I've yet to be able to make a complete build of Mozilla, and the binaries don't seem to like my glibc versions. I suppose if one has the latest/greatest version of RH, Mozilla is fantastic. But shouldn't I be able to build Mozilla on any Linux platform (such as my heavily-modified SuSE box), given the prerequisite libs are present?
There still seem to be serious issues with the Mozilla build tree for some of us. I realize for every one of me, there will be a you who sez "Hey, luser, Mozilla builds just fine for me." Thing here is that Mozilla should build fine for everyone.
That's funny...I've been developing for many years, for a number of very large companies, and I've seen no indication of a mass exodus towards J2EE and.NET. With a large base of C/C++ legacy apps already in place, there's not a chance in hell J2EE and.NET will "rule the world" anytime soon (if at all). I've seen too many "large-scale enterprise solutions" become waterlogged by voluminous requirements birthed from the loins of the J2EE standard, or slowed to a crawl by megadollar application servers that simply can't scale worth a damn.
Sounds like this guy's just trying to make a name for himself. To me, it simply appears to be a load of FUD, with no basis in fact (like most FUD).
Why not just wrap the battery pack up in Kevlar? If a round gets through the Kevlar, you probably have bigger things to worry about then a few stray Li ions...
I've never been able to make the connection between the "news for nerds" thing and anime. Especially when Cmdr Taco already takes care of his anime fix via Anime Fu.
Am I the only one here who doesn't see the connection? Maybe it's the "stuff that matters" part...in which case I'll just go away (for now).
Knowing the/. conventional wisdom on this subject, I'll probably get branded as a troll. But here's my take: So long as there is the degree of fragmentation in the Linux world as currently exists, a mass migration to Linux via the desktop is highly unlikely. Why? Because people don't want to have to chose between two desktop managers, between ten different word processors, between x different flavors of y.
This is not an indictment against freedom to choose! But it's been my observation that most people (especially the tech-unsavvy) don't want to have to choose if at all possible. They want one desktop, one word processor, one of y.
For Linux to break the M$ stronghold, distros will need to provide two things: (1) A "simple" install which provides the typical user with the minimum (ideal: zero) number of installation options, and (2) an "expert" install option for those of us who want to tweak our systems to the nth degree and not use an install process aimed at the LCD of the population.
Distro vendors themselves will need to agree on what a "simple" install is comprised of...and use the same components. Otherwise, we're back to square one on the fragmentation issue. Developers can make this process easier by putting aside their petty disagreements and pooling their energies to make production-quality software a reality, rather than the endless stream of beta-version software that never seems to quite make the jump to release-quality.
There are, of course, people who discover vulnerabilities and immediately publish all the details without notifying the vendor, but an RFC is hardly going to stop.
And please remind us again why this is a bad thing?
This document seems to downplay the role of public disclosure, and instead inserts the coordinators as the middlemen between reporters and vendors. This is fine for Bugtraq, CERT, and all the other so-called "coordinators," but where does that leave the public? Several times, the document addresses public disclosure, but only in the vein that vendors can choose to withhold recognition or other feedback if a reporter chooses to go public with the information.
I think this document is a big win for the coordinators, but a big loser for the public.
...that when I bring up the subject of cooperation among similar projects, I'm rated a troll, yet RMS stands before us like a demi-god because he can't seem to figure out what exactly he believes in.
If anyone ever tells you "Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger" -- shoot him.
Sounds like the perfect time to start a bookselling business that guarantees the privacy of the purchaser! Keep no records of who buys what...(that's always bothered me about B&N and the others)...then you have nothing to turn over when your records are subpoenaed.
I was also curious why used book sellers would even keep track of who purchased what...
I've been enjoying the Steven Levy book "Hackers," which is, of course, about the early days of hacking and the "Hacker Ethic": software hacking courtesy of MIT and hardware hacking courtesy of Stanford/Berkeley. Excellent book to go along with the computing history thread here. I've been reading about the Altair, which sounds a lot like the Honeywell computer, only 10 years after (1975 or so). Same idea: switches for input, blinkity-blinking lights for output. Makes one long for the simple days of the Tech Model Railroad Club, Community Memory, and the People's Computer Company.
