The second time it happened to me in the Reno, Nevada airport (which is a freakin horrible airport) they lost my laptop and a $250 watch. How the hell do you do that?
You accidently drop them in a... local pawn shop, I suspect.
included a funny little exchange between a woman whose daughter was being prevented from boarding planes and Asa Hutchinson, TSA honcho (and, interestingly, one of the House GOP engineers of the Clinton impeachment). The gist of the story being that after repeated attempts to get her daugher off "the list," she was still on the list. Hutchinson suggested she talk to the TSA ombudsman, which she had evidently already done.
There were a few other interesting, chilling tidbits regarding homeland security. Fun stuff: http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wf Id=38597 56
Their goal isn't to stop determined experts, since that's impossible to do when the code runs on the adversary's computer. Their goals are to stop "industrial software piracy" (read: businesses buying one CD for all the computers in the office) and "casual copying" (read: Joe Teenager giving a copy to his friend Fred Teenager).
That's an unimportant difference when a crack, by a "determined expert" or a noob, is just a download away. It's not like one has to pay more for an "expert" crack or something.
I haven't been very impressed with Bush, but
all the "ANYBODY BUT BUSH/NO BLOOD FOR OIL/OMGWTFBUSHSUX0RS" 'liberals' have completely driven me away from that side as well. While I will most likely be voting for a third-party candidate, at this point I'd rather see Bush win than Kerry, mainly because the Democrat side seems so horrible now.
Yes, and you've summarized their faults so insightfully. Amazing what gets moderated all the way up as "Insightful" around here...
This sort of hacktivism is nothing more then the digital analogue of a violent protest.
No, it's really not. Nobody is beaten or killed. A protest is either violent or nonviolent and this protest is nonviolent. This is not a trivial distinction. (as for the "digital analogue" silliness, I can think of some ways one might hurt or kill with a computer, this obviously isn't one)
I agree that these attacks are immoral, illegal, antithetical to our country's ideals and generally not very well thought out. I certainly think those responsible ought to be prosecuted. I've pointed out what I did because you've inadvertantly committed the "lumping people we don't agree with in with the terrorists" thing, which is a pretty horrid feature of the current political climate.
At this point, even the airlines will thank you for not flying them.
And not just because they're overbooked. Keep in mind, the airlines have never truly made a profit, taking into account the fact that they are so heavily subsidized by the federal government. Under this system it seems that they'll get your money no matter what, and if they don't have to provide you a service for that money, so much the better (for them).
You know, a lot is implied by the constitution, rather than made explicit. This is pretty fundamental to constitutional law. The country would be a radically different place if we stuck to only strict interpretation of the constitution, without ever inferring a deeper meaning. (I tend to think that approach would be completely untenable unless we were willing to give up our hesitence to amend the constitution, which would of course bring its own set of problems...)
If the network communication exists solely to enable communication intended by a standard protocol across a network, then it is probably OK. When a proprietary web broswer connects to a GPL webserver it simply asks for a webpage and gets it - it doesn't use the connection to help serve webpages to other systems, offload webserver workload, perform particular functions for the webserver, etc.
With the proliferation of web standards and gadgets and the integration of "application server" software with the web server itself, I think you can probably find web servers that do most, if not all, of that stuff, and browser plugins for most of it. I expect that the different sorts of protocols and things that can served with today's "web server" vastly exceeds the variety of things the average database server can do conceptually. I don't know that it matters that much, though, wrt licensing under the GPL.
The GPL FAQ points out that areas like this are generally decided based on the level of communication intimacy.
That would work fine if you were just quantifying what level of the 7-layer model something sat at, or something. But unfortunately it ends up being more subjective, and using the same license for everything ends up being real limiting if you have specific uses you want to prevent.
I don't think it would be overstating the case to say that "Zack Urlocker, MySQL's vice president of marketing" is either a liar or doesn't understand the application of the GPL with regards to client/server software:
On the other hand, while Urlocker said the company is not adding restrictions on to the GPL, he felt that attempting to, as he put it, "circumvent" the GPL by communicating with the database using a third-party tool and TCP/IP or another protocol was a gray area and while perhaps following the letter, it was not following the spirit of the General Public License.
Communicating with a database via "TCP/IP or another protocol," such as ODBC, is not in any way a circumvention of the GPL. This is what ODBC is for, for heaven's sake, there's nothing sneaky about it.
Following MySQL's moronic licensing innuendo, you would be required to use GPLed software to talk to a GPLed web server. Unfortunately even the unixODBC guy who was quoted didn't make the point that connecting to a database server from a client program (on a remote machine or on the same machine) using ODBC is morally equivalent to connecting from a client program to a web server using HTTP, and so the same rules must apply. The FSF guy didn't make that point either. I can understand why these free software folks feel some need to stick up for each other but someone needs to drive a stake through the heart of all this licensing idiocy, it doesn't help anyone.
If you follow that logic we should ban Semi-trucks from the road as well.
Actually, if one were to follow that logic, requiring more stringent driver's license requirements as the mass of the vehicle to be driven increases seems like a pretty good idea. Semis tend to be safe in spite of their size because they're driven by professionals.
then xerox parc had the alto, but their mouse didn't have a mouse ball -- it was apple that invented the mouse ball, and shipped the first commercial computer that came with a mouse as standard.
