God help me, I'm barely 30 and I already remember the good old days of slashdot when there was actual discussion happening by people who actually looked at the source material of posted stories.
Never happened; you're just looking at it through the rose-colored glasses of nostalgia.
I will not go so far as to call "bullshit" because that is not justifiable here. What I will do is to remind you that popularity is one of the worst things that can happen to many good sites and to many good things, and that it has been the downfall of far better places than Slashdot. By that I mean not quite literally "popularity" in itself, but rather the "pop culture" mindset that goes along with that.
Since there were like 5 articles linked perhaps being more explicit next time will help those of us who are less wizened than yourself.
FYI, "wizened" means "old" or "withered" or "shriveled". It is not in any way a synonym for "wisdom".
No offense intended, but if your idea was to convince people that they did not correctly understand the intended meaning of your post, incorrectly using a word that is easily referenced is not a good way to do so.
Then there's also the issue of what constitutes public disclosure. Is publishing the app public disclosure? Or is the invention still protected because the source code or some internal algorithm isn't readily apparent to the end user?
Some Slashdot patent defenders claim that not only is publishing an application using the method not sufficient for public disclosure, but publishing the source isn't either. Only God and the presiding judge for the Eastern District of Texas know what WOULD count.
It's a shame that the Patent Office doesn't have an equal-and-opposite counterpart office that has the sole purpose of seeking to invalidate every possible patent. Only the ones that survive would remain valid.
Then again, we need a government office that serves no purpose other than to try to find unConstitional or repeal every law on the books. If it succeeds for a particular law, then it should not have been on the books anyway.
So you see, Apple users can easily admit when Apple is doing something wrong, and in fact even correct you about why it is wrong - because we are thinking more rationally about the real problem, and not just about how much we hate Apple and hey here's an awesome negative article on something Apple is doing.
Contrast this to people such as yourself, who are pathologically incapable of admitting when Apple does something good.
If only you left this part out it'd be incredibly difficult to call your post a "troll". Apparently you have a sore spot and are eager to let everyone know this fact about yourself. In fact when I first read through your post I was wondering how the hell it wasn't moderated "Informative" until I got to that part...
Here's the part I think you are underappreciating. When Apple does something you judge as morally "good", it is good for their customers only. When Apple does something others would judge as morally "bad", it is a patent or other issue capable of affecting many people who have never done business with Apple. Can you see how this reality would naturally tend to constrain the good that they do while spreading the bad that they do?
As I read it, the patent is for a method of a phone knowing when you get on an airplane (and then offering services specific to the flight) and get off the airplane (so it can tell your contacts you've landed).
"Offering services" is a nice euphamism for unsolicited advertising which is also called "spam". Personally, I miss the good old days when advertisers and anyone else who would minutely track your day-to-day whereabouts had no hope of receiving your active assistance. If I want a service specific to a flight, it'll be my own idea and obtain it by consulting the flight attendants. If I don't know that a service exists, it's because I have no need for it. Now get off my lawn!
Really though, maybe Apple is doing us a favor by patenting this practice. For 12 years anyone else who tries this method can expect vigorous legal challenges. If it is only iPhone users who receive in-flight spam, that's not very good but it's a significant improvement over everyone receiving in-flight spam.
I think he was attacking the FBI copyright warning at the start of movies. Although I suspect that it is at the consent of the FBI. I wonder what started the FBI to go after Wikipedia though?
I don't know, but the solution is simple enough. If Congress represented us, they'd say: "Oh, I see what you're saying. You can afford to worry about this because you don't have enough real criminals to catch. Gotcha. This is good news! It means we will cut your budget by 1/3 and after one year we'll re-evaluate how this affects your choice of priorities. Who said federal bureaus can't learn to be more efficient?"
I think doing that one time would be enough to end this kind of BS.
"The problem with trying to child-proof the world, is that it makes people neglect the far more important task of world-proofing the child." -- Hugh Daniel
Thank you, madam. I had this one in my quotes file but it was unattributed. That's been fixed now.
Don't waste your time. Rather than preaching to the choir, you're preaching to the fossilized-brained who will never get your point.
I'm not saying you should stop talking. Only that you should stop trying to convert most of this crowd, most of whom wouldn't recognize a real principle even AFTER someone shot at them over it.
If I needed to convert anyone, requires his agreement or disagreement, or needed any other result, that would be an unhealthy attachment to outcome. Then whether I enjoy having written my posts depends on what the other guy says and does. This amounts to a ceding of control over my inner life to random strangers. It would be living for externals and not out of an inner understanding. Indeed, after talking of real inner freedom, such an unhealthy attachment would make me a hypocrite.
Unfortunately such attachment to externals is the average person's "normal" method of living. Most could not imagine anything else. I see what is wrong with this and was in no danger of participating in it.
I am content to offer the chance to see a higher perspective. It is not higher because I say so, but because I have discovered that this is the case and am merely choosing not to deny that. Anyone else can do likewise. If I needed to make sure that the other guy saw things a certain way, and got upset or suffered in any other way when he didn't, then it would be very strong evidence that it is not a higher perspective.
So I'm not out to win converts. I wouldn't want the mindless follower mentality that they tend to have. Instead I offer a glimpse into something different. What anyone else does with that is their gain or their loss, and which it is depends on the individual. Even if I had direct control over that, it would be wrong to use it. The higher perspective is not available to robots, in other words, and nor should it be.
If I had been dealing with this individual one-on-one I'd probably not bother with any follow-up after the initial rejection. He's clearly not interested in seeing things this way and I accept that. For all I know, overcoming that type of doubt on his own may be how he will mature as a man. Here, however, there may be many others who would be interested. How I respond to an objection or a rejection could be of value for them. It lets them see that I have something which is not easily shaken, unlike most religions and lifestyles and "isms". Certainly it is of value to me, for it takes a certain awareness to understand something and more awareness still to be able to articulate it.
