I know the NSA has a bunch of really sharp folks but how could they pull off having a backdoor in an Random Number Generator algorithm which they did not design, did not sponsor development of, and do not distribute?
That is stupid. Users have a right to own their own software and hardware. Users, customers, and people do not buy a license to use software. Nor do they, for the most part, lease hardware. They buy it, and they own it, and it is theirs. What you are suggesting, is selling criplled machines under the guise of security.
Aside from being moraly retarded, it still ignores the issue of human nature. All it would take is one person that has some of these "root passwords" to sell them, or leak them, and users machines could be compromised and they would not even be able to detect it. It will happen, sooner or later. You cannot say that the info won't be leaked, Social Engeneering, lapse of judgement, or outright theft could all cause the leak. Look at the recent history of leaks on/. alone for examples. To say that even with the information an attacker could not break your Hard Core security model is niave at best. All code has bugs. All security models have holes.
As I have stated above, your idea does not solve the problem, and is an insult to users of whatever product you make with this idea in mind. Further, for it to be effective you must get people to use it. How would you do that? Even good Software is not enough to compel users to switch if what they are using does the job at least medocore. Look at the number of people using Windows, and Office. This is evidence enough that people won't change. Would you have governments regulate that this security must be used? Certianly this scheme must be a DRM like scheme if it restricts the rights and privleges of users on their own machines. Would your "qualified professionals" support this? Let's just ask some of them here on/.
Your poorly laid out suggestion also ignores another key question: Who would determine which ones of us are "qualified professionals"?
If users don't control their own machines, Someone must. They will need this "root password" to to software upgrades, install trusted and usefull software (we can't let users do this or the point is moot), do system upgrades. If every nimbwit @ best buy's geek squad can get this access then systems will still be infected, because some of these people are dumber than most users we are trying to protect. They would, at the very least, use their access to unlock their home machines. Then they are victim to all the same tricks and exploits they are now. If you restrict it too much then people won't want to use your platform, and will either use something else or get very upset until things are changed. Of course then we need to decide who picks the "qualified professionals". I don't want you picking them, and I bet you don't want me to. Neither of us wants lawmakers to pick them. Microsoft wants Microsoft to pick them; others disagree sharply. This is another non-trivial issue your moronic idea fails to acount for.
It would seem the main upshot of Mr. Gathard's arguemnt is a higher amount of total royalties collected; thus more money for RIAA and Sound Exchange. This is intended to make it apealing to them.
Worse. I don't even read the mailed statement. I view my statements online, on my banks website. It seems kinda foolish for them to put this info there doesn't it?
Indeed. It is nice when people cite sources, and provide reliable information. I too wish to encorage this practice, not only on/. but everywhere else on the internet.
(If she was implicated in a child pornography ring, and found with lolikon on her PC - I bet you'd be among the first frothing at the mouth to hang her high.)
Do you know the parent poster personally? Who are you to imply that the parents morals are so easily compromised that they would forget their stand on due process and hard evidence just because some hypothetical woman wanted to touch little boys (or girls or monkeys for that matter) in the hoo ha and make them put their mouth in her fish bowl?
For all you know, the parent poster will still demand that due process be followed and that we avoid arresting people for perfectly legal things on their computer.
NB: as far as I know it is perfectly legal to have the documents listed in TFA on your computer.
Let's face it, it is a safe bet that no one reading/. is going to sign up for AOL or give that company any money at all.
Also, it is possible for the company to turn a large profit without that market (IMHO, IANABA*)
The major problem they face is a image problem, a lot of people who might like a service like AOL have already herd that "AOL Sucks, never use their service". Without debating the validity of that statement, I think most of these people could be fooled by a corporate name change. The people that will see through it probably won't use AOL in any form no mater what, so it doesn't matter, as far as AOL is concerned.
Along with a name change, the new company would need something to make it different from the 5million other ISPs out there. As some have suggested, I think providing a "Safe internet" would be a good one. No content provider is going to win customers by having "special content no one else has". However, the fact is there is a lot on the internet that average people would prefer to avoid. If the new AOL could convince people that it provided a useful and interesting, pre sorted and approved subset of the great big internet; while at the same time allowing people to venture outside the "Safe zone" if they are feeling adventurous, they could carve out a market. Particularly of families where parents don't care to monitor their children and decide what is "appropriate" for them; they could (and I think would rather) someone like their ISP do it for them.
This, as I see it, is what it will take to "turn AOL around".
