You just know that if TiVo hadn't implemented these restrictions that they'd have trouble with lawyers representing the NFL and the movie industry. It may make it less useful, but it's better than nothing. The real problem is the greed that dominates the entertainment industries and their attempts to jew every last dollar out of the hands of ordinary people. This move sucks, but don't blame TiVo.
I've said the government seems unwilling to blatantly violate the first amendment in the name of preventing terrorism. I suspect this is due to people being mmore familiar with this amendment than with the other amendments, and therefore are more likely to stand up and say no. It doesn't justify violating any part of the Constitution. My point was that I think the government is content with violating other parts of the Constitution for now, and the first amendment is safe for the time being.
Generally, the courts have (correctly) concluded that first amendment freedoms are as close to absolute as possible, minimizing the powers of the federal government. This standard is rather consistent with the views of the founding fathers who wished to have a central government while giving it just enough powers to be effective. It'd be nice if this same standard was followed when interpreting the fourth amendment, but I digress. The only line the first amendment draws concerning freedom of assembly is that it must be peaceful. In other words, unless there's a very good reason to suspect that a demonstration won't be peaceful, denying anyone the right to demonstrate would be a first amendment violation.
When I said people will cite the Patriot act to show the government doesn't care about the Constitution, I meant it that ordinary readers of this site were likely to reply and suggest that if the government blatantly disregards other amendments that they won't care about the first amendment, either.
I sincerely hope that the trend toward taking away rights is just something that's temporary. Such things have happened before. Just look back to the 1950s and read about the fear of communism. There was a legitimate threat, just like there's a legitimate threat of terrorism today, but the government and certain people within the government twisted things around so much people were terrified and ready to give up their rights. And the FBI list is eerily reminiscent to McCarthyism, another low point of the Cold War. Today we know that the government was utterly clueless about communism and many of the things stated about it were just lies. I was extremely disappointed when it came out that the FBI had extensively tracked John Kerry that there wasn't more parallels frawn between the actions of the government during the Cold War and their actions now. Looking back on the Cold War, we see just how silly the government was being, yet we're allowing the same mistakes and abuses to be repeated again. I'd like to think people aren't that damn foolish.
The only good thing I can say is the Cold War died down and the government backed away from some of its abuses. Hopefully we can look back 50 years from now and say the same about things such as the Patriot Act.
I doubt they will tell you that they're on the list. The FBI handles investigation into terrorists just like they investigate drug operations. They're not just interested in causing a single person to stop their plans, as a terrorist would do if they found they're on the list. They're interested in following the person around, finding out as much as they can, and then taking down the entire operation.
What this all means is they can't tell terrorists that they're on the list. As such, they would probably have to give false reports of innocence to people who were on the list and did a background check on themselves.
You'll never know you're on their list. It's difficult to find out if you're being watched now, anyways. For example, if your phone was being tapped, the phone company and law enforcement won't let you know you're being watched. And they don't tell you that you're not being watched. They just won't tell you anything. Just the same, you would never be able to find out if you're on the list or you're not.
Somehow, I think if you're on the list, the FBI will be a little more discrete than just return the list to the company and tell the company which people are suspected of being terrorsts. I would expect, instead, that the FBI would probably handle it in a more discrete way. They might do further investigation on suspected terrorists that are attending the event, and might even attend the event and follow them around. I'll leave it up to you to decide if the FBI's secrecy is for reasons of common sense or for evil, but I'd bet that's how they handle it.
Maybe the cities will say: You can have your protest, if you supply a list of names of people who will be there.
Perhaps, although doing so would be a clear violation of the first amendment's freedom of assembly. I know people will cite the Patriot Act as an example that the government doesn't give a damn about the Constitution. On the other hand, I don't recall any real limitations on freedom of speech (okay, not giving expert advice to terrorists, but the courts struck that part of the Patriot Act down). They've been unwilling so far to touch the first amendment.
They get to know your location on a precise time and date.
Don't forget while you're there to only pay in plain cash. If you use a credit card or a check, then they'll know you were there either. Since this seems to only be used for events, many of the people will probably be buying things with their credit cards. In other words, I don't know that for most people, they'll be getting tracked more than they already are.
Maybe even if they started collecting names of those at political rallies, and started adding those to the databases.
For the most part, I don't see this happening. Both parties have been involved with the Patriot Act and with taking your rights away. Quite frankly, I think they don't want the election system associated with blacklists. It could quite easily backfire, and I'm sure that the opponents of the people in office who passed the Patriot Act would spin it as an attempt to scare voters into voting the incumbent back in.
It was an honest mistake. I was thinking of BlackIce and put the wrong firewalling program. Blame my lack of sleep for the error. The rest of the argument remains true, however. Whether a security hole was discovered in Zonealarm, Blackice, or in any other Windows program, unless the bug was caused by a problem with Windows itself, it is not in itself a Windows worm.