I will say one thing that for some reason I think you in particular would appreciate: there are many more people with understanding than the world around you would generally lead you to believe. Such people are often not outspoken. They are defintely not boastful or flamboyant or in-your-face types who tend to get a lot of attention. The media finds it more profitable to appeal to our baser natures, so you don't see them on the evening news. Many (if not most) of them have an inner knowing that they are completely unable to articulate, or could not do so in a way that will withstand childish attempts to belittle and demagogue it.
So, I don't really know who is reading when I write posts like that. Like I said, I knew someone would scoff at it and was not deterred by this knowledge. I also knew the general outline that such ridicule would take, for that mentality is utterly predictable. None of that took anything away from the joy of writing. Just because there are swine does not mean that all pearls must be hidden from everyone.
I am aware that I can be long-winded. If you read all of that, thanks for bearing with me. It seemed right to give you a proper response.
When you take a trip down from your fantasy fairy land into reality you'll realize that a person with financial security and general liberty to pursue their interests (which may come from money or from political influence or usually both) actually IS more free and more happy than a hungry beggar digging through trash or a political prisoner who is tortured daily.
And in America any degree of that we have enjoyed came about because of men who had so much inner freedom that they had the guts to put their lives on the line and start a revolutionary war in order to build a society around any kind of mundane freedom you have enumerated. They were willing to be considered something like terrorists or treasonous, to fight in war, and also to defy the apathy of 1/3 of their population and the opposition of another 1/3 of their population at that time.
You understand that dead men don't have any of the political or monetary freedoms you mention? So why would some folks who were already rather well-to-do value something more than their own lives? That's simple. They had inner freedom and it determined how they faced the events and circumstances of the world around them. You cannot subjugate a truly free people. You can only subjugate cowards who fear the threat of force more than they fear a meaningless existence because such people have no inner freedom. That's why they are so compatible with a meaningless existence (like climbing the corporate ladder as a major focus of life) even though many of them sense that there is something wrong with it.
Admittedly the Founding Fathers are a cliche, mundane, yet concrete illustration of people who understood what I am talking about. Henry David Thoreau and Mahatma Ghandi are more examples, for both were imprisoned yet neither was afraid of prison or deterred by it from doing what they knew to be right. Someone concerned about political freedom exclusively would most certainly want to avoid state-imposed incarceration.
I am having to resort to this sort of explanation only because you failed to see one thing: I am not arguing against political freedom. I said only that it wasn't what I was referring to. You didn't bother, but had you asked me about political freedom I would say that its only stable form would have to come from a society that values real inner freedom. In other words, political freedom should follow and have its roots in real freedom. If it doesn't, then you get its roller-coaster form where governments start out smaller and freer and eventually become huge and authoritarian until collapsing and being replaced by something else, ad infinitum. That's why a high degree of political freedom has been so fleeting throughout history. At any rate, they are not opposed. They are related.
Inner freedom my ass.
I knew when I wrote the previous post that some people would scoff at it. Without a doubt, it can be a hard notion to seriously consider. On that I think we can find some agreement. Where we differ is on the question of whether my writing was truly faulty, or whether the inability to really understand it is a fault in the reader.
of the children, it's China we're talking about here, it's not like it's some country that would steer online information in their own favor.
Like the USA, it's also not a country that would trust parents to decide what is appropriate for their children, supervise them as needed, and gradually equip them to deal with the online world just as they do for the offline world. No, for that parents are thoroughly inadequate. What you need is a large, faceless, unaccountable state bureaucracy with lots of political power. Then and only then are the children safe. Taking over the role of all parents is surely better than dealing on a case-by-case basis with the small minority of parents who neglect their children.
Isn't that the message behind every governmental action that uses "for the children" as its basis?
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people." -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
oh shut up. Freedom is for the wealthy elite, and slavery is for the rest.
What the wealthy elite have is not freedom, but license. What they own also owns them, and with that comes the fear of loss and the obsessive desire to possess and control more and more. They are as far from free as one can get. If you see them as they truly are then you cannot possibly envy them.
Real freedom is not political freedom. It's an inner freedom that does not depend on circumstances and events, only on how one faces them. It is not something that others could grant or take away.
Did you imagine that the elite would spread such misery and fear, manifest such pathological selfishness, and care so much about power over others if they were truly free?
When the only example you cite is a well known one from sixty years ago... all that does is make you look like a loon.
he posted a link to a list of 50.
Doubly so when it lists "Iraq 1991" as an attempt to replace a democratically elected government
you didn't actually read the linked page. it didn't say every one on the list was democratic. it said most were. the rest of your argument is based on this faulty understanding.
and you call him a 'loon'. yikes.
When you face someone with a truth that they'd rather not acknowledge they will often blame you rather than themselves for not having the courage and love of truth that it takes to handle this gracefully. That's the really funny thing about human beings and their idiosyncracies, maladaptive beliefs, and character faults: they defend them because they are so thoroughly identified with them. That's why so many people are impervious to facts that contradict their worldview. It's why some of them will call you names and show their disdain and try to make you feel stupid when you are very much correct.
I knew when I wrote that post that I'd catch at least a little flak for it. I knew that most, if not all of said flak would come from people who know little or nothing about the subject and are just experiencing a knee-jerk because of the tremendous implications of what I said. That didn't stop me.
What many don't realize is that there is a great deal of verifiable knowledge that no one in the schools, colleges, or mainstream media is going to be eager to tell you about.
If a nuke goes off in a US city, we have an excuse for stalling on identifying who's responsible while politicians have a knee-jerk reaction and send US soldiers (or missiles, or UAV's) off on another enormously profitable [wikipedia.org] foreign adventure. And if it turns out they're wrong, we can blame it on anonymous technicians with "decaying skills".
I wonder if you realize how right you are about the way the USA does things. From the summary:
Although US nuclear forensics capabilities are substantial and can be improved, right now they are fragile, under-resourced and, in some respects, deteriorating,' the report warns.
