I don't know about you, but I'd rather the government not be spending money on maintaining an infrastructure that industry can do far more cost effectively.
I'm sure it would be much more appropriate as "Dave Whiner". I know it's the end of the year and all, but somebody's whine about how Amazon is a business and is acting to protect its interests as a business is news? Not to mention the mistaken (or misrepresented) info that Winer included in his commentary.
Still I'm not seeing anything resembling evidence to back this claim up. Yes, people can disable security. Yes, some people who don't deliberately do this to allow shared access. Emphasis, though, on *some* -- on what basis would you assume otherwise?
Many older devices never shipped with these protections enabled. Even today many devices still ship with a standard default password. A startling number still ship with weak (eg breakable in 2 min or less) encryption as the default. (Kind of like a rolled up window but an unlocked door in that hypothetical car we're flogging) In no case do I see lack of awareness and/or general stupidity as reasonably equivalent to handing out an open invitation.
I was wondering why you kept emphasizing *no* security as opposed to limited/poor security, so I re-read the conversation. OP write this:
). There are way too many people who buy wireless routers, hook them up, and never touch the security because they know nothing about it. At that point kid, stick to wired, as it is simple
And I wrote this:
;) Just because it's easy to attach to someone's unsecured network doesn't mean doing so is acceptable
I should have been more specific in my word choice - by unsecured I meant no specific steps taken by the user to secure it beyond what's done in the factory configuration. On older models that means no security; while on many current models it means WEP or a default/guessable password under WPA2.
So let's limit it to devices with no security at all, since my apparent lack of clarity seems to have introduced some confusion. Many routers older than 3-4 years shipped with no security. People aren't going to replace this equipment if it's still working for them -- and this alone speaks against your theory of "unsecured == invitation". If default security is no security, then leaving default security in place through ignorance cannot be construed as an invitation.
While some people don't expect someone else to connect to their router, leaving a router without a password IS the stand practice for telling people it is ok to use the router.
Eh? Since when and according to whom? While for small subset of the wifi-using population what you said is true, I challenge you to find anything that says MOST people who use poor or no encryption WANT people to use their connections.
If you want a car theft analogy, you would need to have a society where lots of people, and even more businesses let people use their cars without explicit permission, every car comes standard with a sign bolted on and unremovable that says "Do Not Use Without Permission", and you decided to have the sign folded down so that a stranger looking to use your car cannot see it.
I love this. Another example of why it's a bad idea to use a car analogy here (I should have known better) -- because without fail, some commenter will always take it to the point of absurdity. Either because though some mental gymnastics they've convinced themselves that their extension of the analogy somehow makes it more accurate (I think yours falls into this category); or they're trying [unsuccessfully] to make the original post appear absurd via some odd verbal thaumaturgy.
I used the analogy to make a simple and valid point. Probably best to let it die there, and come up with a more appropriate analogy to demonstrate your counterpoint.
Presumably submitter is from the place that posted the article - a firm that does market research, eg directly or indirectly makes its livign from advertising. Of *course* submitter is going to enjoy advertising
That said, the commercials that amuse me have a much better chance of not getting skipped than those that don't. Not necessarily a better chance of selling me anything (I'll not get Geico no matter how entertaining I find their commercials -- they can't beat my current rate -- but the first time a new Geico commerical comes on, I'll watch it. Not the 2nd through 1000th times though...)
In 2000, Joel Spolsky wrote the Joel Test, an excellent and simple way to evaluate a software company. While the test is still used, it's getting outdated, as many companies are moving to web technologies, and new development tools exist. In his blog, Marc Garcia wrote about what could be an update to Joel Test.
Great! That's really cool, I've been waiting for an updated list -- from Marc Garcia no less!
What, who the f--- is Marc Garcia? Well... he's done well at getting his web site pageranked (probably in part due to this "anonymous" submission). Beyond that he seems to be one of the countless dime-a-dozen bloggers who have opinions nobody cares above. Hey, no insult intended - I have a blog nobody cares about too -- but then you don't see me trying to get it featured on slashdot. What's worse is that he's doing so by using a well-known name -- and it seems to be working His most recent article has 45 comments, while most of the previous articles have 0.
