I came here to say this.
Me: "Don't track me."
Them: "Thanks for visiting our website! In order to know whether or not we should track you, please tell us who you are."
In order for this to work, the web would have to abandon any pretense of anonymity. Which do you think is the lesser of two evils? I know where my vote goes.
Price has nothing to do with cost. It's all about supply and demand. Verizon, like any other company, will price their products at what they believe the market will bear.
Insurance companies don't care about causation. Correlation is all that really matters to them. If people with names beginning with 'A' have more accidents, insurance companies are going to give them higher premiums. The causation doesn't matter.
The copilot is *not* a redundant system for the pilot. The two are a team, sharing a workload. While it may be possible in many cases for one person to handle this workload, it's a lot safer sharing responsibilities between two people.
And that's when things are going well.
When things don't go well, the workload can easily escalate beyond the capabilities of a single person.
I personally wouldn't board a plane if I knew only one pilot was up front.
Microsoft doesn't look at application crashes for applications they didn't develop. If the vendor is a member of OCA, they pass the crash on to the vendor.
Microsoft *will* look at a crash if Windows crashed.
My understanding is that Heisenberg pretty much said "this will not be possible, ever."
But I'm not a Heisenberg nor an Einstein so I'll have to read TFA to find out what's going on.
This is not a Microsoft vulnerability. FireWire devices can access RAM in the host machine, whether the host machine is running Windows, Linux, or MacOS. Any operating system running on a machine withe a FireWire port can be taken over in this manner.
Thankfully, your lack of knowledge (probably) isn't hurting you in this case:
Using Code Examples
This book is here to help you get your job done. In general, you may use the code in this book in your programs and documentation. You do not need to contact us for permission unless you're reproducing a significant portion of the code. For example, writing a program that uses several chunks of code from this book does not require permission. Selling or distributing a CD-ROM of examples from O'Reilly books does require permission
http://safari.adobepress.com/0596009747/xsltckbk2-PREFACE-2 I would assume other O'Reilly titles likely have similar licenses but it would be wise to check.
Of course, your employer could be sued for your lack of originality. If you use others' work without their permission, that's a copyright violation. What's so hard to understand about that?
If there is no copyright claim by the original author then I don't see what the problem is. AFAIK that means it's in the public domain....
You'd be wrong. (At least in the United States you would.)
From http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html: "Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work" and "The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U.S. law...."
Actually, the Oregon argument scares me.
If the argument wins in court, it could have disastrous consequences. Let's say I start getting death threats from a certain IP address and the police want to find out who's threatening me. Would a decision on the Oregon argument mean that I couldn't get information from an organization running NAT because the "lack of scientific validity" of my evidence?
In 2005, Microsoft released 55 security bulletins. Let's assume that all of them were found by external parties.
None of us has any idea how many security vulnerabilities were found and fixed internally by MSFT employees before their products shipped. I suspect it's quite a bit higher than 55 bugs.
It's simply asinie to conclude that MSFT can't find and fix security issues just because 55 of them got past Microsoft's developers.
Tell me... what are other software companies doing to improve their product security?
Microsoft is leaps and bounds ahead of most software vendors when it comes to product security. Go ahead, flame away at Microsoft. I'll agree there have been some colossal security screwups in Microsoft products.
At least they have a plan (and it's currently in place and working) to improve their product quality. What is your software vendor doing in that arena?
Crossing the border is an entirely different thing than travel within the country.
Inspections at border crossings operate under very different rules than those in the country, and I'm not even sure if Constitutional protections apply.
The problem isn't so much that the call centers are offshored, it's that the staff are not provided with any meaningful mechanisms to address customer concerns. They seem to have a list of things that they are expected to respond to and responses they are allowed to give.
It's more fundamental than that. The culture in India is one of extreme politeness, but self-directed thinking just isn't a part of their culture. They know how to follow instructions. As a culture, they don't know how to think and act idependently of an authority giving them approval. Thus, they can read from the scripts and be unfailingly polite, but often can be of no use at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Antitrust lawsuits start flying.
I came here to say this. Me: "Don't track me." Them: "Thanks for visiting our website! In order to know whether or not we should track you, please tell us who you are." In order for this to work, the web would have to abandon any pretense of anonymity. Which do you think is the lesser of two evils? I know where my vote goes.
