Could you please explain, then what is the right way to respond to being colonized?
If you get invaded by military forces, that's a war. There are well-understood protocols for how to handle a war, and it involves everyone considering that you're justified in killing the military forces that invaded you.
If you get invaded by civilians, which is what happened to Israel when the Jordanians came in and colonized their land, the response suddenly look very different to outside observers. So what's the appropriate way to get rid of them without ending up "up to your ears in wrongdoing"?
Getty’s unfair and deceptive practice has caused actual damages to SRIPLAW by requiring SRIPLAW to expend time and money to bring an action to obtain a declaratory judgment that SRIPLAW did not infringe Getty’s copyright.
Requiring?
Am I the only one who sees shades of "why are you making me hit you?" in that?
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. I'm sorry, but this idea stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of Kerkhoff's Principle. The only thing that can be allowed to be obscure (and indeed, must be kept secret) in a secure information system is the key--the password, in this case. For everything else, it must be assumed that "the adversary knows the system," that all these details about the workings of the setup are already known to the hackers, and publishing it can cause no further harm.
In light of this, publishing data about your security serves an immensely useful purpose: it allows your system to be independently audited and verified. Since you have to begin with the base assumption that it won't help the bad guys, the only thing left is for it to help the good guys.
Remember, it's easy for anyone, no matter how smart or how dumb they are, to design a system so good that they can see no flaws in it.
No, it's not a logic gap at all. It's the very heart of the reason why only open-source cryptography solutions are considered secure. Because you must assume that the adversary knows the system, there can be no harm in telling them, and only by allowing it to be analyzed independently can the system be trusted.
Yes, to anyone with any understanding of computer security, they literally did admit exactly that.
One of the fundamental rules of computer security is Kerkhoff's Principle. It can be informally stated as the following truism: if your system is not secure when an attacker knows every detail of the security system except the key, it is not secure.
Exactly. Remember that, their cynical attempts to rewrite history notwithstanding, the "Palestinian" people don't belong there. It's not their land, and it's not their home. It was colonized illegally by a bunch of Jordanians after Israelis turned the inhospitable desert into a place that's actually worth living in. Before that, the only people calling themselves "Palestinian" were Jews with more Zionism than good sense.
We have a serious illegal immigrant problem in the US, but because they mostly keep their heads down and don't cause trouble, we tend to ignore it. But you can bet your last dollar that if they started acting the way these fake "Palestinians" are, claiming that large parts of territory on our southern border actually belonged to them and not to the US, and blowing up anyone who tried to disagree, that we'd respond exactly the way Israel is, and we would be completely justified in doing so.
One of my closest friends at my last job was a South American immigrant of native descent. He has all sorts of knowledge about the history of his people, and one of the most interesting things he told me was that, for all the bad things that Europeans have done since discovering the Americas, he's grateful for the destruction of the Aztecs and their abominable culture of slavery and death-worship.
That's kind of how I view militant Islam today. Freedom of religion is a great thing, and I'm all for it... except for these guys. There are limits to everything, and reducing this ideology to nothing more than a footnote in the history books of tomorrow would be a good thing, for the entire world.
ISIS/ISIL has kept their promises thus far when it comes to horror and violence. They said before "See you in New York" and claimed to want to raise their flag over our capital. I prefer to take them at their word rather than wait and see what happens....
True enough, but it sure looks like they're going to have their hands full for the foreseeable future, because Mr. Mosa made a hugely boneheaded move:
“I say to America that the Islamic Caliphate has been established,” Abu Mosa, a spokesman for the terror group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), told VICE Media in a video interview posted online Thursday.
Pulling out the C word like that is an act of supreme arrogance. The Islamic Caliphate is not a Muslim version of the abstract "Kingdom of Heaven" that Christians believe in; it was an actual Islamic empire, established by blood and horror and conquest, that lasted for quite a long time. By openly proclaiming a new one, they're likely to make enemies of the entire region.
Imagine how a whole lot of nations (including our own) would react if a high-ranking UK government official declared the re-establishment of the British Empire, and you'll have some idea of what this guy just stepped in.
This would be great, if your time is worth nothing and you have nothing pressing to take care of at the moment. Point #1 can be assumed false unless proven otherwise, and point #2 is almost certainly false as well, by virtue of the simple fact that you are on the phone with customer service. You don't do that when nothing's going wrong.
No one heeded his warning because it didn't apply. Do you even know what Orwell was trying to warn people about in 1984?
The first thing you need to understand to make any sense of 1984 is that George Orwell was a true-believing, dyed-in-the-wool Communist. He asserted for the record that "The War is inseparable from the Revolution," or in other words that by the time World War II ended, a Communist revolution would have occurred within Great Britain as part of this. He believed this to be obvious and inevitable.
