>The major issue I had with a lot of this is >"marketing".
Are you going to sit and complain, or are you going to get into marketing, get successful, and change the world? Take responsibility, don't blame others.
"Still, you are acting like you are 'entitled' to a free update or fix for a security problem."
Not at all. Disclosure should be compulsory, but I don't care if they patch the problem or give me fixes for free.
If I suffer damages because of a vulnerability that the company knew about, but did not disclose, I want the company held liable for those damages. If the company chose to disclose this information to some parties under NDA, I want increased damages and criminal penalties on top of my civil damages, and I want the people who signed the NDA to personally be criminally liable for being an accessory to the crime.
It's not about patches, it's about withholding information pertaining to risks.
It might be, depending on the information you segregate. Since we're talking about security vulnerabilities, it should fall in the same category as any other product safety.
If a car company recalls a car model, they don't get to only release the recall information to the premium customers -- they have to reasonably notify anyone who might be interested, even people who don't own that car.
A security vulnerability in a Microsoft OS is a risk to people who are not even direct customers of Microsoft. Every citizen under any government which uses a Microsoft OS is entitled to this kind of information, and withholding it ought to be a crime.
If Firestone had only told customers that bought their most expensive tires that there was a safety problem, but only told those customers, and withheld the information from the rest, and if the customers they did tell about the safety problem were made to sign a nondisclosure contract... Do you think there would be a Firestone company today?
Security vulnerability is not a "feature" that can be presented as a value-added service.
"In many EU legal systems there are liability terms, if MS is capable of warning customer a and renegs on warning customer b then it is liable for damages..."
What about the customers who get the early warnings? Could they also be held responsible, for being part of the conspiracy, or accessories to the crime?
To me, that would be juicier than Microsoft being slapped for liability.
"Amazing. The original poster asked for geek ideas folks."
The bottom line is that anything you can do to stop that kind of crime will run the risk of escalating things to the point where your life is in danger.
Keep insurance on your property. Make your house look just a little more secure than your neighbor's house. Lock your doors. Don't make your car into a target.
Other than those things, there's not much TO do. Call the police if someone is suspicious.
If they break in and your life is in danger, you should have had a plan, it should have involved knowing where the gun was, how to unlock the safe, how to dial 911 even if the landline was cut, what to say to the police, and what not to say, and you should have trained and trained and trained so that you know that if you must defend yourself, under duress, in the dark, in a hurry, you can.
I get the impression that people do not regard marksmanship as a geek skill. I don't think they realize how challenging it is.
Take your state's concealed weapon permit training, and learn what you need to know about defending yourself. Then make sure you do everything in your power to avoid ever having to do so.
This was not A NUCLEAR DEVICE in NORTH KOREA. Repeat, no NUCLEAR DEVICE WAS DETONATED in the ENEMY DICTATORSHIP OF NORTH KOREA. No INVASION OF NORTH KOREA is planned. We have no PLANS TO INVADE AND TOPPLE THE GODLESS COMMUNIST REGIME.
AMERICA IS SAFER. CODE ORANGE. May God bless the United States of America!
"You decide. (if you haven't made up your mind already)"
I don't even require 9/11, Iraq, or Vietnam service as issues in the campaign. My mind is not only made up; I've been active in the Kerry campaign from the start.
"I seem to have a thing for guns that are no fun to shoot . .."
Ouch. Yeah. I've shot a few alloy S&W snubbies. No thanks! I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum, with a S&W 686P, 6" barrel. Yeah, a 357 hand cannon. For concealability, the Ruger P95 (blued) does the trick.
"he is standing up for his constitutional right to be secure in his person, papers, and effects."
No, he is interfering with a reasonable search and seizure.
"The officer immediately could have difused the situation"
I agree. That does not justify Hiibel's actions though.
"a passenger was assaulting a driver"
If that's correct, then how do you explain the discrepancy between reports? The daughter was driving, and the father was the passenger. And if he wasn't the one driving, why is he so adamant about the truck being parked legally?
"By the way, some people don't have to be "drunk" to come across as angry."
You don't think he was drunk, but I say his behavior is entirely consistent with an intoxicated suspect.
All the deputy knows when he enters the situation is that there has been a violent incident involving the people he is observing. If one of these people immediately becomes argumentative or even puts his or her hands out of view, they're going in handcuffs.
He is being argumentative and belligerent with a peace officer. Guaranteed trip to jail, as far as I'm concerned, and absolutely consistent with an intoxicated individual.
He interfered with an investigation, particularly one in which he was the suspect. Very bad idea. Now he is trying to claim that the Sheriff was doing a "papers please" checkpoint. Baloney. He's wrong.
He wants me to judge him based on the evidence he puts forth, and in this case, I fully side with the Sheriff.
