Then again, maybe I'm just getting old, but back in the day, we just had static web pages and forms, and we liked it!
Yeah... sounds like the time I asked my Dad to spot me a buck via paypal and he told me how he had to kill a bear with a notebook as he walked home from school (which was uphill both ways) bare foot in the snow. And of course... he was grateful!;)
[Paraphrased (and embellished) from something I heard from Bill Cosby]
... where the bad guys will go ahead and use their weapons (or sonar) with reckless abandon while the good guys have to restrain... except here, the hero is being overseen by third-party enviromentalists (and lawyers of course) standing by (in Armani suits of course) making sure that the hero doesn't allow the whales to be harmed in the process of the battle/mission.
Scene ends with the US Navy saving whales as the 'bad guys' ride away cackling, having succeeded at their mission.
The only problem is having a hetereogeneous environment increases your support costs whether you have a security incursion or not. How many people are security experts in Mac, Windows, Linux, BSD, Solaris, FreeBSD and CPM? Not many. Which means that for every environment your IT staff supports, you need additional admins.
And if you have only one type of system, it's all the easier to get bang-for-buck on an attack. Eithe that or your security level wrapped around that one type of system has to be much higher (meaning more admins and/or more software/security measures)... As the saying goes... "pay me now or pay me later"
I don't beleive I said it was a 'crime' and if I did, then I mistyped/mispoke... I said there was 'probable cause' to approach him and investigate which includes taking him into custody. I'm not talking about the charge of 'unauthorized access'.. that's for the court system to work out.
If someone doing this was trafficing child porn through the 'open' network... it it a crime? yes. Was there probable cause to approach the guy and investigate? yes! Is it reasonable to question whether or not someone is doing that in today's climate? Hell yeah! The citizen and the police both had the right to do what was done. Show where/why they didn't have probable cause!
So... you never answered any of my questions... would you not be suspicious of the behavior described? I understand that you're a slashdot-reading-tech-savvy-enough-to-configure-a- router... so you would probably take the same course of action I would in handling the router... but you wouldn't consider the behavior the described behavior suspicious and be concerned?
Richard Dinon saw the laptop's muted glow through the rear window of the SUV parked outside his home. He walked closer and noticed a man inside.
Then the man noticed Dinon and snapped his computer shut.
Maybe it's census work, the 28-year-old veterinarian told his girlfriend. An hour later, Dinon left to drive her home. The Chevy Blazer was still there, the man furtively hunched over his computer.
Dinon returned at 11 p.m. and the men repeated their strange dance.
And if you're going to argue that he was protecting his own data/privacy, then he should have gone elsewhere... PERIOD
If someone were sitting outside my house acting in that fashion, I would at the very least approach them to see if they 'need some assistance'. In today's climate though, why not call the police and have them approach him for me. Granted... I would first check my router's activity and reconfigure it or unplug it to see if he drove off at that point (my network is NOT open). I would also get a description of him and note the Driver's license in case it were ever needed.
I can only suppose you don't own a home, have to worry about a credit record or have kids to provide for... or cannot imagine what the impact might be if someone is doing something shady through your network.
Given the account of someone outside of your home acting in the fashion described in the article... you don't see reason to take action? If not... then hopefully that person just 'sitting in a car at 11PM' isn't doing something that will have the Police/FBI knocking on your door later.
In short... he was acting in a suspicious fashion (according to the article.. assuming you read it, that is). One call to the police probably saved Mr. Dinon lots of hassle... of course, it's created quite a ruckus here on/.
The router advertised its presence and allowed him to enter without authentication. What more can you want?
I want people to realize that although this may be 'technically legal'... it's still questionable behavior. A lot of people are focusing on the technicalities and analogies of routers and open doors. They are all forgetting that common sense tells you that using someone else's at 11 PM sitting outside their house might get you picked up by the cops and investigated... even charged with something. What about the guy with the laptop... what about his responsibility/accountability?
Was there a reason to call the cops? Yes! Was there probable cause for the cops to approach the guy, take him in and investigate? Yes! Was he 'breaking the law'? Mabye not 'technically' just by using the network... what he was doing and how well he otherwise covered his tracks if he was doing something will determine that. Would he have been in this situation if he had used his own network for whatever he was doing? NO! Well... maybe he would be... depends on what he was doing. Why would it require using someone else's 'open' network.