Wrong. It isn't his own DNA, the patent is clearly for all DNA and other double helical nucleotide structures
Thus, he doesn't own the DNA. Weather it is a genuine copy or not is up for debate, even if it is he only has a license to use the DNA as a end user and cannot resell the DNA or make copies or allow copies to be made of it.
Most likely, it is a rouge copy of DNA. In which case the police's "genuine disadvatage" program would have caught him and he would go back to jail.
That isn't the problem. But what if some computer naive, but otherwise intelligent, person types in their bank address as
www.compasbank.com
An easy mistake. Then, instead of seeing a site that installs XYZ spyware, they see a site that looks exactly like the real site
www.compassbank.com
So they enter their password for online banking, because the site has the little lock in the browser window meaning it is a secure connection. Now, the owners of the fake site have the banking info, including account numbers, of the person.
I am not saying this is a good idea. But, I believe the case you describe is not what it's originators were thinking.
What do you consider the mind? Surely if when you say your mind will not be as sharp and you mean reaction time will go down, and/or answers to questions will not come as quickly, surely these could be aspects of the brain as well. Also, if the brain mearly affects phyical responses, how would you know if brain damage really affected the mind?
So they are actually going to be selling beer in the movie theater for sports?
The cinemas brought in vendors to stroll the aisles with hot dogs, peanuts and beer
Will the prices be the same as at the ball park?
If so, I would reckon that it won't be a big hit. The main reason I do not go to the movies is the price, and not just of the tickets. I would pay $8 or so a ticket if I could get a 42oz Coke for under $2 or so.
And how might you aquire this relationship? thorugh e-mail, which china moniters; through the postal mail, which I am sure the Chinese government could moniter well enough. I don't see how you would gain a relationship when the chinese government can moniter and disrupt messages that would lead to that relationship.
If I had to guess I would say that it trips over a Norton Signature file related to whatever ti claims norton to be. This is suported by the fact that it does not remove all of the norton install.
As I mentioned in another post, Vista will ship with Windows Collaboration, a Groove-like networking feature that lets wireless users quickly form ad-hoc network and share files and even screen real estate in an easy way.
I for one am not thrilled about this. I assume this will be enabled by default, which opens the question of security. Especially given But (and I'm a little unclear on this) even then it will still be sending a trickle of power to the memory only to keep the memory alive. Which i assume could mean that someone could still open a ad hoc network with my laptop as it "hibernates" in my bag. I understand that this won't be how it is supposed to work, however I wonder how long it takes for someone to figure out how to do this.
Also, what if I want to share files with my friend sitting next to me so I form a ad hoc network. Then, some one who I don't want to get my files creates an ad hoc network and since my files are shared wirelessly, how can I prevent the third party from getting my files. Given the range of the 802g protocol I may not even see the third person. If there will be some authentication on this system, how will it work? Is this where the plugin crypto comes in? If it is, how do me and my friend exchange keys and passwords? If we just use symmetric algorithms, anyone could get the file by over hearing me tell my friend the password. If it uses Asymmetric ones, how do we exchange keys? If we have a USB drive or something for that, couldn't we just as simply use that for the files?
Also, how will the projectors work any better than they do now. I have seen people fail at getting a PowerPoint presentation up when they had all the cables, and Microsoft has no control over development of third party projectors that may or may not support this new feature so I expect the same problems.
This is not to be on a anti Microsoft pedestal, per se. My point in posting this is: I have not herd of these features before your post, and I figured that you might be able to provide answers to these question more easily then me finding them on my own. References to where you got the info would be appropriate, so I can learn on my own.
In that case, forget the First Amendment in this case. The first amendment says nothing about file sharing, nor could it because it was written over 200 years ago.
If we
Just read what the constitution says and Stop trying to second guess the "intentions of the founders
Then the First Amendment does not protect file sharing, bloging, TV, or even radio. These things were not invented at the time of the Bill of Rights, thus cannot be protected by the first amendment.
I presume that Bantown hasn't been nice enough to supply details of their 16 other exploits, perhaps not even of the first ones, to LJ. Perhaps the only ones that know the details of the exploit(s) are the members of Bantown.
Has anyone tried contacting this group and asking for details?
Why yes I do. I mean being citizens is all well and good I supose, i mean it has a tough history because of people like Stalin and Lenen. In the end though, I can only judge what has happened to me, and for me capitalism has worked out good.
Slashdot Mirror
If I knew that, I'd be dead by now.
