That's the problem--did the Google car actually drive down the "private road," or were the photos taken from a public street with a camera pointed towards the property? If it's the former, then Google's toast (and should be). But if it's the latter... I have to admit I don't see the issue.
Software. Open Source delivers software. Software that the user can use.
And a community that's all too happy to tell noobs "You're not 'leet enough for our software."
Assuming (and it is a large assumption, considering market share) that FOSS is a threat to Microsoft at all, the area of customer service is where Microsoft will defeat FOSS, I fear. So many of the current FOSS projects have people who make the barriers of learning and using FOSS so high that cartoons like this one rapidly lose all humor.
In this case, "dolphins" are not "casual defenseless infringers"--a more appropriate analogy is that large scale industrial pirates would be the barracuda, the actual casual infringers would be tuna, and the "dolphins" would be innocent non-infringers. Unfortunately, the RIAA seems to have only a very inefficient (or no) method for telling the tuna from the dolphins--further, they have no regard for the innocent dolphins.
Is downloading infringement? or is it distribution?
OK, I am not Ray, and I am not a lawyer. Make of this what you will. All of the following applies to US law.
Distributing other people's copyrighted files may violate 17 USC 106(3). Downloading other people's copyrighted files may be considered "reproducing" said file, which may violate 17 USC 106(1).
The big problem is these laws were written before p2p sharing existed, so we don't really know for certain how the law applies to these issues. The RIAA (and other groups such as the MPAA) is arguing that 17 USC 106 be applied very broadly, so as to definitely condemn downloading and uploading files. Ray, the EFF, and other organizations are arguing (among other things) that 17 USC 106 does not apply as RIAA thinks it should.
Try again. "The Federal Reserve System is an independent government institution that has private aspects, but is neither a private organization, nor operates for a profit." Cite.
as are the member banks.
Try again. Many of the member banks are not privately owned, but publicly-held and publicly-traded corporations.
It operates independently from the government with little oversight other than selecting appointees.
Try again. "Congressional oversight and statute, which can alter the Fed's responsibilities and control, allows the government to keep the Federal Reserve in check." (Ibid.)
In your linked article there is a notable quote by Ron Paul, who is rather outspoken on the problems with the Federal reserve system.
it's very secretive. As a member of congress, I can find out more information about what the CIA is doing than what the FOMC is doing, the central bank, what they're doing on monetary policy
Paul's objections to the Fed are not only well known, they're strong enough that I, for one, will boldly state that I suspect him of "spinning" the facts on this assertion.
Also, while there is a heavy air of irrational paranoia around his 'World Bankers' reference, there is also a significant amount of secretive collusion between the worlds central bankers, and they wield disproportionate power to the accountability they face. This power should be in the hands of the peoples representatives, not in the hands of unaccountable independent entities.
Please do not take the following as a flame: I do not intend it to be so. Considering the factual errors in your previous paragraphs, can one be blamed for doubting the accuracy of this last paragraph of yours?
The "World Banker" rant was not moderated troll--it was moderated offtopic. However, deliberately giving blatantly false information certainly qualifies a poster as "troll-kin" in my book.
The first was an honest question. The second was modded offtopic because it was a false-to-fact political screed that did not provide an accurate or honest answer to the question.
By the way, the Federal Reserve is a private corporation....
The Federal reserve is a government institution--your assertions to the contrary are false (and the "World Bankers" drivel is sheerest bullshit). (Cite)
Hacking in its purest form is not necessarily about being "useful," but about being interesting--an interesting hack may have no intrinsic utility whatsoever, but allows a person who is curious to do something that is new... to them, at least.
You're unaware that branch offices have locks, alarms, and/or security systems, and I'm the dumbass? I'm beginning to wonder if your sig is a critique of the government or an endorsement of Newspeak!
First and foremost, your assertions that the routers that had been messed with were in "branch offices," or that branch offices were "unsecured locations," are assertions you've pulled out of your ass, not from even the most sympathetic news reports. You have no clue if these were peripheral units or core units, and you have no clue how secure these units were.
Secondly, it appears (on further research that contradicts my earlier understanding) that Childs had not originally been the sole person with access: other administrators had access until Childs issued the password changes, and it appears that those changes were made in the hours or days just before he got fired.
Like others here, I had originally thought that Childs may have just been an over-protective admin who made a few foolish decisions. The more facts that come out, however, the more this looks like mutiny, malfeasance, and deliberate sabotage. If it is as bad as I fear, then Childs deserves no sympathy from other people in the IT field: even in the best possible light, Childs made foolish decisions that put his employer at risk.
"Reasonable?" It's "reasonable" to deliberately gut your disaster recovery plan? If this fits your definition of "reasonable," then please allow me to forward your name and c.v. to my employer: I want to make sure that you are never, ever, hired or contracted for the company I work for in any position.