You know what else is fragile, under-resourced, and in many respects deteriorating? Our willingness to examine the connection between meddling in the affairs of soverign nations and their more radical factions' desire to go to extremes in order to attack us.
For those who feel inclined to speak about this without having done any research (like that stops anyone these days), I'll sum it up briefly. The USA has a habit of using its intelligence services to overthrow democratically elected officials in foreign countries and usually replaces them with dictators more favorable to its economic interests. Iran during the 1950s is a good example, though only one of many. Do a little research and it is easy enough to come up with several examples of this behavior.
Does anyone plan to argue that this does not constitute provocation in the eyes of those who suffer because of this practice? Yes, the way they retaliate is inhuman and reprehensible, particularly when they go after civilians. I fully agree with that. What I reject is the notion that "they hate us because of our freedoms". I think it's more like, they hate us because they want to be left alone. If that's the case, and if our goal is to end this sort of terrorism, our first responsibility is to end the practices of ours that encourage it. Then we are in a better position to go after the people who persist and come up with better ways to deter them.
If anyone wants a list that they can start researching, I found a decent one here. It's just a list to help you get started. If you want to be informed on this subject you will have to do your own research. If you take the time to do that, however, what will amaze you is how little retaliation there has been.
Actually, UAC was, in my opinion, one of the better ideas ever to come out of Redmond (cue the criticisms that it's a ripoff of sudo, but it's still a damned good solution to an almost unsolvable problem).
Not you but the GP mentioned "legions of slashtards [sic] who're perfectly happy with sudo, but for whom UAC was apparently too cumbersome". In response to you I'd like to highlight an important difference between the two systems.
On a Unix or Unix-like system such as Linux, you rarely have any need for root access. Your normal user can perform typical day-to-day tasks without elevated privileges. Most of the programs you're using expect to be run as a non-root user and tend to gracefully handle permissions-related issues. You need root privileges to install system-wide software available to all users, but that makes sense. You need root privileges to modify the configuration files of root-owned system services (syslog, for example) but that also makes sense.
If I run my package manager to upgrade system software, I am asked for a password one time. That program runs as root until I close it. I do not have to confirm each specific action it takes. This does not lead to a situation where a user gets bombarded with so many confirmation dialogs that they get frustrated and go on a mindless click-frenzy just to make them go away. Unless the user is simply brand-new to *nix, then it would be very strange indeed to ever be surprised to see a sudo dialog.
Compare that to the constant nagging of Vista's UAC. Microsoft was simply unwilling to set its foot down and say "your program is not Vista-ready if it needlessly assumes it has Admin access".
It's not UAC that was at fault - that was actually a quite excellent design. It was the underlying problem that, frankly, can't easily be solved without some pain on the user's part.
Do you suppose that developers of commercial Windows software wouldn't fix their programs if Microsoft required it? I somehow doubt they'd lose out on an audience comprising over 90% of all desktop users over the effort needed to make a new version compatible with Vista's UAC. Much of Windows software is commercial in nature. There is no business case for not fixing your program so that it can continue to sell to a massive market.
It's the users who suffer when otherwise good designs like UAC are hamstrung by what amounts to Microsoft's pandering to developers. They suffer all kinds of spam, fraud, viruses, worms, and ID theft that should be entirely preventable. In my opinion, Microsoft's priorities have never been the interests of its users because every time they have an opportunity to look after them, they fail. Something else is always more important to them.
I refuse to make a defense for Microsoft because that would deny the reality of the situation. The bottom line is that no one has more control over Windows and the software it runs than Microsoft. Therefore no one has more responsibility for its failures.
I don't think it's as vague as everyone is making it to be. Since his department is paying the IT department it most likely means data on a windows network through CIFS that is backed up and redundant. This is a common thing.
If you are having to speculate based on what is likely and common, then it fits the very definition of "vague".
The purpose of capitalism is to make you think you wanted something you never wanted, then to sell it to you.
No, that's the purpose of marketing. It's the modern purpose, anyway. By contrast, the only legitimate purpose is to make it possible for interested buyers to find out that your product exists and is for sale. A directory styled like the Yellow Pages (hardcopy or electronic) that allows people to look for what interests them but does not bother anyone who isn't actively looking for something is what I would call impeccably legitimate marketing, at least assuming no fradulent claims are made in the directory. That's because this model assumes that the buyer has determined what to buy based on taking an active, independent role in assessing his or her own needs and wants and directs purchasing decisions accordingly. It doesn't transfer the control over that decision-making over to some marketer and render the buyer into an easily-manipulated consumer who has forfeited self-direction.
The purpose of capitalism is for private property rights to be guaranteed so that consentual, mutual exchange can occur without force, fraud, or other coercion. I am of course oversimplifying that description. Still, the point is that marketing as we know it today is something that has been tacked onto it and is not an inherent feature.
Just curious, how would you have gone about finding them? You seem to imply you have a deep understanding of the technology involved.
If it were up to me, I'd harden the targets. Even if that meant making Microsoft financially liable under defective product laws for any losses incurred due to these botnets. The choice for Microsoft would be, stop selling Windows as a general consumer product touting claims of security and ease-of-use or face product liability for its insecurity. If they want to sell Windows as a product designed for skilled/competent users who understand the security issues it would be a different story, but then they'd lose the massive market they currently enjoy. Let them decide whether the product liability or the reduced market is more beneficial to their bottom line. This might have the side-effect of making Windows less of a monopoly, and thus less of a monoculture that allows one exploit to immediately impact millions of machines.
Either way the idea that Joe Sixpack can use an immensely complex system that he doesn't remotely understand and never expect a bad result is an illusion that needs to go. It leads to a parasitic situation where Microsoft profits from Windows and everyone else pays its costs above and beyond its price tag at the point of sale. This is unjust. Doing something about this would be good for everyone except maybe Microsoft, and for that I'd have to quote Spock about the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few or the one. In the long term, serious pressure on Microsoft to improve Windows might even be beneficial to them as well.
