Don't think you are safe, know you are. There is no Micro$oft. There is only The One (tm) free operating system. Once you have learned enough, you won't have to dodge viruses and software bugs anymore. Inside the Wintel, they are everywhere, and you are nowhere.
there are tens of thousands of merchants who don't understand the basics of information security
Neither do banks themselves, sometimes. In the Netherlands where I live, banks would like to have their customers use 'plastic' wherever possible. With plastic meaning bank card + pin number, or a type of e-wallet called 'chipknip'. Credit cards are not a very popular payment method here AFAIK (these e-wallets aren't either, but that's a different story).
But the weird thing is: a customer is expected to keep his pin number a secret (eg. not write it down anywhere). At the same time, you're expected to type this 'secret' number into terminals at shops, gas stations, restaurants, grocery stores, etc, etc, etc, on equipment you can't verify whether it's tampered with, and under the watchful eye of security camera's and customers waiting in line behind you.
Keep something a secret, and use it in as many (possibly not trustworthy) places? I won't pretend to know much about information security, but that makes no sense.
Another example: recently an online payment method was introduced called iDeal. After placing your order on a webshop, the merchant sends you to your own bank's website, where you can enter password (or other method of authentication), and give the okay for specified amount to be transferred from your account to the merchant. Looks easy enough, doesn't it?
But: Helloooo! After many e-mail phishing attacks, people have been warned not to click on links they receive in e-mails, or follow links on untrusted websites. At the same time, they are encouraged to follow links provided by online shops, which they may not really know or done business with before. How is that webshop to be trusted? Because they have a decent looking site? Because they offer this payment method (and thus need to have some sort of agreement with a bank in place)? Because others have ordered items there? Come on! Don't be surprised if online buyers don't check anything anymore, after getting used to paying this way. Click icon, enter online banking password, done!
For clarity: you sign the 'okay' on your bank's website, using its normal authentication/confirmation procedure. It's like doing a money transfer via your own bank, but streamlined from webshops 'checkout cart' to 'confirm payment'. My critism doesn't involve the security of this particular method (with a customer that pays attention), but how it gets customers used to be on a webshop site, and 2 seconds later enter their online banking details (passwords etc). That sequence isn't a good thing to get used to, and it's ridiculous that banks are promoting this.
It's really a wonder abuses are rarely heard of, but I assume in most instances where it happens, word doesn't get out, and the costs are added to 'the cost of doing business' (=running a bank). There are several reasons I still prefer cash for day-to-day shopping, and the above is one of them. Welcome to our brave new world, where fiction and reality blurs increasingly into one.
Your post is modded insightful, and I suppose many are inclined to agree. But lets do the math, shall we?
The Wiki, has this to say about modern, large, fossil-fueled, thermoelectric power plants (look for combined cycle):
"The efficiency of a combined cycle plant can approach 60% in large (500+ MWe) units"
Roughly matches a number I had in my head. Basically, burn coal/oil/gas and get 100 units of heat. Power plant puts out 60 units in the form of electric power, and the remaining 40 units of heat gets dumped into the environment (or a place where that waste heat can be used!).
Let's factor in, say, ~4% losses during transmission over the electric powergrid. Then at the charging station, you have 0.96 x 60 = 57.6 units left.
Then there's losses in charging and discharging a battery. Let's take the suggestion of another poster and place this around 20%. Then you get 0.80 x 57.6 = 46.1 units out of the battery during your ride. That is pure electric power after all losses between burning fuel in the power plant and what you draw from + and - at the battery. An electric motor combined with modern power electronics will convert this into mechanic power (movement) with very high efficiency. I don't have a typical number here, but think >90%. Factor that in, and you get over 40% efficiency for the whole process.
Now I also don't have exact numbers for modern gasoline/diesel cars, but 40% of the heat from fuel turned into movement power? Maybe modern cars are that good, but I doubt it. If anyone has some more numbers on that: please fill us in.
And there's always the option to draw that electric power from a solar panel on your roof, a windmill in your backyard, or other sources (nuclear?). In case your electric car has a fuel cell onboard, that output can bypass the battery charge/discharge cycle -> losses in that cycle disappear.
So if I have my math right, modern gasoline/diesel cars have to be damn efficient to beat an electric vehicle. Indeed, the battery/storage still IS the problem here.
