Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:I'm confused (Score 1) 158

by vux984 (#47578011) Attached to: Unesco Probing Star Wars Filming In Ireland

I'm not sure I follow your analogy

I'll clarify. Suppose a city has ordinances requiring certain building codes be followed for new construction.

In some cities the city employs all its own inspectors. If just one of those inspectors can be bribed, does that really mean the organization (city) is not serious about the codes being followed? That seems a stretch.

In other cities, in addition to city employees, there are 3rd party consulting companies that can perform inspections, prepare reports, and submit them to the city. Provided the building developer provides the city a report done by one of these companies, the city will authorize an occupancy permit or whatever. So now if one employee of one of the consulting companies is corrupt does that really mean the city is somehow corrupt or not serious about buildings being to code? That seems a huge stretch.

Similarly, in many cases things like "environmental impact assessments" are not done by the country itself, instead they are done by universitys, researchers, and dedicated consulting companies. If you can find a student research or consultancy employee willing to fudge some data to get a 'pass'... that hardly means the whole country isn't serious about the environment.

If some corrupt organization granted the filming permits when they weren't supposed to, the government can always revoke them anyways.

Of course.

Comment: Re:Legitimate concerns (Score 2) 197

by vux984 (#47577951) Attached to: UK Government Report Recommends Ending Online Anonymity

No, I think it works just fine. If I own a gun, and suddenly they become outlawed, I too become an outlaw.

That has never been what the phrase meant. It has always meant that if you outlaw something, then it won't stop the outlaws from having it, because by virtue of being outlaws they'll ignore the law anyway.

In the case of guns specifically it amounts to effectively disarming the law abiding citizens, leaving only the criminals with guns.

It has never meant that if you outlaw something that suddenly all the law abiding citizens will be outlaws too.

The point is, if you ban something that is commonly used or owned, people will suddenly become outlaws for no other reason than because it illegal to have.

There is, of course, some truth to that too, but it is not the point the maxim makes. Law abiding people presumably will abide by the law and dispose of the contraband in an orderly fashion.

For example, If your neighbors all commonly dumped old/extra pesticides, gasoline, motor oil, etc into the river, and a law banning the dumping of such into the river was passed, I expect they are generally law abiding, and they would stop. It wouldn't suddenly criminalize all of them.

Comment: Re:USB 4.x to offer signed USB device signatures?? (Score 1) 182

by vux984 (#47577815) Attached to: "BadUSB" Exploit Makes Devices Turn "Evil"

But mostly I would say ... "whoosh".

Its not a 'whoosh'

The premise is that "keyboard missing, press F1 to continue" is "funny" is because you can incorrectly interpret it to mean the following contradiction:

  "The keyboard is missing, now press F1 on the keyboard to continue without one"

But it never meant that, it means the far more reasonable:

"The keyboard is missing; I'm currently configured to ensure that one is attached, so please attach one, and then press F1 on it to continue"

Comment: Re:I'm confused (Score 1) 158

by vux984 (#47577757) Attached to: Unesco Probing Star Wars Filming In Ireland

If the organizations that grant such permission are corrupt enough to accept a fee in exchange for ignoring the environment, then again., as I said, the environment isn't actually that important to them to begin with.

That's like saying the IRS is corrupt if it accepts even a single tax return prepared by a corrupt tax preparing accountant.

That's not really a fair standard by which to judge the organization.

Everything else you wrote i agree with though.

Comment: Re:Legitimate concerns (Score 2) 197

by vux984 (#47577537) Attached to: UK Government Report Recommends Ending Online Anonymity

What happens when someone steals someone's account and does bad things?

Cyber bullying tends to takes place over a period of months years. A single death threat sure... you can use that defense and get away with it, with nothing more than "now change your damned password" and don't share it.

But weeks on end? After multiple incidents reported?

"I'm sorry your honor, those darned hackers just keep breaking into my account every single day... and I'm really trying to keep them out. And all the witness testimony about how I hate the victim, and was a beast to her at school...its all lies. And those texts sent bragging about making the bullying posts from my phone after 11 different incidents -- um you know... I'm always leaving my phone where strangers can have a go at it..."

