Lavasoft has published a list of rouges that might be helpful when people see scareware. But, I guess, the only problem is make people look at this list before they buy security software http://www.lavasoft.com/mylavasoft/rogues/latest
Usually when reading mainstream media the always say that EU wants this or EU wants that. This is a severe simplification, and makes the whole issue wrong.
There are three institutions in the EU that have power and they usually want different things. The 3 are:
* European Commission (members not elected) * Council of Ministers (members are elected ministers of their home countries, not elected on a European level) * European Parliament (members are elected in democratic elections all around Europe)
The European Commission has been handling the ACTA negotiations in secrecy with USA and other countries. What has happened now is that the European Parliament has come up with a resolution saying the the European Commission can no longer do this in secrecy and all negotiations must now be public.
In short, the Parliament, representing the people, wants to see the ACTA files.
No, this is called promotion in bureaucratic organizations. This person will be moved from his/her current position to a position where he/she will manage ALL the databases for the Police.
I know that both the state and the church came to support the censorship with draconian laws. The same thing is happening today.
I believe the media industry is loosing control. A very good example is from the Pirate Bay trial when John Kennedy from IFPI took the stand. One of the plaintiffs asked how TPB affected the music industry. His answer was that they can no longer foresee which position a certain song will get on the music lists. What did Kennedy mean? Did he actually mean that the music industry are controlling who gets where on the music lists? My interpretation is: of course!
The media industry is doing everything it can to prevent losing control and that is why we get all this new legislation both in the US and in the EU. Soon China, North Korea, Iran, etc. will be a lot freer than US and Europe...
If you interpret my comment as an analogy where the monks are the media industry, I agree that is doesn't really fit. And also concept of copyright wasn't really well spread during those days (very little legislation at least).
My main point is that is you have a bunch of people that feel that have control over a certain phenomenon in society, this bunch of people will do whatever they can to keep it.
It is that same rhetorics over and over again and humanity hasn't learned a thing the last couple of hundred years.
...and the printing press would make a lot of monks unemployed as well. They wrote all the books by hand.
Maybe 'unemployed' is the wrong word here. It is more that the monks lost control of what the general public was able to read. Suddenly is was no longer possible for the monks to censor religious or political incorrect ideas.
The exact same thing is happening again, but with different players. When music started to be broad-casted on FM radio, the media industry lost control of their products. Same thing with VHS.
The Internet is probably the scariest thing that can happen to the media industry. Because Internet is built without any central point and any node can broadcast. (Compare with a radio or TV station; one central point for broad casting and many passive listeners.) This is a tremendous loss of control for the media industry. The industry can not say this in public and that is why they always bring back the same culture-will-die ghost from the closet.
The prosecutor in this case (Hakan Roswall) is Sweden's most experienced and knowledgeable prosecutor when it comes to cases involving Intellectual property rights. It looks like he didn't do his homework before entering the court house. He has been working on this case for more than three years and after one day in court he realized that TPB does not copy any files at all.
These studies often establish there is a correlation between variable A (playing violent video games) and variable B (agressiveness), but the study seldom establish A implies B.
The result might be interpreted as: agressive kids like to play violent video games.
I do see the difference between the two cases. But I'm not sure a person being learned to always follow orders sees the difference.
My point is even if the order is authentic, the order may still be wrong. Most orders pass the "authentic and sensible"-filter quite easy because they in fact are "authentic and sensible". It is very dangerous to allways follow orders no matter what and I think it's important to learn that some orders should be questioned.
If they verified that the email was authentic (e.g. it was PGP-signed or whatever mechanism they have in place), then fair enough, they received an order and they should obey it.
No, if the order is stupid they should question it! Even if the order came from your superior officer.
Suppose you are in some battle or in a "hot zone". You see a seven-year old boy. Your SO orders you to shoot the boy. You will probably stand trial for homicide if you shoot the boy.
A soldier should always (and automatically) question his orders. Are they sensible? I'm certain that the orders are ok almost every time, but if they suddely get an order that is not sensible, but should of course react.
You are self responsible for your action during battle. If your officer in command orders you to kill a civilian, YOU and not the officer will stand trial for murder. (The most famous examples are the Nurnberg trials.)
There is a big difference in defending yourself in battle and performing homicide, but one of them may look like the other.
In this, case the solders where reading email and my guess is that weren't in the battlefield. Plenty of time to think and they should of course have quiestioned the order.
Slashdot Mirror
...all patriots must learn to love their country.
Lavasoft has published a list of rouges that might be helpful when people see scareware. But, I guess, the only problem is make people look at this list before they buy security software
http://www.lavasoft.com/mylavasoft/rogues/latest
Depends how you interpret the '=' sign. If you interpret as 'next step', then:
4+3+2=()+2 add the numbers and put them where () is. 4+3+2=9
9+2=11.
Usually when reading mainstream media the always say that EU wants this or EU wants that. This is a severe simplification, and makes the whole issue wrong.
There are three institutions in the EU that have power and they usually want different things. The 3 are:
* European Commission (members not elected)
* Council of Ministers (members are elected ministers of their home countries, not elected on a European level)
* European Parliament (members are elected in democratic elections all around Europe)
The European Commission has been handling the ACTA negotiations in secrecy with USA and other countries. What has happened now is that the European Parliament has come up with a resolution saying the the European Commission can no longer do this in secrecy and all negotiations must now be public.
In short, the Parliament, representing the people, wants to see the ACTA files.
A bureaucrat fired for incompetence?
No, this is called promotion in bureaucratic organizations. This person will be moved from his/her current position to a position where he/she will manage ALL the databases for the Police.
If you can't beat them...join them. :)
So, Sun will finally go live with their pet store.
I know that both the state and the church came to support the censorship with draconian laws. The same thing is happening today.
I believe the media industry is loosing control. A very good example is from the Pirate Bay trial when John Kennedy from IFPI took the stand. One of the plaintiffs asked how TPB affected the music industry. His answer was that they can no longer foresee which position a certain song will get on the music lists. What did Kennedy mean? Did he actually mean that the music industry are controlling who gets where on the music lists? My interpretation is: of course!
The media industry is doing everything it can to prevent losing control and that is why we get all this new legislation both in the US and in the EU. Soon China, North Korea, Iran, etc. will be a lot freer than US and Europe...
If you interpret my comment as an analogy where the monks are the media industry, I agree that is doesn't really fit. And also concept of copyright wasn't really well spread during those days (very little legislation at least).
My main point is that is you have a bunch of people that feel that have control over a certain phenomenon in society, this bunch of people will do whatever they can to keep it.
It is that same rhetorics over and over again and humanity hasn't learned a thing the last couple of hundred years.
...and the printing press would make a lot of monks unemployed as well. They wrote all the books by hand.
Maybe 'unemployed' is the wrong word here. It is more that the monks lost control of what the general public was able to read. Suddenly is was no longer possible for the monks to censor religious or political incorrect ideas.
The exact same thing is happening again, but with different players. When music started to be broad-casted on FM radio, the media industry lost control of their products. Same thing with VHS.
The Internet is probably the scariest thing that can happen to the media industry. Because Internet is built without any central point and any node can broadcast. (Compare with a radio or TV station; one central point for broad casting and many passive listeners.) This is a tremendous loss of control for the media industry. The industry can not say this in public and that is why they always bring back the same culture-will-die ghost from the closet.
It is not about culture, it is about control.
The prosecutor in this case (Hakan Roswall) is Sweden's most experienced and knowledgeable prosecutor when it comes to cases involving Intellectual property rights. It looks like he didn't do his homework before entering the court house. He has been working on this case for more than three years and after one day in court he realized that TPB does not copy any files at all.
I think he felt a little embarrassed after this.
These studies often establish there is a correlation between variable A (playing violent video games) and variable B (agressiveness), but the study seldom establish A implies B.
The result might be interpreted as: agressive kids like to play violent video games.
I do see the difference between the two cases. But I'm not sure a person being learned to always follow orders sees the difference.
My point is even if the order is authentic, the order may still be wrong. Most orders pass the "authentic and sensible"-filter quite easy because they in fact are "authentic and sensible". It is very dangerous to allways follow orders no matter what and I think it's important to learn that some orders should be questioned.
Suppose you are in some battle or in a "hot zone". You see a seven-year old boy. Your SO orders you to shoot the boy. You will probably stand trial for homicide if you shoot the boy.
I agree.
A soldier should always (and automatically) question his orders. Are they sensible? I'm certain that the orders are ok almost every time, but if they suddely get an order that is not sensible, but should of course react.
You are self responsible for your action during battle. If your officer in command orders you to kill a civilian, YOU and not the officer will stand trial for murder. (The most famous examples are the Nurnberg trials.)
There is a big difference in defending yourself in battle and performing homicide, but one of them may look like the other.
In this, case the solders where reading email and my guess is that weren't in the battlefield. Plenty of time to think and they should of course have quiestioned the order.