That cookie is renegotiated after each https login, and it is specific to one session. You can't clone it from another station. Even if you do manage to intercept it, Man in The Middle attacks are notoriously hard to execute, (you have to actually BE in the middle) especially for a bunch of thugs in jack boots.
Still, you can just look at press photos to see that the Algerian uprising will fail. In a Muslim country, you can simply count the number of women in the photos. If its not at least 10 percent, the police will use all force necessary, and will ultimately crush the protest.
Now its in a remote guarded facility. Previously it was on the outskirts of the city, just sitting in a mothballed reactor.
Still, I basically agree that getting it out of the country would have made it even harder to steal. Kazakhstan does not seem to me to be the safest or most stable of places.
RIM's core market are business users. This market is safe.
No, its not safe.
Android is going after business as well. (Apple pretends to, but then insists you install a music player to manage a phone).
There isn't a single mainstream business platform that Android can't interact with, securely. Sometimes with built in apps, in other cases third party apps are better. Look at TouchDown some time as merely one example.
Rim was/is the leader in this, but they can't rest on their laurels.
If they wanted to shed the cost of development of their own OS, the logical thing would have been to adopt Android. Instead, they will send all that money to MS, and still have nothing of their own.
Especially with regard to a story such as this where it is clearly the OPERATING system inter-compatibility that Rim is shooting for when making Android Apps run on Rim systems. The story isn't about making HTC apps run on a Blackberry.
The whole point of the article is about how Number Three is going to ride the coat tails of Number Two's apps in a desperate bid to preserve market share.
I seriously doubt Rim finds any consolation in the fact that they are getting beat by 4 or 5 manufacturers all wielding the same stick instead of one single competitor. Its pretty hard to put that on the bottom line in a 10K.
Why? A movie clip is a movie clip. If the content is somehow less appealing to you because it's been placed there by the copyright owner and not some 13-year-old in her bedroom, then your enjoyment of media is predicated on whether or not you're depriving someone of something they have full right to, be it reimbursement or simply the free exercise of their copyright. Either way, the problem doesn't lie with the studios. It's you.
Why is this moded down?
Its the most concise statement of the fact in this entire thread.
If a high quality clip posted by the rights holder is somehow inferior to a crap-quality clip posted by a hacker (all else being equal) then clearly the consumer's preference for ripped off content drives the whole equation.
Raiding the neighbors garden is more fun than being handed a hand picked washed carrot by the gardener?
Much of what you ask for is already on line in one form or another. Often its in the form of on-line books, either from Google or other Libraries. See this example for Hieroglyphs.
The rest is there if you google hard enough, some times in image form, some times translated.
However, TFA is about All the data we have stored, not All the data we have.
The huge amount of bitching that flared up when Google wanted to scan all old books and make them available on line shows that there are deeply entrenched, and largely self appointed, guardians of historical knowledge that see large collections of historical photos, texts, and artifacts as their personal bailiwick, and something they have to guard from us peasants.
The huge amount of cost involved for spinning storage and web services, and web construction makes it impractical for many small museums to put images on line, let alone any documentation of them. There is very little money for any of this except for some of the larger institutions.
Yeah, there should be a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QR_Code>QR code on every historical marker on earth linking to data about it that you can access with your phone. And every museum should have the entire collection on line, right down to the last fossilized lemur tooth. And every shred of parchment should be photographed and put on line and translated.
But who pays for this. Its far cheaper to cast a Commemorative plaque and be done with it. Information wants to be free, but making it so costs a lot of money.
Hmmm, that's going to be harder for them to maintain, since both Barnes and Noble and Amazon have self publishing portals, (follow the links for how those work) and they account for a huge percentage of sales of both Print and ebooks in the US.
Sooner or later someone is bound to release something via those electronic self publish routes which rockets to the top of sales. Will they just pretend it didn't happen?
Or is it that ebook sales WITHOUT dead tree books would never amount to a best seller? (TFA wanders around that particular point, as without numbers, it is impossible to tell whether ebooks simply follow print books in popularity.).
As good authors (Like Steven King) start releasing in ebook format first, using free-lance editor services, the print houses might not have their lock on the attention of the NYT.
Steven Kink kind of popularity will be hard to ignore even if it were self published.
Possession of a copy (of a copy of a copy) of a document does not necessarily reveal the source.
Submitting anything to Wikileaks and trusting THEM to remove any possible links back to you is just foolish. A rational person would remove any in-document linkage before leaking it.
