So this company has an entire database that is secured differently and separately from all of the other databases they have and this one database's purpose is for nothing other than storing first names and email addresses? This seems HIGHLY unlikely. I spell a huge pile of bullshit, here.
Your reasoning is sound but the underlying assumption is a poor one; it is trivial and very common to grant access to only parts of a database. The idea that Epsilon only had access to those two pieces of information out of a much larger pool of data is extremely likely.
It might not be that outlandish; a few years ago Comcast claimed that 80% of the traffic through their network was torrent-related. Even if you want to say that's not a reliable source (since they were using the number to justify caps,) it would make sense that torrents are a high percentage or the current animosity towards the protocol would likely not be as universal as it seems to be among ISPs.
Not really disputing your main point but I think you took it too far; IE 5 was the best browser for a time, and IE 9 seems pretty strong, even if it's not the best.
The popularity and primitive graphics should be a dead giveaway that it's got nothing to do with the graphics.
It is an open world you live in by yourself, with no rules except the world's physics - no quests, no goals, no achievements, nothing. There is a fairly extensive crafting system based on a simple interface that supports relatively complex behavior, so you can make just about anything you like, from a torch to a house. There is a day/night cycle, and anyplace it is dark monsters can spawn and kill you. That's pretty much it.
So what do you do with this? Different people do different things. The game means different things to different people, and the appeal varies as well. Your question seems simple enough but there isn't a single good answer except that they all find something compelling about the relative freedom.
I suspect that as the developer finishes the game this appeal will narrow and your question will get a better answer.
I think most people are concerned that Google is too ubiquitous for this to not be endlessly abused./b/ can affect search results? It's the best news for Bing in a long time.
Even if it isn't common, given that it does happen would mean that in order to be among the very richest you will probably have to do it. I imagine lots of businesses haven't done this, but we won't be talking about how rich one of the partners is, because the money isn't concentrated in his hands.
That sounds reasonable to me. However, playing only to win with no care for consequences sounds exactly like how big business is being run the last couple of decades, and most of those guys are making insane amounts of money, even in the middle of an economic crisis. Their position appears to be one that cannot lose, even when they fail. That's an enviable perch, is it not? Perhaps it is our viewpoint of real-life work which needs to adjust.
I doubt that. Autism has too many social downsides; without social acceptance, the ability to procreate is negatively impacted, and survival/procreation is what evolution is all about.
What would happen if someone posed as a pedo to lure dumbass teens to a park to teach them a lesson about having sex with pedos? That would be a much more interesting show.
I suspect it would be more useful, as well; you'd be dealing with the party who is merely exercising poor judgment instead of the one ruled by biological urges. The problem is that, while both programs are exploitation, Hansen is exploiting "evil" people and so nobody cares; there would be an outcry for doing the same thing to "innocent" children.
"the same BS being used here to arrest and jail a person could be used to arrest and jail almost any of us for things we do"
No, basically just the stuff that's illegal. You won't usually get arrested for being propositioned to commit a crime; YOU have to take some concrete step in commiting that crime.
Taking a step toward committing a crime isn't the same thing as committing a crime, though. Lots of people walk into banks without robbing them. I agree that "intent" crimes are on pretty shaky ground, morally speaking. We're locking people up for what we believe they were about to do, not for what they did - there is no way to prove that we are right, though. Maybe if the 13 year old girl existed and he met her, he would have gotten cold feet, bought her an ice cream cone, and gone home. The only evidence we have that he was going to have sex with a minor is that he said he would... but many people every day say something like, "I will kill that bastard!" They aren't tried and convicted of murder, and rightfully so. Sometimes people say things they don't really mean, or that they do mean at that moment but don't follow up, or that they entirely mean but find themselves physically or emotionally unable to carry through.
If he had a record of such activity, that would be different; his past actions would be evidence that we had prevented a repeat offense. There is no mention of such a past here.
He didn't molest a little girl. He didn't proposition a little girl. He didn't actually do anything wrong. Yet he's quite possibly going to die in prison.