I want them to sell them to geeks like us. I've thought of a few ideas on that front
I think the OLPC project is making a huge mistake if they don't throw these laptops onto the commercial market, for anyone to buy.
Why? Because of the economies of scale, and extra funds raised. These laptops get cheaper the more you make. If you can sell another hundred thousand of them on the commercial market, produced numbers go up the same. Whatever number you were producing before, these will become cheaper as a result. Perhaps just a little, but when you're aiming for a $100 laptop, everything helps.
Secondly, you can sell them commercially for more, make a profit, and use that profit to give the charity/education part of the project a boost. Others have suggested to double the (commercial) price, and use it to send an extra laptop to developing nations. I think maybe extra funds would be better used for supporting OLPC's already out there, for example by supporting communication infrastructure, software projects targeting the OLPC, or developing new uses/markets for these machines.
And yes, I'd like one too. And not just geeks, I think this would be a perfect tool for grandma's and some percentage of ordinary home PC users. To many people, a PC is still a massive, complex, and intimidating machine. The $100 laptop is smaller, quieter, energy-efficient, likely more secure, and simpler to use. Limited in power/storage, but sufficient for many tasks. Perfect for young kids, to read recipes on in the kitchen, check your e-mail, look up a word for a crossword puzzle, or play a game of Tetris on the train. Why again are these $100 laptops NOT sold to everyone who wants one?
--
I'll have one in semi-transparent purple, with a couple of Gig more flash memory, thanks. Interested to serve as local reseller/support in my area.
It's a shame that things have come to a point where developers/security researchers have to worry about releasing findings like this, perhaps *even* when they are not under US law.
Sure, there are social benfits to space exloration, but maybe people just want thier tax dollars to go towards fixing the problems we have here on earth now. Leave space for private companies for now.
If you meant that going into space is mostly for kicks and not for practical use, then you are dead wrong.
Just take a close look at what human-made equipment is out there (outside the earth's athmosphere, in deep space, on the moon, Mars or wherever), and what exactly it's doing. Then is becomes clear that exploring space has many, many practical benefits for *everybody* on this planet.
Weather prediction, monitoring land use, car navigation systems, telecommunications, new materials, keeping an eye out for km-sided meteors on a crash course with earth, scientific experiments that enable new everyday technology back on earth, etc. etc.
A hot topic right now is global climate change. Is there a problem? How big is it? What can we do about it? Satellites help us get the facts straight, and make informed decisions.
Exploring other planets or deep space is just an extension of that. I'm sure future use of space will include things like tourism, out-of-athmosphere planes, mining other planets for rare/precious materials, and so on. The more we discover, the more possibilities pop up. People who think that has no practical use, are either blind or short-sighted.
But there isn't, you know. An empty car just floats on the spot (without moving). When used, it's the combined weight of driver+passengers' asses* that pushes the car down...
Not a true hardcore geek, are you? PYG (Pretty Young Girl(s)) requesting some sort of intimacy/sex/pubic hair shave job always get top priority on my schedule, no matter what user caused the request.
F**k that dayjob or afternoon shopping trip when the opportunity of your lifetime comes along.
FTA: "Silva said the attacks earlier this year used only about 6 percent of the more than 1 million name servers across the Internet to flood victim networks. Still, the attacks in some cases exceeded 8 gigabits per second, indicating a remarkably powerful electronic assault."
/.ers will know that only the mighty foot of Chuck Norris is powerful enough to kick back such a massive DDoS attack. There is a problem though: since there is only 1 of him, Chuck can't defend more than one site at a time. And ofcourse his ourly rates are a bit steep, too.
Or maybe you're not aware that light sensitivity was considered a peculiar and irritating characteristic of some semiconductor memory.
Hmmm... ever heard of EPROMs? The kind of chips that used to hold firmware, BIOS software and the like before flash memory arrived on the market? Those chips with a transparent window in them? Program electrically (like flash, but slower), and erase by shining UV light on the chip. Even ordinary sunlight will do if you're patient (couple of weeks, UV lights specialized for this task do it in 20 minutes or so).
Put a non-transparent label over the window, stick the chip in the dark insides of a computer, and erase time goes up into decades - how convenient, just right for holding BIOS software. Or put the same chip in an ordinary chip housing, and the 'E' for 'Erasable' drops off - voila, a PROM (one-time programmable memory chip).
(..) unless nuclear decay or cosmic rays generate a photon...
There are different types of radiation (including photons) coming out of space or from nuclear decay. But regardless, most radiation will either not get through the chip casing or pass right through the entire chip, leaving it untouched. Only specific types or wavelengths of radiation (like UV light in the case of EPROMs) will have significant effect, desired or not.
from a die hard Windows user (..) The only thing that I really care about is security. Everything else matters very little (to me anyway)
That's a silly claim to make. If you would value security above anything else, you'd either disconnect your PC from any network and install only known-good software from CD-ROMs, or you'd be running OpenBSD, maybe even OpenVMS, but certainly NOT any flavor of Windows.
Since you claim to be a diehard Windows user, there must be other reason(s) for using it. Because you know it better than other systems? Because you're used to it? Because friends/family/coworkers all use it? Because playing the latest games is your thing? Userfriendly for new users? Who knows, but if security was your #1 priority, Windows is a poor choice.
I am seriously considering a switch to another platform though.
Then why not simply try it? No need to throw your Windows install away immediately. Decide what you want to get out of it: Better security? Easier maintenance? A learning experience? Eyecandy? A setup customized to your likings? Use that to guide your choices. A spare PC + KVM switch, 2nd harddrive or big enough USB stick are affordable these days (not really neceassary BTW, just easier for switching between OS'es). And I'm sure you can find some help in making a dual boot setup, or taking your first steps outside Windows land. All it takes is your time.
Seriously. I remember in the early 90s, tv ads for banks that ended with "...and remember, our staff will never ask for your credit card number over the phone." I think people *eventually* got the message on that one. How long will it take online? Remember, unsolicited email that links to a website ready to take your credit card number is bullshit, mom.
You mean people would never give out credit card numbers, when asked over the phone? I think you place too much faith in humanity.
Most people would agree it's stupid, and fewer people will behave stupid after an education campaign (or after being bitten in the ass). Scam artists may not bother anymore with a certain method. But not because it wouldn't work; but because they've moved onto easier methods, methods that (these days) give them more return for their effort.
For the same reason, e-mails with attachments like "Anna Kournikova.jpg.pif" will keep getting clicked on. You may think it's silly, but there's a new sucker born every day.
There is a debate on whether or not virii can be considered a form of life...
Not really a debate, it depends on your point of view. What sets virii apart from bacteria is that virii can't reproduce by themselves (they abuse other organisms for that). Drop a bunch of virii in an otherwise sterile environment, and nothing much will happen. Drop some bacteria in an otherwise sterile (but suitable) environment, and they'll quickly reproduce. But hey, this is kids biology stuff...
What it looks like under a microscope doesn't change any of this.
Future capabilities could include small wireless cameras linked to facial-recognition software databases that would help identify suspects in crowds, he said. "It can be kind of scary," Ricker said, "but it's not as scary as the alternative."
Not as scary as a (possible) terrorist attack with many casualties? I happen to disagree. I find it very annoying that law enforcement/government seems to want to have any type of 'disturbance' of our society under control. Be it terrorism, crime, violent protests, hooligans, whatever.
Just imagine an 'ideal' world where this would actually work: camera's everywhere, all your actions registered, all terrorists locked away, 100% of crimes solved, citizens obeying all rules, drop a chewing gum on the street and a fine is automatically subtracted from your paycheck, leave your doors unlocked and nobody would even think of walking in to steal your belongings. Bomb attacks only happening in movies or history books.
Now THAT is a scary thought. Would you want to live that way? I sure as hell don't. Sure, streets would be clean, life would be safe and easier, but it would also be very boring.
No need to make life 'perfect'. Just do what is needed to bring negative things down to acceptable levels. Find a balance between that and how much effort is spent to archieve it.
It seems to me this balance is often lost. Are measures really cost-effective? Just imagine that all the money going to counter-terrorism and the war in Iraq had been spent on health care and development aid for poor countries instead. That could have lifted millions out of poverty. Anyone in the Bush administration even have a rough estimate about how many (potential) terrorism that would save, or what boost that would give the US economy (and image)?
'Suspect packages' are found every other day now, and train stations cleared or appartment blocks evacuated. Terrorist strike prevented? Nope. Somebody forget their cellphone or shopping bag, and countless men-hours were wasted.