He'd seen how a few earlier experiments in Communism turned out going horribly wrong, particularly in Russia, and he didn't want to see Britain go that way. Since a Communist revolution was inevitable, he wanted to make sure they ended up with a good one, so he wrote out (separately) the ideals of English Socialism, and the things that The People would have to do to make their revolution go off successfully and end up with a happy English Socialist government.
1984 was the cautionary tale of how Britain would end up if these principles were not followed. In the backstory, England ended up doing everything Orwell warned against, and they ended up in a system they called English Socialism, but which was a ghastly parody of Orwell's ideals at every point.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the inevitable Communist revolution in Britain: they never had one. The problem is, most people don't understand this context. 1984 ended up overshadowing everything else he ever wrote (with the possible exception of Animal Farm, which is another cautionary tale warning against making the exact same mistakes as 1984,) and especially in the USA, where his ideas about inevitable English Socialism never got much press in the first place, most people don't understand what he was talking about. If you ask most people who have read 1984, they'll tell you it was an anti-Communist tract!
And so for decades now, 1984 has been distorted completely out of context and used by a propaganda piece by corporate interests to scare people away from supporting much-needed regulations and reforms. Recent NSA scandals notwithstanding, Jennifer Government is still a far more realistic dystopia than 1984.
Wireless location data would likely be considered CPNI, which means it could no longer be shared with Internet companies for ... advertising and other purposes.
And yet... the judge appears to ignore that entirely. That's incredibly troubling for the precedent it sets.
Is there any chance that this could be used to set a good precedent, such as: "if a judge lays down a ruling that blatantly violates the constitution, she can be held personally liable on charges of corruption and/or abuse of power"?
Yeah, the concept behind that has been around for decades. It's called a Canary Trap, and it was used to catch spies in the Vietnam War, and probably earlier than that.
I'm surprised they ever made a second one, let alone a third. The first one sucked, and right at the same time there was another "let's put a bunch of old action movie stars together" film coming out that was one of the best movies of the year: RED.
Who thought making more Expendables was a good idea?
On the post: The James Foley Beheading Video And How Americans Conceptualize Their Enemies
Re: Re: Re: Re: selfish people
If you get invaded by military forces, that's a war. There are well-understood protocols for how to handle a war, and it involves everyone considering that you're justified in killing the military forces that invaded you.
If you get invaded by civilians, which is what happened to Israel when the Jordanians came in and colonized their land, the response suddenly look very different to outside observers. So what's the appropriate way to get rid of them without ending up "up to your ears in wrongdoing"?
On the post: Getty Threatens The Wrong IP Law Firm In Its Copyright Trolling Efforts
Requiring?
Am I the only one who sees shades of "why are you making me hit you?" in that?
On the post: Rightscorp's New PR Plan: The More Ridiculous It Gets (Such As By Claiming To Hijack Browsers), The More Press It Will Get
On the post: White House Going With 'Security By Obscurity' As Excuse For Refusing To Release Healthcare.gov Security Details
Re: Layers, like an onion
In light of this, publishing data about your security serves an immensely useful purpose: it allows your system to be independently audited and verified. Since you have to begin with the base assumption that it won't help the bad guys, the only thing left is for it to help the good guys.
Remember, it's easy for anyone, no matter how smart or how dumb they are, to design a system so good that they can see no flaws in it.
On the post: White House Going With 'Security By Obscurity' As Excuse For Refusing To Release Healthcare.gov Security Details
Re: Re: Re: Already Insecure
On the post: White House Going With 'Security By Obscurity' As Excuse For Refusing To Release Healthcare.gov Security Details
Re: Already Insecure
One of the fundamental rules of computer security is Kerkhoff's Principle. It can be informally stated as the following truism: if your system is not secure when an attacker knows every detail of the security system except the key, it is not secure.
On the post: The James Foley Beheading Video And How Americans Conceptualize Their Enemies
Re: Re: selfish people
We have a serious illegal immigrant problem in the US, but because they mostly keep their heads down and don't cause trouble, we tend to ignore it. But you can bet your last dollar that if they started acting the way these fake "Palestinians" are, claiming that large parts of territory on our southern border actually belonged to them and not to the US, and blowing up anyone who tried to disagree, that we'd respond exactly the way Israel is, and we would be completely justified in doing so.
On the post: The James Foley Beheading Video And How Americans Conceptualize Their Enemies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One of my closest friends at my last job was a South American immigrant of native descent. He has all sorts of knowledge about the history of his people, and one of the most interesting things he told me was that, for all the bad things that Europeans have done since discovering the Americas, he's grateful for the destruction of the Aztecs and their abominable culture of slavery and death-worship.