So yes, hardening the targets is the approach I would take. When you have millions of systems with massive vulnerabilities I am not remotely surprised that someone somewhere is going to come along and exploit them. It's rather predictable. You can spend two years and a great deal of effort and expense to catch three of them, but during that two years how many more than three have committed similar crimes? It's a losing game so long as the supply of these criminals exceeds your ability to catch them. That's if your goal is to eliminate botnets. If you have a strong preference for some form of visceral satisfaction, then the current criminal justice approach would be more to your tastes.
It wasn't really my intention to make this a post about Microsoft, but how can you separate them from any sincere discussion about botnets? These million-plus-member botnets might have a great deal of diversity in terms of their function, their method of propagation, their purpose, and who is at the helm. They all have one thing in common: Windows. Targeted attacks by a skilled and determined human adversary are one thing. It's automated self-propagating write-once-exploit-everywhere script-kiddie bullshit for which there is no excuse. It is the latter and not the former that allows for millions of machines to become members of a botnet.
If you're a Microsoft fanboy, Windows is targeted because it's so popular. Because it's so popular and so thoroughly targeted, it needs to be one of the most security-hardened. Call it the price of success. If you're not a Microsoft fanboy, then Windows is targeted because it is inherently less secure. That makes it the squeaky wheel in need of some serious security oil. Either way, it's a pointless debate because what needs to be done about the situation is the same. Because they have such a wealth of resources and talent, I have full confidence that Microsoft could make a Windows secure enough to frustrate automated self-propagating attacks if they truly wanted to do it.
I had the impression that you could, without a license, transmit on frequencies that require a license so long as it's extremely low power, to the point that beyond X number of feet (300?) no meaningful reception of your transmission is possible.
Nope, not as a general rule. What you're thinking of are the small FM radio band transmitters (such as used for iPod to car radio), which the FCC allows under a specific rule (47 CFR 15.239) which limits their output. No such rule is available for someone wanting to operate their own cell site. It's illegal, regardless of how low the power or how short the range. Another poster mentioned a Faraday cage; still illegal (even though you'd be unlikely to get caught).
Thank you for correcting my misperception about this. It sounds like the people running this demo would be wise to tread carefully to make sure they don't run afoul of the regulations. No one in their right mind wants a massive federal bureaucracy coming down on them. This may in fact be why AT&T isn't worried about taking their own action.
"I'm still not very convinced this is legal...So having a lab with what you need and trying it on your own stuff, that is legal."
It's definitely NOT legal. If nothing else, he'll be transmitting without a license on frequencies he's not authorized to use. When you use a cell phone normally, it's transmitting under the carrier's license authorization. If he sets up his own "cell site," there's not a license to be found anywhere. It doesn't matter how much power is used, or how far the signal can travel, if it's an intentional radiator, it's illegal.
I had the impression that you could, without a license, transmit on frequencies that require a license so long as it's extremely low power, to the point that beyond X number of feet (300?) no meaningful reception of your transmission is possible.
Before CD players in cars were common, you could get standalone CD players that broadcast the audio in the FM band. The car's radio/tape-player could be set to FM and turned to that frequency to pick up the audio from the CD. This was acceptable because the transmitter is in the same vehicle as the FM radio, so tiny power levels were sufficient.
I admit that I am not a lawyer and don't know much about FCC regulations. I get the impression they're not an agency with a sense of humor, and one you wouldn't want to have to deal with. Still, would cell frequencies be given some special treatment that is not given to FM radio frequencies?
I'm not sure where you've been for the past 150 years but photography is not new.
Who do you think has to prove innocence when the likeness of a man with no twins is caught on film shooting someone? I'd say a photograph is very compelling evidence and I'm pretty sure the courts agree, but, IANAL.
I heard a story about a guy who got nailed by a red light camera when they were new. The camera captured a photo of his vehicle and license plate going through the intersection. A printout of this photo was mailed to his home address along with the traffic ticket. He wanted to protest the use of cameras. Let's assume the fine was $100. So he takes five $20 bills and lays them out on a table. He snaps a photo of the $100 and mails that to the courthouse with a note asking that they accept his payment.
Several days later, he receives another piece of mail from the police. It contains a photo of handcuffs. So he promptly stops by the courthouse and pays the ticket with actual currency.
I think it sucks that even such draconian measures don't get people to STOP RUNNING THE DAMN RED LIGHT!
There's only one method I'm aware of which has been proven to reduce the number of people running red lights: increasing the duration of the amber light. Red light tickets merely increase accidents on the approach to the light as people slam on the brakes to stop and idiots go into the back of them.
But North American stop lights are a disastrous design anyway.
I know a good way to stop people from running the red light. Increase the duration of the amber light. Put a countdown timer (like an LED display) telling the driver exactly how long until the yellow light turns red. Then have a hydraulic system that very quickly raises a heavy steel plate in front of the place where a car is expected to stop for the red light. The steel plate lowers back into the ground when the light turns green so that cars can safely roll over it.
Problem solved! Of course this would adversely impact ticket revenues...
Incidentally -- watch someone take this post seriously. I should have omitted this line to see how many would.
and get more information from those people. You stay classy slashdot.
I'm not crazy about making a second reply to this one post but I wanted this to be said.
I have some disagreement with this being modded -1 Flamebait. I don't think his intention was to start a flamewar, though I admit that's possible and an AC has already responded that way. Still, this is a genuinely held sentiment. A lot of people really do feel this way. It's as though they think that not talking about this problem and not making such information available will make it go away. That amounts to burying one's head in the sand.
I'd rather call it out and explain why this is false and shortsighted than bury the comment under negative moderations. Making the comment disappear for all users who are not browsing at -1 will surely reduce the audience of that one comment. What it won't do is persuade others who mistakenly feel the same way. So I don't think this is Flamebait. I think this is a false perception that can be corrected with a true perception.
and get more information from those people. You stay classy slashdot.
