Without getting too far off topic, I think they just solve it using some good solid law writing skills. If they're outlawing encryption chances are the deffinition will be "stuff we cant see" and it will be like the british laws you must make a reasonable effort to produce the means to read them.
Also, if the "well known magic numbers" were so well known and I was knowingly sending encrypted info and I didn't want the govt. to see I would start stripping them off the front and putting them back on at the other side. I'd also think about doing something a little more stealth and less trackable than emailing the file. Emails stick around on servers and backups for a long time. If it's gone, encrypted or not they cant read it.
Im the lead developer for a small company, we write web applications. What we do isn't inovative in a technical sense, but the ideas are. We rely on the fact that we're first to market with a feature, maintain that lead while others play catchup as we implement the next set of new features.
The problem with the GPL for us, is that it effectively removes that barrier to entry, and allows other commercial interests to do exactly what you're claiming the GPL prevents. If we release our code GPL, they can include all the features we have letting them jump straight into a level playing field without being arsed to invest in R&D and without any effort (on their part anyway, the long days and late nights are all mine). All because we based a small part of the development on GPL or LGPL code (we're a java house, they work out about the same). For this reason we avoid the GPL and stick purely to Apache/BSD libs, or commercial code if there is no alternative.
The terms of the GPL are commercially friendly, if you are a big company with a recognizable brand (apple, sun, ibm) and a small army of people writing your code. For us and many other small companies that I work with and speak to, the GPL is a complete non-starter. The GPL fails us, because it makes demands that we just cant commercially justify and puts our future viablity as a company at risk. Apache and BSD licences allow us to give back to the community on terms that dont put our livelyhoods at risk.
The GPL is not a licence for the compiled code. It is a souce code licence and as such it does restrict how you can use what you're actually licencing, the source. Most proprietary licences are compiled code licences and as such there are limits on what you can do with the compiled code you've licenced.
Now, flame away if you like, but nowhere in the above did I say or imply that the GPL is as restrictive as most EULAs. I simply state that you are limited in the use of what you licence with both approaches. The software and the licence you choose must be chosen based on the functionality provided, including licenced usages that are provided with the package as a whole. The argument of GPL vs Apache/BSD is the same the licence dictates what you can do with the code and you must choose which best suits your needs.
You want the Apache/BSD licence. What you describe is what it does. The copyright is maintained, but you can take it and drop it straight into a piece of commercial software and not give any of the code away, you don't however at any point change the licence of the Apache/BSD code that you've used. It never becomes yours but you are licenced to use it as if it were.
The problem with the whole concept of a "dirty bomb" is that it wouldn't actually kill anyone. You might want to think before you post, the world armies have the knowledge, stock piles and stocks to engage in Nuclear, Chemical and Biological war.
Why don't you ever hear of a government bulding a dirty bomb, why is it only terrorists and the media that has thought of this? If you do some research, and look at expert opinions, you'll find that studies have been done and that if in the event of a dirty bomb someone present was still for 100 years, the level of exposure would be a concern, but doubtfully fatal.
There was a programme about this, al quedia and the politics of fear on the BBC last night. I could do some research and post links to back this up, but since I'm responding to an AC's wild speculation without citing sourcs (read taking the bait) I don;t think it's needed.:)
Re:The whole one-button mouse thing has to go...
on
Jef Raskin On The Mac
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Other posters that posted comments like "Just plug a two button mouse in and go" are right, but they missed the point. The 2,3,4 or more button mouse is a crutch for poor interface design.
(Like everything else this isn't always the case)
Basically, most things that are on a right-click context sensitive menu really don't need to be there, and many developers pile things into a context sensitive menus that while sensitve to the context, are little used, and should be elsewhere.
The fact of the matter is a Mac is nothing like a PC to use documents exist as floating windows outside of the application window, the file menu is always on the top, and most controls exist in floating windows alongside your document. Use a Mac without the second button for any lenght of time, and you'll realise that the crtl-click is a much cleaner way of doing things. You will also notice that on a mac the ctrl-click usually gives you far less options, again, it's by design (in safari I can view source, save the page or print it, that's it 3 options).
On the otherhand, the scroll wheel is what I miss the mist when I don't have my mouse plugged into my Powerbook.. then again, the arrow keys are about 2 inches from my track-pad, so I use those.
Having built, and tested a system that does allow access to the wireless network through a redirected login page I have to disagree.
