I doubt you'll find a biometric solution that will work well in that environment. Have you considered NFC tokens such as YubiKey? What about active or passive proximity authentication?
I read through quite a few comments on this one, and I thought about replying to just one. That wouldn't have been fair.First let me say, I'd be willing to wager that some people can talk on the cell phone at the same time as they drive more safely than they can drive without while others cannot.
Let's take a look at something most of you seem to know more about than science, sports (pun intended). Athletes practice many hours a day. The purpose of practicing isn't really to get to a point where one can constantly make conscious decisions to win whatever game they are playing. The purpose of practice is to build strength, and train the brain to make unconscious decisions the way they need to be made to reduce reaction time. Call it muscle memory or whatever you want. Some people learn to react unconsciously on the road.
With that said, this is only a theory. However, seeing that so many of you feel the need to refute an actual study if anecdotal evidence, I'll tell you this: Don't bother trying to convince me otherwise unless you're willing to get off your lazy ass and perform an actual scientific study that proves me wrong.
I can say for sure that it's not just AT&T. A couple of weeks ago, I was receiving alerts every 15 minutes for floods that were happening 400 miles away on the east coast. Add to the this the fact that I couldn't stop the annoying screeching my phone was making without unlocking my phone and confirming the message and you had one hell of a case of distracted driving and nearly two accidents. I'd much rather text while driving 100% of the time. It isn't 1/10th as distracting, and less than 1/100th as infuriating. Perhaps those who thought these messages were a good idea need to rethink their sanity.
Where ATF is missing the mark is that these printed guns are already good enough for the planned murder or bank hold up, hijacking, etc, where getting off one or two rounds is all the perp is interested in.
Or did their response mistakenly give us more information than they intended. From their response I'm led to believe that their primary concern isn't included in your list. I might be wrong, but I think they're at last smart enough to realize that untraceable, printed guns would be more likely to be used in these cases. So what does that tell us about their focus?
As the father of a daughter who will be 13 in less than a week, I can say that COPPA was ridiculous in the first place. Like so many laws and regulations in place today, it provides nothing but the illusion of security. To those who believe it accomplished something... Sorry, but you've been had. Your kids likely have every account imaginable and because you're so naive you don't have a clue. Not only that, but because of the restrictions, your kids have been missing out on really good opportunities that they otherwise may have had.
Sadly because of COPPA, we haven't seen many services developed geared towards kids. Our children are likely missing out on huge educational opportunities simply due to the fact that providing internet services to them is such a pain in the ass. Frankly, it pisses me off because in my opinion, the government should have no say over what I allow my daughter to share online. Policing her is my job as her father, not yours. Knowing what I need to know to do so is also my problem. If I were to choose not to, that would be my own problem.
In my experience, the answers on Stack Overflow are examples of a particular usage, instead of documentation of the usage of a particular function or class. The MSDN documentation serves it's purpose when you specifically need to know how something works, but Stack Overflow functions much better when you need to know what to use to accomplish a specific task.
What would you expect Microsoft do? Preconceive every possible use of the.Net framework, and create examples for everything? Of course not, and this is why the crowd sourced approach works so well for this instead. It must be far more efficient to pool mental power when it is needed, and answer specific questions with example.
Since when do IT Trade/Tech schools give you real knowledge? Nearly every applicant I've met who's been to one thinks he has real knowledge until you ask him to answer a real world question. The few who know the right answers generally knew the answers before they went to school for the paper.
You should have worded your subject "You Can Only Really Know if Open Source Routers are Secure". For the sake of discussion, say I were to create the world's first 100% secure, completely unhackable router and not release its source code. It is secure, but you're assuming it isn't because you can't see that it is. At the same time you can't prove that it isn't. You could spend your entire life trying to find holes in it without ever knowing there was one. (You can't prove a negative)
Now with that said, If I were to scour the source of every open source router, I may or not find holes. Even if I didn't, does that mean that none exist? No. That just means that I was only able to validate the lack of holes within the confines of my own experience, short attention span, and ability to grasp the complexity. Sure, you have more eyes on things with Open Source solutions, but that doesn't make them immune to stupidity, lack of knowledge and complacency.