Rest assured that the blackhats who want this information already know about it. As another user suggested, one potential abuse of this information would be to choose targets for social engineering attacks. But those who would exploit it did not just now hear about it. If anything it's the public that is often left behind.
If you don't want to see that reality then we cannot have a conversation about this. If you can see that reality, then I have one question for you: how do you propose we solve the bigger problem of raising awareness of the dangers and misuses of such databases without some publicity? The users who least understand how these things can be abused are generally the ones who are most actively making their personal information publically available. Everyone else either doesn't share the need for personal exhibition, uses false data, or takes a deliberate and calculated risk with any real data made available.
While I think it's an empty vanity personally, I'm not against someone making a public exhibit of themselves if that's what they wish to do. What I would like to see, however, is for those people to do this with a full awareness of how it could be used against them. The deck is somewhat stacked against them because the black hats thoroughly study how to misuse information, whereas the average user just wants to communicate with friends. That can change, and it really should.
Slashdot Mirror
Never happened; you're just looking at it through the rose-colored glasses of nostalgia.
I will not go so far as to call "bullshit" because that is not justifiable here. What I will do is to remind you that popularity is one of the worst things that can happen to many good sites and to many good things, and that it has been the downfall of far better places than Slashdot. By that I mean not quite literally "popularity" in itself, but rather the "pop culture" mindset that goes along with that.
Since there were like 5 articles linked perhaps being more explicit next time will help those of us who are less wizened than yourself.
FYI, "wizened" means "old" or "withered" or "shriveled". It is not in any way a synonym for "wisdom".
No offense intended, but if your idea was to convince people that they did not correctly understand the intended meaning of your post, incorrectly using a word that is easily referenced is not a good way to do so.
Some Slashdot patent defenders claim that not only is publishing an application using the method not sufficient for public disclosure, but publishing the source isn't either. Only God and the presiding judge for the Eastern District of Texas know what WOULD count.
It's a shame that the Patent Office doesn't have an equal-and-opposite counterpart office that has the sole purpose of seeking to invalidate every possible patent. Only the ones that survive would remain valid.
Then again, we need a government office that serves no purpose other than to try to find unConstitional or repeal every law on the books. If it succeeds for a particular law, then it should not have been on the books anyway.
ah... feints within feints...
Sounds like the movie Dune and the Bene Gesserit's fixation on "plans within plans".
If only you left this part out it'd be incredibly difficult to call your post a "troll". Apparently you have a sore spot and are eager to let everyone know this fact about yourself. In fact when I first read through your post I was wondering how the hell it wasn't moderated "Informative" until I got to that part...
Here's the part I think you are underappreciating. When Apple does something you judge as morally "good", it is good for their customers only. When Apple does something others would judge as morally "bad", it is a patent or other issue capable of affecting many people who have never done business with Apple. Can you see how this reality would naturally tend to constrain the good that they do while spreading the bad that they do?
"Offering services" is a nice euphamism for unsolicited advertising which is also called "spam". Personally, I miss the good old days when advertisers and anyone else who would minutely track your day-to-day whereabouts had no hope of receiving your active assistance. If I want a service specific to a flight, it'll be my own idea and obtain it by consulting the flight attendants. If I don't know that a service exists, it's because I have no need for it. Now get off my lawn!
Really though, maybe Apple is doing us a favor by patenting this practice. For 12 years anyone else who tries this method can expect vigorous legal challenges. If it is only iPhone users who receive in-flight spam, that's not very good but it's a significant improvement over everyone receiving in-flight spam.
I think he was attacking the FBI copyright warning at the start of movies. Although I suspect that it is at the consent of the FBI. I wonder what started the FBI to go after Wikipedia though?
I don't know, but the solution is simple enough. If Congress represented us, they'd say: "Oh, I see what you're saying. You can afford to worry about this because you don't have enough real criminals to catch. Gotcha. This is good news! It means we will cut your budget by 1/3 and after one year we'll re-evaluate how this affects your choice of priorities. Who said federal bureaus can't learn to be more efficient?"
I think doing that one time would be enough to end this kind of BS.
"The problem with trying to child-proof the world, is that it makes people neglect the far more important task of world-proofing the child." -- Hugh Daniel
Thank you, madam. I had this one in my quotes file but it was unattributed. That's been fixed now.
Don't waste your time. Rather than preaching to the choir, you're preaching to the fossilized-brained who will never get your point. I'm not saying you should stop talking. Only that you should stop trying to convert most of this crowd, most of whom wouldn't recognize a real principle even AFTER someone shot at them over it.
If I needed to convert anyone, requires his agreement or disagreement, or needed any other result, that would be an unhealthy attachment to outcome. Then whether I enjoy having written my posts depends on what the other guy says and does. This amounts to a ceding of control over my inner life to random strangers. It would be living for externals and not out of an inner understanding. Indeed, after talking of real inner freedom, such an unhealthy attachment would make me a hypocrite.
Unfortunately such attachment to externals is the average person's "normal" method of living. Most could not imagine anything else. I see what is wrong with this and was in no danger of participating in it.
I am content to offer the chance to see a higher perspective. It is not higher because I say so, but because I have discovered that this is the case and am merely choosing not to deny that. Anyone else can do likewise. If I needed to make sure that the other guy saw things a certain way, and got upset or suffered in any other way when he didn't, then it would be very strong evidence that it is not a higher perspective.
So I'm not out to win converts. I wouldn't want the mindless follower mentality that they tend to have. Instead I offer a glimpse into something different. What anyone else does with that is their gain or their loss, and which it is depends on the individual. Even if I had direct control over that, it would be wrong to use it. The higher perspective is not available to robots, in other words, and nor should it be.
If I had been dealing with this individual one-on-one I'd probably not bother with any follow-up after the initial rejection. He's clearly not interested in seeing things this way and I accept that. For all I know, overcoming that type of doubt on his own may be how he will mature as a man. Here, however, there may be many others who would be interested. How I respond to an objection or a rejection could be of value for them. It lets them see that I have something which is not easily shaken, unlike most religions and lifestyles and "isms". Certainly it is of value to me, for it takes a certain awareness to understand something and more awareness still to be able to articulate it.
