The entire notion of "identity theft" simultaneously preys on the fears of individuals by creating the specter of more bogeymen and promotes the Consumer Information mega-industry.
You want to stop "identity theft?" Make the collection and sale of personal data against the law. Oh wait. That would mean participating in your government.
Today's lesson: we've all gotten exactly what we've put into this issue.
Shout from the highest roof top in every city that black hats should be hanged. It won't be long before there's a mob ready to hang black hats. Better still, Microsoft comes out looking like the good guy.
Microsoft has employed this strategy for at least a decade now.
... it's not that difficult to integrate them into a digital form.
You are kidding right? Neither do they know nor do they care where you can get food. You can view their ads online already but it just doesn't work. Secretaries of State?
On the other hand you might think fast food chains might lock out other places with exclusive deals.
Of course they would. If they don't lock out their competitors they aren't good business people.
I'd like to add to the parent: there's the ages old problem of tons of information and no moderation. So what if a hundred people have been where I'm going. 50 of them will be spam, 10 will be shillers from the Tourist advisory board, 15 will be from real estate something-or-other. What happens when you are review #101 and you don't like it?
Only religious fanatics and totalitarian states equate morality with legality
The problem being laws are in many ways a kind of moral consensus.
If I should ever make as big a contribution as he has I'll get to be just as opinionated and right. For now, the reasoning works out just fine in his head and I can see his point. BTW hopefully this quote wasn't taken out of context.
That's one reason why the SEC would be interested in hearing about it.
he's willing to cross the line to get what he wants
And every other CEO doesn't?? C'mon. What he did was rudimentary. It's kind of quaint in a way. Check HP's recent history for what they do in the minor-leagues. Check Worldcom's sordid history for major-league dirty tricks.
A. The guy couldn't come up with another way to kill Wild Oats? He should hire some of the scumbags running HP. They've got plenty of dirty tricks and know how to give their CEO plausible deniability.
B. The SEC in general would frown on this kind of activity from a CEO. In theory, they are held to a higher standard. Since it's a public company the likes of Albertson's would love to see disappear, no doubt more non-stories like this will appear.
C. The job should be left to underlings. Contracted underlings like they do in *every* other industry.
D. Most/.'ers fail to understand how much money he stood to make if the price of Wild Oats shares were lower by a dollar or two. Easily worth the effort. Easily.
E. The simple fact he couldn't pay off enough people in D.C. to force this one through is also quite enlightening. The telcos have enough budget for bribes. I guess Whole Foods doesn't.
Because Google has not paid enough to the right K Street people and contributed enough to the campaigns of everyone working telco committees and their hires within government to *win* a bid.
Google can out-bid AT&T all they want. What happens if a telco loses is the auction is, at some point, declared null and void. So they can go in with barrels full of cash, win the auction then spend the next 25 years in court with AT&T while the spectrum they won languishes.
There are a number of cases where an upstart bought frequency spectrum no one dreamed about using and put it to good use. Subsequently the major player in whatever industry the upstart drives the upstart out of business then gets the FCC to take the spectrum away.
With the influence they've paid for, this is probably the most practical course of action.
Apple has never been portrayed as a good corporate citizen when it comes to GPL projects. The GPL code will become the red-headed step child of whatever Apple wants to do with it. For example, integrating colorsync or letting the gui die from benign neglect as Apple adds code that breaks the gui.
I'd like to hear from some people who work on Konqueror how much Apple is contributing. Based on my limited experience with Apple, I'd estimate they throw useless code over the wall surrounding Cupertino HQ every once in a while. I seem to recall they changed the license on some of their previously Free code a while ago too.
They are Free to do both, but I think their actions in these situations show they are just as hostile to Free/Open computer systems as Microsoft.
wonder if there's a block of voters out there thinking that using computers to vote is a good idea? Seriously. I'm asking because I don't know.
Regardless of/. opinion on the matter I'm led to believe that a small group of people somewhere is ramming electronic voting through local/state/federal government. If there was ever an example of how corrupt the workings of American Government are, I'd say this is it.
First of all, shame on me for not selling my asterisk/sip server/postgresql/LDAP skillz to Google for a wad of cash. I'd need some buzz-worthy management overhead and a couple of lawyers and bankers too.