While you might have an SSL homepage, and use a proxy, the vast majority of users don't have this. The ones that do, know how to change it, the ones that don't know how to change it need support. 802.1x or a reserved address and domain name aren't really a viable solution right now. The above user that can't change proxy settings, or view a non SSL webpage, still needs support. Guess what else, all you normal users arn't going to have a clue about these either, and they'll need support too. Suddenly your free hotspot, just got more expensive to operate.
The problem with all the solutions is that there isn't really a way to do it that requires no support, but there are ways to do it that require minimal support, keeping costs down, and the service free and valuable to users. The more barriers you put in a user's way, the less they will use the service, all services that we have installed or planned are based around the concept of adding value to a location, ease of use is top of our list when it comes to features, since it's ease of use that allows more people to use the service.
We're both using flexible interpretations of the RFC's, but if you look at the RFC for DHCP they play a bit loose and fast themselves.
"DHCP requires creative use of the client's TCP/IP software and liberal interpretation of RFC 1122" http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2131.txt Page 10.
I don't even need a liberal interpretation to make what I need work, no special conditions other than make a plain http request to a website and you'll see the login, login and enjoy for free. The architectural problems you mention are minor and affect a small subset of the user base (I have statistics that back this claim up). The support needs that would be created by either of your propsed solutions would mean that the hotspots I run for free would either have to move to a pay to play model, or would need to charge more for support (we charge a nominal 5p/min or so for support calls). Neither really appeal to me, so speaking as someone on the ground, the web-redirect is the best answer to the problem.
I would be inclined to think that millions on the streets of Europe opposing the war is more like taking a stand than 'Europeans are just too bored to stand up for anything anymore'.
Yeah, except IBM has even deeper pockets than MS. So they have the cash to put down this bullshit claim, possibly strenghten the GPL and shut the FUD about the licencing issues that MS spews.
SCO may actually in going down in flames make Linux even stronger.
Just because we've indirectly benefited from the profits of large corporations and our lifestyle has improved does not in any way justify the means by which that benefit was bestowed. That sort of warped logic has created the rage towards the US and the west in general; we benefit while they pay. It was only a matter of time before someone got sick of paying.
Right now corporations and the government are pushing against the average citizen, grabbing more and more headway because the average citizen is content. Until that changes or something emotionally-uprising appears you're not going to see many of them pushing back.
Right not corporations, the government and the media are playing off a very emotional event (9/11) and a very fuzzy and ill defined threat (global terrorism). They are using the events to erode the privacy of the individual. They are not pushing because the average citizen is content; they are pushing because the average citizen is scared and distracted, and because the average citizen is scared and distracted they can. It is a fact that the average citizen has only the remotest clue as to what is going on in the world. Something like 50% of Americans now believes that Iraq has something to do with 9/11. While in fact it has never been proven that Iraq has anything to do with Al-Queda at all. It can be argued that the war on Iraq is an attempt to distract the public from the lack of progress in the war on terrorism, all the while keeping the public conveniently misinformed. During the anger, fear and distraction caused by 9/11, and now during the subsequent distraction from the war on terrorism caused by the Iraqi war, the government needs to be seen to be countering the threat of terrorism. The best way to be seen to be accomplishing goals (in this case alleviating threats) when there is little news is to make 'progress', in an area that is not understood by the majority of the audience. I'm pretty sure that most Americans and Britons would be loath to allow the government sweeping powers to open a letter in transit without a warrant of any kind. However laws allowing police sweeping rights to demand encryption keys with accompanying automatic gag order, without any form of appeal or prior review have been passed in the UK and would likely pass without much fuss from the public in America. I find it remarkable that the internet community and technophiles are being labeled as luddites for opposing these laws and restrictions of freedom.
Now, think about it little. The canal did benefit America - both the rich and the poor. It opened up trade avenues previously closed.
I must say I find that argument extremely narrow minded and shortsighted. Panama as Iraq is a country, and has rights as such afforded to it. For no reason should any country have the right to dictate events in another country, unless they are asked for assistance. This is one of the fundamental pillars of the United Nations, without international consensus through the Security Council you can NOT do things like that, certainly not just because you are the sole superpower. As a side bar to this, I'd like to note that the oft quoted Article 51, does not give a nation the right to pre-emptive strike, or the right to meddle with the government of another country.
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security
Just because we've indirectly benefited from the profits of large corporations and our lifestyle has improved does not in any way justify the means by which that benefit was bestowed. That sort of warped logic has created the rage towards the US and the west in general; we benefit while they pay. It was only a matter of time before someone got sick of paying.