An appropriate quote from Les Solomon, who was editor of Popular Electronics and provided the world with the first glimpse of the Altair:
The computer is a magic box. It's a tool. It's an art form. It's the ultimate martial art...There's no bullshit in there. Without truth, the computer won't work. You can't bullshit a computer, God damn it, the bit is there or the bit ain't there.
Re:You didn't sign a contract to give back true ID
on
Sun Joins RFID Program
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Your idea has already been legislated. In many U.S. states, it's illegal to carry a device known as a "passive radiator," which is a non-powered electronic device that can modify a radar signal and re-generate it (but not amplify it) with slightly different characteristics, which would indicated a speed on a cop's radar gun different from what you are actually traveling.
Give it time: Legislation will no doubt be passed which will prohibit you from carrying on your person RFIDs with the intent of bypassing or otherwise interfering with RFID detection systems.
The Olympics are a disgusting affair in which a small group of ultra-rich IOC committee members further engorge themselves by exploiting the trademark laws to the extent that they, and they alone, control access to the games. Why is this hypocritical? Because these old-geezer fat cats profit from what is supposed to be an "amateur" competition. Yeah, you can argue that the idea of "amateurism" has gone out the door now that pros are allowed to play, but there are still some Olympic sports which strive to uphold the idea that the Olympics should be a showcase for up and coming talent, not a parading ground for well-paid athletes stealing the spotlight from those who really deserve it.
The Olympics are nothing more than a greed fest, as this little tidbit from the featured article points out:
But this year,Olympic officials are allowing limited live Web broadcasts in a test to see whether technology can restrict access to video geographically.
If I have a complaint with the book, in fact, it's that Tisdall doesn't go any further: everything is good, but it ends too soon. Seemingly important topics such as OO programming...are mentioned only in passing, under "further topics" in the last chapter.
Mabye that's because Perl's OO support is an extremely kludged-together ugly beast that's undergoing a much-needed facelift in Perl6.
The author actually does the world a favor by not mentioning Perl and OO in the same sentence.
...is what will happen when Comcast and AT&T and all the rest of the cable providers see AOL/TM actually get away with doing this! The airlines have enjoyed a legalized price-fixing scheme for years: When one airline jacks up its fares, the others follow suit, and the public follows along like dumb sheep. Does anyone here really think AOL/TM competitors will sit by idly while AOL/TM rakes in the dough?
I think not...the fact that AOL/TM is putting their future revenue-collection tactics on public display is evidence that they could use some "extra" support from the rest of the cable industry to help them out in fleecing their customers.
As I read this message, I'm listening to Jennifer Terran's most excellent The Musician. I'm one of those millions tcc refers to when it comes to telling the RIAA to kiss my ass...I've started my own little boycott by buying from artists who bypass the RIAA and publish their own music. Someone here turned me on to CD Baby (unsolicited plug). They have an enormous catalog of artists who have chosen to thumb their noses at the big recording studios.
The point of this isn't to push CD Baby on anyone, but to point out there is a lot of excellent music out there if one simply takes the time to look beyond the drivel that passes for "popular music" on the radio.
We have the National Science Foundation to thank for allowing commercial traffic across what was then known as NSFNET in 1991. Does it really come as a surprise to anyone (especially the ACM) what has come to pass? There will be no undoing the deed that's been done.
Not even Internet2 is safe from rampant commercialism, as is evidenced here.
Social security numbers are used by everybody because they are (theoretically) unique numbers everyone has, and relational databases love
unique IDs.
This is the inherent danger of using the SSN for identification purposes: The very uniqueness of the SSN allows the cross-tabulation of any data stored on any database anywhere in the world which uses the same unique key. It might be unique, but the SSN is also a ubiquitous identifier. It's what permits the state to arrest you on a routine traffic stop because of non-payment of alimony. It's what allows a city government to deny you employment because you're late paying your local taxes (maybe because of a legitimate reason).
