humorous and insightful but also serving to underscore the problem. When you trust a group of people to pick and choose your good and bad guys for you, and that group has no accountability... it's like distributing loaded guns in your local preschool then telling the preschoolers to all work together in picking out the bad guys before anyone pulls the trigger. Sometimes, they'll get it right.
I agree in principal, but any savings they might gain by having their own department is easily lost by inefficiencies which inevitably creep in any government service, hence things would be run more efficiently if they used a private corporation who actually has to compete with others. just my opinion.
That competition only lasts until the company is entrenched- that is, once they've set up infrastructure and established themselves of the gatekeeper. From that point forward it becomes more efficient to pay their rising prices than to pay the price of establishing a new infrastructure - only to go through the same thing in a couple of years with a new provider.
The sample is of necessity limited to users who knew about this tool and downloaded it. I suspect that group to be more security aware than most, and more likely to have a clean system to start with.
The best parts of the bill seem to be subsections d and e of the bill. (IANAL and encourage correction or confirmation of my interpretation) :
No matter what harm is caused in pursuing action under this legislation, the companies and individuals initiating the action are completely immune from suit. So damages cannot be recovered (possibly even if it's later proven that the original action was erroneous.)
Section e: Unlike DMCA, there is no defense permitted prior to compliance. The site first must be taken offline, then and only then can the owner/registrar/operator file to modify/suspend/vacate the order. No provision is made for the timeliness of any related follow up, so it could get stuck in the court system for as long as any other request.
We can all sit and complain about it here, or we can contact the offices of our senators; and try to spread the word for others to do the same. (No, e-petitions don't count and form letters seem rarely to be effective. Take five minutes and at least compose an original email.) If you want this to get some more mainstream coverage that's in your power too - you will find that "letters to the editor" of your local newspaper still has a surprisingly high readership.
In the sense that it's an acroynym SSH is mostly technically correct. Though an argument could be made for SSh, it's not common usage. Typically I see all caps when it's written about, and lowercase (obviously) when it's used as a program. BB is an abbreviated that's commonly accepted for BlackBerry
But regardless of either of the above - the actual product name is BBSSH, with all caps. I understand their rule against all caps, but it's annoying when they give the option to submit an exception request... then automatically deny the exception without review.
The first thing you must realize is that you're not donating to him. You're donating to his CAMPAIGN. See how that works? That way we don't have to admit that it's bribery.
Which is why I would like to introduce a bill with no provisions, which would make it illegal to piggyback bills.
They are what they are, take it or leave it.
No?
Next subject.
If anyone needs me, I'll be hanging out in my own utopia.
Every law or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.
Personally, I'd also like to see something requiring that each new law or regulation passed for a period of 12 years require that two laws be repealed. That would perhaps clear out some of the old cruft...
I have been trying to register a page named "BBSSH - SSH and Telnet for BlackBerry". It keeps getting rejected because it has all caps in the name. They have a policy that says I can't do that. So I apply for an exception because that's the actual product and protocol name (and a page named BlackBerry Secure Shell - Secure Shell and Telnet for BlackBerry" would be dumb) but they keep rejecting it immediately without reviewing it. So I stopped trying; if I decide to host there, I'll find another name for the page. Why? Because ultimately if I want to use their resources, I have to follow their rules and decisions. Even those that seem arbitrary. If I don't want to follow their rules then I am free to go somewhere else.
Facebook is free to do whatever it wants, up to and including removing pages for any reason (such as a maybe-organized complaint campaign) or no reason. They own everything involved except the content supplied by users. They are under no obligation to publish or continue publishing any user-provided content. While I can understand how this seems like a big deal on the surface, it just isn't. We all know the rules of this game going into it. And if we don't, we shouldn't be playing.
This just emphasizing what should have been apparent to begin with: this wasn't passed into law. And as noted above, it's not even been introduced for discussion as law. It was likely passed in committee so that the committee members can tell their corporate interests that they did what they were paid to do. All of which means - the above action notwithstanding - you need to get off your proverbial ass and write your senators to tell them where you stand on this. If you don't even make the attempt, IMO you forfeit the right to complain about it.
Good points. However, I would say that while most users would be perfectly comfortable using the web in this scenario... most of them don't know it, and would squeal like stuck pigs if MS, OSX, or Linux distros tried to use this configuration by default.