Right now corporations and the government are pushing against the average citizen, grabbing more and more headway because the average citizen is content. Until that changes or something emotionally-uprising appears you're not going to see many of them pushing back.
Right not corporations, the government and the media are playing off a very emotional event (9/11) and a very fuzzy and ill defined threat (global terrorism). They are using the events to erode the privacy of the individual. They are not pushing because the average citizen is content; they are pushing because the average citizen is scared and distracted, and because the average citizen is scared and distracted they can. It is a fact that the average citizen has only the remotest clue as to what is going on in the world. Something like 50% of Americans now believes that Iraq has something to do with 9/11. While in fact it has never been proven that Iraq has anything to do with Al-Queda at all. It can be argued that the war on Iraq is an attempt to distract the public from the lack of progress in the war on terrorism, all the while keeping the public conveniently misinformed. During the anger, fear and distraction caused by 9/11, and now during the subsequent distraction from the war on terrorism caused by the Iraqi war, the government needs to be seen to be countering the threat of terrorism. The best way to be seen to be accomplishing goals (in this case alleviating threats) when there is little news is to make 'progress', in an area that is not understood by the majority of the audience. I'm pretty sure that most Americans and Britons would be loath to allow the government sweeping powers to open a letter in transit without a warrant of any kind. However laws allowing police sweeping rights to demand encryption keys with accompanying automatic gag order, without any form of appeal or prior review have been passed in the UK and would likely pass without much fuss from the public in America. I find it remarkable that the internet community and technophiles are being labeled as luddites for opposing these laws and restrictions of freedom.
Now, think about it little. The canal did benefit America - both the rich and the poor. It opened up trade avenues previously closed.
I must say I find that argument extremely narrow minded and shortsighted. Panama as Iraq is a country, and has rights as such afforded to it. For no reason should any country have the right to dictate events in another country, unless they are asked for assistance. This is one of the fundamental pillars of the United Nations, without international consensus through the Security Council you can NOT do things like that, certainly not just because you are the sole superpower. As a side bar to this, I'd like to note that the oft quoted Article 51, does not give a nation the right to pre-emptive strike, or the right to meddle with the government of another country.
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security
The key element of the article is the part where it says 'if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations' as well as t
Slashdot Mirror
Without getting too far off topic, I think they just solve it using some good solid law writing skills. If they're outlawing encryption chances are the deffinition will be "stuff we cant see" and it will be like the british laws you must make a reasonable effort to produce the means to read them. Also, if the "well known magic numbers" were so well known and I was knowingly sending encrypted info and I didn't want the govt. to see I would start stripping them off the front and putting them back on at the other side. I'd also think about doing something a little more stealth and less trackable than emailing the file. Emails stick around on servers and backups for a long time. If it's gone, encrypted or not they cant read it.
Im the lead developer for a small company, we write web applications. What we do isn't inovative in a technical sense, but the ideas are. We rely on the fact that we're first to market with a feature, maintain that lead while others play catchup as we implement the next set of new features.
The problem with the GPL for us, is that it effectively removes that barrier to entry, and allows other commercial interests to do exactly what you're claiming the GPL prevents. If we release our code GPL, they can include all the features we have letting them jump straight into a level playing field without being arsed to invest in R&D and without any effort (on their part anyway, the long days and late nights are all mine). All because we based a small part of the development on GPL or LGPL code (we're a java house, they work out about the same). For this reason we avoid the GPL and stick purely to Apache/BSD libs, or commercial code if there is no alternative.
The terms of the GPL are commercially friendly, if you are a big company with a recognizable brand (apple, sun, ibm) and a small army of people writing your code. For us and many other small companies that I work with and speak to, the GPL is a complete non-starter. The GPL fails us, because it makes demands that we just cant commercially justify and puts our future viablity as a company at risk. Apache and BSD licences allow us to give back to the community on terms that dont put our livelyhoods at risk.
True.
However....
The GPL is not a licence for the compiled code. It is a souce code licence and as such it does restrict how you can use what you're actually licencing, the source. Most proprietary licences are compiled code licences and as such there are limits on what you can do with the compiled code you've licenced.
Now, flame away if you like, but nowhere in the above did I say or imply that the GPL is as restrictive as most EULAs. I simply state that you are limited in the use of what you licence with both approaches. The software and the licence you choose must be chosen based on the functionality provided, including licenced usages that are provided with the package as a whole. The argument of GPL vs Apache/BSD is the same the licence dictates what you can do with the code and you must choose which best suits your needs.
