No, this was a triumph. I'm making a note here: HUGE SUCCESS. It's hard to overstate my satisfaction. RIAA/MPAA/Porn producers We do what we can because we want more money. For the good of all of us. Except the ones who aren't stockholders.
More seriously, the legal system sort of forced them into this. The illegality of downloading copyrighted media is iffy at best, and it would be next to impossible to get the police to go after anybody but the largest uploaders. So they're doing what they can, and if they make some bucks while they're at it -- so much the better (for them, anyways.)
99.9999% = all but 1 in 1,000,000. So are you really claiming that less than one of the people sued in the last year wasn't guilty?
Unfortunately, these are civil issues, not criminal issues, so the ideas of "innocent until proven guilty", "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", "you are entitled to an attorney, and if you can not afford one, one will be appointed to you" and even "you have the right to remain silent" do not apply. In particular, "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is replaced by a "preponderance of evidence" -- so if the jury thinks there's a 51% chance you're guilty -- that means guilty.
Stop screwing prisoners who try to use the prison phone to contact loved ones.
Prisons have been seeing their phones as a profit center lately, charging a dollar per minute or more to contact loved ones. And loved ones can't call the prisoner -- the prisoner has to make the call. And often they can't call cell phones, only land lines -- but not everybody has a land line any more.
Make the prices more reasonable, drop the "no cell phones" thing, and have some way for people to call the prisoners (or at least tell them to call home beyond sending them a letter) and the demand for cell phones will drop.
Beyond that, simply get a scanner that detects the frequencies used by cell phones, install a few of them around the prison, and when they go off if the system is properly designed it could tell a guard immediately and tell them approximately where the phone is in the jail.
Cell phone jammers are illegal. Federal law, state law can't override it.
Granted, the law could be changed (with an exception added for cell phone jammers in jails), but it hasn't happened yet. It might soon, if there's enough of a cry out for it.
You can exercise your freedom of speech to express your dissent. The consequences for that speech will be that we're going to audit you. Or accuse you of a hideous crime. Or just disappear you and leave your family wondering where you ran off to, fifty years ago.
I'm pretty sure that's *not* what happened here with Jared.
I would like to agree with you, I really would -- but in civilized society, some words are going to have consequences. And yet this isn't such a case -- in this case, it's his actions that had consequences and anything he may have said is going to be secondary.
This is just another example of our fascist dictatorial government shitting on free speech.
Really? Is his right to free speech being infringed upon simply because the government is looking to see what he said?
If you want to say something but don't want anybody else to know what you said, mumble to yourself. But if you speak out loud, don't be surprised if somebody heard you.
And "freedom of speech" was never about "no consequences for your speech".
I just wish, for once, people would chose the "Cooperate" option in the Prisoner's Dilemma, not "Defect."
Voting tactically is not the "defect" option in the Prisoner's Dilemma -- it doesn't turn everybody into losers if everybody does it, for example. Instead, it might change who wins. Since we're talking game theory, in general elections are a zero sum game (one person wins, everybody else loses), and the Prisoner's Dilemma is not.
And really, open primaries aren't the panacea you seem to think they are. Several states already have them. All they really do for this situation is make it easier to vote tactically by giving you more options (or making it easier to get the options you need by not requiring you to do an official party change.)
There's several voting systems that would be a large improvement over what we've got now, but since the current system is what brought our current politicians into power, and something different might change that, I see any fights for changes as being a seriously uphill battle.
Best case scenario - The guy you wanted to win does, despite your wasted efforts/money before the primary Worst case scenario - Your campaign works and she wins. NOW WHAT?!
Wouldn't the "Best Case scenario" actually be the guy you wanted to win winning, thanks to your efforts?
Is this shameful or disgusting? It certainly seems a little dishonest, but I wouldn't go so far as to say "disgusting" -- after all, you only get one vote, and you should be able to vote for whomever you please for whatever reason you please. If you're going to vote tactically, then so be it. It is unfortunate that we don't have a better voting system, but I wouldn't say that's a reason not to game the current system if you're able. (And even if you're not willing to game the system out of a sense of right and wrong, that doesn't mean your opponents share the same ideals.)
Though I tend to doubt that such actions would be done in large enough numbers to actually change the results of the primaries.
It would seem I was off about cameras in London vs. Britain, but even so... 60k / 6 = 10k, not 1k.
And the "1 crime per 1,000 cameras" was per year. I did take into account the "per day" vs "per year" difference. "Six crimes solved per day times 365 days = about 2,200 crimes solved".
From the article, there's just under 60,000 cameras now. Six crimes solved per day times 365 days = about 2,200 crimes solved. So that's about one crime solved per 30 cameras per year.
Going from 1/1000 to 1/30 is a massive improvement, though I'm guessing that the difference isn't just the police program reaching maturity or something like that. For starters, I'll bet they count crimes differently between the two programs.
Still, even the modern figure seems pretty bad. So you've got 30 cameras up all year, with all the needed infrastructure behind these 30 cameras, and all together, they solved one crime. A quarter million hours of surveillance (30 cameras * 24 hours * 365 days) and you only solve one crime.
About two weeks ago a motorcyclist with a helmet cam was arrested when he posted a traffic stop on youtube. The cop had pulled a gun on the citizen w/o identifying himself AS a cop (he was plain clothes), and then the Police Bureau arrested the man after the Chief saw the video online.
Looking for code taken from somewhere else is relatively simple when you have access to both sets of code -- all it takes is a program that looks for the same code in each set. (It's not trivial, mind you, but it's not terribly difficult.)
Looking for backdoors or cryptographic weaknesses (intentional or otherwise) -- that's MUCH harder.
This obviously means that we are going to need better technology. We'll need technology that will be able to give us a full color representation of your completely nude body, but only if you're a hot chick. - Your Friendly local TSA Agent
Couldn't we do this with a lot cheaper technology?
Skip the X-ray machine entirely, and rather than a screen just tape a Playboy up.
Then they came for the Terrorists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Terrorist.
So the jews are the terrorists in this story?
It's a nice analogy, except that being a fascist is pretty vague (and really isn't illegal, and really, average citizens are typically not called fascists), being Communist isn't illegal, but being a terrorist certainly is illegal (or doing what terrorists do, anyways.)
One of these things is not like the other, one of these things aren't the same...
The original was about Communists, trade unionists and Jews.
But both of these men (the terrorist, the freedom fighter) have guns, or bombs, or some way of killing you. And you're likely afraid of them if they're on the other side (this is where the "terror" comes into it.)
Assange has his mighty balls, which are indeed mighty, but I don't think they'll kill you, even if the condom breaks.
He isn't trying to kill you. He's just telling you how things are. Really, if Assange is a terrorist, I guess Jesus was a terrorist too. (Of course, look how he turned out... maybe he was!)
Of course we do (and if we don't, we can look it up), but "phreaking" was always about mucking with phone systems and the like. The term is too specific.
"Crackers" is a better term, but really, "script kiddies" works just fine too.
And lots of the "phreakers" were just "script kiddies" and lots of them were true "hackers".
I'm basically an atheist (though I'm somewhat familiar with a number of religions), but as Coren22 said, Christians generally say that God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are all parts of the same entity, so who am I to argue with them?
And even if God and Jesus really were different people (but Jesus was God's son), I don't think God would prosecute Jesus for infringing on his intellectual property rights.
Weren't the fish actually made by God (or nature, same difference?), and therefore by extension by Jesus himself?
As for the bread, yes, a baker baked it -- but out of ingredients made by God.
Though I would imagine that the real difference is the laws between then and now. Today, if Jesus came and copied a bunch of Wonder Bread, the Wonder Bread Corporation very well might sue him for infringing on their copyrights on the packaging, patents on the bread itself and trademarks on the name of the bread.
As for the fish, I think God (and therefore Jesus) have that on lockdown, unless it's some sort of genetically engineered fish, in which case I'm sure Monsanto would want their pound of flesh too.
Most corporate firewalls (at least the part that most users are working behind) stop stuff from coming in, but permit most traffic going out. And even if they do block most traffic going out, they almost always permit 80/tcp out, and while they might have some sort of nanny filter there, something that just goes out to a random address at port 80 and then sends encrypted data will likely get through.
