Stealing what? He paid for the monitor. If it doesn't work he returns it for a refund. You can debate forever whether a few dead pixels justifies a monitor being returned but nowhere does he steal anything.
Not in Europe. Sharing your homemade sex videos is distributing pornography and you cannot, legally, do it. Yes, I know that the internet is full of it but that doesn't stop it being an offence, and if the police want to bring legal proceedings against someone who is passing their sex videos around they can do so, and will probably be successful. The garage rock bands should be OK but probably not as popular with the masses.
I did read the article but I overlooked that point, my apologies. You are correct, he has a valid viewpoint and considerably more experience than many (all?) of us here on/.. But, unless he has access to current police and security intelligence, he does not know why the latest bomb attacks failed; he will only have the same information as you or I have. I stand by my opinion that although the 'bombs' would not have exploded with the force of some of the devices that the author might have been more used to, they still had the potential for significant damage and posed a threat to life. We should all be grateful that the attacks were not as serious as they might otherwise have been.
And to perhaps counter his observation that they latest attacks might not justify the expense so far, today 3 separate terrorist trials reached a verdict of guilty in the UK. I personally consider that part of the governments' investment well spent. It is always good to have a success every once in a while.
I challenge theregister's findings
on
Explosives Camp
·
· Score: 1
I have to disagree theregister's assessment. It is true that the 'terrorists' do not appear to have been particularly well trained, but what do you imagine would be the effect on the gas cylinders inside a burning car soaked in petrol? They would have exploded. Not with the power of dynamite or perhaps even some improvised home-made explosive, and probably not able to blast the nails very far, but there would have been a fireball and some blast damage. If you think otherwise, would you be prepared to stand near to such a burning car? I suspect not. At the time that the devices were intended to ignite there would have been a significant presence of late night revelers in the area. I accept the police experts assessed it as being a 'viable device' whereas the 'experts' consulted by theregister are not even identified. Who would you believe? The police did not say it was of an advanced design nor will they detail its failings - they don't want to provide additional help and advice to the next group of bombers, do they? But it would have caused damage and potentially loss of life if it had ignited properly. We do not yet know why the bombs did not ignite and it is possible that something that the would-be bombers purchased to manufacture the bomb was below standard which would hardly mean the terrorists were incompetent, simply that we were lucky. Of course, if like theregister you only consider bombs to be effective if they kill more than 'x' people then you like they have a very low opinion of human life. Even one life is too many. I do agree that this particular attack does not, by itself, appear to justify the expenditure that the UK government has made in combating terrorism. The public does not have all the facts and cannot make such a judgment. If one does not agree with how the politicians and security forces are handling the situation then one should make sure that one uses his/her vote at the next election to elect a party that will do more of whatever it is one thinks they should be doing. If not, one has to accept that the government and everyone else are doing the best that they can although they, like anyone else, are far from being perfect and mistakes will be made from time to time. I also agree that the terrorists would also benefit from the training being discussed in this thread. They might be using different explosives but learning a little more about where and how to place them for maximum effect would undoubtedly be useful information.
While I do not wish to belittle the contribution that the US has made around the world, do you think that those countries would be sorry to see you leave? The benefit that the US gets from having forces based in Germany is, I would imagine, considerably more than Germany gets from having US forces close at hand. The Cold War is over. The housing that you vacate could, after making is suitable for Europeans (i.e. 220-240V rather than 120V etc), be very useful for providing accommodation for themselves. In the case of Saudi Arabia I suspect that the benefits are significantly in favour of the US although I am sure that it would be possible to spin the situation as providing defence for the Saudis (against whom?). I do not know enough about Japan to comment, so I won't (is that another/. first?:-)) I recognise that the US does contribute significantly to the economy in the areas in which it deploys forces but, since the US forces departed from many bases in the UK, the economy has kept going and the real estate has been utilised in many different ways which provide benefits for the local community. I would only take issue with the ending of humanitarian aid, unless you actually view the provision of 'humanitarian' aid as simply a way of establishing US influence in a country or region rather than trying to help someone who is in genuine need of help.