I'm not sure why Google gets to be the bad guy here. Telecommunications is way, way overdue for some amazing advances and Google is big enough to put a dent in the telcos armor. Anyone who has implemented an sip server and the asterisk alternatives would probably agree. That's not a dig on asterisk, it's just not the best tool for SIP services.
This surprises me just a little. How hard could it be to port iTunes to Vista x64?
First, nearly all big-time software vendors wait quite a while before moving their products to the next flavor of OS. They don't allow engineering to get started unless the PHB's see compelling adoption of that platform. XP 64-bit is in a very awkward place in this regard. Microsoft has all their eggs in Vista.
Second, it's a heck of a lot more work in the average big company dev environment.
Third, it's really important to remember there is even more kernel-level DRM in vista64 such that it's easy for me to imagine the USB hacking changing more code than just some usb bits.
Finally, why are you surprised that another corporations intent is to create vertical silos that don't interoperate?
A PHB probably said "Three fingers? Why only three fingers? Ten. Ten is better, it's more than three after all."
The system might be able to save 10 prints, but you only need 1 or 2 at most.
A couple of FYI's. 1. It's unlikely they'll store fingerprints. They typically store some kind of proprietary hash value of the fingerprint. 2. It's unlikely they'll make the authentication available to other agencies. 3. Interoperability with other countries is desired, but not likely as each system vendor makes certain that won't actually occur. 4. I will be very interested to find out if they actually get to a point where there are fingerprint readers in airports more than a couple of airports. The scale of the operation overwhelms current technology pretty quickly.
The time to be worried was long, long ago as most of your data has been collected by private agencies and sold to the government for decades now.
Apple isn't successful because they're copying or somehow making the transition to a Mac easier.
The summary describes a kind of "me too" marketing that Apple just doesn't do. Furthermore, consumers just don't work that way.
The way corporations Apple's size work is they wait long enough for a new segment to have many smaller vendors and enough market research to verify the dollar-size of a market. Then they build a simpler device in the same segment and charge more for it because they have to pay for all the advertising.
They are "limiting" copyright in what, to me looks pretty harmful to the photographer.
Media conglomerate acquires an image from a photographer. Specific rights are normally spelled out in the contract for the image. I have personally seen contracts that forbid re-purposing. With this ruling the media conglomerate is granted all rights automagically.
I'd like to hear from some pro photographers though.
It's got **nothing** to do with the crackberry client.
At this point in time, I don't doubt that the U.S. spooks measure their computing power in acres so if it's important they'll crack it.
The article indirectly confirms spying at the backbone level via telco cooperation. A probable case can be made that RIM cooperates with the spooks anyway so secure client or not, the French are being practical and staying off a newish and very tempting looking grid.
shrewd effort at spreading FUD I'm sorry to inform you that countries spy on each other. Activities categorized under spying include lots of activities that most citizens would find distasteful to say the least.
Instead of the spooks sitting on their ever-expanding rear-ends collecting data, it means they need to keep field agents working France and turning more French politicians and policy wonks.
What you should consider carefully is the implications of this public statement. It tacitly verifies the U.S. Government is collecting that data and getting full cooperation from probably way more than just America telcos.
No one in their right mind wants to re-invent the crackberry.
First sentence is correct. Author didn't distinguish bug/vulernability.
The second sentence, while double-plus-good Microsoft PR speak, is critically flawed reasoning.
If the parent said "Known Vista vulnerabilities..." I would agree, but that still glides over many fundamental liabilities that Microsoft products push onto the customer like: 1. The concept of security in Microsoft products means protect Microsoft's intellectual property. 2. No one can reasonably predict the scope or scale of Microsoft vulnerabilities. 3. Given Microsoft's history of producing "secure" operating systems, it is reasonable to assume there is no evidence end-user security features makes it through to the end product. Note carefully, Microsoft has *very* talented programmers who can code securely after all their monopoly status affords them this luxury. I'm saying that their work doesn't make it all the way through the management gauntlet. UAC is a perfect example. It is not a security boundary. http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=175
The Vista train will pull out of the station eventually because Microsoft's monopoly makes this a sure thing. As every other Microsoft OS has shown, there will be critical vulnerability surprises. It's a matter of when, not if.
