It's equally effective to talk to the last patrol's leader and get him to tell you "don't go down Saddam Street" or "We've had problems when we go past the former Baath Party HQ." Better in some ways, since an actual person can communicate nuances and answer questions.
I'll second this. A face to face with previous patrol leaders as well as those who overwatch your patrol sector is indispensible information. If you start taking fire, there isn't time to look at your PDA and figure out which way to move, assuming you didn't smash it when you dove for cover. You better already have several possible plans in your head, because no mission profile has ever survived first contact.
It is speculated that this is due to a new tool being created (Requiem) that attacks Apple's FairPlay DRM through cryptographic means instead of by copying the unprotected music from memory while it is being played.
I see no evidence other than wild speculation that they have found a weakness in FairPlay. Finding a weakness in a cryptographic algorithm is a lot different than knowing how to use a debugger. If they had found a vulnerability, then they would have published it. If it is a valid attack then there are a number of peer reviewed journals that would publish a well written paper on it as well as several conferences where they could present their work. The least they should have done would be to publish the method/algorithm so that others could extend their work.
Maybe Apple just got tired of the cat and mouse game.
(remember, the USA's law forcing vendors to embed backdoors for them)
No, I don't recall having seen that. Could you please provide some sort of factual reference for this? I'm curious when this was and what it applied to.
If you would like to see the previous discussion of the exact same article published on the same day(although published through a slightly different outlet), please see the discussion here.
Those exceptions were written in the early 70s, when 8-tracks were state-of-the-art. Technology has advanced but the law has not kept pace. Now it is nearly impossible for anyone who uses a computer to go through a single day without creating an unlicensed copy of something. It is long past time to adjust the law to restore the proper balance between the author's interest in their works and the Constitutional interest in the promotion of "science and the useful arts."
The problem is that these lawmakers of whom you speak, in addition to all other concerns, probably still have 8 track tape players in their cars. Their administrative assistant prints their email and types in their responses. How can such people possible make intelligent changes to the law to reflect today's technology?
Simply put, this will not take off until businesses and corporations that warehouse our personal data are held financially liable for any losses that occur related to that data. Right now there is way too much positive financial incentive to hold onto as much consumer data as a company can, and almost no incentive not to. This situation will have to be reversed before companies will invest in a technology such as this.
This is like blaming spell checker for a spelling mistake.
At college the lab assistants used to see how many of the top 500 misspelled words they could add to the local dictionaries on the lab computers when they were bored.
Would ISPs blocking port 80 fall under the same violations/issue as this? I have had two high-speed ISPs in the past five years, Cox and Verizon, and both have blocked port 80 for me.
Assuming that you mean port 80 inbound, then probably not. Almost every ISP's TOS that I have read includes a clause prohibiting you from running a server. They are just enforcing that restriction. Technically they could probably cut off the service of anyone running a P2P application using this same clause as the reasoning.
In the case of SSL, the server would send you a bogus certificate that seems to come form Verisign and seems to be for the domain you're contacting and you'd have no way of verifying that it was, in fact, fake.
Really? I thought that was the whole point of PKI and certificates. A bogus certificate would not validate and you would know. In the case of a web browser, you would normally see a dialog box that indicates that the certificate cannot be verified. Most users have by now been conditioned like Pavlov's dogs to just ignore this message and proceed forward, but that isn't the fault of the protocol. Once that happens it's "game over man, game over".
Now what happens within the Skype application when an SSL certificate cannot be validated is known only to the developers of Skype. If, for the sake of "convenience", they ignore it, then a man in the middle attack would indeed be possible and the user would not know the difference.
Either that or the interceptors have gotten a legitimately signed certificate for the site in question from the root CA. If this were true and someone was able to prove it, it would seriously undermine the entire trust model used for the most common form of encrypted communication on the internet.
Here is a nice, short summary of what was really decided by the judge in this case, which has almost nothing to do with what the linked article said was decided.
Wouldn't you have to actually get the letter copyrighted?
The court said:
Under the DMCA, the copyright holder need only plead a prima facie case of copyright infringement. In re: Verizon Internet Servs., Inc., 257 F. Supp. 2d 244, 263 (D.D.C. 2003). A certificate of registration of a copyright constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright and facts stated in the certificate. 17 U.S.C. Section 410(c). Melaleuca has registered the Sheppard Letter with the Copyright Office. See Supplemental Filing Re: Copyright Registration Certificate for Sheppard Letter, Ex. 1 (Docket No. 18-2). This is prima facie evidence that the Sheppard Letter is copyrighted and satisfies the first prong of demonstrating a prima facie case of copyright infringement. 43SB has valid arguments and enforcing this subpoena pre-litigation may have far-reaching consequences, therefore some preliminary examination of the potential claim is necessary. However, the Court will not go into an in-depth analysis of the merits of a copyright infringement claim in determining whether to quash this subpoena. It is sufficient in this instance that Melaleuca has registered the Sheppard Letter with the Copyright Office.
