They are still moving to an all-MP3 store, but won't break all the DRMed music its customers have already downloaded; this because of "threatened lawsuits."
*If you consider asking Yahoo for the password to be hacking
Seriously. I'm not saying that this guy deserves to get away scot-free, but I would suggest that perhaps the crime here is fraud, not breaking into a computer system (though all the sources I've seen are unclear as to what he's actually being charged with).
This is a bit over the top. On Facebook, for example, you can restrict practically any information you put into it. Now, Facebook themselves could technically do what they wanted with it, but if you're worried about the information getting out to the internet as a whole, you just go into your preferences and tell it what to make public, friends-only, completely private, or what-have-you, and they'll restrict it as appropriate. Just because most people don't enable this restriction doesn't mean it's not there.
If you're worried about Facebook selling your information to other entities, etc., take a look at Facebook's privacy policy, which states pretty clearly what they will and will not do with your information.
I have a feeling, though, that you've already made your decision and just want to hear from others who feel as you do.
This is just a test case to see if people will accept it, before they require this one-time code to be entered and then lock the game to that specific console.
I wouldn't do it at all, personally, because I'd consider it a violation of my integrity to do so. Kinda like a deal with the devil, if you will.
Also, how are they going to take control of changes you already made? You've already licensed them under the BSD license; someone else could just republish them. You can't revoke things like that.
Oh man, do I remember what I was doing at 6:66 PM that day... it was glorious. A beautiful flock of pigs were flying toward the sunset, and the ground beneath me seemed to be a touch colder (I remembered hearing about hell freezing over a couple of minutes beforehand). Meanwhile, someone, somewhere had divided by zero, causing my calendar to indicate that it was the year 1900.
No, I'd vote for a database that was controlled by the government of the country issuing the passport and selectively allowed connections from different countries with varying levels of permissions. You know, like most well-planned IT systems.
So... what? My relatively new laptop had no end of problems with it (and when I say relatively new, I mean a gaming model I bought in January of 2007). What exactly are you suggesting here, that we should have to upgrade our hardware and/or software every time we get a new version of an OS?
Protip: Microsoft needs to put a metric shit-ton more man-hours into compatibility with previous hardware and software. They shouldn't be releasing an OS that doesn't run just about everything that the previous one did. Things that don't, for example, interface directly with the kernel shouldn't have problems running. If they do, that's a huge architectural flaw that MS should fix instead of trying to get all of their developers (who, one could argue, are their most important customers) to update their code.
Of course, that said, Vista did seem to be rushed since it had missed several release dates anyway.
The data, photo and all, are actually stored on the passport? Why doesn't the passport just have an ID that's linked to the TSA's database and the rest of the information pulled from there?
This seems like really bad architecture if true...
ReCAPTCHA has the same issues as a CAPTCHA because it gives you one to which it knows the answer, so if you get that one right, it assumes you got the other one right. So you still only have to get one of the words right, which, in the end, is the same as a normal CAPTCHA.
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses (X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it (X) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers (X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money (X) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email (X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes (X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering (X) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually (X) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
Akismet is great for comments and such. Basically, it's a neural net using user submissions to determine whether or not a submission (sent automatically from your site for checking) is spam or not.
Not quite, because with your data, it can (and should) be simultaneously under your mattress AND in a bank. With most web applications, its JUST in the bank, which is just as dumb as as having it just under your mattress.
Not really; it's either one or the other, or a split of both. You can't have legal currency stored under your mattress while still having it in the bank at the same time; if you could, you'd be able to just continually withdraw as much as you'd ever need.
I agree that without a backup there is a risk, but it's not the world-ending thing that RMS makes it out to be.
Slashdot Mirror
Fixed that for you.
Please cite, because I've been locked out of things like photo albums before because I wasn't friends with the originator of the album.
Seriously. I'm not saying that this guy deserves to get away scot-free, but I would suggest that perhaps the crime here is fraud, not breaking into a computer system (though all the sources I've seen are unclear as to what he's actually being charged with).