I don't have any proof he's drunk, but it's not the cowboy had and the accent that makes me think so. It's the belligerent and incoherent attitude with the cop.
>Cheney is from the same state (although he "claims" > residence in Wyoming he is a resident of texas) >that bush is from. BIG NO NO when running for >president.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 3: The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.
Cheney changed his voter registration to his vacation home in Wyoming. That's one thing, but if he claimed any Homestead exemption on any property in Texas, that makes him a resident and an inhabitant of Texas.
Fortunately or unfortunately, it was Texas' choice as to whether Cheney was an "inhabitant". The spirit of the law was probably violated, but not the letter.
In the gun that would be used for home defense, I use Winchester Silvertips. Why? I would *much* rather the jury hear that I had bullets that say "for personal protection" on the box, and I'm sure they'd be persuaded by the word "silver."
Look at it this way, do you want the jury of 12 retired schoolteachers from California to hear that you used "Black Talons" or "Silver Tips" when you shot the guy that broke in your house?
For target practice I use the reloads that my gun club sells:-)
I do not disagree with your reasoning completely, but, I also don't think of voting as something that only happens every four years.
I vote in every local and state election. *Many* issues and candidate are decided by a *very* small margin. My vote certainly counts then.
Also, I consider it more important than voting, that you develop and maintain relationships with your local politicians. Participate in their campaigns. Communicate with them about your issues.
Small-time local politicians will respond to you. And when they become big-time national politicians, you might still have that relationship with them.
I would not even consider abstaining in the presidential election, and that is in large part because there is MUCH more on the ballot than just the presidential race. Today is the Primary election (I voted early).
I don't know why you think your "political statement" has any more impact than your vote would have. You are part of a group of people that the incumbent party considers beneficial to them -- if more of the abstainers would vote, most of them would vote "liberal" instead of "authoritarian".
So when you abstain, you are supporting Bush & Co. Maybe not according to *you*, but according to *them*, you are.
Personally, my revolutionary idea would have State representatives elected at-large, but the Federal governemnt appointed by the State Representatives.
I think more people would pay attention to a more local government. Certainly, it is much easier to see where your vote counts in smaller, more local elections.
"http://www.papersplease.org explains the whole thing."
Hiibel did a LOT of things wrong, and his version of the story is not acceptable.
He was belligerant with the officer. He ignores the entire fact that the cop was investigating a report of a violent crime (some kind of assault reported), and that Hiibel was obstructing that investigation.
The cop didn't care about where the truck was parked, but Hiibel keeps insisting that it's parked okay. But that has nothing to do with the investigation. And Dudley admits to being involved in the fight that the Deputy had responded to in the first place.
This is *NOT* a case of some guy walking along minding his own business, being confronted at random by an agent of the government, who demands to see papers.
It appears from the video that Dudley is rather intoxicated. It is not clear that he was not driving it. It is not obvious that he was the victim of the attack, or that he didn't hit the daughter.
The Deputy made a couple of mistakes, such as not explaining that he was investigating a report of an assualt and battery. He should have.
Bottom line, the Deputy was justified in using force because the suspects in an investigation were belligerant and refused to cooperate.
>An honest citizen could stop him with a snubby.357.
It might be more appropriate to carry a.38 or something even smaller, for use on an airplane. You *really* don't want the bullet to go all the way through the target and still have substantial kinetic energy. You probably want to use a low-energy, mushrooming round, and you'd want to take a pelvis shot, not a chest or a head shot. It would be wise to know where important electrical and hydraulic hardware is before taking the shot also.
I don't think the average citizen, or even the average cop, is adequately qualified to use a firearm aboard an aircraft. And no, I don't think Goldfinger-style decompression explosions are a large risk. If you hit an innocent person while shooting to stop a crime, you are a good guy for stopping the crime, but it's still manslaughter against the innocent person. I hope the air marshals get some good training.
Slashdot Mirror
>The major issue I had with a lot of this is
>"marketing".
Are you going to sit and complain, or are you going to get into marketing, get successful, and change the world? Take responsibility, don't blame others.
"Still, you are acting like you are 'entitled' to a free update or fix for a security problem."
Not at all. Disclosure should be compulsory, but I don't care if they patch the problem or give me fixes for free.
If I suffer damages because of a vulnerability that the company knew about, but did not disclose, I want the company held liable for those damages. If the company chose to disclose this information to some parties under NDA, I want increased damages and criminal penalties on top of my civil damages, and I want the people who signed the NDA to personally be criminally liable for being an accessory to the crime.
It's not about patches, it's about withholding information pertaining to risks.
>The ostrich finally wakes up.
Wrong, he just got you off the phone, while still denying any knowledge of the problem.
> The real question then, is that wrong?
