Mr. Childs demanded no ransom. He demanded the network be kept solidly secure.
Yes, and he did so in a manner that did not follow the rules. He locked anyone and everyone else out and then kept all the passwords in his head when the policy was to keep them in a secured central repository.
Management (not sure which parts in particular) has ALL of the responsibility for this. But just like any political aspiring person, they will never, ever, admit to it. And I bet you are one of those types.
Deliciously "ironic" considering that you are basically doing the same thing in reverse.
The answer is, if you work in security (and networking or system administration is a security job these days), you damn well better be working for someone who actually cares about the security and respects the processes and people that work it. At least some in the management of the City of San Francisco certainly don't give a damn about security at all.
So then you better not hire Terry Childs because what he did wasn't respecting the processes of his job. He basically did the complete opposite and set up a system that did nothing but help keep himself in power and to be able to block anyone else from taking his job.
There is nothing cruel and unusual. He probably cost the city and the court system far more than the $1.5 million fine that he received by creating this whole fiasco to begin with. The guy should honestly be charged more.
The evidence I knew of for Reiser was insufficient to show that a murder had been committed, let alone that he did it.
Really? He was the last to see her alive. Conveniently after she disappeared his seat goes missing, he's washing out his car and blood stains are found inside her car. He was also found to have recently purchased a book about how to get away with murder. That's an awful lot of coincidences to ignore. Contrast this to the wild conspiracy theories involving the Russian Mafia, trying to pin it on other people who were found to be unable to have committed the crime and just generally trying to smear Nina in order to get himself out of paying for his crime. I'm sorry, but the only ones who had "insufficient evidence" where the Reiser team and his legions of nerd defenders.
Since then, I seem to remember a bargain for better treatment in exchange for locating his wife's body.
Yes, the defense made the bargain after he was already convicted on the first degree murder charge. In exchange for showing where the body was the prosecution was willing to let him plea to 2nd degree murder instead of the first degree murder charge he was convicted. This bargain didn't come about because the prosecution was losing the case because they had already achieved the conviction. It was done purely to stave off the possibility of receiving the death penalty due to the first degree murder conviction.
There is no group mind on Slashdot, but a lot of Slashdotters seem to twist facts and assumptions to point to what they want to believe.
Yes and it was disgusting. I remember reading about people calling Nina a whore and badmouthing her to no end and even after her body was found their were still nerds who were claiming she deserved it, etc. And all the woman did was have the "audacity" to leave the marriage she had with an emotionally abusive asshole.
Neither Amendment contradict me. The right to mint money is exclusively granted to Congress so it can not be a power of the people. The 9th Amendment is saying that the government can't say "Well the Bill of Rights doesn't say you have a right to privacy so you don't have it". The Constitution is explicit in saying that the right to print money is Congress's domain. The situation's are not analogous.
The States aren't allowed to coin money (per the constitution). They can issue gold and silver, though, and some are already doing it.
Yes, and neither is the Liberty Dollar doofus:
Whoever, except as authorized by law, makes or utters or passes, or attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title [1] or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
It is clear from the quote that Congress can coin money, but there is nothing there to prevent anyone else from doing so, which is what this discussion is about.
Sure there is. Article 1 Section 10:
No State shall...coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;
And since the power to mint currency doesn't fall to the people under Amendments 9 or 10, it is exclusively Congress's authority. Not to mention the long-standing statutory law.
Now congress could likely permit other entities to coin money if they wanted to.
Just as they allowed banks in the 1800s to print notes. Congress also has created rather explicit statutory law that seems to be in direct violation from the Liberty Dollar guy:
Whoever, except as authorized by law, makes or utters or passes, or attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title [1] or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
And since the Liberty dollars were inteded for use as current money and the coins were clearly attempting to pass off a resemblance to US coins. It is a pretty clear cut case.
Just as clarification further. During the early parts of the 1800s the US Government the government minted gold and silver coins called specie which could be traded for bank notes and bank notes were allowed to be printed on the promise that you could exchange them bank for these gold and silver coins. So to say that the US Government was not minting money in the early 1800s is bullshit. They just weren't printing notes.
Did you actually see the coins? They were very clearly minted in a way to deceive people into thinking they were legal tender. The dollars on the other hand looked like monopoly money.
BACK ON TOPIC: If the Congress is the only one allowed to coin money,
What if? It's plainly stated in Article 1 Section 8 under the Powers of Congress:
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
That's about as clear as can be.
how come the state legislatures and banks of the 1800s continued printing their own money?
Because Congress allowed them to do so since *drum roll* they have the power to relegate that authority. The Federal Government decided to print the money itself when the banks were no longer living up to the promise of exchanging bank notes of silver and gold.
And why can't States and Bitcoin or other banks do the same today?
Because Congress says they can't? Because Congress has sole authority over minting and regulating money? Is your skull really this thick?
You do realize that that "precedent" was set in the US Constitution, right? Congress has the sole authority to coin money. Oh right, this is cpu6502 who is nothing but an idiot troll. Post some more prisonplanet and infowars stories for us. Those are highly amusing.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a good one. Yes, let's forget all the people in that "golden age" that only made it into colleges due to their parent's wealth.
Hence why he was responding to this part:
Unless you are playing Zelda: Ocarina of Time which uses the unique N64 controller
Kaspersky for Mac? *ducks*
Mr. Childs demanded no ransom. He demanded the network be kept solidly secure.
Yes, and he did so in a manner that did not follow the rules. He locked anyone and everyone else out and then kept all the passwords in his head when the policy was to keep them in a secured central repository.
Management (not sure which parts in particular) has ALL of the responsibility for this. But just like any political aspiring person, they will never, ever, admit to it. And I bet you are one of those types.
Deliciously "ironic" considering that you are basically doing the same thing in reverse.
