Now that OpenOffice has been donated to the Apache Foundation, it is safe open source again. In this case a fork (LibreOffice) only makes things worse.
Instead of people focusing on the development of a single product, they are divided into two halves working on two forks for no good reason whatsoever.
Comodo hasn't had just one, but two such breaches in the past few years (use the Slashdot search to find the stories).
How come their certificates are still trusted and included with all browsers and operating systems whereas Diginotar's certificates were obliterated from all browser and almost all operating systems immediately?
Is it because DigiNotar is only a regional Dutch CA? Talk about disgusting double standards then.
You need to read something about copyright law. Derivative work must be an _original_ work of _human_ authorship. Trivial, technical, and/or machine-processed versions are not derivative works (such as thumbnails, etc.). Also, most of that is protected by the Fair Use doctrine already and nobody needs "world-wide, non-revocable, permission to derive".
I stopped editing Wikipedia a couple of years ago and haven't gone back. Why? Because the members of the established mafia occupying the articles appeared to have much much more time than me to keep reverting or discussing (i.e. repeating the arguments over and over ad nauseam) than me.
Any change I made was immediately (usually within 1-10 minutes) reverted. I have been living my life and working, while they have apparently been just squatting "their" articles. I don't feel sorry for them, however.
What worries Bruce Schneier most is that industry leader Siemens is keeping its SCADA vulnerabilities secret
If you want to prevent the bad guys from exploiting a vulnerability, then don't... um... tell them about the vulnerability? But do tell the affected parties about it.
Seeing that some people use Constitutional rights as an argument against my guns analogy, I am amending it as follows:
Cars can be used to commit crimes too. For example, to transport stolen goods, even to kill people. So does making and selling cars make you punishable for contributing to those crimes?
If producing and distributing P2P software is a crime, then producing and selling guns should be a crime too. People use guns to commit crimes too.
It's so easy to understand that I'm clueless as to why no attorney has been able to use the above reasoning to persuade even the most stupid judge in the US.
There is a very thin line between "a lot of mathematic formulas" and an algorithm. For example, the AES encryption algorithm can be written down as a very complex set of mathematical equations.
And it is, of course, patentable. Because, for the purposes of patents, there are no real differences between algorithm/method and technique/technology.
Absolutely no peer-review before a presenter is accepted. The result? The presentations consist mostly of attention-seeking morons who present half-hoaxes and half-misleading garbage as "a new class of attacks", etc. etc. I would not hire that guy even to bring me coffee.
People might worry about their data stored in their mobile phones, but what worries me more is that they forget about the built-in microphones and cameras.
Next time someone makes fun by shouting authentically "Fire! Fire! Run!" in a theater or some other 'suitable' place, and your relatives die there having been crushed by the panicking crowd trying to get out, maybe then you'll remember that there are certain situations where Freedom of Speech is limited, and rightfully so, precisely to prevent panic and to save lives.
BTW, the above behavior is illegal in the EU (spreading false alarms) -- don't know about the US. This seems to be the case in Japan too.
How can anyone, whether Mozilla or MS claim their product has or will soon have complete support for HTML5 when HTML5 is still a draft (subject to change) and it will remain a draft at least for a couple of years?
someone has made a statement about the incident. It's worthless.
Someone? Except that the someone was an official investigator (eye witness) giving testimony to an FBI agent (another credible party). That's world of a difference if you ask me.
Slashdot Mirror
The terrorists have already won.
Now that OpenOffice has been donated to the Apache Foundation, it is safe open source again. In this case a fork (LibreOffice) only makes things worse.
Instead of people focusing on the development of a single product, they are divided into two halves working on two forks for no good reason whatsoever.
I somehow can't imagine malware authors would sign their apps with a valid CA-issued certificate that would prove their identity in court.
Sorry, but I don't get it. Where's the irony? Those countries have had standard democracy for almost 25 years.
Union Square Ventures; Lanham Napier, the CEO of Rackspace Hosting; and Alexis Ohanian, co-founder of Reddit.com
Wait, WTF are those entities?
Bad people use mobile phones, computers, cars, and streets too. Why not ban all of those too then?
I don't care they reacted quickly. It has happened TWICE to Comodo.