Well, if nothing else I guess he knows how to get visitors to his web site - in spite of nobody having ever heard of the guy before today. Funny part is that he'll probably *get* a following out of the deal -- all for writing one post that references the opinions of a relatively well-known 90s-era software developer while providing no actual thoughts of value. .
Okay, to be fair - yes it's possible that he did not submit this himself; and that some random person stumbled across his article and posted it here. After all, enough people upmodded it indicate there must be some interest -- though that could be on the basis of the misleading summary... no matter the issues in the original posting, at least it didn't lie by implication.
. Ironically, the most efficient set-up is to have one line feed into several cashiers.
Since irony indicates a result the opposite of what you'd expect, and logic tells us that the one-line option is the most efficient... how's it ironic?
Free speech works both ways. The protesters are free to say what they want as loudly as they want - but they're not free to deny anybody else that same right. Whether the targets be human rights organizations or credit card companies, the same rules have to apply to both.
Sure, the people doing a DDOS could get their own website to get their message out. But who would view it? A DDOS sends a message that can't be ignored.
That it does. Usually something like "I don't like your speech or practices, therefore I will deny you your right to them." But wait - there's another word for that isn't there?
Also, did the guy hack it, or just get access to it since it was left without proper security, as I would not consider it "hacking" to access the neighbor's wireless.
I wouldn't consider taking a car with the keys left in it "theft", but go figure - the law disagrees;) Just because it's easy to attach to someone's unsecured network doesn't mean doing so is acceptable -- the wrongdoer is the one making the connection, not the one who fails to make such activity challenging enough to deter the would-be perpetrator.
Hmm. Good question but a bit misleading. I'm not saying we shouldn't consume -- however I am saying that having consumption forced on us as the means to "save" our economy is probably not the best fiscal policy; and is counter-survival in evolutionary terms. Consider the carnivore who gluts and can't get out of the way of the next carnivore in the chain. (Of course, trying to frame human enterprise and economics in terms of evolution is probably rife with fallacy itself.)
That being said, it's not very often that things in nature consume *more* than they need to for survival. And that's where I'm saying the flaw is - let's consume what we need to. Or even what we want to. But let's not keep the government in the business of forcing consumption of goods, services, employees etc in the hopes that it will somehow cure our ills. Consumption beyond our means is what got is in this mess in the first place. (Say what you will about Wall Street and the banks -- if uneducated consumers did some research first, those "toxic mortgage assets" would never have come to be. The big banks and wall street took ruthless advantage of it, but didn't create it-- as least as far as this uneducated layman can see.)
How would that even work? No. I think trying to somehow distinguish between regular public and internet public is kind of dumb. Here's a good rule of thumb. Live your public life as though everything you do will end up on the internet.
Not quite that simple unfortunately. I'm not sure of the facts here, but it's easy enough to construct a legitimate scenario: someone has a privacy screen of high trees or shrubs all around their backyard. They go sunbathing nude, hang their laundry out, have sex there, smoke a joint - maybe all of the above. Whatever. Until a couple of years ago, these people were secure in the knowledge that - on their own property, screened off from their neighbors, their activity was clearly "private". In most US states, everything except the drug-taking would be legal, since it was private and on their property.
This is a case of "Internet public" being a very different thing from "regular public". By your rule of thumb and any expectation, they *are* doing these things privately -- having taken precautions to ensure that neither nosy neighbors, curious children, nor tabloid photographers are going to get a chance to spy on their activities. Unfortunately, there happened to be a satellite doing a fly-by at that moment, and now their private activities have become very, very public.
So you're saying it's dumb that - after taking reasonable precautions to ensure their privacy - they be surprised that these pictures turn up on the Internet?
I don't have an answer - I'm just saying that it's not as black-and-white as you make it out to be.
The problem with that is that our entire economy is [sadly] geared towards encouraging people to consume - consume at all costs, consume on credit, consume beyond your means - who cares about tomorrow, the economy needs you to spend your money TODAY! NOW! GO BUY SOMETHING!. Wait, you're a business? HIRE MORE PEOPLE! Doesn't matter if you don't need them - you need to CONSUME, so that those people can CONSUME, and enable yet more to CONSUME!