I will say one thing that for some reason I think you in particular would appreciate: there are many more people with understanding than the world around you would generally lead you to believe. Such people are often not outspoken. They are defintely not boastful or flamboyant or in-your-face types who tend to get a lot of attention. The media finds it more profitable to appeal to our baser natures, so you don't see them on the evening news. Many (if not most) of them have an inner knowing that they are completely unable to articulate, or could not do so in a way that will withstand childish attempts to belittle and demagogue it.
So, I don't really know who is reading when I write posts like that. Like I said, I knew someone would scoff at it and was not deterred by this knowledge. I also knew the general outline that such ridicule would take, for that mentality is utterly predictable. None of that took anything away from the joy of writing. Just because there are swine does not mean that all pearls must be hidden from everyone.
I am aware that I can be long-winded. If you read all of that, thanks for bearing with me. It seemed right to give you a proper response.
And in America any degree of that we have enjoyed came about because of men who had so much inner freedom that they had the guts to put their lives on the line and start a revolutionary war in order to build a society around any kind of mundane freedom you have enumerated. They were willing to be considered something like terrorists or treasonous, to fight in war, and also to defy the apathy of 1/3 of their population and the opposition of another 1/3 of their population at that time.
You understand that dead men don't have any of the political or monetary freedoms you mention? So why would some folks who were already rather well-to-do value something more than their own lives? That's simple. They had inner freedom and it determined how they faced the events and circumstances of the world around them. You cannot subjugate a truly free people. You can only subjugate cowards who fear the threat of force more than they fear a meaningless existence because such people have no inner freedom. That's why they are so compatible with a meaningless existence (like climbing the corporate ladder as a major focus of life) even though many of them sense that there is something wrong with it.
Admittedly the Founding Fathers are a cliche, mundane, yet concrete illustration of people who understood what I am talking about. Henry David Thoreau and Mahatma Ghandi are more examples, for both were imprisoned yet neither was afraid of prison or deterred by it from doing what they knew to be right. Someone concerned about political freedom exclusively would most certainly want to avoid state-imposed incarceration.
I am having to resort to this sort of explanation only because you failed to see one thing: I am not arguing against political freedom. I said only that it wasn't what I was referring to. You didn't bother, but had you asked me about political freedom I would say that its only stable form would have to come from a society that values real inner freedom. In other words, political freedom should follow and have its roots in real freedom. If it doesn't, then you get its roller-coaster form where governments start out smaller and freer and eventually become huge and authoritarian until collapsing and being replaced by something else, ad infinitum. That's why a high degree of political freedom has been so fleeting throughout history. At any rate, they are not opposed. They are related.
I knew when I wrote the previous post that some people would scoff at it. Without a doubt, it can be a hard notion to seriously consider. On that I think we can find some agreement. Where we differ is on the question of whether my writing was truly faulty, or whether the inability to really understand it is a fault in the reader.
of the children, it's China we're talking about here, it's not like it's some country that would steer online information in their own favor.
Like the USA, it's also not a country that would trust parents to decide what is appropriate for their children, supervise them as needed, and gradually equip them to deal with the online world just as they do for the offline world. No, for that parents are thoroughly inadequate. What you need is a large, faceless, unaccountable state bureaucracy with lots of political power. Then and only then are the children safe. Taking over the role of all parents is surely better than dealing on a case-by-case basis with the small minority of parents who neglect their children.
Isn't that the message behind every governmental action that uses "for the children" as its basis?
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people." -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
oh shut up. Freedom is for the wealthy elite, and slavery is for the rest.
What the wealthy elite have is not freedom, but license. What they own also owns them, and with that comes the fear of loss and the obsessive desire to possess and control more and more. They are as far from free as one can get. If you see them as they truly are then you cannot possibly envy them.
Real freedom is not political freedom. It's an inner freedom that does not depend on circumstances and events, only on how one faces them. It is not something that others could grant or take away.
Did you imagine that the elite would spread such misery and fear, manifest such pathological selfishness, and care so much about power over others if they were truly free?
When the only example you cite is a well known one from sixty years ago... all that does is make you look like a loon.
he posted a link to a list of 50.
Doubly so when it lists "Iraq 1991" as an attempt to replace a democratically elected government
you didn't actually read the linked page. it didn't say every one on the list was democratic. it said most were. the rest of your argument is based on this faulty understanding.
and you call him a 'loon'. yikes.
When you face someone with a truth that they'd rather not acknowledge they will often blame you rather than themselves for not having the courage and love of truth that it takes to handle this gracefully. That's the really funny thing about human beings and their idiosyncracies, maladaptive beliefs, and character faults: they defend them because they are so thoroughly identified with them. That's why so many people are impervious to facts that contradict their worldview. It's why some of them will call you names and show their disdain and try to make you feel stupid when you are very much correct.
I knew when I wrote that post that I'd catch at least a little flak for it. I knew that most, if not all of said flak would come from people who know little or nothing about the subject and are just experiencing a knee-jerk because of the tremendous implications of what I said. That didn't stop me.
What many don't realize is that there is a great deal of verifiable knowledge that no one in the schools, colleges, or mainstream media is going to be eager to tell you about.
I wonder if you realize how right you are about the way the USA does things. From the summary:
You know what else is fragile, under-resourced, and in many respects deteriorating? Our willingness to examine the connection between meddling in the affairs of soverign nations and their more radical factions' desire to go to extremes in order to attack us.
For those who feel inclined to speak about this without having done any research (like that stops anyone these days), I'll sum it up briefly. The USA has a habit of using its intelligence services to overthrow democratically elected officials in foreign countries and usually replaces them with dictators more favorable to its economic interests. Iran during the 1950s is a good example, though only one of many. Do a little research and it is easy enough to come up with several examples of this behavior.
