According to Alan M Gershowitz, the doctrine of "search incident to arrest" may allow devices such as mobile phones, PDAs and laptops to be thoroughly searched without either probable cause or warrants
Isn't probably cause or a warrant required before you are arrested in the first place?
Yeah, here in Europe we all know how unsuccessful GSM is. Oh, the horror...
"Yeah, here in Europe we all know how unsuccessful Windows is. Oh, the horror..."
Have you actually worked with any of the GSM protocols? No?
GSM is insanely complex to implement and test, and the equipment and software to do so costs a fortune. This slows innovation, because small start-up companies can't afford to
Merely having a cell phone doesn't qualify you to talk about the technical quality---and by extension, the monetary and social cost---of GSM as specified and implemented.
ASN.1 is popular too. That doesn't make it well-designed or simple. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, search Google for 'ASN.1 vulnerability'.
Furthermore, the ITU---and telecomms in general---aren't exactly known for good, simple (cheap to implement from scratch) protocol design. They tend to produce overcomplicated beasts like OSI, GSM, and ASN.1.
Why anyone in-the-know would want to leave Internet protocols in the hands of the telecomms is a mystery to me.
I think the idea is that sooner or later, the ITU or some other group of powermongers is going to claim "jurisdiction" over the Internet on the basis that they are a true "international" organization, and Internet governance will fragment---or worse, people will follow them and Internet protocols will shift from their current (relative) simplicity to something more like OSI or telephony "standards", which are governed more by politics and patent-license-revenue-grabbing than by ease of implementation.
Giving ICANN more independence takes the teeth out of these opportunists' claims to legitimacy.
Sometimes I wish the reply all button had a molly-guard on it. Or at least add a dialog box on it that says something like "Using this constitutes spamming, does your message really need to be spammed to everyone in the From and CC field of this e-mail?".
No, this isn't a technological problem, and technology won't solve it.
4- Talk to them about getting things replaced with proper solutions. Maintaining that MS access nightmare that some guy in Marketing created 5 years ago is not a real solution, it needs to be replaced with a real solution, let them know.
Here is a useful bit of vocabulary for explaining why this is so: technical debt.
It's still not a great article (Jonah Goldberg doesn't do a good job of distinguishing what he's quoting and what's his own commentary), but I was wrong; He does cite his sources.
The story of Galileo is a tad more complicated than the simplistic version we're used to. I'm no Roman Catholic, but this meme needs to be corrected.
And you've provided absolutely nothing in the way of doing that, other than some rant by Jonah Goldberg that makes a bunch of claims without citing sources.
Except the pope wasn't banned. A relatively small group told him that he wasn't welcome, and he cancelled his speech in a huff.
Apparently he only goes where he is universally liked. It sounds like some wannabe-management types who surround themselves with yes-men: They're always useless.
Paul has stated that he doesn't accept the theory of Evolution... repeatedly saying that evolution is "just a theory." Also immaterial. Evolution's existance has nothing to do with the Presidency whatever, so the President's beliefs about evolution don't matter in his role as President
One would hope. The problem is that talking about evolution as "just a theory" indicates that he is either incapable or unwilling to research things on his own before drawing conclusions. The other positions he takes seem to be equally uninformed. It indicates to me that he's more likely to pander to well-funded lobbyists than to be able to lead the country intelligently.
knows that he won't ever have to make good on his promises, so he just promises everything in order to get the support of people too gullible to realize the game he's playing. No different from any other politician. I don't expect to see him on the ballot in the general election; a vote for him is a protest against the status quo, not unlike a vote for a Greenie or a Libbie.
But I'm damned tired of Republicans and Democrats taking "campaign contribution" bribes from the great American corporations like Sony, BP, Shell, Crysler, etc. I don't like the police state* my country has turned into and I'm not voting for the status quo any more.
Fair enough, but have you looked at Barack Obama? He seems to be capable of intelligent, independent thought. What are your objections to him?
The fear is hackers may be experimenting and gathering research that will increase the dangers of a more malicious attack in the near future. So the summary starts off being nothing more than FUD, and since that won't hold water descends quickly -- albeit nonsensically -- into a completely different topic.
No kidding. News flash: If the iPhone is vulnerable, then the "dangers of a more malicious attack" are already there. The solution is to fix the iPhone, not to bitch and fearmonger about "hackers... experimenting and gathering research".
I'll be registering as a Republican just to vote for Ron Paul
Wait, so people are actually serious about voting for him? I thought it was a running gag. Let's review (from Wikipedia):
Paul supports ending participation in and funding of organizations he believes override U.S. sovereignty, such as the International Criminal Court, the United Nations, the Law of the Sea Treaty, the WTO, the NATO, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
He supports abolishment of... the Federal Reserve
He speaks in terms of left-right politics: "This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."