The government is the danger, very much so. As government becomes more centralized, power is taken away from the people. Information is power, and thanks to your SSN, your fingerprints (yes, some states do require fingerprints for things such as driver licenses, concealed handgun permits, etc.), and other unique data, the government is able to touch your life in ways you might never imagine.
I worked for the US government for over a decade. During that time, I was forced, over the course of several years, to learn my way around the Privacy Act to force the government agency I was working for to expunge certain derogatory information about me from their records. You see, I was essentially "blacklisted" by the government, which made it very difficult for me to find employment after leaving government service. I was eventually successful in having the lies removed from my government files, but to this day, I find myself having to explain about "gaps" in my employment records from the deleted data in various financial and government transactions. This can be very difficult at times, trying to explain away data that isn't there without disclosing the data in the first place.
The government is far more dangerous than you can imagine. And I would hardly consider myself "complacent."
As for getting to work, I already have: I started railing against the use of SSN for personal identification purposes in 1989, and have continued to do so as time permits.
Um... Isn't an SSN issued by the government? I'd guess they can use it how they want.
The Privacy Act of 1974 (PL 93-579) have these things to say about the individual's right to privacy:
--Congress finds the growing use of computers can harm the individual from "collection, maintenance, use, or dissemination" of personal information.
--The right to privacy is protected by the Constitution.
--Section 7 states it is unlawful for any Federal, State, or Local government agency to deny any individual right, benefit, or privilege becasue of individual's refusal to disclose his/her Social Security number.
--Federal, State, or Local governments, upon requesting disclosure of an individual's SSN, must include information whether the disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, the statute or other authority under which the disclosure request is made, and what uses will be made of the individual's SSN.
The bottom line is that the government is not entitled to use the SSN any way they see fit. The authors of the Privacy Act saw fit, however, to ensure the Act would not provide an inpenetrable veil of privacy:
"[The] Privacy Act is not intended to transform every privacy violation into [a] constitutional tort."
Which is how Federal, State, and Local governments get away with violating the Privacy Act every single day: Congress recognized the need for individual privacy, and the courts uphold this right up to a certain threshhold. Also, the Privacy Act grandfathered in disclosure requirements in place prior to 1975, along with other "special uses" as required. As far back as 1989, Congress listened to testimony in which the Social Security Administration actually verified SSNs for millions of Americans on behalf of bands and credit bureaus.
Ironically, the law offers no protection for non-government agencies requiring disclosure of your SSN. While governments can't use it the way they want, business are free to do so.
It's not the satellites I would worry about. Here in Dallas, you can buy one of those tolltag transponders to stick on your windshield for the tollgates. Take a close look while driving around town, and you'll see Amtech interrogators on high telephone poles -- several miles away from the nearest tollway. Funny thing, though--there seems to be no information about these monitoring stations at the Amtech site or the toll authority.
A strategically-placed network of ground-based interrogators would be more than sufficient to track the digitally-tagged hoardes.
Other news sources have quoted the company's bigwigs as touting this technology as a means for employers to keep track of their employees. I can imagine a day down the road where job requirements will call for "willing to undergo biometric implantation" as a prerequisite for the job. Those of you who simply refuse to believe the government will never embrace this technology should wake themselves up: Things we take for granted, such as driving, intrastate freedom, and higher education are privileges accorded to us by the government. Already, we are required to surrender our fingerprints, our retina prints, our Social Security numbers, and other personally-identifying data to secure these privileges. The government won't force anybody to be digitally tatooed: They'll simply withhold these things, these privileges, from those of us who refuse to submit.
This is dangerous stuff, more dangerous than Ellison's half-baked ideas of a national ID. People who condone, support, or otherwise promote the branding of humans as cattle (whether digitally or otherwise) are very sick fucks.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't simply trolling...
The FOTM is that as an AT&T customer, you are bound to two agreements: One with Excite@Home (now defunct, obviously), and one with AT&T. Along with those two agreements, many subscribers also signed paperwork which granted them the use of a static IP address.
