does it become illegal? Two stick figure drawings with a caption "10 year olds" would be considered illegal if you didn't pencil in some shorts? Madness.
At whatever level of detail the police and prosecutor decide.
Below that level and the courts will never get to decide. Above that level, and the person is already labelled a child raper and the court decision is irrelevant.
Note: the police don't actually know what the law is either (e.g. see many articles on El Reg about it) so it's down to the mood of whoever is handling the case that day and how much they like you.
Considering that you can get Visual Studio's text editor to go into rich-text mode and start displaying weird fonts while viewing a plain text file by inserting special control characters, then I wouldn't be sure about plain-text not being exploitable in MS software.
It turns out the UK has been censoring the web all along.
Does this make the UK internet especially vulnerable to cyberattack?
If a single file (the IWF censorship list) is capable of blocking access to any domains listed in it, then that file becomes an effective WMD against the country's infrastructure.
If someone got into the IWF's network and changed the censorship list to *.*, would that mean a blackout for the entire country?
While they may sound evil, it's an industry body that works with ISPs and the police
Like I said, no judges involved. Since when do the ISPs and police have judicial powers?
(in fact, the decision whether this image was illegal would actually require a jury, whom I definitely don't see within the IWF organsation nor within their ISP or police advisors)
"Someone ought to contact, er, whoever the relevant authorities are."
Neatly highlighting the problem - who decides? In this case it seems to have been either a private campaign group, or the police, neither of which are usually credited with judicial powers.
A little while back the HD in my MacBook Pro died (shortly after completing the first full backup I'd done in almost a year, which was pretty incredible timing).
So after running the HD continuously for a while to transfer data off it, the HD wore out? Coincidence!
If you practice fiscal responsibility (something the U.S. government seems unwilling to do, hence the current mess), work hard and consistently, keep your skills updated and always marketable, you'll stay out of trouble... or at least be nimble enough to make whatever moves are necessary to get out of trouble very quickly.
What if the government forcibly takes your money and spends it irresponsibly?
e.g. see this graph of countries' per-capita net worth. Here in the UK, the government is in debt to the tune of £125000 per person living here.
They can't raise that money from irresponsible people (by definition, since they have no money and are being supported financially by the government), so they will raise that money from responsible ethical prudent people, by taking peoples' savings, increasing rates on mortgages, and good old inflation
The problem is that TCP self regulates and throttles itself back in the face of network congestion. UDP does not, it just blasts packets out as fast as you can feed it. Without some sort of flow control, you could disproportionally hurt TCP flows (which are trying to be good and throttling themselves back when they hit a bottleneck) by your big ugly UDP stream.
Maybe now the ISPs will realise the consequences of interfering with network protocols. (it was originally the ISPs which sabotaged the polite flow-controlled TCP with fraudulent RST packets, thus abandoning any expectation of fairness or standards-compliance between them and their customers)
I had no idea what Roosevelt threatened to do to the supreme court when they declared parts of the New Deal were unconstitutional.
The key to that question would be to think about what he would have been allowed to do: three of the four choices require powers the President doesn't constitutionally possess.
And how would you apply that logic to the current president?
Yeah, the sexual analogy is not having sex with people you think are likely carriers, i.e., web sites that pull that kind of bullshit.
Would you include "accepting advertising" in that list of activities that a trustworthy website wouldn't do? (e.g. see the viruses recently which spread via being included in adverts)
there's also the issue of their webservers becoming infected (e.g. the sql virus or similar)
or of someone uploading malicious html/css/javascript to be displayed in their webapp, e.g. as a book review or blog comment (so now you can't use any website that employs someone with sub-par scripting skills)
or any of the above being committed by someone posing as a website you trust. (or do you only visit HTTPS websites with verisign certificates)
This has been a problem for years. Make a program that deletes all the files in a system. Put it into a CD along with a autorun.inf file. Burn the CD, don't write anything on it, and leave it near the office of someone you hate. At some point the guy will insert the CD just to check what's there. Boom. The virus will run automatically as soon as the CD is inserted.