The OP had it right. Patent law prohibits patenting ideas or algorithms. Programs are algorithms by definition, and shouldn't be patentable at all. Yet the Patent office has decided to allow software patents in spite of what the law states.
I don't think the military is that radicalized and I doubt that they will sit something like you describe out (I think it is rather obvious that the non-action of the military has played a big role the last few weeks).
The Iranian military sat out their revolution didn't they? They were even less radicalized. They were swiftly neutralized.
They now are totally cowed by the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution. The Shaw was deposed in January of 1979. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards were created in May of the same year. Their initial purpose was to control the Army. They now control the Country, and report not to the Government, but to the Theocracy.
Watch and see if something similar forms in the next 4 months. Everything is in play at this time. One thing is certain, the Army will NOT long retain any real power.
From what I understand they really aren't that popular. They'll win some seats but not likely a majority.
That's not what I'm reading. They would probably win a majority and certainly would achieve a plurality.
Largely better educated that most of the region, you would expect Egypt to be able to look around and see the situation in other Muslim Theocracies. However if the brotherhood comes up with a slate of candidates promising jobs, medical clinics, lower prices, etc all bets are off. These tactics have worked in Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, etc.
Within two years, Egypt will become another Muslim Theocracy, and there is not much anyone can do about it. Women will largely disappear from the streets, and the few who dare walk around without a head scarf today will be totally gone.
Much as I wish your enthusiasm for Democracy were true, I think you will be disappointed. As will Egypt. Oh, it will look like a Democracy. For about a year.
Exactly. And the same congress grilling the State Department will have an Internet "Kill Switch" bill on the agenda soon. Don't expect any consistency in these congressmen's positions when it does.
"Normal" is basically just another word for "average"...that's not the best approach regarding activities which could be, how you put it, good for humanity. Especially if the organization could be forced into constant reorganizations just by new slander & controversy directed at every new face.
You miss the point entirely.
Why should there be a "Face"?
The mission (allegedly) of Wikileaks is to establish openness of information. Putting ANY face on it simply makes it a personal vendetta mostly aimed at the U.S. (Assange has admitted as much himself).
If they were true to their mission statement, they would not put any face forward, and would simply put the information out there.
Oh, you HAVE read the mission statement haven't you?
Wikileaks is developing an uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. Our primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact. Our interface is identical to Wikipedia and usable by all types of people. We have received over 1.2 million documents so far from dissident communities and anonymous sources. We believe that transparency in government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government and stronger democracies. All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the world community, as well as their own people. We believe this scrutiny requires information. Historically that information has been costly - in terms of human life and human rights. But with technological advances - the internet, and cryptography - the risks of conveying important information can be lowered. Wikileaks opens leaked documents up to stronger scrutiny than any media organization or intelligence agency can provide. Wikileaks provides a forum for the entire global community to relentlessly examine any document for its credibility, plausibility, veracity and validity. Communities can interpret leaked documents and explain their relevance to the public. If a document comes from the Chinese government, the entire Chinese dissident community and diaspora can freely scrutinize and discuss it; if a document arrives from Iran, the entire Farsi community can analyze it and put it in context.
Somehow they seem to have wandered off track somewhere along the line.
My view is that if you aren't set up in such a way that a programmer can't sabotage you, then you deserve it.
Maybe someone could leak the names of some CMS their way.
You missed the part where the programmer is one of two key spokesmen for the whole organization. There was no one higher than him to put these practices in place.
Slashdot Mirror
That cookie is renegotiated after each https login, and it is specific to one session. You can't clone it from another station.
Even if you do manage to intercept it, Man in The Middle attacks are notoriously hard to execute, (you have to actually BE in the middle) especially for a bunch of thugs in jack boots.
Still, you can just look at press photos to see that the Algerian uprising will fail.
In a Muslim country, you can simply count the number of women in the photos. If its not at least 10 percent, the police will use all force necessary, and will ultimately crush the protest.
Now its in a remote guarded facility. Previously it was on the outskirts of the city, just sitting in a mothballed reactor.
Still, I basically agree that getting it out of the country would have made it even harder to steal.
Kazakhstan does not seem to me to be the safest or most stable of places.
Yes, apparently it is.
Its in sealed drums. They guys filling the drums were probably the ones at greatest risk.
