Then assume that the browsers all have security vulns that are available to anyone who is willing to look for them. Because they do.
If the assumption is that all Internet-facing applications have vulnerabilities that can be exploited to take full administrative control of a computer, what is the mitigation other than abstaining from the Internet?
Correct. It's an old, old saying, "The only secure computer on the network is the one not on the network." Taken another way, "The only secure computer is the one not powered on!" It's an unfortunate truth that we all must come to grips with. We do our best to make the computer less desirable a target on the network, but the only way to be completely secure is to not be on the network. The CIA knows this, the NSA knows this, and I am sure that intelligence agencies the world over have two computers on their desks; one on the internal/secure network and one on the Internet. We as IT professionals know more about the hazards and pitfalls than the average netizen, but we're no match for a skilled intruder that desparately wants something on one of our systems. We accept that fact and is why we do everything we can to make the intruder's job more difficult, but we also have a schedule of regular backups and a plan to deal with the intrusion after the fact. That's one of the reasons why we're professionals.
The only reasonable thing is to block all ads if you don't want to get hit by an exploit.
Now define "all ads" in a way that allows a machine to correctly determine what is a non-ad. Is a can of Pepsi in a movie an "ad"?
Now you're being silly in order to deflect a weak argument shored up with a false equivalency. A Pepsi can in a movie is NOT the same thing as a web page ad (the topic of discussion). If you didn't know that web page ads were what the GP meant, then you're either very slow or purposefully being an ass. I block ads with ABP and NoScript. I rarely--if ever these days--see ads on web pages unless I am browsing somewhere other than my desktop machine.
As an aside, I'd bet there would be good money in developing a piece of software that would block product placements in video automatically. Right now it's done manually. Would require a lot of image recognition training, but could net someone a lot of money.
"Swift will not only supplant Objective-C when it comes to developing apps for the Mac, iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, and devices to come, but it will also replace C for embedded programming on Apple platforms."
Not if you want to write something that compiles on other platforms. With Android/iOS being based on Linux/BSD it could very well make sense to write the back end of your app in C/C++ and only then branch into a different language as required by the GUI framework and other required proprietary APIs you'll be using.
I take it you've never written cross-platform code for MacOS? There's a lot of things like memory management, for one, that you'd want to use Obj-C for. By the time you've done all the "required proprietary API" changes, you'd have been better off just writing the whole thing in Obj-C. Not only would it save dev time, the end product would be a lot more stable and have better overall performance, but I guess it depends on what trade-offs you're willing to accept.
The new language can't supplant the old one while the old one exists in the same environment. More to the point, compatibility with Objective-C, C, and C++ was an explicit design goal. So you can just pack up all the bullshit about taking over the world.
Thank you! I was scrolling through the comments and took a damn long time before I found someone else that had the same thought I did. All Swift seems to be is a higher-level abstraction of the same animal... C If that's the case, C, C++ and Obj-C will still be around for a long time on the platform and Swift will just jump in the bus with them.
No, not entirely if you read some more modern research on behavioral science. Behaviors are patterned by multiple input sources and feedback mechanisms, including: genetics (inherited traits), religion, societal norms of their country of residence or their heritage, direct training (e.g., etiquette classes), trauma (e.g., car accident, sexual assault, physical abuse) and social interactions with people from different cultural and experiential backgrounds, among others.
In essence it's our experiences along with inheritance that model our behavior, whether that be at home or not.
So, you think that these rules were created without the FAA's input or consultation? You think that they haven't been revised over the years and the revision dates updated? I started flying model aircraft in 1984, and the basic set of AMA rules was out then, referenced in the instruction manual for the aircraft and your responsibility to look up, not the manufacturer's to publish. FYI, my referenced link was to today's rules as I was not able to find a copy of the rules from 1984.
Or maybe the technology has outpaced our ability to responsibly use it.
Morality and ethics seem to have disappeared as our technological dissemination increases, and I'd have to agree. Just because you CAN do a thing, doesn't mean you should; whether someone complains or not.
No, AC, I'm saying that the AMA and FAA rules were either referenced in the instructions and it was your responsibility to go read them, just as it is today.
From page 25 of the DJI Phantom User's Manual: (emphasis is mine)
Flight Environment Requirements
(1) Do not use the aircraft in severe weather conditions. These include wind speed exceeding category 4, snow, rain and smog.
