You are quite correct that the headline, summary are misleading. They take the phrasing "all" from the article, which is also misleading. Unless IT World is a US-only publication. Which would be funny in itself.
Speaking as a US citizen, however, please know that many of us don't give a damn about baseball. There was no national referendum where we decided to let Major League Baseball declare a "world" series. The Tokyo little league champions may well be better than the San Francisco Giants. To be fair, however, when they started calling it the "World Series" no other nations had professional baseball teams.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go make an omelet with eggs from chickens a friend keeps on her property, tomatoes from my garden, herbs from my windowsill, and bacon from a farm down the road.
After that I'll go ride our horses while I try figure something to do other than "staying home all day when I'm not working:"
I think most teachers allowed graphing calculators because they had no idea how to program the things, and assumed their students did not either.
I'd probably have gotten better grades in school if I'd put as much effort into studying as I did in learning how to program my TI-85 into a reference library.
You are correct, but that occurred in 1939. The Japanese knew they couldn't take on the Soviets and the USA, so they made peace with Stalin and turned to the South Pacific. By 1942, many of the Soviet units and commanders had been redeployed against Germany.
The original point was whether the US had any impact on the eventual outcome of the war. I think its likely the Japanese would have taken a more aggressive approach to the Soviet Union if they didn't have to worry about the US Pacific Fleet. Especially when Germany appeared to have Russia up against the wall.
The original post seems to argue that, because the US wasn't on the ground at Stalingrad, there was no impact. This totally ignores the resources that the Axis committed against even potential US moves. What would an additional 60 full-strength divisions have done for Germany on the Eastern Front?
The article didn't seem to mention hiding. I wonder if they ignored it entirely? If FB did not have the ability to hide applications I'd have quit it a long time ago. Hiding would seem to be an entirely different issue than dropping someone as a 'friend'. There are many people whom I want to still see updates from, I simply do not care about the games/apps at all.
Your argument is overly-simplistic. First off, if someone is a libertarian and is happy with this situation then they are not "morally bankrupt" at all. You assume that just because you don't like the outcome tat no one does either. A number of posters have already said they are fine with what happened.
The bigger flaw, however, is that you automatically assume libertarian as an absolute philosophy. By that reasoning, your desire for socialism must mean that you are in favor of a government seizure of businesses, houses, property, and everything else. Few people are so obtuse.
Most "libertarians" (including much of the "Tea Party" movement) are perfectly fine with some level of government services. Perhaps they do not like some current programs. Or proposed programs. They often take the label as an effort to distinguish themselves from conservatives and the Republican Party. While the GOP has fancied itself a "small government" party, it really is not in any practical sense. And often seems more concerned with social agendas (media censorship, abortion, homosexual rights) with which these libertarians are not interested in.
I think the definition hinges largely on what you consider the US "entering the war". If it is only US troops in Europe, then sure.
Then you're ignoring the massive amount of material support to all Allied nations from the US. US naval activity in all theaters. Strategic bombing, which was focused on industrial sites in 1942 and forced the Germans to spend resources countering it. The US operations in the Pacific, diverting Japan's efforts (whom the Soviets were also fighting).
I'm not trying to take anything away from the Soviet. They fought and suffered greatly. But they were on a thin edge until the end of 1942. And the Nazis already had their solution to a guerrilla war in the East... were fine with murdering everyone and repopulating.
I think your example speaks volumes as to what a protest means, and what effects it may have.
People who are motivated about some idea, are willing to work for it (run for office, donate money, etc) and who will vote for their ideal can affect change. They "protest" to show solidarity and promote their message, but it isn't all they do. The GP's civil right's analogy missed that. They didn't succeed because protesting was novel. They succeeded because their objective was to work for a change and protesting was one (highly visible) piece of that work.
If the commitment is limited to online bitching and chanting slogans then that cause isn't going anywhere.