$160 billion is not 'Almost quarter of a trillion dollars'. You are far too generous when rounding up. On the other hand you might be a very generous tipper in restaurants...
I agree with the point that you make. However, if you discount the replies which contain incorrect spelling or non-existent words there will not be much left to read. E.g. from this topic alone: convience, gonna, and of course purgery. On the other hand, that might not be such a bad idea....
Anonymous Cowards yet again prove that they are anarchists, communists and general stupidists. These ideaology powered geeks out to change the world need to take a cold shower. They should also to RTFA......
As an earlier post pointed out, if they are being funded by another US government agency then the risk might be worth taking. It might not be US targets that they are looking for but anything that is outside of CONUS might be fair game. So they lose sales everywhere else - the US government (particularly the current one) might argue that that is the price of patriotism and it is every US business' duty to help to fight America's enemies. Doesn't sound quite so far fetched now, does it? I still don't think that this is what is happening, but I cannot disprove it either.
I would say that your IP is far from being anonymous - especially with ISPs being instructed to hold records for increasingly long periods of time by their respective Governments. The ONLY reason for doing this is so that they can try to trace activity back to a specific user should they wish to do so. Whether they actually do is open for discussion, but the fact that they can is not.
While I do not believe that Microsoft is conducting anything more than the collection of data to help it produce a better product (eventually!) your confidence in government agencies using Microsoft products is perhaps a bit skewed. US government agencies probably won't be too upset if this information is finding its way to another government agency. After all, it is only data indicating which software is installed, what it is being used for etc and does not contain anything classified in any way whatsoever. But non-US users will see this in a very different light. Such information could be used to identify 'systems of interest' outside the US to one or more US agencies. That would be a very different kettle of fish. Do you not think that some US agency or other would be interested in knowing which computers are being used by which (foreign) government departments, which potential commercial competitors are using Windows version whatever on a given IP, or which (stupid?) terrorist is using his own computer to access web sites of interest or emails from his friends and mentors? I think that they would find such information almost irresistible for use as targeting information. There is nothing to say that Microsoft could not collect this information for someone else to exploit.
My tinfoil hat is still in the drawer, but I know where it is should I need it!
I would disagree with the result that such activity would have on Microsoft. Outside of the US, if Microsoft were seen to be collecting information for the NSA or another government agency, then their products would be replaced in quick time. I suspect that the same would happen inside the US but, as I am not an American I will assume that you are and accept your view. You can argue that the information only contains x, y or z, but what is to say that, if the information is being passed to another government agency, it is not being used to steer further intelligence collection beyond that which Microsoft is conducting on their behalf i.e. a form of electronic talent spotting? So that would mean that official (i.e. governmental use) of Microsoft systems would become a taboo. Then what about professional users and commercial intelligence gathering? We all do it - despite the fact that we only usually accuse potential enemies of conducting such collection - and that would mean that companies would have to have second thoughts about what software they use. Individuals, who probably have the least to lose unless they are engaged in some sort of criminal activity, would be indignant that Uncle Sam was spying on them and would, despite the hurdles that other OS might appear to pose to them, change quickly and learn to cope with the new system
Having said all of that, I am still of the opinion that this idea is unlikely although it cannot be ruled out. But, if there was one credible sniff of wrongdoing, just watch the balance swing quickly in favour of non-Microsoft programs. The end result would not simply sting, unless Microsoft would be content with only the US market and then only those who did not mind the fact that someone was watching them through their computer
Its probably not theft - you accepted the EULA and agreed, perhaps unknowingly, to permit this behavior. The crime is that you, and everyone else, didn't bother to read the EULA!
I cannot imagine anything that would justify Microsoft collecting and storing such data. Yes, they may produce statistical analysis of the data (what % of people use feature x) but that wouldn't require them to store the data, only the results of its analysis. The IP would be useful to identify individual systems without tying the information to an individual. So perhaps that is all they do with it. BUT, if the data is collected then it might well be of significantly more interest to someone such as NSA. In which case, what makes you think that government agencies would want to stop it?