Then the analogy doesn't work... A laptop can't make a sandwich and a router can't serve up lunch meat!:P
But I'm curious what Mr. Acer Laptop was doing on the open-and-welcomiing network. I'm sure he only had good intentions
Yeah... Technically speaking, maybe it was legal... but the fellow that called the cops had every right & reason to. The cops also had reason to pick the guy up. If nothing else, hopefully, he'll learn to use networks that he should. And if there's enough people that need a law to tell them that something wasn't right here (technically legal or not), then we've got problems! Wait!!... looking at the tone of this discussion on slashdot, I guess we do have problems!
Where is the "please come in" sign come in on the analogy? Sure the router may be broadcasting the SSID, but how does that equate to "please come in"? It could be argued that it does... but it doesn't IMO. Based on that assumption of mine...
If I leave my door unlocked or even open and you come in without permission, that could at least be trespassing.
My point is that nobody is thinking about the fact that the guy was sitting out at 11 PM using someone else's network and acting suspicious in the process... is it the guy with the unsecure's router fault that the cops were called?
Do we really need legislators/legislation to tell us if that is right or wrong?
OK... so here's the modified version... I guess this is what I really meant.
Technically speaking, should Mr.-Thirty-Something learn how to or have someone help him secure his wireless network? Yeah!
Ethically/Morally speaking, should Mr. Acer Laptop should have gone and used his ISP, connection at work or asked for permission.
So, I guess I'm weighing in on values and not technicalities of the law and router security... which will most likely make me flamebait or potentially off-topic.
Answer me this though... if the guy with the Acer laptop had not gone and used someone else's network and acted suspicious in the process, would someone have called the cops to check him out? Whose fault is that?
Taking the story from another angle (i.e., not blaming the owner of the network for the use of it by someone else)... I don't use that which I don't have permission to and that's how I teach my children to act. All the geeks want to blame the florida retiree in Florida for leaving his network open (and maybe for dimpling a chad too... but that's another discussion:p).
So... is the woman who carries their wallet in her hand at fault for someone stealing it? Is she at fault for getting raped if she dresses nicely at work, has to stay late at work one night and come home in the dark (note... I did not say dresses provocatively)?
Those are things that are 'best practices' to keep yourself from being a victim... they do not release the perpetrator of the crime of any responsibility. Why doesn't anyone want to focus mr-sitting-outside-someone-elses-house-using-their -network's responsibility to ask if he can use the network?
Technically speaking, should grandpa learn how to or have someone help him secure his wireless network? Yeah!
Legally speaking, should Mr. Acer Laptop should have gone and used his ISP, connection at work or asked for permission.
That all said... everyone would be freaking out (or applauding... you can never tell with some/.-ites) if grandpa was on the hook for having a keystroke logger installed and was getting back at the dude with the acer laptop. Of course... he (Mr. Acer Laptop) then would be at fault for not taking the proper measures to bypass having his passwords captured, no?
His shouts of "Helloooo, anyone here?" go unanswered. Finally, he peeks around the establishment looking for any sign of vendor life. None. His stomach of course couldn't care less of this odd situation, and continues to complain with increasing annoyance....
So... you're suggesting that this fellow approached the people who had the wireless network (knocked on the door, sent them an email, ???) and requested the use of it, but got no response? Is that why he snapped the laptop shut when he was spotted sitting there using it?
Thirty minutes later, his appetite is well appeased, but still.. the "shop" remains without "keeper." Once more he searches for some sign of till or other monetary receptacle, finding absolutely nothing. Time pressing, he finally gives up and leaves; perhaps he'll come back tomorrow and discover the truth to the great Agatha Cristie Lunchtime Mystery Special.
In this case then... if the person is so altruistic and concerned with not stealing the food... they could not be faulted if they left a note expressing gratitude for the food and some sort of payment... maybe even an iou. (I would suggest contact info., but the conspiracists would say that the contact info. would just be used to screw the hungry fellow by the 'authorities'... no?)
Also, the comparison of hunger vs. the 'need' for using the internet don't quite compare on a basic human needs level IMO. Granted, the 'net is a daily/regular part of my life, but food still outranks it in terms of 'needs'.
So is there a reasonable method whereby someone can tell its a person clicking as opposed to the script invoking a bot to generate a request that looks just like a 'click'?
If you've got a good solution (better than what Google does currently) where you can *guarantee* to detect click fraud, then you should either work for Google, sell them your solution or strike out on your own little business venture.
