The difference is in security... I may not secure my field but I would secure my house. And that would make it "breaking and entering" as you have described.
This whole incident smells like a honeypot to me... even the US military is not that stupid that they would leave REAL supposedly-secret "information" on an unsecured machine connected to the internet. Rather, leave out just enough "bait" that you might catch those who would otherwise continue poking around...
Burning - No robot could burn a guitar like Hendrix... except maybe Bender...
Slightly more seriously... maybe it can play the guitar to a vaguely decent standard (Andres Segovia need not pack in his day job just yet, I suspect), but there's a long way to go before you replace a decent stage show - although I'd pay to ses a robot duck-walking like Angus Young...
We've heard it all before, but to summarise a few points as to exactly why this is a bad idea:
* The internet is global, whereas governments (who would purport to do the licensing) have border restrictions. Who would police whom, and how? Will you drive on the left side of the information superhighway, or the right? * You don't need a licence to drive a car, you just need to know how to drive a car. You only need a licence if you don't want to run the risk of getting a criminal record. My uncle has been driving without a licence for over forty years, and he drives for a living too. He's just never been caught. * Same goes for firearms. Plenty of unlicenced firearms and firearm owners in the world today. * Would you licence all forms of communication?
- Should we require everyone to get a licence to use the telephone (and make the phone do retinal scans before placing a call) to eliminate prank calls and unsolicited marketing drones? Prank calls can be dangerous too (eg. wasting the time/resources of 911, 999, 000, 111, or whatever your favourite emergency service number is, when they could be saving someone else's life).
- Should you need a licence to purchase stamps, or insert items into postboxes? Think "mail fraud", "letter bombs", "anthrax", etc...
- Should you require a licence to own a wireless AP, or even a television set? How about those FM transmitters you can get for iPods? Walkie-talkies? Mobile phones? An unusually loud voice? etc?
- Should little Billy down the street be fined for having an "unlicenced" tin-can telephone? I'd say posession of two distinct communications units and the means for them to interact should actually be a felony ("trafficking of communications" or some garbage)... * Would you trust your government to police that communication (a) effectively and (b) with full regards to your privacy? Would you then trust all other governments who may happen to form part of your communications link to do the same?
You say How is the internet any different. How are any of these examples different? Seriously, it's a pipe dream, and not even a good one at that.
That's a very valid point, we should not assume that this usage comes at no cost to the environment. However, the cost of building and running a separate CPU dedicated to the same purpose is even higher - twice the hardware infrastructure (motherboards, cases, power supplies, what else? monitors, gfx cards, etc.), twice the number of cycles wasted loading software infrastructure (OS, drivers, frameworks eg. Java/Mono). Add to that the fact that hardware is not easily recycled and the "green" part of me suggests that cycle-sharing is a better idea than separate boxes.
The next question is - who pays for the electricity then? University departments are notorious for sqabbling over who picks up the tab for a shared resource - and that's not even considering the wider inclusion of home users...
You don't think a million extra people in a town of only 400,000 is going to alter the running patterns of the town in any way? Or perhaps we should let people die by not scheduling extra hospital staff, and only treating those who can prove they have a local address?
Edinburgh handles the Edinburgh Festival OK, because it brings in 2.5 million people over the space of about three months... IE they are not all in Edinburgh at the same time. Think before you post.
So people should pay for freedom of expression?
We already are. The difference is, at the moment I am paying for your freedom of expression.
Don't get me wrong, I think people should be free to express themselves. However, they should also bear the responsibility for their own actions.
Perhaps an analogy for you: you can publish all the free software you want, but at the end of the day it is still you (and not the wider community) who must meet the responsibility for paying your own hosting/bandwidth costs.
Why does it make your lives hell if people turn up to your town?
Simple: the infrastructure can't cope. The Edinburgh area normally accomodates around 400,000 people, they're expecting well over a million additional people on top of that.
A very interesting idea - why should "intellectual property" be treated differently to ordinary "property"? Both are an asset.
Reversing your analogy: with tarriffs on recording media, effectively the state is protecting land owner's rights for free, and taxing the gypsies to pay for it...
I like how you call it an "accident". Personally I'd call it "negligence" -and IANAL, but negligence is a tort and hence constitutes something they can be sued for (or even prosecuted if circumstances warrant).
