In response, Mozilla Corporation has stated that since the hackers did not submit the hack for verification, and they may not call it a "FireFox" hack, in compliance with their Trademark policy. Further, if anyone did take over a browser with this hack, they would have to change the icon or face vague threats.
The hackers plan to release the next version of the hack under the name IceWeasel Hack, while grumbling about backports. Debian developers have been debating whether they should include the hack in Etch or not.
Does non-partisan mean equal-support-for-all-people-no-matter-their-view?
When there are to major parties, and one's position is clearly on one side, calling it non-partisan is a game in nomenclature rather than carrying any actual meaning. In fact, it deligitimizes the effort, by having them focus on something which is not true.
I like to say, "you only have to advertise that which isn't true". And it definitely applies here.
The founders don't care that Bush is a Republican, and that Congress is controlled by Republicans -- they care that the current administration doesn't handle scientific issues scientifically.
The Democrats can say the same thing for themselves. We do not give a group a name because they like the name. The name represents an idea, and those people subscribe to that idea.
It's like the whole debate over whether 'unbiased' media needs to cover both sides of a dichotomous issue equally -- even when one of the sides is obviously wrong.
That is not comparable at all. A media that declares no bias is generally expected to cover both sides. A group that claims to be non-partisan, however, cannot be on issues that are already clearly debated on on party lines. But, should it not being a partisan issue (at least not when the group formed) they are expected to take one side.
Is accepting the truth biased when an opposiing view exists?
Yes. Bias and truth are completely separate things. Since one can never truly know (that he knows) the truth, any acceptence is by definition a bias. And, as with any bias, the biased people *rarely* admit being biased, and the opposing group says they are.
Organizers of the group, Scientists and Engineers for America, said it would be nonpartisan, but in interviews several said Bush administration science policies had led them to act.
That says it all. If scientists want something, go for it. Create a party. Support cross-party congressman based are their expressed views. Political freedom. But the claim of non-partisanship is ridiculous.
It's ironic. Science, the bastion of "just the facts", claims something utterly bogus. I guess, noone can fool a scientist, unless the scienctist himself wants to be fooled.
Thanx for the reply. I appreciate the couterpoints.
But, i must disagree.
the retailer has to figure out they've been hacked
The brick and mortar retailer also has to figure out they were broken into.
Breaking in to an office, copying sensitive data (even off a local computer) is not always easily detectable.
Don't compare stealing information with stealing objects.
you have to make a mistake that leaves tracks for the authorities to trace
This item is slightly misleading. You mean that the cracker has attempted to clean up the evidence, and has made a mistake. IOW, he *didn't* clean up. ("make a mistake" makes it sound like the mistake requires an action. In this case, it requires inaction.)
This is quite the same in the real world. Whether it is fingerprints, security cameras, passers-by, codes, whatever, they are little different than log files and its ilk.
and someone in law enforcement has to have the skills, time, and drive to track you down.
This is *very* much like the real world. Except, that IRL, the cops are already quite aware of things. When today's hackers (and possibly crackers) become tomorrow's cops, the difference between tracking online and offline crimes will fade. All because of increased familiarity.
On top of that, once arrested, the jury must be able to be convinced that those obscure technical details do indeed mean that you were the one who did the deed.
Same. Familiarity will increase with time.
The perceived danger of remotely hacking a system (and the cost-to-benefit ratio) is lower than standing at the cash register, with the possibility that a security guard, or even a plainclothes police officer, might be nearby.
I actually disagree with you here. Crackers, like regular thieves, assume they can get away with it. So there is no difference. Non-crackers, can rely on their senses to see if a shop can be robbed (like running a fresh red-light, or speeding), whereas the lack of technical knowledge online will likely scare a person that they will definitely be caught.
I think this is much like that lack of civility that we seen in online forums; people will write things on Slashdot that they would never dream of saying in the presence of coworkers (I'm thinking here primarily of sexist and racist comments, but some of the more extreme personal insults might fall into this category too).
That is quite different. It's just a different projection of ourselves. Being online handles can be scrapped easily, people (feel they) have less to lose, and are less careful. For comparison, think of a person who IRL moves around *a lot*, or someone online who has worked hard to gain handle recognition.
It's not so much experience that makes the difference. It's the criminal's ability to assess risk.
The criminal's *assumed* ability to assess risk. And that very much comes with experience.
I imagine bricks and mortars once had similar problems. But, they've been around for enough time that security has been improved and common tricks will not usually work on them.
The Internet is still young, and many people are using it who simply do not know what it is about. If attacks like this keep happening, and keep being reported, people will take have a better general knowledge, and real-world protection (burglar alarms, security monitoring, etc) will become more common, and slowly but surely, security will be enhanced overall.
Kudos for the article. Things like this need to be reported in the nice way the author mentioned it.
Art. 11. Canada acceding to this confederation, and joining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union: but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.
So, Canada and the US have a long history of *very* friendly relations. And, it is very helpful for a country we share a long border with, including tax breaks for people who live in one country and work in another.
PrefPass lets you grant any site a Pass to access your anonymous Prefs with one click. That's it. So whether the site wants to personalize their content, their recommendations, or their ads (this is a big one, helps the site make more money), they can ask you and you can say yes or no.
Interesting. Implementation should be interesting though.
What i like about this is innovation in the keyboard. Not that the keyboard needs to be changed. I enjoy being able to pick up a cheap KB for a few bucks. But it'd be interesting to see what they come up with.
Of course, i'd go with "self-cleaning" before screens. My KB is a premier crud puppy nursery.
Being obstructed by a THOUGHT is ludicrous. Getting patents on things that all of your competitors could easily do as well means your business is not well founded.
If your competitors can't do it, there is no reason for a patent.
The patent is made to protect the filer. The protection is that it protects his time and money.
If i create the better mouse trap, and the world starts beating a path to my door, i need to invest money to start making more. The problem is, by the time i put the money and effort in to getting my factory going, an old-style mouse trap company will use one production line to make this new one. End result, i'm out all that money because they can outsell me due to preexisting infrastructure. However, if i get a patent, i can put my money and effort into it, knowing that i am protected for a period of time.
Slashdot Mirror
If this was more open journalism, could i edit his answers?
Does anyone still use Slackware? Or is it just released for nostalgic purposes?
You're most welcome. :)
In response, Mozilla Corporation has stated that since the hackers did not submit the hack for verification, and they may not call it a "FireFox" hack, in compliance with their Trademark policy. Further, if anyone did take over a browser with this hack, they would have to change the icon or face vague threats.
The hackers plan to release the next version of the hack under the name IceWeasel Hack, while grumbling about backports. Debian developers have been debating whether they should include the hack in Etch or not.
I wonder what 12 million pepsi points would get.
The one Biff was using looking a bit nicer.
Does non-partisan mean equal-support-for-all-people-no-matter-their-view?
When there are to major parties, and one's position is clearly on one side, calling it non-partisan is a game in nomenclature rather than carrying any actual meaning. In fact, it deligitimizes the effort, by having them focus on something which is not true.
I like to say, "you only have to advertise that which isn't true". And it definitely applies here.
The founders don't care that Bush is a Republican, and that Congress is controlled by Republicans -- they care that the current administration doesn't handle scientific issues scientifically.
The Democrats can say the same thing for themselves. We do not give a group a name because they like the name. The name represents an idea, and those people subscribe to that idea.
It's like the whole debate over whether 'unbiased' media needs to cover both sides of a dichotomous issue equally -- even when one of the sides is obviously wrong.
That is not comparable at all. A media that declares no bias is generally expected to cover both sides. A group that claims to be non-partisan, however, cannot be on issues that are already clearly debated on on party lines. But, should it not being a partisan issue (at least not when the group formed) they are expected to take one side.
Is accepting the truth biased when an opposiing view exists?
Yes. Bias and truth are completely separate things. Since one can never truly know (that he knows) the truth, any acceptence is by definition a bias. And, as with any bias, the biased people *rarely* admit being biased, and the opposing group says they are.
That says it all. If scientists want something, go for it. Create a party. Support cross-party congressman based are their expressed views. Political freedom. But the claim of non-partisanship is ridiculous.
It's ironic. Science, the bastion of "just the facts", claims something utterly bogus. I guess, noone can fool a scientist, unless the scienctist himself wants to be fooled.
Heh. At least i sent you an email. :P
Are you asking that from a helicopter?
I don't think i meant quite what you are referring to. But your comment is interesting nonetheless. :)
Thanx for the reply. I appreciate the couterpoints.
But, i must disagree.
the retailer has to figure out they've been hacked
The brick and mortar retailer also has to figure out they were broken into.
Breaking in to an office, copying sensitive data (even off a local computer) is not always easily detectable.