I don't think the example/analogy is that off-target.. at least not in principle. The question being... is Google *contractually* obligated to *guarantee* that click fraud will not occur OR were they negligent in whatever they were contractually bound to do for this customer? They have people who work trying to prevent click fraud... what were they bound to in this case? IANAL, and hence am not in Google's legal dept. so I don't know what is in one of those contracts.
I think the point is... unless you can pick something specific out about the contract where Google failed (which none of us can do here really), then why go after Google? Why not go after the people committing the fraud or take your business elsewhere if the service is not what you expect? Well... because, in today's society, you go for the easiest/closest target to blame.. or the one that will get your company the most press in the process of trying to get a settlement.
It should already be obvious to you that the
law treats cyber-crimes differently than physical crimes. Someone who breaks into a computer
gets more prison time than someone who breaks into your car or home. THE CRIMES ARE
NOT THE SAME IN THE EYES OF THE LAW. Is it that difficult to figure out?
I'm sorry... was there some instance of Google or those who committed the click fraud breaking into some system... Don't remember reading that. Or 'click fraud' is a crime on a parallel level? As far as I can tell it's not. And I quote (from the article that is):
Click fraud is not "fraud" as defined under the law. Rather, it is an industry term used to describe the deliberate clicking on Web search ads by users with no plans to do business with the advertiser.
This seems to be a contractual issue... did Google do what was required in their contract with Click Defense?
Now, would you care to comment on the topic at hand... Google and click fraud?
By tracking mouse movements of students working with their computers, the researchers found that our learning process was similar to other biological organisms: we're not learning through a series of 0's and 1's. Instead, our brain is cascading through shades of grey."
It doesn't take alll that much 'study' to figure out that we don't quite process like computers (or them quite like us.. who was here first anyway?). In many ways, a lot of people wish they could process like computers (and a lot of geeks wish other people could/would process that way). Of course, computers don't process exactly like we do..
And I quote: In his study, 42 students listened to instructions to click on pictures of different objects on a computer screen. When the students heard a word, such as "candle," and were presented with two pictures whose names did not sound alike, such as a candle and a jacket, the trajectories of their mouse movements were quite straight and directly to the candle. But when the students heard "candle" and were presented with two pictures with similarly sounding names, such as candle and candy, they were slower to click on the correct object, and their mouse trajectories were much more curved. Spivey said that the listeners started processing what they heard even before the entire word was spoken.
See, the computer actually waits for input, prompts and so forth. I know we'd like to build impatient computers that jump the gun before they get all the input that is necessary to make a correct decision!! People forget that we came up with these computers... TO HELP US/use as tools... not replace us. (And if that were to ever happen, it's because of the general populace's apathy while a few people seek to assert their control... kind of how we've let our government go here in the US.)
In some ways, we seem to have come to envy the computer and its processing power. And in some ways, humans could benefit by emulating a computer (waiting for the input until they start processing/making decisions/talking). We know that computers don't work exactly like us... that's why there are efforts out there like predictor systems, fuzzy logic and so forth. To try and get them closer to us.
That all said, there are (IMO) still some significant similarities... and that's all I believe there ever was.. similarities. We have short-term (like RAM) and long-term memory (Floppy/HD/CD) similar to a computer. But, we don't have a save/search mechanism as formal as the computer does.. or is the commonly employed 'save' mechanism a substitute for whatever allows to flag something as worthy of saving long-term? What makes us attach one item to another in the schemas in our head? There's still a lot to learn about here.
But I don't think the fact that we don't think in only 1's and 0's is ground-breaking news.
But the post I replied to originally indicated that those who get tricked into having an unnecessary car repair done were the ones at fault, not the crooked mechanics.
I don't quite think so... to quote... from the original reply...
It's just like the occasional garage or two that will break or "fix" additional things to raise up the bill just because the average car user doesn't know **** about how a car works let alone the current state of their car.
Being ignorant by choice is not intelligent. Sure you can't learn everything there is but honestly how much training does it take to learn how to use a web browser effectively [e.g. learn how to properly login to a website and check a CA cert]....?
I don't see anyting about it being the owner's fault... but I do seem something about not being ignorant by choice. Yes, you never promoted 'ignorance' outright... but you took the extreme opposite of "If I don't understand it 100%, I shouldn't use it then?"... That might be why people...
seem to want to flag me as advocating ignorance
I never said people shouldn't learn something. I'm simply saying that it's not reasonable to blame the average person for not knowing everything about topic X.