There is plenty of unsubstantiated speculation on the web suggesting that Microsoft is already in league with the NSA hence the reason why they appear to be able to flout the law with impunity in the US. I do not know whether any of it is accurate and I tend, therefore, to take it with more than a grain of salt. I could see the value to the NSA but, if knowledge of such cooperation leaked - as things have a habit of doing eventually - then Microsoft would go bust very quickly. While I think that the data is of some use to Microsoft it is possibly of considerably more value to someone else. We may never know if Microsoft would consider taking that risk.
I'll leave my tinfoil hat in the drawer for the time being.
We are indeed fortunate in Europe, Asia and one or two other countries but it seems to me that elsewhere business interests are holding up broadband expansion. I have stopped buying any significant number of CDs but I haven't been replacing them by downloads despite my 8Mb download speed with no capping for the equivalent of $25/month. It seems to me that there is less music that appeals to me than there was, say, a decade ago - however, that might simply be a factor of my age, and my tastes changing!
Your view of the future is unlikely. CDs (or their replacement format) will not disappear until everyone has access to the internet. As much of the US (and elsewhere) hasn't even got broadband yet the majority of people do not have a system for downloading large media files. They are more or less stuck with email and web browsing, or some very long download times. Now if you are predicting that the US will solve its problems within the next decade I will choose to disagree with your optimistic assessment. There are some countries that are being proactive about giving good quality internet access to a massive majority of their population at an attractive price, but the US isn't one of them.
More crap! Are you saying that there will be no pirates in the waters around Europe, or do you believe that other legislation is addressing 'piracy'? (piracy definition: The seizure of ship or plane by an armed force without the authority of a sovereign state. (In contrast, privateering is the same but with authority to do so.) Pirates are also called freebooters, sea rovers, buccaneers (from boucon or smoked meat from cattle slaughtered by West Indian pirates) and Corsairs (operating from the Barbary states)).
Slashdot Mirror
Stealing what? He paid for the monitor. If it doesn't work he returns it for a refund. You can debate forever whether a few dead pixels justifies a monitor being returned but nowhere does he steal anything.
Well to nitpick - who the hell was Turning? Or do you mean Turing?
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/02/20 46241
You could have tried using the search - I did!
Not in Europe. Sharing your homemade sex videos is distributing pornography and you cannot, legally, do it. Yes, I know that the internet is full of it but that doesn't stop it being an offence, and if the police want to bring legal proceedings against someone who is passing their sex videos around they can do so, and will probably be successful. The garage rock bands should be OK but probably not as popular with the masses.
I did read the article but I overlooked that point, my apologies. You are correct, he has a valid viewpoint and considerably more experience than many (all?) of us here on /.. But, unless he has access to current police and security intelligence, he does not know why the latest bomb attacks failed; he will only have the same information as you or I have. I stand by my opinion that although the 'bombs' would not have exploded with the force of some of the devices that the author might have been more used to, they still had the potential for significant damage and posed a threat to life. We should all be grateful that the attacks were not as serious as they might otherwise have been.
And to perhaps counter his observation that they latest attacks might not justify the expense so far, today 3 separate terrorist trials reached a verdict of guilty in the UK. I personally consider that part of the governments' investment well spent. It is always good to have a success every once in a while.
I have to disagree theregister's assessment. It is true that the 'terrorists' do not appear to have been particularly well trained, but what do you imagine would be the effect on the gas cylinders inside a burning car soaked in petrol? They would have exploded. Not with the power of dynamite or perhaps even some improvised home-made explosive, and probably not able to blast the nails very far, but there would have been a fireball and some blast damage. If you think otherwise, would you be prepared to stand near to such a burning car? I suspect not. At the time that the devices were intended to ignite there would have been a significant presence of late night revelers in the area. I accept the police experts assessed it as being a 'viable device' whereas the 'experts' consulted by theregister are not even identified. Who would you believe? The police did not say it was of an advanced design nor will they detail its failings - they don't want to provide additional help and advice to the next group of bombers, do they? But it would have caused damage and potentially loss of life if it had ignited properly. We do not yet know why the bombs did not ignite and it is possible that something that the would-be bombers purchased to manufacture the bomb was below standard which would hardly mean the terrorists were incompetent, simply that we were lucky. Of course, if like theregister you only consider bombs to be effective if they kill more than 'x' people then you like they have a very low opinion of human life. Even one life is too many. I do agree that this particular attack does not, by itself, appear to justify the expenditure that the UK government has made in combating terrorism. The public does not have all the facts and cannot make such a judgment. If one does not agree with how the politicians and security forces are handling the situation then one should make sure that one uses his/her vote at the next election to elect a party that will do more of whatever it is one thinks they should be doing. If not, one has to accept that the government and everyone else are doing the best that they can although they, like anyone else, are far from being perfect and mistakes will be made from time to time. I also agree that the terrorists would also benefit from the training being discussed in this thread. They might be using different explosives but learning a little more about where and how to place them for maximum effect would undoubtedly be useful information.
