There is no carve out in the law for open source. I don’t think it matters for this calculator’s firmware, because there’s no covered App Store, but it certainly would for most Linux distributions.
The law is irrelevant when it comes to open source. There is no one to turn to and bully for compliance. A government could presumably request that GitHub delete the repo, but the software will then simply move somewhere else, in a jurisdiction where these laws don't apply, or be distributed peer-to-peer. These attempts at curbing the freedom to write and distribute software are pathetic and will fail.
> simply move somewhere else, in a jurisdiction where these laws don't apply, or be distributed peer-to-peer
Each of these options lead software to become less and less discoverable leading to the fact that most people will never use anything that isn't complying with these laws. So the end result still hits the desired effect.
Eh... Prohibiting access to MSN Messenger on school computers was one of the catalysts to me being a highly paid professional today.
Tell children they can't do X, some will find ways around it, tell their friends the workaround and maybe even get a profession out of it. Who knows, maybe one kid will find a text editor and a compiler laying around somewhere...
Fuck, I even tried to learn Russian by myself just to understand those old hacking forums. At least I got proficient in Cyrillic. I don't have children, but definitely I'd direct them to learn reading Chinese.
> There is no one to turn to and bully for compliance
> These attempts at curbing the freedom to write and distribute software are pathetic and will fail.
If there is an aircraft evacuation and someone is getting their bag out of the carry-on, the proper response is punching them in the face and throwing them onto the ground so people can step over (or on) them.
With seat pitches so tight these days, the idea that an evacuation can be done by unprepared people in 90 seconds is a pipedream, even before taking into consideration people trying to get their luggage.
> the proper response is punching them in the face and throwing them onto the ground so people can step over (or on) them
The proper response to anyone doing this is jail time and a flight ban. The person with a bag delayed everyone by seconds. The person having an emotional breakdown will cost folks minutes.
If it's salted, you can't share it with a third-party and determine who your customers in common are. (That's the point of the salt; to mean that my_hash(X) != your_hash(X)).
You actually can join it when the salt provider is a dedication shared entity. The entity rehashes the data of both organizations to use a shared salt. That is how different organizations join hashed data.
I really like this... except you should add a special case for 911. I strongly believe that all phones, and anything that looks like phones, should be able to dial out in an emergency.
Obviously, this can raise its own problems -- you'll have to train the kids not to randomly dial 911! -- but you never know what circumstances might exist where someone in a panic reaches for the nearest phone.
Kari's Law [0] is relevant here. Not strictly applicable as this is not a MLTS (phone line multiplexer), but very much in line with the spirit of the law as it was adopted after a child was unable to dial 911 from a motel phone.
You can, but you should prefer dialling 933 which will use the same routing infrastructure, and reads out the address that 911/933 believes is associated with your connection. Does not take time away from a human dispatcher so should always be preferred unless there is a critical reason to test 911.
Dialing 933 tests call routing and address reporting when dialing 933, but 911 and 933 are not the same number.
And one might assume that it should work the same....and it may in fact be the same once a call reaches the greater telephone network.
But calling 933 does not necessarily test 911 call routing as it relates to a specific pile of local gear.
So sure: One should call 933 as an informal test and make sure it produces a good report.
One should -also- call 911 and make sure that works correctly and that the result of a call is a good report, too (after calling the local non-emergency number for the PSAP and making arrangements).
It's perfectly acceptable, OK, and appreciated (by PSAP operators and supervisors alike) to ensure that 911 calling is tested and working, end-to-end, upon the implementation of any particular telephone system. (But again, please let them know about it, first.)
Lives do sometimes rely on 911 calls working properly, and an untested system is at best an unproven mystery.
Please test it. "It -should- work fine!" is not good enough.
I bought "No Bullshit Guide to Linear Algebra" a number of years ago, and it was super useful for me to get closer to grokking the math behind it (as someone who flunked out of calc in school).
Ivan was also really helpful when I emailed him with some stupid questions -- way above and beyond.
What's extremely saddening is that I had to examine three pages of search results for the CVE number before finding a non-slop explanation of the bug. In the race to "explain" vulnerabilities and bugs (and sell their security solution), a whole ecosystem of slop sites citing other slop sites has appeared, and accurate, careful (and often slow!) technical analysis is being lost in the noise.
reply