Um... did the Alto and Star ever ship without mice? What did they use for controlling the cursor?
I just finished off 8 months of unemployment by landing a new gig at a much better salary than my old job, and in the past month have received an increasing number of calls from recruiters. I'm not saying we've warped back to 1998 (oh, the glory), but it is getting better.
Yes, it makes sense -- space marines in 2045 should have duct tape and/or helmets with flashlights and/or nightvision and/or fucking-A genetically engineered cat-eye night-proof eyes-from-hell.
But that's not what this space marine happened to have handy when the shit hit the fan.
Of course, you don't need anything more than two hands to use a pistol and a flashlight at the same time.
Maybe this space marine has cerebral palsy or something.
First, I'm opposed to electronic voting, but I'm not trying to argue that.
Recognition of the fact that voter confidence in the system of voting is very important does not necessarily reflect anything except... recognition of the fact that voter confidence in the system of voting is very important. Voter apathy or mistrust toward the electoral process is potentially much more damaging than a few screwy voting machines.
Those polled were not afraid of "people responding rationally" or any bollocks like that. They were afraid that the controversy and mistrust surrounding electronic voting would keep people from taking part in the process at all, which is an irrational and quite damaging reaction, regardless of the severity of the problem with these systems.
That's a little different than the slashing perpetrator Slashdot has cast her.
Not really. It's pretty clear that this change came about because the author and publisher were bullied into doing what was right, not because of a sudden onset of conscience. And even if it were a sudden onset of conscience, it doesn't really do much to take away from the stress they've caused the owner of katie.com. Note that there is no mention of restitution.
Actually, would not even need that. If Katie of katie.com was smart, she should have filed a defamation suit immediately.
She may or may not be "smart," but one of the points made in the article is that she doesn't have money to give to a lawyer. Hard to fault her for that.
This is undoubtedly a problem with Sabre, which EDS runs on behalf of Sabre Holdings. Both American Airlines and US Airways use Sabre for much of their operations.
They use the same system for flight operations and for reservations? I've seen Sabre in use at the travel agent's office, somehow I would have thought this problem involved a different system...
So you think that a clone of NT, which in turn is a clone of VMS, is a reasonable choice for a user who is looking for something completely new? Mmmkay.
As much as you're going to hate this, in this scenario the IT user is the poor communicator. The user in your scenario doesn't have the skill set to communicate properly.
Of course that's not the user's problem at all. Being a "good communicator" in this context is not the user's responsibility at all, any more than it is a car owner's job to know the lingo of the professional mechanic when taking a car in for servicing, or the patient's job to know the terminology of the doctor when in for an appointment.
The whole point is that being able to ferret out the problem based on the user's poorly formed descriptions is part of the support person's gig. If they're not good at it they should be doing something else. The proper response to the user who is communicating poorly is to solicit more information until understanding is reached, not to be condescending.
(incidentally, I've found that supporting "power users" who "know more" than the average, naive user is not at all easier)
When a website is compromised, the owner is not legally bound to tell the visitors anything, even if the visitors are suddenly succeptible to an attack. (I suppose they could conceivably sue for damages done to their computers, but that's a different avenue)
Civil liability is a different avenue than being bound by criminal statute, yes, but it's not to be dismissed quite so quickly. A few major lawsuits could change the entire approach companies take to this problem. At the end of the day, being bound by a fear of legal liability in the United States is usually much more powerful than any laws that come from the government.
Here's a little prediction. I predict that you'll see laws protecting companies from being sued in this context or limiting the damages they can be held accountable for before you see laws requiring them to release information on their security breaches or to make restitution to users whose computers are compromised in such breaches. If the balance of power shifts an awful lot in congress I could be proven wrong, which I wouldn't mind at all...
Slashdot Mirror
You accidently drop them in a... local pawn shop, I suspect.
included a funny little exchange between a woman whose daughter was being prevented from boarding planes and Asa Hutchinson, TSA honcho (and, interestingly, one of the House GOP engineers of the Clinton impeachment). The gist of the story being that after repeated attempts to get her daugher off "the list," she was still on the list. Hutchinson suggested she talk to the TSA ombudsman, which she had evidently already done.
f Id=38597 56
There were a few other interesting, chilling tidbits regarding homeland security. Fun stuff:
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?w
That's an unimportant difference when a crack, by a "determined expert" or a noob, is just a download away. It's not like one has to pay more for an "expert" crack or something.
Yes, and you've summarized their faults so insightfully. Amazing what gets moderated all the way up as "Insightful" around here...
No, it's really not. Nobody is beaten or killed. A protest is either violent or nonviolent and this protest is nonviolent. This is not a trivial distinction. (as for the "digital analogue" silliness, I can think of some ways one might hurt or kill with a computer, this obviously isn't one)
I agree that these attacks are immoral, illegal, antithetical to our country's ideals and generally not very well thought out. I certainly think those responsible ought to be prosecuted. I've pointed out what I did because you've inadvertantly committed the "lumping people we don't agree with in with the terrorists" thing, which is a pretty horrid feature of the current political climate.