This is a bit over the top. On Facebook, for example, you can restrict practically any information you put into it. Now, Facebook themselves could technically do what they wanted with it, but if you're worried about the information getting out to the internet as a whole, you just go into your preferences and tell it what to make public, friends-only, completely private, or what-have-you, and they'll restrict it as appropriate. Just because most people don't enable this restriction doesn't mean it's not there.
If you're worried about Facebook selling your information to other entities, etc., take a look at Facebook's privacy policy, which states pretty clearly what they will and will not do with your information.
I have a feeling, though, that you've already made your decision and just want to hear from others who feel as you do.
Personally, I watch it because it's entertaining. I guess I just don't need everything to be completely academic, like some people.
I see you've played knifey spooney before!
This is just a test case to see if people will accept it, before they require this one-time code to be entered and then lock the game to that specific console.
I wouldn't do it at all, personally, because I'd consider it a violation of my integrity to do so. Kinda like a deal with the devil, if you will.
Also, how are they going to take control of changes you already made? You've already licensed them under the BSD license; someone else could just republish them. You can't revoke things like that.
Oh man, do I remember what I was doing at 6:66 PM that day... it was glorious. A beautiful flock of pigs were flying toward the sunset, and the ground beneath me seemed to be a touch colder (I remembered hearing about hell freezing over a couple of minutes beforehand). Meanwhile, someone, somewhere had divided by zero, causing my calendar to indicate that it was the year 1900.
Good times, good times.
See, this is totally why I'd always appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Whatever happens, it'll be a hell of a ride.
This could lead to us being able to get YouTube videos from Barack Obama if he's elected (adding to the 1400+ he and his campaign already have). Of course, John McCain just posts his campaign ads...
Or maybe thinking open, ongoing communication from representatives is too idealistic.
(Yes, I realize this applies to the House and not the Executive branch.)
The problem here is that Sequoia will have them withheld until just after the election, and then in four years nobody will remember.
No, I'd vote for a database that was controlled by the government of the country issuing the passport and selectively allowed connections from different countries with varying levels of permissions. You know, like most well-planned IT systems.
So... what? My relatively new laptop had no end of problems with it (and when I say relatively new, I mean a gaming model I bought in January of 2007). What exactly are you suggesting here, that we should have to upgrade our hardware and/or software every time we get a new version of an OS?
Protip: Microsoft needs to put a metric shit-ton more man-hours into compatibility with previous hardware and software. They shouldn't be releasing an OS that doesn't run just about everything that the previous one did. Things that don't, for example, interface directly with the kernel shouldn't have problems running. If they do, that's a huge architectural flaw that MS should fix instead of trying to get all of their developers (who, one could argue, are their most important customers) to update their code.
Of course, that said, Vista did seem to be rushed since it had missed several release dates anyway.
The problem with this is that it puts reCAPTCHA and spammers into an... hold on, lemme get the checklist...
(X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
What if the spammers have better OCR than the reCAPTCHA people?
The data, photo and all, are actually stored on the passport? Why doesn't the passport just have an ID that's linked to the TSA's database and the rest of the information pulled from there?
This seems like really bad architecture if true...
I fixed your mom last night.
There, fixed that for ya.
ReCAPTCHA has the same issues as a CAPTCHA because it gives you one to which it knows the answer, so if you get that one right, it assumes you got the other one right. So you still only have to get one of the words right, which, in the end, is the same as a normal CAPTCHA.
The form doesn't assume there is a solution without cost or compromise.
It just assumes it's really, really easy to make fun of other ones. ;^)
Your post advocates a
(X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(X) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(X) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
(X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
(X) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
(X) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
Akismet is great for comments and such. Basically, it's a neural net using user submissions to determine whether or not a submission (sent automatically from your site for checking) is spam or not.
Gah. That's what I get for believing a Slashdot summary. :^P
IBM can actually fight back.
Well, in Gmail's case, you can use POP3 and store a copy locally.
Not really; it's either one or the other, or a split of both. You can't have legal currency stored under your mattress while still having it in the bank at the same time; if you could, you'd be able to just continually withdraw as much as you'd ever need.
I agree that without a backup there is a risk, but it's not the world-ending thing that RMS makes it out to be.