Does anyone plan to argue that this does not constitute provocation in the eyes of those who suffer because of this practice? Yes, the way they retaliate is inhuman and reprehensible, particularly when they go after civilians. I fully agree with that. What I reject is the notion that "they hate us because of our freedoms". I think it's more like, they hate us because they want to be left alone. If that's the case, and if our goal is to end this sort of terrorism, our first responsibility is to end the practices of ours that encourage it. Then we are in a better position to go after the people who persist and come up with better ways to deter them.
If anyone wants a list that they can start researching, I found a decent one here. It's just a list to help you get started. If you want to be informed on this subject you will have to do your own research. If you take the time to do that, however, what will amaze you is how little retaliation there has been.
Not you but the GP mentioned "legions of slashtards [sic] who're perfectly happy with sudo, but for whom UAC was apparently too cumbersome". In response to you I'd like to highlight an important difference between the two systems.
On a Unix or Unix-like system such as Linux, you rarely have any need for root access. Your normal user can perform typical day-to-day tasks without elevated privileges. Most of the programs you're using expect to be run as a non-root user and tend to gracefully handle permissions-related issues. You need root privileges to install system-wide software available to all users, but that makes sense. You need root privileges to modify the configuration files of root-owned system services (syslog, for example) but that also makes sense.
If I run my package manager to upgrade system software, I am asked for a password one time. That program runs as root until I close it. I do not have to confirm each specific action it takes. This does not lead to a situation where a user gets bombarded with so many confirmation dialogs that they get frustrated and go on a mindless click-frenzy just to make them go away. Unless the user is simply brand-new to *nix, then it would be very strange indeed to ever be surprised to see a sudo dialog.
Compare that to the constant nagging of Vista's UAC. Microsoft was simply unwilling to set its foot down and say "your program is not Vista-ready if it needlessly assumes it has Admin access".
Do you suppose that developers of commercial Windows software wouldn't fix their programs if Microsoft required it? I somehow doubt they'd lose out on an audience comprising over 90% of all desktop users over the effort needed to make a new version compatible with Vista's UAC. Much of Windows software is commercial in nature. There is no business case for not fixing your program so that it can continue to sell to a massive market.
It's the users who suffer when otherwise good designs like UAC are hamstrung by what amounts to Microsoft's pandering to developers. They suffer all kinds of spam, fraud, viruses, worms, and ID theft that should be entirely preventable. In my opinion, Microsoft's priorities have never been the interests of its users because every time they have an opportunity to look after them, they fail. Something else is always more important to them.
I refuse to make a defense for Microsoft because that would deny the reality of the situation. The bottom line is that no one has more control over Windows and the software it runs than Microsoft. Therefore no one has more responsibility for its failures.
I don't think it's as vague as everyone is making it to be. Since his department is paying the IT department it most likely means data on a windows network through CIFS that is backed up and redundant. This is a common thing.
If you are having to speculate based on what is likely and common, then it fits the very definition of "vague".
The purpose of capitalism is to make you think you wanted something you never wanted, then to sell it to you.
No, that's the purpose of marketing. It's the modern purpose, anyway. By contrast, the only legitimate purpose is to make it possible for interested buyers to find out that your product exists and is for sale. A directory styled like the Yellow Pages (hardcopy or electronic) that allows people to look for what interests them but does not bother anyone who isn't actively looking for something is what I would call impeccably legitimate marketing, at least assuming no fradulent claims are made in the directory. That's because this model assumes that the buyer has determined what to buy based on taking an active, independent role in assessing his or her own needs and wants and directs purchasing decisions accordingly. It doesn't transfer the control over that decision-making over to some marketer and render the buyer into an easily-manipulated consumer who has forfeited self-direction.
The purpose of capitalism is for private property rights to be guaranteed so that consentual, mutual exchange can occur without force, fraud, or other coercion. I am of course oversimplifying that description. Still, the point is that marketing as we know it today is something that has been tacked onto it and is not an inherent feature.
Just curious, how would you have gone about finding them? You seem to imply you have a deep understanding of the technology involved.
If it were up to me, I'd harden the targets. Even if that meant making Microsoft financially liable under defective product laws for any losses incurred due to these botnets. The choice for Microsoft would be, stop selling Windows as a general consumer product touting claims of security and ease-of-use or face product liability for its insecurity. If they want to sell Windows as a product designed for skilled/competent users who understand the security issues it would be a different story, but then they'd lose the massive market they currently enjoy. Let them decide whether the product liability or the reduced market is more beneficial to their bottom line. This might have the side-effect of making Windows less of a monopoly, and thus less of a monoculture that allows one exploit to immediately impact millions of machines.
Either way the idea that Joe Sixpack can use an immensely complex system that he doesn't remotely understand and never expect a bad result is an illusion that needs to go. It leads to a parasitic situation where Microsoft profits from Windows and everyone else pays its costs above and beyond its price tag at the point of sale. This is unjust. Doing something about this would be good for everyone except maybe Microsoft, and for that I'd have to quote Spock about the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few or the one. In the long term, serious pressure on Microsoft to improve Windows might even be beneficial to them as well.
So yes, hardening the targets is the approach I would take. When you have millions of systems with massive vulnerabilities I am not remotely surprised that someone somewhere is going to come along and exploit them. It's rather predictable. You can spend two years and a great deal of effort and expense to catch three of them, but during that two years how many more than three have committed similar crimes? It's a losing game so long as the supply of these criminals exceeds your ability to catch them. That's if your goal is to eliminate botnets. If you have a strong preference for some form of visceral satisfaction, then the current criminal justice approach would be more to your tastes.
It wasn't really my intention to make this a post about Microsoft, but how can you separate them from any sincere discussion about botnets? These million-plus-member botnets might have a great deal of diversity in terms of their function, their method of propagation, their purpose, and who is at the helm. They all have one thing in common: Windows. Targeted attacks by a skilled and determined human adversary are one thing. It's automated self-propagating write-once-exploit-everywhere script-kiddie bullshit for which there is no excuse. It is the latter and not the former that allows for millions of machines to become members of a botnet.