And not just because they're overbooked. Keep in mind, the airlines have never truly made a profit, taking into account the fact that they are so heavily subsidized by the federal government. Under this system it seems that they'll get your money no matter what, and if they don't have to provide you a service for that money, so much the better (for them).
You know, a lot is implied by the constitution, rather than made explicit. This is pretty fundamental to constitutional law. The country would be a radically different place if we stuck to only strict interpretation of the constitution, without ever inferring a deeper meaning. (I tend to think that approach would be completely untenable unless we were willing to give up our hesitence to amend the constitution, which would of course bring its own set of problems...)
With the proliferation of web standards and gadgets and the integration of "application server" software with the web server itself, I think you can probably find web servers that do most, if not all, of that stuff, and browser plugins for most of it. I expect that the different sorts of protocols and things that can served with today's "web server" vastly exceeds the variety of things the average database server can do conceptually. I don't know that it matters that much, though, wrt licensing under the GPL.
That would work fine if you were just quantifying what level of the 7-layer model something sat at, or something. But unfortunately it ends up being more subjective, and using the same license for everything ends up being real limiting if you have specific uses you want to prevent.
My apologies. Thanks for correcting me.
Communicating with a database via "TCP/IP or another protocol," such as ODBC, is not in any way a circumvention of the GPL. This is what ODBC is for, for heaven's sake, there's nothing sneaky about it.
Following MySQL's moronic licensing innuendo, you would be required to use GPLed software to talk to a GPLed web server. Unfortunately even the unixODBC guy who was quoted didn't make the point that connecting to a database server from a client program (on a remote machine or on the same machine) using ODBC is morally equivalent to connecting from a client program to a web server using HTTP, and so the same rules must apply. The FSF guy didn't make that point either. I can understand why these free software folks feel some need to stick up for each other but someone needs to drive a stake through the heart of all this licensing idiocy, it doesn't help anyone.
Yes, but it's heavy vodka.
Actually, if one were to follow that logic, requiring more stringent driver's license requirements as the mass of the vehicle to be driven increases seems like a pretty good idea. Semis tend to be safe in spite of their size because they're driven by professionals.
Um... did the Alto and Star ever ship without mice? What did they use for controlling the cursor?
Those machines shipped well before the Lisa.
For you.
Of course, you don't need anything more than two hands to use a pistol and a flashlight at the same time.
Maybe this space marine has cerebral palsy or something.
Wait... I just got this great idea for a mod...
First, I'm opposed to electronic voting, but I'm not trying to argue that.
Recognition of the fact that voter confidence in the system of voting is very important does not necessarily reflect anything except... recognition of the fact that voter confidence in the system of voting is very important. Voter apathy or mistrust toward the electoral process is potentially much more damaging than a few screwy voting machines.
Those polled were not afraid of "people responding rationally" or any bollocks like that. They were afraid that the controversy and mistrust surrounding electronic voting would keep people from taking part in the process at all, which is an irrational and quite damaging reaction, regardless of the severity of the problem with these systems.
Not really. It's pretty clear that this change came about because the author and publisher were bullied into doing what was right, not because of a sudden onset of conscience. And even if it were a sudden onset of conscience, it doesn't really do much to take away from the stress they've caused the owner of katie.com. Note that there is no mention of restitution.
She may or may not be "smart," but one of the points made in the article is that she doesn't have money to give to a lawyer. Hard to fault her for that.
Even offering a token sum would be a pretty shitty way of handling it. "We stole what's rightfully yours, but here, have a cookie."
Why not just run the thing in a web browser? Is there anything more you would get by using Outlook?
They use the same system for flight operations and for reservations? I've seen Sabre in use at the travel agent's office, somehow I would have thought this problem involved a different system...
That seems doubtful. A home page that anyone can edit would get old really quick.
So you think that a clone of NT, which in turn is a clone of VMS, is a reasonable choice for a user who is looking for something completely new? Mmmkay.
Of course that's not the user's problem at all. Being a "good communicator" in this context is not the user's responsibility at all, any more than it is a car owner's job to know the lingo of the professional mechanic when taking a car in for servicing, or the patient's job to know the terminology of the doctor when in for an appointment.
The whole point is that being able to ferret out the problem based on the user's poorly formed descriptions is part of the support person's gig. If they're not good at it they should be doing something else. The proper response to the user who is communicating poorly is to solicit more information until understanding is reached, not to be condescending.
(incidentally, I've found that supporting "power users" who "know more" than the average, naive user is not at all easier)
Civil liability is a different avenue than being bound by criminal statute, yes, but it's not to be dismissed quite so quickly. A few major lawsuits could change the entire approach companies take to this problem. At the end of the day, being bound by a fear of legal liability in the United States is usually much more powerful than any laws that come from the government.
Here's a little prediction. I predict that you'll see laws protecting companies from being sued in this context or limiting the damages they can be held accountable for before you see laws requiring them to release information on their security breaches or to make restitution to users whose computers are compromised in such breaches. If the balance of power shifts an awful lot in congress I could be proven wrong, which I wouldn't mind at all...