Sony claims to have taken down the systems themselves. You claim in a later post that you think it improbable that Somy was able to detect the data breach and yet have to take an extended time to fix the problem. This does not seem at all improbable to me. There have been several cases where companies have reported data breaches where the companies were not particularly computer savvy. It does not seem at all improbable that Sony became aware that there had been a data breach but was not sure (or maybe flat out didn't know) how the system had been compromised. Or even took the system down thinking there was a minor breach and as they investigated discovered the system was more thoroughly compromised than they originally thought (perhaps including new backdoors being introduced by the original hackers).
I do not believe that this is an example of vigilante justice. I believe that it may be an example of vigilante justice. However, simple criminal greed would also explain what happened here. It is possible that some criminal hacker targeted Sony because they thought there was a particluar weakness in Sony's security that they could take advantage of and, that of the likely targets, Sony was the one most likely to yeild a large amount of profitable information. Of course, it could also be someone who targeted Sony because of Sony's various transgressions and figured that anyone who did business with Sony deserved to be ripped off. At this point, there is insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion.
Actually, I think that Pakistan's signing off on this was more of a "If we deny them permission to do this, we will no longer be able to pretend to be their ally."
Osama Bin Laden was never part of a group funded by the U.S. in Afghanistan. He was part of a group that was allied with groups funded by the U.S. that were all fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. According to stories I have read there is serious question as to whether he was actually involved in Afghanistan before the Soviets pulled out. He made strong use of his connection with groups that fought the Soviets to gain "street cred" in the Muslim world, but there is evidence to suggest that he was misstating his involvement to make himself look like a bigger deal than he was at the time.
History suggests that killing civilians who provide material support to those fighting you is the most effective way to bring about the end of a war.
The most effective way to end a war (any war, no matter how it is fought) is to make the enemy civilian population want the war to end to the point of being willing to betray family and friends (or at least be unwilling to supply any support to family and friends who attempt to continue fighting) if that is what it takes. The Israeli experience is instructive here. When the Israelis have had enough and launch fullscale military assaults on the Arabs, attacks on Israelis diminish. When the Israelis ease up and start trying to negotiate peace again, attacks on Israelis increase.
OOh, they have a committee to study it, now that's what I call taking it seriously. Will it be like Obama's blue ribbon panel to study the deficit? You know, the one whose suggestions he ignored? BTW, this is in no way unique to Obama, when some problem that politicians don't want to tackle becomes of concern to voters, they generally appoint a committee to "study it". Then when the committee releases their findings, the politicians will try to ignore them.
Areas where rich people live tend to have few blacks, but rich people are more likely to vote Republican.
Except that areas where rich people live are almost exclusively Democratic. So, in actuality rich people are more likely to vote for the Democratic Party. You might want to think about what that means.
Look at the history of the Davis-Bacon Act. Look at what was actually said as part of the debates when it was being considered in Congress. Then read "Race and Economics" by Walter Williams.
Since I haven't listened to Glenn Beck or watched his show in over 5 years, I don't see how anything I post on here can be said to come from any part of Glenn Beck. Are you saying that it is an accident that blacks do so poorly in areas where the Democrats have run the local government for the last 40+ years?
When government shutdown threatened this spring, the non-negotiable point for Democrats was funding for abortion provider Planned Parenthood (whose founder Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist and racist). In 2000, blacks made up 17% of live births, yet they made up 36% of abortions. Black Americans disproportionately live in school districts with failing public schools, yet Democrats overwhelmingly oppose programs that might assist blacks in those school districts to send their children to good private schools. Democrats strongly support the Davis-Bacon Act, which was passed for the express purpose of keeping black construction workers from competing with white union members for government construction jobs.
I am aware that the company that is now called AT&T is one of the "Baby Bells" and that it bought up other pieces of the old AT&T, but it is still not the old AT&T.
No, I am saying that a black man in 2011 should vote against the Democratic Party based on its policies today which are consistent with its policies of 150 years ago.
As others have pointed out, I was talking about blacks supporting the Democratic Party. I am well aware that the Democratic Party exists for the purpose of suppressing blacks. The strategies have changed, but the goal remains the same.
AT&T (the current company) never had monopoly status. The company that was named AT&T that had a telephone monopoly made the wrong choices as to what services to offer and went out of business. The name was purchased by one of the local telephone companies that was split out of the original AT&T along with a few business divisions that had some value.
It is not a fact that Clarence Thomas took bribes. It is a left wing interpretation of a situation based on the fact that Clarence Thomas is a black Republican. Democrats believe that the only reason a black man would hold the views he does is because someone bribed him. Of course, I have trouble understanding how a black man can support the Party that opposed the abolition of slavery and created the Ku Klux Klan.
However, people driving so as to not endanger others is a legitimate public policy objective. Legitimate methods of obtaining that goal is a much more complex question. That of course is why I prefer the presence of police officers for the enforcement of traffic laws rather than automated systems because it is more likely to encourage safe driving as opposed to driving so as to avoid tripping the automated detectors.
Isn't that exactly the same thing? If you want to make money, you place cameras where people most often speed. If you want to prevent high-speed accidents... just the same.
No, it isn't. If you want to make money, you place cameras where people most often speed. If you want to prevent high speed accidents, you assign police officers to patrol areas where people drive dangerously. Speed ticket cameras do not cause people to slow down (or at least they take a significant amount of time to do so). The presence of police officers always results in people slowing down. Additionally, areas where the police are frequently visible have significantly slower traffic than areas where the police are rarely seen.
Point Number 9? Microsoft and Nokia planned to enforce their patents and litigate patent violaters?
It is not that they each planned to do so. It is that they agreed to each do so in order to supress competition, which makes it an antitrust violation. When two companies collude to suppress competition from a third company, it is an antitrust violation.
Having gone to read the article, I believe that B&N is contending that MS and Nokia formed an agreement to use their mutual patents in a way that is an antitrust violation (collusion). They are in addition claiming that MS is demanding licensing terms that far outweigh the significance of their patents as a method of stifling competition. There is actual precedence for such claims being supported in court. I know of a specific case where a company lost its patent infringement suit because it had refused to license its technology to any competitors. I, also, recall some cases where companies were courts ruled in favor of patent infringers because the patent owners were asking for a licensing fee that the court ruled anticompetitive.
There are actually several courses of action available to you. As others have mentioned, lobbying your state legilators to get the law changed is one (this will probably require that you become politically active and get other people to support your position). Another option is to complain to your state Public Utilities Commission (or whatever your state calls the body that regulates the behavior of state granted monopolies--every state that I know of has one). Contact your state legislator and complain. Be prepared to explain why this is a serious issue. Among other reasons that this is a potential problem is that they can use this same approach to redirect you from websites that compete with services they sell . Also explain to your legislator that it indicates that they are tracking the sort of searches you make. Finally, again as others have suggested, complain to the state Attorney General's office.
Slashdot Mirror
If you think that morality is a subjective term, you are amoral.
Sony claims to have taken down the systems themselves. You claim in a later post that you think it improbable that Somy was able to detect the data breach and yet have to take an extended time to fix the problem. This does not seem at all improbable to me. There have been several cases where companies have reported data breaches where the companies were not particularly computer savvy. It does not seem at all improbable that Sony became aware that there had been a data breach but was not sure (or maybe flat out didn't know) how the system had been compromised. Or even took the system down thinking there was a minor breach and as they investigated discovered the system was more thoroughly compromised than they originally thought (perhaps including new backdoors being introduced by the original hackers).
I do not believe that this is an example of vigilante justice. I believe that it may be an example of vigilante justice. However, simple criminal greed would also explain what happened here. It is possible that some criminal hacker targeted Sony because they thought there was a particluar weakness in Sony's security that they could take advantage of and, that of the likely targets, Sony was the one most likely to yeild a large amount of profitable information. Of course, it could also be someone who targeted Sony because of Sony's various transgressions and figured that anyone who did business with Sony deserved to be ripped off. At this point, there is insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion.
Actually, I think that Pakistan's signing off on this was more of a "If we deny them permission to do this, we will no longer be able to pretend to be their ally."
Osama Bin Laden was never part of a group funded by the U.S. in Afghanistan. He was part of a group that was allied with groups funded by the U.S. that were all fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. According to stories I have read there is serious question as to whether he was actually involved in Afghanistan before the Soviets pulled out. He made strong use of his connection with groups that fought the Soviets to gain "street cred" in the Muslim world, but there is evidence to suggest that he was misstating his involvement to make himself look like a bigger deal than he was at the time. History suggests that killing civilians who provide material support to those fighting you is the most effective way to bring about the end of a war.
and with a weak economy they'll just swiftboat him.
I'm glad to see someone else who understands that if the Republicans emphasize the truth about Obama, they will easily defeat him.
GHW Bush did not win reelection. That was his son, GW Bush, who won reelection.
The most effective way to end a war (any war, no matter how it is fought) is to make the enemy civilian population want the war to end to the point of being willing to betray family and friends (or at least be unwilling to supply any support to family and friends who attempt to continue fighting) if that is what it takes. The Israeli experience is instructive here. When the Israelis have had enough and launch fullscale military assaults on the Arabs, attacks on Israelis diminish. When the Israelis ease up and start trying to negotiate peace again, attacks on Israelis increase.
The problem is not that the government does not trust its own citizens. The problem is that the government does not fear its own citizens.