See.. that's the issue though... everyone is worrying about 'blame' (or not worrying/acting on something at all), instead of their own accountability, actions and the final results. That's why we vote against candidates instead of for them. That's why folks don't actually take time to learn something and be responsible themselves. That's why people pay for rental car insurance even though their company credit card already covers that.
It's also about "I don't have time for that" syndrome. I had a faculty member tell me that the other day... and "that" was going through a proper security measure to secure his data. Guess what... if you admit you don't have time for it and you have been given the opportunity.. you still maybe don't 'deserve' to get phished or cracked... but it's a lot likelier to happen. I think that's what the original post you were replying to meant.
We don't have time to learn about everything. But this is obviously a big enough issue in our society. If you choose to ignore it and not edcuate yourself... well.. it was your choice.
I don't believe the phrasing 'know exactly how [insert item] works' was ever used... but I shouldn't have to read anything and understand before repying should I? (OK... I'll stop being a troll/flamebait and answer the questions)
Should everyone who doesn't have a medical degree and fully understand the human body avoid medical care?
No... but they should not blame the doctor when they don't make any effort whatsoever to educate themselves, when they don't read literature given them or follow instructions given to them by their doctor. Who's generally healthier... those who take time to understand something about the (their) human body and to provide for it properly or those who don't?
Should everyone who doesn't fully understand the intricacies of their local, regional and national economies not participate in them?
No.. but when things do not go as they expected, then maybe they will pay more attention.
Sure... many of us don't read the manual when picking up a new gadget, but if I don't... I accept the consequences that come with that behavior. I agree that things should be generally easy/intuitive to use. I also understand that I am ultimately responsible for myself, my accounts, information and property. Things may happen, out of my control, but that doesn't mean I should just give up and blame someone else for not making it 'easy enough'. More and more, people are looking to blame someone else for what went wrong and seeking some sort of 'insurance' so that they don't have to 'worry' about it.
I'm not saying that those that get phished 'deserve it'. I'm saying those that educate themselves some, are less likely to get phished than others.
Granted... this is a big announcement, but I think Apple is doing it now moreso to prepare the 'faithful'. I'm not a HW expert, but this isn't a whole lot different than when Apple went to IDE drives instead of SCSI, or started using the indurstry standard RAM in its machines.
Otherwise, it's just another component change (albeit a big one that requires the support of the developer commmunity). If Apple went to Intel NIC's, they'd probably have to have nearly as big of an announcement, just because there was going to be some 'Intel Inside'.
Granted, this might open up for some hacks or some other competition (as well as business for lawyers when eMachines sells mac look alikes that claim to run OS X), but in the end... *It's another component change*. It means that Apple's supply chaing will change and this might affect the price/performance some... hopefully for the better.
I'm sure my recently purchased G5 will do fine for another few years and be supported through it's useful life span. I also will go ahead and help my mother-in-law get her G4 iBook.
Another thought... Apple started with BSD as its core... Hasn't BSD been running predominantly on x86 most of the time?
Oh... trust me... in real life (i.e. when I'm not on/.) I'm an advocate of the just-drop-the-sodas-from-your-diet. I just find a great deal of irony in someone getting a double-cheese-and-bacon, supersizing the fries and getting a *diet* drink.
I personally only drink the occassional diet pepsi and drink mostly water. Antartica Brand Guarana from Brazil is my favorite soda. I prefer Coca-Cola for actual cola... Diet Coke is just plain foul to me. You have a reason to drink it;)
Slashdot Mirror
... and Just imagine a world where Slashdot article comments stay on the topic of the article.
Yeah ... sounds like the time I asked my Dad to spot me a buck via paypal and he told me how he had to kill a bear with a notebook as he walked home from school (which was uphill both ways) bare foot in the snow. And of course ... he was grateful! ;)
[Paraphrased (and embellished) from something I heard from Bill Cosby]
In Soviet Russia, the HTML render you!
... where the bad guys will go ahead and use their weapons (or sonar) with reckless abandon while the good guys have to restrain ... except here, the hero is being overseen by third-party enviromentalists (and lawyers of course) standing by (in Armani suits of course) making sure that the hero doesn't allow the whales to be harmed in the process of the battle/mission.
...