It's about trust. I don't trust amateurs who can't even learn from their own mistakes.
I've distrusted Comodo's certificate like I did with DigiNotar and the Chinese CA.
The reason not to remove Comodo can't be that they're bigger than DigiNotar. Double standards are absolutely unacceptable in this field.
Comodo hasn't had just one, but two such breaches in the past few years (use the Slashdot search to find the stories).
How come their certificates are still trusted and included with all browsers and operating systems whereas Diginotar's certificates were obliterated from all browser and almost all operating systems immediately?
Is it because DigiNotar is only a regional Dutch CA? Talk about disgusting double standards then.
LOL That must have been a shitload of work to get that blacklist together, let alone maintain it. What about white-listing instead?
There is a very promising Firefox addon, that does exactly that.
https://www.requestpolicy.com/
No third party will ever track you again, unless you explicitly allow their domain name.
You need to read something about copyright law. Derivative work must be an _original_ work of _human_ authorship. Trivial, technical, and/or machine-processed versions are not derivative works (such as thumbnails, etc.). Also, most of that is protected by the Fair Use doctrine already and nobody needs "world-wide, non-revocable, permission to derive".
The key thing is that, for those purposes, none of them needs permission so broad.
They only need a limited right to retain and transfer your content between their servers and your computer. That's it.
I stopped editing Wikipedia a couple of years ago and haven't gone back. Why? Because the members of the established mafia occupying the articles appeared to have much much more time than me to keep reverting or discussing (i.e. repeating the arguments over and over ad nauseam) than me.
Any change I made was immediately (usually within 1-10 minutes) reverted. I have been living my life and working, while they have apparently been just squatting "their" articles. I don't feel sorry for them, however.
What worries Bruce Schneier most is that industry leader Siemens is keeping its SCADA vulnerabilities secret
If you want to prevent the bad guys from exploiting a vulnerability, then don't... um... tell them about the vulnerability? But do tell the affected parties about it.
Seeing that some people use Constitutional rights as an argument against my guns analogy, I am amending it as follows:
Cars can be used to commit crimes too. For example, to transport stolen goods, even to kill people. So does making and selling cars make you punishable for contributing to those crimes?
In our legal system, guns are legal
And in your legal system, distributing P2P software, so that people can share for example free software, is illegal too?
If producing and distributing P2P software is a crime, then producing and selling guns should be a crime too. People use guns to commit crimes too.
It's so easy to understand that I'm clueless as to why no attorney has been able to use the above reasoning to persuade even the most stupid judge in the US.
"Can you imagine what's on Osama bin Laden's hard drive?"
I would imagine properly encrypted... something?
There is a very thin line between "a lot of mathematic formulas" and an algorithm. For example, the AES encryption algorithm can be written down as a very complex set of mathematical equations.
And it is, of course, patentable. Because, for the purposes of patents, there are no real differences between algorithm/method and technique/technology.
Having read the Apple press release, now I know what to do next time I want to track somebody and don't know how to defend myself.
It's easy: just repeat, it's a bug that we will fix shortly!
Seriously.
Absolutely no peer-review before a presenter is accepted. The result? The presentations consist mostly of attention-seeking morons who present half-hoaxes and half-misleading garbage as "a new class of attacks", etc. etc. I would not hire that guy even to bring me coffee.
People might worry about their data stored in their mobile phones, but what worries me more is that they forget about the built-in microphones and cameras.
Next time someone makes fun by shouting authentically "Fire! Fire! Run!" in a theater or some other 'suitable' place, and your relatives die there having been crushed by the panicking crowd trying to get out, maybe then you'll remember that there are certain situations where Freedom of Speech is limited, and rightfully so, precisely to prevent panic and to save lives.
BTW, the above behavior is illegal in the EU (spreading false alarms) -- don't know about the US. This seems to be the case in Japan too.
How can anyone, whether Mozilla or MS claim their product has or will soon have complete support for HTML5 when HTML5 is still a draft (subject to change) and it will remain a draft at least for a couple of years?
someone has made a statement about the incident. It's worthless.
Someone? Except that the someone was an official investigator (eye witness) giving testimony to an FBI agent (another credible party). That's world of a difference if you ask me.