This story is exactly why most governments don't particularly want an internet where upload bandwidth is the same as download and there's a reasonable possibility for anonymity. "Cracker" stories like this start appearing more frequently with the same amount of non-information below the headline. As another post mentions, there are few if any facts.
The U.S. government is preparing to legislate the end of the Internet as a democratizing force by turning it into a content delivery mechnanism. But they can't legislate without preparing public opinion. My bet is TPM is sold as a safety feature to protect us from "cracker stories" like this. After all, if you aren't a bad guy then it should be no problem right?
Even if I'm dead wrong, (and I might be) recent political history is full of examples where news events is at worst fabricated, at best spun to justify all kind of crazy agendas.
The parent post is very manipulative to the point of sowing seeds of confusion. Hang on a minute while I adjust my tin foil hat....
why should they force companies to stick to a license Because if they don't, it's very easy for an asshat abusing whatever the OSI wants to enforce to tell a Judge, "Your honor, they have never enforced anything, so I'm allowed to abuse it." I'm paraphrasing, but the point is the OSI *must* enforce or the courts will allow asshats to sodomize whatever the OSI is attempting to protect. Tivo's founders are a good example of asshats that have "stolen" code in a novel way. Look up tivoization on the wikipedia if you don't believe me.
isn't this just OSI nearing closer to the same type of control corporation impose on their software Whipping out the "all authority sucks" and pasting it on the OSI is a special kind of very manipulative doublespeak.
The OSI encourages new ideas and services making them available to all and preserving intellectual freedom. The typical for-profit corporation is steadfastly opposed to those ideals and does everything they can to squelch Freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
The entire notion of "identity theft" simultaneously preys on the fears of individuals by creating the specter of more bogeymen and promotes the Consumer Information mega-industry.
You want to stop "identity theft?" Make the collection and sale of personal data against the law. Oh wait. That would mean participating in your government.
Today's lesson: we've all gotten exactly what we've put into this issue.
Shout from the highest roof top in every city that black hats should be hanged. It won't be long before there's a mob ready to hang black hats. Better still, Microsoft comes out looking like the good guy.
Microsoft has employed this strategy for at least a decade now.
This story is preposterous.
... it's not that difficult to integrate them into a digital form.
You are kidding right? Neither do they know nor do they care where you can get food. You can view their ads online already but it just doesn't work. Secretaries of State?
On the other hand you might think fast food chains might lock out other places with exclusive deals.
Of course they would. If they don't lock out their competitors they aren't good business people.
Your mind must be a wonderful, unspoiled place.
Informative/Insightful?
I'd like to add to the parent: there's the ages old problem of tons of information and no moderation. So what if a hundred people have been where I'm going. 50 of them will be spam, 10 will be shillers from the Tourist advisory board, 15 will be from real estate something-or-other. What happens when you are review #101 and you don't like it?
Only religious fanatics and totalitarian states equate morality with legality
The problem being laws are in many ways a kind of moral consensus.
If I should ever make as big a contribution as he has I'll get to be just as opinionated and right. For now, the reasoning works out just fine in his head and I can see his point. BTW hopefully this quote wasn't taken out of context.
Discuss amongst yourselves.
After reading TFA it sounds to me like they probably build another board like it for another brand. This is pretty common behavior.
The feature set sounds like it belongs in a server more than the average desktop.
4x LAN?
If they were deployed right, it would be very nice teaming and redundancy. What are the chances of that on retail hardware?
10x SATA
I need a new file server. Nothing like an LVM using 10 drives. Pretty cheap. But hot.
Is there a performance benefit to putting those ports there?
If you did the same thing with PCI slots the power and heat requirements might be higher.
No doubt this will be an expensive board few will pay for.
it really sounds like fraudulent behavior
That's one reason why the SEC would be interested in hearing about it.
he's willing to cross the line to get what he wants
And every other CEO doesn't?? C'mon. What he did was rudimentary. It's kind of quaint in a way. Check HP's recent history for what they do in the minor-leagues. Check Worldcom's sordid history for major-league dirty tricks.
Unbelievable!
/.'ers fail to understand how much money he stood to make if the price of Wild Oats shares were lower by a dollar or two. Easily worth the effort. Easily.
A. The guy couldn't come up with another way to kill Wild Oats? He should hire some of the scumbags running HP. They've got plenty of dirty tricks and know how to give their CEO plausible deniability.