While you're totally correct in describing the effects, that wouldn't actually be a 'virus' would it?
Do you honestly think that foreign intelligence agencies won't write Linux or Macintosh viruses if it would get them into the DoD network? The OS might be part of the problem, but users are the much bigger one.
Does Linux autorun any program which is presented to it on removable media?
"Oh!! Lookee, a new program! Let's see what it does by running it with root permissions!"
Put that way, Windows is worse than the dimmest recruit in terms of security risk.
Because I monitor my computer's behavior and health? I'm not a babe-in-the-woods clueless user, here, I keep an eye on how my PC is doing. It's technically possible that I could have got some sort of invisible, undetectable malware, but if we take it to that level of ridiculosity, then no one knows if their computer is clean.
Compromised once = unknown state of your computer.
Just because it's not using 98% CPU and sending emails to china, tells you nothing about whether your computer is under someone else's control.
Using the internet with a secure browser is like having sex with a condom. Using it with an insecure browser is like having sex without a condom. But in the end, condoms or no condoms, if you have sex with a person you know is carrying every kind of STD known to man (or is likely to be), you're the fool
Can your sexual partner instantly redirect you to be having sex with someone you never met before, like internet explorer does when it executes the vbscript in the css of your 'safe' xml file?
Is there some sexual analogy for clicking on a transparent 1px iframe that just happened to be hovered below your mouse location and finding that your browser just gave root access to some stranger?
If you don't drive your car into downtown Liberty City, San Andreas, Vice City etc. you aren't as likely to get car jacked, even if you leave the top down and the doors unlocked. Same with a browser. If you aren't going to places that are suspect, you won't be as likely to get malware.
Layne
So would you buy a car that's unable to cover its roof or lock its doors, since you will only ever drive around "safe" areas?
Most of us have cars/browsers with real security, and shrug-off silly pathetic attempts at crime with the derision they deserve. There's not much joy in being 0wned and saying 'well its my fault, I shouldn't have been browsing the web'
IE7 is set to run in sandbox mode by default. If a user decides to take it out of that by force or installing addons, then I would gather they would be to blame directly or indirectly for the end result.
Browser A: "would you like to give this plugin root access to your computer?" (note: if you click 'no' then you will be unable to watch the video you requested)
Browser B: (plays the video, having done sufficient programming to ensure that it's safe, allows the video player to run with minimum permissions)
the idea would be for copyright to benefit society (i.e. you) by encouraging the growth of a public domain (i.e. stuff you can download) as copyright advocates originally intended.
put it this way: rumour is that copy-control on movies is considered effective by the publisher if it gives them the entire opening weekend to sell box-office tickets without competing with online copies. They make most of their money during the first two days, and that is the viewing figure used to gauge whether their film succeeded or failed.
So the industry has already agreed the effective lifetime of a film for copy protection (2-5 days)
depending how good the film is, it could be a year or so before even the most restrictive studios allow it to be broadcast on television (i.e. free distribution including recording, to anyone who wants it), giving an upper limit on the necessary terms for copyright protection for films.
So... big question is: why does the law stiplulate an exclusive distribution period that's 90 times what the industry considers to be upper-limit, and 7,000 - 15,000 times what the industry considers to be normal?
Slashdot Mirror
does it become illegal? Two stick figure drawings with a caption "10 year olds" would be considered illegal if you didn't pencil in some shorts? Madness.
At whatever level of detail the police and prosecutor decide.
Below that level and the courts will never get to decide. Above that level, and the person is already labelled a child raper and the court decision is irrelevant.
Note: the police don't actually know what the law is either (e.g. see many articles on El Reg about it) so it's down to the mood of whoever is handling the case that day and how much they like you.
Why would cartographers be taking pictures of airforce bases
For the same reason cartographers take pictures of everything else of interest in the region they're surveying -- it describes the area being mapped
The bigger question is, why would you be prepared to consider someone a terrorist for taking photos? do you work for the UK police?