Scene ends with the US Navy saving whales as the 'bad guys' ride away cackling, having succeeded at their mission.
[To Be Continued]
And if you have only one type of system, it's all the easier to get bang-for-buck on an attack. Eithe that or your security level wrapped around that one type of system has to be much higher (meaning more admins and/or more software/security measures) ... As the saying goes ... "pay me now or pay me later"
That's easy ...
If someone doing this was trafficing child porn through the 'open' network ... it it a crime? yes. Was there probable cause to approach the guy and investigate? yes! Is it reasonable to question whether or not someone is doing that in today's climate? Hell yeah! The citizen and the police both had the right to do what was done. Show where/why they didn't have probable cause!
SoRichard Dinon saw the laptop's muted glow through the rear window of the SUV parked outside his home. He walked closer and noticed a man inside.
Then the man noticed Dinon and snapped his computer shut.
Maybe it's census work, the 28-year-old veterinarian told his girlfriend. An hour later, Dinon left to drive her home. The Chevy Blazer was still there, the man furtively hunched over his computer.
Dinon returned at 11 p.m. and the men repeated their strange dance.
Maybe you should read what furtively means ...v a=furtively
http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwdictsn?
And if you're going to argue that he was protecting his own data/privacy, then he should have gone elsewhere ... PERIOD
If someone were sitting outside my house acting in that fashion, I would at the very least approach them to see if they 'need some assistance'. In today's climate though, why not call the police and have them approach him for me. Granted ... I would first check my router's activity and reconfigure it or unplug it to see if he drove off at that point (my network is NOT open). I would also get a description of him and note the Driver's license in case it were ever needed.
I can only suppose you don't own a home, have to worry about a credit record or have kids to provide for ... or cannot imagine what the impact might be if someone is doing something shady through your network.
Given the account of someone outside of your home acting in the fashion described in the article ... you don't see reason to take action? If not ... then hopefully that person just 'sitting in a car at 11PM' isn't doing something that will have the Police/FBI knocking on your door later.
In shortI want people to realize that although this may be 'technically legal' ... it's still questionable behavior. A lot of people are focusing on the technicalities and analogies of routers and open doors. They are all forgetting that common sense tells you that using someone else's at 11 PM sitting outside their house might get you picked up by the cops and investigated ... even charged with something. What about the guy with the laptop ... what about his responsibility/accountability?
Was there a reason to call the cops? Yes! Was there probable cause for the cops to approach the guy, take him in and investigate? Yes! Was he 'breaking the law'? Mabye not 'technically' just by using the network ... what he was doing and how well he otherwise covered his tracks if he was doing something will determine that. Would he have been in this situation if he had used his own network for whatever he was doing? NO! Well ... maybe he would be ... depends on what he was doing. Why would it require using someone else's 'open' network.
Ya see though ... that would be something a Sith would do ... not a Jedi Knight.
But I'm curious what Mr. Acer Laptop was doing on the open-and-welcomiing network. I'm sure he only had good intentions
YeahIf I leave my door unlocked or even open and you come in without permission, that could at least be trespassing.
My point is that nobody is thinking about the fact that the guy was sitting out at 11 PM using someone else's network and acting suspicious in the process ... is it the guy with the unsecure's router fault that the cops were called?
Do we really need legislators/legislation to tell us if that is right or wrong?
OK ... so here's the modified version ... I guess this is what I really meant.
Technically speaking, should Mr.-Thirty-Something learn how to or have someone help him secure his wireless network? Yeah!Ethically/Morally speaking, should Mr. Acer Laptop should have gone and used his ISP, connection at work or asked for permission.
So, I guess I'm weighing in on values and not technicalities of the law and router security ... which will most likely make me flamebait or potentially off-topic.
Answer me this though ... if the guy with the Acer laptop had not gone and used someone else's network and acted suspicious in the process, would someone have called the cops to check him out? Whose fault is that?
Taking the story from another angle (i.e., not blaming the owner of the network for the use of it by someone else) ... I don't use that which I don't have permission to and that's how I teach my children to act. All the geeks want to blame the florida retiree in Florida for leaving his network open (and maybe for dimpling a chad too ... but that's another discussion :p).
SoThose are things that are 'best practices' to keep yourself from being a victim ... they do not release the perpetrator of the crime of any responsibility. Why doesn't anyone want to focus mr-sitting-outside-someone-elses-house-using-their -network's responsibility to ask if he can use the network?
