I agree with your first note... but I'm not sure what you mean about the metadata issue. Are you referring to standards to help enable those relationships (project, team, org...)?
You can send an email from your own mail server and convince 90% (I made that up) of the world that you're someone else. Your enemy, your competitor, your victim, whatever...
As for doing "nothing to avert a crime" - reporting them to an authority or whatever is all they should do. They can't shut themselves down until the problem blows over... that could cost thousands, millions, etc. Just because other people threaten you doesn't make you responsible for their actions.
I had my hopes up until the fifth and sixth words, when I realized that this wasn't a story by Tolkein.
One Sun to rule them all One Sun to find them One Sun to bring them all And in the darkness bind them...
But it wouldn't really be "darkness" if it were Sun, would it? I feel this is getting belabored, so I'm going to stop before I amuse myself past the limits of what the moderators will allow.
People have been forging the From field for a long time, with varying reasons and consequences. In my university, a student sent a message to several thousand people pretending to be the head of the Student Affairs office. It was a very convincing text, but the user's AFS ID (not to mention his IP and room's port) were easily traced with the headers. He was picked up pretty quick.
It might be bad publicity for the company, but it almost certainly will have no legal ramifications for them.
Which brings me to the next question - is there an agency, organization, department, etc. that receives and processes these kinds of threats? If my company got something like this, to whom would I report it? And what would be done?
If there's nobody out there handling these, I suggest a bounty hunter system. The kind with bows and arrows.
I adopted my cats from a nearby animal rescue.* As they told us, you should never offer your kittens "free to a good home." There are plenty of people that are looking for a free kitten that won't offer a good home.
* Take it easy on their site... one day I'll develop a better one for them.
I wish I had mod points. You'd be getting an "Insightful" from me.
I've switched a bunch of people from IE to Firefox, and nearly all of them have been very happy with it. What I found interesting was that some of them have come to me asking what other cool, free programs I could get them. My co-workers are all using OpenOffice. My brother now browses SourceForge for new stuff. Firefox is an eye-opener to some people who don't know how bad they've had it under IE (tabbed browsing #1).
Good filmmaking makes you scare yourself. Really gory movies aren't usually scary to me. I think the classic examples is from Reservoir Dogs - when he cuts the ear off. The music, the camera pan/tilt, the screams... you never see anything but you immediately start imagining what might be happening.
My wife pointed out that the filmmaking in A Time to Kill (was on TV last night) did the same thing; you never see the terrible things they're doing to the girl, but you know what's going on.
The "rake in a couple bucks" attitude is likely to be the perspective of the studios. But the filmmaker, writer, etc. are fans of the game... so you're going to get a mix of the studio perspective (money) and the gamer perspective (how cool can we make this). Could make for a no-brainer that's fun to watch.
The company that publishes LinuxWorld is IDG - the people behind PC World and Macworld (and others).
I don't read LinuxWorld, but I don't think it's out of place to put an article like this on a site or in a magazine devoted to Linux. It certainly is related to Linux via the IBM-SCO battles. I would be surprised if they made it a habit to publish "anti-Linux" articles in there.
I agree. If you're sending sensitive information in email, it's your fault. If you're concerned about privacy and you're using a public computer, it's your fault.
Google archives information. You gave it information.
I get tired faster when it's warm. Also, my contacts tend to start losing focus, which happens when I'm very tired - so I feel like sleeping.
I work best when it's cooler - about 65-68. I also prefer a darker environment and plenty of rest. Since I'm a night owl, trying to force my sleep rhythm to match the office hours isn't very productive.
At least he admitted that he was posting an interview with himself. And it helps that he tossed out a couple of other links to lend some credibility to the discussion.
After the recent slew of self-plugging stories and the article about 'marketing' which didn't call it astroturfing but described it, this is something of an improvement.
I mean that question in the way that Google is a company I support. They do good work, they have policies that have earned my trust, and I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt as a result.
Before I buy a product, I try to research that product. But with a service (which is integral to the TiVo product's appeal to me) I prefer to research the company. If I have options, I try to pick the best one.
The story summary didn't have any editorial comments... I need Slashdot to help me decide if TiVo (or Mr. Ramsay) is an evil company (tm) or a good company.
Seriously, though - I'm not a TiVo customer, I don't know anyone with a TiVo, and all I know about them is from the media (mostly Slashdot). I've thought about getting this kind of product/service - but with free software alternatives that I can put on my own hardware, here are my questions:
Is TiVo a company that I should support with my dollars? When I decide to plunk down some coin for a PVR, should I pay for it? If I should pay for it, is TiVo the best choice?
...not downhill. Season 1 of RvB was great. I bought the DVD. After that, a lot of the jokes, themes, and storylines got tired and strained. Sometimes I wouldn't even crack a smile, let alone laugh out loud as before. I'll say one thing for Red vs Blue - it sure makes me want to play Halo almost every time I see it.
(rough, from memory): "I'm a pacifist." "Isn't that what babies suck on?" "No, that's a pedophile." "No, that;s a pacifier." "Whoa. I was thinking of something totally different."
Election Official: The system won't work. Tech support: What's wrong? Official: I just told you, it's not working. Tech: How do you know? Official: Because when I try to vote, the machine doesn't respond. Tech: What does it say on the screen? Official: Nothing. Tech: Is it on? Official: How do I tell? Tech: The lights on the front will be lit. Official: There are no lights. Tech: So it's off? Hit the power button under the lights. Official: You're not listening. There are no lights. Tech: What do you mean, no lights? Official: I mean there are no lights. There's a screen, two buttons, and that's it. Tech: Wait - what does your machine look like? Official: It's bright red, is made of plastic, and it's about 12 inches by 9 inches. Why? Tech: Are you trying to vote on an Etch-a-Sketch? Official: Vote?
I agree - Counter-strike eventually got old for me (it took a while) so I became a Day of Defeat fiend... a handful of other mods, too. Then there are a ton of other games to get involved in as well. I'm not in a rush because I'm still enjoying Halo PC multiplayer and then I'll get into Doom 3 multiplayer. Not to mention GTA: San Andreas is coming up fast. I've got my gaming schedule (as restricted as it is) full for the rest of the year.
Misleading domain names, username/host parameters in the URL, and certificates from not-so-trusted providers (or self-issued) are easy ways to trick a user into thinking they're at one site when they're at another.
There was a Phishing test posted here on Slashdot a while back. One of the trickiest examples used a hostname/username/password in the URL. The regular user wouldn't know what that was - essentially, you're passing a username to the server along the lines of "www.hotmail.com" but the actual domain (which follows that username) is "www.youhavebeenowned.com"
As another poster pointed out - citybank.com, citi-bank.com, citibanque.com, citibank.phishing.com, etc. are enough to trick a lot of people.
Writing well includes writing succintly and effectively. In one high school class, we were required to write a lot of two-page papers. Now that sounds pretty easy, but the things we were required to write on were very difficult to discuss properly in just two pages. That meant that you had to go through a very refined process of planning your paper, writing it, and then hammering it down to two pages. You were counted off for exceeding the two page limit.
This means choosing the perfect word, reworking your sentence structure, and eliminating the unnecessary fluff that fills most writing. When I got to college, it was apparent that my professors and classmates did not write efficiently and certainly did not recognize and reward my writing. I had to re-learn how to fill ten pages with crap.
Have you ever made a mistake that hurt so much you knew you'd never make that mistake again? And when it came around next time, you made so much effort to not make that mistake that you ended up making a completely different mistake?
Mistakes happen, as you say. As is commonly accepted my many software developers, software has bugs.
The parent notes that mistakes happen in even the most expensive projects. I think it's more likely to happen in complex (and therefore expensive) projects.
Compare this to a computer system, then. The more security protocols you put in place, the harder it is for users to access it. The convenience goes out the door. If it's easy for your users to get in, it's going to be easier for unauthorized users to get in.
