Wouldn't this be the perfect bug repellent? I guess they don't emit the fatty acids when you squash them, or people wouldn't still get bugs in there houses.:-)
I guess you just don't get it, despite what I put in my last post.
You stated that: This is not a free speech issue. Truth in advertising maybe, but not free speech.
Why do you think that there is a law about truth in advertising? It is because it is a consequence of that person's (or companies') free speech.
A true consequence for misleading keywords would be to filter all search engines to not allow porn sites, unless requested. I am sure "Furbie" or "Barbie" are not the only words on the site. Google already does this by default, so perhaps the other search engines should do the same.
Why create another law that is not going to be enforced except when it suits the government, or that can be misued by the government to harrass websites. The word "the" is an innocent word. Is that going to be targeted?
If it is false advertising, then there are already laws against that, just like there is a law against yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.
There are always consequences to words spoken or written.
Mine is apparently to keep trying to explain that free speech is a right, that comes with consequences, as do all rights.
Including making laws that violate the Constitution of the United States.
I don't think the Founders meant that free speech would include using the names of children's toys to intentionally and deceptively lure kids to porn sites. That's like saying that "Hey little girl, you want some candy? Step into my van." on the school yard is protected under free speech.
I too served in the Army, but it certainly wasn't to protect the rights of pedophiles and child pornographers. I served to protect the innocent and their rights, not those that would intentionally harm them.
Just because we have the right to free speech, doesn't mean that it is free of consequences.
Actually, saying "Hey little girl, you want some candy? Step into my van.", while despicable because of the possible intent, is still free speech, but the actions that take place after that are not. The burden in such a case falls on the authorities to protect the innocent, whether it is the teachers watching the children in the schools, the security guards on the school grounds, or the police patrolling the area, or the parents. I am not saying that this burden is handled properly by society, but words are still just words, and they should be protected by freedom of speech, with all of the consequences that involves.
As far as computer use by children, that is fodder for a different post, at a different time.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ~Voltaire
or
If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.
George Washington
However, a more appropriate quote for you may be this:
If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. ~Noam Chomsky
Does anyone else see the potential for a lawsuit? This is an obviously blatant attempt to circumvent the constitiution, with regards to the right to free speech.
I am not a pornographer, and I abhor pedophiles as much as the next non-pedophiliac, but I still will defend their right to say what they want on their website. I served honorably for 10 years in the US Army, and I did it for the freedoms that we enjoy in this country. I hate seeing those freedoms being eroded away daily, by a government that feels that the threat of terrorism gives them the right to do whatever they want, regardless of what our founding fathers wanted for this country.
This is absolutely despicable, even by Congress's standards.
Marcus had the right idea, but then he went for the media spin about hackers. His best quote was actually:
There's enough blame for everyone.
Blame the users who don't secure their systems and applications.
Blame the vendors who write and distribute insecure shovel-ware.
Blame the sleazebags who make their living infecting innocent people with spyware, or sending spam.
Blame Microsoft for producing an operating system that is bloated and has an ineffective permissions model and poor default configurations.
Blame the IT managers who overrule their security practitioners' advice and put their systems at risk in the interest of convenience. Etc.
Sure hackers, as he and the media uses the term, are to blame, but what about the others he mentions? I bet half of the "hackers" wouldn't even have started if it wasn't so darn easy in the first place, and that is where the rest of the blame starts.
I am not trying to defend "hackers", or start a holy war about whether finding flaws are in software is good or bad.
I see every day the results of poor practices, shoddy software, and just plain old stupidity when it comes to security. Fix those first, then worry about the hackers.
The more expensive the lock, usually the harder it is to pick, because they cost more to make
You mean like Windows boxes are harder to hack than Linux boxes, because Windows cost more to make? Or would that contradict your tiresome and irrelevant Windows-bashing?
Gee, maybe you should read the post again, the quote you grabbed was after the analogy.
What are you, a reporter?;-)
CLUE-> (Yes, I just bashed reporters for their ability to take quotes out of context and then use bad logic to come up with a false conclusion. Oh, and I just bashed you too, I guess, in a good natured way. See the smiley?)
SECOND CLUE-> (The reason I put the words "sorry, couldn't resist" implies that my Windows bashing (not a hyphenated word, by the way) was meant to be "tiresome and irrelevant", but still a good analogy.);-)
Not impossible to pick, but a LOT harder. Like the difference between hacking a windoze box and an OpenBSD box.(sorry, couldn't resist)
Re:So what locks ARE good?!?
on
Steel Bolt Hacking
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Actually, it does discuss several options to better secure your locks, such as putting your deadbolt locks(which are as easy to pick as a padlock) upside-down, to prevent gravity from helping the lock picker. Not impossible to pick, but a LOT harder. Like the difference between hacking a windoze box and an OpenBSD box.(sorry, couldn't resist)
The more expensive the lock, usually the harder it is to pick, because they cost more to make. Good book, I recommend it.
Another positive outcome of IPv6 will be better internet routing using QoS, Quality of Service, which routes packets based on priority.
What? There is nothing in IPv6 about this.
Actually, there is.
Read RFC 2460 - Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification
Here is an apropo excerpt:
Flow Labeling Capability
A new capability is added to enable the labeling of packets belonging to particular traffic "flows" for which the sender requests special handling, such as non-default quality of service or "real-time" service.
As for the purpose of this capability, think VOIP, streaming video, stock quotes or other "real-time" applications.
Faster routing? How's that? Does it make sense to anyone that looking up a 128 bit address is going to be faster than looking up a 32 bit address? There's more to look up.