(2) Fly in open fields as high buildings or steel structures may affect the accuracy of the onboard compass.
(3) Keep the Phantom away from obstacles, crowds, high voltage power lines, trees or bodies of water when in flight.
(4) Reduce the chance of electromagnetic interference by not flying in areas with high levels of electromagnetism, including base stations or radio transmission towers.
(5) The Phantom cannot operate within the polar areas. (6) Do not fly the aircraft within no-fly zones specified by local laws and regulations.
Item six clearly makes it your responsibility to find out what those laws and regulations are, not DJI's. The RC planes I used to fly referenced the AMA and any FAA rules of flight at the time. So, no, same thing today as thirty years ago.
I bet I could name more than I have fingers and toes, or did you miss the part where I said I had friends that were competitive RC flyers? I went to club gatherings and competitions and got to know A LOT of local people that flew RC planes and choppers. There was an abandoned airport not five miles from my home where competitions were held, and club meetings were every week until the land was sold and a housing development went in. I was, and still am, a very avid aviation fanatic from a very early age.
So, your argument is that if no one sees it, it's ok? Sorry, that just doesn't fly. Pun intended. That's a rather juvenile justification, don't you think?
Apparently most photographers think that if they are hired to take and edit photographs of YOU, the copyright and even the originals belong to them, unless stated otherwise in the contract. I find it strange, really.
tl;dr But most of the comments about how he can't do this aren't wrong. All the others that say he can are more than likely wrong as they are assuming way too much.
You're also assuming that the plaform he's developing for is open source. If it's SAS or SAP there are developer communities for that stuff too, and they ain't open source! If something is being shared for free in those communities it is out of the goodness of the developer's heart.
Where did the OP say the software he was developing plug-ins and add-ons for was Open Source? Oh, yeah, he didn't. Well that's the end of your idea. Just because a piece of software has forums for sharing things doesn't mean any of that is open source. If it's SAP or SAS, or anything like those platforms they have community resources like that, but the code is NOT open source and is being shared either out of the goodness of someone's heart or being sold for profit. Either way, copyright belongs to the private developer or company that made the shared resource. Since he works for a company, the company would own it and the license to the platform he's developing for, or did you miss that part too???
Where did the OP say the software he was developing plug-ins and add-ons for was Open Source? Oh, yeah, he didn't. Well that's the end of your idea. Just because a piece of software has forums for sharing things doesn't mean any of that is open source. If it's SAP or SAS, or anything like those platforms they have community resources like that, but the code is NOT open source and is being shared either out of the goodness of someone's heart or being sold for profit. Either way, copyright belongs to the private developer or company that made the shared resource. Since he works for a company, the company would own it and the license to the platform he's developing for, or did you miss that part too?
I can tell you right now what that negotiation will sound like:
Toney - Hey, I'd like to create software for myself that does the same things that the software I develop for you can do on the side so I can earn some more money. Would that be ok?
Manager - [howls of laughter for at least thirty seconds] Are you serious?
Toney - Yeah, why?
Manager - Well, I guess you don't want to work here anymore. I'll contact HR and have security escort you out.
Not sure what planet you're from, nor what you're smoking but conflict of interest doesn't fly in America's corporate world. It gets you fired, sued and/or blackballed from the software industry pretty fast around here.
If the work he produces for himself is in any way related to what he does for his full-time job, he will be fired and sued. It's called conflict of interest and is highly unethical and carries serious civil and career related penalties.
AS AN EMPLOYEE EVERYTHING YOU PRODUCE IS OWNED BY YOUR EMPLOYER -- THAT IS WHY THEY ARE PAYING YOU -- THEY DO NOT PAY YOU BECAUSE THEY LIKE YOU -- THEY PAY YOU FOR OUTPUT
Got it? If so, please share with the rest of the entitled butt-hurt millennials who think they got a job solely because they "deserve it".
You did read the part about him using an instance of the company's software, correct? Unless he intends to buy a license for that software for himself and then start developing on his own AFTER he no longer works full-time for a company doing the same work, he's being unethical and will get fired and probably sued.
You don't read too well. The linked bit of law you posted does not support the OP's position at all, and there isn't a state in the U.S. where it would.
Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign or offer to assign any of the employee's rights in an invention to the employer shall not apply to an invention for which no equipment, supplies, facilities or trade secret information of the employer was used and which was developed entirely on the employee's own time, unless:
(1)The invention relates to the business of the employer or to the employer's actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development [...]
He cannot make software that is relevant to the work he does at his paid-for job if he is a W-4/W-2 empoyee. Period. That's lawsuit fodder, plain and simple.
I don't know a single state that has laws that would support a clear conflict of interest like this. This guy wants to recreate software he's writing for a company and profit from it while working for that company. That ain't gonna happen anywhere if you're a W-4/W-2 employee and will only happen as a W-9/1099 employee if your contract grants you the rights. Why a company would do that for a W-9/1099 employee I don't know as, again, it is a clear conflict of interest and would possibly negate any competitive advantage the work would give the company over others. I wouldn't do it if it was my company!
If he was a hourly laborer, doing the work after hours would be enough, but for professional work that just doesn't help. It would have to be both after hours, and also unrelated to his work. He can write linux device drivers or something, but replicating the stuff at work... they own that too.
Umm, no. Wage employee and salaried employee status are equal in this regard as you filled out the same W-4 form. In order to own the rights to something you create for someone else, that you got paid to do, you MUST be a contract employee (W-9 status not W-4) and you MUST have a contract stating you own the rights. There are no if's, and's or but's about it. Don't believe me, do a quick search online or ask a patent and copyright attorney. Even if you create something "after hours", if it is relevant to the work you do for the company it's a conflict of interest and you will at least get fired, if not sued. If the work isn't related, i.e., you're writing iOS or Android apps for other purposes, then you can claim the IP, but not if it mimics what you do at your job! I don't know a single company that wouldn't throw the book at you while it was still in the bookcase if you recreated software that you made for them for your own profit while still employed at said company, even as a W-9 consultant unless your contract secured the rights for you.
You are so very wrong, and/or are so very young. The rules for RC aircraft (in the U.S.) have been around for a very long time. One of them has always been that flying over property that doesn't belong to you is illegal, as well as flying over streets, flying within so many miles of an airport, or in non-designated for RC use public places. The reason you don't fly over property that isn't yours is you have to trespass if it crashes and you need to go get it, along with if it hits something (or someone) and damages something on that property it's your ass! Then there's flying over streets--similar logic and safety concerns involved, only you have a much higher risk of causing a fatality because your RC aircraft crashes on a busy street. Those are the very reasons the FAA made the rules to begin with and made them so simple that even children could understand and remember them.
Slashdot Mirror
Then assume that the browsers all have security vulns that are available to anyone who is willing to look for them. Because they do.
If the assumption is that all Internet-facing applications have vulnerabilities that can be exploited to take full administrative control of a computer, what is the mitigation other than abstaining from the Internet?
Correct. It's an old, old saying, "The only secure computer on the network is the one not on the network." Taken another way, "The only secure computer is the one not powered on!" It's an unfortunate truth that we all must come to grips with. We do our best to make the computer less desirable a target on the network, but the only way to be completely secure is to not be on the network. The CIA knows this, the NSA knows this, and I am sure that intelligence agencies the world over have two computers on their desks; one on the internal/secure network and one on the Internet. We as IT professionals know more about the hazards and pitfalls than the average netizen, but we're no match for a skilled intruder that desparately wants something on one of our systems. We accept that fact and is why we do everything we can to make the intruder's job more difficult, but we also have a schedule of regular backups and a plan to deal with the intrusion after the fact. That's one of the reasons why we're professionals.
The only reasonable thing is to block all ads if you don't want to get hit by an exploit.
Now define "all ads" in a way that allows a machine to correctly determine what is a non-ad. Is a can of Pepsi in a movie an "ad"?
Now you're being silly in order to deflect a weak argument shored up with a false equivalency. A Pepsi can in a movie is NOT the same thing as a web page ad (the topic of discussion). If you didn't know that web page ads were what the GP meant, then you're either very slow or purposefully being an ass. I block ads with ABP and NoScript. I rarely--if ever these days--see ads on web pages unless I am browsing somewhere other than my desktop machine.
As an aside, I'd bet there would be good money in developing a piece of software that would block product placements in video automatically. Right now it's done manually. Would require a lot of image recognition training, but could net someone a lot of money.
"Swift will not only supplant Objective-C when it comes to developing apps for the Mac, iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, and devices to come, but it will also replace C for embedded programming on Apple platforms."