Common sense, people. Traffic, starvation (if you're really poor) or disease might kill you. If you're 'lucky', a lightning strike, plane crash or falling coconut (yes, they kill more people than sharks!) might do it. Looking at how likely it is, mr. Bin Laden & friends are near the bottom of the list. So why is so much effort wasted on that? I'll take some crime and the occasional bombing instead, thank you.
(Repeating your quote from Bill's letter): "Hardware must be paid for, but soft-ware is something to share. Who cares if the people who worked on it get paid?"
I care! In fact, I care that they should NOT get paid.
Why? If all those codemonkeys in Redmond had not been paid, then Windows might never have been written, and people might not have suffered from blue screens, Clippy and closed file formats. Something better than Windows might have been created instead. Maybe all those monkeys would have been hacking on Linux, NetBSD or Plan B instead.
But wait... maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the folks in Redmond are really coding for the fun of it. Maybe they would have written Windows anyway, and being paid just made it more fun? That's a scary thought: maybe all those $billions were given to MS for nothing? We might have had the same today without paying the MS tax? Ohhh noooo.... (head explodes)
Incredible how much a single letter from 30 years ago still shows the philosophy behind today's giant company. Some people never change, it seems...
"If, however, you publish something that prevents copies from being made (..)"
Maybe current copyright laws should be adjusted, to redefine what exactly is meant with 'to publish' a work.
Let's use an analogy - compare 'publish a work' with 'throw it out on the street for anyone to grab'. If you throw something in the trash and put it out on the street, it's fair game for anyone to go through that trash and take what they find. It's hard to claim something is still yours after you threw it in a dumpster, and watched others take it away.
Now suppose you throw out an 'uncrackable' safe, with interesting stuff inside it (DRM-protected work). Anyone is still free to grab and try to crack that safe, but can you -legally- claim that throwing that safe on the street is the same as throwing its contents out on the street? If you throw out (distribute) a DRM-protected work, did you really 'publish' the contents inside the DRM envelope? As for a 'public right to know what is inside': that is bull. Everybody has the right to lock their own stuff away in a safe. Until you take out that contents, and show that to the world, did you really publish it?
It would be useful if the law would clarify that distinction.
Slashdot Mirror
You must be in the wrong place here. A true Slashdot user would ask: "Please, can I solder something to make this work?"
Carrier anomaly detected...
Don't think you are safe, know you are. There is no Micro$oft. There is only The One (tm) free operating system. Once you have learned enough, you won't have to dodge viruses and software bugs anymore. Inside the Wintel, they are everywhere, and you are nowhere.
Okay, I'll bite...
Near the end of the article: 'mobile laser concept'.
That thing needs a whaleshark to mount it on!
--
Still prefer the double-barreled shotgun, or the Bio-Force Gun (BFG) myself...
From the summary:
there are tens of thousands of merchants who don't understand the basics of information securityNeither do banks themselves, sometimes. In the Netherlands where I live, banks would like to have their customers use 'plastic' wherever possible. With plastic meaning bank card + pin number, or a type of e-wallet called 'chipknip'. Credit cards are not a very popular payment method here AFAIK (these e-wallets aren't either, but that's a different story).
But the weird thing is: a customer is expected to keep his pin number a secret (eg. not write it down anywhere). At the same time, you're expected to type this 'secret' number into terminals at shops, gas stations, restaurants, grocery stores, etc, etc, etc, on equipment you can't verify whether it's tampered with, and under the watchful eye of security camera's and customers waiting in line behind you.
Keep something a secret, and use it in as many (possibly not trustworthy) places? I won't pretend to know much about information security, but that makes no sense.
Another example: recently an online payment method was introduced called iDeal. After placing your order on a webshop, the merchant sends you to your own bank's website, where you can enter password (or other method of authentication), and give the okay for specified amount to be transferred from your account to the merchant. Looks easy enough, doesn't it?
But: Helloooo! After many e-mail phishing attacks, people have been warned not to click on links they receive in e-mails, or follow links on untrusted websites. At the same time, they are encouraged to follow links provided by online shops, which they may not really know or done business with before. How is that webshop to be trusted? Because they have a decent looking site? Because they offer this payment method (and thus need to have some sort of agreement with a bank in place)? Because others have ordered items there? Come on! Don't be surprised if online buyers don't check anything anymore, after getting used to paying this way. Click icon, enter online banking password, done!