And of course, those users who do have legitimate need to get around those restrictions aren't as infallible as they might think they are.
Not really, though I see how what I wrote might come across like that. I am constantly learning new things, new ways of doing things - from peers, from professionals that I consider to be better than I am; even sometimes from those I consider having inferior skills. But it's a different experience entirely in the classroom/lecture setting.
There's a reason that SSH has inserted random padding into its packets since its inception. You would think that the folks at Skype might've done just a a bit more research...
Taking that a step further, just think where we were with computers and communications only 10, 20, 30, 50 years ago and think of the possibilities something like this could spark in the next 20 years.
At the very least, it will be good for conversations like this one.
Exactly this. I would even go so far as to say that the extent to which we try to protect the user is causing more harm than good. We teach then to click through warnings as you say, because that is the path they must follow to complete the tasl at hand. worse we teach them that antivirus makes them - even though we know this isn't possible. To make a truly safe experience, the user must be willing to accept a locked down walled garden, permitting only approved software to execute on the machine. Anything less means that the user *must* be educated as to different attack vectors, safe practices, etc. Yet we keep avoiding this reality. Instead we pat them on the head and remind the users to install the latest antivirus in order to keep the bogeyman in the closet where he belongs.
As someone who has attended college after becoming an established professional, I can say that this is both correct and incorrect. If you go back to gain education in a field in which you're already competent it's 90% frustration and 10 educational. You have to deal with all the bullshit courses for one thing. I can see these having value for someone with a narrow perspective - say the average college-bound teenager. For a reasonably well-read and experienced adult, they're a waste of time and money.
In those courses and in the courses for your field of study, you will see how much many professors' opinions color what they're tching you. (and if you're not careful, how much disagreeing with those opinions can affect your grades). For subject matters with which you have experience be prepared to forget the lessons the real world has taught. You're in the the fiefdom of ego known as higher education now. Here you are taught to ask questions - but only the right ones. You are taught to think for yourself - but only approved thought.
I am switching majors to one outside of my profession. In this way i have a better chance of learning something beyond how to respectfully agree with those who often have less real-world experience than I do; and a lesser chance of realizing the limitations of thought inherent in what I am being taught.
Perhaps somewhat ironically I do think this would have been a good learning experience out of high school and wish I had done it then. I realize some of the problem I am having is brought on by my own perspective. If I had less experience, I would not see the things I do. If I did not see them I would not be inclined to question them. Anyone with half a brain will reconcile the narrow experiences and views of college with those seen in the wider world, as they gain experience - but it's a lot harder coming at it from the other direction. Not impossible - but certainly not pleasant either.
So instead of installing into/Applications, which does require an admin username and password, it now likely installs somewhere in the user's home folder, which doesn't require admin authorization. This means the problem would be isolated to that particular user's account.
And this is ok? When you consider that most systems that are not servers have only one or two users, the fact that it's limited to one account doesn't mean much of anything all. That's one account having its passwords and cc info gleefully distributed, among other things. Do you really think it matters that the admin account has not been compromised? (yet - once installed it's trivial to trick the user into providing admin access)
Hi profile attacks that occur in user space help to underscore that the obsession OS vendors have with admin access doesn't do much of anything to prevent a machine from being compromised -- it only serves to give users a false sense of security. Any malware can run in the user space of any os if the user installs it (and they wiil); and at minimum it has access to all of a user's private data. That should be just as worrisome as a single user machine getting rootkitted - while the harm to the system is greater for a rootkit, the damage to the user is just the same
You're right. In the context you provided, that makes no sense at all.
That is the meaning of the words you used. If that was not your meaning, then I suggest that you a different set of words next time.
It must be nice to have such a binary view of the world. The rest of us have to worry about things like applying context to determine meaning, but it's good to know that you're above all that.
Or perhaps you're saying that any given word has one and only one meaning regardless of context? I'm afraid most dictionaries do disagree with you. " the" for example has quite a few possible meanings; the ones applicable here are 1 and 13. You, on the other hand, are insisting that only definition 11 can apply - unfortunately you're doing so without applying a whole lot of logic to it. Look at the usage examples on that page as well:
"In the end, I was able to resolve every competing consideration but one, but that, the interests and wishes of my family, is the most important consideration of all," Daniels said in an early morning email to supporters.