Not if you want to write something that compiles on other platforms. With Android/iOS being based on Linux/BSD it could very well make sense to write the back end of your app in C/C++ and only then branch into a different language as required by the GUI framework and other required proprietary APIs you'll be using.
I take it you've never written cross-platform code for MacOS? There's a lot of things like memory management, for one, that you'd want to use Obj-C for. By the time you've done all the "required proprietary API" changes, you'd have been better off just writing the whole thing in Obj-C. Not only would it save dev time, the end product would be a lot more stable and have better overall performance, but I guess it depends on what trade-offs you're willing to accept.
The new language can't supplant the old one while the old one exists in the same environment. More to the point, compatibility with Objective-C, C, and C++ was an explicit design goal. So you can just pack up all the bullshit about taking over the world.
Thank you! I was scrolling through the comments and took a damn long time before I found someone else that had the same thought I did. All Swift seems to be is a higher-level abstraction of the same animal ... C If that's the case, C, C++ and Obj-C will still be around for a long time on the platform and Swift will just jump in the bus with them.
No, not entirely if you read some more modern research on behavioral science. Behaviors are patterned by multiple input sources and feedback mechanisms, including: genetics (inherited traits), religion, societal norms of their country of residence or their heritage, direct training (e.g., etiquette classes), trauma (e.g., car accident, sexual assault, physical abuse) and social interactions with people from different cultural and experiential backgrounds, among others.
In essence it's our experiences along with inheritance that model our behavior, whether that be at home or not.
So, you think that these rules were created without the FAA's input or consultation? You think that they haven't been revised over the years and the revision dates updated? I started flying model aircraft in 1984, and the basic set of AMA rules was out then, referenced in the instruction manual for the aircraft and your responsibility to look up, not the manufacturer's to publish. FYI, my referenced link was to today's rules as I was not able to find a copy of the rules from 1984.
yes, i want to be free to be able to take out any drone that flies over my property, break it into little pieces
Check your local laws. You might be allowed to. All but the illegal dumping thing, that is.
Or maybe the technology has outpaced our ability to responsibly use it.
Morality and ethics seem to have disappeared as our technological dissemination increases, and I'd have to agree. Just because you CAN do a thing, doesn't mean you should; whether someone complains or not.
No, AC, I'm saying that the AMA and FAA rules were either referenced in the instructions and it was your responsibility to go read them, just as it is today.
From page 25 of the DJI Phantom User's Manual: (emphasis is mine)
Item six clearly makes it your responsibility to find out what those laws and regulations are, not DJI's. The RC planes I used to fly referenced the AMA and any FAA rules of flight at the time. So, no, same thing today as thirty years ago.
I bet I could name more than I have fingers and toes, or did you miss the part where I said I had friends that were competitive RC flyers? I went to club gatherings and competitions and got to know A LOT of local people that flew RC planes and choppers. There was an abandoned airport not five miles from my home where competitions were held, and club meetings were every week until the land was sold and a housing development went in. I was, and still am, a very avid aviation fanatic from a very early age.
So, your argument is that if no one sees it, it's ok? Sorry, that just doesn't fly. Pun intended. That's a rather juvenile justification, don't you think?
Apparently most photographers think that if they are hired to take and edit photographs of YOU, the copyright and even the originals belong to them, unless stated otherwise in the contract. I find it strange, really.
They do belong to the copyright holder, which in the case of photographs is the person that took them, even if they are a monkey.
tl;dr But most of the comments about how he can't do this aren't wrong. All the others that say he can are more than likely wrong as they are assuming way too much.
You're also assuming that the plaform he's developing for is open source. If it's SAS or SAP there are developer communities for that stuff too, and they ain't open source! If something is being shared for free in those communities it is out of the goodness of the developer's heart.
Where did the OP say the software he was developing plug-ins and add-ons for was Open Source? Oh, yeah, he didn't. Well that's the end of your idea. Just because a piece of software has forums for sharing things doesn't mean any of that is open source. If it's SAP or SAS, or anything like those platforms they have community resources like that, but the code is NOT open source and is being shared either out of the goodness of someone's heart or being sold for profit. Either way, copyright belongs to the private developer or company that made the shared resource. Since he works for a company, the company would own it and the license to the platform he's developing for, or did you miss that part too???