B. The SEC in general would frown on this kind of activity from a CEO. In theory, they are held to a higher standard. Since it's a public company the likes of Albertson's would love to see disappear, no doubt more non-stories like this will appear.
C. The job should be left to underlings. Contracted underlings like they do in *every* other industry.
D. Most
E. The simple fact he couldn't pay off enough people in D.C. to force this one through is also quite enlightening. The telcos have enough budget for bribes. I guess Whole Foods doesn't.
Because Google has not paid enough to the right K Street people and contributed enough to the campaigns of everyone working telco committees and their hires within government to *win* a bid.
Google can out-bid AT&T all they want. What happens if a telco loses is the auction is, at some point, declared null and void. So they can go in with barrels full of cash, win the auction then spend the next 25 years in court with AT&T while the spectrum they won languishes.
There are a number of cases where an upstart bought frequency spectrum no one dreamed about using and put it to good use. Subsequently the major player in whatever industry the upstart drives the upstart out of business then gets the FCC to take the spectrum away.
With the influence they've paid for, this is probably the most practical course of action.
is troublesome.
Apple has never been portrayed as a good corporate citizen when it comes to GPL projects. The GPL code will become the red-headed step child of whatever Apple wants to do with it. For example, integrating colorsync or letting the gui die from benign neglect as Apple adds code that breaks the gui.
I'd like to hear from some people who work on Konqueror how much Apple is contributing. Based on my limited experience with Apple, I'd estimate they throw useless code over the wall surrounding Cupertino HQ every once in a while. I seem to recall they changed the license on some of their previously Free code a while ago too.
They are Free to do both, but I think their actions in these situations show they are just as hostile to Free/Open computer systems as Microsoft.
wonder if there's a block of voters out there thinking that using computers to vote is a good idea? Seriously. I'm asking because I don't know.
/. opinion on the matter I'm led to believe that a small group of people somewhere is ramming electronic voting through local/state/federal government. If there was ever an example of how corrupt the workings of American Government are, I'd say this is it.
Regardless of
Discuss amongst yourselves.
shocked!
We all benefit from Free Markets because we get to choose between super-hd-blue or blue-super-hd. Why do we need regulators?
First of all, shame on me for not selling my asterisk/sip server/postgresql/LDAP skillz to Google for a wad of cash. I'd need some buzz-worthy management overhead and a couple of lawyers and bankers too.
I'm not sure why Google gets to be the bad guy here. Telecommunications is way, way overdue for some amazing advances and Google is big enough to put a dent in the telcos armor. Anyone who has implemented an sip server and the asterisk alternatives would probably agree. That's not a dig on asterisk, it's just not the best tool for SIP services.
This surprises me just a little. How hard could it be to port iTunes to Vista x64?
First, nearly all big-time software vendors wait quite a while before moving their products to the next flavor of OS. They don't allow engineering to get started unless the PHB's see compelling adoption of that platform. XP 64-bit is in a very awkward place in this regard. Microsoft has all their eggs in Vista.
Second, it's a heck of a lot more work in the average big company dev environment.
Third, it's really important to remember there is even more kernel-level DRM in vista64 such that it's easy for me to imagine the USB hacking changing more code than just some usb bits.
Finally, why are you surprised that another corporations intent is to create vertical silos that don't interoperate?
A PHB probably said "Three fingers? Why only three fingers? Ten. Ten is better, it's more than three after all."
The system might be able to save 10 prints, but you only need 1 or 2 at most.
A couple of FYI's.
1. It's unlikely they'll store fingerprints. They typically store some kind of proprietary hash value of the fingerprint.
2. It's unlikely they'll make the authentication available to other agencies.
3. Interoperability with other countries is desired, but not likely as each system vendor makes certain that won't actually occur.
4. I will be very interested to find out if they actually get to a point where there are fingerprint readers in airports more than a couple of airports. The scale of the operation overwhelms current technology pretty quickly.
The time to be worried was long, long ago as most of your data has been collected by private agencies and sold to the government for decades now.
Apple isn't successful because they're copying or somehow making the transition to a Mac easier.
The summary describes a kind of "me too" marketing that Apple just doesn't do. Furthermore, consumers just don't work that way.