"do you send them a malformed .txt file?"
Considering that you can get Visual Studio's text editor to go into rich-text mode and start displaying weird fonts while viewing a plain text file by inserting special control characters, then I wouldn't be sure about plain-text not being exploitable in MS software.
It turns out the UK has been censoring the web all along.
Does this make the UK internet especially vulnerable to cyberattack?
If a single file (the IWF censorship list) is capable of blocking access to any domains listed in it, then that file becomes an effective WMD against the country's infrastructure.
If someone got into the IWF's network and changed the censorship list to *.*, would that mean a blackout for the entire country?
Fixed the link for you
Mycroft lets you change the search box in firefox to use secure wikipedia, which should make it secure from any UK-based censorship efforts.
While they may sound evil, it's an industry body that works with ISPs and the police
Like I said, no judges involved. Since when do the ISPs and police have judicial powers?
(in fact, the decision whether this image was illegal would actually require a jury, whom I definitely don't see within the IWF organsation nor within their ISP or police advisors)
"Someone ought to contact, er, whoever the relevant authorities are."
Neatly highlighting the problem - who decides? In this case it seems to have been either a private campaign group, or the police, neither of which are usually credited with judicial powers.
A little while back the HD in my MacBook Pro died (shortly after completing the first full backup I'd done in almost a year, which was pretty incredible timing).
So after running the HD continuously for a while to transfer data off it, the HD wore out? Coincidence!
>
Seriously.
If you practice fiscal responsibility (something the U.S. government seems unwilling to do, hence the current mess), work hard and consistently, keep your skills updated and always marketable, you'll stay out of trouble... or at least be nimble enough to make whatever moves are necessary to get out of trouble very quickly.
What if the government forcibly takes your money and spends it irresponsibly?
e.g. see this graph of countries' per-capita net worth. Here in the UK, the government is in debt to the tune of £125000 per person living here.
They can't raise that money from irresponsible people (by definition, since they have no money and are being supported financially by the government), so they will raise that money from responsible ethical prudent people, by taking peoples' savings, increasing rates on mortgages, and good old inflation
The problem is that TCP self regulates and throttles itself back in the face of network congestion. UDP does not, it just blasts packets out as fast as you can feed it. Without some sort of flow control, you could disproportionally hurt TCP flows (which are trying to be good and throttling themselves back when they hit a bottleneck) by your big ugly UDP stream.
Maybe now the ISPs will realise the consequences of interfering with network protocols. (it was originally the ISPs which sabotaged the polite flow-controlled TCP with fraudulent RST packets, thus abandoning any expectation of fairness or standards-compliance between them and their customers)
"Unfortunately, my ISP, RoadRunner is stuck in dark ages."
It's a bummer when your toilet can't get it's own IP address.
Or be sold to the Pentagon..
Hosting on Sealand was always under the juristiction of the United Kingdom. The territorial waters of the UK were increased to 12NM in 1987
You can't take territory from another country using an increase in your water limits.
Imagine the hillarity that could ensure otherwise. Anyone bordering a <12nmi strait could take their neighbour's coastline, and vice-versa.
The real question is: which of the programs or websites was responsible for showing porn to children?
Bonus question for the prosecutor to answer: who wrote that program or website?
The key to that question would be to think about what he would have been allowed to do: three of the four choices require powers the President doesn't constitutionally possess.
And how would you apply that logic to the current president?
Yeah, the sexual analogy is not having sex with people you think are likely carriers, i.e., web sites that pull that kind of bullshit.
Would you include "accepting advertising" in that list of activities that a trustworthy website wouldn't do? (e.g. see the viruses recently which spread via being included in adverts)
there's also the issue of their webservers becoming infected (e.g. the sql virus or similar)
or of someone uploading malicious html/css/javascript to be displayed in their webapp, e.g. as a book review or blog comment (so now you can't use any website that employs someone with sub-par scripting skills)
or any of the above being committed by someone posing as a website you trust. (or do you only visit HTTPS websites with verisign certificates)
This has been a problem for years. Make a program that deletes all the files in a system. Put it into a CD along with a autorun.inf file. Burn the CD, don't write anything on it, and leave it near the office of someone you hate. At some point the guy will insert the CD just to check what's there. Boom. The virus will run automatically as soon as the CD is inserted.