- "In the end" -- do you think that he meant THE end of all things? "the interests of my family" - do you think he meant EVERY interest of EVERY member of his family? Or - perhaps - he was referring to a specific subset within the given context?
No matter - you're not in this discussion to discuss -- you're here to convince me that you're correct. Since you aren't correct (unless you can show evidence beyond examples in a different context that don't apply here) I'm not seeing much benefit to either of us in continuing the conversation.
Oracle cleaned up ship and mandated that you charge for the products and you don't give out free support (that's what the CONTRACTS that companies like mine pay money to have with Sun/oracle are for).
So you were paying Sun for a contract that you didn't need because they were giving away support for free? How generous of your company!
By charging for your product instead of giving it away like a whore...
Slashdot Mirror
That might actually be easier than the current interface ;)
humorous and insightful but also serving to underscore the problem. When you trust a group of people to pick and choose your good and bad guys for you, and that group has no accountability... it's like distributing loaded guns in your local preschool then telling the preschoolers to all work together in picking out the bad guys before anyone pulls the trigger. Sometimes, they'll get it right.
I agree in principal, but any savings they might gain by having their own department is easily lost by inefficiencies which inevitably creep in any government service, hence things would be run more efficiently if they used a private corporation who actually has to compete with others. just my opinion.
That competition only lasts until the company is entrenched- that is, once they've set up infrastructure and established themselves of the gatekeeper. From that point forward it becomes more efficient to pay their rising prices than to pay the price of establishing a new infrastructure - only to go through the same thing in a couple of years with a new provider.
The sample is of necessity limited to users who knew about this tool and downloaded it. I suspect that group to be more security aware than most, and more likely to have a clean system to start with.
We can all sit and complain about it here, or we can contact the offices of our senators; and try to spread the word for others to do the same. (No, e-petitions don't count and form letters seem rarely to be effective. Take five minutes and at least compose an original email.) If you want this to get some more mainstream coverage that's in your power too - you will find that "letters to the editor" of your local newspaper still has a surprisingly high readership.
But regardless of either of the above - the actual product name is BBSSH, with all caps. I understand their rule against all caps, but it's annoying when they give the option to submit an exception request... then automatically deny the exception without review.
You see this is something that Google *wants* to have to deal with? If this ever becomes law, it would add massive headache and costs for them.
The first thing you must realize is that you're not donating to him. You're donating to his CAMPAIGN. See how that works? That way we don't have to admit that it's bribery.
Which is why I would like to introduce a bill with no provisions, which would make it illegal to piggyback bills. They are what they are, take it or leave it. No? Next subject.
If anyone needs me, I'll be hanging out in my own utopia.
Interesting historical fact: Section 9 of the Confederate States Constitutionincluded exactly such a provision:
Every law or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.
Personally, I'd also like to see something requiring that each new law or regulation passed for a period of 12 years require that two laws be repealed. That would perhaps clear out some of the old cruft...
Facebook is free to do whatever it wants, up to and including removing pages for any reason (such as a maybe-organized complaint campaign) or no reason. They own everything involved except the content supplied by users. They are under no obligation to publish or continue publishing any user-provided content. While I can understand how this seems like a big deal on the surface, it just isn't. We all know the rules of this game going into it. And if we don't, we shouldn't be playing.
This just emphasizing what should have been apparent to begin with: this wasn't passed into law. And as noted above, it's not even been introduced for discussion as law. It was likely passed in committee so that the committee members can tell their corporate interests that they did what they were paid to do. All of which means - the above action notwithstanding - you need to get off your proverbial ass and write your senators to tell them where you stand on this. If you don't even make the attempt, IMO you forfeit the right to complain about it.
And of course, those users who do have legitimate need to get around those restrictions aren't as infallible as they might think they are.
You're right, I should have been clearer - meant SSHv2
Not really, though I see how what I wrote might come across like that. I am constantly learning new things, new ways of doing things - from peers, from professionals that I consider to be better than I am; even sometimes from those I consider having inferior skills. But it's a different experience entirely in the classroom/lecture setting.
You'd be surprised how many people think the pat downs and related foolishness are a Good Thing. I know I've been surprised, anyway..
There's a reason that SSH has inserted random padding into its packets since its inception. You would think that the folks at Skype might've done just a a bit more research...
See there? Two wrongs - when properly applied - do make a right: the power of the double-negative!