Paul has stated that he doesn't accept the theory of Evolution... repeatedly saying that evolution is "just a theory."
In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion" from the jurisdiction of federal courts.
He believes the internet should be free from government regulation and taxation and opposes... net neutrality
Paul introduced The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, a bill that would have defined human life to begin at conception, and removed challenges to prohibitions on abortion from federal court jurisdiction.
It looks to me like he's either very simple-minded, or he's a minor candidate who (like a lot of "green parties", sadly) knows that he won't ever have to make good on his promises, so he just promises everything in order to get the support of people too gullible to realize the game he's playing.
I believe he meant something like: by the time we notice detrimental effects of GM food, it might be too late to avoid a disaster. (like if in 10 yrs all the people who've been eating GM beef from McDonald's get cancer or something).
That sounds like a generic argument against any change.
Where is the panic though? It seems like any time that somebody raises any questions about the safety of GMO, nanotechnology, or nuclear whatever it is labeled as hysteria and dismissed. Usually such people haven't put in the time to educate themselves about the subject matter in order to ask intelligent questions, so why should anyone else put in the time to debunk them? One can always come up with junk claims faster than science can debunk them.
By 2038, no major consumer cpu manufacturer will be producing anything but 64 bit chips.
I noticed that you were careful to refer specifically to "consumer" CPU manufacturers. However, 8-bit, 16-bit, and 32-bit CPUs are still in widespread use in both consumer and industrial (embedded) electronics, and there's no reason to expect that electronics manufacturers will start using 64-bit processors exclusively, when 32 (or-fewer) bits-per-word will suffice.
Prof. Daniel Bernstein came up with a decent integer time representation called TAI64, and a public-domain library for using this representation. Using it requires getting over one's dislike of his personality, but would mostly solve the 2038 problem long before the year 2038 hits.
Mozilla thus far has neglected to develop tools to help IT departments deploy and manage Firefox...
That would be nice to have, but anyone else could sell something like this, if there was demand for it.
... and it doesn't offer paid technical support services to risk-averse corporate users.
Why would anyone with a brain care that the Mozilla Foundation doesn't do this? A huge benefit of free software is that there's no monopoly for support, so you can hire anyone you want to do paid technical support.
If there really is so much money to be made selling tech support for Firefox, then start a company that does it! Otherwise, that's not the problem.
To move Linux to GPL3 would require one of (a) tracking down every contributor and getting their OK or (b) starting from a clean GPL3 footing and getting GPL3 contributions.
Or GPLv2-only code could be phased out, but it would take planning. A large percentage of kernel code is already GPLv3 compatible. If Linus wanted to move to GPLv3, he could institute a policy of only accepting contributions that were compatible with both GPLv2 and GPLv3. Eventually, a lot of GPLv2-only code would become obsolete and get replaced with better, GPLv3-compatible code. The rest could be relicensed (by its copyright holders), rewritten, or dropped. At that point, new releases could switch to GPLv3 only.
It could even happen without Linus's permission (though that's a lot less likely), since---until recently---a good chunk of Linux was licensed under _any_ version of the GPL, thanks to section 9 of GPLv2. (Linus probably denies this today, but a feature of the GPL is that he can't retroactively revoke permissions he previously granted under it.)
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't probably cause or a warrant required before you are arrested in the first place?
Yeah. People should be held liable when they know full well that Microsoft has a track record for bad security, but choose Microsoft products anyway.
... build a novel GSM stack, for example.
"Yeah, here in Europe we all know how unsuccessful Windows is. Oh, the horror..."
Have you actually worked with any of the GSM protocols? No?
GSM is insanely complex to implement and test, and the equipment and software to do so costs a fortune. This slows innovation, because small start-up companies can't afford to
Merely having a cell phone doesn't qualify you to talk about the technical quality---and by extension, the monetary and social cost---of GSM as specified and implemented.
ASN.1 is popular too. That doesn't make it well-designed or simple. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, search Google for 'ASN.1 vulnerability'.
In your own words:
Get a clue.Furthermore, the ITU---and telecomms in general---aren't exactly known for good, simple (cheap to implement from scratch) protocol design. They tend to produce overcomplicated beasts like OSI, GSM, and ASN.1.
Why anyone in-the-know would want to leave Internet protocols in the hands of the telecomms is a mystery to me.
I think the idea is that sooner or later, the ITU or some other group of powermongers is going to claim "jurisdiction" over the Internet on the basis that they are a true "international" organization, and Internet governance will fragment---or worse, people will follow them and Internet protocols will shift from their current (relative) simplicity to something more like OSI or telephony "standards", which are governed more by politics and patent-license-revenue-grabbing than by ease of implementation.
Giving ICANN more independence takes the teeth out of these opportunists' claims to legitimacy.
No, this isn't a technological problem, and technology won't solve it.
Here is a useful bit of vocabulary for explaining why this is so: technical debt.
My prediction is that this will be more useful for solid-state "disks" than it will be for mechanical hard disks.
It's still not a great article (Jonah Goldberg doesn't do a good job of distinguishing what he's quoting and what's his own commentary), but I was wrong; He does cite his sources.
Huh?
And you've provided absolutely nothing in the way of doing that, other than some rant by Jonah Goldberg that makes a bunch of claims without citing sources.
Great job.
Except the pope wasn't banned. A relatively small group told him that he wasn't welcome, and he cancelled his speech in a huff.
Apparently he only goes where he is universally liked. It sounds like some wannabe-management types who surround themselves with yes-men: They're always useless.
WTF? You don't study "science" unless you're an anthropologist or a high-school student. What "spiritual methods" are well-accepted and *reliable*?
One would hope. The problem is that talking about evolution as "just a theory" indicates that he is either incapable or unwilling to research things on his own before drawing conclusions. The other positions he takes seem to be equally uninformed. It indicates to me that he's more likely to pander to well-funded lobbyists than to be able to lead the country intelligently.
knows that he won't ever have to make good on his promises, so he just promises everything in order to get the support of people too gullible to realize the game he's playing. No different from any other politician. I don't expect to see him on the ballot in the general election; a vote for him is a protest against the status quo, not unlike a vote for a Greenie or a Libbie.But I'm damned tired of Republicans and Democrats taking "campaign contribution" bribes from the great American corporations like Sony, BP, Shell, Crysler, etc. I don't like the police state* my country has turned into and I'm not voting for the status quo any more.
Fair enough, but have you looked at Barack Obama? He seems to be capable of intelligent, independent thought. What are your objections to him?
No kidding. News flash: If the iPhone is vulnerable, then the "dangers of a more malicious attack" are already there. The solution is to fix the iPhone, not to bitch and fearmonger about "hackers ... experimenting and gathering research".
Wait, so people are actually serious about voting for him? I thought it was a running gag. Let's review (from Wikipedia):
It looks to me like he's either very simple-minded, or he's a minor candidate who (like a lot of "green parties", sadly) knows that he won't ever have to make good on his promises, so he just promises everything in order to get the support of people too gullible to realize the game he's playing.
That sounds like a generic argument against any change.
I noticed that you were careful to refer specifically to "consumer" CPU manufacturers. However, 8-bit, 16-bit, and 32-bit CPUs are still in widespread use in both consumer and industrial (embedded) electronics, and there's no reason to expect that electronics manufacturers will start using 64-bit processors exclusively, when 32 (or-fewer) bits-per-word will suffice.
Prof. Daniel Bernstein came up with a decent integer time representation called TAI64, and a public-domain library for using this representation. Using it requires getting over one's dislike of his personality, but would mostly solve the 2038 problem long before the year 2038 hits.
No. The plural form of "cache" is "caches". The singular form of "cachets" is "cachet", which means something else.
This is really something you could have looked up on your own.
Why does this article have a "malware" tag?
From the summary:
Mozilla thus far has neglected to develop tools to help IT departments deploy and manage FirefoxThat would be nice to have, but anyone else could sell something like this, if there was demand for it.
... and it doesn't offer paid technical support services to risk-averse corporate users.Why would anyone with a brain care that the Mozilla Foundation doesn't do this? A huge benefit of free software is that there's no monopoly for support, so you can hire anyone you want to do paid technical support.
If there really is so much money to be made selling tech support for Firefox, then start a company that does it! Otherwise, that's not the problem.
. . .
No, you sociopath.
Try doing even a preliminary amount of research before you spout off trash like that:
Or GPLv2-only code could be phased out, but it would take planning. A large percentage of kernel code is already GPLv3 compatible. If Linus wanted to move to GPLv3, he could institute a policy of only accepting contributions that were compatible with both GPLv2 and GPLv3. Eventually, a lot of GPLv2-only code would become obsolete and get replaced with better, GPLv3-compatible code. The rest could be relicensed (by its copyright holders), rewritten, or dropped. At that point, new releases could switch to GPLv3 only.
It could even happen without Linus's permission (though that's a lot less likely), since---until recently---a good chunk of Linux was licensed under _any_ version of the GPL, thanks to section 9 of GPLv2. (Linus probably denies this today, but a feature of the GPL is that he can't retroactively revoke permissions he previously granted under it.)