For clarity: you sign the 'okay' on your bank's website, using its normal authentication/confirmation procedure. It's like doing a money transfer via your own bank, but streamlined from webshops 'checkout cart' to 'confirm payment'. My critism doesn't involve the security of this particular method (with a customer that pays attention), but how it gets customers used to be on a webshop site, and 2 seconds later enter their online banking details (passwords etc). That sequence isn't a good thing to get used to, and it's ridiculous that banks are promoting this.
It's really a wonder abuses are rarely heard of, but I assume in most instances where it happens, word doesn't get out, and the costs are added to 'the cost of doing business' (=running a bank). There are several reasons I still prefer cash for day-to-day shopping, and the above is one of them. Welcome to our brave new world, where fiction and reality blurs increasingly into one.
Are you sure you still want to get a job there? I mean, it looks like you're not even allowed to surf porn while at work.
That is silly! What else are those company networks good for?
Your post is modded insightful, and I suppose many are inclined to agree. But lets do the math, shall we?
The Wiki, has this to say about modern, large, fossil-fueled, thermoelectric power plants (look for combined cycle):
"The efficiency of a combined cycle plant can approach 60% in large (500+ MWe) units"Roughly matches a number I had in my head. Basically, burn coal/oil/gas and get 100 units of heat. Power plant puts out 60 units in the form of electric power, and the remaining 40 units of heat gets dumped into the environment (or a place where that waste heat can be used!).
Let's factor in, say, ~4% losses during transmission over the electric powergrid. Then at the charging station, you have 0.96 x 60 = 57.6 units left.
Then there's losses in charging and discharging a battery. Let's take the suggestion of another poster and place this around 20%. Then you get 0.80 x 57.6 = 46.1 units out of the battery during your ride. That is pure electric power after all losses between burning fuel in the power plant and what you draw from + and - at the battery. An electric motor combined with modern power electronics will convert this into mechanic power (movement) with very high efficiency. I don't have a typical number here, but think >90%. Factor that in, and you get over 40% efficiency for the whole process.
Now I also don't have exact numbers for modern gasoline/diesel cars, but 40% of the heat from fuel turned into movement power? Maybe modern cars are that good, but I doubt it. If anyone has some more numbers on that: please fill us in.
And there's always the option to draw that electric power from a solar panel on your roof, a windmill in your backyard, or other sources (nuclear?). In case your electric car has a fuel cell onboard, that output can bypass the battery charge/discharge cycle -> losses in that cycle disappear.
So if I have my math right, modern gasoline/diesel cars have to be damn efficient to beat an electric vehicle. Indeed, the battery/storage still IS the problem here.
I think the OLPC project is making a huge mistake if they don't throw these laptops onto the commercial market, for anyone to buy.
Why? Because of the economies of scale, and extra funds raised. These laptops get cheaper the more you make. If you can sell another hundred thousand of them on the commercial market, produced numbers go up the same. Whatever number you were producing before, these will become cheaper as a result. Perhaps just a little, but when you're aiming for a $100 laptop, everything helps.
Secondly, you can sell them commercially for more, make a profit, and use that profit to give the charity/education part of the project a boost. Others have suggested to double the (commercial) price, and use it to send an extra laptop to developing nations. I think maybe extra funds would be better used for supporting OLPC's already out there, for example by supporting communication infrastructure, software projects targeting the OLPC, or developing new uses/markets for these machines.
And yes, I'd like one too. And not just geeks, I think this would be a perfect tool for grandma's and some percentage of ordinary home PC users. To many people, a PC is still a massive, complex, and intimidating machine. The $100 laptop is smaller, quieter, energy-efficient, likely more secure, and simpler to use. Limited in power/storage, but sufficient for many tasks. Perfect for young kids, to read recipes on in the kitchen, check your e-mail, look up a word for a crossword puzzle, or play a game of Tetris on the train. Why again are these $100 laptops NOT sold to everyone who wants one?
--
I'll have one in semi-transparent purple, with a couple of Gig more flash memory, thanks. Interested to serve as local reseller/support in my area.
No, more likely a Berks Eye View.
It's a shame that things have come to a point where developers/security researchers have to worry about releasing findings like this, perhaps *even* when they are not under US law.
You must be a new snowflake here.
Sure, there are social benfits to space exloration, but maybe people just want thier tax dollars to go towards fixing the problems we have here on earth now. Leave space for private companies for now.
If you meant that going into space is mostly for kicks and not for practical use, then you are dead wrong.
Just take a close look at what human-made equipment is out there (outside the earth's athmosphere, in deep space, on the moon, Mars or wherever), and what exactly it's doing. Then is becomes clear that exploring space has many, many practical benefits for *everybody* on this planet.
Weather prediction, monitoring land use, car navigation systems, telecommunications, new materials, keeping an eye out for km-sided meteors on a crash course with earth, scientific experiments that enable new everyday technology back on earth, etc. etc.
A hot topic right now is global climate change. Is there a problem? How big is it? What can we do about it? Satellites help us get the facts straight, and make informed decisions.
Exploring other planets or deep space is just an extension of that. I'm sure future use of space will include things like tourism, out-of-athmosphere planes, mining other planets for rare/precious materials, and so on. The more we discover, the more possibilities pop up. People who think that has no practical use, are either blind or short-sighted.
If your constitution is out of date (..)
Actually, the current version is outdated but that isn't a problem since no-one uses it anyway.
But there isn't, you know. An empty car just floats on the spot (without moving). When used, it's the combined weight of driver+passengers' asses* that pushes the car down...
* Read: a lot of weightNot a true hardcore geek, are you? PYG (Pretty Young Girl(s)) requesting some sort of intimacy/sex/pubic hair shave job always get top priority on my schedule, no matter what user caused the request.
F**k that dayjob or afternoon shopping trip when the opportunity of your lifetime comes along.This has to be another april fools joke.....
Hmm... my GSM uses a provider with a British sounding name (Vodafone), and yet it is still working. Conclusion: yes, this story must be bulls^H^H^H /.ers will know that only the mighty foot of Chuck Norris is powerful enough to kick back such a massive DDoS attack. There is a problem though: since there is only 1 of him, Chuck can't defend more than one site at a time. And ofcourse his ourly rates are a bit steep, too.
Vary your mileage may.Hmmm... ever heard of EPROMs? The kind of chips that used to hold firmware, BIOS software and the like before flash memory arrived on the market? Those chips with a transparent window in them? Program electrically (like flash, but slower), and erase by shining UV light on the chip. Even ordinary sunlight will do if you're patient (couple of weeks, UV lights specialized for this task do it in 20 minutes or so).
Put a non-transparent label over the window, stick the chip in the dark insides of a computer, and erase time goes up into decades - how convenient, just right for holding BIOS software. Or put the same chip in an ordinary chip housing, and the 'E' for 'Erasable' drops off - voila, a PROM (one-time programmable memory chip).
(..) unless nuclear decay or cosmic rays generate a photon...
There are different types of radiation (including photons) coming out of space or from nuclear decay. But regardless, most radiation will either not get through the chip casing or pass right through the entire chip, leaving it untouched. Only specific types or wavelengths of radiation (like UV light in the case of EPROMs) will have significant effect, desired or not.That's a silly claim to make. If you would value security above anything else, you'd either disconnect your PC from any network and install only known-good software from CD-ROMs, or you'd be running OpenBSD, maybe even OpenVMS, but certainly NOT any flavor of Windows.
Since you claim to be a diehard Windows user, there must be other reason(s) for using it. Because you know it better than other systems? Because you're used to it? Because friends/family/coworkers all use it? Because playing the latest games is your thing? Userfriendly for new users? Who knows, but if security was your #1 priority, Windows is a poor choice.
I am seriously considering a switch to another platform though.
Then why not simply try it? No need to throw your Windows install away immediately. Decide what you want to get out of it: Better security? Easier maintenance? A learning experience? Eyecandy? A setup customized to your likings? Use that to guide your choices. A spare PC + KVM switch, 2nd harddrive or big enough USB stick are affordable these days (not really neceassary BTW, just easier for switching between OS'es). And I'm sure you can find some help in making a dual boot setup, or taking your first steps outside Windows land. All it takes is your time.You mean people would never give out credit card numbers, when asked over the phone? I think you place too much faith in humanity.
Most people would agree it's stupid, and fewer people will behave stupid after an education campaign (or after being bitten in the ass). Scam artists may not bother anymore with a certain method. But not because it wouldn't work; but because they've moved onto easier methods, methods that (these days) give them more return for their effort.
For the same reason, e-mails with attachments like "Anna Kournikova.jpg.pif" will keep getting clicked on. You may think it's silly, but there's a new sucker born every day.How would they know, when they couldn't read Slashdot reporting about it?
Not really a debate, it depends on your point of view. What sets virii apart from bacteria is that virii can't reproduce by themselves (they abuse other organisms for that). Drop a bunch of virii in an otherwise sterile environment, and nothing much will happen. Drop some bacteria in an otherwise sterile (but suitable) environment, and they'll quickly reproduce. But hey, this is kids biology stuff...
What it looks like under a microscope doesn't change any of this.Future capabilities could include small wireless cameras linked to facial-recognition software databases that would help identify suspects in crowds, he said. "It can be kind of scary," Ricker said, "but it's not as scary as the alternative."
Not as scary as a (possible) terrorist attack with many casualties? I happen to disagree. I find it very annoying that law enforcement/government seems to want to have any type of 'disturbance' of our society under control. Be it terrorism, crime, violent protests, hooligans, whatever.
Just imagine an 'ideal' world where this would actually work: camera's everywhere, all your actions registered, all terrorists locked away, 100% of crimes solved, citizens obeying all rules, drop a chewing gum on the street and a fine is automatically subtracted from your paycheck, leave your doors unlocked and nobody would even think of walking in to steal your belongings. Bomb attacks only happening in movies or history books.
Now THAT is a scary thought. Would you want to live that way? I sure as hell don't. Sure, streets would be clean, life would be safe and easier, but it would also be very boring.
No need to make life 'perfect'. Just do what is needed to bring negative things down to acceptable levels. Find a balance between that and how much effort is spent to archieve it.
It seems to me this balance is often lost. Are measures really cost-effective? Just imagine that all the money going to counter-terrorism and the war in Iraq had been spent on health care and development aid for poor countries instead. That could have lifted millions out of poverty. Anyone in the Bush administration even have a rough estimate about how many (potential) terrorism that would save, or what boost that would give the US economy (and image)?
'Suspect packages' are found every other day now, and train stations cleared or appartment blocks evacuated. Terrorist strike prevented? Nope. Somebody forget their cellphone or shopping bag, and countless men-hours were wasted.
Common sense, people. Traffic, starvation (if you're really poor) or disease might kill you. If you're 'lucky', a lightning strike, plane crash or falling coconut (yes, they kill more people than sharks!) might do it. Looking at how likely it is, mr. Bin Laden & friends are near the bottom of the list. So why is so much effort wasted on that? I'll take some crime and the occasional bombing instead, thank you.I care! In fact, I care that they should NOT get paid.
Why? If all those codemonkeys in Redmond had not been paid, then Windows might never have been written, and people might not have suffered from blue screens, Clippy and closed file formats. Something better than Windows might have been created instead. Maybe all those monkeys would have been hacking on Linux, NetBSD or Plan B instead.
But wait... maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the folks in Redmond are really coding for the fun of it. Maybe they would have written Windows anyway, and being paid just made it more fun? That's a scary thought: maybe all those $billions were given to MS for nothing? We might have had the same today without paying the MS tax? Ohhh noooo.... (head explodes)
Incredible how much a single letter from 30 years ago still shows the philosophy behind today's giant company. Some people never change, it seems...Maybe current copyright laws should be adjusted, to redefine what exactly is meant with 'to publish' a work.
Let's use an analogy - compare 'publish a work' with 'throw it out on the street for anyone to grab'. If you throw something in the trash and put it out on the street, it's fair game for anyone to go through that trash and take what they find. It's hard to claim something is still yours after you threw it in a dumpster, and watched others take it away.
Now suppose you throw out an 'uncrackable' safe, with interesting stuff inside it (DRM-protected work). Anyone is still free to grab and try to crack that safe, but can you -legally- claim that throwing that safe on the street is the same as throwing its contents out on the street? If you throw out (distribute) a DRM-protected work, did you really 'publish' the contents inside the DRM envelope? As for a 'public right to know what is inside': that is bull. Everybody has the right to lock their own stuff away in a safe. Until you take out that contents, and show that to the world, did you really publish it?
It would be useful if the law would clarify that distinction.