The way corporations Apple's size work is they wait long enough for a new segment to have many smaller vendors and enough market research to verify the dollar-size of a market. Then they build a simpler device in the same segment and charge more for it because they have to pay for all the advertising.
This is standard operating procedure.
As much as I dislike the RIAA member organizations they must have a similar way of protecting their content..
In one case this set of beliefs is okay and we want photographers to win. In another context it's unambiguously wrong. That's life.
They are "limiting" copyright in what, to me looks pretty harmful to the photographer.
Media conglomerate acquires an image from a photographer. Specific rights are normally spelled out in the contract for the image. I have personally seen contracts that forbid re-purposing. With this ruling the media conglomerate is granted all rights automagically.
I'd like to hear from some pro photographers though.
It's got **nothing** to do with the crackberry client.
At this point in time, I don't doubt that the U.S. spooks measure their computing power in acres so if it's important they'll crack it.
The article indirectly confirms spying at the backbone level via telco cooperation. A probable case can be made that RIM cooperates with the spooks anyway so secure client or not, the French are being practical and staying off a newish and very tempting looking grid.
One failed product does not damage a monopoly.
circletimessquare!!!!
shrewd effort at spreading FUD
I'm sorry to inform you that countries spy on each other. Activities categorized under spying include lots of activities that most citizens would find distasteful to say the least.
Instead of the spooks sitting on their ever-expanding rear-ends collecting data, it means they need to keep field agents working France and turning more French politicians and policy wonks.
What you should consider carefully is the implications of this public statement. It tacitly verifies the U.S. Government is collecting that data and getting full cooperation from probably way more than just America telcos.
No one in their right mind wants to re-invent the crackberry.
First sentence is correct. Author didn't distinguish bug/vulernability.
The second sentence, while double-plus-good Microsoft PR speak, is critically flawed reasoning.
If the parent said "Known Vista vulnerabilities..." I would agree, but that still glides over many fundamental liabilities that Microsoft products push onto the customer like:
1. The concept of security in Microsoft products means protect Microsoft's intellectual property.
2. No one can reasonably predict the scope or scale of Microsoft vulnerabilities.
3. Given Microsoft's history of producing "secure" operating systems, it is reasonable to assume there is no evidence end-user security features makes it through to the end product. Note carefully, Microsoft has *very* talented programmers who can code securely after all their monopoly status affords them this luxury. I'm saying that their work doesn't make it all the way through the management gauntlet. UAC is a perfect example. It is not a security boundary. http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=175
The Vista train will pull out of the station eventually because Microsoft's monopoly makes this a sure thing. As every other Microsoft OS has shown, there will be critical vulnerability surprises. It's a matter of when, not if.
This story is exactly why most governments don't particularly want an internet where upload bandwidth is the same as download and there's a reasonable possibility for anonymity. "Cracker" stories like this start appearing more frequently with the same amount of non-information below the headline. As another post mentions, there are few if any facts.
The U.S. government is preparing to legislate the end of the Internet as a democratizing force by turning it into a content delivery mechnanism. But they can't legislate without preparing public opinion. My bet is TPM is sold as a safety feature to protect us from "cracker stories" like this. After all, if you aren't a bad guy then it should be no problem right?
Even if I'm dead wrong, (and I might be) recent political history is full of examples where news events is at worst fabricated, at best spun to justify all kind of crazy agendas.
The parent post is very manipulative to the point of sowing seeds of confusion. Hang on a minute while I adjust my tin foil hat....
why should they force companies to stick to a license
Because if they don't, it's very easy for an asshat abusing whatever the OSI wants to enforce to tell a Judge, "Your honor, they have never enforced anything, so I'm allowed to abuse it." I'm paraphrasing, but the point is the OSI *must* enforce or the courts will allow asshats to sodomize whatever the OSI is attempting to protect. Tivo's founders are a good example of asshats that have "stolen" code in a novel way. Look up tivoization on the wikipedia if you don't believe me.
isn't this just OSI nearing closer to the same type of control corporation impose on their software
Whipping out the "all authority sucks" and pasting it on the OSI is a special kind of very manipulative doublespeak.
The OSI encourages new ideas and services making them available to all and preserving intellectual freedom. The typical for-profit corporation is steadfastly opposed to those ideals and does everything they can to squelch Freedom.
I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree.