Wouldn't it be interesting if the RIAA's lawyers posted this "Ask Slashdot" question to gain two things:
(1) get feedback to tighten up their expert report
(2) prove that Ms. Lindor's attorneys are technically incompetent by bringing up this post in court.
I have heard so many people say that somebody might be able to sneak across security with a bomb and blow up the gate area with a fake boarding pass. This is ridiculous. The purpose of the boarding pass + ID check by the TSA is to minimize the number of people they have to screen. It has no real security implication. If you could get a bomb past the TSA checkpoint, who cares about a fake boarding pass? Soembody intent on bombing an airport could just use a real boarding pass then.
The purpose of the boarding pass + ID check by the TSA is to ensure that they don't have to screen everybody who wants to meet somebody at their gate, or wants to accompany somebody to their gate. The purpose is to focus the limited resources (the TSA screeners) on actual passengers.
So, what does a fake boarding pass get you? Well, you can meet your relatives at the gate when they fly in, or you can accompany your relatives to their gate when they are departing. So, you get to spend an extra 30 minutes with them while risking ending up in jail.
As much as I hate how providers cripple their phones, they do have good reasons to do so. When you get a phone from a provider, you pay a highly subsidized price. If the provider gives you a phone at a subsidized price, they need to make that money back by locking you into a contract, by charging you for uploads/downloads, etc. They not only have to pay for maintaining their network; they also pay a big portion of the cost of the phones. If the demand for phones at full price was high enough, then I would agree with your argument. If I paid full price for a phone, I would demand that it wasn't locked down.
In addition, consider the technical support nightmare that carriers would have if they allowed you to do whatever you wanted to your phone. Your ISP already has this problem... they get calls from people running 50 different versions of operating systems, and you end up paying for the support costs through your increased subscription fees.
The bottom line is that the economics of the current mobile phone market in the USA dictates that the phones need to be locked down. Guess what carrier locks down their phones the most in the USA? Guess what carrier is the most popular in the USA? The answer to both is Verizon Wireless. Is that a coincidence? They lock down their phones to reduce tech support costs, and make more money from people who have to pay to download apps, upload pics, etc. They then (hopefully) invest part of the money in improving their mobile network, which means better call quality for subscribers (which is the main reason why we have cell phones, right?). I would much rather choose a locked down phone with a carrier where I can make calls reliably than a completely open phone with a carrier where I can barely make calls.
If you are willing to pay full price for a phone along with high subscription fees, then open platform is the way to go. Unfortunately, that is not what most consumers want at this point.
Assuming that such a transmission back in time is possible, shouldn't we be receiving transmissions from the future right now? Shouldn't future generations have warned us about the big tsunami a couple of years ago, for example?
Then again, maybe we don't know how to pick up the transmissions yet...
I've been to Thailand three times in the past five years, and while I've never been pick-pocketed, after all three trips mysterious people tried to make fraudulent charges to the credit card that I used for that particular trip. I know two coworkers who have had people attempt to make fraudulent charges on their credit card (from inside the US in each case) even though neither credit card was physically stolen.
That may be true; however, a few people's experiences do not indicate what is more likely, or what we need to worry more about. In my case, nobody I know has ever gotten a fraudulent charge on their credit cards *knock on wood*. However, the last time I was in San Francisco, I was pick-pocketed, and lost all of my credit cards.
Frankly, I don't understand everybody's obsession with credit card number theft. Unless you are posting your credit card number on/. or wearing it on your T-shirt for everybody to see, you are NOT liable for any fraudulent charges. If the merchant cannot produce a receipt with your signature on it, or if the merchant cannot prove that you received their services, then it has no effect on you, except for you having to make a quick phone call to the credit card issuer.
I would be more worried about getting pick-pocketed on the way to the airport where I would not have any credit cards or identification left than about somebody else going on a shopping spree with a stolen credit card number.
I'm not sure how useful this will be in practice. Just because YOU have the bandwidth to be able to download X bits/second does not mean that the server(s) you are getting data from can upload at that speed. If I could get as much download speed over DSL as my ISP claims, I would be very happy; however, more often than not, the download speed is restricted not by my ISP, but by the server (either due to actual bandwidth restrictions, or due to explicit download rate restrictions enforced by the server).
Even if you could achieve those download speeds, would your hard disk be able to keep up with storing the data that quickly? My computer has trouble keeping up with download speeds of 1 Mb/s.
What if I spoof my caller ID, which is relatively easy to do? Will I be able to charge all my parking fees to my coworker's/neighbor's/friend's/stranger's phone bill? Unless they have cameras at each parking meter recording the license plate numbers of cars parked there, how will they track me down before the victim receives their cell phone bill for the month?
Also, can I do a "chargeback"? What if I charge up my phone bill with parking fees, and dispute the charges at the end of the month?
Something like this has been tried before, but failed because the guns wouldn't fire a lot of the time. The previous experiment was guns that do not fire when they are more than a few inches from the owner. Great idea, but it failed in practice.
This particular idea is actually worse. How exactly does encryption help? Do I enter a password to unlock my secret key every time I fire the gun? If so, I'd rather take my chances defending myself with a knife. If I don't have to authenticate myself to the gun somehow, then what is the point of the encryption? Maybe to ensure that there won't be any third-party bullet manufacturers... kinda like inkjet cartridges. What's next? Cheap guns with very expensive bullets, because you can only buy the bullets manufactured by the gun manufacturer?
As much as I love Google Maps, and as much as I generally dislike Microsoft products, I must admit that I like Windows Live Local much more. I like how you can zoom in a lot more, and I love the birds eye view in major cities.
However, when it comes to just scrolling around on a map (not satellite images), I certainly prefer Google Maps.
I think that most mapping sites have their strong points, and no one is necessarily "better" than all others.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't it be interesting if the RIAA's lawyers posted this "Ask Slashdot" question to gain two things:
(1) get feedback to tighten up their expert report
(2) prove that Ms. Lindor's attorneys are technically incompetent by bringing up this post in court.
That would be very interesting indeed.
I have heard so many people say that somebody might be able to sneak across security with a bomb and blow up the gate area with a fake boarding pass. This is ridiculous. The purpose of the boarding pass + ID check by the TSA is to minimize the number of people they have to screen. It has no real security implication. If you could get a bomb past the TSA checkpoint, who cares about a fake boarding pass? Soembody intent on bombing an airport could just use a real boarding pass then.
The purpose of the boarding pass + ID check by the TSA is to ensure that they don't have to screen everybody who wants to meet somebody at their gate, or wants to accompany somebody to their gate. The purpose is to focus the limited resources (the TSA screeners) on actual passengers.
So, what does a fake boarding pass get you? Well, you can meet your relatives at the gate when they fly in, or you can accompany your relatives to their gate when they are departing. So, you get to spend an extra 30 minutes with them while risking ending up in jail.
As much as I hate how providers cripple their phones, they do have good reasons to do so. When you get a phone from a provider, you pay a highly subsidized price. If the provider gives you a phone at a subsidized price, they need to make that money back by locking you into a contract, by charging you for uploads/downloads, etc. They not only have to pay for maintaining their network; they also pay a big portion of the cost of the phones. If the demand for phones at full price was high enough, then I would agree with your argument. If I paid full price for a phone, I would demand that it wasn't locked down. In addition, consider the technical support nightmare that carriers would have if they allowed you to do whatever you wanted to your phone. Your ISP already has this problem... they get calls from people running 50 different versions of operating systems, and you end up paying for the support costs through your increased subscription fees. The bottom line is that the economics of the current mobile phone market in the USA dictates that the phones need to be locked down. Guess what carrier locks down their phones the most in the USA? Guess what carrier is the most popular in the USA? The answer to both is Verizon Wireless. Is that a coincidence? They lock down their phones to reduce tech support costs, and make more money from people who have to pay to download apps, upload pics, etc. They then (hopefully) invest part of the money in improving their mobile network, which means better call quality for subscribers (which is the main reason why we have cell phones, right?). I would much rather choose a locked down phone with a carrier where I can make calls reliably than a completely open phone with a carrier where I can barely make calls. If you are willing to pay full price for a phone along with high subscription fees, then open platform is the way to go. Unfortunately, that is not what most consumers want at this point.