It might be, depending on the information you segregate. Since we're talking about security vulnerabilities, it should fall in the same category as any other product safety.
If a car company recalls a car model, they don't get to only release the recall information to the premium customers -- they have to reasonably notify anyone who might be interested, even people who don't own that car.
A security vulnerability in a Microsoft OS is a risk to people who are not even direct customers of Microsoft. Every citizen under any government which uses a Microsoft OS is entitled to this kind of information, and withholding it ought to be a crime.
>You pay for a service, you get that service.
If Firestone had only told customers that bought their most expensive tires that there was a safety problem, but only told those customers, and withheld the information from the rest, and if the customers they did tell about the safety problem were made to sign a nondisclosure contract... Do you think there would be a Firestone company today?
Security vulnerability is not a "feature" that can be presented as a value-added service.
"In many EU legal systems there are liability terms, if MS is capable of warning customer a and renegs on warning customer b then it is liable for damages..."
What about the customers who get the early warnings? Could they also be held responsible, for being part of the conspiracy, or accessories to the crime?
To me, that would be juicier than Microsoft being slapped for liability.
"Amazing. The original poster asked for geek ideas folks."
The bottom line is that anything you can do to stop that kind of crime will run the risk of escalating things to the point where your life is in danger.
Keep insurance on your property. Make your house look just a little more secure than your neighbor's house. Lock your doors. Don't make your car into a target.
Other than those things, there's not much TO do. Call the police if someone is suspicious.
If they break in and your life is in danger, you should have had a plan, it should have involved knowing where the gun was, how to unlock the safe, how to dial 911 even if the landline was cut, what to say to the police, and what not to say, and you should have trained and trained and trained so that you know that if you must defend yourself, under duress, in the dark, in a hurry, you can.
I get the impression that people do not regard marksmanship as a geek skill. I don't think they realize how challenging it is.
Take your state's concealed weapon permit training, and learn what you need to know about defending yourself. Then make sure you do everything in your power to avoid ever having to do so.
This was not A NUCLEAR DEVICE in NORTH KOREA. Repeat, no NUCLEAR DEVICE WAS DETONATED in the ENEMY DICTATORSHIP OF NORTH KOREA. No INVASION OF NORTH KOREA is planned. We have no PLANS TO INVADE AND TOPPLE THE GODLESS COMMUNIST REGIME.
AMERICA IS SAFER. CODE ORANGE. May God bless the United States of America!
"It isn't breaking in if you ask to be let in and they let you in."
It can still be trespassing, and certain degrees of trespassing justify the use of deadly force.
"You decide. (if you haven't made up your mind already)"
I don't even require 9/11, Iraq, or Vietnam service as issues in the campaign. My mind is not only made up; I've been active in the Kerry campaign from the start.
"Is congress working for american businesses or what."
YES. Nobody else really communicates with them. The government operates as if apathy is the mandate to serve the interest of big business.
> I don't understand the reasoning behind this.
It's the same as the reasoning behind all other current US policy:
Because they *CAN*, and nobody will lift a finger to stop them.
"I seem to have a thing for guns that are no fun to shoot . .
Ouch. Yeah. I've shot a few alloy S&W snubbies.
No thanks! I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum,
with a S&W 686P, 6" barrel. Yeah, a 357 hand cannon. For concealability, the Ruger P95 (blued)
does the trick.
"he is standing up for his constitutional right to be secure in his person, papers, and effects."
No, he is interfering with a reasonable search and seizure.
"The officer immediately could have difused the situation"
I agree. That does not justify Hiibel's actions though.
"a passenger was assaulting a driver"
If that's correct, then how do you explain the discrepancy between reports? The daughter was driving, and the father was the passenger.
And if he wasn't the one driving, why is he so adamant about the truck being parked legally?
"By the way, some people don't have to be "drunk" to come across as angry."
You don't think he was drunk, but I say his behavior is entirely consistent with an intoxicated suspect.
All the deputy knows when he enters the situation is that there has been a violent incident involving the people he is observing. If one of these people immediately becomes argumentative or even puts his or her hands out of view, they're going in handcuffs.
"Was the plane strike when he was in the classroom the 1st or the 2nd?"
The 2nd.
After the first strike, he thought it was an accident. In the classroom he got news of the second strike.
"IMHO rapid institution of top-level coordination might have helped - it might have gotten those agencies working together more effectively."
And President Cheney was right there on top of things, the whole time.
What's the firmware for the PIC? What are the resistor and capacitor values?
"They are in many ways completely hamstrung by the accounting system used by government."
Doesn't any politician see this as a career-making opportunity to fix?
>You judgemental prick.
He is being argumentative and belligerent with a peace officer. Guaranteed trip to jail, as far as I'm concerned, and absolutely consistent with an intoxicated individual.
