Actually, it is more like the older users (as in, used a computer more in their lifetime), are more aware of what concequences the ISP can really do. After all, they AREN'T the copyright holders. They aren't the police. "And what the hell are you doing looking at my traffic anyway? If you are going to be like that, I'll just go somewhere else!"
You are a complete idiot. You are pretty much saying, rather than give a blind man a cane and instruction on how to move around (IE how NOT to fall over your cat, down the stairs), you want to put him to work in an assembly line.
There may be the most brilliant minds locked up in the cesspool called Africa, but if they can't eat and keep from getting AIDS, what bloody good does it do them to know how to set up a network or write an ftp client or whatever. Seriously.
You implied your own meaning into what I said. The point was, if it looks questionable, don't indulge. I mean, SURE, 20% of the pork at the supermarket may be bad, but that 5% that LOOKS bad, is a good place to start in deciding what pork not to buy.
Nobody SAID give away your code. In my example, you would patent the math of finding the PI digits, not the software that does it. Do you see the difference? I think you are confusing copyright and patents anyway. Like I said, don't GIVE AWAY your code if you don't want to. It has copyright, just like anything else ever written. Patent the science behind it, copyright the implementation.
Ideas are worth something, but software patents have NOTHING to do with the value of your code. They keep you from coding things. If you devise some technically superior method of finding the digits of PI, patenting software that performs this function doesn't deserve a patent. The idea alone, outside of the software is the value... not the meaningless language representation in a handful of files. And no one is even saying to give your code away. Keep it to yourself if you want to. It too has nothing to do with patents.
"you beat any other competitor: You offer good value, which in this case means good total cost of ownership," Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer says.', Embrace-Extend-Extinguish: 'We say when we embrace standards, we'll be transparent about how we're embracing standards. [...] If we have deviations, we'll be transparent about the deviations.'"
"And you better take a step back buddy, or there is a chair with your name written ALL OVER IT! I'll embrace and extend your face if you know what I mean"
Do you know how the phone system even works? Apparently not. By the time you dial that last number, it is already routed to the last destination switch, onto the customer. It is a SIMPLE matter of following the switches to know where it came from. I mean, you can trace it back to the switch of origin, and the maintainer of said switch better bloody know what line a call was made from.
No one was killed. Sure, money and resources were lost, but I can't really back the idea that it is serious enough to push the case into an adult trial.
The problem is, while a person can be smart, the masses are stupid. I am willing to bet if you were to follow the most popular ideas on this project, you'll end up with something that feels an awful lot like Windows.
Or better yet, encrypt the routing number/account number with a public key from the organization. Then only they can decrypt it with their private key. Or you could take it one step further and have the routing number BE the public key which encrypts your account number. Then only the issuing bank (and not the whole organization) can decrypt the information.
Are you serious? Haven't you ever, say, had a guest come over with their computer up into the guest bedroom when OOPS! you realize you don't have any cable run to the room... just get a really long cable, drag it around the corner, up the stairs and into the room. You don't always have the time, patience, or foresight to run cable through the walls to every room in the house.
I honestly don't know about the case at hand, but invoking the 5th amendment is not saying you are guilty or not... similar to refusing to give a police officer your drivers license when you are walking to the store at 1AM, or not letting airport security boot up your laptop and look through it. They would like you to think that refusal is implication of some guilt, but when it comes down to it, what they are asking has nothing to do with the problem at hand. If I am walking down the street, there is NO reason to expect that I would even have a drivers license, let alone give it up when I AM NOT DRIVING. Same with airport security snooping in my laptop... I am not plugging my laptop into your plane, your servers, or anything that should concern you. It has nothing to do with people who have a bomb in their luggage.
In cases of the 5th amendment, you can obviously call upon it when you have something to hide. You can also invoke it on principle to the fact that what I am NOT telling you has no relevance to the case at hand.
Imagine you are walking along the street and decide to rob a store. You bust into the store, start helping yourself to whatever, and you notice the store keeper being beat and raped. You call it in, it comes to trial, and all of a sudden the defendants lawyer asks you what were you doing in the store after it was closed. Obviously, you were robbing the store, but REGARDLESS, that has NOTHING to do with the beating and raping of the store keeper. This is a perfect example of why you would plead the 5th.
While that sounds dandy from a I-want-to-do-the-least-work-possible approach (which I am not necessarily condemning), the consequences of another "moon" may not be all that apparent up front. Tides would certainly change, possibly affecting coastlines. Whales and such would get confused. It would start raining cats and dogs. MASS HYSTERIA!
It doesn't even really matter at this point. Let's be honest... the average computer user doesn't know the difference between U2-Somesong.mp3 and U2-SomeSong.exe. It doesn't take much to write an application that would be able to run in a restricted user account... just connect outbound on port 80 for coordination, and for payload delivery. The code would be simple enough that you could change the binary significantly enough that the fingerprinting that virus scanners use are practically worthless.
That doesn't even address the vector of replacing the setup.exe (or equivalent) on, say, an Office 2003 cd posted on thepiratebay. Obviously, the install has to run as admin, so you pretty much know, you are a shoe in for a compromised machine for anyone who tries to install it. And again, it would be such a trivial, simple application, that you could change the attacking binary pretty much at will.
Once it sees you, Wizkid focuses on you and follows your movement. Unlike a computer, which requires you to stop what you're doing and adapt your behavior and social interactions in order to use it, Wizkid blends into human space.
You know, searching for a free web proxy is less work than begging for a summary on Slashdot... and waiting for a response. Just an FYI since you obviously can't be bothered doing... well anything that would be means of production.
While you are correct about the being able to "test" how intoxicated someone is with pot, I think it less of a matter of "How would we do it?" to more like "How can we test for inability to drive differently?".
The breathalyzer HAS worked with alcohol intoxication, but rather than thinking about how we can adapt it to other things, the better approach, I would say, is to just test in a different way. After all, there could be multitudes of things, both legal and illegal, that can put you in a state where you should't be driving... cough medicine, insomnia for days, pain meds from a recent surgery, not wearing your glasses, just being too old etc. A process of evaluation of your driving skills needs to be adopted. Check if pupils are dilated. Check if they can read the sign being held ten feet away. Walk in a straight line. Recall five objects that were spoken thirty seconds ago.
A lot of this is part of a sobriety test, but if these tests were streamlined, tweaked, and changed a little, it can be the perfect catch all for anyone who shouldn't be driving... not only those who have been drinking/smoking pot.
Don't rule it out! Once I found some kevlar drum heads, I realized there is nothing they can't do with the stuff.
Re:To those behind the attacks...
on
WikiLeaks Under Fire
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
You know, maybe I am a few links shy on my paperclip necklace, but don't you think it kind of conspicuous that while said DoS attack is going on, this submitter not only informed Slashdot about it, but actually pointed us all to the still-left-standing mirrors... as if to try and trigger the Slashdot effect.
Slashdot Mirror
So, in short, they aren't using cygwin anymore to compile it.
Actually, it is more like the older users (as in, used a computer more in their lifetime), are more aware of what concequences the ISP can really do. After all, they AREN'T the copyright holders. They aren't the police. "And what the hell are you doing looking at my traffic anyway? If you are going to be like that, I'll just go somewhere else!"
You are a complete idiot. You are pretty much saying, rather than give a blind man a cane and instruction on how to move around (IE how NOT to fall over your cat, down the stairs), you want to put him to work in an assembly line.
There may be the most brilliant minds locked up in the cesspool called Africa, but if they can't eat and keep from getting AIDS, what bloody good does it do them to know how to set up a network or write an ftp client or whatever. Seriously.
This may sound a bit harsh, but I think they need to learn other things first, like sex education and agriculture.
I wasn't proposing that one line as a complete solution... but it is a good place to start.
You implied your own meaning into what I said. The point was, if it looks questionable, don't indulge. I mean, SURE, 20% of the pork at the supermarket may be bad, but that 5% that LOOKS bad, is a good place to start in deciding what pork not to buy.
Nobody SAID give away your code. In my example, you would patent the math of finding the PI digits, not the software that does it. Do you see the difference? I think you are confusing copyright and patents anyway. Like I said, don't GIVE AWAY your code if you don't want to. It has copyright, just like anything else ever written. Patent the science behind it, copyright the implementation.
Ideas are worth something, but software patents have NOTHING to do with the value of your code. They keep you from coding things. If you devise some technically superior method of finding the digits of PI, patenting software that performs this function doesn't deserve a patent. The idea alone, outside of the software is the value... not the meaningless language representation in a handful of files. And no one is even saying to give your code away. Keep it to yourself if you want to. It too has nothing to do with patents.
Use a rubber. Don't sleep with the cracked out looking girl you just met at the bar.
"you beat any other competitor: You offer good value, which in this case means good total cost of ownership," Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer says.', Embrace-Extend-Extinguish: 'We say when we embrace standards, we'll be transparent about how we're embracing standards. [...] If we have deviations, we'll be transparent about the deviations.'"
"And you better take a step back buddy, or there is a chair with your name written ALL OVER IT! I'll embrace and extend your face if you know what I mean"
Do you know how the phone system even works? Apparently not. By the time you dial that last number, it is already routed to the last destination switch, onto the customer. It is a SIMPLE matter of following the switches to know where it came from. I mean, you can trace it back to the switch of origin, and the maintainer of said switch better bloody know what line a call was made from.
No one was killed. Sure, money and resources were lost, but I can't really back the idea that it is serious enough to push the case into an adult trial.
The problem is, while a person can be smart, the masses are stupid. I am willing to bet if you were to follow the most popular ideas on this project, you'll end up with something that feels an awful lot like Windows.
Or better yet, encrypt the routing number/account number with a public key from the organization. Then only they can decrypt it with their private key. Or you could take it one step further and have the routing number BE the public key which encrypts your account number. Then only the issuing bank (and not the whole organization) can decrypt the information.
Are you serious? Haven't you ever, say, had a guest come over with their computer up into the guest bedroom when OOPS! you realize you don't have any cable run to the room... just get a really long cable, drag it around the corner, up the stairs and into the room. You don't always have the time, patience, or foresight to run cable through the walls to every room in the house.
I honestly don't know about the case at hand, but invoking the 5th amendment is not saying you are guilty or not... similar to refusing to give a police officer your drivers license when you are walking to the store at 1AM, or not letting airport security boot up your laptop and look through it. They would like you to think that refusal is implication of some guilt, but when it comes down to it, what they are asking has nothing to do with the problem at hand. If I am walking down the street, there is NO reason to expect that I would even have a drivers license, let alone give it up when I AM NOT DRIVING. Same with airport security snooping in my laptop... I am not plugging my laptop into your plane, your servers, or anything that should concern you. It has nothing to do with people who have a bomb in their luggage.
In cases of the 5th amendment, you can obviously call upon it when you have something to hide. You can also invoke it on principle to the fact that what I am NOT telling you has no relevance to the case at hand.
Imagine you are walking along the street and decide to rob a store. You bust into the store, start helping yourself to whatever, and you notice the store keeper being beat and raped. You call it in, it comes to trial, and all of a sudden the defendants lawyer asks you what were you doing in the store after it was closed. Obviously, you were robbing the store, but REGARDLESS, that has NOTHING to do with the beating and raping of the store keeper. This is a perfect example of why you would plead the 5th.
And what is the difference between this and Windows Services for Unix? Sounds like rebranding to me.
While that sounds dandy from a I-want-to-do-the-least-work-possible approach (which I am not necessarily condemning), the consequences of another "moon" may not be all that apparent up front. Tides would certainly change, possibly affecting coastlines. Whales and such would get confused. It would start raining cats and dogs. MASS HYSTERIA!
It doesn't even really matter at this point. Let's be honest... the average computer user doesn't know the difference between U2-Somesong.mp3 and U2-SomeSong.exe. It doesn't take much to write an application that would be able to run in a restricted user account... just connect outbound on port 80 for coordination, and for payload delivery. The code would be simple enough that you could change the binary significantly enough that the fingerprinting that virus scanners use are practically worthless.
That doesn't even address the vector of replacing the setup.exe (or equivalent) on, say, an Office 2003 cd posted on thepiratebay. Obviously, the install has to run as admin, so you pretty much know, you are a shoe in for a compromised machine for anyone who tries to install it. And again, it would be such a trivial, simple application, that you could change the attacking binary pretty much at will.
Once it sees you, Wizkid focuses on you and follows your movement. Unlike a computer, which requires you to stop what you're doing and adapt your behavior and social interactions in order to use it, Wizkid blends into human space.
So it REALLY is like having a kid
You know, searching for a free web proxy is less work than begging for a summary on Slashdot... and waiting for a response. Just an FYI since you obviously can't be bothered doing... well anything that would be means of production.
While you are correct about the being able to "test" how intoxicated someone is with pot, I think it less of a matter of "How would we do it?" to more like "How can we test for inability to drive differently?".
The breathalyzer HAS worked with alcohol intoxication, but rather than thinking about how we can adapt it to other things, the better approach, I would say, is to just test in a different way. After all, there could be multitudes of things, both legal and illegal, that can put you in a state where you should't be driving... cough medicine, insomnia for days, pain meds from a recent surgery, not wearing your glasses, just being too old etc. A process of evaluation of your driving skills needs to be adopted. Check if pupils are dilated. Check if they can read the sign being held ten feet away. Walk in a straight line. Recall five objects that were spoken thirty seconds ago.
A lot of this is part of a sobriety test, but if these tests were streamlined, tweaked, and changed a little, it can be the perfect catch all for anyone who shouldn't be driving... not only those who have been drinking/smoking pot.
Don't rule it out! Once I found some kevlar drum heads, I realized there is nothing they can't do with the stuff.
You know, maybe I am a few links shy on my paperclip necklace, but don't you think it kind of conspicuous that while said DoS attack is going on, this submitter not only informed Slashdot about it, but actually pointed us all to the still-left-standing mirrors... as if to try and trigger the Slashdot effect.
You act all surprised. Guess how shocked I was when I found out this story had nothing to do with televisions.