OOh, they have a committee to study it, now that's what I call taking it seriously. Will it be like Obama's blue ribbon panel to study the deficit? You know, the one whose suggestions he ignored? BTW, this is in no way unique to Obama, when some problem that politicians don't want to tackle becomes of concern to voters, they generally appoint a committee to "study it". Then when the committee releases their findings, the politicians will try to ignore them.
Areas where rich people live tend to have few blacks, but rich people are more likely to vote Republican.
Except that areas where rich people live are almost exclusively Democratic. So, in actuality rich people are more likely to vote for the Democratic Party. You might want to think about what that means.
Look at the history of the Davis-Bacon Act. Look at what was actually said as part of the debates when it was being considered in Congress. Then read "Race and Economics" by Walter Williams.
Since I haven't listened to Glenn Beck or watched his show in over 5 years, I don't see how anything I post on here can be said to come from any part of Glenn Beck. Are you saying that it is an accident that blacks do so poorly in areas where the Democrats have run the local government for the last 40+ years?
When government shutdown threatened this spring, the non-negotiable point for Democrats was funding for abortion provider Planned Parenthood (whose founder Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist and racist). In 2000, blacks made up 17% of live births, yet they made up 36% of abortions. Black Americans disproportionately live in school districts with failing public schools, yet Democrats overwhelmingly oppose programs that might assist blacks in those school districts to send their children to good private schools. Democrats strongly support the Davis-Bacon Act, which was passed for the express purpose of keeping black construction workers from competing with white union members for government construction jobs.
I am aware that the company that is now called AT&T is one of the "Baby Bells" and that it bought up other pieces of the old AT&T, but it is still not the old AT&T.
No, I am saying that a black man in 2011 should vote against the Democratic Party based on its policies today which are consistent with its policies of 150 years ago.
As others have pointed out, I was talking about blacks supporting the Democratic Party. I am well aware that the Democratic Party exists for the purpose of suppressing blacks. The strategies have changed, but the goal remains the same.
No, but I would boycott the Nazi Party because of their involvement in the Holocaust. I don't care how much the Nazi Party may claim to have changed.
AT&T (the current company) never had monopoly status. The company that was named AT&T that had a telephone monopoly made the wrong choices as to what services to offer and went out of business. The name was purchased by one of the local telephone companies that was split out of the original AT&T along with a few business divisions that had some value.
It is not a fact that Clarence Thomas took bribes. It is a left wing interpretation of a situation based on the fact that Clarence Thomas is a black Republican. Democrats believe that the only reason a black man would hold the views he does is because someone bribed him. Of course, I have trouble understanding how a black man can support the Party that opposed the abolition of slavery and created the Ku Klux Klan.
However, people driving so as to not endanger others is a legitimate public policy objective. Legitimate methods of obtaining that goal is a much more complex question. That of course is why I prefer the presence of police officers for the enforcement of traffic laws rather than automated systems because it is more likely to encourage safe driving as opposed to driving so as to avoid tripping the automated detectors.
Isn't that exactly the same thing? If you want to make money, you place cameras where people most often speed. If you want to prevent high-speed accidents... just the same.
No, it isn't. If you want to make money, you place cameras where people most often speed. If you want to prevent high speed accidents, you assign police officers to patrol areas where people drive dangerously. Speed ticket cameras do not cause people to slow down (or at least they take a significant amount of time to do so). The presence of police officers always results in people slowing down. Additionally, areas where the police are frequently visible have significantly slower traffic than areas where the police are rarely seen.
Point Number 9? Microsoft and Nokia planned to enforce their patents and litigate patent violaters?
It is not that they each planned to do so. It is that they agreed to each do so in order to supress competition, which makes it an antitrust violation. When two companies collude to suppress competition from a third company, it is an antitrust violation.
Having gone to read the article, I believe that B&N is contending that MS and Nokia formed an agreement to use their mutual patents in a way that is an antitrust violation (collusion). They are in addition claiming that MS is demanding licensing terms that far outweigh the significance of their patents as a method of stifling competition. There is actual precedence for such claims being supported in court. I know of a specific case where a company lost its patent infringement suit because it had refused to license its technology to any competitors. I, also, recall some cases where companies were courts ruled in favor of patent infringers because the patent owners were asking for a licensing fee that the court ruled anticompetitive.
There are actually several courses of action available to you. As others have mentioned, lobbying your state legilators to get the law changed is one (this will probably require that you become politically active and get other people to support your position). Another option is to complain to your state Public Utilities Commission (or whatever your state calls the body that regulates the behavior of state granted monopolies--every state that I know of has one). Contact your state legislator and complain. Be prepared to explain why this is a serious issue. Among other reasons that this is a potential problem is that they can use this same approach to redirect you from websites that compete with services they sell . Also explain to your legislator that it indicates that they are tracking the sort of searches you make. Finally, again as others have suggested, complain to the state Attorney General's office.