Another metaphor: Your house can be secured with locks and bars and key codes and so on... but it's going to take longer for you to get inside. It's more likely that you'll trip your own alarms by accident. You'll probably forget your keys and be locked out one day. But it's also harder for an intruder to sneak in. Not impossible, but it's harder. It also makes it less likely that they'll even try to break into your house.
I'm curious as to why you don't agree with the notion that security and liberty are related.
The only time I've ever heard that word was from The Onion. It's funny when it's in The Onion; it's disturbing when you discover websites about it. *shudder*
Inconveniences and hassles in the airport are not the same as losing freedoms. But I agree with what you're saying as long as you're referring to things like the Patriot Act. Look at some of our basic laws, however, and you may rethink your statement about "true security."
We have laws designed to provide security from murder, theft, harassment, etc. In fact, at one time you may have had the freedom to take justice into your own hands. Instead, you are forced to rely on the government to deal out justice. You can't simply kill someone because you think they deserve it.
So you've lost a tiny little freedom which was dangerous and gained some security in that vigilante killing is no longer a commonplace means of justice.
On the larger scale, who do you blame when a terrorist attack happens? The terrorists, of course, but you also want to know why they were able to do it in the first place. You want to prevent it from happening the next time. And the responsibility for this falls upon the shoulders of the government. They respond by passing as many laws as they can to perform the duties that you, as a citizen, are demanding. After 9/11, was your response "well, that happens?" It shouldn't happen - and making sure it doesn't happen again is something that the government is trying for. Maybe not successfully, but considering that we're three years out I think that it's unreasonable to expect a perfect resolution right away.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with your first note... but I'm not sure what you mean about the metadata issue. Are you referring to standards to help enable those relationships (project, team, org...)?
Both. You are an awfully cute seal, after all.
Of course not -
You can send an email from your own mail server and convince 90% (I made that up) of the world that you're someone else. Your enemy, your competitor, your victim, whatever...
As for doing "nothing to avert a crime" - reporting them to an authority or whatever is all they should do. They can't shut themselves down until the problem blows over... that could cost thousands, millions, etc. Just because other people threaten you doesn't make you responsible for their actions.
I had my hopes up until the fifth and sixth words, when I realized that this wasn't a story by Tolkein.
One Sun to rule them all
One Sun to find them
One Sun to bring them all
And in the darkness bind them...
But it wouldn't really be "darkness" if it were Sun, would it? I feel this is getting belabored, so I'm going to stop before I amuse myself past the limits of what the moderators will allow.
People have been forging the From field for a long time, with varying reasons and consequences. In my university, a student sent a message to several thousand people pretending to be the head of the Student Affairs office. It was a very convincing text, but the user's AFS ID (not to mention his IP and room's port) were easily traced with the headers. He was picked up pretty quick.
It might be bad publicity for the company, but it almost certainly will have no legal ramifications for them.
Which brings me to the next question - is there an agency, organization, department, etc. that receives and processes these kinds of threats? If my company got something like this, to whom would I report it? And what would be done?
If there's nobody out there handling these, I suggest a bounty hunter system. The kind with bows and arrows.
I adopted my cats from a nearby animal rescue.* As they told us, you should never offer your kittens "free to a good home." There are plenty of people that are looking for a free kitten that won't offer a good home.
* Take it easy on their site... one day I'll develop a better one for them.
I wish I had mod points. You'd be getting an "Insightful" from me.
I've switched a bunch of people from IE to Firefox, and nearly all of them have been very happy with it. What I found interesting was that some of them have come to me asking what other cool, free programs I could get them. My co-workers are all using OpenOffice. My brother now browses SourceForge for new stuff. Firefox is an eye-opener to some people who don't know how bad they've had it under IE (tabbed browsing #1).
Good filmmaking makes you scare yourself. Really gory movies aren't usually scary to me. I think the classic examples is from Reservoir Dogs - when he cuts the ear off. The music, the camera pan/tilt, the screams... you never see anything but you immediately start imagining what might be happening.