Don't compare stealing information with stealing objects.
you have to make a mistake that leaves tracks for the authorities to trace
This item is slightly misleading. You mean that the cracker has attempted to clean up the evidence, and has made a mistake. IOW, he *didn't* clean up. ("make a mistake" makes it sound like the mistake requires an action. In this case, it requires inaction.)
This is quite the same in the real world. Whether it is fingerprints, security cameras, passers-by, codes, whatever, they are little different than log files and its ilk.
and someone in law enforcement has to have the skills, time, and drive to track you down.
This is *very* much like the real world. Except, that IRL, the cops are already quite aware of things. When today's hackers (and possibly crackers) become tomorrow's cops, the difference between tracking online and offline crimes will fade. All because of increased familiarity.
On top of that, once arrested, the jury must be able to be convinced that those obscure technical details do indeed mean that you were the one who did the deed.
Same. Familiarity will increase with time.
The perceived danger of remotely hacking a system (and the cost-to-benefit ratio) is lower than standing at the cash register, with the possibility that a security guard, or even a plainclothes police officer, might be nearby.
I actually disagree with you here. Crackers, like regular thieves, assume they can get away with it. So there is no difference. Non-crackers, can rely on their senses to see if a shop can be robbed (like running a fresh red-light, or speeding), whereas the lack of technical knowledge online will likely scare a person that they will definitely be caught.
I think this is much like that lack of civility that we seen in online forums; people will write things on Slashdot that they would never dream of saying in the presence of coworkers (I'm thinking here primarily of sexist and racist comments, but some of the more extreme personal insults might fall into this category too).
That is quite different. It's just a different projection of ourselves. Being online handles can be scrapped easily, people (feel they) have less to lose, and are less careful. For comparison, think of a person who IRL moves around *a lot*, or someone online who has worked hard to gain handle recognition.
It's not so much experience that makes the difference. It's the criminal's ability to assess risk.
The criminal's *assumed* ability to assess risk. And that very much comes with experience.
I wonder if all they read will be one's passport.
Very interesting.
I imagine bricks and mortars once had similar problems. But, they've been around for enough time that security has been improved and common tricks will not usually work on them.
The Internet is still young, and many people are using it who simply do not know what it is about. If attacks like this keep happening, and keep being reported, people will take have a better general knowledge, and real-world protection (burglar alarms, security monitoring, etc) will become more common, and slowly but surely, security will be enhanced overall.
Kudos for the article. Things like this need to be reported in the nice way the author mentioned it.
I think it goes something like "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"
I think it goes something like "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"
You do realize that Article 11 of the Articles of Confederation states:
So, Canada and the US have a long history of *very* friendly relations. And, it is very helpful for a country we share a long border with, including tax breaks for people who live in one country and work in another.
So says Yogurt: And Spaceballs, the $7 Android!
Now, if we can just change the word "priority" to be useful again.
I don't remember the name. But yeah, it was a great episode. :)
In the department store, by two screens:
Over there.
(glances at rifles)
Do it
Do it now.
Heh.
What i like about this is innovation in the keyboard. Not that the keyboard needs to be changed. I enjoy being able to pick up a cheap KB for a few bucks. But it'd be interesting to see what they come up with.
Of course, i'd go with "self-cleaning" before screens. My KB is a premier crud puppy nursery.
Three screens?
Kill them.
Kill them all.
Do it!
Next-up: The self-cleaning toilet seat.
It'll keep the 400:1 ratio back up.
Of course, it's only a bit of time before some renegade made a non-self-cleaning mouse in the form of a toilet seat.
Except that we want inventions to be disclosed, which is why we have patents in the first place!
:)
Interesting, if we switch the two bolded words (minus the "ed") we get:
Except that we disclose inventions to be wanted, which is why we have patents in the first place!
It also makes sense in a devious sort of way.
Being obstructed by a THOUGHT is ludicrous. Getting patents on things that all of your competitors could easily do as well means your business is not well founded.
If your competitors can't do it, there is no reason for a patent.
The patent is made to protect the filer. The protection is that it protects his time and money.
If i create the better mouse trap, and the world starts beating a path to my door, i need to invest money to start making more. The problem is, by the time i put the money and effort in to getting my factory going, an old-style mouse trap company will use one production line to make this new one. End result, i'm out all that money because they can outsell me due to preexisting infrastructure. However, if i get a patent, i can put my money and effort into it, knowing that i am protected for a period of time.