Your entire argument is based on the premise that private industry is incapable or even unwilling to sponsor R&D with long-term or even questionable returns. When you look at the giants out there now - GE, MS, IBM, pharma, even big oil -- you see that the opposite is true. They have R&D budgets larger than the entire operating budget of many small nations.
Of course they're going to prefer it if the government sponsors that R&D -- but they didn't get to be industry giants by either sitting on their laurels or thinking only of the short-term bottom line.
That is a lot easier to do with capitol letters and punctuation in the proper place. Writing like that just makes you look either uneducated or stoned.
Not to mention the bad impression one can leave by using words improperly.
Of course... your comment serves to underscore the importance of open source. While GP noted that it *should* have been caught in OpenBSD,.. at least the potential for it to have been caught was there. If it's in Linux as well, we'll know very soon since it's reasonably certain that people are looking now. If it's in MS products... well, that's something we'll never know.
That’s because of statistics, not because of anonymity. It’s just strength in numbers.
True, but the net result is the same.
You must have missed the step where I have to get off my ass and take action in the real world every morning, or I won’t keep getting paid every other week. If I don’t keep getting paid every other week, I won’t have money to spend on a computer, the internet, and the electric bill.
I see where you're going. But that's like saying that e-petitions should be effective merely because it cost you some resources to type your email address in.
Let's also not forget that in all likelihood you're going to be using the nearly same resources anyway. "You" here referring to the collective: many people never turn their computers off; and if I may be so bold as to generalize... the people participating in this kind of activity will likely as not be torrenting files, participating in IRC chats, skype, IM, games, and otherwise consuming CPU and bandwidth.
All of which goes to say - clicking a button on your screen is pretty close to the the weakest form of "participation" or "protest" possible, to the point where its value as such is questionable at best -- your additional $1.00 in electric costs for the month notwithstanding. Particularly in the context under discussion - where the majority people being affected by this "protest" will never be aware of why they're affected. (A sit-in or picket never leaves any doubt as to "why".)
On the other hand, there are people who comment with their real names (I tend to , outside of/. - though even here my name is linked). If comments started showing up under my name that I didn't make, that could cause actual damages -- I'd hate for a search of my name by a potential employer to turn up goatse or something. (That's why I *do* tend to use a secure and different password for each site.)
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about you, but I'd rather the government not be spending money on maintaining an infrastructure that industry can do far more cost effectively.
Why aren't we all making our own little clouds?
Fart jokes. They never go out of style.
I'm sure it would be much more appropriate as "Dave Whiner". I know it's the end of the year and all, but somebody's whine about how Amazon is a business and is acting to protect its interests as a business is news? Not to mention the mistaken (or misrepresented) info that Winer included in his commentary.
Many older devices never shipped with these protections enabled. Even today many devices still ship with a standard default password. A startling number still ship with weak (eg breakable in 2 min or less) encryption as the default. (Kind of like a rolled up window but an unlocked door in that hypothetical car we're flogging) In no case do I see lack of awareness and/or general stupidity as reasonably equivalent to handing out an open invitation.
I was wondering why you kept emphasizing *no* security as opposed to limited/poor security, so I re-read the conversation. OP write this:
). There are way too many people who buy wireless routers, hook them up, and never touch the security because they know nothing about it. At that point kid, stick to wired, as it is simple
And I wrote this:
;) Just because it's easy to attach to someone's unsecured network doesn't mean doing so is acceptable
I should have been more specific in my word choice - by unsecured I meant no specific steps taken by the user to secure it beyond what's done in the factory configuration. On older models that means no security; while on many current models it means WEP or a default/guessable password under WPA2.
So let's limit it to devices with no security at all, since my apparent lack of clarity seems to have introduced some confusion. Many routers older than 3-4 years shipped with no security. People aren't going to replace this equipment if it's still working for them -- and this alone speaks against your theory of "unsecured == invitation". If default security is no security, then leaving default security in place through ignorance cannot be construed as an invitation.
While some people don't expect someone else to connect to their router, leaving a router without a password IS the stand practice for telling people it is ok to use the router.