My wife pointed out that the filmmaking in A Time to Kill (was on TV last night) did the same thing; you never see the terrible things they're doing to the girl, but you know what's going on.
The "rake in a couple bucks" attitude is likely to be the perspective of the studios. But the filmmaker, writer, etc. are fans of the game... so you're going to get a mix of the studio perspective (money) and the gamer perspective (how cool can we make this). Could make for a no-brainer that's fun to watch.
The company that publishes LinuxWorld is IDG - the people behind PC World and Macworld (and others).
I don't read LinuxWorld, but I don't think it's out of place to put an article like this on a site or in a magazine devoted to Linux. It certainly is related to Linux via the IBM-SCO battles. I would be surprised if they made it a habit to publish "anti-Linux" articles in there.
I agree. If you're sending sensitive information in email, it's your fault. If you're concerned about privacy and you're using a public computer, it's your fault.
Google archives information. You gave it information.
I get tired faster when it's warm. Also, my contacts tend to start losing focus, which happens when I'm very tired - so I feel like sleeping.
I work best when it's cooler - about 65-68. I also prefer a darker environment and plenty of rest. Since I'm a night owl, trying to force my sleep rhythm to match the office hours isn't very productive.
Let's see... my "friend" that copies software has the following illegal copies:
Microsoft Windows XP
Microsoft Office XP
Microsoft Visio
Photoshop
Microsoft Windows 2000 Server
Microsoft SQL Server 2000
They are prohibitively expensive. Lowering hardware prices won't help people come up with the $10,000 it would take to buy this stuff.
At least he admitted that he was posting an interview with himself. And it helps that he tossed out a couple of other links to lend some credibility to the discussion.
After the recent slew of self-plugging stories and the article about 'marketing' which didn't call it astroturfing but described it, this is something of an improvement.
I mean that question in the way that Google is a company I support. They do good work, they have policies that have earned my trust, and I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt as a result.
Before I buy a product, I try to research that product. But with a service (which is integral to the TiVo product's appeal to me) I prefer to research the company. If I have options, I try to pick the best one.
Pure fantasy! I've seen at least one movie with Mac OS running on a PC and Windows running on Mac laptop.
The story summary didn't have any editorial comments... I need Slashdot to help me decide if TiVo (or Mr. Ramsay) is an evil company (tm) or a good company.
Seriously, though - I'm not a TiVo customer, I don't know anyone with a TiVo, and all I know about them is from the media (mostly Slashdot). I've thought about getting this kind of product/service - but with free software alternatives that I can put on my own hardware, here are my questions:
Is TiVo a company that I should support with my dollars? When I decide to plunk down some coin for a PVR, should I pay for it? If I should pay for it, is TiVo the best choice?
...not downhill. Season 1 of RvB was great. I bought the DVD. After that, a lot of the jokes, themes, and storylines got tired and strained. Sometimes I wouldn't even crack a smile, let alone laugh out loud as before. I'll say one thing for Red vs Blue - it sure makes me want to play Halo almost every time I see it.
(rough, from memory):
"I'm a pacifist."
"Isn't that what babies suck on?"
"No, that's a pedophile."
"No, that;s a pacifier."
"Whoa. I was thinking of something totally different."
Election Official: The system won't work.
Tech support: What's wrong?
Official: I just told you, it's not working.
Tech: How do you know?
Official: Because when I try to vote, the machine doesn't respond.
Tech: What does it say on the screen?
Official: Nothing.
Tech: Is it on?
Official: How do I tell?
Tech: The lights on the front will be lit.
Official: There are no lights.
Tech: So it's off? Hit the power button under the lights.
Official: You're not listening. There are no lights.
Tech: What do you mean, no lights?
Official: I mean there are no lights. There's a screen, two buttons, and that's it.
Tech: Wait - what does your machine look like?