That's the thing about evidence. It accumulates until you are "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt".

Comment: Re:Legitimate concerns (Score 1) 197

by vux984 (#47577293) Attached to: UK Government Report Recommends Ending Online Anonymity

The RL identities of most bullies are already known to those being bullied, yet the bullying persists.

I dunno, RL bullying tends to stay just within the law and/or incidents are very difficult to prove boiling down to he-said she-said. I ran into bullying at school at few times over the years -- and ran into first hand how hard it was to effectively combat -- they're criminals and thugs but evidence is nearly impossible, and even if the police or school want to help its really hard to get evidence or pursue a case.

When its gets anonymous and online two things happen -- the stuff is taken to whole other levels -- death threats, etc. Stuff that without anonymity would either not be made so brazenly and publicly, or could be effectively followed up on by the police since there is now real evidence of a crime.

Lol, I wish the guys who'd bullied me had posted their death threats etc on the school bulletin board, signed their names to it, all in full view of surveillance cameras. Shit would have come down on them for that.

Right now, for better or for worse, you can really go to town on someone online.

Comment: Re:Legitimate concerns (Score 0) 197

by vux984 (#47577089) Attached to: UK Government Report Recommends Ending Online Anonymity

To paraphrase a quote on a different subject: "If you outlaw online anonymity, only outlaws will be anonymous online."

Actually the quote only really works with guns.

With guns, "only outlaws have guns" is a "problem" because guns confer confer considerable power over others to the outlaws.

With anything else, the response "So what?"

For example, if you outlaw wearing red, only outlaws will wear red. So what. It makes it easy for the police to round them up and toss them in jail. Good riddance to stupid outlaws.

And it follows that if you outlaw online anonymity, only outlaws will be anonymous -- again... so what? They are self identifying as outlaws, so its easy to just ban their pseuodoaccounts as soon as they pop up; and law-abiding society can all form ranks to just ignore them/mod them down/report them for being anonymous; etc.

These scenarios are not like guns; guns uniquely empower criminals in a way that isn't generally applicable.

*** AGAIN I'm playing devil's advocate here. I'm not even slightly in favor of outlawing anonymity (or the color red) -- just pointing out the flaw in the paraphrased argument. ***

Comment: Re:Legitimate concerns (Score 2) 197

by vux984 (#47576705) Attached to: UK Government Report Recommends Ending Online Anonymity

I am NOT at all even slightly for eliminating online anon; but playing the devil's advocate:

So you think making it possible for bullies to determine the RL identities of their victims is going the REDUCE online abuse?

No, but determining the RL identities of the bullies likely would reduce bullying, as they could be held socially and legally accountable for what they are doing.

Comment: Re:I'm confused (Score 1) 158

by vux984 (#47576021) Attached to: Unesco Probing Star Wars Filming In Ireland

If money can buy permission to destroy an environment, then the environment isn't really that important in the first place.

That doesn't follow, you just shop "environmental impact statement companies" until you find one willing to take your money in exchange for permission.

That says nothing about the importance of anything, merely that one can usually find someone who is corrupt.

Comment: Re:Unfortunately? (Score 1) 80

by vux984 (#47571541) Attached to: seL4 Verified Microkernel Now Open Source

I'm just pointing out that you are acting like a sociopath. A license (contract) is supposed to be a "meeting of minds"; perverting the intention of the contract terms is a sociopathic thing to do. Not ad hominem -- merely an observation.

Because as he has made clear many many times that's all that matters, what the authors of the GPLv2 think about that or what you think they intended the license for has no relevance whatsoever.

To whom?

So? Clearly the authors of the GPLv2 didn't consider it either or they didn't care about Tivoization at all.

Clearly. If they didn't care theyd' never have released a GPLv3 specifically to close that loop hole in what they wrote vis-a-vis their intent. Oh wait... they did release a GPLv3. Guess they cared.

if the license explicitly placed restrictions on the use of the code outside of contributing it back then the GPLv2 would not have been used because Linus has made clear many times that it is about "tit for tat" and nothing more.