And we certainly don't need arrogant ACs, either.
While I do not wish to belittle the contribution that the US has made around the world, do you think that those countries would be sorry to see you leave? The benefit that the US gets from having forces based in Germany is, I would imagine, considerably more than Germany gets from having US forces close at hand. The Cold War is over. The housing that you vacate could, after making is suitable for Europeans (i.e. 220-240V rather than 120V etc), be very useful for providing accommodation for themselves. In the case of Saudi Arabia I suspect that the benefits are significantly in favour of the US although I am sure that it would be possible to spin the situation as providing defence for the Saudis (against whom?). I do not know enough about Japan to comment, so I won't (is that another /. first? :-)) I recognise that the US does contribute significantly to the economy in the areas in which it deploys forces but, since the US forces departed from many bases in the UK, the economy has kept going and the real estate has been utilised in many different ways which provide benefits for the local community. I would only take issue with the ending of humanitarian aid, unless you actually view the provision of 'humanitarian' aid as simply a way of establishing US influence in a country or region rather than trying to help someone who is in genuine need of help.
$160 billion is not 'Almost quarter of a trillion dollars'. You are far too generous when rounding up. On the other hand you might be a very generous tipper in restaurants...
Glad that I didn't let you down :-)))
I agree with the point that you make. However, if you discount the replies which contain incorrect spelling or non-existent words there will not be much left to read. E.g. from this topic alone: convience, gonna, and of course purgery. On the other hand, that might not be such a bad idea....
I suppose body odour that you can actually see must be quite horrific! I find it objectionable when I can only smell it...
Anonymous Cowards yet again prove that they are anarchists, communists and general stupidists. These ideaology powered geeks out to change the world need to take a cold shower. They should also to RTFA......
As an earlier post pointed out, if they are being funded by another US government agency then the risk might be worth taking. It might not be US targets that they are looking for but anything that is outside of CONUS might be fair game. So they lose sales everywhere else - the US government (particularly the current one) might argue that that is the price of patriotism and it is every US business' duty to help to fight America's enemies. Doesn't sound quite so far fetched now, does it? I still don't think that this is what is happening, but I cannot disprove it either.
I would say that your IP is far from being anonymous - especially with ISPs being instructed to hold records for increasingly long periods of time by their respective Governments. The ONLY reason for doing this is so that they can try to trace activity back to a specific user should they wish to do so. Whether they actually do is open for discussion, but the fact that they can is not.
....thus the Government knows what you shit, too!
While I do not believe that Microsoft is conducting anything more than the collection of data to help it produce a better product (eventually!) your confidence in government agencies using Microsoft products is perhaps a bit skewed. US government agencies probably won't be too upset if this information is finding its way to another government agency. After all, it is only data indicating which software is installed, what it is being used for etc and does not contain anything classified in any way whatsoever. But non-US users will see this in a very different light. Such information could be used to identify 'systems of interest' outside the US to one or more US agencies. That would be a very different kettle of fish. Do you not think that some US agency or other would be interested in knowing which computers are being used by which (foreign) government departments, which potential commercial competitors are using Windows version whatever on a given IP, or which (stupid?) terrorist is using his own computer to access web sites of interest or emails from his friends and mentors? I think that they would find such information almost irresistible for use as targeting information. There is nothing to say that Microsoft could not collect this information for someone else to exploit.