Eh? Since when and according to whom? While for small subset of the wifi-using population what you said is true, I challenge you to find anything that says MOST people who use poor or no encryption WANT people to use their connections.
If you want a car theft analogy, you would need to have a society where lots of people, and even more businesses let people use their cars without explicit permission, every car comes standard with a sign bolted on and unremovable that says "Do Not Use Without Permission", and you decided to have the sign folded down so that a stranger looking to use your car cannot see it.
I love this. Another example of why it's a bad idea to use a car analogy here (I should have known better) -- because without fail, some commenter will always take it to the point of absurdity. Either because though some mental gymnastics they've convinced themselves that their extension of the analogy somehow makes it more accurate (I think yours falls into this category); or they're trying [unsuccessfully] to make the original post appear absurd via some odd verbal thaumaturgy.
I used the analogy to make a simple and valid point. Probably best to let it die there, and come up with a more appropriate analogy to demonstrate your counterpoint.
Erm, the point of his entire post was that neither he nor op has that right.
Ugh. The multiple typos brought to you courtesy of an irritating gecko.
That said, the commercials that amuse me have a much better chance of not getting skipped than those that don't. Not necessarily a better chance of selling me anything (I'll not get Geico no matter how entertaining I find their commercials -- they can't beat my current rate -- but the first time a new Geico commerical comes on, I'll watch it. Not the 2nd through 1000th times though...)
In 2000, Joel Spolsky wrote the Joel Test, an excellent and simple way to evaluate a software company. While the test is still used, it's getting outdated, as many companies are moving to web technologies, and new development tools exist. In his blog, Marc Garcia wrote about what could be an update to Joel Test.
Great! That's really cool, I've been waiting for an updated list -- from Marc Garcia no less!
What, who the f--- is Marc Garcia? Well... he's done well at getting his web site pageranked (probably in part due to this "anonymous" submission). Beyond that he seems to be one of the countless dime-a-dozen bloggers who have opinions nobody cares above. Hey, no insult intended - I have a blog nobody cares about too -- but then you don't see me trying to get it featured on slashdot. What's worse is that he's doing so by using a well-known name -- and it seems to be working His most recent article has 45 comments, while most of the previous articles have 0.
Well, if nothing else I guess he knows how to get visitors to his web site - in spite of nobody having ever heard of the guy before today. Funny part is that he'll probably *get* a following out of the deal -- all for writing one post that references the opinions of a relatively well-known 90s-era software developer while providing no actual thoughts of value. .
Okay, to be fair - yes it's possible that he did not submit this himself; and that some random person stumbled across his article and posted it here. After all, enough people upmodded it indicate there must be some interest -- though that could be on the basis of the misleading summary... no matter the issues in the original posting, at least it didn't lie by implication.
</mini-rant>
. Ironically, the most efficient set-up is to have one line feed into several cashiers.
Since irony indicates a result the opposite of what you'd expect, and logic tells us that the one-line option is the most efficient... how's it ironic?
Free speech works both ways. The protesters are free to say what they want as loudly as they want - but they're not free to deny anybody else that same right. Whether the targets be human rights organizations or credit card companies, the same rules have to apply to both.
Sure, the people doing a DDOS could get their own website to get their message out. But who would view it? A DDOS sends a message that can't be ignored.
That it does. Usually something like "I don't like your speech or practices, therefore I will deny you your right to them." But wait - there's another word for that isn't there?
Also, did the guy hack it, or just get access to it since it was left without proper security, as I would not consider it "hacking" to access the neighbor's wireless.
I wouldn't consider taking a car with the keys left in it "theft", but go figure - the law disagrees ;) Just because it's easy to attach to someone's unsecured network doesn't mean doing so is acceptable -- the wrongdoer is the one making the connection, not the one who fails to make such activity challenging enough to deter the would-be perpetrator.
Pun intended? ah, given who's posting, probably not...
That being said, it's not very often that things in nature consume *more* than they need to for survival. And that's where I'm saying the flaw is - let's consume what we need to. Or even what we want to. But let's not keep the government in the business of forcing consumption of goods, services, employees etc in the hopes that it will somehow cure our ills. Consumption beyond our means is what got is in this mess in the first place. (Say what you will about Wall Street and the banks -- if uneducated consumers did some research first, those "toxic mortgage assets" would never have come to be. The big banks and wall street took ruthless advantage of it, but didn't create it-- as least as far as this uneducated layman can see.)