Assuming that such a transmission back in time is possible, shouldn't we be receiving transmissions from the future right now? Shouldn't future generations have warned us about the big tsunami a couple of years ago, for example? Then again, maybe we don't know how to pick up the transmissions yet...
I've been to Thailand three times in the past five years, and while I've never been pick-pocketed, after all three trips mysterious people tried to make fraudulent charges to the credit card that I used for that particular trip. I know two coworkers who have had people attempt to make fraudulent charges on their credit card (from inside the US in each case) even though neither credit card was physically stolen.
/. or wearing it on your T-shirt for everybody to see, you are NOT liable for any fraudulent charges. If the merchant cannot produce a receipt with your signature on it, or if the merchant cannot prove that you received their services, then it has no effect on you, except for you having to make a quick phone call to the credit card issuer.
That may be true; however, a few people's experiences do not indicate what is more likely, or what we need to worry more about. In my case, nobody I know has ever gotten a fraudulent charge on their credit cards *knock on wood*. However, the last time I was in San Francisco, I was pick-pocketed, and lost all of my credit cards.
Frankly, I don't understand everybody's obsession with credit card number theft. Unless you are posting your credit card number on
I would be more worried about getting pick-pocketed on the way to the airport where I would not have any credit cards or identification left than about somebody else going on a shopping spree with a stolen credit card number.
I'm not sure how useful this will be in practice. Just because YOU have the bandwidth to be able to download X bits/second does not mean that the server(s) you are getting data from can upload at that speed. If I could get as much download speed over DSL as my ISP claims, I would be very happy; however, more often than not, the download speed is restricted not by my ISP, but by the server (either due to actual bandwidth restrictions, or due to explicit download rate restrictions enforced by the server).
Even if you could achieve those download speeds, would your hard disk be able to keep up with storing the data that quickly? My computer has trouble keeping up with download speeds of 1 Mb/s.
What if I spoof my caller ID, which is relatively easy to do? Will I be able to charge all my parking fees to my coworker's/neighbor's/friend's/stranger's phone bill? Unless they have cameras at each parking meter recording the license plate numbers of cars parked there, how will they track me down before the victim receives their cell phone bill for the month?
Also, can I do a "chargeback"? What if I charge up my phone bill with parking fees, and dispute the charges at the end of the month?
Something like this has been tried before, but failed because the guns wouldn't fire a lot of the time. The previous experiment was guns that do not fire when they are more than a few inches from the owner. Great idea, but it failed in practice.
This particular idea is actually worse. How exactly does encryption help? Do I enter a password to unlock my secret key every time I fire the gun? If so, I'd rather take my chances defending myself with a knife. If I don't have to authenticate myself to the gun somehow, then what is the point of the encryption? Maybe to ensure that there won't be any third-party bullet manufacturers... kinda like inkjet cartridges. What's next? Cheap guns with very expensive bullets, because you can only buy the bullets manufactured by the gun manufacturer?
As much as I love Google Maps, and as much as I generally dislike Microsoft products, I must admit that I like Windows Live Local much more. I like how you can zoom in a lot more, and I love the birds eye view in major cities.
However, when it comes to just scrolling around on a map (not satellite images), I certainly prefer Google Maps.
I think that most mapping sites have their strong points, and no one is necessarily "better" than all others.
And most folks get intimidated when apprehended by uniformed men who don't know it better
I'm not so sure it's the uniform as much as it is the gun!