How is that, you ask. Read RFC's 2460, 2402, and 2406, and you will see that one of the reasons is because of the way IPv6 handles extension headers and because of the way the IPv6 packet is designed with speed in mind. After all, with all of the atoms in the universe vying for a router's time, we have to make it speedy, yes?
Also, for your homework assignment, class, please read RFC 2461 - Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)
The article was very informative, and something that I might like to try in my spare time, but one major obstacle stands in my way- the terms of use that I have to agree to with my cable company to get high-speed access. And before you say "get ADSL", I would love to, but the POP is too far away, and the phone company says they are not planning any new ones in the near future. I would love to supply my area with wireless access, but it would violate my TOS, and I am sure Comcast would LOVE to sue me if too many people started dropping their high-speed access for mine.
Just my 2cents...
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't this be the perfect bug repellent? I guess they don't emit the fatty acids when you squash them, or people wouldn't still get bugs in there houses. :-)
I can't wait for brain hacking. Imagine the possibilities! It could give a whole new meaning to zombies. "Need more brains to hack..."
They already do. It's called cable TV. ;-)
You stated that: This is not a free speech issue. Truth in advertising maybe, but not free speech.
Why do you think that there is a law about truth in advertising? It is because it is a consequence of that person's (or companies') free speech.
A true consequence for misleading keywords would be to filter all search engines to not allow porn sites, unless requested. I am sure "Furbie" or "Barbie" are not the only words on the site. Google already does this by default, so perhaps the other search engines should do the same.
Why create another law that is not going to be enforced except when it suits the government, or that can be misued by the government to harrass websites. The word "the" is an innocent word. Is that going to be targeted?
If it is false advertising, then there are already laws against that, just like there is a law against yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.
There are always consequences to words spoken or written.
Mine is apparently to keep trying to explain that free speech is a right, that comes with consequences, as do all rights.
Including making laws that violate the Constitution of the United States.
'Nuff said.
Just because we have the right to free speech, doesn't mean that it is free of consequences.
Actually, saying "Hey little girl, you want some candy? Step into my van.", while despicable because of the possible intent, is still free speech, but the actions that take place after that are not. The burden in such a case falls on the authorities to protect the innocent, whether it is the teachers watching the children in the schools, the security guards on the school grounds, or the police patrolling the area, or the parents. I am not saying that this burden is handled properly by society, but words are still just words, and they should be protected by freedom of speech, with all of the consequences that involves.
As far as computer use by children, that is fodder for a different post, at a different time.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ~Voltaire
or
If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.
George Washington
However, a more appropriate quote for you may be this:
If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. ~Noam Chomsky
I am not a pornographer, and I abhor pedophiles as much as the next non-pedophiliac, but I still will defend their right to say what they want on their website. I served honorably for 10 years in the US Army, and I did it for the freedoms that we enjoy in this country. I hate seeing those freedoms being eroded away daily, by a government that feels that the threat of terrorism gives them the right to do whatever they want, regardless of what our founding fathers wanted for this country.
This is absolutely despicable, even by Congress's standards.
I see every day the results of poor practices, shoddy software, and just plain old stupidity when it comes to security. Fix those first, then worry about the hackers.
You mean like Windows boxes are harder to hack than Linux boxes, because Windows cost more to make? Or would that contradict your tiresome and irrelevant Windows-bashing?
Gee, maybe you should read the post again, the quote you grabbed was after the analogy. What are you, a reporter? ;-)
CLUE-> (Yes, I just bashed reporters for their ability to take quotes out of context and then use bad logic to come up with a false conclusion. Oh, and I just bashed you too, I guess, in a good natured way. See the smiley?)
SECOND CLUE-> (The reason I put the words "sorry, couldn't resist" implies that my Windows bashing (not a hyphenated word, by the way) was meant to be "tiresome and irrelevant", but still a good analogy.);-)
Not impossible to pick, but a LOT harder. Like the difference between hacking a windoze box and an OpenBSD box.(sorry, couldn't resist)
Actually, it does discuss several options to better secure your locks, such as putting your deadbolt locks(which are as easy to pick as a padlock) upside-down, to prevent gravity from helping the lock picker. Not impossible to pick, but a LOT harder. Like the difference between hacking a windoze box and an OpenBSD box.(sorry, couldn't resist) The more expensive the lock, usually the harder it is to pick, because they cost more to make. Good book, I recommend it.
Another positive outcome of IPv6 will be better internet routing using QoS, Quality of Service, which routes packets based on priority. What? There is nothing in IPv6 about this.
Actually, there is.
Read RFC 2460 - Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification
Here is an apropo excerpt:
As for the purpose of this capability, think VOIP, streaming video, stock quotes or other "real-time" applications.Faster routing? How's that? Does it make sense to anyone that looking up a 128 bit address is going to be faster than looking up a 32 bit address? There's more to look up.
How is that, you ask. Read RFC's 2460, 2402, and 2406, and you will see that one of the reasons is because of the way IPv6 handles extension headers and because of the way the IPv6 packet is designed with speed in mind. After all, with all of the atoms in the universe vying for a router's time, we have to make it speedy, yes?
Also, for your homework assignment, class, please read RFC 2461 - Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)
Class dismissed ;-)
The article was very informative, and something that I might like to try in my spare time, but one major obstacle stands in my way- the terms of use that I have to agree to with my cable company to get high-speed access. And before you say "get ADSL", I would love to, but the POP is too far away, and the phone company says they are not planning any new ones in the near future. I would love to supply my area with wireless access, but it would violate my TOS, and I am sure Comcast would LOVE to sue me if too many people started dropping their high-speed access for mine. Just my 2cents...