Exactly. My state even has a website where you can find local farms selling produce, meats, flowers, whatever. One could visit the farm and check conditions for themselves.
Disclaimer: I have no affiliation with said site or any of the farms since I don't grow anything but a couple of tomato plants in my garden. Other states probably have something similar, but I'm not looking it up for everyone.
When I was flying out of Japan in the mid 1990s the security measures at Narita were very strict. My personal impression is that US airport security after 9/11 is more like Japan's prior to it.
I haven't been there since, perhaps they are even more stringent. I do not, however, think Japan needed any lessons from the US on how to implement airport security measures.
We used a Norwegian contractor for some work at our facility in the US. The guys that came over here were hard workers. One went so far as to check out of his hotel and sleep in the office (we thought that was taking it a bit too far).
The French contractor... they didn't even bother with asking for keys to the building. They just arrived late and went home before we did.
I want to know what part of the state you live in where you routinely get 2 to 5 inches per hour. I need someplace new to ride my snowmobile. I've ridden my motorcycle in Minneapolis every month of the year.
In fact, he nearly got in trouble over it because used an attorney as ghostwriter for the claims. Something that was not initially disclosed. NCsoft tried to get a dismissal because of it, but the court decided that was too drastic. Instead, he is not being afforded the latitude normally given to a pro se litigant. (pages 14-16 of the PDF linked from the summary).
As of now, no lawyer takes on a case like this. The plantiff is pro se (representing himself).
The court is allowing a portion of the case to go forward. The summary fails to note that the judge dismissed the claims of misrepresentation, unfair trade practices, intentional infliction of emotional harm, and punitive damages.
The judge is merely determining if there could be a case. The plantiff was hospitalized for three weeks and has on-going therapy. There has been no determination yet that the game is the cause or what liability the game makers may have (the court notes it is limited to levels set in the game user agreement for negligent infliction of emotional distress). In short, the guy has been injured by "something". He says it was the game, and he'll get his day in court to try and make that claim.
It's funny how so many/.'ers complain about people who believe the outrageous stories from [Glenn Beck, Fox New, whatever]. This is pretty much the same thing. The actual story is only about 1/10 what is implied in the headline, but now we have a forum full of people screaming about it
The bicycles used in these rental programs have a unique look and would be quickly spotted if somebody tried to sell them.
Can/does theft and vandalism occur? Sure. A loss rate is built into the cost of operations. If someone is looking to make money, however, they'd be much better off by either stealing conventional bikes or simply using the fake credit card directly. If somebody can easily get fake credit cards and drivers licenses then they can find far more lucrative crime options than trying to sell easily traceable rental bikes.
Seriously? You don't think that maybe they already thought of that? Denver isn't the first city with a bike-rental program. Paris has been doing it for three years.
You purchase a membership with a credit card. You get charged for keeping the bike longer than 30 minutes at a time. The daily max rate is $65, which would add up pretty quickly if you were trying to "rent one for a few days".
As was said a dozen times already, NYT vs US was about prior restraint. Preventing publication before it happened.
The reason that they didn't go after them for publishing is because, by that point, the Pentagon Papers had been read into the public record by a US Senator.
As I posed to another commenter, NYT vs US was about PRIOR RESTRAINT. The government couldn't stop them from publishing it in the first place, although they were free to prosecute them after publication.
The later prosecution never happened because Senator Gavel read the Pentagon Papers into the public record (the government did try to prosecute him, but lost).
18USC does not restrict itself to persons who had lawful access in the first place. Anyone disseminating classified information can be found in violation. I believe the law says "to the detriment of the United States", which is a pretty loose standard.
NYT vs US was about prior restraint, and the Pentagon Papers were later admitted into the Congressional record. That was done deliberately to enter them into the public record and prevent any prosecutions (in effect, it declassified them). Had that not been done, the newspapers could have still been found guilty after publication.
Unless Wikileaks can find a Senator Gavel to read the information into record, I'd say they are very open to prosecution.