He interfered with an investigation, particularly one in which he was the suspect. Very bad idea. Now he is trying to claim that the Sheriff was doing a "papers please" checkpoint. Baloney. He's wrong.
He wants me to judge him based on the evidence he puts forth, and in this case, I fully side with the Sheriff.
I don't have any proof he's drunk, but it's not the cowboy had and the accent that makes me think so. It's the belligerent and incoherent attitude with the cop.
>Cheney is from the same state (although he "claims"
> residence in Wyoming he is a resident of texas)
>that bush is from. BIG NO NO when running for
>president.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 3:
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.
Cheney changed his voter registration to his vacation home in Wyoming. That's one thing, but if he claimed any Homestead exemption on any property in Texas, that makes him a resident and an inhabitant of Texas.
Fortunately or unfortunately, it was Texas' choice as to whether Cheney was an "inhabitant". The spirit of the law was probably violated, but not the letter.
>I see that you don't carry hydra-shoks.
In the gun that would be used for home defense, I use Winchester Silvertips. Why? I would *much* rather the jury hear that I had bullets that say "for personal protection" on the box, and I'm sure they'd be persuaded by the word "silver."
Look at it this way, do you want the jury of 12 retired schoolteachers from California to hear that you used "Black Talons" or "Silver Tips" when you shot the guy that broke in your house?
For target practice I use the reloads that my gun club sells
I do not disagree with your reasoning completely, but, I also don't think of voting as something that only happens every four years.
I vote in every local and state election. *Many* issues and candidate are decided by a *very* small margin. My vote certainly counts then.
Also, I consider it more important than voting, that you develop and maintain relationships with your local politicians. Participate in their campaigns. Communicate with them about your issues.
Small-time local politicians will respond to you. And when they become big-time national politicians, you might still have that relationship with them.
I would not even consider abstaining in the presidential election, and that is in large part because there is MUCH more on the ballot than just the presidential race. Today is the Primary election (I voted early).
I don't know why you think your "political statement" has any more impact than your vote would have. You are part of a group of people that the incumbent party considers beneficial to them -- if more of the abstainers would vote, most of them would vote "liberal" instead of "authoritarian".
So when you abstain, you are supporting Bush & Co.
Maybe not according to *you*, but according to *them*, you are.
Personally, my revolutionary idea would have State representatives elected at-large, but the Federal governemnt appointed by the State Representatives.
I think more people would pay attention to a more local government. Certainly, it is much easier to see where your vote counts in smaller, more local elections.
"http://www.papersplease.org explains the whole thing."
Hiibel did a LOT of things wrong, and his version of the story is not acceptable.
He was belligerant with the officer. He ignores the entire fact that the cop was investigating a report of a violent crime (some kind of assault reported), and that Hiibel was obstructing that investigation.
The cop didn't care about where the truck was parked, but Hiibel keeps insisting that it's parked okay. But that has nothing to do with the investigation. And Dudley admits to being involved in the fight that the Deputy had responded to in the first place.
This is *NOT* a case of some guy walking along minding his own business, being confronted at random by an agent of the government, who demands to see papers.
It appears from the video that Dudley is rather intoxicated. It is not clear that he was not driving it. It is not obvious that he was the victim of the attack, or that he didn't hit the daughter.
The Deputy made a couple of mistakes, such as not explaining that he was investigating a report of an assualt and battery. He should have.
Bottom line, the Deputy was justified in using force because the suspects in an investigation were belligerant and refused to cooperate.
>Actually "motorcycle, car, boat" all require ID as
>well. Need a liscence remember?
He could be a passenger.
Also, do you need a license to operate a boat where you live?
"Should I have to sacrifice my anonymity to have a drink?"
No, but to buy a drink or consume it in certain places, you may have to. Make your own, in the privacy of your own home. Anonymously.
"But not to fly in a plane? Where do you draw the lines?"
Is it your plane? As the pilot, you have tons of requirements, but as a passenger on a private plane, you don't have to show anything to anybody.
>An honest citizen could stop him with a snubby .357.
.38 or something even smaller, for use on an airplane. You *really* don't want the bullet to go all the way through the target and still have substantial kinetic energy. You probably want to use a low-energy, mushrooming round, and you'd want to take a pelvis shot, not a chest or a head shot.
It might be more appropriate to carry a
It would be wise to know where important electrical and hydraulic hardware is before taking the shot also.
I don't think the average citizen, or even the average cop, is adequately qualified to use a firearm aboard an aircraft. And no, I don't think
Goldfinger-style decompression explosions are a large risk. If you hit an innocent person while shooting to stop a crime, you are a good guy for stopping the crime, but it's still manslaughter against the innocent person. I hope the air marshals get some good training.