In their press release (http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12234.html), the CSPC states "Since 2009, CPSC staff has learned of more than two dozen ingestion incidents, with at least one dozen involving Buckyballs. Surgery was required in many of incidents."
Let's do the math. If the number of children, 14 years of age or younger, in the United States was approximately 60,000,000 in 2010, then the probability of any one of them requiring surgery if all 24 known incidents required surgery would be 1 in 2,500,000. If the probability of being struck by lightning were 1 in 1,000,000 (estimates seem to between 1 in 500,000 and 1 an 1,000,000 depending on where you look), that would mean a child is 2.5 times more likely to be struck by lightning than swallow 2 or more buckyballs and require surgery. (http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&met_y=population&idim=country:US&dl=en&hl=en&q=population+of+the+united+states#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=population&fdim_y=country:US&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=age_group&idim=age_group:3:2:1&ifdim=age_group&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false)
According to asktheodds.com, your chance of dying in a car accident in any given year are between 1 in 4000 and 1 in 8000. Dying in a tornado? 1 in 60,000. If you go skydiving once a year, the odds you'll die are 1 in 100,000.
Now of those of us that have children, I'd wager that most (including me) expose our kids to the death trap that is an automobile quite often, and at times when we could walk instead. I also hear that there are people who expose their children to a higher risk of death by tornado by living in those areas where tornadoes are more common.
My point here (I almost forgot I had one) is that we do many things that are far more likely to kill our children than purchase buckyballs. It is completely irrational to blow taxpayer money to take a product that has injured somewhere around 24 kids over a 3 year period off the market.
I'm sorry, my probability was a little off. I lumped all 24 reports in one year rather than distributing it among the three, so it'd actually be 1 in 7,500,000.
I say we ban H20 and all products containing it. According to the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/HomeAndRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html), an average of 3,533 people drowned each year between 2005 and 2009. Of those, one in five was "14 and younger". While I'm not sure how a child can be both 14 and younger at the same time, this is certainly a much larger issue.
They are running ads for other parties who are soliciting donations from their site. I haven't seen ads either way, nor did the linked article directly state that they were hosting ads for other parties that were soliciting ads. If this is in fact the case, I'd be truly disappointed. Before I jump to that conclusion, I'd like to see the ads that are being posted for the other parties rather than jump to a conclusion based on a potentially biased source.
After all, this is the internet we're talking about, right? If the ads exists and the other parties are soliciting donations from their sites, we should be able to see better proof than just texts that alludes to something.
The ruling goes way beyond even settling the issue of copyright over APIs, but even goes so far as to say that EULAs that restrict the use of APIs are dead in the water and are void in terms of enforceability.
I agree with your assertion that his ruling and opinion are water tight, however I fail to see how his ruling has any effect on the the potential enforceability of an EULA. This case and his ruling dealt entirely with the issue of Copyright, not Google's use of a use of an Oracle application in relation to an EULA. Google is using their own implementation implementation of an API which is published in many forms that do not require agreement to Oracle's EULA.
Since the way we communicate has changed greatly since the arrival of the internet, and there people afraid to embrace that change, we the denizens of the internet are in the wrong.
Seriously, My daughter's arguments for why she shouldn't have to do her homework are more well thought out than Mr. Sherman's.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt you'll find a biometric solution that will work well in that environment. Have you considered NFC tokens such as YubiKey? What about active or passive proximity authentication?
I read through quite a few comments on this one, and I thought about replying to just one. That wouldn't have been fair.First let me say, I'd be willing to wager that some people can talk on the cell phone at the same time as they drive more safely than they can drive without while others cannot.