Its impossible to say what Linus would have done at 22 years old in 1992 if the GPL had been slightly differently worded. Whether he'd have cared about an anti-tivoization clause at the time... you'll maybe recall that Linux 0.01 through 0.11 was released under a license that forbade commercial use in 1991.

He switched to the GPL in 1992. Your indulging in some serious mythologizing to even suggest he had such an extremely nuanced understanding and appreciation for a license that had only been around for a couple years. (GPL v1 was released in 89), and GPLv2 was barely 6 months old when Linus adopted it.

You are saying the same person that you argue thought tivoization was a good thing when he selected GPL was against any commercial use at all just a few months earlier? That doesn't add up. Unless maybe, just maybe Linus' stance on the license has evolved and become a lot more nuanced over the last 20+ years.

So what is your point?

1) That Linus in 2007 isn't really the same kid that picked GPLv2 for his experimental kernel project in 1992.

2) That Linus in 1992 wasn't really making pro-tivoization arguments in 1992 when he selected that license.

Comment: Re:Homosexuals and marriage: ability vs. right (Score 1) 836

by vux984 (#47570559) Attached to: Gaza's Only Power Plant Knocked Offline

They want the society to change the meaning of the word "marriage" to include homosexual unions (which no civilization in the history of the world has ever equated with regular marriage).

You sure about that? Pre christian roman, ancient chinese, and ancient egypt all have instances of same sex marriages.

For example, the Roman Empire's equivalent of gay marriage was banned in the 3rd century Roman Empire, where it had previously been legal.

Your sense of the word marry as being specifically man to female is clearly proto-Christian; and quite bluntly archaic in the face of modern understanding that many *people* are neither strictly maile or female. Are you going to deny them the ability to get married too? If you are hermaphroditic? What if you are chimeric with both male and female DNA? Nevermind the transgendered.

There is no way the legal status 'marriage' in any modern country should be tied to such an archaic and religious definition. Society itself has largely moved on to understand and accept that a relationship can have all the characteristics of marriage irrespective of the absence or presence of physical appendages or genetic markers.

"Straight marriage" is just as much a tautology [..]

Anthropologists say that some type of marriage has been found in every known human society since ancient times.

The idea that it necessarily and inherently implies straight is as ridiculous as the idea that it implies male ownership of the bride as chattel, such as it did in the Hebrew bible.

Comment: Re:Wow ... (Score 1) 411

by vux984 (#47570479) Attached to: A 24-Year-Old Scammed Apple 42 Times In 16 Different States

What reasons? Because it isn't obvious.

Printing a fake card is dirt cheap, and the 'customer can put an accomplices number on the back. Remember, the whole scam revolves around the card not working properly in the machine; so they can pretty much hand you anything.

You must call your own merchant account provider, and THEY will look up any bank phone numbers that they might need to validate the card and authorize the transaction.

Comment: Re:Fire(wall) and forget (Score 1) 338

On the other hand, if something else does go wrong, the firewall become another obstacle for the attacker.

What is this "something else that goes wrong"?

That someone outside the system gains access to the system via the ports that were publicly open, that the firewall would have let them in through anyway? (And once in, they can change your firewall... so that's not buying you much.)

What else can go wrong? That you the admin opened a service you weren't supposed to? Ok... yes, that could happen.

And a firewall gives you some defense in depth to that. But so would a separate hardware firewall between the server and the rest of the network.

I suppose you could misconfigure THAT one too. Oops. Is adding yet another firewall really a solution? Why not 2 hardware firewalls, one after the other? Why not 7 just in case you botch the first 6? Is that better? If you need that, maybe you shouldn't be in network admin?

Meanwhile, this additional firewall you add, its software, so you've added another point of failure that could itself have vulnerabilities, defects, and of course you have to configure it correctly.

Sure, in 99% of scenarios a local firewall makes sense, is a no-brainer, is defense in depth, etc. But one can absolutely deploy a system without one in the right circumstances.

I came, I saw, I deleted all your files.