If you're a Microsoft fanboy, Windows is targeted because it's so popular. Because it's so popular and so thoroughly targeted, it needs to be one of the most security-hardened. Call it the price of success. If you're not a Microsoft fanboy, then Windows is targeted because it is inherently less secure. That makes it the squeaky wheel in need of some serious security oil. Either way, it's a pointless debate because what needs to be done about the situation is the same. Because they have such a wealth of resources and talent, I have full confidence that Microsoft could make a Windows secure enough to frustrate automated self-propagating attacks if they truly wanted to do it.
Any defense is the worst possible if you refuse to use it.
I had the impression that you could, without a license, transmit on frequencies that require a license so long as it's extremely low power, to the point that beyond X number of feet (300?) no meaningful reception of your transmission is possible.
Nope, not as a general rule. What you're thinking of are the small FM radio band transmitters (such as used for iPod to car radio), which the FCC allows under a specific rule (47 CFR 15.239) which limits their output. No such rule is available for someone wanting to operate their own cell site. It's illegal, regardless of how low the power or how short the range. Another poster mentioned a Faraday cage; still illegal (even though you'd be unlikely to get caught).
Thank you for correcting my misperception about this. It sounds like the people running this demo would be wise to tread carefully to make sure they don't run afoul of the regulations. No one in their right mind wants a massive federal bureaucracy coming down on them. This may in fact be why AT&T isn't worried about taking their own action.
"I'm still not very convinced this is legal...So having a lab with what you need and trying it on your own stuff, that is legal." It's definitely NOT legal. If nothing else, he'll be transmitting without a license on frequencies he's not authorized to use. When you use a cell phone normally, it's transmitting under the carrier's license authorization. If he sets up his own "cell site," there's not a license to be found anywhere. It doesn't matter how much power is used, or how far the signal can travel, if it's an intentional radiator, it's illegal.
I had the impression that you could, without a license, transmit on frequencies that require a license so long as it's extremely low power, to the point that beyond X number of feet (300?) no meaningful reception of your transmission is possible.
Before CD players in cars were common, you could get standalone CD players that broadcast the audio in the FM band. The car's radio/tape-player could be set to FM and turned to that frequency to pick up the audio from the CD. This was acceptable because the transmitter is in the same vehicle as the FM radio, so tiny power levels were sufficient.
I admit that I am not a lawyer and don't know much about FCC regulations. I get the impression they're not an agency with a sense of humor, and one you wouldn't want to have to deal with. Still, would cell frequencies be given some special treatment that is not given to FM radio frequencies?
I'm not sure where you've been for the past 150 years but photography is not new.
Who do you think has to prove innocence when the likeness of a man with no twins is caught on film shooting someone? I'd say a photograph is very compelling evidence and I'm pretty sure the courts agree, but, IANAL.
I heard a story about a guy who got nailed by a red light camera when they were new. The camera captured a photo of his vehicle and license plate going through the intersection. A printout of this photo was mailed to his home address along with the traffic ticket. He wanted to protest the use of cameras. Let's assume the fine was $100. So he takes five $20 bills and lays them out on a table. He snaps a photo of the $100 and mails that to the courthouse with a note asking that they accept his payment.
Several days later, he receives another piece of mail from the police. It contains a photo of handcuffs. So he promptly stops by the courthouse and pays the ticket with actual currency.
I think it sucks that even such draconian measures don't get people to STOP RUNNING THE DAMN RED LIGHT!
There's only one method I'm aware of which has been proven to reduce the number of people running red lights: increasing the duration of the amber light. Red light tickets merely increase accidents on the approach to the light as people slam on the brakes to stop and idiots go into the back of them.
But North American stop lights are a disastrous design anyway.
I know a good way to stop people from running the red light. Increase the duration of the amber light. Put a countdown timer (like an LED display) telling the driver exactly how long until the yellow light turns red. Then have a hydraulic system that very quickly raises a heavy steel plate in front of the place where a car is expected to stop for the red light. The steel plate lowers back into the ground when the light turns green so that cars can safely roll over it.
Problem solved! Of course this would adversely impact ticket revenues...
Incidentally -- watch someone take this post seriously. I should have omitted this line to see how many would.
and get more information from those people. You stay classy slashdot.
I'm not crazy about making a second reply to this one post but I wanted this to be said.
I have some disagreement with this being modded -1 Flamebait. I don't think his intention was to start a flamewar, though I admit that's possible and an AC has already responded that way. Still, this is a genuinely held sentiment. A lot of people really do feel this way. It's as though they think that not talking about this problem and not making such information available will make it go away. That amounts to burying one's head in the sand.
I'd rather call it out and explain why this is false and shortsighted than bury the comment under negative moderations. Making the comment disappear for all users who are not browsing at -1 will surely reduce the audience of that one comment. What it won't do is persuade others who mistakenly feel the same way. So I don't think this is Flamebait. I think this is a false perception that can be corrected with a true perception.
and get more information from those people. You stay classy slashdot.
Rest assured that the blackhats who want this information already know about it. As another user suggested, one potential abuse of this information would be to choose targets for social engineering attacks. But those who would exploit it did not just now hear about it. If anything it's the public that is often left behind.
If you don't want to see that reality then we cannot have a conversation about this. If you can see that reality, then I have one question for you: how do you propose we solve the bigger problem of raising awareness of the dangers and misuses of such databases without some publicity? The users who least understand how these things can be abused are generally the ones who are most actively making their personal information publically available. Everyone else either doesn't share the need for personal exhibition, uses false data, or takes a deliberate and calculated risk with any real data made available.
While I think it's an empty vanity personally, I'm not against someone making a public exhibit of themselves if that's what they wish to do. What I would like to see, however, is for those people to do this with a full awareness of how it could be used against them. The deck is somewhat stacked against them because the black hats thoroughly study how to misuse information, whereas the average user just wants to communicate with friends. That can change, and it really should.