The galling part of all of this is that AT&T has simply decided they will no longer uphold their end of the agreement. I've yet to be notified that my original @Home agreement is "null and void" (of course I know it is, but AT&T doesn't seem to find it necessary to make it official). I've lost my static IP address, I now have download caps completely contrary to the information supplied by AT&T at the time I agreed to their terms of service, but I'm still bound to paying a monthly charge for what amounts to a new and far inferior service. Better believe that if I unilaterally change the terms of our agreement, and simply refuse to pay for inferior service, AT&T will cut me off in a heartbeat.
I do agree with your comment that instead of whining, we need to start acting. Unfortunately, many of us whiners don't have many alternatives to turn to (DSL isn't available where I live), and I doubt the neighbors will be real keen on pitching in for an 802.11b wireless net across my 56k dial-up line.
Slashdot Mirror
I've yet to be able to make a complete build of Mozilla, and the binaries don't seem to like my glibc versions. I suppose if one has the latest/greatest version of RH, Mozilla is fantastic. But shouldn't I be able to build Mozilla on any Linux platform (such as my heavily-modified SuSE box), given the prerequisite libs are present?
There still seem to be serious issues with the Mozilla build tree for some of us. I realize for every one of me, there will be a you who sez "Hey, luser, Mozilla builds just fine for me." Thing here is that Mozilla should build fine for everyone.
That's funny...I've been developing for many years, for a number of very large companies, and I've seen no indication of a mass exodus towards J2EE and .NET. With a large base of C/C++ legacy apps already in place, there's not a chance in hell J2EE and .NET will "rule the world" anytime soon (if at all). I've seen too many "large-scale enterprise solutions" become waterlogged by voluminous requirements birthed from the loins of the J2EE standard, or slowed to a crawl by megadollar application servers that simply can't scale worth a damn.
Sounds like this guy's just trying to make a name for himself. To me, it simply appears to be a load of FUD, with no basis in fact (like most FUD).
Why not just wrap the battery pack up in Kevlar? If a round gets through the Kevlar, you probably have bigger things to worry about then a few stray Li ions...
At least you could have been honest with us and let us know you and the Taco share the same agenda, which would definitely explain your position.
(Interesting comparison, BTW)...
I've never been able to make the connection between the "news for nerds" thing and anime. Especially when Cmdr Taco already takes care of his anime fix via Anime Fu.
Am I the only one here who doesn't see the connection? Maybe it's the "stuff that matters" part...in which case I'll just go away (for now).
Knowing the /. conventional wisdom on this subject, I'll probably get branded as a troll. But here's my take: So long as there is the degree of fragmentation in the Linux world as currently exists, a mass migration to Linux via the desktop is highly unlikely. Why? Because people don't want to have to chose between two desktop managers, between ten different word processors, between x different flavors of y.
This is not an indictment against freedom to choose! But it's been my observation that most people (especially the tech-unsavvy) don't want to have to choose if at all possible. They want one desktop, one word processor, one of y.
For Linux to break the M$ stronghold, distros will need to provide two things: (1) A "simple" install which provides the typical user with the minimum (ideal: zero) number of installation options, and (2) an "expert" install option for those of us who want to tweak our systems to the nth degree and not use an install process aimed at the LCD of the population.
Distro vendors themselves will need to agree on what a "simple" install is comprised of...and use the same components. Otherwise, we're back to square one on the fragmentation issue. Developers can make this process easier by putting aside their petty disagreements and pooling their energies to make production-quality software a reality, rather than the endless stream of beta-version software that never seems to quite make the jump to release-quality.
I read the draft and your response, and nowhere in your response did the word "public" appear.
Therefore, the original poster was correct in asserting this draft is nothing more than an attempt to stifle public dissemination of security holes.
Maybe you need to re-read the original poster's comments, because it does appear he/she did the prerequisite reading.
And please remind us again why this is a bad thing?
This document seems to downplay the role of public disclosure, and instead inserts the coordinators as the middlemen between reporters and vendors. This is fine for Bugtraq, CERT, and all the other so-called "coordinators," but where does that leave the public? Several times, the document addresses public disclosure, but only in the vein that vendors can choose to withhold recognition or other feedback if a reporter chooses to go public with the information.
I think this document is a big win for the coordinators, but a big loser for the public.
