A war ends the moment that one contestant decides he cannot win, thus becoming the loser.
No, it can also end the moment one contestant judges that he has achieved his strategic objective. The strategic objective of the current war is to transfer public funds to contractors. An accountant can declare victory in this war at any time.
Ok, sorry, that was cynical. My point is that you can define victory conditions to whatever you want them to be, and the current president has made those conditions so nebulous, that the next president can pretty much say anything and there won't be anything to contradict them. Just say "Saddam is out of power," and that's plausible enough.
t's sad that neither party represents the viewpoint that a lot of people hold -- that the federal government should be made weaker, not stronger.
According to how people actually vote, this "lot of people" is what, 1%?
Government won't respect the constitution if voters don't. People bitch at Bush over an alleged "just a piece of paper" remark, but in their hearts they agree with the remark, and they prove it, every other November.
What happens when your computer gets a virus and starts to send out gigabytes of email spam?
A month after that happens, when you see your bill, you decide to stop running viruses.
Viruses are an activity that people choose to participate in; it's not something that just happens to people. If someone emails you an executable, or some web site says it requires Internet Explorer, just say no. It's not that hard.
Read what you quoted. They aren't making a law that requires them to bounce mail. They're merely bouncing it. You are still free to petition for redress of grievances; they just aren't listening.
Also, the timing is really excellent. If you happen to not like them not listening, then vote out your incumbents a month from now.
They may, but the key part of their policy is that they won't go out of their way to harm you, if you smoke pot. Smoking pot themselves, is an orthogonal concern.
Unless you can guarentee that you're going to play against people who are worse than you (I guess the game works on a "sucker born every minute" policy?) then in the end you can't make money over the long term.
You don't have to guarantee they're worse, they just have to be worse.
So maybe it's a game of luck rather than skill after all.
Except then there's the meta-game, where you Social Engineer the situation such that you are at a table with players worse than you. That takes skill.;) Suckers aren't just born every minute; they also have to be found.
And if you can't find them, you have to make them. This is where boobies come in, but that's a talk for another day.
But it's worth it to you for the entertainment. Same goes with gambling. You lose money but a lot of people enjoy it.
How can they enjoy it, when they know the trend must result in loss?
Oh, and: how dare they enjoy it?! I don't enjoy it, so they shouldn't either.
BTW, they're having sex the wrong way too. And they listen to crappy music. The "beer" they drink sucks. They run the wrong OS on their personal computer, and the wrong text editor too.
According to Kaspersky, stopping ransomware-based malware in the future will require more effective law enforcement, the use of forensic software analysis to tie suspects to their malevolent creations, and possibly building restrictions into the Windows cryptographic software libraries used to create Gpcode itself.
All that is required to stop ransomware is: 1) don't run malware. 2) back up, in case you forget to do step 1 or have other problems (malware isn't the only cause of data loss).
Their last suggestion (requiring some people to use broken crypto and hoping that criminals choose to use that broken crypto) is particularly amusing.
If they can trivially catch this particular criminal, fine. But he's not worth much effort.
In that case it's not really a question of what it's "meant for". It's a question of what it can do.
And what can be done under a 5G/mo cap is a shitload: basically, everything you were doing on the internet 10 years ago. Of course you want more, but it's pretty awesome as-is.
As far as I can tell, that's the only solution that doesn't rely on Javascript shenanigans, but it doesn't really stop it. All it does is reduce the problem to a cryptographic attack -- which is subject to brute force.
The nature of CSRF is that one of your legit users has to be a party to the attack (of which the are ultimately the victim), though. Is one of my users going to click a CSRF-exploit link 4 billion times in a row, where each attempt displays a page that says "hey, someone just tried to gain access to your account through a CSRF attack"?
Ugh, don't answer that.;) But seriously: bullshit.
This is the kind of tactic that I just don't get. Unlike random session tokens, referrer-checking is an arms race that the other side can trivially win. The scraper writer just has to spend 2 minutes adding a pass-referrers feature to his program, and then for the next 10 years you get perfectly normal-looking requests. Sure, it might work a little and turn away some really old scrapers, but in the end you're going to get scraped anyway. So why bother?
Last year I went around adding CSRF protection to my employer's site, and I had my check-the-session-token function go ahead and look at the referrer too, just as an "extra" check. If either the token or the referrer was wrong, reject the request.
I ended up having to remove the referrer check, because too many people were passing blank referrers. It's well-known that there are browsers or proxies out there which remove that, in the name of privacy or whatever. What I didn't know, though, is that a lot of nontechnical users are unknowingly using these privacy-protecting tools. Maybe they're being deployed as transparent proxies at large orgs or something, or maybe "strip referrer" is a default setting in some new sexy browser or something. I don't know. I don't really care either, because I just want to stop turning away users.
Anyway, you can't count on referrer. That header effectively no longer exists.
If we didn't have farm subsidies, the Midwest floods earlier this year would have drove food prices through the roof seeing how the fields that were able to be replanted are only producing about half their typical yields.
