Your thinking is deeply flawed. People like you make the world embrace hostility and paranoia instead of unity and cooperation. It clearly shows that you have no idea what it means to live in a democracy, which is no wonder as you live in a plutocracy.
If your idea of fairness is that the biggest country should have everything while the smaller countries which make up the absolute majority should have nothing, then you really should be living in the middle ages not in the 21th century.
For example, what happens when countries like China, North Korea, and many more. Demand that the UN aid them in "filtering" the internet for their citizens.
I'll tell you what. Nothing happens. So what if they demand? They can be voted down by A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS, involving more enlightened nations and the USA.
Your point doesn't stand. The UN is more democratic on any day than the USA.
You know what? Stick to your illusions. If you think you either own, control or even have any authority on the internet, then you couldn't be more wrong. Europeans are trying to work out a solution WITH YOU, for YOUR convenience. If we would be acting in the spirit of your kneejerk reactions, then we would have started building our own root dns servers after the news from the USA came about the root servers.
You control nothing. You're overlooking the point that apart from the root dns servers the USA doesn't own significantly more infrastructure than it should, compared to the number of internet users of usa/non-usa.
What 'own'? We already did, in everything apart the root dns servers! Or do you think that the cabling and routers just grew in Europe or what? If the world would decide that WE don't want YOU on OUR internet, then you'd be pretty quick on the losing side.
So it's like:
1. Submit patent -> gets rejected.
2. Change a word and resubmit -> gets rejected.
3. Change another word and resubmit -> gets rejected
4. Change another word and resubmit -> gets rejected
5. Change another word and resubmit -> gets rejected
6. Change another word and resubmit -> gets ACCEPTED.
Instead of:
1. Submit patent -> gets rejected.
2. Change a word and resubmit -> gets rejected and submitter faces a small fine.
3. Change another word and resubmit -> gets rejected and submitter faces a multiplying fine.
4,5,6,7...on the scheme of 3. etc.
Most modern and medium up to high quality fingerprint identification devices check for the "aliveness" of the thumb. It is possible to be done electrically, and even by detecting the veins in the thumb. Not sure if that would stop a stupid robber from cutting off someone's finger, but it would most likely stop from getting access to the resource protected by the fingerprint authentication device.
In a shock announcement today, Roland Piquepaquille announced that he has purchased the majority (51%) of the well known news syndication site, Drudge Report.
Well yeah, we can say that biometrics is a subset of property, but in practice it can be different. First of all, it makes a huge difference in the matter of security level, and usually the area of application is not the same as with non-biological property.
You might steal someone's secureID but it's not that likely to cut off someone's finger for getting access to John Doe's shitty office computer. Also, it's not really likely that someone can fake an iris authentication even if getting into a military complex, but those kind of biometrical checks are most likely not used at silly places like grandma's office.
I agree with your assessment, however i replied to the top poster, because he apparently thought that it's an interesting idea to _try_. That's why i replied with what i did. I'm a kind of Asimov-knowing reader although i wasn't aware of this particular short story, but it's quite possible that he wrote this short story after being familiar or inspired by Clockwork Orange (the "A Clockwork Orange" was published in 1962 while "The Winds of Change is from 1983).
Teach science and scientific thinking when studying about maths, physics, biology, chemistry, etc. No intelligent design because it's not a scientifically accepted theory. I started with the most controversial topic, btw.
Teach people how to _think_ intelligently. It _can_ be teached and knowing how to reason and think logically should be important.
Learn more world history, honestly, the usa just doesn't have enough history of its own to learn not to step into the same sh*t again.
Press those kids a bit harder, they are there to learn not to stagnate. Down with that stupid no child left behind Bushism. It lowered the average.
It is particularly important to make sure kids know what freedom means in these media controlled times. So, burning a flag = freedom. Hatemongering and/or violence against arabs = not to be tolerated. (refer to the study where most kids thought burning a flag is a crime)
From the top of my hat, thats all i can come up with in a short time. I may post a reply to this post if something else occurs to me. I am aware that i mentioned a lot of sensitive issues.
I compared the security of those systems to an open door, because honestly those system were like leaving the door open. I didn't compare those systems to secured and very well secured doors or properties, because they aren't comparable.
A system with no unknown remote vulnerabilities is a closed door.
A system with firewall, IDS and kernel enchancements (or just something similar if possible on windows) is a reinforced steel door. Please get your analogies right.
"Just to be clear... On the day that you forget to lock your front door and a "polite" burglar walks into your house and starts ransacking it, you'll decline to press charges, because you should have known better, right?"
Maybe you can press charges, but your insurance company will pay exactly as much as you deserve: 0. Shared responsibility is the key.
If a bank would decrease physical security to the level of legal threats do you think that would be normal? If instead of using a safe or other advanced measures they would just put the money on a desk and say: if you take this you're committing theft, what do you think how many people would take money?
If a 17y old kid can singlehandledly cause a billion dollar damage then YOUR SECURITY IS BAD ANYWAY, which should be YOUR responsibility.
Ah damn you beat me to it. If someone doesn't get the reference, read "A Clockwork Orange" by Anthony Burgess.
SPOILER! For the lazy ones i try to explain shortly:
In the book a kid was conditioned to feel sick when thinking or feeling violently by forcing him to watch extremely violent short movies of rape, torture etc with Beethoven's music in the background.
This informational tidbit is not to try to tell the story just to explain the Beethoven remark. You should read the book if you haven't already.
Slashdot Mirror
You really believe this bullshit over there?
Click here for data.
Your thinking is deeply flawed. People like you make the world embrace hostility and paranoia instead of unity and cooperation. It clearly shows that you have no idea what it means to live in a democracy, which is no wonder as you live in a plutocracy.