It is clear at least one writer -- the author of this piece at Web Worker Daily -- thinks that the iPhone should be left on the dresser in the morning. She offers several reasons that the device isn't a good corporate tool.'"
The author of the linked piece at Web Worker Daily said no such thing. In fact, the author didn't express a personal opinion one way or the other about the matter. The author was quoting
a piecewritten by Benjamin Gray, who works for Forrester.
From the linked article
At least, that's the conclusion coming out of Forrester, whose analyst Benjamin Gray, lists 10 reasons why the iPhone is not yet ready to be an enterprise-class mobile device.
I will have to take the Web Worker Daily's word for it though, since I don't feel like ponying up $279 for a 6 page pdf.
Agree 1000%. It's just a schema! I mean who cares what it does or where it comes from. I say the same about books, too. My literature prof wanted to fail me because I read Mein Kampf instead of War and Peace, but I was all like, dude, what's the problem? They're both books!
I think we need a Godwin's Law ruling on this one. Anyone?
While I don't agree with "file sharing" in a general case as a legitimate practice anymore...
What many people fail to understand is that "file sharing" (bittorrent, etc.) is a tool, just like a photocopier is a tool. Both have many legitimate uses in addition to illegitimate ones. Photocopying an entire book remains a violation of copyright, whereas copying a single page for fair use is not. The same standard should apply to audio recordings, and in fact it has until now. It was only with the introduction of digital audio and the ability to make "perfect" copies that the copyright owners began to take exception. The fact that it is a digital recording also allows them to introduce some FUD into the mix and try to claim that it is somehow different. It's not. Technology made it easier to violate copyright, but it doesn't change the nature of the act. People need to understand the difference.
A
Spring Loaded Window Punch. Works wonders on annoying LCD screens. A stun gun will probably improve the RFID and electronics as well. Just be sure to let go of the cart before hitting the button.
Start collecting any receipts you can find as well. They almost always have the full customer loyalty card number on them. Feel free to register as many as you can as soon as the system comes online. Have fun creating interesting shopping lists for people. Be creative!
Slashdot Mirror
Somehow I don't think it's going to run Crysis very well. Never mind.
Maybe Apple just got tired of the cat and mouse game.
Next thing you know they will have photos showing charm and spin as well! Will wonders never cease.
If you would like to see the previous discussion of the exact same article published on the same day(although published through a slightly different outlet), please see the discussion here.
What about openDNS? Do people use their DNS servers, and how up to date are their patches?
Do you use SSL lighting to illuminate an ATM machine that is connected to a VPN network?
Simply put, this will not take off until businesses and corporations that warehouse our personal data are held financially liable for any losses that occur related to that data. Right now there is way too much positive financial incentive to hold onto as much consumer data as a company can, and almost no incentive not to. This situation will have to be reversed before companies will invest in a technology such as this.
- Go to the Preferences Page
- Select Homepage
- Find the section marked "Customize Sories on the Homepage"
- find the Authors column on the right
- Uncheck the box next to kdawson
That should significantly reduce the amount of purile drivel that you see on the front page. Good luck!Really? I thought that was the whole point of PKI and certificates. A bogus certificate would not validate and you would know. In the case of a web browser, you would normally see a dialog box that indicates that the certificate cannot be verified. Most users have by now been conditioned like Pavlov's dogs to just ignore this message and proceed forward, but that isn't the fault of the protocol. Once that happens it's "game over man, game over".
Now what happens within the Skype application when an SSL certificate cannot be validated is known only to the developers of Skype. If, for the sake of "convenience", they ignore it, then a man in the middle attack would indeed be possible and the user would not know the difference.
Either that or the interceptors have gotten a legitimately signed certificate for the site in question from the root CA. If this were true and someone was able to prove it, it would seriously undermine the entire trust model used for the most common form of encrypted communication on the internet.
Here is a nice, short summary of what was really decided by the judge in this case, which has almost nothing to do with what the linked article said was decided.
From the linked articleI will have to take the Web Worker Daily's word for it though, since I don't feel like ponying up $279 for a 6 page pdf.
Start collecting any receipts you can find as well. They almost always have the full customer loyalty card number on them. Feel free to register as many as you can as soon as the system comes online. Have fun creating interesting shopping lists for people. Be creative!
Bruce Schneier is quickly becoming the next John Dvorak.
The minute I saw "professors emeritus" I knew the article would only have an incidental connection with the real world.
My question is: "How do sleep at night?"