That's kind of how I view militant Islam today. Freedom of religion is a great thing, and I'm all for it... except for these guys. There are limits to everything, and reducing this ideology to nothing more than a footnote in the history books of tomorrow would be a good thing, for the entire world.
On the post: BBC Has 12 More Articles Shoved Down The Google Memory Hole Thanks To 'Right To Be Forgotten'
I see this and I think "coffee server," but this is British English. That means "attorney," right?
On the post: The James Foley Beheading Video And How Americans Conceptualize Their Enemies
Re: Re:
True enough, but it sure looks like they're going to have their hands full for the foreseeable future, because Mr. Mosa made a hugely boneheaded move:
Pulling out the C word like that is an act of supreme arrogance. The Islamic Caliphate is not a Muslim version of the abstract "Kingdom of Heaven" that Christians believe in; it was an actual Islamic empire, established by blood and horror and conquest, that lasted for quite a long time. By openly proclaiming a new one, they're likely to make enemies of the entire region.
Imagine how a whole lot of nations (including our own) would react if a high-ranking UK government official declared the re-establishment of the British Empire, and you'll have some idea of what this guy just stepped in.
On the post: Thomson Reuters Thinks Not Responding To Their Email Means You've Freely Licensed All Your Content
Re: Lack of clue about (1) email (2) contracts
On the post: Behind The Veil Part 5: Comcast Metrics For All Employees As Simple As ABC, Always Be Closing
Re: Counter-tactic
On the post: There's A Reasonable Debate To Be Had About Showing The James Foley Beheading Video, But Claiming Its Illegal To Watch Is Ridiculous
Re:
The first thing you need to understand to make any sense of 1984 is that George Orwell was a true-believing, dyed-in-the-wool Communist. He asserted for the record that "The War is inseparable from the Revolution," or in other words that by the time World War II ended, a Communist revolution would have occurred within Great Britain as part of this. He believed this to be obvious and inevitable.
He'd seen how a few earlier experiments in Communism turned out going horribly wrong, particularly in Russia, and he didn't want to see Britain go that way. Since a Communist revolution was inevitable, he wanted to make sure they ended up with a good one, so he wrote out (separately) the ideals of English Socialism, and the things that The People would have to do to make their revolution go off successfully and end up with a happy English Socialist government.
1984 was the cautionary tale of how Britain would end up if these principles were not followed. In the backstory, England ended up doing everything Orwell warned against, and they ended up in a system they called English Socialism, but which was a ghastly parody of Orwell's ideals at every point.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the inevitable Communist revolution in Britain: they never had one. The problem is, most people don't understand this context. 1984 ended up overshadowing everything else he ever wrote (with the possible exception of Animal Farm, which is another cautionary tale warning against making the exact same mistakes as 1984,) and especially in the USA, where his ideas about inevitable English Socialism never got much press in the first place, most people don't understand what he was talking about. If you ask most people who have read 1984, they'll tell you it was an anti-Communist tract!
And so for decades now, 1984 has been distorted completely out of context and used by a propaganda piece by corporate interests to scare people away from supporting much-needed regulations and reforms. Recent NSA scandals notwithstanding, Jennifer Government is still a far more realistic dystopia than 1984.
On the post: There's A Reasonable Debate To Be Had About Showing The James Foley Beheading Video, But Claiming Its Illegal To Watch Is Ridiculous
On the post: How AT&T's Own Legal Fights Show It's Lying In Claiming Broadband Reclassification Would Create Collateral Damage
Is that so? Then I'm all for it!
On the post: Who Needs SOPA? US Court Wipes Sites From The Internet For 'Infringement' Without Even Alerting Sites In Question
Is there any chance that this could be used to set a good precedent, such as: "if a judge lays down a ruling that blatantly violates the constitution, she can be held personally liable on charges of corruption and/or abuse of power"?
On the post: Government's Response To Snowden? Strip 100,000 Potential Whistleblowers Of Their Security Clearances
Re: watch for watermarks, leakers
On the post: Economists Don't Understand The Information Age, So Their Claims About Today's Economy Are A Joke
Re: GDP vs LOC
On the post: Hollywood Desperate To Blame Bad Opening Box Office Of Expendables 3 On Piracy Rather Than The Fact That It Sucked
Re: Re: Leaked copy
Who thought making more Expendables was a good idea?
On the post: Turns Out When Police Act Cordial, Rather Than As An Oppressive Military Force, Things Work Out Better
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes... but...
Next >>