The worst Google could do to me is market out personal information. I can ignore marketing with the well-known circular file.
The worst the government can do is fine me, lock me up, make me "disappear," and/or possibly kill me in the color of justice, depending on what they find, and how they interpret it. This is especially the case if my political views are too "radical" for whoever finds them, in which case, they could use their loopholes to call me a criminal, inciter, terrorist, traitor, or any other number of names that simply mean "someone we don't like."
So, yeah, I'm more comfortable with Google knowing my information than Big Brother.
* Amtrak's purpose is to provide public transportation.
* Public transportation requires moving people about.
* Moving people about requires devices that can move themselves that people can occupy(trains).
* Devices that move themselves need power.
* Devices that move themselves need maintenance.
* Power must be generated.
* Maintenance requires staff.
* Power generators require constant resources (fuel) to generate.
* Staff are people.
* People will work if motivated.
* Survival is a motivation.
* Survival requires several resources.
* Money can be traded for generator resources.
# Therefore, money is required for power for transport devices.
* Money can be traded for survival resources.
# Therefore, money is required for maintenance staff.
# Therefore, Amtrak requires money to provide public transportation.
* Amtrak was unable to bring in enough money to provide fuel and motivation for its staff.
# Therefore, Amtrak's supply of public transportation was not constant.
* Demand for public transportation is constant.
# Therefore, Amtrak was not able to supply the amount of public transportation needed.
# Therefore, Amtrak failed on both counts.
The mainstream media has screwed this one up for years, but it's embarrassing to see hacker and cracker
The *only* people that differentiate between the two are the Slashdot crowd. To *everyone* else, an hacker is a hacker is a hacker.
First, keep in mind that the bulk of the Slashdot crowd happens to fit in the broader "hacker" category, and so would be much more aware of the distinction than the ones using the term as a blanket statement.
Second, keep in mind that times always change. To everyone else, once, geeks were geeks too. Now it tres chic to call oneself a geek when they know how to install and configure desktop applications in Windows.
Third, as times change, so do generations. I've seen enough evidence that the "hacker" label is starting to get positive connotations not to give up hope just yet... mostly because of the fact that the newer generations of people are growing up with these boxes, and are becoming familiar enough to self-apply the "hacker" label once they find out what it means; the primary "hacker is hacker" crowd are the older-school types who didn't get their first taste until the mid-90s, and the 1337 k1dd13z who refused to learn more than it took to pwnz0r a box.
I think you may have missed this part of the summary:
do I try to write one my self
Keep in mind, he's trying to find a way to get the isolated network infected so the students can learn about removal. One of the options available, to those who are skilled enough, is to write one. Even in that sentence, I do not see any hint of a plan to let the students try to write one, or even see the source code to the theoretical virus. He simply wants a relatively harmless virus to use for the purpose of teaching how to deal with them. I believe some can be found at http://offensivecomputing.net/ although you need to register before you'll be able to get any.
Writing simple scripts is nothing like programming. While shell scripts can be quite complex, most that a system administrator would write are very simple. Really just a series of commands.
I don't understand. What exactly do you think programming is? Yes, there are loops, conditionals, and functions, but at its heart, programming is just a list of instructions for the computer to perform on your behalf.
Never mind... The screen didn't display the threading properly.
So they are more akin to the Nazi Sympathizers who actively identified members of the French Resistance in the hope of receiving favours from the Nazis.
The US Copyright Group or the ones threatening them? I understand what you're trying to say, but that analogy would, frankly, fit the former more than the latter, as they are the ones who run to the so-called authorities when people try to resist the increasing limitations being placed on them.
I'd probably associate the latter more closely with the Unabomber. The motivation is understandable, even if the tactics are reprehensible.
Okay, but how does a lengthy copyright term warrant bomb threats and DDOS attacks on a law firm? The firm didn't create the law, and it doesn't have the power to change it. It's just enforcing it on behalf of a client, who also neither created the law nor has the power to change it. The criminals engaging in bomb threats and DDOS attacks aren't even attacking the 'right' people. It's completely unjustified. Furthermore, the film Cornered! was released in 2009. Even by the standards of the first Copyright Act that film would still be under copyright.
It doesn't and I'm not about to condone such behavior. Just pointing out that grievances do exist in reference to your original question, and that such behavior is expected when the attempts to air such grievances are being ignored in favor of the deeper pockets.
This is extremely inaccurate. Criminal copyright infringement has existed in the US since 1897 and was expanded in 1909, 1976, 1982, 1997, and 1998 (with the DMCA). By the way, the RIAA was only founded in 1952 and the MPAA's predecessor organization in 1922, so criminal copyright infringement predates those groups by many years.
Granted, I didn't realize the criminality of copyright infringement went back that far, but it doesn't invalidate the point that such is a grievance to be had.
In both cases, the point was that the copyright system is being abused by copyright holders, and the law is being modified in their favor as time goes on. With the terms continuing to lengthen, and the punishments becoming more severe, is it any surprise that some people who have grievances against the abuse feel they're not being heard, and take things in a much more drastic direction?
What legitimate grievances? The RIAA, MPAA, and other groups have generally not been suing people who didn't, in fact, commit copyright infringement. In the few trials that have reached the verdict stage, the defendants have been found liable. The issues are about the level of damages, the cost of litigation, and whether the litigation strategy even makes sense. What's not an issue is that the defendants who were found liable broke the law.
I can see two major grievances.
The first is that the copyright system is being extended specifically to prevent anything from being placed into the public domain. Originally, in the US, the term of a copyright was 14 years, after which the work would enter the public domain. Today, the term of a copyright is 70 years after the death of the author. What this means is that copyright terms have increased by roughly one order of magnitude.
The second is the inclusion of criminal elements in a specifically civil matter. Originally, copyright was a case where the copyright holder was responsible for enforcing their copyrights through the legal process. However, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act introduced criminal elements into the process, making certain forms of infringements (circumventing anti-copying protections) into a criminal matter.
Simply put, the law is being tilted in favor of the copyright holders in order to increase their profits at the detriment of the public domain, which has remained static at 1923 for several decades now... not counting legal hiccups, such as "Happy Birthday," which was able to squeeze in due to the pre-1923 works being "unauthorized."
Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker
