they spent big, big, big money to implement a system where data did not enter or leave the premises without authorization.
That conflicts with your earlier suggestion that a user could post data in Slashdot comments. Because if someone can READ Slashdot, then basically arbitrary data can come onto the system in comments.
You don't mention this, but are users able to execute downloaded programs? (either binaries, or Microsoft(tm) Office(r) macros? screensavers?) If so, there are still holes in the scheme....
Clients including the FBI and CIA were furious beyond belief when they learned that various databases had been used to get dirt on ex-girlfriends, business foes
Abuses like that require no great deal of output. They can happen just by memorizing an address + phone number. To guard against such activities, it's better to have occasional auditing of search terms entered into the database (which your example probably already does).
I'd be very surprised if you could steal data from this place
"Stealing" data from someone who doesn't own it is impossible.
Unless you have bars all over the place, a homeowners door is a message/statement, not a barrier.
Unless it has words all over the place, a homeowner's door is a barrier, not a message.
Disabling USB storage is an attempt to enforce policy by technological means. It is not a message.
And the Message Box that comes up with the Error Message when you attempt to use the thumbdrive? Could that be a message, maybe?
I believe that the corporation is making the wrong policy.
The USA NSA disagrees with you. They want to protect data from disclosure of any kind, whether intentional or accidental. Protecting employees from making accidents can be a good policy, especially if the data is very important.
A user can't be sure of the true contents of a file he's copying to a flashdrive. Maybe it's just a 10-line Microsoft(tm) Word(r) Document he just typed in... or maybe that Document contains images of company secrets left over in previously-used RAM that the application never cleared.
These things happen. A little software check to prevent accidental policy abuses can be a good thing.
Should users be able to delete each other's networked files without asking? No, that's a policy. Could they sniff the network to learn each other's passwords, and then delete the files? Probably. Does that mean we should give everyone write permission on all shared drives, because they could hack their way to it anyhow?
Re:Not to self-aggrandize...
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 1
No, it doesn't, and that's the point.
No. You may think you're disagreeing with me, but you're not. I suspect you misunderstand the word "chaos"- it doesn't mean randomness! It means there is order in complexity, but it's difficult to understand and predict. A small change in one direction may in fact push the larger system in th other direction. That's chaos.
In fact, the "unstable tipping point" you mention later is a traditional sign of a chaotic system.
Actual experience with IRV in Australia has shown that voters *do* end up having to vote against their true preferences in order to avoid giving the election to someone they hate.
Actual experience with WinnerTakeAll voting in the USA has shown that if New Hampshire Nader voters *had* voted against their true preference, they would've avoided giving the election to Bush.
IRV, in practice, would give virtually the same results as WTA (except that ballots will be more expensive to print, and slower to count). 3rd parties would never be able to grow to the point of competitiveness, because voters will be aware of the chaotic effect that might ensue, and would shy away from supporting mavericks for that reason.
In an IRV system, if there were 3 parties of comprable popularity, then results of individual elections will be highly unstable- an undesirable condition, because the public doesn't like huge surprises. They will fight back against the uncertainty by either forcing the parties to be mostly identical (so that no matter who wins, it matters little), or by randomly shunning one of the parties (returning to bipartisan predictability)
Ummm, so why is it I can mount my thumb-drive while logged in as me on Fedora Core 2?
Oh, that's the non-commerical version. It isn't approved for corporate use.
To get the advanced removable-media denial feature, you need Red Hat Enterprise Licensing. (Versions of Red Hat desktop 7.2 and prior had this feature, before it was solely transferred to the Enterprise Edition)
Re:Not to self-aggrandize...
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 1
I really don't see that happening
Unlikely, true. But possible, especially if voters game the system, by intentionally voting for a disliked candidate in round 1, hoping that he'll knock off another disliked candidate, clearing the way for the victory of their own guy.
In a world with daily polling predictions, such a scenario is moderately plausible (a little like how Republican agents collect signatures for Nader, hoping he'll take Kerry votes). IRV works well so long as the voters honestly list candidates in order of preference- but if a voter wises up and decides to vote to maximize his candiate's chances, chaos sets in.