Technically speaking, should grandpa learn how to or have someone help him secure his wireless network? Yeah!Legally speaking, should Mr. Acer Laptop should have gone and used his ISP, connection at work or asked for permission.
That all said ... everyone would be freaking out (or applauding ... you can never tell with some /.-ites) if grandpa was on the hook for having a keystroke logger installed and was getting back at the dude with the acer laptop. Of course ... he (Mr. Acer Laptop) then would be at fault for not taking the proper measures to bypass having his passwords captured, no?
His shouts of "Helloooo, anyone here?" go unanswered. Finally, he peeks around the establishment looking for any sign of vendor life. None. His stomach of course couldn't care less of this odd situation, and continues to complain with increasing annoyance. ...
So ... you're suggesting that this fellow approached the people who had the wireless network (knocked on the door, sent them an email, ???) and requested the use of it, but got no response? Is that why he snapped the laptop shut when he was spotted sitting there using it?
Thirty minutes later, his appetite is well appeased, but still .. the "shop" remains without "keeper." Once more he searches for some sign of till or other monetary receptacle, finding absolutely nothing. Time pressing, he finally gives up and leaves; perhaps he'll come back tomorrow and discover the truth to the great Agatha Cristie Lunchtime Mystery Special.
In this case thenAlso, the comparison of hunger vs. the 'need' for using the internet don't quite compare on a basic human needs level IMO. Granted, the 'net is a daily/regular part of my life, but food still outranks it in terms of 'needs'.
Be careful ... there may be a politician reading this stuff!!
So is there a reasonable method whereby someone can tell its a person clicking as opposed to the script invoking a bot to generate a request that looks just like a 'click'?
If you've got a good solution (better than what Google does currently) where you can *guarantee* to detect click fraud, then you should either work for Google, sell them your solution or strike out on your own little business venture.
I think the point is ... unless you can pick something specific out about the contract where Google failed (which none of us can do here really), then why go after Google? Why not go after the people committing the fraud or take your business elsewhere if the service is not what you expect? Well ... because, in today's society, you go for the easiest/closest target to blame .. or the one that will get your company the most press in the process of trying to get a settlement.
I'm sorry ... was there some instance of Google or those who committed the click fraud breaking into some system ... Don't remember reading that. Or 'click fraud' is a crime on a parallel level? As far as I can tell it's not. And I quote (from the article that is):
This seems to be a contractual issue ... did Google do what was required in their contract with Click Defense?
It doesn't take alll that much 'study' to figure out that we don't quite process like computers (or them quite like us .. who was here first anyway?). In many ways, a lot of people wish they could process like computers (and a lot of geeks wish other people could/would process that way). Of course, computers don't process exactly like we do ..
And I quote: In his study, 42 students listened to instructions to click on pictures of different objects on a computer screen. When the students heard a word, such as "candle," and were presented with two pictures whose names did not sound alike, such as a candle and a jacket, the trajectories of their mouse movements were quite straight and directly to the candle. But when the students heard "candle" and were presented with two pictures with similarly sounding names, such as candle and candy, they were slower to click on the correct object, and their mouse trajectories were much more curved. Spivey said that the listeners started processing what they heard even before the entire word was spoken.
See, the computer actually waits for input, prompts and so forth. I know we'd like to build impatient computers that jump the gun before they get all the input that is necessary to make a correct decision!! People forget that we came up with these computers ... TO HELP US/use as tools ... not replace us. (And if that were to ever happen, it's because of the general populace's apathy while a few people seek to assert their control ... kind of how we've let our government go here in the US.)
In some ways, we seem to have come to envy the computer and its processing power. And in some ways, humans could benefit by emulating a computer (waiting for the input until they start processing/making decisions/talking). We know that computers don't work exactly like us ... that's why there are efforts out there like predictor systems, fuzzy logic and so forth. To try and get them closer to us.
That all said, there are (IMO) still some significant similarities ... and that's all I believe there ever was .. similarities. We have short-term (like RAM) and long-term memory (Floppy/HD/CD) similar to a computer. But, we don't have a save/search mechanism as formal as the computer does .. or is the commonly employed 'save' mechanism a substitute for whatever allows to flag something as worthy of saving long-term? What makes us attach one item to another in the schemas in our head? There's still a lot to learn about here.
But I don't think the fact that we don't think in only 1's and 0's is ground-breaking news.I think they could use this thread as evidence that indeed it was slashdotters that perpetrated the mishief ... or was it malice?
