I guess I don't really understand this security system. If somebody actually knows what you look like, why need photo id?
Photo ID's alone clearly have a ton of obscurity built into them. For instance, there are hidden security features that aren't fully known so they are difficult to reproduce. Also, the equipment for making ID's is rare, and thus obscure.
Someone who knows what you look like is a decent example. It's benefit is, at this time, it is impractically difficult to impersonate someone with great accuracy, and so we don't have to use obscurity.
The same thing can be said to some degree about any system that requires you to have a physical object, but the line is very blurry. I would argue that, fundamentally, requiring someone to have something that is kept hidden, protected is security by obscurity. For instance, you wouldn't leave your keycard laying around Times Square with a sign that says "Secret Passcard".
For some reason, when you take it so far as needing an actual person, it seems less so, but it's still not entirely obvious that it isn't a different manifestation of StO.
Just so no one considers me guilty by association, I'm not on this "don't talk about it because it might give them ideas bandwagon".
Historically, attackers are always ahead of defenders; it's no one's fault, it's just the nature of the two roles. Thus, secrecy is typically to the benefit of attackers, not defenders.
Criminals have little trouble devising criminal enterprises; the real problem is that honest people have a much harder time doing so.
This term is the most overused sack of crap going right now. Details a modern security system that isn't fundamentally equivalent to security through obscurity.
Whoa - let me get this straight? Put things in a drawer? Lawrence C. Drawer, who invented these purely asthetics products would be rolling in his grave if he heard this bastardization. Outrageous.
Since when does that load of bullshit qualify as the fundamental principles of science?
Have you ever submitted a paper to a journal? If so, did you submit it anonymously? If not, why not?
I do like how you make sweeping generalizations about social groups that contain a remarkably disparate set of people. Bet you think all those crazy negroes love fried chicken and collard greens too, huh?
How are they being taught it is not good without practical application? Maybe they want to protect their work from companies that would otherwise use it unethically. Why shouldn't they protect their intellectualy property? They worked hard to make it, the law allows it - it's not like they're stealing from nuns.
I'm not going to continue to moderate, because I believe that it is being abused.
Well, I'm glad at least some good came of this load of crap.
For the record, I don't think your post was a troll. That would indicate you knew what a load of self-righteous meaningless bullshit you were posting, and did it to get a rise out of thinking people. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're probably just a little bitter, unsuccesfull, and self-righteous.
Also, about your sig. That's the stupidest thing I've ever read. I assume you watch daytime soaps, read the tattler and play barbies dream fashion designer to support the first amedment too.
This is quite possibly the worst idea I've ever heard.
When no ideological group can even come close to getting the required majority, coalitions of groups must form. The problem is, the most extremist factions still have to be catered to in coalition building, and gain power above their size. Not only is that undemocratic, but these groups are usually pretty damn nuts too.
Read some histories of parlementarian systems just like the one you're describing.
Who would have thought that some idiot on slashdot couldn't come up with something better than the framers of the constitution. Shocking.
Well, yah, but you have no idea what you're talking about.
Investigate trademark law. The simple fact is that if you don't attempt to prevent the unauthorized use of your trademark, you can't expect the protection of the law in the future.
Let's say Mozilla knows about this situation and does nothing. Conceivably, Microsoft could sell a slightly modified version of IE in stores with the mozilla logo branded as Mozilla FireFox.
You have a problem with them trying to prevent that?
Brilliant. I'm sure the charge you start on slashdot will storm the unwashed masses and cause ID to shudder at the mere mention of the name "Christopher Bergeron."
Can the content be licensed?
i.e. can I keep my song private, but pay to let some people hear it?
or do I have to give away any information I possess freely or not give it away at all?
if I write a song can someone pay me out of appreciation to hear it? if i do this, is it published?
What if I write a private song (think a diary like thing) that I feel comfortable with a few people hearing. Can they compensate me out of appreciation? Is it public now?
The problem you don't realize is that this kind of thinking leads to absurd slippery slopes. What you'll realize is that all kinds of information is different, and a lot doesn't "want" to be free (actually, no information *wants* anything, but you get the gist).
This kind of thinking is reserved for those who refuse to think it through.
You are a ridiculous idiot.
Do you understand the principles of collective bargaining? That's why it's not an opt-out situation.
The funniest bit is about you getting distracted. Did you go to college? Did you live with momm and daddy?
Above you say yearbook is okay because of school pride, which is good. What about campus radio? You pay for it! You can't opt out! You're a whiny crybaby.
Just because you're bitter about not having friends, that doesn't mean you should take it out on the other students that laugh at you. It's your smells fault, not theirs; let them have their fun.
Slashdot Mirror
The more money everyone has, the less your money is worth.
I guess I don't really understand this security system. If somebody actually knows what you look like, why need photo id? Photo ID's alone clearly have a ton of obscurity built into them. For instance, there are hidden security features that aren't fully known so they are difficult to reproduce. Also, the equipment for making ID's is rare, and thus obscure. Someone who knows what you look like is a decent example. It's benefit is, at this time, it is impractically difficult to impersonate someone with great accuracy, and so we don't have to use obscurity. The same thing can be said to some degree about any system that requires you to have a physical object, but the line is very blurry. I would argue that, fundamentally, requiring someone to have something that is kept hidden, protected is security by obscurity. For instance, you wouldn't leave your keycard laying around Times Square with a sign that says "Secret Passcard". For some reason, when you take it so far as needing an actual person, it seems less so, but it's still not entirely obvious that it isn't a different manifestation of StO.
Just so no one considers me guilty by association, I'm not on this "don't talk about it because it might give them ideas bandwagon".
Historically, attackers are always ahead of defenders; it's no one's fault, it's just the nature of the two roles. Thus, secrecy is typically to the benefit of attackers, not defenders.
Criminals have little trouble devising criminal enterprises; the real problem is that honest people have a much harder time doing so.
This term is the most overused sack of crap going right now. Details a modern security system that isn't fundamentally equivalent to security through obscurity.
Whoa - let me get this straight? Put things in a drawer? Lawrence C. Drawer, who invented these purely asthetics products would be rolling in his grave if he heard this bastardization. Outrageous.
Since when does that load of bullshit qualify as the fundamental principles of science?
Have you ever submitted a paper to a journal? If so, did you submit it anonymously? If not, why not?
I do like how you make sweeping generalizations about social groups that contain a remarkably disparate set of people. Bet you think all those crazy negroes love fried chicken and collard greens too, huh?
How are they being taught it is not good without practical application? Maybe they want to protect their work from companies that would otherwise use it unethically. Why shouldn't they protect their intellectualy property? They worked hard to make it, the law allows it - it's not like they're stealing from nuns.
I'm not going to continue to moderate, because I believe that it is being abused.
Well, I'm glad at least some good came of this load of crap.
For the record, I don't think your post was a troll. That would indicate you knew what a load of self-righteous meaningless bullshit you were posting, and did it to get a rise out of thinking people. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're probably just a little bitter, unsuccesfull, and self-righteous.
Yes, products are killed because you don't buy them. People in your ridiculous situation make up the majority of the viable market, I'm sure.
Go sell your crazy somewhere else, we're all stocked up here.
At least click the link, mods!
Interesting?
Informative?
Here's interesting and informative:
99% of Moderators can't change their own diapers
This is totally wrong. People appreciate money they earn MUCH more than money they don't.
99.9% of riches to rags stories involve people who didn't really have to work to earn their money.
Translation:
"I've never done anything worth a damn, and resent anyone who has."
Yah, Lucky. It's always lucky.
Also, about your sig. That's the stupidest thing I've ever read. I assume you watch daytime soaps, read the tattler and play barbies dream fashion designer to support the first amedment too.
To me, this is funny, since IM is a ubiquitous term only because of AIM.
No one referred to ICQing as instant messaging, for instance.
Yeah, like Rome meant the world, IBM meant a computer, there was just "the phone company", etc. I'm sure no one competes with Hoover either.
Just like the Roman and British Empires, IBM, Netscape, East India Company, and all the other things this exact idiotic comment was made about.
This is quite possibly the worst idea I've ever heard.
When no ideological group can even come close to getting the required majority, coalitions of groups must form. The problem is, the most extremist factions still have to be catered to in coalition building, and gain power above their size. Not only is that undemocratic, but these groups are usually pretty damn nuts too.
Read some histories of parlementarian systems just like the one you're describing.
Who would have thought that some idiot on slashdot couldn't come up with something better than the framers of the constitution. Shocking.
Well, the law makes them have no choice. This is the course of action they MUST take to protect their trademark.
You don't have any beef with them, then; maybe with the US government.
Well, yah, but you have no idea what you're talking about.
Investigate trademark law. The simple fact is that if you don't attempt to prevent the unauthorized use of your trademark, you can't expect the protection of the law in the future.
Let's say Mozilla knows about this situation and does nothing. Conceivably, Microsoft could sell a slightly modified version of IE in stores with the mozilla logo branded as Mozilla FireFox.
You have a problem with them trying to prevent that?
On most message boards, putting nt into the title is a couteous timesaver for those reading the boards (no need for them to open your post).
Also, a lot of message boards don't allow text-less messages, so oftentimes just to fill in those messages one might type nt.
In other words, its not a bad practice at all, in most cases.
What if I'm controlling my media access?
I'm Rick James, Bitch
Brilliant. I'm sure the charge you start on slashdot will storm the unwashed masses and cause ID to shudder at the mere mention of the name "Christopher Bergeron."
That's not a phrase. Temper-Tantrum. Ahh, journalism these days.
Rand? You owe me 12.93 for a new keyboard. I vomited all over mine.
Can the content be licensed? i.e. can I keep my song private, but pay to let some people hear it? or do I have to give away any information I possess freely or not give it away at all? if I write a song can someone pay me out of appreciation to hear it? if i do this, is it published? What if I write a private song (think a diary like thing) that I feel comfortable with a few people hearing. Can they compensate me out of appreciation? Is it public now? The problem you don't realize is that this kind of thinking leads to absurd slippery slopes. What you'll realize is that all kinds of information is different, and a lot doesn't "want" to be free (actually, no information *wants* anything, but you get the gist). This kind of thinking is reserved for those who refuse to think it through.
You are a ridiculous idiot. Do you understand the principles of collective bargaining? That's why it's not an opt-out situation. The funniest bit is about you getting distracted. Did you go to college? Did you live with momm and daddy? Above you say yearbook is okay because of school pride, which is good. What about campus radio? You pay for it! You can't opt out! You're a whiny crybaby. Just because you're bitter about not having friends, that doesn't mean you should take it out on the other students that laugh at you. It's your smells fault, not theirs; let them have their fun.