Official: It's bright red, is made of plastic, and it's about 12 inches by 9 inches. Why?
Tech: Are you trying to vote on an Etch-a-Sketch?
Official: Vote?
I agree - Counter-strike eventually got old for me (it took a while) so I became a Day of Defeat fiend... a handful of other mods, too. Then there are a ton of other games to get involved in as well. I'm not in a rush because I'm still enjoying Halo PC multiplayer and then I'll get into Doom 3 multiplayer. Not to mention GTA: San Andreas is coming up fast. I've got my gaming schedule (as restricted as it is) full for the rest of the year.
:)
Oh, and I have some work to do as well.
Misleading domain names, username/host parameters in the URL, and certificates from not-so-trusted providers (or self-issued) are easy ways to trick a user into thinking they're at one site when they're at another.
There was a Phishing test posted here on Slashdot a while back. One of the trickiest examples used a hostname/username/password in the URL. The regular user wouldn't know what that was - essentially, you're passing a username to the server along the lines of "www.hotmail.com" but the actual domain (which follows that username) is "www.youhavebeenowned.com"
As another poster pointed out - citybank.com, citi-bank.com, citibanque.com, citibank.phishing.com, etc. are enough to trick a lot of people.
Writing well includes writing succintly and effectively. In one high school class, we were required to write a lot of two-page papers. Now that sounds pretty easy, but the things we were required to write on were very difficult to discuss properly in just two pages. That meant that you had to go through a very refined process of planning your paper, writing it, and then hammering it down to two pages. You were counted off for exceeding the two page limit.
This means choosing the perfect word, reworking your sentence structure, and eliminating the unnecessary fluff that fills most writing. When I got to college, it was apparent that my professors and classmates did not write efficiently and certainly did not recognize and reward my writing. I had to re-learn how to fill ten pages with crap.
Have you ever made a mistake that hurt so much you knew you'd never make that mistake again? And when it came around next time, you made so much effort to not make that mistake that you ended up making a completely different mistake?
Mistakes happen, as you say. As is commonly accepted my many software developers, software has bugs.
The parent notes that mistakes happen in even the most expensive projects. I think it's more likely to happen in complex (and therefore expensive) projects.
Compare this to a computer system, then. The more security protocols you put in place, the harder it is for users to access it. The convenience goes out the door. If it's easy for your users to get in, it's going to be easier for unauthorized users to get in.
Another metaphor: Your house can be secured with locks and bars and key codes and so on... but it's going to take longer for you to get inside. It's more likely that you'll trip your own alarms by accident. You'll probably forget your keys and be locked out one day. But it's also harder for an intruder to sneak in. Not impossible, but it's harder. It also makes it less likely that they'll even try to break into your house.
I'm curious as to why you don't agree with the notion that security and liberty are related.
The only time I've ever heard that word was from The Onion. It's funny when it's in The Onion; it's disturbing when you discover websites about it. *shudder*
Inconveniences and hassles in the airport are not the same as losing freedoms. But I agree with what you're saying as long as you're referring to things like the Patriot Act. Look at some of our basic laws, however, and you may rethink your statement about "true security."
We have laws designed to provide security from murder, theft, harassment, etc. In fact, at one time you may have had the freedom to take justice into your own hands. Instead, you are forced to rely on the government to deal out justice. You can't simply kill someone because you think they deserve it.
So you've lost a tiny little freedom which was dangerous and gained some security in that vigilante killing is no longer a commonplace means of justice.
On the larger scale, who do you blame when a terrorist attack happens? The terrorists, of course, but you also want to know why they were able to do it in the first place. You want to prevent it from happening the next time. And the responsibility for this falls upon the shoulders of the government. They respond by passing as many laws as they can to perform the duties that you, as a citizen, are demanding. After 9/11, was your response "well, that happens?" It shouldn't happen - and making sure it doesn't happen again is something that the government is trying for. Maybe not successfully, but considering that we're three years out I think that it's unreasonable to expect a perfect resolution right away.