Another poster in the thread cited that worms affecting Outlook are Windows worms and Outlook is software that runs on Windows. The difference is that Outlook is bundled with IE, and is integrated into Windows and it is very difficult to seperate it. Surely I don't need to educate Slashbots on this. Since it is so tightly wrapped with Windows, and Microsoft claims it's an integral part of Windows (they told the DOJ that), then it's part of Windows. If the problem involves Windows, a component of Windows (such as a DLL shipped with it), or a program integrated into Windows or installed with Windows, then it's a Windows vulnerability. When BlackIce is installed with Windows by the Windows installer, then a BlackIce vulnerability would be considered a Windows vulnerability.
In terms of Linux, a particular distro would be said to have a vulnerability if it involves the actual operating system or a package that the distro releases along with the OS. If I go install some buggy unsupported software on my Linux box, and then there's a worm for it, should that worm be considered an exploit of that distro since I was running that distro and was infected by the worm? That's absurd.
It's a common myth that the source code to GPL'd software must be made available for download off an FTP site or something similar. That is not what the GPL requires. The GPL requires you make the source available upon request. That being said, it would appear the source is being distributed, anyways.
The Witty worm exploits a stack-based overflow in ICQ response parsing in the Protocol Analysis Module (PAM) of ISS products.
That has nothing to do with the internal architecture of Windows. That's a bug in ZoneAlarm. There is no reason to blame Windows at all for a bug in a software product written to run on Windows.
The parent is incorrect. It is not a Windows worm and the worm is not the fault of Microsoft. The worm exploits a vulnerability in BlackIce, a "personal firewall" that runs on Windows.
While the vulnerability will not show up on non-Windows machines, it is not because it is a Windows vulnerability.
I can't be nearly as sure about Tandy and Texas Instruments, but it'd be hard to see Commodore still being around even had Microsoft never existed. Even though Commodore produced a superior product to the rest of the home computing industry, they lost out because they were quite lousy at marketing their products. Had it not been IBM and Microsoft, someone else would've run them out of busines. It's kind of sad, actually, that winning and losing in the computing industry isn't determined so much by producing a superior product than it is by how well you market your product.
Actually, the move wouldn't be entirely unprecedented. Even if the OS wouldn't run quite as well, it'd still be in the interest of Apple's profits for them to take advantage of such a market. Why do you think Sun Microsystems releases Solaris for x86? They see that people are interested in running UNIX on relatively inexpensive hardware.
Apple would see a rather large market for all the inexpensive x86 machines and would likely port a version of OS X to run. Given the commercial applications available already for OS X and a big name such as Apple, they could step in and dominate the industry in a rather short time.
Slashdot Mirror
Ralph JewHater Nader is back..
DEATH TO ALL KIKES!
You just know that if TiVo hadn't implemented these restrictions that they'd have trouble with lawyers representing the NFL and the movie industry. It may make it less useful, but it's better than nothing. The real problem is the greed that dominates the entertainment industries and their attempts to jew every last dollar out of the hands of ordinary people. This move sucks, but don't blame TiVo.
I think you've misunderstood my points.
I've said the government seems unwilling to blatantly violate the first amendment in the name of preventing terrorism. I suspect this is due to people being mmore familiar with this amendment than with the other amendments, and therefore are more likely to stand up and say no. It doesn't justify violating any part of the Constitution. My point was that I think the government is content with violating other parts of the Constitution for now, and the first amendment is safe for the time being.
Generally, the courts have (correctly) concluded that first amendment freedoms are as close to absolute as possible, minimizing the powers of the federal government. This standard is rather consistent with the views of the founding fathers who wished to have a central government while giving it just enough powers to be effective. It'd be nice if this same standard was followed when interpreting the fourth amendment, but I digress. The only line the first amendment draws concerning freedom of assembly is that it must be peaceful. In other words, unless there's a very good reason to suspect that a demonstration won't be peaceful, denying anyone the right to demonstrate would be a first amendment violation.
When I said people will cite the Patriot act to show the government doesn't care about the Constitution, I meant it that ordinary readers of this site were likely to reply and suggest that if the government blatantly disregards other amendments that they won't care about the first amendment, either.
I sincerely hope that the trend toward taking away rights is just something that's temporary. Such things have happened before. Just look back to the 1950s and read about the fear of communism. There was a legitimate threat, just like there's a legitimate threat of terrorism today, but the government and certain people within the government twisted things around so much people were terrified and ready to give up their rights. And the FBI list is eerily reminiscent to McCarthyism, another low point of the Cold War. Today we know that the government was utterly clueless about communism and many of the things stated about it were just lies. I was extremely disappointed when it came out that the FBI had extensively tracked John Kerry that there wasn't more parallels frawn between the actions of the government during the Cold War and their actions now. Looking back on the Cold War, we see just how silly the government was being, yet we're allowing the same mistakes and abuses to be repeated again. I'd like to think people aren't that damn foolish.
The only good thing I can say is the Cold War died down and the government backed away from some of its abuses. Hopefully we can look back 50 years from now and say the same about things such as the Patriot Act.
I doubt they will tell you that they're on the list. The FBI handles investigation into terrorists just like they investigate drug operations. They're not just interested in causing a single person to stop their plans, as a terrorist would do if they found they're on the list. They're interested in following the person around, finding out as much as they can, and then taking down the entire operation.