Actually he did not do any damage and left the system in a safe state.
A system that is one power-blink away from catastrophic failure with recovery specifically disabled is not in a "safe state." Though I quite accept that Childs was not malicious, he still screwed the pooch.
But, as others have pointed out, Foxconn is a huge player in electronics manufacturing. Is Joe Schmoe User (or even Jim Schmim Geek-with-a-clue) going to be able to completely avoid Foxconn-manufactured goods?
They went out of their way and expended extra effort to prevent Linux from working on their system.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
I have my doubts that Foxconn would deliberately sabotage a potential customer set--but I have no doubts whatsoever that they could try to implement Linux support, screw it up, then decide they're not going to finish. After all, their Windows support also sucks.
Really I don't see any large scale MMORPG like those given.
"Large scale" may be over-rated for open sourced, formerly-commercial MMOs. Post-market MMOs are going to be run on a hobby level: very few hobbyists can afford the bandwidth or servers necessary to make a post-market MMO a truly "large-scale" experience.
If the game will translate to the smaller-scale of the hobbyist, then it's a win-win situation: the players win, because they can keep playing; the company wins with customer goodwill. If it's a game where they can still sell the clients after open-sourcing the server, then the company wins twice.
The process of making lime generates CO2, but adding the lime to seawater absorbs almost twice as much CO2. The overall process is therefore 'carbon negative'.
RTFA. FTW. My acronyms are more powerful than your anonymity.
How disappointed I get when the "security researchers" write about, not interesting security measures, but just how the security is implemented.
Even geeks need a day job--and many of us work in the industry, where we work with users on a daily basis. Users who don't, won't, or can't upgrade. Users who, more often than not, wouldn't know 'security" if it bit them on the ass.
All the geeky toys, cool maths, and security algorithms in the works don't make a damn bit of difference if users don't, won't, or can't use them.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, Titan is tidally locked. The Wikipedia article on Tidal locking may have a good list.
That's the problem--did the Google car actually drive down the "private road," or were the photos taken from a public street with a camera pointed towards the property? If it's the former, then Google's toast (and should be). But if it's the latter ... I have to admit I don't see the issue.
Software. Open Source delivers software. Software that the user can use.
And a community that's all too happy to tell noobs "You're not 'leet enough for our software."
Assuming (and it is a large assumption, considering market share) that FOSS is a threat to Microsoft at all, the area of customer service is where Microsoft will defeat FOSS, I fear. So many of the current FOSS projects have people who make the barriers of learning and using FOSS so high that cartoons like this one rapidly lose all humor.
Hey, I couldn't think of a good transition from tuna to cars. :D
If you don't have the balls to sign your name and stand behind your assertions, then you don't have the worth to be addressed in a meaningful fashion.
In this case, "dolphins" are not "casual defenseless infringers"--a more appropriate analogy is that large scale industrial pirates would be the barracuda, the actual casual infringers would be tuna, and the "dolphins" would be innocent non-infringers. Unfortunately, the RIAA seems to have only a very inefficient (or no) method for telling the tuna from the dolphins--further, they have no regard for the innocent dolphins.
Is downloading infringement? or is it distribution?
OK, I am not Ray, and I am not a lawyer. Make of this what you will. All of the following applies to US law.
Distributing other people's copyrighted files may violate 17 USC 106(3). Downloading other people's copyrighted files may be considered "reproducing" said file, which may violate 17 USC 106(1).
The big problem is these laws were written before p2p sharing existed, so we don't really know for certain how the law applies to these issues. The RIAA (and other groups such as the MPAA) is arguing that 17 USC 106 be applied very broadly, so as to definitely condemn downloading and uploading files. Ray, the EFF, and other organizations are arguing (among other things) that 17 USC 106 does not apply as RIAA thinks it should.
It is neither. It is privately owned and held...
Try again. "The Federal Reserve System is an independent government institution that has private aspects, but is neither a private organization, nor operates for a profit." Cite.
as are the member banks.
Try again. Many of the member banks are not privately owned, but publicly-held and publicly-traded corporations.
It operates independently from the government with little oversight other than selecting appointees.
Try again. "Congressional oversight and statute, which can alter the Fed's responsibilities and control, allows the government to keep the Federal Reserve in check." (Ibid.)
In your linked article there is a notable quote by Ron Paul, who is rather outspoken on the problems with the Federal reserve system.
it's very secretive. As a member of congress, I can find out more information about what the CIA is doing than what the FOMC is doing, the central bank, what they're doing on monetary policy
Paul's objections to the Fed are not only well known, they're strong enough that I, for one, will boldly state that I suspect him of "spinning" the facts on this assertion.