Let's take a look at something most of you seem to know more about than science, sports (pun intended). Athletes practice many hours a day. The purpose of practicing isn't really to get to a point where one can constantly make conscious decisions to win whatever game they are playing. The purpose of practice is to build strength, and train the brain to make unconscious decisions the way they need to be made to reduce reaction time. Call it muscle memory or whatever you want. Some people learn to react unconsciously on the road.
With that said, this is only a theory. However, seeing that so many of you feel the need to refute an actual study if anecdotal evidence, I'll tell you this: Don't bother trying to convince me otherwise unless you're willing to get off your lazy ass and perform an actual scientific study that proves me wrong.
I can say for sure that it's not just AT&T. A couple of weeks ago, I was receiving alerts every 15 minutes for floods that were happening 400 miles away on the east coast. Add to the this the fact that I couldn't stop the annoying screeching my phone was making without unlocking my phone and confirming the message and you had one hell of a case of distracted driving and nearly two accidents. I'd much rather text while driving 100% of the time. It isn't 1/10th as distracting, and less than 1/100th as infuriating. Perhaps those who thought these messages were a good idea need to rethink their sanity.
And when the boys find out there is no exploit, you leave inside another bag.
It's too late... He already posted the message hypothetically selling the exploit.
With PRISM / BLARNEY, this battle is pointless, amirite?
My bet is that CISPA was an attempt to legitimize this after the fact.
True police state? I don't even think China has made such a brazen move.
This is the test that should be used to determine whether or not a warrant is required.
Where ATF is missing the mark is that these printed guns are already good enough for the planned murder or bank hold up, hijacking, etc, where getting off one or two rounds is all the perp is interested in.
Or did their response mistakenly give us more information than they intended. From their response I'm led to believe that their primary concern isn't included in your list. I might be wrong, but I think they're at last smart enough to realize that untraceable, printed guns would be more likely to be used in these cases. So what does that tell us about their focus?
As the father of a daughter who will be 13 in less than a week, I can say that COPPA was ridiculous in the first place. Like so many laws and regulations in place today, it provides nothing but the illusion of security. To those who believe it accomplished something... Sorry, but you've been had. Your kids likely have every account imaginable and because you're so naive you don't have a clue. Not only that, but because of the restrictions, your kids have been missing out on really good opportunities that they otherwise may have had.
Sadly because of COPPA, we haven't seen many services developed geared towards kids. Our children are likely missing out on huge educational opportunities simply due to the fact that providing internet services to them is such a pain in the ass. Frankly, it pisses me off because in my opinion, the government should have no say over what I allow my daughter to share online. Policing her is my job as her father, not yours. Knowing what I need to know to do so is also my problem. If I were to choose not to, that would be my own problem.
Why not just tap into the 99% of computer science graduates that are don't deserve their degrees?
In my experience, the answers on Stack Overflow are examples of a particular usage, instead of documentation of the usage of a particular function or class. The MSDN documentation serves it's purpose when you specifically need to know how something works, but Stack Overflow functions much better when you need to know what to use to accomplish a specific task.
What would you expect Microsoft do? Preconceive every possible use of the .Net framework, and create examples for everything? Of course not, and this is why the crowd sourced approach works so well for this instead. It must be far more efficient to pool mental power when it is needed, and answer specific questions with example.
Where instead of witches we have shooters, and bombers.
Where shall we erect the gallows?
In their eyes, they do need to shut the whole thing down to preserve chain of evidence.
Unless, you permit connectivity between the clients on your vlan'd public WIFI and Doc HolierThanThou has his laptop connecting to the public WiFi.
Bah... The data was encrypted! I used a substitution cipher along with this "ASCII" table I found.
If you were paying your way to a PhD working at McDonalds, would you have the spare change to get tech certs?
Since when do IT Trade/Tech schools give you real knowledge? Nearly every applicant I've met who's been to one thinks he has real knowledge until you ask him to answer a real world question. The few who know the right answers generally knew the answers before they went to school for the paper.
I was just about to post the same thing. This guy should be suing himself. Now that's a trial I'd follow.
You should have worded your subject "You Can Only Really Know if Open Source Routers are Secure". For the sake of discussion, say I were to create the world's first 100% secure, completely unhackable router and not release its source code. It is secure, but you're assuming it isn't because you can't see that it is. At the same time you can't prove that it isn't. You could spend your entire life trying to find holes in it without ever knowing there was one. (You can't prove a negative)
Now with that said, If I were to scour the source of every open source router, I may or not find holes. Even if I didn't, does that mean that none exist? No. That just means that I was only able to validate the lack of holes within the confines of my own experience, short attention span, and ability to grasp the complexity. Sure, you have more eyes on things with Open Source solutions, but that doesn't make them immune to stupidity, lack of knowledge and complacency.
Let's look at the facts..
In their press release (http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12234.html), the CSPC states "Since 2009, CPSC staff has learned of more than two dozen ingestion incidents, with at least one dozen involving Buckyballs. Surgery was required in many of incidents."
Let's do the math. If the number of children, 14 years of age or younger, in the United States was approximately 60,000,000 in 2010, then the probability of any one of them requiring surgery if all 24 known incidents required surgery would be 1 in 2,500,000. If the probability of being struck by lightning were 1 in 1,000,000 (estimates seem to between 1 in 500,000 and 1 an 1,000,000 depending on where you look), that would mean a child is 2.5 times more likely to be struck by lightning than swallow 2 or more buckyballs and require surgery. (http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&met_y=population&idim=country:US&dl=en&hl=en&q=population+of+the+united+states#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=population&fdim_y=country:US&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=age_group&idim=age_group:3:2:1&ifdim=age_group&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false)
According to asktheodds.com, your chance of dying in a car accident in any given year are between 1 in 4000 and 1 in 8000. Dying in a tornado? 1 in 60,000. If you go skydiving once a year, the odds you'll die are 1 in 100,000.
Now of those of us that have children, I'd wager that most (including me) expose our kids to the death trap that is an automobile quite often, and at times when we could walk instead. I also hear that there are people who expose their children to a higher risk of death by tornado by living in those areas where tornadoes are more common.
My point here (I almost forgot I had one) is that we do many things that are far more likely to kill our children than purchase buckyballs. It is completely irrational to blow taxpayer money to take a product that has injured somewhere around 24 kids over a 3 year period off the market.
I'm sorry, my probability was a little off. I lumped all 24 reports in one year rather than distributing it among the three, so it'd actually be 1 in 7,500,000.
That recall you are citing was in 2010.
I say we ban H20 and all products containing it. According to the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/HomeAndRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html), an average of 3,533 people drowned each year between 2005 and 2009. Of those, one in five was "14 and younger". While I'm not sure how a child can be both 14 and younger at the same time, this is certainly a much larger issue.
They are running ads for other parties who are soliciting donations from their site. I haven't seen ads either way, nor did the linked article directly state that they were hosting ads for other parties that were soliciting ads. If this is in fact the case, I'd be truly disappointed. Before I jump to that conclusion, I'd like to see the ads that are being posted for the other parties rather than jump to a conclusion based on a potentially biased source.
After all, this is the internet we're talking about, right? If the ads exists and the other parties are soliciting donations from their sites, we should be able to see better proof than just texts that alludes to something.
The ruling goes way beyond even settling the issue of copyright over APIs, but even goes so far as to say that EULAs that restrict the use of APIs are dead in the water and are void in terms of enforceability.
I agree with your assertion that his ruling and opinion are water tight, however I fail to see how his ruling has any effect on the the potential enforceability of an EULA. This case and his ruling dealt entirely with the issue of Copyright, not Google's use of a use of an Oracle application in relation to an EULA. Google is using their own implementation implementation of an API which is published in many forms that do not require agreement to Oracle's EULA.
Clearly,
Since the way we communicate has changed greatly since the arrival of the internet, and there people afraid to embrace that change, we the denizens of the internet are in the wrong.
Seriously, My daughter's arguments for why she shouldn't have to do her homework are more well thought out than Mr. Sherman's.