...that when I bring up the subject of cooperation among similar projects, I'm rated a troll, yet RMS stands before us like a demi-god because he can't seem to figure out what exactly he believes in.
If anyone ever tells you "Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger" -- shoot him.
Sounds like the perfect time to start a bookselling business that guarantees the privacy of the purchaser! Keep no records of who buys what...(that's always bothered me about B&N and the others)...then you have nothing to turn over when your records are subpoenaed.
I was also curious why used book sellers would even keep track of who purchased what...
An appropriate quote from Les Solomon, who was editor of Popular Electronics and provided the world with the first glimpse of the Altair:
Your idea has already been legislated. In many U.S. states, it's illegal to carry a device known as a "passive radiator," which is a non-powered electronic device that can modify a radar signal and re-generate it (but not amplify it) with slightly different characteristics, which would indicated a speed on a cop's radar gun different from what you are actually traveling.
Give it time: Legislation will no doubt be passed which will prohibit you from carrying on your person RFIDs with the intent of bypassing or otherwise interfering with RFID detection systems.
The Olympics are nothing more than a greed fest, as this little tidbit from the featured article points out:
'Nuff said.
I use it (and teach about it) quite extensively. That doesn't mean it's any less ugly or kludged-together.
Mabye that's because Perl's OO support is an extremely kludged-together ugly beast that's undergoing a much-needed facelift in Perl6.
The author actually does the world a favor by not mentioning Perl and OO in the same sentence.
...is what will happen when Comcast and AT&T and all the rest of the cable providers see AOL/TM actually get away with doing this! The airlines have enjoyed a legalized price-fixing scheme for years: When one airline jacks up its fares, the others follow suit, and the public follows along like dumb sheep. Does anyone here really think AOL/TM competitors will sit by idly while AOL/TM rakes in the dough?
I think not...the fact that AOL/TM is putting their future revenue-collection tactics on public display is evidence that they could use some "extra" support from the rest of the cable industry to help them out in fleecing their customers.
Yeah, I thought that was cheesy myself, but they do run BSD, so I'm willing to cut them a little slack :)
As I read this message, I'm listening to Jennifer Terran's most excellent The Musician. I'm one of those millions tcc refers to when it comes to telling the RIAA to kiss my ass...I've started my own little boycott by buying from artists who bypass the RIAA and publish their own music. Someone here turned me on to CD Baby (unsolicited plug). They have an enormous catalog of artists who have chosen to thumb their noses at the big recording studios.
The point of this isn't to push CD Baby on anyone, but to point out there is a lot of excellent music out there if one simply takes the time to look beyond the drivel that passes for "popular music" on the radio.
We have the National Science Foundation to thank for allowing commercial traffic across what was then known as NSFNET in 1991. Does it really come as a surprise to anyone (especially the ACM) what has come to pass? There will be no undoing the deed that's been done.
Not even Internet2 is safe from rampant commercialism, as is evidenced here.
Social security numbers are used by everybody because they are (theoretically) unique numbers everyone has, and relational databases love
unique IDs.
This is the inherent danger of using the SSN for identification purposes: The very uniqueness of the SSN allows the cross-tabulation of any data stored on any database anywhere in the world which uses the same unique key. It might be unique, but the SSN is also a ubiquitous identifier. It's what permits the state to arrest you on a routine traffic stop because of non-payment of alimony. It's what allows a city government to deny you employment because you're late paying your local taxes (maybe because of a legitimate reason).
The government is the danger, very much so. As government becomes more centralized, power is taken away from the people. Information is power, and thanks to your SSN, your fingerprints (yes, some states do require fingerprints for things such as driver licenses, concealed handgun permits, etc.), and other unique data, the government is able to touch your life in ways you might never imagine.
I worked for the US government for over a decade. During that time, I was forced, over the course of several years, to learn my way around the Privacy Act to force the government agency I was working for to expunge certain derogatory information about me from their records. You see, I was essentially "blacklisted" by the government, which made it very difficult for me to find employment after leaving government service. I was eventually successful in having the lies removed from my government files, but to this day, I find myself having to explain about "gaps" in my employment records from the deleted data in various financial and government transactions. This can be very difficult at times, trying to explain away data that isn't there without disclosing the data in the first place.