You want the Apache/BSD licence. What you describe is what it does. The copyright is maintained, but you can take it and drop it straight into a piece of commercial software and not give any of the code away, you don't however at any point change the licence of the Apache/BSD code that you've used. It never becomes yours but you are licenced to use it as if it were.
The problem with the whole concept of a "dirty bomb" is that it wouldn't actually kill anyone. You might want to think before you post, the world armies have the knowledge, stock piles and stocks to engage in Nuclear, Chemical and Biological war. Why don't you ever hear of a government bulding a dirty bomb, why is it only terrorists and the media that has thought of this? If you do some research, and look at expert opinions, you'll find that studies have been done and that if in the event of a dirty bomb someone present was still for 100 years, the level of exposure would be a concern, but doubtfully fatal. There was a programme about this, al quedia and the politics of fear on the BBC last night. I could do some research and post links to back this up, but since I'm responding to an AC's wild speculation without citing sourcs (read taking the bait) I don;t think it's needed. :)
Other posters that posted comments like "Just plug a two button mouse in and go" are right, but they missed the point. The 2,3,4 or more button mouse is a crutch for poor interface design. (Like everything else this isn't always the case) Basically, most things that are on a right-click context sensitive menu really don't need to be there, and many developers pile things into a context sensitive menus that while sensitve to the context, are little used, and should be elsewhere. The fact of the matter is a Mac is nothing like a PC to use documents exist as floating windows outside of the application window, the file menu is always on the top, and most controls exist in floating windows alongside your document. Use a Mac without the second button for any lenght of time, and you'll realise that the crtl-click is a much cleaner way of doing things. You will also notice that on a mac the ctrl-click usually gives you far less options, again, it's by design (in safari I can view source, save the page or print it, that's it 3 options). On the otherhand, the scroll wheel is what I miss the mist when I don't have my mouse plugged into my Powerbook.. then again, the arrow keys are about 2 inches from my track-pad, so I use those.
Having built, and tested a system that does allow access to the wireless network through a redirected login page I have to disagree.
While you might have an SSL homepage, and use a proxy, the vast majority of users don't have this. The ones that do, know how to change it, the ones that don't know how to change it need support. 802.1x or a reserved address and domain name aren't really a viable solution right now. The above user that can't change proxy settings, or view a non SSL webpage, still needs support. Guess what else, all you normal users arn't going to have a clue about these either, and they'll need support too. Suddenly your free hotspot, just got more expensive to operate.
The problem with all the solutions is that there isn't really a way to do it that requires no support, but there are ways to do it that require minimal support, keeping costs down, and the service free and valuable to users. The more barriers you put in a user's way, the less they will use the service, all services that we have installed or planned are based around the concept of adding value to a location, ease of use is top of our list when it comes to features, since it's ease of use that allows more people to use the service.
We're both using flexible interpretations of the RFC's, but if you look at the RFC for DHCP they play a bit loose and fast themselves.
"DHCP requires creative use of the client's TCP/IP software and liberal interpretation of RFC 1122"
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2131.txt Page 10.
I don't even need a liberal interpretation to make what I need work, no special conditions other than make a plain http request to a website and you'll see the login, login and enjoy for free. The architectural problems you mention are minor and affect a small subset of the user base (I have statistics that back this claim up). The support needs that would be created by either of your propsed solutions would mean that the hotspots I run for free would either have to move to a pay to play model, or would need to charge more for support (we charge a nominal 5p/min or so for support calls). Neither really appeal to me, so speaking as someone on the ground, the web-redirect is the best answer to the problem.
I would be inclined to think that millions on the streets of Europe opposing the war is more like taking a stand than 'Europeans are just too bored to stand up for anything anymore'.
but that might just be me.
Yeah, except IBM has even deeper pockets than MS. So they have the cash to put down this bullshit claim, possibly strenghten the GPL and shut the FUD about the licencing issues that MS spews. SCO may actually in going down in flames make Linux even stronger.
Let's try that formatted :)
Just because we've indirectly benefited from the profits of large corporations and our lifestyle has improved does not in any way justify the means by which that benefit was bestowed. That sort of warped logic has created the rage towards the US and the west in general; we benefit while they pay. It was only a matter of time before someone got sick of paying.
Right now corporations and the government are pushing against the average citizen, grabbing more and more headway because the average citizen is content. Until that changes or something emotionally-uprising appears you're not going to see many of them pushing back.