My tinfoil hat is still in the drawer, but I know where it is should I need it!
I would disagree with the result that such activity would have on Microsoft. Outside of the US, if Microsoft were seen to be collecting information for the NSA or another government agency, then their products would be replaced in quick time. I suspect that the same would happen inside the US but, as I am not an American I will assume that you are and accept your view. You can argue that the information only contains x, y or z, but what is to say that, if the information is being passed to another government agency, it is not being used to steer further intelligence collection beyond that which Microsoft is conducting on their behalf i.e. a form of electronic talent spotting? So that would mean that official (i.e. governmental use) of Microsoft systems would become a taboo. Then what about professional users and commercial intelligence gathering? We all do it - despite the fact that we only usually accuse potential enemies of conducting such collection - and that would mean that companies would have to have second thoughts about what software they use. Individuals, who probably have the least to lose unless they are engaged in some sort of criminal activity, would be indignant that Uncle Sam was spying on them and would, despite the hurdles that other OS might appear to pose to them, change quickly and learn to cope with the new system
Having said all of that, I am still of the opinion that this idea is unlikely although it cannot be ruled out. But, if there was one credible sniff of wrongdoing, just watch the balance swing quickly in favour of non-Microsoft programs. The end result would not simply sting, unless Microsoft would be content with only the US market and then only those who did not mind the fact that someone was watching them through their computer
Its probably not theft - you accepted the EULA and agreed, perhaps unknowingly, to permit this behavior. The crime is that you, and everyone else, didn't bother to read the EULA!
I cannot imagine anything that would justify Microsoft collecting and storing such data. Yes, they may produce statistical analysis of the data (what % of people use feature x) but that wouldn't require them to store the data, only the results of its analysis. The IP would be useful to identify individual systems without tying the information to an individual. So perhaps that is all they do with it. BUT, if the data is collected then it might well be of significantly more interest to someone such as NSA. In which case, what makes you think that government agencies would want to stop it?
There is plenty of unsubstantiated speculation on the web suggesting that Microsoft is already in league with the NSA hence the reason why they appear to be able to flout the law with impunity in the US. I do not know whether any of it is accurate and I tend, therefore, to take it with more than a grain of salt. I could see the value to the NSA but, if knowledge of such cooperation leaked - as things have a habit of doing eventually - then Microsoft would go bust very quickly. While I think that the data is of some use to Microsoft it is possibly of considerably more value to someone else. We may never know if Microsoft would consider taking that risk.
I'll leave my tinfoil hat in the drawer for the time being.
Thank you. I've nothing constructive to add to the discussion but I felt that your efforts needed acknowledgement!
We are indeed fortunate in Europe, Asia and one or two other countries but it seems to me that elsewhere business interests are holding up broadband expansion. I have stopped buying any significant number of CDs but I haven't been replacing them by downloads despite my 8Mb download speed with no capping for the equivalent of $25/month. It seems to me that there is less music that appeals to me than there was, say, a decade ago - however, that might simply be a factor of my age, and my tastes changing!
Your view of the future is unlikely. CDs (or their replacement format) will not disappear until everyone has access to the internet. As much of the US (and elsewhere) hasn't even got broadband yet the majority of people do not have a system for downloading large media files. They are more or less stuck with email and web browsing, or some very long download times. Now if you are predicting that the US will solve its problems within the next decade I will choose to disagree with your optimistic assessment. There are some countries that are being proactive about giving good quality internet access to a massive majority of their population at an attractive price, but the US isn't one of them.
More crap! Are you saying that there will be no pirates in the waters around Europe, or do you believe that other legislation is addressing 'piracy'? (piracy definition: The seizure of ship or plane by an armed force without the authority of a sovereign state. (In contrast, privateering is the same but with authority to do so.) Pirates are also called freebooters, sea rovers, buccaneers (from boucon or smoked meat from cattle slaughtered by West Indian pirates) and Corsairs (operating from the Barbary states)).
But it doesn't make him or her inferior either.