Price has nothing to do with cost. It's all about supply and demand. Verizon, like any other company, will price their products at what they believe the market will bear.
...my ISP starts punishing me for using the Internet to do legal things that the Internet was designed for?
Still, the company could accept the subpoena on his behalf. Not doing so is just going to piss off the court.
Insurance companies don't care about causation. Correlation is all that really matters to them. If people with names beginning with 'A' have more accidents, insurance companies are going to give them higher premiums. The causation doesn't matter.
Came here to say this. Actually read TFA.
This is exactly what I thought of when the announcement of the key was first made. I imagine this could be done with ~$30 worth of commodity hardware.
The copilot is *not* a redundant system for the pilot. The two are a team, sharing a workload. While it may be possible in many cases for one person to handle this workload, it's a lot safer sharing responsibilities between two people.
And that's when things are going well.
When things don't go well, the workload can easily escalate beyond the capabilities of a single person.
I personally wouldn't board a plane if I knew only one pilot was up front.
See if the information at http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2010/08/04/10045651.aspx changes your mind.
Microsoft doesn't look at application crashes for applications they didn't develop. If the vendor is a member of OCA, they pass the crash on to the vendor.
Microsoft *will* look at a crash if Windows crashed.
Actually, Microsoft does fix bugs based on these reports. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2010/08/04/10045651.aspx
My understanding is that Heisenberg pretty much said "this will not be possible, ever." But I'm not a Heisenberg nor an Einstein so I'll have to read TFA to find out what's going on.
This is not a Microsoft vulnerability. FireWire devices can access RAM in the host machine, whether the host machine is running Windows, Linux, or MacOS. Any operating system running on a machine withe a FireWire port can be taken over in this manner.
Using Code Examples
This book is here to help you get your job done. In general, you may use the code in this book in your programs and documentation. You do not need to contact us for permission unless you're reproducing a significant portion of the code. For example, writing a program that uses several chunks of code from this book does not require permission. Selling or distributing a CD-ROM of examples from O'Reilly books does require permission
http://safari.adobepress.com/0596009747/xsltckbk2-PREFACE-2 I would assume other O'Reilly titles likely have similar licenses but it would be wise to check.
Of course, your employer could be sued for your lack of originality. If you use others' work without their permission, that's a copyright violation. What's so hard to understand about that?
You'd be wrong. (At least in the United States you would.)
From http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html: "Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work" and "The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U.S. law...."
Actually, the Oregon argument scares me. If the argument wins in court, it could have disastrous consequences. Let's say I start getting death threats from a certain IP address and the police want to find out who's threatening me. Would a decision on the Oregon argument mean that I couldn't get information from an organization running NAT because the "lack of scientific validity" of my evidence?
Does anybody still beleive that this election wasn't fixed?
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
In 2005, Microsoft released 55 security bulletins. Let's assume that all of them were found by external parties.
None of us has any idea how many security vulnerabilities were found and fixed internally by MSFT employees before their products shipped. I suspect it's quite a bit higher than 55 bugs.
It's simply asinie to conclude that MSFT can't find and fix security issues just because 55 of them got past Microsoft's developers.
You apparently haven't read up on Microsoft's Secure Development Lifecycle. Microsoft is now designing security into their products from the ground up. (http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/05/11/SD L/default.aspx)
Tell me... what are other software companies doing to improve their product security?
Microsoft is leaps and bounds ahead of most software vendors when it comes to product security. Go ahead, flame away at Microsoft. I'll agree there have been some colossal security screwups in Microsoft products.
At least they have a plan (and it's currently in place and working) to improve their product quality. What is your software vendor doing in that arena?
Crossing the border is an entirely different thing than travel within the country. Inspections at border crossings operate under very different rules than those in the country, and I'm not even sure if Constitutional protections apply.
It's more fundamental than that. The culture in India is one of extreme politeness, but self-directed thinking just isn't a part of their culture. They know how to follow instructions. As a culture, they don't know how to think and act idependently of an authority giving them approval. Thus, they can read from the scripts and be unfailingly polite, but often can be of no use at all.
This sounds like a problem not caused by an OS update,but by a driver update. OEMs can publish driver updates through Windows Update.
That's far more likely than one of the OS updates causing the problem.
While in this case, I'm all for Spitzer, he has at times seemed a little overzealous in his prosecutions.
I wonder if we'll see him seeking higher office in the near future.