The answer is, if you work in security (and networking or system administration is a security job these days), you damn well better be working for someone who actually cares about the security and respects the processes and people that work it. At least some in the management of the City of San Francisco certainly don't give a damn about security at all.
So then you better not hire Terry Childs because what he did wasn't respecting the processes of his job. He basically did the complete opposite and set up a system that did nothing but help keep himself in power and to be able to block anyone else from taking his job.
There is nothing cruel and unusual. He probably cost the city and the court system far more than the $1.5 million fine that he received by creating this whole fiasco to begin with. The guy should honestly be charged more.
The evidence I knew of for Reiser was insufficient to show that a murder had been committed, let alone that he did it.
Really? He was the last to see her alive. Conveniently after she disappeared his seat goes missing, he's washing out his car and blood stains are found inside her car. He was also found to have recently purchased a book about how to get away with murder. That's an awful lot of coincidences to ignore. Contrast this to the wild conspiracy theories involving the Russian Mafia, trying to pin it on other people who were found to be unable to have committed the crime and just generally trying to smear Nina in order to get himself out of paying for his crime. I'm sorry, but the only ones who had "insufficient evidence" where the Reiser team and his legions of nerd defenders.
Since then, I seem to remember a bargain for better treatment in exchange for locating his wife's body.
Yes, the defense made the bargain after he was already convicted on the first degree murder charge. In exchange for showing where the body was the prosecution was willing to let him plea to 2nd degree murder instead of the first degree murder charge he was convicted. This bargain didn't come about because the prosecution was losing the case because they had already achieved the conviction. It was done purely to stave off the possibility of receiving the death penalty due to the first degree murder conviction.
There is no group mind on Slashdot, but a lot of Slashdotters seem to twist facts and assumptions to point to what they want to believe.
Yes and it was disgusting. I remember reading about people calling Nina a whore and badmouthing her to no end and even after her body was found their were still nerds who were claiming she deserved it, etc. And all the woman did was have the "audacity" to leave the marriage she had with an emotionally abusive asshole.
29.71%
Inequality is important, it gives newer players something to aspire toward.
Aspire to be a pasty, obese nerd?
Neither Amendment contradict me. The right to mint money is exclusively granted to Congress so it can not be a power of the people. The 9th Amendment is saying that the government can't say "Well the Bill of Rights doesn't say you have a right to privacy so you don't have it". The Constitution is explicit in saying that the right to print money is Congress's domain. The situation's are not analogous.
The Constitution may be silent, but statutory law is not. I've posted excerpts.
Exactly. To try to claim that this was not purposefully designed to fool people into think it's official currency is laughable.
The States aren't allowed to coin money (per the constitution). They can issue gold and silver, though, and some are already doing it.
Yes, and neither is the Liberty Dollar doofus:
Whoever, except as authorized by law, makes or utters or passes, or attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title [1] or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
That's from Title 18 section 486.
That's great for bitcoins. We were talking about his loony Liberty Dollars nonsense.
It is clear from the quote that Congress can coin money, but there is nothing there to prevent anyone else from doing so, which is what this discussion is about.
Sure there is. Article 1 Section 10:
No State shall...coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;
And since the power to mint currency doesn't fall to the people under Amendments 9 or 10, it is exclusively Congress's authority. Not to mention the long-standing statutory law.
Now congress could likely permit other entities to coin money if they wanted to.
Just as they allowed banks in the 1800s to print notes. Congress also has created rather explicit statutory law that seems to be in direct violation from the Liberty Dollar guy:
Whoever, except as authorized by law, makes or utters or passes, or attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title [1] or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
And since the Liberty dollars were inteded for use as current money and the coins were clearly attempting to pass off a resemblance to US coins. It is a pretty clear cut case.
Just as clarification further. During the early parts of the 1800s the US Government the government minted gold and silver coins called specie which could be traded for bank notes and bank notes were allowed to be printed on the promise that you could exchange them bank for these gold and silver coins. So to say that the US Government was not minting money in the early 1800s is bullshit. They just weren't printing notes.
He did not try to do that.
Did you actually see the coins? They were very clearly minted in a way to deceive people into thinking they were legal tender. The dollars on the other hand looked like monopoly money.
Don't worry, I called the Waahmbulance for you.
BACK ON TOPIC: If the Congress is the only one allowed to coin money,
What if? It's plainly stated in Article 1 Section 8 under the Powers of Congress:
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
That's about as clear as can be.
how come the state legislatures and banks of the 1800s continued printing their own money?
Because Congress allowed them to do so since *drum roll* they have the power to relegate that authority. The Federal Government decided to print the money itself when the banks were no longer living up to the promise of exchanging bank notes of silver and gold.
And why can't States and Bitcoin or other banks do the same today?
Because Congress says they can't? Because Congress has sole authority over minting and regulating money? Is your skull really this thick?
I think the issue was more with the fact that the person was trying to pass these coins off as legal tender.
You do realize that that "precedent" was set in the US Constitution, right? Congress has the sole authority to coin money. Oh right, this is cpu6502 who is nothing but an idiot troll. Post some more prisonplanet and infowars stories for us. Those are highly amusing.
Does anyone honestly think the promise of protection from inflation will cause people to ask for their paycheck in BitCoins?
If you do you better not hope many other people do unless you want to take a significant pay decrease due to the dearth of bitcoins.
and I'm willing to apply the necessary explosives to make it happen.
So then go do it instead of threatening to do so. Oh right, you're another armchair soldier who in the end is nothing but a basement-dwelling pussy.
O rly?
AT&T seeks more phone deregulation in Alabama
AT&T and Deutsche Telekom push for deregulation of wireless markets
Time Warner seeks Manhattan deregulation
It's trivially easy to find other examples.
No.