Once this machine is on the network, it can connect to a server somewhere on the Internet, and then the bad guys can come back in through this connection and do whatever they want from the printer. The important intranet sites may indeed require Smart Cards (rare, but some may do this) but all the machines that people work on are often poorly maintained, and the intranet systems that require Smart Cards often have all sorts of vulnerabilities -- the machines they reside on aren't secured, the applications have the whole spectrum of website vulnerabilities, etc. Yes, the company could secure all this stuff, but it would take time and money, and they think "it's inside the firewall, it's safe" (and yes, they're wrong.)
Perhaps some companies are different, but I'd say most are like this. Some companies separate everything internally with firewalls, but most don't, or if they do, there's lots of stuff behind each of these internal firewalls, and anything behind the same firewall as the trojan horse would be vulnerable (and really, stuff on the other side of the firewall might be too, depending on how draconian it is.)
This may not work on the NSA (assuming they follow all their policies!) but I would guess that getting a printer set up like this installed on most company's networks, coupled with skilled crackers working through it (not just script kiddies, though they might have some success too), would be able to get at all sorts of stuff they weren't supposed to get to. If it's a software company, they could get the source for their work, perhaps add their own code (back doors!), etc.
Slashdot Mirror
If the Stanford Prison Experiment has taught one and only one thing is that given power without oversight always leads to abuse and corruption.
No, it didn't teach that. It taught that it might -- it's just one instance.
HISTORY, on the other hand, has taught us that power without oversight usually leads to abuse and corruption. (And even then it's not always.)
This was a terrible, terrible idea.
No, this was a triumph.
I'm making a note here: HUGE SUCCESS.
It's hard to overstate my satisfaction.
RIAA/MPAA/Porn producers
We do what we can
because we want more money.
For the good of all of us.
Except the ones who aren't stockholders.
More seriously, the legal system sort of forced them into this. The illegality of downloading copyrighted media is iffy at best, and it would be next to impossible to get the police to go after anybody but the largest uploaders. So they're doing what they can, and if they make some bucks while they're at it -- so much the better (for them, anyways.)
99.9999% = all but 1 in 1,000,000. So are you really claiming that less than one of the people sued in the last year wasn't guilty?
Unfortunately, these are civil issues, not criminal issues, so the ideas of "innocent until proven guilty", "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", "you are entitled to an attorney, and if you can not afford one, one will be appointed to you" and even "you have the right to remain silent" do not apply. In particular, "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is replaced by a "preponderance of evidence" -- so if the jury thinks there's a 51% chance you're guilty -- that means guilty.
Stop screwing prisoners who try to use the prison phone to contact loved ones.
Prisons have been seeing their phones as a profit center lately, charging a dollar per minute or more to contact loved ones. And loved ones can't call the prisoner -- the prisoner has to make the call. And often they can't call cell phones, only land lines -- but not everybody has a land line any more.
Make the prices more reasonable, drop the "no cell phones" thing, and have some way for people to call the prisoners (or at least tell them to call home beyond sending them a letter) and the demand for cell phones will drop.
Beyond that, simply get a scanner that detects the frequencies used by cell phones, install a few of them around the prison, and when they go off if the system is properly designed it could tell a guard immediately and tell them approximately where the phone is in the jail.
Cell phone jammers are illegal. Federal law, state law can't override it.
Granted, the law could be changed (with an exception added for cell phone jammers in jails), but it hasn't happened yet. It might soon, if there's enough of a cry out for it.
in TFA he also indicated that, even if the board finds him guilty, the most they'll do is writing him a letter saying "Don't do it again."
To which I think the proper response is "fuck off".
Really? This qualifies as news for nerds, news that matters?
I'm hard pressed to think of anything that's been posted on /. that mattered less.
You can exercise your freedom of speech to express your dissent. The consequences for that speech will be that we're going to audit you. Or accuse you of a hideous crime. Or just disappear you and leave your family wondering where you ran off to, fifty years ago.
I'm pretty sure that's *not* what happened here with Jared.
I would like to agree with you, I really would -- but in civilized society, some words are going to have consequences. And yet this isn't such a case -- in this case, it's his actions that had consequences and anything he may have said is going to be secondary.
This is just another example of our fascist dictatorial government shitting on free speech.