-Voltaire
That is stupid. Users have a right to own their own software and hardware. Users, customers, and people do not buy a license to use software. Nor do they, for the most part, lease hardware. They buy it, and they own it, and it is theirs. What you are suggesting, is selling criplled machines under the guise of security.
/. alone for examples. To say that even with the information an attacker could not break your Hard Core security model is niave at best. All code has bugs. All security models have holes.
/.
Aside from being moraly retarded, it still ignores the issue of human nature. All it would take is one person that has some of these "root passwords" to sell them, or leak them, and users machines could be compromised and they would not even be able to detect it. It will happen, sooner or later. You cannot say that the info won't be leaked, Social Engeneering, lapse of judgement, or outright theft could all cause the leak. Look at the recent history of leaks on
As I have stated above, your idea does not solve the problem, and is an insult to users of whatever product you make with this idea in mind. Further, for it to be effective you must get people to use it. How would you do that? Even good Software is not enough to compel users to switch if what they are using does the job at least medocore. Look at the number of people using Windows, and Office. This is evidence enough that people won't change. Would you have governments regulate that this security must be used? Certianly this scheme must be a DRM like scheme if it restricts the rights and privleges of users on their own machines. Would your "qualified professionals" support this? Let's just ask some of them here on
Your poorly laid out suggestion also ignores another key question: Who would determine which ones of us are "qualified professionals"?
If users don't control their own machines, Someone must. They will need this "root password" to to software upgrades, install trusted and usefull software (we can't let users do this or the point is moot), do system upgrades. If every nimbwit @ best buy's geek squad can get this access then systems will still be infected, because some of these people are dumber than most users we are trying to protect. They would, at the very least, use their access to unlock their home machines. Then they are victim to all the same tricks and exploits they are now. If you restrict it too much then people won't want to use your platform, and will either use something else or get very upset until things are changed. Of course then we need to decide who picks the "qualified professionals". I don't want you picking them, and I bet you don't want me to. Neither of us wants lawmakers to pick them. Microsoft wants Microsoft to pick them; others disagree sharply. This is another non-trivial issue your moronic idea fails to acount for.
In short:
Piss Off!
It would help if the driver were open-source, so that the ABI developers know what changes are likely to affect the driver without guessing.
It would seem the main upshot of Mr. Gathard's arguemnt is a higher amount of total royalties collected; thus more money for RIAA and Sound Exchange. This is intended to make it apealing to them.
Worse. I don't even read the mailed statement. I view my statements online, on my banks website. It seems kinda foolish for them to put this info there doesn't it?
You probably already know this then, but eclipse can be used to develop php as well:
PHPeclipse User Manual
Indeed. It is nice when people cite sources, and provide reliable information. I too wish to encorage this practice, not only on /. but everywhere else on the internet.
(If she was implicated in a child pornography ring, and found with lolikon on her PC - I bet you'd be among the first frothing at the mouth to hang her high.)
Do you know the parent poster personally? Who are you to imply that the parents morals are so easily compromised that they would forget their stand on due process and hard evidence just because some hypothetical woman wanted to touch little boys (or girls or monkeys for that matter) in the hoo ha and make them put their mouth in her fish bowl?
For all you know, the parent poster will still demand that due process be followed and that we avoid arresting people for perfectly legal things on their computer.
NB: as far as I know it is perfectly legal to have the documents listed in TFA on your computer.
You have a very different idea of "OK" then I do. And different than most americans i would imagine.
Let's face it, it is a safe bet that no one reading /. is going to sign up for AOL or give that company any money at all.
Also, it is possible for the company to turn a large profit without that market (IMHO, IANABA*)
The major problem they face is a image problem, a lot of people who might like a service like AOL have already herd that "AOL Sucks, never use their service". Without debating the validity of that statement, I think most of these people could be fooled by a corporate name change. The people that will see through it probably won't use AOL in any form no mater what, so it doesn't matter, as far as AOL is concerned.
Along with a name change, the new company would need something to make it different from the 5million other ISPs out there. As some have suggested, I think providing a "Safe internet" would be a good one. No content provider is going to win customers by having "special content no one else has". However, the fact is there is a lot on the internet that average people would prefer to avoid. If the new AOL could convince people that it provided a useful and interesting, pre sorted and approved subset of the great big internet; while at the same time allowing people to venture outside the "Safe zone" if they are feeling adventurous, they could carve out a market. Particularly of families where parents don't care to monitor their children and decide what is "appropriate" for them; they could (and I think would rather) someone like their ISP do it for them.
This, as I see it, is what it will take to "turn AOL around".
*IANABA == I am not a business analyst
Wrong. It isn't his own DNA, the patent is clearly for all DNA and other double helical nucleotide structures
Thus, he doesn't own the DNA. Weather it is a genuine copy or not is up for debate, even if it is he only has a license to use the DNA as a end user and cannot resell the DNA or make copies or allow copies to be made of it.
Most likely, it is a rouge copy of DNA. In which case the police's "genuine disadvatage" program would have caught him and he would go back to jail.
An easy mistake. Then, instead of seeing a site that installs XYZ spyware, they see a site that looks exactly like the real site So they enter their password for online banking, because the site has the little lock in the browser window meaning it is a secure connection. Now, the owners of the fake site have the banking info, including account numbers, of the person.
I am not saying this is a good idea. But, I believe the case you describe is not what it's originators were thinking.
That doesn't mean my browser should atempt to prevent me from going to it.
What do you consider the mind? Surely if when you say your mind will not be as sharp and you mean reaction time will go down, and/or answers to questions will not come as quickly, surely these could be aspects of the brain as well. Also, if the brain mearly affects phyical responses, how would you know if brain damage really affected the mind?
So they are actually going to be selling beer in the movie theater for sports?
The cinemas brought in vendors to stroll the aisles with hot dogs, peanuts and beer
Will the prices be the same as at the ball park?
If so, I would reckon that it won't be a big hit. The main reason I do not go to the movies is the price, and not just of the tickets. I would pay $8 or so a ticket if I could get a 42oz Coke for under $2 or so.
And how might you aquire this relationship? thorugh e-mail, which china moniters; through the postal mail, which I am sure the Chinese government could moniter well enough. I don't see how you would gain a relationship when the chinese government can moniter and disrupt messages that would lead to that relationship.
If I had to guess I would say that it trips over a Norton Signature file related to whatever ti claims norton to be. This is suported by the fact that it does not remove all of the norton install.
As I mentioned in another post, Vista will ship with Windows Collaboration, a Groove-like networking feature that lets wireless users quickly form ad-hoc network and share files and even screen real estate in an easy way.
I for one am not thrilled about this. I assume this will be enabled by default, which opens the question of security. Especially given But (and I'm a little unclear on this) even then it will still be sending a trickle of power to the memory only to keep the memory alive. Which i assume could mean that someone could still open a ad hoc network with my laptop as it "hibernates" in my bag. I understand that this won't be how it is supposed to work, however I wonder how long it takes for someone to figure out how to do this.
Also, what if I want to share files with my friend sitting next to me so I form a ad hoc network. Then, some one who I don't want to get my files creates an ad hoc network and since my files are shared wirelessly, how can I prevent the third party from getting my files. Given the range of the 802g protocol I may not even see the third person. If there will be some authentication on this system, how will it work? Is this where the plugin crypto comes in? If it is, how do me and my friend exchange keys and passwords? If we just use symmetric algorithms, anyone could get the file by over hearing me tell my friend the password. If it uses Asymmetric ones, how do we exchange keys? If we have a USB drive or something for that, couldn't we just as simply use that for the files?
Also, how will the projectors work any better than they do now. I have seen people fail at getting a PowerPoint presentation up when they had all the cables, and Microsoft has no control over development of third party projectors that may or may not support this new feature so I expect the same problems.
This is not to be on a anti Microsoft pedestal, per se. My point in posting this is: I have not herd of these features before your post, and I figured that you might be able to provide answers to these question more easily then me finding them on my own. References to where you got the info would be appropriate, so I can learn on my own.
Thanks for reading all this, if you did.
In that case, forget the First Amendment in this case. The first amendment says nothing about file sharing, nor could it because it was written over 200 years ago. If we Just read what the constitution says and Stop trying to second guess the "intentions of the founders Then the First Amendment does not protect file sharing, bloging, TV, or even radio. These things were not invented at the time of the Bill of Rights, thus cannot be protected by the first amendment.
I presume that Bantown hasn't been nice enough to supply details of their 16 other exploits, perhaps not even of the first ones, to LJ. Perhaps the only ones that know the details of the exploit(s) are the members of Bantown. Has anyone tried contacting this group and asking for details?
Why yes I do. I mean being citizens is all well and good I supose, i mean it has a tough history because of people like Stalin and Lenen. In the end though, I can only judge what has happened to me, and for me capitalism has worked out good.
I like Evilware, it just sounds so, evil.
Because as you mentioned, you don't watch the ads. The point isn't to have them, as for you to see them.