That's the true risk of IRV; the system is much more vulnerable to exploitation by political machines and dishonest voters. Master-planners like Karl Rove already have an abundance of power, which IRV would only enhance.
And there are quite a few ex-democrats in the libertarian party as well. Don't ignore them.
It was a hypothetical example. And don't capitalize inconsistently; in that case, it really changes the meaning of the sentence. (Any real ex-democrats in the LP are probably ex-Republicans, and not ex-Democrats)
I will have to challenge your assertion that they aren't influential.
Right up there with Ralph Nader and George Soros, then. (Which means yes, SOME influence- but not enough to, for example, provoke debate before Bono or DMCA were rubber-stamped)
That proposal is so small in scope... it doesn't attempt to weaken IP at all. It's really just a minor point about accuracy in labelling merchandise.
One can say that sponsoring that addendum demonstrates a position on the consumer-vs-corporation axis, but it doesn't let us infer anything about their position on, say, actually shortening copyright, or banning business-method patents.
Re:Patents are not for ideas
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 1
For patents, you need a physical invention.
But you just said processes are patentable! A process isn't necessarily physical.
All of these are more than just "ideas"
Yes. They are more than ideas- which means they are ideas. That's a trivial application of logical speaking. (Humans are more than animals- so they ARE animals)
You stated "Patents do not apply to ideas". If you said "Patents do not apply to ALL ideas", that'd be correct... but you didn't.
Don't think I'm seizing on a trivial typing oversight for no reason. Your false statement was used to attack kalamadan for claiming "With IP, the possession is an idea.". But that's completely true.
IP protects ideas. Copyright, patents, and trademarks are a subset of IP, each protecting a subset of ideas.
If I said "Murder laws prohibit killing people", that would be true, even though they don't apply to 100% of all people.
Paul? Just because he's not a Bushite neocon mouthpiece doesn't mean he's not a genuine, active politician.
Nope, but that fact that he's dead has something to do with it. That, and the extreme liberalism.
Oh, did you mean someone else? Then you should've been a LITTLE specific.
Maybe you mean Ron Paul of Texas? If so, then all three are "extremely influential" in a non-influential segment... their brand of conservatism will be marginalized as long as the mass of supporters can be sucked to the GOP on "social" issues (abortion, homosexuality, etc).
Intellectual Property just doesn't stir up the visceral emotion to rile a crowd.
Linux is way ahead, again. Because on your normal Linux desktop installation, only root can mount USB devices. That's safety!
(In the past, the administrator could delegate the authority to mount certain devices by placing "user" entries in the fstab list. But modern distributions, like Red Hat, automatically overwrite fstab each time hardware is inserted, ensuring that ONLY root can use thumbdrives)
Got any that's a genuine, active politician? Those are all (as I said) opinionated academic editorialists.
("Forbes for President" doesn't count, as it's both too old and too self-funded)
Re:Patents are not for ideas
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 1
People continually confuse this issue.
So do you.
Patents are for inventions, which are a kind of idea. Copyrights are for writing/artwork, which are kinds of ideas. Trademarks are for names/logos, which are kinds of ideas.
Anything that a human has ever thought of is an idea! That includes all forms of "intellectual property", and much else besides.
You cannot patent an idea
You can patent some ideas.
It is a process that actually does something in a stepwise manner- presicely what US patent law covers.
Wrong. US patent law has never covered "processes". According to the law, you can only patent physical things. That limitation is ignored today, by using loopholes like "apparatus and method" patents, but the law, although toothless, still stands.
Countries that do not have solid IP laws in place generally see no technological innovation at all
Right. Because technological innovation never happened before 1627.
At least for Americans, talk of abandoning IP laws is kind of pointless.
That's a lot of text to just pummel a strawman. Nobody wants to abandon intellectual property. That would be stupid, for more fundamental reasons than you've mentioned.
What many people desire is a return to the goals of intellectual property as enumerated in the US Constitution: "To promote the progress of science and the useful arts". The manner in which current laws are at odds with that goal are legion, and have even been acknowledged by the US Supreme Court.
It's tough to find any prominent politician for weaker IP. (You can find pro-IP, and those who don't care... but the only ones who want to reduce it are editorial-writing academics)
PS. In the USA, it is an error to capitalize "Liberal" or "Conservative". Those terms by definition only apply outside that country.
"A terrorist is, by definition, someone who has no hope of winning a war."
Really? Fascinating. Whose definition is this? Are you saying terrorist tactics have played no part in winning any historical conflict?
Like it or not, that's the definition used in practice. Not everyone who utilizes terror gets labelled a terrorist. (The USA has thousands of times more WMD than anyone on their enemies lists)
Every nation that wins a war through traditional military force is using terror- first you beat the enemy army, and then the enemy population is terrorized by what you could do to them. The Allies cemented their WWII victory through terror-bombings of noncombatant cities, for example. But because they were the ones left in power, no one calls them terrorists.
The word "terrorist" only really gets applied to people who deploy terror furtively, without the "conventional" strength of a force large enough to eschew stealth.
Why would I even bother responding to someone who's only trick is argument by assertion?
Nonetheless, even if there were no risk, you don't screw with an entire region's economy just because someone important happened to be in the area when the no-fly was issued.
Ahem, the economy of 100s of different regions was "screwed with" by denying flights to millions of important someones who were totally beyond suspicion. Why some people who were plausibly close to the crime were given a special exception makes no sense.
But don't bother responding, you'll just do the same thing as all your posts- repeat something you wish were the truth, without anything to back it up.
Well the human reaction time is about 400ms (eg. this figure is used in drag racing timing -- if your car moves less than 400ms after the light goes green,
No, it's closer to 200ms. The racing board must add in some time to account for the motor's acceleration.
If any of them had reason to believe there were no WMD's in Iraq, they wouldn't have voted to give Bush authorization to go - INCLUDING KERRY
For at least 4 years, the Democratic platform has been to promote democratic nation building in foreign countries. Gore campaigned for it; Bush promised against it.
This is the same intelligence community that failed to see the fall of the Soviet empire coming,
You're so wrong, it's painfully ironic.
The "intelligence" that "justified" Gulf War 2 was from the Office of Special Plans under Paul Wolfwitz. Wolfwitz made his reputation by accurately predicting the Soviet collapse back in the 80s, one of the few people to guess it right.
In fact, it's because that experience convinced him that he was so much smarter than the CIA, that he happily suppressed their concerns about the Iraq WMD question.
Under no circumstances would we overthrow our existing government and install a Bhuddist emperor.
There is no such thing as a "Bhuddist emperor". It seems you might have just mispelled "Buddhist", but that's not right either. Japan has 2 religions: Shinto and Buddhism. The Emperor's authority (as well as the nation's aggressive pride) comes from Shinto.
A tremendous amount of Saudi business revolves around the Bin Laden family.
Oh. So they're too rich to arrest, huh? If OJ Simpson had been 10x richer, then I guess they wouldn't have had to bother with a trial even.
They are NOT anyone the US had any right to detain.
The USA doesn't care much about rights when it comes to detaining foreigners.
when merely keeping them in the country could have been disastrous is
No it couldn't have been. They were at NO RISK. The US government could keep them completely protected. The American military can provide far better protection than they'd get even at home in Arabia. (But I already explained this, and you ignored it, so I can't expect you to listen this time)
if someone believes in something I don't, but... honestly believes it's the right thing to do... then I may wind up voting him into office, because a man trying to do the right thing is infinitely better
Vote Laden-Hussein in 2008!
than a man who will say anything to get elected.
A typical "libertarian" response is to favor the least-principled candidate, on the theory that his flip-flopping will cancel itself out and approximate a weaker government overall.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd know by mail and SMS the second after you unplug that network cable.
Who said unplug the network cable? I can unplug and replug an IDE hard drive without powering-off the PC containing it.
How strong is your chassis?
Security'd be at your desk within a minute.
They must get a lot of exercise, what with the typical WinXP uptime.
they spent big, big, big money to implement a system where data did not enter or leave the premises without authorization.
That conflicts with your earlier suggestion that a user could post data in Slashdot comments. Because if someone can READ Slashdot, then basically arbitrary data can come onto the system in comments.
You don't mention this, but are users able to execute downloaded programs? (either binaries, or Microsoft(tm) Office(r) macros? screensavers?) If so, there are still holes in the scheme....
Clients including the FBI and CIA were furious beyond belief when they learned that various databases had been used to get dirt on ex-girlfriends, business foes
Abuses like that require no great deal of output. They can happen just by memorizing an address + phone number. To guard against such activities, it's better to have occasional auditing of search terms entered into the database (which your example probably already does).
I'd be very surprised if you could steal data from this place
"Stealing" data from someone who doesn't own it is impossible.
Unless you have bars all over the place, a homeowners door is a message/statement, not a barrier.
Unless it has words all over the place, a homeowner's door is a barrier, not a message.
Disabling USB storage is an attempt to enforce policy by technological means. It is not a message.
And the Message Box that comes up with the Error Message when you attempt to use the thumbdrive? Could that be a message, maybe?
I believe that the corporation is making the wrong policy.
The USA NSA disagrees with you. They want to protect data from disclosure of any kind, whether intentional or accidental. Protecting employees from making accidents can be a good policy, especially if the data is very important.
A user can't be sure of the true contents of a file he's copying to a flashdrive. Maybe it's just a 10-line Microsoft(tm) Word(r) Document he just typed in... or maybe that Document contains images of company secrets left over in previously-used RAM that the application never cleared.
These things happen. A little software check to prevent accidental policy abuses can be a good thing.
Should users be able to delete each other's networked files without asking? No, that's a policy. Could they sniff the network to learn each other's passwords, and then delete the files? Probably. Does that mean we should give everyone write permission on all shared drives, because they could hack their way to it anyhow?
No, it doesn't, and that's the point.
No. You may think you're disagreeing with me, but you're not. I suspect you misunderstand the word "chaos"- it doesn't mean randomness! It means there is order in complexity, but it's difficult to understand and predict. A small change in one direction may in fact push the larger system in th other direction. That's chaos.
In fact, the "unstable tipping point" you mention later is a traditional sign of a chaotic system.
Actual experience with IRV in Australia has shown that voters *do* end up having to vote against their true preferences in order to avoid giving the election to someone they hate.
Actual experience with WinnerTakeAll voting in the USA has shown that if New Hampshire Nader voters *had* voted against their true preference, they would've avoided giving the election to Bush.
IRV, in practice, would give virtually the same results as WTA (except that ballots will be more expensive to print, and slower to count). 3rd parties would never be able to grow to the point of competitiveness, because voters will be aware of the chaotic effect that might ensue, and would shy away from supporting mavericks for that reason.
In an IRV system, if there were 3 parties of comprable popularity, then results of individual elections will be highly unstable- an undesirable condition, because the public doesn't like huge surprises. They will fight back against the uncertainty by either forcing the parties to be mostly identical (so that no matter who wins, it matters little), or by randomly shunning one of the parties (returning to bipartisan predictability)
Ummm, so why is it I can mount my thumb-drive while logged in as me on Fedora Core 2?
Oh, that's the non-commerical version. It isn't approved for corporate use.
To get the advanced removable-media denial feature, you need Red Hat Enterprise Licensing. (Versions of Red Hat desktop 7.2 and prior had this feature, before it was solely transferred to the Enterprise Edition)
I really don't see that happening
Unlikely, true. But possible, especially if voters game the system, by intentionally voting for a disliked candidate in round 1, hoping that he'll knock off another disliked candidate, clearing the way for the victory of their own guy.
In a world with daily polling predictions, such a scenario is moderately plausible (a little like how Republican agents collect signatures for Nader, hoping he'll take Kerry votes). IRV works well so long as the voters honestly list candidates in order of preference- but if a voter wises up and decides to vote to maximize his candiate's chances, chaos sets in.
That's the true risk of IRV; the system is much more vulnerable to exploitation by political machines and dishonest voters. Master-planners like Karl Rove already have an abundance of power, which IRV would only enhance.
And there are quite a few ex-democrats in the libertarian party as well. Don't ignore them.
It was a hypothetical example. And don't capitalize inconsistently; in that case, it really changes the meaning of the sentence. (Any real ex-democrats in the LP are probably ex-Republicans, and not ex-Democrats)
I will have to challenge your assertion that they aren't influential.
Right up there with Ralph Nader and George Soros, then. (Which means yes, SOME influence- but not enough to, for example, provoke debate before Bono or DMCA were rubber-stamped)
Rep. Boucher's proposal to weaken the DMCA.
That proposal is so small in scope... it doesn't attempt to weaken IP at all. It's really just a minor point about accuracy in labelling merchandise.
One can say that sponsoring that addendum demonstrates a position on the consumer-vs-corporation axis, but it doesn't let us infer anything about their position on, say, actually shortening copyright, or banning business-method patents.
For patents, you need a physical invention.
But you just said processes are patentable! A process isn't necessarily physical.
All of these are more than just "ideas"
Yes. They are more than ideas- which means they are ideas. That's a trivial application of logical speaking. (Humans are more than animals- so they ARE animals)
You stated "Patents do not apply to ideas". If you said "Patents do not apply to ALL ideas", that'd be correct... but you didn't.
Don't think I'm seizing on a trivial typing oversight for no reason. Your false statement was used to attack kalamadan for claiming "With IP, the possession is an idea.". But that's completely true.
IP protects ideas.
Copyright, patents, and trademarks are a subset of IP, each protecting a subset of ideas.
If I said "Murder laws prohibit killing people", that would be true, even though they don't apply to 100% of all people.
Paul? Just because he's not a Bushite neocon mouthpiece doesn't mean he's not a genuine, active politician.
Nope, but that fact that he's dead has something to do with it. That, and the extreme liberalism.
Oh, did you mean someone else? Then you should've been a LITTLE specific.
Maybe you mean Ron Paul of Texas? If so, then all three are "extremely influential" in a non-influential segment... their brand of conservatism will be marginalized as long as the mass of supporters can be sucked to the GOP on "social" issues (abortion, homosexuality, etc).
Intellectual Property just doesn't stir up the visceral emotion to rile a crowd.
Linux is way ahead, again. Because on your normal Linux desktop installation, only root can mount USB devices. That's safety!
(In the past, the administrator could delegate the authority to mount certain devices by placing "user" entries in the fstab list. But modern distributions, like Red Hat, automatically overwrite fstab each time hardware is inserted, ensuring that ONLY root can use thumbdrives)
Schlafly, Forbes, Paul.
Got any that's a genuine, active politician? Those are all (as I said) opinionated academic editorialists.
("Forbes for President" doesn't count, as it's both too old and too self-funded)
People continually confuse this issue.
So do you.
Patents are for inventions, which are a kind of idea.
Copyrights are for writing/artwork, which are kinds of ideas.
Trademarks are for names/logos, which are kinds of ideas.
Anything that a human has ever thought of is an idea! That includes all forms of "intellectual property", and much else besides.
You cannot patent an idea
You can patent some ideas.
It is a process that actually does something in a stepwise manner- presicely what US patent law covers.
Wrong. US patent law has never covered "processes". According to the law, you can only patent physical things. That limitation is ignored today, by using loopholes like "apparatus and method" patents, but the law, although toothless, still stands.
Countries that do not have solid IP laws in place generally see no technological innovation at all
Right. Because technological innovation never happened before 1627.
At least for Americans, talk of abandoning IP laws is kind of pointless.
That's a lot of text to just pummel a strawman. Nobody wants to abandon intellectual property. That would be stupid, for more fundamental reasons than you've mentioned.
What many people desire is a return to the goals of intellectual property as enumerated in the US Constitution: "To promote the progress of science and the useful arts". The manner in which current laws are at odds with that goal are legion, and have even been acknowledged by the US Supreme Court.
and plenty of Conservatives who do not.
Really? Name three.
It's tough to find any prominent politician for weaker IP. (You can find pro-IP, and those who don't care... but the only ones who want to reduce it are editorial-writing academics)
PS. In the USA, it is an error to capitalize "Liberal" or "Conservative". Those terms by definition only apply outside that country.
I question your religious background since you failed to capitalize Jesus
I question your religion background because you wrote "Jesus". Deuteronomy 12:4 says never to write the name of God.
By writing "jesus" instead of "Jesus", No-op has obeyed the scripture that you broke.
- "A terrorist is, by definition, someone who has no hope of winning a war."
Really? Fascinating. Whose definition is this? Are you saying terrorist tactics have played no part in winning any historical conflict?Like it or not, that's the definition used in practice. Not everyone who utilizes terror gets labelled a terrorist. (The USA has thousands of times more WMD than anyone on their enemies lists)
Every nation that wins a war through traditional military force is using terror- first you beat the enemy army, and then the enemy population is terrorized by what you could do to them. The Allies cemented their WWII victory through terror-bombings of noncombatant cities, for example. But because they were the ones left in power, no one calls them terrorists.
The word "terrorist" only really gets applied to people who deploy terror furtively, without the "conventional" strength of a force large enough to eschew stealth.
Why would I even bother responding to someone who's only trick is argument by assertion?
Nonetheless, even if there were no risk, you don't screw with an entire region's economy just because someone important happened to be in the area when the no-fly was issued.
Ahem, the economy of 100s of different regions was "screwed with" by denying flights to millions of important someones who were totally beyond suspicion. Why some people who were plausibly close to the crime were given a special exception makes no sense.
But don't bother responding, you'll just do the same thing as all your posts- repeat something you wish were the truth, without anything to back it up.
Well the human reaction time is about 400ms (eg. this figure is used in drag racing timing -- if your car moves less than 400ms after the light goes green,
No, it's closer to 200ms. The racing board must add in some time to account for the motor's acceleration.
If any of them had reason to believe there were no WMD's in Iraq, they wouldn't have voted to give Bush authorization to go - INCLUDING KERRY
For at least 4 years, the Democratic platform has been to promote democratic nation building in foreign countries. Gore campaigned for it; Bush promised against it.
This is the same intelligence community that failed to see the fall of the Soviet empire coming,
You're so wrong, it's painfully ironic.
The "intelligence" that "justified" Gulf War 2 was from the Office of Special Plans under Paul Wolfwitz. Wolfwitz made his reputation by accurately predicting the Soviet collapse back in the 80s, one of the few people to guess it right.
In fact, it's because that experience convinced him that he was so much smarter than the CIA, that he happily suppressed their concerns about the Iraq WMD question.
The difference is I'd never recommend Ann's book to anyone as some sort of definitive source of facts.
Her books don't contain shocking, never-before-seen footage.
Under no circumstances would we overthrow our existing government and install a Bhuddist emperor.
There is no such thing as a "Bhuddist emperor". It seems you might have just mispelled "Buddhist", but that's not right either. Japan has 2 religions: Shinto and Buddhism. The Emperor's authority (as well as the nation's aggressive pride) comes from Shinto.
A tremendous amount of Saudi business revolves around the Bin Laden family.
Oh. So they're too rich to arrest, huh? If OJ Simpson had been 10x richer, then I guess they wouldn't have had to bother with a trial even.
They are NOT anyone the US had any right to detain.
The USA doesn't care much about rights when it comes to detaining foreigners.
when merely keeping them in the country could have been disastrous is
No it couldn't have been. They were at NO RISK. The US government could keep them completely protected. The American military can provide far better protection than they'd get even at home in Arabia. (But I already explained this, and you ignored it, so I can't expect you to listen this time)
if someone believes in something I don't, but ... honestly believes it's the right thing to do ... then I may wind up voting him into office, because a man trying to do the right thing is infinitely better
Vote Laden-Hussein in 2008!
than a man who will say anything to get elected.
A typical "libertarian" response is to favor the least-principled candidate, on the theory that his flip-flopping will cancel itself out and approximate a weaker government overall.