not disclosing to anyone watching over your shoulder how many characters your password has. Whether that's a meaningful advantage or not is questionable.
I'm sure everyone agrees that forcing password changes, and forcing strong passwords, each solve some problems. I think you can also see that they also cause problems. The question is, for any particular security situation, what will be the most effective policy? For ordinary business PCs and ordinary users, I would say unchanging or infrequently changing strong passwords are best. It doesn't seem like frequently changing passwords help, because if somebody somehow gets my password fido3, and finds that it doesn't work, what are they going to try next? fido4, fido5, etc. Most users change their passwords in this way so that they can remember them, so you haven't improved anything. More draconian policies require you to change it to something that doesn't include any large part of the previous several passwords. That could probably be a pretty effective policy at the expense of annoyed users (perhaps a good price to pay). Otherwise, as you say if you want real security use biometrics and/or two-factor authentication, because even rotating passwords don't solve many of the problems you mentioned.
I didn't say you can make up time by working less, I said you can make up time by driving less, which I think is what the article was saying too. What you do with that time - work more or be at home more - is another issue. One which seems obvious to me.:-)
How long is long enough? I've been using it every single day for about six years and haven't been stung, or seen very many ways it "sucks." Yes, it's imperfect, as are all the alternatives. No, it isn't right for everything you might want to do with a computer, and neither are any of the alternatives. So besides those two "problems," what exactly sucks about Java?
How many of these workers being imported do you suppose are working in the areas of science and math? 2? 3? There is no shortage of skilled labor in the IT area, so why import workers? So they'll work for less, that's why.
Exactly! Either the companies thought they knew how to do all this stuff and they were wrong, or they knew they didn't know how to do it and used Linux anyway. Either way it was a mistake. I got the impression that these companies took a bunch of Windows admins and threw them onto Linux without any training. Why would anybody expect that to work?
So we shouldn't make any laws, because we can't be sure what their effects will be? Or we should only make some laws? If we should make some laws but not others, shouldn't the standard be that we should make a law when we judge that the benefit outweighs the cost? If not, what other standard do you suggest? Or if you think we shouldn't make any laws, would you apply this to past decisions as well? If not, why not? If so, how far back should it go? Maybe we shouldn't have made the Bill of Rights? That's sure had unintended consequences.
If someone gives me a beer, it is mine to do with what I will. I can drink it and all is good. Open source licenses, however, do not quite fit with that analogy.
I think you're confusing free as in beer with free as in speech. Free as in beer simply means that you get something without paying cash for it. Proprietary software can be and often is free as in beer. Free as in speech relates to your rights to do things with the software after you obtain it. Not all open source/free software is completely free as in speech, because I cannot legally sell software incorporating GPL code without also releasing the rest of my software under the GPL. But it's more free (as in speech) than any closed software, and generally free as in beer as well.
So! Back to the main point, when someone says free as in beer, they are simply talking about the zero price of the item, not what you're allowed to do with it.
This relies on having a single piece of fiber in between the two end points. So the man in the middle attack would have to physically dig up the cable and cut it. Beyond that, you could also do public/private key authentication so that Alice can ensure that whoever she's talking to has access to Bob's private key, and vice versa.
Slashdot Mirror
But we can't release them into the US, because... they could be... terrorists? Or something? It's ridiculous and sad.
Correct. Anyone can be arrested anywhere for any (or no) reason, and held without charges for however long it takes to get a complaint to the Supreme Court. At which time the government can finally press charges and the Court will then drop the case. Generally this time period would be a matter of years, certainly at least months. I'm hoping someone can bring a case against the government that extracts some kind of penalty from them for pulling this kind of trick, but I'm not optimistic at the moment.
The Supremes have to wait for someone to bring it up, they can't just go out and start challenging laws that they think are bad. And that's a good thing! If Congress were to pull the commerce clause out to force RFID implants, I'm sure the ACLU would be happy to represent the plaintiff.
He's talking about Apple, crackhead.
I heard a radio interview with Wyclef Jean (sp?) and he started nearly every answer with "you know." Very irritating, you know?
The Onion already debunked the myth that the network is the computer. They also discovered that Sun Microsystems is not, in fact, the . in .com.
By... quitting his job? Who are you to say that's best for his kid?
It has the advantage of not disclosing to anyone watching over your shoulder how many characters your password has. Whether that's a meaningful advantage or not is questionable.
I'm sure everyone agrees that forcing password changes, and forcing strong passwords, each solve some problems. I think you can also see that they also cause problems. The question is, for any particular security situation, what will be the most effective policy? For ordinary business PCs and ordinary users, I would say unchanging or infrequently changing strong passwords are best. It doesn't seem like frequently changing passwords help, because if somebody somehow gets my password fido3, and finds that it doesn't work, what are they going to try next? fido4, fido5, etc. Most users change their passwords in this way so that they can remember them, so you haven't improved anything. More draconian policies require you to change it to something that doesn't include any large part of the previous several passwords. That could probably be a pretty effective policy at the expense of annoyed users (perhaps a good price to pay). Otherwise, as you say if you want real security use biometrics and/or two-factor authentication, because even rotating passwords don't solve many of the problems you mentioned.
I didn't say you can make up time by working less, I said you can make up time by driving less, which I think is what the article was saying too. What you do with that time - work more or be at home more - is another issue. One which seems obvious to me. :-)
So? Drive to work from 8:30-9 instead of 7:15-8, and you've shifted 30 minutes per day from driving to time at home. How is that not a good deal?
I live pretty far from the Northeast (of just about anything) and often get asked if I want help out. My wife more so.
Are you suggesting that Java "didn't happen"? Or are you referring specifically to Java-based desktops?
Are you saying Java apps are necessarily lower quality and performance than other languages, or just the apps you've written?
How long is long enough? I've been using it every single day for about six years and haven't been stung, or seen very many ways it "sucks." Yes, it's imperfect, as are all the alternatives. No, it isn't right for everything you might want to do with a computer, and neither are any of the alternatives. So besides those two "problems," what exactly sucks about Java?
I did a web search on Roland Piquipaille and 100% of the hits were on /. So what's the story with this guy?
How many of these workers being imported do you suppose are working in the areas of science and math? 2? 3? There is no shortage of skilled labor in the IT area, so why import workers? So they'll work for less, that's why.
Exactly! Either the companies thought they knew how to do all this stuff and they were wrong, or they knew they didn't know how to do it and used Linux anyway. Either way it was a mistake. I got the impression that these companies took a bunch of Windows admins and threw them onto Linux without any training. Why would anybody expect that to work?
So we shouldn't make any laws, because we can't be sure what their effects will be? Or we should only make some laws? If we should make some laws but not others, shouldn't the standard be that we should make a law when we judge that the benefit outweighs the cost? If not, what other standard do you suggest? Or if you think we shouldn't make any laws, would you apply this to past decisions as well? If not, why not? If so, how far back should it go? Maybe we shouldn't have made the Bill of Rights? That's sure had unintended consequences.
Um... that is what they recommended.
D'oh. Missed the humor, sorry.
So! Back to the main point, when someone says free as in beer, they are simply talking about the zero price of the item, not what you're allowed to do with it.
Adaption isn't even a word. You mean either adaptation (which doesn't make any sense in this context) or adoption.
This relies on having a single piece of fiber in between the two end points. So the man in the middle attack would have to physically dig up the cable and cut it. Beyond that, you could also do public/private key authentication so that Alice can ensure that whoever she's talking to has access to Bob's private key, and vice versa.