The government is far more dangerous than you can imagine. And I would hardly consider myself "complacent."
As for getting to work, I already have: I started railing against the use of SSN for personal identification purposes in 1989, and have continued to do so as time permits.
Um... Isn't an SSN issued by the government? I'd guess they can use it how they want.
The Privacy Act of 1974 (PL 93-579) have these things to say about the individual's right to privacy:
--Congress finds the growing use of computers can harm the individual from "collection, maintenance, use, or dissemination" of personal information.
--The right to privacy is protected by the Constitution.
--Section 7 states it is unlawful for any Federal, State, or Local government agency to deny any individual right, benefit, or privilege becasue of individual's refusal to disclose his/her Social Security number.
--Federal, State, or Local governments, upon requesting disclosure of an individual's SSN, must include information whether the disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, the statute or other authority under which the disclosure request is made, and what uses will be made of the individual's SSN.
The bottom line is that the government is not entitled to use the SSN any way they see fit. The authors of the Privacy Act saw fit, however, to ensure the Act would not provide an inpenetrable veil of privacy:
"[The] Privacy Act is not intended to transform every privacy violation into [a] constitutional tort."
Which is how Federal, State, and Local governments get away with violating the Privacy Act every single day: Congress recognized the need for individual privacy, and the courts uphold this right up to a certain threshhold. Also, the Privacy Act grandfathered in disclosure requirements in place prior to 1975, along with other "special uses" as required. As far back as 1989, Congress listened to testimony in which the Social Security Administration actually verified SSNs for millions of Americans on behalf of bands and credit bureaus.
Ironically, the law offers no protection for non-government agencies requiring disclosure of your SSN. While governments can't use it the way they want, business are free to do so.
It's not the satellites I would worry about. Here in Dallas, you can buy one of those tolltag transponders to stick on your windshield for the tollgates. Take a close look while driving around town, and you'll see Amtech interrogators on high telephone poles -- several miles away from the nearest tollway. Funny thing, though--there seems to be no information about these monitoring stations at the Amtech site or the toll authority.
A strategically-placed network of ground-based interrogators would be more than sufficient to track the digitally-tagged hoardes.
Other news sources have quoted the company's bigwigs as touting this technology as a means for employers to keep track of their employees. I can imagine a day down the road where job requirements will call for "willing to undergo biometric implantation" as a prerequisite for the job. Those of you who simply refuse to believe the government will never embrace this technology should wake themselves up: Things we take for granted, such as driving, intrastate freedom, and higher education are privileges accorded to us by the government. Already, we are required to surrender our fingerprints, our retina prints, our Social Security numbers, and other personally-identifying data to secure these privileges. The government won't force anybody to be digitally tatooed: They'll simply withhold these things, these privileges, from those of us who refuse to submit.
This is dangerous stuff, more dangerous than Ellison's half-baked ideas of a national ID. People who condone, support, or otherwise promote the branding of humans as cattle (whether digitally or otherwise) are very sick fucks.
The FOTM is that as an AT&T customer, you are bound to two agreements: One with Excite@Home (now defunct, obviously), and one with AT&T. Along with those two agreements, many subscribers also signed paperwork which granted them the use of a static IP address.
The galling part of all of this is that AT&T has simply decided they will no longer uphold their end of the agreement. I've yet to be notified that my original @Home agreement is "null and void" (of course I know it is, but AT&T doesn't seem to find it necessary to make it official). I've lost my static IP address, I now have download caps completely contrary to the information supplied by AT&T at the time I agreed to their terms of service, but I'm still bound to paying a monthly charge for what amounts to a new and far inferior service. Better believe that if I unilaterally change the terms of our agreement, and simply refuse to pay for inferior service, AT&T will cut me off in a heartbeat.
I do agree with your comment that instead of whining, we need to start acting. Unfortunately, many of us whiners don't have many alternatives to turn to (DSL isn't available where I live), and I doubt the neighbors will be real keen on pitching in for an 802.11b wireless net across my 56k dial-up line.