I don't think there's a poster on this forum who would say that sending those tapes through UPS unencrypted wasn't an act of negligence.
Sounds like Red Hat is cutting the cord, if you ask me. Still, support in principle is better than no support at all. And they'd never give up on it completely - thousands of developers working for free so they can "add value" and make a bundle?
Tell that to the millions of people around the world who play network games every day. The consoles aren't even close to monopolising that market yet.
Of course, it's easier to pirate PC games too (or so I've heard...) but that's because PCs have been around for longer. Give it a few years and consoles will be in the same boat - there'll be no point subsidising the hardware once people stop paying for the software. Net result: costs go through the roof, bum falls out of the console market. And equilibrium will reign.
Easy. I can tell you from here that it's clean - there's nothing suspicious running in your Task Manager at the moment. Well, except for "NothingToSeeHereMoveAlong.exe", but you needn't worry about that, it's a standard Windows service, I promise...
"Hi ho tinfoil, away!" (Daffy Duck quote, for those who missed it)
Re:I think it is a good idea not to update quickly
on
Debian 3.0r6 Released
·
· Score: 0
Amen brother.
More good news: r6 is the final update of woody, the new stable release is coming.
Surely supplying a fellow poster with information he requested should be modded "informative" rather than "funny"... The quote was funny but it wasn't his words. The post was, and it was informative.
Slashdot Mirror
Calm down, sport. It's just a mouse.
Michael Winner, is that really you?
(Joke for the UK readers... for those that need background)
While I agree with you, the article he refers to does actually exist...
The difference is in security... I may not secure my field but I would secure my house. And that would make it "breaking and entering" as you have described.
This whole incident smells like a honeypot to me... even the US military is not that stupid that they would leave REAL supposedly-secret "information" on an unsecured machine connected to the internet. Rather, leave out just enough "bait" that you might catch those who would otherwise continue poking around...
Let's hope that cover isn't blue, and that their repairs actually worked. After Challenger, NASA really don't want another "blue screen of death"...
I work for a large organisation that uses debian exclusively, and we haven't had any security problems whatsoe... CLICK HERE TO BUY V1AGR4!!!
Slightly more seriously... maybe it can play the guitar to a vaguely decent standard (Andres Segovia need not pack in his day job just yet, I suspect), but there's a long way to go before you replace a decent stage show - although I'd pay to ses a robot duck-walking like Angus Young...
Arghh... sorry people! :(
(Note to self: 1. Close HTML tags in future. 2. The Preview button is there for a reason...)
"C'mon, you cannot be serious!!!"
We've heard it all before, but to summarise a few points as to exactly why this is a bad idea:
* The internet is global, whereas governments (who would purport to do the licensing) have border restrictions. Who would police whom, and how? Will you drive on the left side of the information superhighway, or the right?
* You don't need a licence to drive a car, you just need to know how to drive a car. You only need a licence if you don't want to run the risk of getting a criminal record. My uncle has been driving without a licence for over forty years, and he drives for a living too. He's just never been caught.
* Same goes for firearms. Plenty of unlicenced firearms and firearm owners in the world today.
* Would you licence all forms of communication?
- Should we require everyone to get a licence to use the telephone (and make the phone do retinal scans before placing a call) to eliminate prank calls and unsolicited marketing drones? Prank calls can be dangerous too (eg. wasting the time/resources of 911, 999, 000, 111, or whatever your favourite emergency service number is, when they could be saving someone else's life).
- Should you need a licence to purchase stamps, or insert items into postboxes? Think "mail fraud", "letter bombs", "anthrax", etc...
- Should you require a licence to own a wireless AP, or even a television set? How about those FM transmitters you can get for iPods? Walkie-talkies? Mobile phones? An unusually loud voice? etc?
- Should little Billy down the street be fined for having an "unlicenced" tin-can telephone? I'd say posession of two distinct communications units and the means for them to interact should actually be a felony ("trafficking of communications" or some garbage)...
* Would you trust your government to police that communication (a) effectively and (b) with full regards to your privacy? Would you then trust all other governments who may happen to form part of your communications link to do the same?
You say How is the internet any different. How are any of these examples different? Seriously, it's a pipe dream, and not even a good one at that.
Let's see, blowing up the London underground in 6 places, during peak hour. Over a hundred injured.
Sound like a "hippy 'peaceful protest' attack" to you?
That's a very valid point, we should not assume that this usage comes at no cost to the environment. However, the cost of building and running a separate CPU dedicated to the same purpose is even higher - twice the hardware infrastructure (motherboards, cases, power supplies, what else? monitors, gfx cards, etc.), twice the number of cycles wasted loading software infrastructure (OS, drivers, frameworks eg. Java/Mono). Add to that the fact that hardware is not easily recycled and the "green" part of me suggests that cycle-sharing is a better idea than separate boxes.
The next question is - who pays for the electricity then? University departments are notorious for sqabbling over who picks up the tab for a shared resource - and that's not even considering the wider inclusion of home users...
You don't think a million extra people in a town of only 400,000 is going to alter the running patterns of the town in any way? Or perhaps we should let people die by not scheduling extra hospital staff, and only treating those who can prove they have a local address?
Edinburgh handles the Edinburgh Festival OK, because it brings in 2.5 million people over the space of about three months... IE they are not all in Edinburgh at the same time. Think before you post.
So people should pay for freedom of expression?
We already are. The difference is, at the moment I am paying for your freedom of expression.
Don't get me wrong, I think people should be free to express themselves. However, they should also bear the responsibility for their own actions.
Perhaps an analogy for you: you can publish all the free software you want, but at the end of the day it is still you (and not the wider community) who must meet the responsibility for paying your own hosting/bandwidth costs.
Why does it make your lives hell if people turn up to your town?
Simple: the infrastructure can't cope. The Edinburgh area normally accomodates around 400,000 people, they're expecting well over a million additional people on top of that.
Road closures
Extraordinary changes to medical services
Closure of businesses and Parliament
Disruption of mail services
Plus hugely increased costs in insurance, policing and many other areas (eg. emergency services) which will all be met by local and national taxpayers - but which SHOULD be met by the protesters IMHO. It's a "user pays" world we live in.
That enough reasons for you?
No - in this instance they "looked beyond" with a ouija board...
...and take another bite out of that apple. It's only appropriate, what with all this talk of "Apple cores"...
A very interesting idea - why should "intellectual property" be treated differently to ordinary "property"? Both are an asset.
Reversing your analogy: with tarriffs on recording media, effectively the state is protecting land owner's rights for free, and taxing the gypsies to pay for it...
How can you make an accident illegal?
I like how you call it an "accident". Personally I'd call it "negligence" -and IANAL, but negligence is a tort and hence constitutes something they can be sued for (or even prosecuted if circumstances warrant).
I don't think there's a poster on this forum who would say that sending those tapes through UPS unencrypted wasn't an act of negligence.
The brim keeps the rain off your face, whereas a Debian tin-foil skullcap doesn't.
Sounds like Red Hat is cutting the cord, if you ask me. Still, support in principle is better than no support at all. And they'd never give up on it completely - thousands of developers working for free so they can "add value" and make a bundle?
Tell that to the millions of people around the world who play network games every day. The consoles aren't even close to monopolising that market yet.
Of course, it's easier to pirate PC games too (or so I've heard...) but that's because PCs have been around for longer. Give it a few years and consoles will be in the same boat - there'll be no point subsidising the hardware once people stop paying for the software. Net result: costs go through the roof, bum falls out of the console market. And equilibrium will reign.
Erm... because it's America On-line?
Wow! They should save money by plonking down $20 to "borrow" a Leon Uris novel, then use the pages to roll their own...
And the best part is, with anonymous library cards, nobody would be the wiser!
Easy. I can tell you from here that it's clean - there's nothing suspicious running in your Task Manager at the moment. Well, except for "NothingToSeeHereMoveAlong.exe", but you needn't worry about that, it's a standard Windows service, I promise...
"Hi ho tinfoil, away!" (Daffy Duck quote, for those who missed it)
Amen brother.
More good news: r6 is the final update of woody, the new stable release is coming.
Yeah? So's Christmas. 2007.
Surely supplying a fellow poster with information he requested should be modded "informative" rather than "funny"... The quote was funny but it wasn't his words. The post was, and it was informative.
Ahhh, so THAT is why I'm now plugging the CAT-5 cable straight into my arm...