What this all means is they can't tell terrorists that they're on the list. As such, they would probably have to give false reports of innocence to people who were on the list and did a background check on themselves.
You'll never know you're on their list. It's difficult to find out if you're being watched now, anyways. For example, if your phone was being tapped, the phone company and law enforcement won't let you know you're being watched. And they don't tell you that you're not being watched. They just won't tell you anything. Just the same, you would never be able to find out if you're on the list or you're not.
Somehow, I think if you're on the list, the FBI will be a little more discrete than just return the list to the company and tell the company which people are suspected of being terrorsts. I would expect, instead, that the FBI would probably handle it in a more discrete way. They might do further investigation on suspected terrorists that are attending the event, and might even attend the event and follow them around. I'll leave it up to you to decide if the FBI's secrecy is for reasons of common sense or for evil, but I'd bet that's how they handle it.
Maybe the cities will say: You can have your protest, if you supply a list of names of people who will be there.
Perhaps, although doing so would be a clear violation of the first amendment's freedom of assembly. I know people will cite the Patriot Act as an example that the government doesn't give a damn about the Constitution. On the other hand, I don't recall any real limitations on freedom of speech (okay, not giving expert advice to terrorists, but the courts struck that part of the Patriot Act down). They've been unwilling so far to touch the first amendment.
They get to know your location on a precise time and date.
Don't forget while you're there to only pay in plain cash. If you use a credit card or a check, then they'll know you were there either. Since this seems to only be used for events, many of the people will probably be buying things with their credit cards. In other words, I don't know that for most people, they'll be getting tracked more than they already are.
Maybe even if they started collecting names of those at political rallies, and started adding those to the databases.
For the most part, I don't see this happening. Both parties have been involved with the Patriot Act and with taking your rights away. Quite frankly, I think they don't want the election system associated with blacklists. It could quite easily backfire, and I'm sure that the opponents of the people in office who passed the Patriot Act would spin it as an attempt to scare voters into voting the incumbent back in.
It was an honest mistake. I was thinking of BlackIce and put the wrong firewalling program. Blame my lack of sleep for the error. The rest of the argument remains true, however. Whether a security hole was discovered in Zonealarm, Blackice, or in any other Windows program, unless the bug was caused by a problem with Windows itself, it is not in itself a Windows worm.
Another poster in the thread cited that worms affecting Outlook are Windows worms and Outlook is software that runs on Windows. The difference is that Outlook is bundled with IE, and is integrated into Windows and it is very difficult to seperate it. Surely I don't need to educate Slashbots on this. Since it is so tightly wrapped with Windows, and Microsoft claims it's an integral part of Windows (they told the DOJ that), then it's part of Windows. If the problem involves Windows, a component of Windows (such as a DLL shipped with it), or a program integrated into Windows or installed with Windows, then it's a Windows vulnerability. When BlackIce is installed with Windows by the Windows installer, then a BlackIce vulnerability would be considered a Windows vulnerability.
In terms of Linux, a particular distro would be said to have a vulnerability if it involves the actual operating system or a package that the distro releases along with the OS. If I go install some buggy unsupported software on my Linux box, and then there's a worm for it, should that worm be considered an exploit of that distro since I was running that distro and was infected by the worm? That's absurd.
It's a common myth that the source code to GPL'd software must be made available for download off an FTP site or something similar. That is not what the GPL requires. The GPL requires you make the source available upon request. That being said, it would appear the source is being distributed, anyways.
From here:
The Witty worm exploits a stack-based overflow in ICQ response parsing in the Protocol Analysis Module (PAM) of ISS products.
That has nothing to do with the internal architecture of Windows. That's a bug in ZoneAlarm. There is no reason to blame Windows at all for a bug in a software product written to run on Windows.
The parent is incorrect. It is not a Windows worm and the worm is not the fault of Microsoft. The worm exploits a vulnerability in BlackIce, a "personal firewall" that runs on Windows.
While the vulnerability will not show up on non-Windows machines, it is not because it is a Windows vulnerability.
The parent is very misleading at best.
You can find more information here.
I can't be nearly as sure about Tandy and Texas Instruments, but it'd be hard to see Commodore still being around even had Microsoft never existed. Even though Commodore produced a superior product to the rest of the home computing industry, they lost out because they were quite lousy at marketing their products. Had it not been IBM and Microsoft, someone else would've run them out of busines. It's kind of sad, actually, that winning and losing in the computing industry isn't determined so much by producing a superior product than it is by how well you market your product.
Actually, the move wouldn't be entirely unprecedented. Even if the OS wouldn't run quite as well, it'd still be in the interest of Apple's profits for them to take advantage of such a market. Why do you think Sun Microsystems releases Solaris for x86? They see that people are interested in running UNIX on relatively inexpensive hardware.
Apple would see a rather large market for all the inexpensive x86 machines and would likely port a version of OS X to run. Given the commercial applications available already for OS X and a big name such as Apple, they could step in and dominate the industry in a rather short time.
You can find more information here.