While you're totally correct in describing the effects, that wouldn't actually be a 'virus' would it?
Do you honestly think that foreign intelligence agencies won't write Linux or Macintosh viruses if it would get them into the DoD network? The OS might be part of the problem, but users are the much bigger one.
Does Linux autorun any program which is presented to it on removable media?
"Oh!! Lookee, a new program! Let's see what it does by running it with root permissions!"
Put that way, Windows is worse than the dimmest recruit in terms of security risk.
Because I monitor my computer's behavior and health? I'm not a babe-in-the-woods clueless user, here, I keep an eye on how my PC is doing. It's technically possible that I could have got some sort of invisible, undetectable malware, but if we take it to that level of ridiculosity, then no one knows if their computer is clean.
Compromised once = unknown state of your computer.
Just because it's not using 98% CPU and sending emails to china, tells you nothing about whether your computer is under someone else's control.
Using the internet with a secure browser is like having sex with a condom. Using it with an insecure browser is like having sex without a condom. But in the end, condoms or no condoms, if you have sex with a person you know is carrying every kind of STD known to man (or is likely to be), you're the fool
Can your sexual partner instantly redirect you to be having sex with someone you never met before, like internet explorer does when it executes the vbscript in the css of your 'safe' xml file?
Is there some sexual analogy for clicking on a transparent 1px iframe that just happened to be hovered below your mouse location and finding that your browser just gave root access to some stranger?
How about a car analogy?
If you don't drive your car into downtown Liberty City, San Andreas, Vice City etc. you aren't as likely to get car jacked, even if you leave the top down and the doors unlocked. Same with a browser. If you aren't going to places that are suspect, you won't be as likely to get malware.
Layne
So would you buy a car that's unable to cover its roof or lock its doors, since you will only ever drive around "safe" areas?
Most of us have cars/browsers with real security, and shrug-off silly pathetic attempts at crime with the derision they deserve. There's not much joy in being 0wned and saying 'well its my fault, I shouldn't have been browsing the web'
IE7 is set to run in sandbox mode by default. If a user decides to take it out of that by force or installing addons, then I would gather they would be to blame directly or indirectly for the end result.
Browser A: "would you like to give this plugin root access to your computer?" (note: if you click 'no' then you will be unable to watch the video you requested)
Browser B: (plays the video, having done sufficient programming to ensure that it's safe, allows the video player to run with minimum permissions)
Many times when companies die (for legal reasons) the Management just creates a new company.
You mean like when SCO setup a company in the far-east and tried to transfer their assets to it?
Or like when SCO proposed splitting its company in two, with one part taking all the assets, and the other part taking the legal claims?
the idea would be for copyright to benefit society (i.e. you) by encouraging the growth of a public domain (i.e. stuff you can download) as copyright advocates originally intended.
put it this way: rumour is that copy-control on movies is considered effective by the publisher if it gives them the entire opening weekend to sell box-office tickets without competing with online copies. They make most of their money during the first two days, and that is the viewing figure used to gauge whether their film succeeded or failed.
So the industry has already agreed the effective lifetime of a film for copy protection (2-5 days)
depending how good the film is, it could be a year or so before even the most restrictive studios allow it to be broadcast on television (i.e. free distribution including recording, to anyone who wants it), giving an upper limit on the necessary terms for copyright protection for films.
So... big question is: why does the law stiplulate an exclusive distribution period that's 90 times what the industry considers to be upper-limit, and 7,000 - 15,000 times what the industry considers to be normal?
While that does seem like an interesting weapon system, I see nothing there about the cost of a round, let alone the launcher.
There's a website which lets you find such things easily - enter "XM25 cost" or similar in the question box
Not reliably - all that proves is I'm someone with commit access.
with a particular username