Right not corporations, the government and the media are playing off a very emotional event (9/11) and a very fuzzy and ill defined threat (global terrorism). They are using the events to erode the privacy of the individual. They are not pushing because the average citizen is content; they are pushing because the average citizen is scared and distracted, and because the average citizen is scared and distracted they can. It is a fact that the average citizen has only the remotest clue as to what is going on in the world. Something like 50% of Americans now believes that Iraq has something to do with 9/11. While in fact it has never been proven that Iraq has anything to do with Al-Queda at all. It can be argued that the war on Iraq is an attempt to distract the public from the lack of progress in the war on terrorism, all the while keeping the public conveniently misinformed. During the anger, fear and distraction caused by 9/11, and now during the subsequent distraction from the war on terrorism caused by the Iraqi war, the government needs to be seen to be countering the threat of terrorism. The best way to be seen to be accomplishing goals (in this case alleviating threats) when there is little news is to make 'progress', in an area that is not understood by the majority of the audience. I'm pretty sure that most Americans and Britons would be loath to allow the government sweeping powers to open a letter in transit without a warrant of any kind. However laws allowing police sweeping rights to demand encryption keys with accompanying automatic gag order, without any form of appeal or prior review have been passed in the UK and would likely pass without much fuss from the public in America. I find it remarkable that the internet community and technophiles are being labeled as luddites for opposing these laws and restrictions of freedom.
Now, think about it little. The canal did benefit America - both the rich and the poor. It opened up trade avenues previously closed.
I must say I find that argument extremely narrow minded and shortsighted. Panama as Iraq is a country, and has rights as such afforded to it. For no reason should any country have the right to dictate events in another country, unless they are asked for assistance. This is one of the fundamental pillars of the United Nations, without international consensus through the Security Council you can NOT do things like that, certainly not just because you are the sole superpower. As a side bar to this, I'd like to note that the oft quoted Article 51, does not give a nation the right to pre-emptive strike, or the right to meddle with the government of another country.
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security
The key element of the article is
Just because we've indirectly benefited from the profits of large corporations and our lifestyle has improved does not in any way justify the means by which that benefit was bestowed. That sort of warped logic has created the rage towards the US and the west in general; we benefit while they pay. It was only a matter of time before someone got sick of paying. Right now corporations and the government are pushing against the average citizen, grabbing more and more headway because the average citizen is content. Until that changes or something emotionally-uprising appears you're not going to see many of them pushing back. Right not corporations, the government and the media are playing off a very emotional event (9/11) and a very fuzzy and ill defined threat (global terrorism). They are using the events to erode the privacy of the individual. They are not pushing because the average citizen is content; they are pushing because the average citizen is scared and distracted, and because the average citizen is scared and distracted they can. It is a fact that the average citizen has only the remotest clue as to what is going on in the world. Something like 50% of Americans now believes that Iraq has something to do with 9/11. While in fact it has never been proven that Iraq has anything to do with Al-Queda at all. It can be argued that the war on Iraq is an attempt to distract the public from the lack of progress in the war on terrorism, all the while keeping the public conveniently misinformed. During the anger, fear and distraction caused by 9/11, and now during the subsequent distraction from the war on terrorism caused by the Iraqi war, the government needs to be seen to be countering the threat of terrorism. The best way to be seen to be accomplishing goals (in this case alleviating threats) when there is little news is to make 'progress', in an area that is not understood by the majority of the audience. I'm pretty sure that most Americans and Britons would be loath to allow the government sweeping powers to open a letter in transit without a warrant of any kind. However laws allowing police sweeping rights to demand encryption keys with accompanying automatic gag order, without any form of appeal or prior review have been passed in the UK and would likely pass without much fuss from the public in America. I find it remarkable that the internet community and technophiles are being labeled as luddites for opposing these laws and restrictions of freedom. Now, think about it little. The canal did benefit America - both the rich and the poor. It opened up trade avenues previously closed. I must say I find that argument extremely narrow minded and shortsighted. Panama as Iraq is a country, and has rights as such afforded to it. For no reason should any country have the right to dictate events in another country, unless they are asked for assistance. This is one of the fundamental pillars of the United Nations, without international consensus through the Security Council you can NOT do things like that, certainly not just because you are the sole superpower. As a side bar to this, I'd like to note that the oft quoted Article 51, does not give a nation the right to pre-emptive strike, or the right to meddle with the government of another country. Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security The key element of the article is the part where it says 'if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations' as well as t