How would that even work? No. I think trying to somehow distinguish between regular public and internet public is kind of dumb. Here's a good rule of thumb. Live your public life as though everything you do will end up on the internet.
Not quite that simple unfortunately. I'm not sure of the facts here, but it's easy enough to construct a legitimate scenario: someone has a privacy screen of high trees or shrubs all around their backyard. They go sunbathing nude, hang their laundry out, have sex there, smoke a joint - maybe all of the above. Whatever. Until a couple of years ago, these people were secure in the knowledge that - on their own property, screened off from their neighbors, their activity was clearly "private". In most US states, everything except the drug-taking would be legal, since it was private and on their property.
This is a case of "Internet public" being a very different thing from "regular public". By your rule of thumb and any expectation, they *are* doing these things privately -- having taken precautions to ensure that neither nosy neighbors, curious children, nor tabloid photographers are going to get a chance to spy on their activities. Unfortunately, there happened to be a satellite doing a fly-by at that moment, and now their private activities have become very, very public.
So you're saying it's dumb that - after taking reasonable precautions to ensure their privacy - they be surprised that these pictures turn up on the Internet?
I don't have an answer - I'm just saying that it's not as black-and-white as you make it out to be.
Yeah. I can't imagine why Apple - a US-based company- would give a damned what US politicians were doing and saying.
The problem with that is that our entire economy is [sadly] geared towards encouraging people to consume - consume at all costs, consume on credit, consume beyond your means - who cares about tomorrow, the economy needs you to spend your money TODAY! NOW! GO BUY SOMETHING!. Wait, you're a business? HIRE MORE PEOPLE! Doesn't matter if you don't need them - you need to CONSUME, so that those people can CONSUME, and enable yet more to CONSUME!
Of course they're going to prefer it if the government sponsors that R&D -- but they didn't get to be industry giants by either sitting on their laurels or thinking only of the short-term bottom line.
Take a look at the tax dollars paid by "the rich". They already significantly pay more in taxes than all other income classes - combined.
That is a lot easier to do with capitol letters and punctuation in the proper place. Writing like that just makes you look either uneducated or stoned.
Not to mention the bad impression one can leave by using words improperly.
It's step #2 that's the issue. People can be coerced into providing all sorts of information if you promise to send them coupons.
I think that word does not mean what you think it means.
Of course... your comment serves to underscore the importance of open source. While GP noted that it *should* have been caught in OpenBSD,.. at least the potential for it to have been caught was there. If it's in Linux as well, we'll know very soon since it's reasonably certain that people are looking now. If it's in MS products... well, that's something we'll never know.
That’s because of statistics, not because of anonymity. It’s just strength in numbers.
True, but the net result is the same.
You must have missed the step where I have to get off my ass and take action in the real world every morning, or I won’t keep getting paid every other week. If I don’t keep getting paid every other week, I won’t have money to spend on a computer, the internet, and the electric bill.
I see where you're going. But that's like saying that e-petitions should be effective merely because it cost you some resources to type your email address in.
Let's also not forget that in all likelihood you're going to be using the nearly same resources anyway. "You" here referring to the collective: many people never turn their computers off; and if I may be so bold as to generalize... the people participating in this kind of activity will likely as not be torrenting files, participating in IRC chats, skype, IM, games, and otherwise consuming CPU and bandwidth.
All of which goes to say - clicking a button on your screen is pretty close to the the weakest form of "participation" or "protest" possible, to the point where its value as such is questionable at best -- your additional $1.00 in electric costs for the month notwithstanding. Particularly in the context under discussion - where the majority people being affected by this "protest" will never be aware of why they're affected. (A sit-in or picket never leaves any doubt as to "why".)
On the other hand, there are people who comment with their real names (I tend to , outside of /. - though even here my name is linked). If comments started showing up under my name that I didn't make, that could cause actual damages -- I'd hate for a search of my name by a potential employer to turn up goatse or something. (That's why I *do* tend to use a secure and different password for each site .)