Really? Is his right to free speech being infringed upon simply because the government is looking to see what he said?
If you want to say something but don't want anybody else to know what you said, mumble to yourself. But if you speak out loud, don't be surprised if somebody heard you.
And "freedom of speech" was never about "no consequences for your speech".
I just wish, for once, people would chose the "Cooperate" option in the Prisoner's Dilemma, not "Defect."
Voting tactically is not the "defect" option in the Prisoner's Dilemma -- it doesn't turn everybody into losers if everybody does it, for example. Instead, it might change who wins. Since we're talking game theory, in general elections are a zero sum game (one person wins, everybody else loses), and the Prisoner's Dilemma is not.
And really, open primaries aren't the panacea you seem to think they are. Several states already have them. All they really do for this situation is make it easier to vote tactically by giving you more options (or making it easier to get the options you need by not requiring you to do an official party change.)
There's several voting systems that would be a large improvement over what we've got now, but since the current system is what brought our current politicians into power, and something different might change that, I see any fights for changes as being a seriously uphill battle.
Best case scenario - The guy you wanted to win does, despite your wasted efforts/money before the primary
Worst case scenario - Your campaign works and she wins. NOW WHAT?!
Wouldn't the "Best Case scenario" actually be the guy you wanted to win winning, thanks to your efforts?
Is this shameful or disgusting? It certainly seems a little dishonest, but I wouldn't go so far as to say "disgusting" -- after all, you only get one vote, and you should be able to vote for whomever you please for whatever reason you please. If you're going to vote tactically, then so be it. It is unfortunate that we don't have a better voting system, but I wouldn't say that's a reason not to game the current system if you're able. (And even if you're not willing to game the system out of a sense of right and wrong, that doesn't mean your opponents share the same ideals.)
Though I tend to doubt that such actions would be done in large enough numbers to actually change the results of the primaries.
So basically, this story is more about a revolution in branding than a revolution in software.
Likely, though really, the term "open source" itself, used as we use it today, is older than that too. For example, this Usenet post is from 1996.
CALDERA® ANNOUNCES OPEN-SOURCE CODE
MODEL FOR DOS
DR DOS® + the Internet = Caldera OpenDOS
PROVO, Utah Sept. 10, 1996 Caldera® Inc. today ...
announced that it will openly distribute the source code for DOS via
and it's not the only reference to the term I can find.
It would seem I was off about cameras in London vs. Britain, but even so ... 60k / 6 = 10k, not 1k.
And the "1 crime per 1,000 cameras" was per year. I did take into account the "per day" vs "per year" difference. "Six crimes solved per day times 365 days = about 2,200 crimes solved".
Last year, the headline was "One Crime Solved Per 1,000 London CCTV Cameras".
The rate can't be much better this year.
- RG>
Well, it would seem to be much better.
From the article, there's just under 60,000 cameras now. Six crimes solved per day times 365 days = about 2,200 crimes solved. So that's about one crime solved per 30 cameras per year.
Going from 1/1000 to 1/30 is a massive improvement, though I'm guessing that the difference isn't just the police program reaching maturity or something like that. For starters, I'll bet they count crimes differently between the two programs.
Still, even the modern figure seems pretty bad. So you've got 30 cameras up all year, with all the needed infrastructure behind these 30 cameras, and all together, they solved one crime. A quarter million hours of surveillance (30 cameras * 24 hours * 365 days) and you only solve one crime.
The link is to a stub article with no real content on Bruce's blog
Bruce's "stubs" typically have more quality content than many articles, and this one is no exception (the article he links to is good, however.)
But Bruce (and those commenting on Bruce's post) adds a lot to the discussion.
About two weeks ago a motorcyclist with a helmet cam was arrested when he posted a traffic stop on youtube. The cop had pulled a gun on the citizen w/o identifying himself AS a cop (he was plain clothes), and then the Police Bureau arrested the man after the Chief saw the video online.
Actually, that happened in April, and is mentioned in the fine article.
In a sudden outbreak of common sense, those charges were dropped about three months ago.
They spent LOTS of time auditing.
Looking for code taken from somewhere else is relatively simple when you have access to both sets of code -- all it takes is a program that looks for the same code in each set. (It's not trivial, mind you, but it's not terribly difficult.)
Looking for backdoors or cryptographic weaknesses (intentional or otherwise) -- that's MUCH harder.
This obviously means that we are going to need better technology. We'll need technology that will be able to give us a full color representation of your completely nude body, but only if you're a hot chick. - Your Friendly local TSA Agent
Couldn't we do this with a lot cheaper technology?
Skip the X-ray machine entirely, and rather than a screen just tape a Playboy up.
Then they came for the Terrorists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Terrorist.
So the jews are the terrorists in this story?
It's a nice analogy, except that being a fascist is pretty vague (and really isn't illegal, and really, average citizens are typically not called fascists), being Communist isn't illegal, but being a terrorist certainly is illegal (or doing what terrorists do, anyways.)
One of these things is not like the other, one of these things aren't the same ...
The original was about Communists, trade unionists and Jews.
But both of these men (the terrorist, the freedom fighter) have guns, or bombs, or some way of killing you. And you're likely afraid of them if they're on the other side (this is where the "terror" comes into it.)
Assange has his mighty balls, which are indeed mighty, but I don't think they'll kill you, even if the condom breaks.
He isn't trying to kill you. He's just telling you how things are. Really, if Assange is a terrorist, I guess Jesus was a terrorist too. (Of course, look how he turned out ... maybe he was!)
Galileo also comes to mind.
because nobody remembers the term "phreaking"
Of course we do (and if we don't, we can look it up), but "phreaking" was always about mucking with phone systems and the like. The term is too specific.
"Crackers" is a better term, but really, "script kiddies" works just fine too.
And lots of the "phreakers" were just "script kiddies" and lots of them were true "hackers".
We'll just call anybody a terrorist nowadays, won't we?
I'm basically an atheist (though I'm somewhat familiar with a number of religions), but as Coren22 said, Christians generally say that God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are all parts of the same entity, so who am I to argue with them?
Here's another reference that makes it even more clear.
And even if God and Jesus really were different people (but Jesus was God's son), I don't think God would prosecute Jesus for infringing on his intellectual property rights.
Weren't the fish actually made by God (or nature, same difference?), and therefore by extension by Jesus himself?
As for the bread, yes, a baker baked it -- but out of ingredients made by God.
Though I would imagine that the real difference is the laws between then and now. Today, if Jesus came and copied a bunch of Wonder Bread, the Wonder Bread Corporation very well might sue him for infringing on their copyrights on the packaging, patents on the bread itself and trademarks on the name of the bread.
As for the fish, I think God (and therefore Jesus) have that on lockdown, unless it's some sort of genetically engineered fish, in which case I'm sure Monsanto would want their pound of flesh too.
Most corporate firewalls (at least the part that most users are working behind) stop stuff from coming in, but permit most traffic going out. And even if they do block most traffic going out, they almost always permit 80/tcp out, and while they might have some sort of nanny filter there, something that just goes out to a random address at port 80 and then sends encrypted data will likely get through.
Once this machine is on the network, it can connect to a server somewhere on the Internet, and then the bad guys can come back in through this connection and do whatever they want from the printer. The important intranet sites may indeed require Smart Cards (rare, but some may do this) but all the machines that people work on are often poorly maintained, and the intranet systems that require Smart Cards often have all sorts of vulnerabilities -- the machines they reside on aren't secured, the applications have the whole spectrum of website vulnerabilities, etc. Yes, the company could secure all this stuff, but it would take time and money, and they think "it's inside the firewall, it's safe" (and yes, they're wrong.)
Perhaps some companies are different, but I'd say most are like this. Some companies separate everything internally with firewalls, but most don't, or if they do, there's lots of stuff behind each of these internal firewalls, and anything behind the same firewall as the trojan horse would be vulnerable (and really, stuff on the other side of the firewall might be too, depending on how draconian it is.)
This may not work on the NSA (assuming they follow all their policies!) but I would guess that getting a printer set up like this installed on most company's networks, coupled with skilled crackers working through it (not just script kiddies, though they might have some success too), would be able to get at all sorts of stuff they weren't supposed to get to. If it's a software company, they could get the source for their work, perhaps add their own code (back doors!), etc.