I'm guessing it was for the Desalination plant. http://www.panoramio.com/photo/7190472
That was probably part of the reason they built the reactor in the first place. (Old school desalination).
Climb down before you hurt yourself.
The parent was asking for the moon.
The parent wasn't offering to help, or asking where s/he could volunteer time.
The parent was making a petulant demand that other people do the grunt work, apparently for free, and then you come storming in in support.
How much of your "significant amount of archival research" have you made available on line?
And where's the Free Android distribution?
Right here: http://developer.android.com/sdk/index.html
RIM's core market are business users. This market is safe.
No, its not safe.
Android is going after business as well. (Apple pretends to, but then insists you install a music player to manage a phone).
There isn't a single mainstream business platform that Android can't interact with, securely. Sometimes with built in apps, in other cases third party apps are better. Look at TouchDown some time as merely one example.
Rim was/is the leader in this, but they can't rest on their laurels.
You have to wonder why they went that way.
If they wanted to shed the cost of development of their own OS, the logical thing would have been to adopt Android.
Instead, they will send all that money to MS, and still have nothing of their own.
I was pretty disappointed to hear that news.
Like TFA says, they're talking about market leadership in North America.
It could also be said they're market leaders in corporate messaging devices.
Quick, call J D Power and Associates. They will dream up a specific category that Rim can Dominate. Bring your wallet.
How is it germane who made the device?
Especially with regard to a story such as this where it is clearly the OPERATING system inter-compatibility that Rim is shooting for when making Android Apps run on Rim systems. The story isn't about making HTC apps run on a Blackberry.
The whole point of the article is about how Number Three is going to ride the coat tails of Number Two's apps in a desperate bid to preserve market share.
I seriously doubt Rim finds any consolation in the fact that they are getting beat by 4 or 5 manufacturers all wielding the same stick instead of one single competitor. Its pretty hard to put that on the bottom line in a 10K.
Who knew?
Bistro Math says Gartner.
Why? A movie clip is a movie clip. If the content is somehow less appealing to you because it's been placed there by the copyright owner and not some 13-year-old in her bedroom, then your enjoyment of media is predicated on whether or not you're depriving someone of something they have full right to, be it reimbursement or simply the free exercise of their copyright. Either way, the problem doesn't lie with the studios. It's you.
Why is this moded down?
Its the most concise statement of the fact in this entire thread.
If a high quality clip posted by the rights holder is somehow inferior to a crap-quality clip posted by a hacker (all else being equal) then clearly the consumer's preference for ripped off content drives the whole equation.
Raiding the neighbors garden is more fun than being handed a hand picked washed carrot by the gardener?
A standard need not be free of control by a single entity. You are conflating two different concepts of standards and public ownership.
We all pretty much agree that 802.11 is a group of standards. But its patented and owned by CSIRO.
If he wasn't doing it and something did happen, do you really think he'd get any credit for adhering to the constitution?
Carry it to the next step.
What country's intelligence service DOESN'T do this already (unless of course they lack the technical means)?
Those piling on to bash the US probably live in countries that have been listening in on international calls forever.
Much of what you ask for is already on line in one form or another. Often its in the form of on-line books, either from Google or other Libraries.
See this example for Hieroglyphs.
The rest is there if you google hard enough, some times in image form, some times translated.
However, TFA is about All the data we have stored, not All the data we have.
The huge amount of bitching that flared up when Google wanted to scan all old books and make them available on line shows that there are deeply entrenched, and largely self appointed, guardians of historical knowledge that see large collections of historical photos, texts, and artifacts as their personal bailiwick, and something they have to guard from us peasants.
The huge amount of cost involved for spinning storage and web services, and web construction makes it impractical for many small museums to put images on line, let alone any documentation of them. There is very little money for any of this except for some of the larger institutions.
Yeah, there should be a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QR_Code>QR code on every historical marker on earth linking to data about it that you can access with your phone. And every museum should have the entire collection on line, right down to the last fossilized lemur tooth. And every shred of parchment should be photographed and put on line and translated.
But who pays for this. Its far cheaper to cast a Commemorative plaque and be done with it.
Information wants to be free, but making it so costs a lot of money.
Hmmm, that's going to be harder for them to maintain, since both Barnes and Noble and Amazon have self publishing portals, (follow the links for how those work) and they account for a huge percentage of sales of both Print and ebooks in the US.
Sooner or later someone is bound to release something via those electronic self publish routes which rockets to the top of sales. Will they just pretend it didn't happen?
