While both of those are obviously bad and wrong behavior, I don't think either would fall into the category of unpatchable exploit.
1) Patchable by changing Outlook settings.
2) Not an exploit. It is incorrect behavior, which leads to user confusion and trust where it doesn't belong, but it does not directly give an attacker any power over the machine.
Consider a program with 60 procedures, which are arranged into 6 groups of 10. The top level of the program may call any procedure in group A, each procedure in group A may call any one of the procedures in group B, and so on. There are one million possible paths which may be taken in such a program. Now, suppose we create 30 more procedures, similarly arranged...
After watching RoTK in Romania, where it came out several weeks after the American release, I think there is one other issue which native English speakers forget about. Even with the release delayed 3 weeks, they appear to have had insufficient time to create reasonable subtitles- names changed spellings midway through, Mount Doom became Mount Fire, and these are just the things I saw as a non-Romanian speaker. Good translations don't happen overnight- are we willing to accept movies made on a shorter timetable, just so all the translations can be finished? Imagine if RoTK had to be wrapped up one month sooner- I'm guessing that would mean about 5-8% less time spent on it (for all things other than subtitles). Is that worth it, just to eliminate staggered schedules?
Sure they can (it is called off-label prescribing), and do all the time. Some drugs are prescribed many _times_ more often off-label than on: Link 1 Link 2 More from Google
I would be very much interested in this $100 WAP which integrates VPN. Do you have a particular model you recommend?
Fundamentally, the fact that you or I could do such things is irrelevant. This product is aimed at minimizing the IT effort involved, because it is being placed in small offices with no IT staff.
This also leads me to believe that this was perhaps a very ill-placed advertisement, since I haven't seen any consultants jumping in and saying "I'm installing 3 of these next week at client sites." I wonder if the fear is that it will eliminate too many "our network/wireless/computers are down" billable hours, er, I mean, service calls.
Does that computer act as an 802.11b access point? As a four port switch? Have a single, easy to use web interface for configuring the VPN, Routing, Switching, NAT, DCHP, and firewall which the machine provides?
I think that, as usual, the summary was way off on what this product actually is. It is not supposed to be the replacement for the fileserver on your network, it is supposed to replace a bunch of network infrastructure boxes. Now, one of the reviews shamelessly stolen from another post suggests it is not terribly effective at carrying out those tasks (perhaps unsurprisingly), but it seems like it would be quite a valid solution for a small business which can't support any full-time on-location IT staff.
I recently got mapquest directions to a road that wasn't even paved.
That's funny. I know some people who recently got directions to use a _connecting_ road that wasn't paved. Or even passable in the rain. They were not so appreciative that the database had such small roads.
Are there any map systems which allow user feedback on portions of the trip? It seems like it is a very good thing to have those roads (see above post), but there are certain roads which should never be used unless absolutely necessary.
Because, as the summary fails to make clear, the study was of the effect of the base stations on people, not the phones. As far as I can tell in the article, the subjects were not even using phones. It seems difficult to believe that
... no one in the survey knew if a base station was transmitting signals or not...
if only half the subjects could hear anything through their phones.
Hmmm... by that logic, the Blaster author ought to sue all those who were infected by and passed on the worm. After all, they made more than one copy of MSBlast.exe!
As far as that goes, if you're already using OSX, iTunes does a more than adequate job of changing entire albums' tags to "Various Artists." Just select the album(s), choose File->Info, change the Artist.
It might. Remember, one of the sections compels federal authorities to cooperate with foreign copyright authorities. One would expect that other countries would (have) made similar changes in their own codes.
No. Consider the insidious ways someone could use such a program:
1. Placing illegal files on your machine.
2. Improperly installed, it could allow an attacker to compromise the machine completely.
This seems no more onerous than any number of other consumer protection laws.
If that is true, why would someone download and install the program without knowing that the purpose was to allow other users to store information on your machine? Does FreeNet market itself otherwise?
No, unless the e-mail client was surreptitiously forwarding the attachment back to the author of the program.
Please read the bill. You are confusing the "10 or more users" part (301(2)) with the enabling part (302).
''(b) As used in this section, the term `enabling software' means software that, when installed on the user's computer, enables 3rd parties to store data on that computer, or use that computer to search other computers'contents over the Internet.''.
In other news, Slashdot comes out in favor of Spyware. Let's save the poor Spyware companies!
The bill "clarifies" that uploading a single file of copyright content qualifies as a felony.
The only place in the law I could see that clarification is Section 301(2), which seems to limit its definition to those cases of distribution where the retail value is greater than $2500. While this might be a problem in 2053, if CDs cost $3K apiece, does anyone seriously think music filesharers are the target of that amendment? It seems like they are in more danger now, because that clarification isn't there.
Perhaps you should read the law. The "enabling" software they describe sounds dangerously similar to Spyware, and suspiciously dissimilar from any legitimate P2P software.
I read the bill (I know, what was I thinking?) and I really don't see where the "upload a single file, become a felon" part comes from. As I see it, the bill has 3 parts:
1. Increase funding for enforcement of copyrights.
2. Require cooperation with foreign governments in copyright affairs.
3. Criminalize Spyware, fradulant domain registration, and movie theater recording. And this is the part that I thought Slashdot would be rejoicing over. I don't think the clarification of "placing of a copyrighted work" to allowing a file (worth at least $2500 _retail_) to be downloaded 10 or more times is going to affect many P2P'ers.
I'm beginning to think this whole article was a troll.
I don't think it is impossible for judges to examine scientific methods used. The articles even speak of the fact that one of the primary standards being used is peer review. Take Expert A, whose evidence has been peer reviewed and published, and Expert B, whose evidence has only seen the light of day through a photocopied newsletter he publishes in his basement. I think judges are quite capable of judging the admissability of each. If they are not, we have far, far deeper problems in our justice system.
Even when extending beyond published research, validity of technique doesn't require domain specific knowledge. Reproducibility and controls are common to all scientific research, and their absense almost guarantees something is wrong with the research.
Slashdot Mirror
While both of those are obviously bad and wrong behavior, I don't think either would fall into the category of unpatchable exploit.
1) Patchable by changing Outlook settings.
2) Not an exploit. It is incorrect behavior, which leads to user confusion and trust where it doesn't belong, but it does not directly give an attacker any power over the machine.
Consider a program with 60 procedures, which are arranged into 6 groups of 10. The top level of the program may call any procedure in group A, each procedure in group A may call any one of the procedures in group B, and so on. There are one million possible paths which may be taken in such a program. Now, suppose we create 30 more procedures, similarly arranged...
After watching RoTK in Romania, where it came out several weeks after the American release, I think there is one other issue which native English speakers forget about. Even with the release delayed 3 weeks, they appear to have had insufficient time to create reasonable subtitles- names changed spellings midway through, Mount Doom became Mount Fire, and these are just the things I saw as a non-Romanian speaker.
Good translations don't happen overnight- are we willing to accept movies made on a shorter timetable, just so all the translations can be finished? Imagine if RoTK had to be wrapped up one month sooner- I'm guessing that would mean about 5-8% less time spent on it (for all things other than subtitles). Is that worth it, just to eliminate staggered schedules?
No it wouldn't- it would be seventh or eighth, depending on its relationship to Ohio:
http://www.census.gov/statab/www/part6.html
Sure they can (it is called off-label prescribing), and do all the time. Some drugs are prescribed many _times_ more often off-label than on:
Link 1
Link 2
More from Google
That is only true for exceptionally large values of "free."
I would be very much interested in this $100 WAP which integrates VPN. Do you have a particular model you recommend?
Fundamentally, the fact that you or I could do such things is irrelevant. This product is aimed at minimizing the IT effort involved, because it is being placed in small offices with no IT staff.
This also leads me to believe that this was perhaps a very ill-placed advertisement, since I haven't seen any consultants jumping in and saying "I'm installing 3 of these next week at client sites." I wonder if the fear is that it will eliminate too many "our network/wireless/computers are down" billable hours, er, I mean, service calls.
Does that computer act as an 802.11b access point? As a four port switch? Have a single, easy to use web interface for configuring the VPN, Routing, Switching, NAT, DCHP, and firewall which the machine provides?
I think that, as usual, the summary was way off on what this product actually is. It is not supposed to be the replacement for the fileserver on your network, it is supposed to replace a bunch of network infrastructure boxes. Now, one of the reviews shamelessly stolen from another post suggests it is not terribly effective at carrying out those tasks (perhaps unsurprisingly), but it seems like it would be quite a valid solution for a small business which can't support any full-time on-location IT staff.
Are there any map systems which allow user feedback on portions of the trip? It seems like it is a very good thing to have those roads (see above post), but there are certain roads which should never be used unless absolutely necessary.
Hmmm... I wonder if we can sue those _other_ radio sources because they aren't making us think faster or remember better.
Hmmm... by that logic, the Blaster author ought to sue all those who were infected by and passed on the worm. After all, they made more than one copy of MSBlast.exe!
Yes, it will allow you to change all of those things, in batches.
As far as that goes, if you're already using OSX, iTunes does a more than adequate job of changing entire albums' tags to "Various Artists." Just select the album(s), choose File->Info, change the Artist.
It might. Remember, one of the sections compels federal authorities to cooperate with foreign copyright authorities. One would expect that other countries would (have) made similar changes in their own codes.
No, you misread. That is standard legalese for "is defined as" not "is the definition of."
No. Consider the insidious ways someone could use such a program:
1. Placing illegal files on your machine.
2. Improperly installed, it could allow an attacker to compromise the machine completely.
This seems no more onerous than any number of other consumer protection laws.
If that is true, why would someone download and install the program without knowing that the purpose was to allow other users to store information on your machine? Does FreeNet market itself otherwise?
Please read the bill. You are confusing the "10 or more users" part (301(2)) with the enabling part (302). In other news, Slashdot comes out in favor of Spyware. Let's save the poor Spyware companies!
Perhaps you should read the law. The "enabling" software they describe sounds dangerously similar to Spyware, and suspiciously dissimilar from any legitimate P2P software.
I read the bill (I know, what was I thinking?) and I really don't see where the "upload a single file, become a felon" part comes from. As I see it, the bill has 3 parts: 1. Increase funding for enforcement of copyrights. 2. Require cooperation with foreign governments in copyright affairs. 3. Criminalize Spyware, fradulant domain registration, and movie theater recording. And this is the part that I thought Slashdot would be rejoicing over. I don't think the clarification of "placing of a copyrighted work" to allowing a file (worth at least $2500 _retail_) to be downloaded 10 or more times is going to affect many P2P'ers. I'm beginning to think this whole article was a troll.
Even when extending beyond published research, validity of technique doesn't require domain specific knowledge. Reproducibility and controls are common to all scientific research, and their absense almost guarantees something is wrong with the research.