If your idea of fairness is that the biggest country should have everything while the smaller countries which make up the absolute majority should have nothing, then you really should be living in the middle ages not in the 21th century.
For example, what happens when countries like China, North Korea, and many more. Demand that the UN aid them in "filtering" the internet for their citizens.
I'll tell you what. Nothing happens. So what if they demand? They can be voted down by A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS, involving more enlightened nations and the USA.
Your point doesn't stand. The UN is more democratic on any day than the USA.
You know what? Stick to your illusions. If you think you either own, control or even have any authority on the internet, then you couldn't be more wrong. Europeans are trying to work out a solution WITH YOU, for YOUR convenience. If we would be acting in the spirit of your kneejerk reactions, then we would have started building our own root dns servers after the news from the USA came about the root servers.
You control nothing. You're overlooking the point that apart from the root dns servers the USA doesn't own significantly more infrastructure than it should, compared to the number of internet users of usa/non-usa.
What 'own'? We already did, in everything apart the root dns servers! Or do you think that the cabling and routers just grew in Europe or what? If the world would decide that WE don't want YOU on OUR internet, then you'd be pretty quick on the losing side.
Just think of the WHO.
I'd say it's a pretty damn well run organization despite being run by the U.N.
U.N. is not just a bunch of incompetent politicians, although i'm sure a lot of americans like to think that.
More than 2/3rd of the internet users are noot from the usa. I think _WE_ non-USians should have a say too.
Heh. Parent is probably karma whoring by plagarism. It's nice to know that he even copied my typo (USPO vs. USPTO).
We can always optimize the process a bit more ;)
$_ = $patent; while (!$patent_accepted) { s/$word/$new_word/g }
If you can pay the legal fees, then sure, go ahead...
So it's like:
1. Submit patent -> gets rejected.
2. Change a word and resubmit -> gets rejected.
3. Change another word and resubmit -> gets rejected
4. Change another word and resubmit -> gets rejected
5. Change another word and resubmit -> gets rejected
6. Change another word and resubmit -> gets ACCEPTED.
Instead of:
1. Submit patent -> gets rejected.
2. Change a word and resubmit -> gets rejected and submitter faces a small fine.
3. Change another word and resubmit -> gets rejected and submitter faces a multiplying fine.
4,5,6,7...on the scheme of 3. etc.
Amazon is just flooding the USPO.
Most modern and medium up to high quality fingerprint identification devices check for the "aliveness" of the thumb. It is possible to be done electrically, and even by detecting the veins in the thumb. Not sure if that would stop a stupid robber from cutting off someone's finger, but it would most likely stop from getting access to the resource protected by the fingerprint authentication device.
In a shock announcement today, Roland Piquepaquille announced that he has purchased the majority (51%) of the well known news syndication site, Drudge Report.
Well yeah, we can say that biometrics is a subset of property, but in practice it can be different. First of all, it makes a huge difference in the matter of security level, and usually the area of application is not the same as with non-biological property.
You might steal someone's secureID but it's not that likely to cut off someone's finger for getting access to John Doe's shitty office computer. Also, it's not really likely that someone can fake an iris authentication even if getting into a military complex, but those kind of biometrical checks are most likely not used at silly places like grandma's office.
Simple rule of thumb:
In order authentication to be considered secure, at least TWO of the three ways of authentication need to be used.
The three ways are of course information, property and biometrics.
Well, first of all i made a typo: it's Asimov.
I agree with your assessment, however i replied to the top poster, because he apparently thought that it's an interesting idea to _try_. That's why i replied with what i did. I'm a kind of Asimov-knowing reader although i wasn't aware of this particular short story, but it's quite possible that he wrote this short story after being familiar or inspired by Clockwork Orange (the "A Clockwork Orange" was published in 1962 while "The Winds of Change is from 1983).
From the top of my hat, thats all i can come up with in a short time. I may post a reply to this post if something else occurs to me. I am aware that i mentioned a lot of sensitive issues.
Yeah.
I believe http://flash.mob would spontaneously get registered...
"On one hand, I have to admire a company willing to implement espionage and sabotage to competitors."
Just out of curiousity, may i ask why?
"Nothing for you to see here. Please move along." more appropriate...
You missed the point.
I compared the security of those systems to an open door, because honestly those system were like leaving the door open. I didn't compare those systems to secured and very well secured doors or properties, because they aren't comparable.
A system with no unknown remote vulnerabilities is a closed door.
A system with firewall, IDS and kernel enchancements (or just something similar if possible on windows) is a reinforced steel door. Please get your analogies right.
"Just to be clear... On the day that you forget to lock your front door and a "polite" burglar walks into your house and starts ransacking it, you'll decline to press charges, because you should have known better, right?"
Maybe you can press charges, but your insurance company will pay exactly as much as you deserve: 0. Shared responsibility is the key.
If a bank would decrease physical security to the level of legal threats do you think that would be normal? If instead of using a safe or other advanced measures they would just put the money on a desk and say: if you take this you're committing theft, what do you think how many people would take money?
If a 17y old kid can singlehandledly cause a billion dollar damage then YOUR SECURITY IS BAD ANYWAY, which should be YOUR responsibility.
Adjust the amount their work for 0 profit.
Ah damn you beat me to it. If someone doesn't get the reference, read "A Clockwork Orange" by Anthony Burgess.
SPOILER! For the lazy ones i try to explain shortly:
In the book a kid was conditioned to feel sick when thinking or feeling violently by forcing him to watch extremely violent short movies of rape, torture etc with Beethoven's music in the background.
This informational tidbit is not to try to tell the story just to explain the Beethoven remark. You should read the book if you haven't already.
Are you sure you're not thinking of Anthony Burgess' "A Clockwork Orange"?
Maybe then you should read it to know why Asomov's is a bad idea.