There is debate as to whether the county policies were approved or in force at the time. Even if they were, that very same manual says in section 4.1...
"All production system-level passwords must be part of the security administered global password management database."
The specifics of the jailhouse attempt to give passwords to the mayor is almost beside the point. The real issue is that he was deliberately trying to prevent others from having control over the network.
When I was in high school this was the premise of "outcome based education" that that many of our teachers were changing over to. The calculus/algebra teacher was particularly fond of the concept. You could, on your own time after school, re-test and get your grade changed to a passing grade (C, you could not re-test to earn a B or A).
knowing it is virtually impossible and totally unrealistic to assume it will remain private
Why?
I fully understand the risks of putting anything online, in particular at a social networking site. Most of us here do. We are not typical of the average person using technology or the internet. Beyond simply protecting grandma and teenagers from their themselves, I still ask why it must be unrealistic to assume FB (or any social networking site) to keep their promises.
I don't have a comprehensive change log of FB's EULA or interface, but the bottom line is they keep changing it at whim. Companies want a EULA to have the strength of a full contract, but it works both ways. They can't just alter the terms and expect it to stick
As an example, credit card companies like to change terms often. The notice they send, however, clearly states that a card holder may opt out and stick with the current terms. Their card will remain valid until the expiration date under the current contract terms. Facebook does not do this. I might have placed a photo with privacy settings such that only my family members can see it. They later make a sweeping change to open that photo to third-party apps or the public at large. This is the real problem with Facebook.
If they made that change with a notice that let you opt-out, or delete all previous data that was set to be private, people would probably have a much better opinion of them. Of course, that also might make people aware of how much they're really putting out there, and Facebook would rather they didn't think about it.
Slashdot Mirror
You are quite correct that the headline, summary are misleading. They take the phrasing "all" from the article, which is also misleading. Unless IT World is a US-only publication. Which would be funny in itself.
Speaking as a US citizen, however, please know that many of us don't give a damn about baseball. There was no national referendum where we decided to let Major League Baseball declare a "world" series. The Tokyo little league champions may well be better than the San Francisco Giants. To be fair, however, when they started calling it the "World Series" no other nations had professional baseball teams.
Best comment I've seen in a while. But are you sure it wasn't John Adams who said that?
food is more expensive since you have to truck it farther
there are no.... whole foods markets
Seriously? Do you know where food comes from? It isn't the Whole Foods warehouse.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go make an omelet with eggs from chickens a friend keeps on her property, tomatoes from my garden, herbs from my windowsill, and bacon from a farm down the road.
After that I'll go ride our horses while I try figure something to do other than "staying home all day when I'm not working:"
I think most teachers allowed graphing calculators because they had no idea how to program the things, and assumed their students did not either.
I'd probably have gotten better grades in school if I'd put as much effort into studying as I did in learning how to program my TI-85 into a reference library.
You are correct, but that occurred in 1939. The Japanese knew they couldn't take on the Soviets and the USA, so they made peace with Stalin and turned to the South Pacific. By 1942, many of the Soviet units and commanders had been redeployed against Germany.
The original point was whether the US had any impact on the eventual outcome of the war. I think its likely the Japanese would have taken a more aggressive approach to the Soviet Union if they didn't have to worry about the US Pacific Fleet. Especially when Germany appeared to have Russia up against the wall.
The original post seems to argue that, because the US wasn't on the ground at Stalingrad, there was no impact. This totally ignores the resources that the Axis committed against even potential US moves. What would an additional 60 full-strength divisions have done for Germany on the Eastern Front?
The article didn't seem to mention hiding. I wonder if they ignored it entirely? If FB did not have the ability to hide applications I'd have quit it a long time ago. Hiding would seem to be an entirely different issue than dropping someone as a 'friend'. There are many people whom I want to still see updates from, I simply do not care about the games/apps at all.