Taking that a step further, just think where we were with computers and communications only 10, 20, 30, 50 years ago and think of the possibilities something like this could spark in the next 20 years.
At the very least, it will be good for conversations like this one.
Exactly this. I would even go so far as to say that the extent to which we try to protect the user is causing more harm than good. We teach then to click through warnings as you say, because that is the path they must follow to complete the tasl at hand. worse we teach them that antivirus makes them - even though we know this isn't possible. To make a truly safe experience, the user must be willing to accept a locked down walled garden, permitting only approved software to execute on the machine. Anything less means that the user *must* be educated as to different attack vectors, safe practices, etc. Yet we keep avoiding this reality. Instead we pat them on the head and remind the users to install the latest antivirus in order to keep the bogeyman in the closet where he belongs.
In those courses and in the courses for your field of study, you will see how much many professors' opinions color what they're tching you. (and if you're not careful, how much disagreeing with those opinions can affect your grades). For subject matters with which you have experience be prepared to forget the lessons the real world has taught. You're in the the fiefdom of ego known as higher education now. Here you are taught to ask questions - but only the right ones. You are taught to think for yourself - but only approved thought.
I am switching majors to one outside of my profession. In this way i have a better chance of learning something beyond how to respectfully agree with those who often have less real-world experience than I do; and a lesser chance of realizing the limitations of thought inherent in what I am being taught.
Perhaps somewhat ironically I do think this would have been a good learning experience out of high school and wish I had done it then. I realize some of the problem I am having is brought on by my own perspective. If I had less experience, I would not see the things I do. If I did not see them I would not be inclined to question them. Anyone with half a brain will reconcile the narrow experiences and views of college with those seen in the wider world, as they gain experience - but it's a lot harder coming at it from the other direction. Not impossible - but certainly not pleasant either.
So instead of installing into /Applications, which does require an admin username and password, it now likely installs somewhere in the user's home folder, which doesn't require admin authorization. This means the problem would be isolated to that particular user's account.
And this is ok? When you consider that most systems that are not servers have only one or two users, the fact that it's limited to one account doesn't mean much of anything all. That's one account having its passwords and cc info gleefully distributed, among other things. Do you really think it matters that the admin account has not been compromised? (yet - once installed it's trivial to trick the user into providing admin access)
Hi profile attacks that occur in user space help to underscore that the obsession OS vendors have with admin access doesn't do much of anything to prevent a machine from being compromised -- it only serves to give users a false sense of security. Any malware can run in the user space of any os if the user installs it (and they wiil); and at minimum it has access to all of a user's private data. That should be just as worrisome as a single user machine getting rootkitted - while the harm to the system is greater for a rootkit, the damage to the user is just the same
second: when did "streaming media" come to mean "streaming tv"? Streaming audio players, for example, fill a niche of their own....
That is the meaning of the words you used. If that was not your meaning, then I suggest that you a different set of words next time.
It must be nice to have such a binary view of the world. The rest of us have to worry about things like applying context to determine meaning, but it's good to know that you're above all that.
Or perhaps you're saying that any given word has one and only one meaning regardless of context? I'm afraid most dictionaries do disagree with you. " the" for example has quite a few possible meanings; the ones applicable here are 1 and 13. You, on the other hand, are insisting that only definition 11 can apply - unfortunately you're doing so without applying a whole lot of logic to it. Look at the usage examples on that page as well:
"In the end, I was able to resolve every competing consideration but one, but that, the interests and wishes of my family, is the most important consideration of all," Daniels said in an early morning email to supporters.
- "In the end" -- do you think that he meant THE end of all things? "the interests of my family" - do you think he meant EVERY interest of EVERY member of his family? Or - perhaps - he was referring to a specific subset within the given context?
No matter - you're not in this discussion to discuss -- you're here to convince me that you're correct. Since you aren't correct (unless you can show evidence beyond examples in a different context that don't apply here) I'm not seeing much benefit to either of us in continuing the conversation.
Oracle cleaned up ship and mandated that you charge for the products and you don't give out free support (that's what the CONTRACTS that companies like mine pay money to have with Sun/oracle are for).
So you were paying Sun for a contract that you didn't need because they were giving away support for free? How generous of your company!
By charging for your product instead of giving it away like a whore...
I do not think it means what you think it means.