Or is it that ebook sales WITHOUT dead tree books would never amount to a best seller?
(TFA wanders around that particular point, as without numbers, it is impossible to tell whether ebooks simply follow print books in popularity.).
As good authors (Like Steven King) start releasing in ebook format first, using free-lance editor services, the print houses might not have their lock on the attention of the NYT.
Steven Kink kind of popularity will be hard to ignore even if it were self published.
Possession of a copy (of a copy of a copy) of a document does not necessarily reveal the source.
Submitting anything to Wikileaks and trusting THEM to remove any possible links back to you is just foolish.
A rational person would remove any in-document linkage before leaking it.
Be careful what you wish for.
Copyright is for life + 70 years.
Patents last 17 to 20 years.
The OP had it right. Patent law prohibits patenting ideas or algorithms. Programs are algorithms by definition, and shouldn't be patentable at all. Yet the Patent office has decided to allow software patents in spite of what the law states.
I don't think the military is that radicalized and I doubt that they will sit something like you describe out (I think it is rather obvious that the non-action of the military has played a big role the last few weeks).
The Iranian military sat out their revolution didn't they? They were even less radicalized. They were swiftly neutralized.
They now are totally cowed by the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution. The Shaw was deposed in January of 1979. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards were created in May of the same year. Their initial purpose was to control the Army. They now control the Country, and report not to the Government, but to the Theocracy.
Watch and see if something similar forms in the next 4 months. Everything is in play at this time. One thing is certain, the Army will NOT long retain any real power.
How can they win the election when they said they won't present a candidate?
And you believed that?
From what I understand they really aren't that popular. They'll win some seats but not likely a majority.
That's not what I'm reading. They would probably win a majority and certainly would achieve a plurality.
Largely better educated that most of the region, you would expect Egypt to be able to look around and see the situation in other Muslim Theocracies. However if the brotherhood comes up with a slate of candidates promising jobs, medical clinics, lower prices, etc all bets are off. These tactics have worked in Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, etc.
Within two years, Egypt will become another Muslim Theocracy, and there is not much anyone can do about it. Women will largely disappear from the streets, and the few who dare walk around without a head scarf today will be totally gone.
Much as I wish your enthusiasm for Democracy were true, I think you will be disappointed. As will Egypt. Oh, it will look like a Democracy. For about a year.
Exactly.
And the same congress grilling the State Department will have an Internet "Kill Switch" bill on the agenda soon. Don't expect any consistency in these congressmen's positions when it does.
Do you have anything to back up your claim that they do not guarantee the sources the same level of anonymity?
"Normal" is basically just another word for "average"...that's not the best approach regarding activities which could be, how you put it, good for humanity.
Especially if the organization could be forced into constant reorganizations just by new slander & controversy directed at every new face.
You miss the point entirely.
Why should there be a "Face"?
The mission (allegedly) of Wikileaks is to establish openness of information. Putting ANY face on it simply makes it a personal vendetta mostly aimed at the U.S. (Assange has admitted as much himself).
If they were true to their mission statement, they would not put any face forward, and would simply put the information out there.
Oh, you HAVE read the mission statement haven't you?
Wikileaks is developing an uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. Our primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact. Our interface is identical to Wikipedia and usable by all types of people. We have received over 1.2 million documents so far from dissident communities and anonymous sources.
We believe that transparency in government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government and stronger democracies. All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the world community, as well as their own people. We believe this scrutiny requires information. Historically that information has been costly - in terms of human life and human rights. But with technological advances - the internet, and cryptography - the risks of conveying important information can be lowered.
Wikileaks opens leaked documents up to stronger scrutiny than any media organization or intelligence agency can provide. Wikileaks provides a forum for the entire global community to relentlessly examine any document for its credibility, plausibility, veracity and validity. Communities can interpret leaked documents and explain their relevance to the public. If a document comes from the Chinese government, the entire Chinese dissident community and diaspora can freely scrutinize and discuss it; if a document arrives from Iran, the entire Farsi community can analyze it and put it in context.
Somehow they seem to have wandered off track somewhere along the line.
My view is that if you aren't set up in such a way that a programmer can't sabotage you, then you deserve it.
Maybe someone could leak the names of some CMS their way.
You missed the part where the programmer is one of two key spokesmen for the whole organization. There was no one higher than him to put these practices in place.