Your argument is overly-simplistic. First off, if someone is a libertarian and is happy with this situation then they are not "morally bankrupt" at all. You assume that just because you don't like the outcome tat no one does either. A number of posters have already said they are fine with what happened.
The bigger flaw, however, is that you automatically assume libertarian as an absolute philosophy. By that reasoning, your desire for socialism must mean that you are in favor of a government seizure of businesses, houses, property, and everything else. Few people are so obtuse.
Most "libertarians" (including much of the "Tea Party" movement) are perfectly fine with some level of government services. Perhaps they do not like some current programs. Or proposed programs. They often take the label as an effort to distinguish themselves from conservatives and the Republican Party. While the GOP has fancied itself a "small government" party, it really is not in any practical sense. And often seems more concerned with social agendas (media censorship, abortion, homosexual rights) with which these libertarians are not interested in.
I think the definition hinges largely on what you consider the US "entering the war". If it is only US troops in Europe, then sure.
Then you're ignoring the massive amount of material support to all Allied nations from the US. US naval activity in all theaters. Strategic bombing, which was focused on industrial sites in 1942 and forced the Germans to spend resources countering it. The US operations in the Pacific, diverting Japan's efforts (whom the Soviets were also fighting).
I'm not trying to take anything away from the Soviet. They fought and suffered greatly. But they were on a thin edge until the end of 1942. And the Nazis already had their solution to a guerrilla war in the East... were fine with murdering everyone and repopulating.
I think your example speaks volumes as to what a protest means, and what effects it may have.
People who are motivated about some idea, are willing to work for it (run for office, donate money, etc) and who will vote for their ideal can affect change. They "protest" to show solidarity and promote their message, but it isn't all they do. The GP's civil right's analogy missed that. They didn't succeed because protesting was novel. They succeeded because their objective was to work for a change and protesting was one (highly visible) piece of that work.
If the commitment is limited to online bitching and chanting slogans then that cause isn't going anywhere.
Exactly. My state even has a website where you can find local farms selling produce, meats, flowers, whatever. One could visit the farm and check conditions for themselves.
Disclaimer: I have no affiliation with said site or any of the farms since I don't grow anything but a couple of tomato plants in my garden. Other states probably have something similar, but I'm not looking it up for everyone.
When I was flying out of Japan in the mid 1990s the security measures at Narita were very strict. My personal impression is that US airport security after 9/11 is more like Japan's prior to it.
I haven't been there since, perhaps they are even more stringent. I do not, however, think Japan needed any lessons from the US on how to implement airport security measures.
We used a Norwegian contractor for some work at our facility in the US. The guys that came over here were hard workers. One went so far as to check out of his hotel and sleep in the office (we thought that was taking it a bit too far).
The French contractor... they didn't even bother with asking for keys to the building. They just arrived late and went home before we did.
The solution to the problem was stated in your premise. Anyone with a five-digit UID is old enough to not put up with that kind of crap.
I want to know what part of the state you live in where you routinely get 2 to 5 inches per hour. I need someplace new to ride my snowmobile. I've ridden my motorcycle in Minneapolis every month of the year.
He's representing himself.
In fact, he nearly got in trouble over it because used an attorney as ghostwriter for the claims. Something that was not initially disclosed. NCsoft tried to get a dismissal because of it, but the court decided that was too drastic. Instead, he is not being afforded the latitude normally given to a pro se litigant. (pages 14-16 of the PDF linked from the summary).
As of now, no lawyer takes on a case like this. The plantiff is pro se (representing himself).
The court is allowing a portion of the case to go forward. The summary fails to note that the judge dismissed the claims of misrepresentation, unfair trade practices, intentional infliction of emotional harm, and punitive damages.
The judge is merely determining if there could be a case. The plantiff was hospitalized for three weeks and has on-going therapy. There has been no determination yet that the game is the cause or what liability the game makers may have (the court notes it is limited to levels set in the game user agreement for negligent infliction of emotional distress). In short, the guy has been injured by "something". He says it was the game, and he'll get his day in court to try and make that claim.