I don't quite think so ... to quote ... from the original reply ...
It's just like the occasional garage or two that will break or "fix" additional things to raise up the bill just because the average car user doesn't know **** about how a car works let alone the current state of their car.
Being ignorant by choice is not intelligent. Sure you can't learn everything there is but honestly how much training does it take to learn how to use a web browser effectively [e.g. learn how to properly login to a website and check a CA cert]....?
I don't see anyting about it being the owner's faultseem to want to flag me as advocating ignorance
I never said people shouldn't learn something. I'm simply saying that it's not reasonable to blame the average person for not knowing everything about topic X.
See .. that's the issue though ... everyone is worrying about 'blame' (or not worrying/acting on something at all), instead of their own accountability, actions and the final results. That's why we vote against candidates instead of for them. That's why folks don't actually take time to learn something and be responsible themselves. That's why people pay for rental car insurance even though their company credit card already covers that.
It's also about "I don't have time for that" syndrome. I had a faculty member tell me that the other day ... and "that" was going through a proper security measure to secure his data. Guess what ... if you admit you don't have time for it and you have been given the opportunity .. you still maybe don't 'deserve' to get phished or cracked ... but it's a lot likelier to happen. I think that's what the original post you were replying to meant.
We don't have time to learn about everything. But this is obviously a big enough issue in our society. If you choose to ignore it and not edcuate yourself ... well .. it was your choice.
I don't believe the phrasing 'know exactly how [insert item] works' was ever used ... but I shouldn't have to read anything and understand before repying should I? (OK ... I'll stop being a troll/flamebait and answer the questions)
Should everyone who doesn't have a medical degree and fully understand the human body avoid medical care?
No ... but they should not blame the doctor when they don't make any effort whatsoever to educate themselves, when they don't read literature given them or follow instructions given to them by their doctor. Who's generally healthier ... those who take time to understand something about the (their) human body and to provide for it properly or those who don't?
Should everyone who doesn't fully understand the intricacies of their local, regional and national economies not participate in them?
No .. but when things do not go as they expected, then maybe they will pay more attention.
Sure ... many of us don't read the manual when picking up a new gadget, but if I don't ... I accept the consequences that come with that behavior. I agree that things should be generally easy/intuitive to use. I also understand that I am ultimately responsible for myself, my accounts, information and property. Things may happen, out of my control, but that doesn't mean I should just give up and blame someone else for not making it 'easy enough'. More and more, people are looking to blame someone else for what went wrong and seeking some sort of 'insurance' so that they don't have to 'worry' about it.
I'm not saying that those that get phished 'deserve it'. I'm saying those that educate themselves some, are less likely to get phished than others.
Otherwise, it's just another component change (albeit a big one that requires the support of the developer commmunity). If Apple went to Intel NIC's, they'd probably have to have nearly as big of an announcement, just because there was going to be some 'Intel Inside'.
Granted, this might open up for some hacks or some other competition (as well as business for lawyers when eMachines sells mac look alikes that claim to run OS X), but in the end ... *It's another component change*. It means that Apple's supply chaing will change and this might affect the price /performance some ... hopefully for the better.
I'm sure my recently purchased G5 will do fine for another few years and be supported through it's useful life span. I also will go ahead and help my mother-in-law get her G4 iBook.
Another thought ... Apple started with BSD as its core ... Hasn't BSD been running predominantly on x86 most of the time?
Sheeeeez!! .. I got modded down for being off-topic for real? Will the flamebait who modded me down please mod the rest of these folks down as well? :P
... OK so the 'danger part' is not danger to the keyboard, but rather danger to the keyboard operator ...
... I've been a karma-whore most of my /. life ... this little mod'ing incident won't hurt much!
... mod this one down too!
Besides, I say we're still on topic
Oh well
Go 'head
Oh ... trust me ... in real life (i.e. when I'm not on /.) I'm an advocate of the just-drop-the-sodas-from-your-diet. I just find a great deal of irony in someone getting a double-cheese-and-bacon, supersizing the fries and getting a *diet* drink.
... Diet Coke is just plain foul to me. You have a reason to drink it ;)
I personally only drink the occassional diet pepsi and drink mostly water. Antartica Brand Guarana from Brazil is my favorite soda. I prefer Coca-Cola for actual cola
Are we off-topic yet?