Do we get those subsidies back in years when farming's volatility happens to work in the farms' favor?
Why do we have these ideas that corporations must be treated in some discriminatory fashion?
Because they already have positive discrimination in their favor. Do you and I have Limited Liability?
When someone suggests lower copyright terms for corporations, don't think of it as discrimination; think of it as quid-pro-quo balance. If someone wants to gain from better copyright terms, they'll still have the option of not incorporating (and the risks that brings: risks that you and I face every day).
It occurs to me that most of your point #3 is really point #1. This phone is obviously for people who want to use Google's services. If someone (like you (and me)) wants to use built-in apps or services that compete with Google, this distribution just isn't quite it. But at the same time, this phone just might contribute some economy-of-scale to a developer base that you could end up using when someone comes out with the distro that you do want.
Well, that's swell and all if you want someone else to be in charge of your embedded appliance. But the promise is smartphones is to make them more PC like, and a lot of people want that. Not everyone? Fine.
(And by PC-like, I don't mean Windows. I mean personal computer. Remembers that PCs don't have to suck.)
how long until we reach Taste of Armageddon (Star Trek)?
Never.
We'll start having virtual wars to avoid the ugliness of war
No we won't. If you want to kill someone, you're probably not really all that hung up on "ugliness."
And when the computer says it's your turn to get into the suicide booth, saving everyone else from the ugliness of war is the last thing on your mind. You'll reach for your gun if you have a lick of sense.
I loved that episode but it wasn't realistic. If you think it was, all I can say is geez, trekkie, get a life.;)
What they could do, is define lack of encryption as negligent, for liability purposes. Lawmakers do weird things like this all the time: for example if you possess more than x weight of drugs, then you have intent to distribute (regardless of whether or not there's actually any reason to believe you had such intent).
They could pass a law that if you lose info and didn't encrypt it, and then someone comes after you for damages resulting from such negligence, then your position is far weaker than it would be if you had encrypted. (I generally disapprove of those types of laws, but as long as we're keeping them around, then something like this might be a good idea.)
But the the best encryption is free and the text of the law doesn't even exclude it. If someone wanted this bill to make money for their friend, they sure screwed up.
We have seen every development of new more advanced weapons lead to more and more killing and less and less regard for human life.
Really? You think there's less regard for human life than there was 63 years ago? The very idea of people complaining about children getting killed in war, is something your great grandparents would have thought strange.
if he man flys over in a plane and drops a bomb, oh well, theres always some collateral damage, the child isn't even acknowledged as a human being, the killer is 100% blameless.
If your society has decided that he and his superiors up the chain are blameless, then you already have problems which have nothing to do with weapons technology.
BTW, just to expand on my main point: there are also other ways that improving weapons tech is humane. Lasers don't leave unexploded shells/mines around to kill random people later, nor do they leave depleted uranium dust around for random people to breath. Old tech can hurt the innocent even when it misses everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it can also end the moment one contestant judges that he has achieved his strategic objective. The strategic objective of the current war is to transfer public funds to contractors. An accountant can declare victory in this war at any time.
Ok, sorry, that was cynical. My point is that you can define victory conditions to whatever you want them to be, and the current president has made those conditions so nebulous, that the next president can pretty much say anything and there won't be anything to contradict them. Just say "Saddam is out of power," and that's plausible enough.
According to how people actually vote, this "lot of people" is what, 1%?
Government won't respect the constitution if voters don't. People bitch at Bush over an alleged "just a piece of paper" remark, but in their hearts they agree with the remark, and they prove it, every other November.
Is that a dirty trick or a clean trick?
A month after that happens, when you see your bill, you decide to stop running viruses.
Viruses are an activity that people choose to participate in; it's not something that just happens to people. If someone emails you an executable, or some web site says it requires Internet Explorer, just say no. It's not that hard.
Ok, instead of comparing to the total US, compare it to dense and newly-wired parts of the US.
Oops, the guy living in US still loses.
Read what you quoted. They aren't making a law that requires them to bounce mail. They're merely bouncing it. You are still free to petition for redress of grievances; they just aren't listening.
Also, the timing is really excellent. If you happen to not like them not listening, then vote out your incumbents a month from now.
They may, but the key part of their policy is that they won't go out of their way to harm you, if you smoke pot. Smoking pot themselves, is an orthogonal concern.
You don't have to guarantee they're worse, they just have to be worse.
So maybe it's a game of luck rather than skill after all.
Except then there's the meta-game, where you Social Engineer the situation such that you are at a table with players worse than you. That takes skill. ;) Suckers aren't just born every minute; they also have to be found.
And if you can't find them, you have to make them. This is where boobies come in, but that's a talk for another day.
How can they enjoy it, when they know the trend must result in loss?
Oh, and: how dare they enjoy it?! I don't enjoy it, so they shouldn't either.