Also, while there is a heavy air of irrational paranoia around his 'World Bankers' reference, there is also a significant amount of secretive collusion between the worlds central bankers, and they wield disproportionate power to the accountability they face. This power should be in the hands of the peoples representatives, not in the hands of unaccountable independent entities.
Please do not take the following as a flame: I do not intend it to be so. Considering the factual errors in your previous paragraphs, can one be blamed for doubting the accuracy of this last paragraph of yours?
Firing employees randomly when they violate a policy to set an example isn't exactly smart.
Firing an employee for violating a clearly written, explicitly trained policy is hardly "random."
I misread this at first as "Hyperspace Windows."
Brings a whole new meaning to BSoD.
That doesn't make it a troll.
The "World Banker" rant was not moderated troll--it was moderated offtopic. However, deliberately giving blatantly false information certainly qualifies a poster as "troll-kin" in my book.
The first was an honest question. The second was modded offtopic because it was a false-to-fact political screed that did not provide an accurate or honest answer to the question.
By the way, the Federal Reserve is a private corporation....
The Federal reserve is a government institution--your assertions to the contrary are false (and the "World Bankers" drivel is sheerest bullshit). (Cite)
Hacking in its purest form is not necessarily about being "useful," but about being interesting--an interesting hack may have no intrinsic utility whatsoever, but allows a person who is curious to do something that is new ... to them, at least.
You're unaware that branch offices have locks, alarms, and/or security systems, and I'm the dumbass? I'm beginning to wonder if your sig is a critique of the government or an endorsement of Newspeak!
First and foremost, your assertions that the routers that had been messed with were in "branch offices," or that branch offices were "unsecured locations," are assertions you've pulled out of your ass, not from even the most sympathetic news reports. You have no clue if these were peripheral units or core units, and you have no clue how secure these units were.
Secondly, it appears (on further research that contradicts my earlier understanding) that Childs had not originally been the sole person with access: other administrators had access until Childs issued the password changes, and it appears that those changes were made in the hours or days just before he got fired.
Like others here, I had originally thought that Childs may have just been an over-protective admin who made a few foolish decisions. The more facts that come out, however, the more this looks like mutiny, malfeasance, and deliberate sabotage. If it is as bad as I fear, then Childs deserves no sympathy from other people in the IT field: even in the best possible light, Childs made foolish decisions that put his employer at risk.
"Reasonable?" It's "reasonable" to deliberately gut your disaster recovery plan? If this fits your definition of "reasonable," then please allow me to forward your name and c.v. to my employer: I want to make sure that you are never, ever, hired or contracted for the company I work for in any position.
Actually he did not do any damage and left the system in a safe state.
A system that is one power-blink away from catastrophic failure with recovery specifically disabled is not in a "safe state." Though I quite accept that Childs was not malicious, he still screwed the pooch.
Avoid a company that acts stupidly? Amen!
But, as others have pointed out, Foxconn is a huge player in electronics manufacturing. Is Joe Schmoe User (or even Jim Schmim Geek-with-a-clue) going to be able to completely avoid Foxconn-manufactured goods?
They went out of their way and expended extra effort to prevent Linux from working on their system.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
I have my doubts that Foxconn would deliberately sabotage a potential customer set--but I have no doubts whatsoever that they could try to implement Linux support, screw it up, then decide they're not going to finish. After all, their Windows support also sucks.
Biggest reason: distance to work/play/shop. Though it does give an interesting twist to your "chicken and egg" question.
Really I don't see any large scale MMORPG like those given.
"Large scale" may be over-rated for open sourced, formerly-commercial MMOs. Post-market MMOs are going to be run on a hobby level: very few hobbyists can afford the bandwidth or servers necessary to make a post-market MMO a truly "large-scale" experience.
If the game will translate to the smaller-scale of the hobbyist, then it's a win-win situation: the players win, because they can keep playing; the company wins with customer goodwill. If it's a game where they can still sell the clients after open-sourcing the server, then the company wins twice.
There was friggin' in the riggin',
Wankin' in the plankin'
Masturbatin' in the cratin',
There was fuck-all else to do!
A/C is for sissies. :D
The process of making lime generates CO2, but adding the lime to seawater absorbs almost twice as much CO2. The overall process is therefore 'carbon negative'.
RTFA. FTW. My acronyms are more powerful than your anonymity.
I thought the film was the train wreck.
How disappointed I get when the "security researchers" write about, not interesting security measures, but just how the security is implemented.
Even geeks need a day job--and many of us work in the industry, where we work with users on a daily basis. Users who don't, won't, or can't upgrade. Users who, more often than not, wouldn't know 'security" if it bit them on the ass.
All the geeky toys, cool maths, and security algorithms in the works don't make a damn bit of difference if users don't, won't, or can't use them.