Ooops, wrong window. sorry, eh.
Where did the OP say the software he was developing plug-ins and add-ons for was Open Source? Oh, yeah, he didn't. Well that's the end of your idea. Just because a piece of software has forums for sharing things doesn't mean any of that is open source. If it's SAP or SAS, or anything like those platforms they have community resources like that, but the code is NOT open source and is being shared either out of the goodness of someone's heart or being sold for profit. Either way, copyright belongs to the private developer or company that made the shared resource. Since he works for a company, the company would own it and the license to the platform he's developing for, or did you miss that part too?
I can tell you right now what that negotiation will sound like:
Toney - Hey, I'd like to create software for myself that does the same things that the software I develop for you can do on the side so I can earn some more money. Would that be ok?
Manager - [howls of laughter for at least thirty seconds] Are you serious?
Toney - Yeah, why?
Manager - Well, I guess you don't want to work here anymore. I'll contact HR and have security escort you out.
Not sure what planet you're from, nor what you're smoking but conflict of interest doesn't fly in America's corporate world. It gets you fired, sued and/or blackballed from the software industry pretty fast around here.
If the work he produces for himself is in any way related to what he does for his full-time job, he will be fired and sued. It's called conflict of interest and is highly unethical and carries serious civil and career related penalties.
AS AN EMPLOYEE EVERYTHING YOU PRODUCE IS OWNED BY YOUR EMPLOYER -- THAT IS WHY THEY ARE PAYING YOU -- THEY DO NOT PAY YOU BECAUSE THEY LIKE YOU -- THEY PAY YOU FOR OUTPUT
Got it? If so, please share with the rest of the entitled butt-hurt millennials who think they got a job solely because they "deserve it".
I am clapping and smiling at that reply.
Can you really see this happening? If so, you may need to lay off the cough syrup, cause we're all worried about you.
Best reply yet! :)
You did read the part about him using an instance of the company's software, correct? Unless he intends to buy a license for that software for himself and then start developing on his own AFTER he no longer works full-time for a company doing the same work, he's being unethical and will get fired and probably sued.
He cannot make software that is relevant to the work he does at his paid-for job if he is a W-4/W-2 empoyee. Period. That's lawsuit fodder, plain and simple.
I don't know a single state that has laws that would support a clear conflict of interest like this. This guy wants to recreate software he's writing for a company and profit from it while working for that company. That ain't gonna happen anywhere if you're a W-4/W-2 employee and will only happen as a W-9/1099 employee if your contract grants you the rights. Why a company would do that for a W-9/1099 employee I don't know as, again, it is a clear conflict of interest and would possibly negate any competitive advantage the work would give the company over others. I wouldn't do it if it was my company!
If he was a hourly laborer, doing the work after hours would be enough, but for professional work that just doesn't help. It would have to be both after hours, and also unrelated to his work. He can write linux device drivers or something, but replicating the stuff at work... they own that too.
Umm, no. Wage employee and salaried employee status are equal in this regard as you filled out the same W-4 form. In order to own the rights to something you create for someone else, that you got paid to do, you MUST be a contract employee (W-9 status not W-4) and you MUST have a contract stating you own the rights. There are no if's, and's or but's about it. Don't believe me, do a quick search online or ask a patent and copyright attorney. Even if you create something "after hours", if it is relevant to the work you do for the company it's a conflict of interest and you will at least get fired, if not sued. If the work isn't related, i.e., you're writing iOS or Android apps for other purposes, then you can claim the IP, but not if it mimics what you do at your job! I don't know a single company that wouldn't throw the book at you while it was still in the bookcase if you recreated software that you made for them for your own profit while still employed at said company, even as a W-9 consultant unless your contract secured the rights for you.
You are so very wrong, and/or are so very young. The rules for RC aircraft (in the U.S.) have been around for a very long time. One of them has always been that flying over property that doesn't belong to you is illegal, as well as flying over streets, flying within so many miles of an airport, or in non-designated for RC use public places. The reason you don't fly over property that isn't yours is you have to trespass if it crashes and you need to go get it, along with if it hits something (or someone) and damages something on that property it's your ass! Then there's flying over streets--similar logic and safety concerns involved, only you have a much higher risk of causing a fatality because your RC aircraft crashes on a busy street. Those are the very reasons the FAA made the rules to begin with and made them so simple that even children could understand and remember them.