It's funny how so many /.'ers complain about people who believe the outrageous stories from [Glenn Beck, Fox New, whatever]. This is pretty much the same thing. The actual story is only about 1/10 what is implied in the headline, but now we have a forum full of people screaming about it
The bicycles used in these rental programs have a unique look and would be quickly spotted if somebody tried to sell them.
Can/does theft and vandalism occur? Sure. A loss rate is built into the cost of operations. If someone is looking to make money, however, they'd be much better off by either stealing conventional bikes or simply using the fake credit card directly. If somebody can easily get fake credit cards and drivers licenses then they can find far more lucrative crime options than trying to sell easily traceable rental bikes.
Seriously? You don't think that maybe they already thought of that? Denver isn't the first city with a bike-rental program. Paris has been doing it for three years.
You purchase a membership with a credit card. You get charged for keeping the bike longer than 30 minutes at a time. The daily max rate is $65, which would add up pretty quickly if you were trying to "rent one for a few days".
No, they don't.
As was said a dozen times already, NYT vs US was about prior restraint. Preventing publication before it happened.
The reason that they didn't go after them for publishing is because, by that point, the Pentagon Papers had been read into the public record by a US Senator.
As I posed to another commenter, NYT vs US was about PRIOR RESTRAINT. The government couldn't stop them from publishing it in the first place, although they were free to prosecute them after publication.
The later prosecution never happened because Senator Gavel read the Pentagon Papers into the public record (the government did try to prosecute him, but lost).
18USC does not restrict itself to persons who had lawful access in the first place. Anyone disseminating classified information can be found in violation. I believe the law says "to the detriment of the United States", which is a pretty loose standard.
NYT vs US was about prior restraint, and the Pentagon Papers were later admitted into the Congressional record. That was done deliberately to enter them into the public record and prevent any prosecutions (in effect, it declassified them). Had that not been done, the newspapers could have still been found guilty after publication.
Unless Wikileaks can find a Senator Gavel to read the information into record, I'd say they are very open to prosecution.
It is illegal to disseminate classified information, period. It doesn't matter that he's doing it second- or third-hand.
Just as dealing with stolen property is a crime, even if you aren't the person who stole it in the first place.
There is debate as to whether the county policies were approved or in force at the time. Even if they were, that very same manual says in section 4.1 ...
"All production system-level passwords must be part of the security administered global password management database."
The specifics of the jailhouse attempt to give passwords to the mayor is almost beside the point. The real issue is that he was deliberately trying to prevent others from having control over the network.
When I was in high school this was the premise of "outcome based education" that that many of our teachers were changing over to. The calculus/algebra teacher was particularly fond of the concept. You could, on your own time after school, re-test and get your grade changed to a passing grade (C, you could not re-test to earn a B or A).
Why?
I fully understand the risks of putting anything online, in particular at a social networking site. Most of us here do. We are not typical of the average person using technology or the internet. Beyond simply protecting grandma and teenagers from their themselves, I still ask why it must be unrealistic to assume FB (or any social networking site) to keep their promises.
I don't have a comprehensive change log of FB's EULA or interface, but the bottom line is they keep changing it at whim. Companies want a EULA to have the strength of a full contract, but it works both ways. They can't just alter the terms and expect it to stick
As an example, credit card companies like to change terms often. The notice they send, however, clearly states that a card holder may opt out and stick with the current terms. Their card will remain valid until the expiration date under the current contract terms. Facebook does not do this. I might have placed a photo with privacy settings such that only my family members can see it. They later make a sweeping change to open that photo to third-party apps or the public at large. This is the real problem with Facebook.
If they made that change with a notice that let you opt-out, or delete all previous data that was set to be private, people would probably have a much better opinion of them. Of course, that also might make people aware of how much they're really putting out there, and Facebook would rather they didn't think about it.