If it's made public, then people can compramise the data maliciously before it's fixed.
If they go in on their own, then they'll be punished for it. And they ahve to be - you can't let people mess around with the system as long as they don't do any damage, because people will messaround with systems and do damage even though they didn't mean to.
The correct thing to do is probably to inform the school, hopefully get them to let you demonstrate the flaw under supervision from theirr network people, and if they still don't do anything abotu it... move on. If you make it public, the data WILL get compramised, if you don't, at least there's a chacne no one will notice, AND you dodge any repercussions to yourself.
Charge less for people who can not pay as much or people less inclined to pay at all. It's the same idea behind the senior citizens discount, or kids eat free, or midnight or matinee movie showings.
In this case, it's give away the programming (well, let people watch it stripped of the advertising) if the viewer is someone willing to pay to go through the trouble of downloading it instead of just turning on the TV.
The problem with this model for TV (or movies for that matter, the article attempts to differentiate between the two but on the internet there is no difference) is that what happens when the cost of getting the program on the internet goes away? What happens when most people find it just as easy to get a program on their computer as they do to get it on TV?
What happens when you can get bittorrent on AOL?
The problem with the "little bit of piracy for a lot of real viewers" is that it only works when piracy is inconvenient. If the costs of pirating the program become less than the costs of getting the program legitimately for most viewers, then the model doesn't work anymore.
As things like bittorrent become more and more user friendly, MPAA et. al. are going to have to issue more and more lawsuits to keep the costs of piracy high and preserve the model, otherwise more and more regular viewers will become pirate viewers and the model won't work anymore.
One of the great traffic safety myths is stopping distance. Who cares if your stopping distance is 200 feet or 300 feet?
Personally, I think putting so much emphasis on stopping distance is a mistake. We spend a lot of time teaching drivers that they need to be able to stop before they hit something, and that's not true. You need to be able to STEER to AVOID the accident. I've witnessed on more than one occasion a driver get into an accident that could have been avoided by NOT braking and turning (doing both increases the chances you lose control of the car) because all the driver knows how to do is slam on the brakes.
Now, more speed is obviously more dangerous than less speed, but only linearly so for anything that matters. Damage caused on impact with a stationary object increases linearly with speed (well, at least, damage to you). Time to avoid an accident decreases linearly - going twice as fast, you'll have half as much time to avoid an accident.
Anyway, if roads with turns and blind corners are safe to drive at 30 miles per hour, roads with 2 miles of visibility are safe to drive at 100. Anything that's not moving that you need to avoid you're going to see at least 12 seconds in advance, which is the only things you'll need to stop for. Anything else, if the speed limit is set correctly, will be travelling at roughly the same speed as you, so hitting it isn't a big deal. You can be 60 feet away from the car in front of you going 100 miles an hour and still stop in time.
The VAST, VAST, VAST majority of expressway accidents/injuries/deaths occur in conditions of incliment weather.
Lower base speed limits are not the answer for road safety. What we need is two speed limits: 85 or 90 when it's dry, and 45 when it's raining.
In reality, nothing would prevent a terrorist using a fake foreign passport to board a plane. So I would argue that your conclusion that the REAL ID act solves the problem of terrorist boarding planes is incorrect...
That may have been true in the past, but they're also closing that down; putting more requiremetns on foreign passports and greater scrutiny on passports that don't meet those requirements.
REAL ID is the solution to the problem to the solution to the problem.
The solution to the problem of terrorists getting on planes with their passports is to check the names of people before they get on planes to make sure they're not terrorists. If a terrorist tries to get on a plane using their own name nowadays, they will most likely be prevented from doing so; this wasn't the case in 2001.
The problem with that is it doesn't matter if you're going to catch them if they use their passport if they can just get a fake state ID with a different name on it. That's what REAL ID solves: It makes it much harder to get ID issued by the state, and it makes it much easier to detect fake IDs that were not issued by the state (since now the TSA folks can simply wave your ID over a scanner and have a picture brought up from a central database to make sure it matches the person in front of them.)
So, if REAL ID was in effect in 2001, yes, 9/11 probably would have still happened. But if REAL ID *AND* better watching of who got on planes was in effect in 2001 (as it is now), then 9/11 probably would have been prevented.
In other words, it won't solve the problem, and it will likely create a few that we have yet to see.
My point is that's a specuous argument. You can make that argument about *ANY* change - virtually no change compleely solves the problem, and virtually every change will create a few that we have yet to see.
Take the CURRENT system of drivers licenses for example. Does that "solve the problem" of preventing people who are not qualified from driving? Nope. People who are not qualified still get licenses, and people who have revoked licenses still drive. I guess since it didn't "solve the problem", we shouldn't bother licensing drivers at all, right?
The correct question is "Will the benefits of this change outweigh the other consequences?" And the answer to that is yes. It won't be perfect, but it will be closer to perfect than the current hodge-podge of 50 different identification systems.
Any argument against a national ID card system boils down to "My (whatever) relies on having several incompatible, and sometimes ineffective, ID systems in this country." Regardless of (whatever) is, it's a stupid argument. If you do think having ineffective ID systems is a good thing, then having no ID system would be better, right?
But who in HELL says that a terrorist needs a driver's license? Or a state ID?
You're kidding, right? Let's think of things that it is harder for a terrorist to do with a national standard for issuing driver's licenses and state IDs:
- Obtain a driver's license or state ID with a fake name - Get on an airplane - Rent a Ryder truck - Buy Firearms - Withdraw money from a bank - Go Clubbing
It blows my mind that the general reasdership of Slashdot, who would assail the concept of security through obscurity were it applied anywhere else, think their personal privacy depends on states being able to issue IDs without actually being very sure if the IDs they are issuing are for the people they are issuing them for. "As long as the government has to keep track of 50 different IDs, my privacy is secure!" Right.
That's all the federal government is saying: If you want YOUR state's ID to be accepted as REAL identification, your state needs to excecise due diligence in making sure the IDs issued by your state are accurate.
If we're going to let states issue IDs that are not worth the plastic they are printed on, what's the point? Why make everyone go through the trouble of getting an ID if the criminals are just going to walk into the DMV and get fake ones anyway?
So if we don't force states to take issuing IDs seriously, who suffers? The criminals and terrorsts? Hell no- they'll just get bad IDs. That leaves only one other class...the vast, vast majority of people who are neither terrorists nor criminals.
You're assuming that all vegetarians have the same goal: kill the least number of animals. The truth is there are lots of reasons for people to be vegetarians.
For some it's that they don't like killing animals, period, in which case your point is valid.
For others, it's that they don't like the way animals which are bred for slaughter (or to produce dairy products) are kept - it's the QUALITY of the life, not the taking of the life, that the object to, in which case killing many free-roaming wild mice is preferable to raising an animal in a pen not big enough for the animal to turn around.
And for yet others, it's because they work behind a counter at a coffee shop and "not slaughtering innocent animals" is the only way they have to feel like they're special.
I can't count the number of people I've met who are vegetarians primarily as a mechanism for being different than their parents.
There's a good chance that the integrated stuff he's going to get for free anyway is actually BETTER than the expansion cards he's so insanely keen on continuing to use.
Welcome to the reality of computer components - there's no value in trying to save old tech.
If you have on-board video, the manufacturer usually leaves off the AGP Slot or other appropriate Connector that allows you to install in a decent high-end graphics card.
Virtually all MB's with on-board video have an AGP or PCIE connector and disabling the on-board video is at worst a trivial toggle in the BIOS, if it doesn't automatically detect that you've put a different video card in.
I was at a mall once where a girl got a foot mangled. It's why the things have emergency stop buttons.
Basically, there are two major points of failure: between the side of each stair and the escalator wall, and more likely, at the end of the escalator where the stair slides under the floor.
It's possible for loose clothing (low hanging pant, shoe lace, etc) to get caught between the stair and housing, and pull in a limb. Another problem is small children who sit on th escalator and get things like drawstrings caught.
All bets are off, of course, if the revolutionaries have massive (80-90%) support in the local populus. Example: Algeria. The French put down a violent revolutionary movement, only to be driven out by a popular movement a couple of years later. But then it's no longer a violent revolution, which is what I was talking about above.
And that's exactly why revolution is not a logical argument for the populace being allowed to have tanks, especially in a democracy. If the revolution is popular, you'll win anyway. If not, you're just a minority group engaging in terrorism.
- Somebody hijacked a plane and flew it into buildings. - Many people want to know what the government is doing to make sure that doesn't happen again. - "The paradigm has changed so we don't need to do anything to prevent it from happening again" is not an acceptable answer.
It's not that the government is sneakily trying to take away liberty. It's that the people will not be satisfied until the government takes away some of their liberty.
I don't believe anyone who owns a gun is a wacko - I live in the Northwoods of Wisconsin, almost EVERYONE owns a gun. Unless they prefer bow hunting.
But if you're part of an organization that runs around in the woods thinking they're going to fight off the government, then you're crazy.
Fact of the matter is, militias are completely ineffective unless the government they're fighting is similarly armed. We're not talking about revolutionaries with muskets fighting off a government army with muskets. We're talking about a milita with rifles trying to fight off an army with tanks and stealth bombers. That's not a fight a militia will ever win.
Which means their only options are to not get in the fight in the first place, or resort to what every other "militia" trying to fight the army of a western power in the past 60 years resorts to: Terrorism.
So, if you're in a militia, either you honestly believe your militia is going to be effective against the US military, or you're planning on conducting a war or terrorism. Either way, you're crazy.
Funny thing when you give them the benefit of the doubt. You usually can't take it back. Once the floodgates are open, they can't generally be closed.
Is there some big, rampant, government conspiracy I'm not aware of? When we allowed the government to decide who was allowed to operate a motor vehicle, did the government end up prohibiting everyone from driving? When we let the government issue licenses to broadcasters, did they shut down all the private radio stations?
A functioning society REQUIRES that the government be given a certain level of the benefit of the doubt. It's part of democracy - you elect people to make some decisions that can't be made by a mob of 300 million. If it turns out they make bad decisions, then you elect someone else to fix it.
The government is replacable. It can't run too wild without being replaced.
Slashdot Mirror
How many times have people broken into school databases only to be arrested!
Back when I was in school, we only broke into the school database to change our grades.
Well, they're kinda screwed either way.
If it's made public, then people can compramise the data maliciously before it's fixed.
If they go in on their own, then they'll be punished for it. And they ahve to be - you can't let people mess around with the system as long as they don't do any damage, because people will messaround with systems and do damage even though they didn't mean to.
The correct thing to do is probably to inform the school, hopefully get them to let you demonstrate the flaw under supervision from theirr network people, and if they still don't do anything abotu it... move on. If you make it public, the data WILL get compramised, if you don't, at least there's a chacne no one will notice, AND you dodge any repercussions to yourself.
Tiered pricing.
Charge less for people who can not pay as much or people less inclined to pay at all. It's the same idea behind the senior citizens discount, or kids eat free, or midnight or matinee movie showings.
In this case, it's give away the programming (well, let people watch it stripped of the advertising) if the viewer is someone willing to pay to go through the trouble of downloading it instead of just turning on the TV.
The problem with this model for TV (or movies for that matter, the article attempts to differentiate between the two but on the internet there is no difference) is that what happens when the cost of getting the program on the internet goes away? What happens when most people find it just as easy to get a program on their computer as they do to get it on TV?
What happens when you can get bittorrent on AOL?
The problem with the "little bit of piracy for a lot of real viewers" is that it only works when piracy is inconvenient. If the costs of pirating the program become less than the costs of getting the program legitimately for most viewers, then the model doesn't work anymore.
As things like bittorrent become more and more user friendly, MPAA et. al. are going to have to issue more and more lawsuits to keep the costs of piracy high and preserve the model, otherwise more and more regular viewers will become pirate viewers and the model won't work anymore.
It's always been shocking when a Slashdot reader got their finger in the socket, but this is ridiculous!
0.2 milliwatts isn't exactly that much power:
Are you kidding? That's 200,000 nanowatts, enough for 2,000 nanobulbs!
To refresh:
Right-Wing Profit Mongering Conspiracies are perpetuated by:
- Gun companies
- Tobacco Companies
- Insurance Companies
- Medical Associations
- Farming Lobby
- Energy Companies
- Timber Companies
Left-Wing Profit Mongering Conspiracies are perpetuated by:
- Gun Litigation Trial Lawyers
- Tobacco Litigation Trial Lawyers
- Medical Litigation Trial Lawyers (x2)
- Labor Unions
- Ok, so, environmentalists don't profit monger, so I guess they're up two here...
And in this case, Hollywood and Media Companies, so back to even.
This is clearly left-wing profit mongering, even if Fox is in the business of pandering to rednecks.
And that's part of the point behind REAL ID.
Stealing the physical drivers licenses won't do you any good if you can't also get into the database to plant the matching information.
One of the great traffic safety myths is stopping distance. Who cares if your stopping distance is 200 feet or 300 feet?
Personally, I think putting so much emphasis on stopping distance is a mistake. We spend a lot of time teaching drivers that they need to be able to stop before they hit something, and that's not true. You need to be able to STEER to AVOID the accident. I've witnessed on more than one occasion a driver get into an accident that could have been avoided by NOT braking and turning (doing both increases the chances you lose control of the car) because all the driver knows how to do is slam on the brakes.
Now, more speed is obviously more dangerous than less speed, but only linearly so for anything that matters. Damage caused on impact with a stationary object increases linearly with speed (well, at least, damage to you). Time to avoid an accident decreases linearly - going twice as fast, you'll have half as much time to avoid an accident.
Anyway, if roads with turns and blind corners are safe to drive at 30 miles per hour, roads with 2 miles of visibility are safe to drive at 100. Anything that's not moving that you need to avoid you're going to see at least 12 seconds in advance, which is the only things you'll need to stop for. Anything else, if the speed limit is set correctly, will be travelling at roughly the same speed as you, so hitting it isn't a big deal. You can be 60 feet away from the car in front of you going 100 miles an hour and still stop in time.
The VAST, VAST, VAST majority of expressway accidents/injuries/deaths occur in conditions of incliment weather.
Lower base speed limits are not the answer for road safety. What we need is two speed limits: 85 or 90 when it's dry, and 45 when it's raining.
In reality, nothing would prevent a terrorist using a fake foreign passport to board a plane. So I would argue that your conclusion that the REAL ID act solves the problem of terrorist boarding planes is incorrect...
That may have been true in the past, but they're also closing that down; putting more requiremetns on foreign passports and greater scrutiny on passports that don't meet those requirements.
REAL ID is the solution to the problem to the solution to the problem.
The solution to the problem of terrorists getting on planes with their passports is to check the names of people before they get on planes to make sure they're not terrorists. If a terrorist tries to get on a plane using their own name nowadays, they will most likely be prevented from doing so; this wasn't the case in 2001.
The problem with that is it doesn't matter if you're going to catch them if they use their passport if they can just get a fake state ID with a different name on it. That's what REAL ID solves: It makes it much harder to get ID issued by the state, and it makes it much easier to detect fake IDs that were not issued by the state (since now the TSA folks can simply wave your ID over a scanner and have a picture brought up from a central database to make sure it matches the person in front of them.)
So, if REAL ID was in effect in 2001, yes, 9/11 probably would have still happened. But if REAL ID *AND* better watching of who got on planes was in effect in 2001 (as it is now), then 9/11 probably would have been prevented.
In other words, it won't solve the problem, and it will likely create a few that we have yet to see.
My point is that's a specuous argument. You can make that argument about *ANY* change - virtually no change compleely solves the problem, and virtually every change will create a few that we have yet to see.
Take the CURRENT system of drivers licenses for example. Does that "solve the problem" of preventing people who are not qualified from driving? Nope. People who are not qualified still get licenses, and people who have revoked licenses still drive. I guess since it didn't "solve the problem", we shouldn't bother licensing drivers at all, right?
The correct question is "Will the benefits of this change outweigh the other consequences?" And the answer to that is yes. It won't be perfect, but it will be closer to perfect than the current hodge-podge of 50 different identification systems.
Any argument against a national ID card system boils down to "My (whatever) relies on having several incompatible, and sometimes ineffective, ID systems in this country." Regardless of (whatever) is, it's a stupid argument. If you do think having ineffective ID systems is a good thing, then having no ID system would be better, right?
But who in HELL says that a terrorist needs a driver's license? Or a state ID?
You're kidding, right? Let's think of things that it is harder for a terrorist to do with a national standard for issuing driver's licenses and state IDs:
- Obtain a driver's license or state ID with a fake name
- Get on an airplane
- Rent a Ryder truck
- Buy Firearms
- Withdraw money from a bank
- Go Clubbing
It blows my mind that the general reasdership of Slashdot, who would assail the concept of security through obscurity were it applied anywhere else, think their personal privacy depends on states being able to issue IDs without actually being very sure if the IDs they are issuing are for the people they are issuing them for. "As long as the government has to keep track of 50 different IDs, my privacy is secure!" Right.
That's all the federal government is saying: If you want YOUR state's ID to be accepted as REAL identification, your state needs to excecise due diligence in making sure the IDs issued by your state are accurate.
If we're going to let states issue IDs that are not worth the plastic they are printed on, what's the point? Why make everyone go through the trouble of getting an ID if the criminals are just going to walk into the DMV and get fake ones anyway?
So if we don't force states to take issuing IDs seriously, who suffers? The criminals and terrorsts? Hell no- they'll just get bad IDs. That leaves only one other class...the vast, vast majority of people who are neither terrorists nor criminals.
You're assuming that all vegetarians have the same goal: kill the least number of animals. The truth is there are lots of reasons for people to be vegetarians.
For some it's that they don't like killing animals, period, in which case your point is valid.
For others, it's that they don't like the way animals which are bred for slaughter (or to produce dairy products) are kept - it's the QUALITY of the life, not the taking of the life, that the object to, in which case killing many free-roaming wild mice is preferable to raising an animal in a pen not big enough for the animal to turn around.
And for yet others, it's because they work behind a counter at a coffee shop and "not slaughtering innocent animals" is the only way they have to feel like they're special.
I can't count the number of people I've met who are vegetarians primarily as a mechanism for being different than their parents.
Hunting can and should still be a challenge.
What if you could hunt HUNTERS over the computer? That would make it more challenging for both parties!
If there is no value to old tech then why aren't we all using Windows 98? It too was new at one time.
You mean, like, when it wasn't old?
There's a good chance that the integrated stuff he's going to get for free anyway is actually BETTER than the expansion cards he's so insanely keen on continuing to use.
Welcome to the reality of computer components - there's no value in trying to save old tech.
If you have on-board video, the manufacturer usually leaves off the AGP Slot or other appropriate Connector that allows you to install in a decent high-end graphics card.
Virtually all MB's with on-board video have an AGP or PCIE connector and disabling the on-board video is at worst a trivial toggle in the BIOS, if it doesn't automatically detect that you've put a different video card in.
Unless you consider USB a frill...
Real men get their USB on a PCI expansion card.
I havnt had any luck finding a good motherboard that supports my ram (184 pin RIMM).
Sounds like your motherboard needs a RIMM job.
I was at a mall once where a girl got a foot mangled. It's why the things have emergency stop buttons.
Basically, there are two major points of failure: between the side of each stair and the escalator wall, and more likely, at the end of the escalator where the stair slides under the floor.
It's possible for loose clothing (low hanging pant, shoe lace, etc) to get caught between the stair and housing, and pull in a limb. Another problem is small children who sit on th escalator and get things like drawstrings caught.
But don't take my word on it, how about the Consumer Product Safety Commission?
All bets are off, of course, if the revolutionaries have massive (80-90%) support in the local populus. Example: Algeria. The French put down a violent revolutionary movement, only to be driven out by a popular movement a couple of years later. But then it's no longer a violent revolution, which is what I was talking about above.
And that's exactly why revolution is not a logical argument for the populace being allowed to have tanks, especially in a democracy. If the revolution is popular, you'll win anyway. If not, you're just a minority group engaging in terrorism.
The reason is that:
- Somebody hijacked a plane and flew it into buildings.
- Many people want to know what the government is doing to make sure that doesn't happen again.
- "The paradigm has changed so we don't need to do anything to prevent it from happening again" is not an acceptable answer.
It's not that the government is sneakily trying to take away liberty. It's that the people will not be satisfied until the government takes away some of their liberty.
Maybe the guys who threw the tea into the harbor - but uniformed soldiers who attack other uniformed soldiers are soldiers, not terrorists.
People who blow up other people waiting in line to join the police force are terrorists.
I don't believe anyone who owns a gun is a wacko - I live in the Northwoods of Wisconsin, almost EVERYONE owns a gun. Unless they prefer bow hunting.
But if you're part of an organization that runs around in the woods thinking they're going to fight off the government, then you're crazy.
Fact of the matter is, militias are completely ineffective unless the government they're fighting is similarly armed. We're not talking about revolutionaries with muskets fighting off a government army with muskets. We're talking about a milita with rifles trying to fight off an army with tanks and stealth bombers. That's not a fight a militia will ever win.
Which means their only options are to not get in the fight in the first place, or resort to what every other "militia" trying to fight the army of a western power in the past 60 years resorts to: Terrorism.
So, if you're in a militia, either you honestly believe your militia is going to be effective against the US military, or you're planning on conducting a war or terrorism. Either way, you're crazy.
Funny thing when you give them the benefit of the doubt. You usually can't take it back. Once the floodgates are open, they can't generally be closed.
Is there some big, rampant, government conspiracy I'm not aware of? When we allowed the government to decide who was allowed to operate a motor vehicle, did the government end up prohibiting everyone from driving? When we let the government issue licenses to broadcasters, did they shut down all the private radio stations?
A functioning society REQUIRES that the government be given a certain level of the benefit of the doubt. It's part of democracy - you elect people to make some decisions that can't be made by a mob of 300 million. If it turns out they make bad decisions, then you elect someone else to fix it.
The government is replacable. It can't run too wild without being replaced.