BTW, they're having sex the wrong way too. And they listen to crappy music. The "beer" they drink sucks. They run the wrong OS on their personal computer, and the wrong text editor too.
Something has to be done about these people.
All that is required to stop ransomware is: 1) don't run malware. 2) back up, in case you forget to do step 1 or have other problems (malware isn't the only cause of data loss).
Their last suggestion (requiring some people to use broken crypto and hoping that criminals choose to use that broken crypto) is particularly amusing.
If they can trivially catch this particular criminal, fine. But he's not worth much effort.
And what can be done under a 5G/mo cap is a shitload: basically, everything you were doing on the internet 10 years ago. Of course you want more, but it's pretty awesome as-is.
The nature of CSRF is that one of your legit users has to be a party to the attack (of which the are ultimately the victim), though. Is one of my users going to click a CSRF-exploit link 4 billion times in a row, where each attempt displays a page that says "hey, someone just tried to gain access to your account through a CSRF attack"?
Ugh, don't answer that. ;) But seriously: bullshit.
This is the kind of tactic that I just don't get. Unlike random session tokens, referrer-checking is an arms race that the other side can trivially win. The scraper writer just has to spend 2 minutes adding a pass-referrers feature to his program, and then for the next 10 years you get perfectly normal-looking requests. Sure, it might work a little and turn away some really old scrapers, but in the end you're going to get scraped anyway. So why bother?
Last year I went around adding CSRF protection to my employer's site, and I had my check-the-session-token function go ahead and look at the referrer too, just as an "extra" check. If either the token or the referrer was wrong, reject the request.
I ended up having to remove the referrer check, because too many people were passing blank referrers. It's well-known that there are browsers or proxies out there which remove that, in the name of privacy or whatever. What I didn't know, though, is that a lot of nontechnical users are unknowingly using these privacy-protecting tools. Maybe they're being deployed as transparent proxies at large orgs or something, or maybe "strip referrer" is a default setting in some new sexy browser or something. I don't know. I don't really care either, because I just want to stop turning away users.
Anyway, you can't count on referrer. That header effectively no longer exists.
Do we get those subsidies back in years when farming's volatility happens to work in the farms' favor?
Because they already have positive discrimination in their favor. Do you and I have Limited Liability?
When someone suggests lower copyright terms for corporations, don't think of it as discrimination; think of it as quid-pro-quo balance. If someone wants to gain from better copyright terms, they'll still have the option of not incorporating (and the risks that brings: risks that you and I face every day).
It occurs to me that most of your point #3 is really point #1. This phone is obviously for people who want to use Google's services. If someone (like you (and me)) wants to use built-in apps or services that compete with Google, this distribution just isn't quite it. But at the same time, this phone just might contribute some economy-of-scale to a developer base that you could end up using when someone comes out with the distro that you do want.
Well, that's swell and all if you want someone else to be in charge of your embedded appliance. But the promise is smartphones is to make them more PC like, and a lot of people want that. Not everyone? Fine.
(And by PC-like, I don't mean Windows. I mean personal computer. Remembers that PCs don't have to suck.)
Yeah, my mobile phone, a DEC femtoVAX, is asymmetric like that. But it runs Windows. Well, not exactly Windows. It's VMS. Same thing.
Never.
No we won't. If you want to kill someone, you're probably not really all that hung up on "ugliness."
And when the computer says it's your turn to get into the suicide booth, saving everyone else from the ugliness of war is the last thing on your mind. You'll reach for your gun if you have a lick of sense.
I loved that episode but it wasn't realistic. If you think it was, all I can say is geez, trekkie, get a life. ;)
What they could do, is define lack of encryption as negligent, for liability purposes. Lawmakers do weird things like this all the time: for example if you possess more than x weight of drugs, then you have intent to distribute (regardless of whether or not there's actually any reason to believe you had such intent).
They could pass a law that if you lose info and didn't encrypt it, and then someone comes after you for damages resulting from such negligence, then your position is far weaker than it would be if you had encrypted. (I generally disapprove of those types of laws, but as long as we're keeping them around, then something like this might be a good idea.)
It looks like you're going to have to stop including people's Social Security Numbers in your lawnmowing quotes.
You were expected to do that before they even passed this law, and not just for customers in Nevada.
1976 called, they want their RSA-hasn't-been-invented-yet excuse back.
But the the best encryption is free and the text of the law doesn't even exclude it. If someone wanted this bill to make money for their friend, they sure screwed up.
Really? You think there's less regard for human life than there was 63 years ago? The very idea of people complaining about children getting killed in war, is something your great grandparents would have thought strange.
If your society has decided that he and his superiors up the chain are blameless, then you already have problems which have nothing to do with weapons technology.
BTW, just to expand on my main point: there are also other ways that improving weapons tech is humane. Lasers don't leave unexploded shells/mines around to kill random people later, nor do they leave depleted uranium dust around for random people to breath. Old tech can hurt the innocent even when it misses everyone.