The problem here is that it's never enough, is it? If you think abortion is horrible, you are free not to have one. If you think the 2nd amendment is awesome - well, it's in the Constitution, so you're covered - your position is in the fact the law of the land. The country has already accommodated you, so why aren't you happy? The problem is that isn't what you want - what you want is for your opinions to be the only viable answer.
...now compare that with Western countries where the political leadership is dominated by lawyers.
I wish our government was dominated by lawyers... then maybe we could hammer out some decent laws given enough time. Unfortunately, what we have are businessmen masquerading as lawyers, for whom laws are merely means to a much more important end: short-term profits.
"Freedom of speech" means exactly that: there can be no legal consequences for anything you might happen to say. Anything less would be absurd. That (plainly unconstitutional, at least here in the US) exceptions are made for the categories you listed simply means that the government does not completely recognize our right to freedom of speech.
The really absurd part of this case is that the court is basing much of its reasoning on the idea that this information has already been made "public". Well, if it were really public, why do they need a court order to get at it? Either the order is about private information, or the order is unnecessary. Which is it?
Words have consequences. Even Freedom of Speech must recognize this, and in a truly free society that wants to have any order, some things will be illegal to say. The standard example is that if you, just for laughs, shout, "FIRE" in a crowded theatre and several people are killed in the ensuing stampede to the doorways, you cannot smugly say, "freedom of speech, baby," and escape unscathed. That's not freedom; it's anarchy. They're not the same thing.
I've never understood why this is a real problem; if a page is never served then it costs virtually nothing so what's the downside? Besides, that's hardly the standard they use; pages with enough fans willing to maintain them were also excised.
Every time somebody claims we can save money by further cutting into public education (as opposed to meaningfully reforming it, which I absolutely support), I literally cringe. Penny wise and pound foolish is no way to improve our standing.
The hard part about education reform is that if the people were smart/educated enough to embrace proper reform, the system would already be fine.
No, we don't; this is a point I forgot to make. If he is right then when aliens come, the side with the higher tech level will decide what happens next, probably in light of their own self-interest, regardless. Our actions up until then will be irrelevant in the face of the technological gap.
Making all decisions based on fear is no way to exist.
None of that has been created nor changed by the advent of the Internet. Inserting a mole into an organization and framing people to avoid - or mete out - retribution are far older than the transistor.
Openness is the Internet's primary strength, not a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
So this company has an entire database that is secured differently and separately from all of the other databases they have and this one database's purpose is for nothing other than storing first names and email addresses? This seems HIGHLY unlikely. I spell a huge pile of bullshit, here.
Your reasoning is sound but the underlying assumption is a poor one; it is trivial and very common to grant access to only parts of a database. The idea that Epsilon only had access to those two pieces of information out of a much larger pool of data is extremely likely.
If that's been happening for a long time, isn't that evidence that nobody really cares? What steps have been taken to stop it?
It might not be that outlandish; a few years ago Comcast claimed that 80% of the traffic through their network was torrent-related. Even if you want to say that's not a reliable source (since they were using the number to justify caps,) it would make sense that torrents are a high percentage or the current animosity towards the protocol would likely not be as universal as it seems to be among ISPs.
Not really disputing your main point but I think you took it too far; IE 5 was the best browser for a time, and IE 9 seems pretty strong, even if it's not the best.
The popularity and primitive graphics should be a dead giveaway that it's got nothing to do with the graphics.
It is an open world you live in by yourself, with no rules except the world's physics - no quests, no goals, no achievements, nothing. There is a fairly extensive crafting system based on a simple interface that supports relatively complex behavior, so you can make just about anything you like, from a torch to a house. There is a day/night cycle, and anyplace it is dark monsters can spawn and kill you. That's pretty much it.
So what do you do with this? Different people do different things. The game means different things to different people, and the appeal varies as well. Your question seems simple enough but there isn't a single good answer except that they all find something compelling about the relative freedom.
I suspect that as the developer finishes the game this appeal will narrow and your question will get a better answer.
I think most people are concerned that Google is too ubiquitous for this to not be endlessly abused. /b/ can affect search results? It's the best news for Bing in a long time.
Disliked and sent Enemy request.
Even if it isn't common, given that it does happen would mean that in order to be among the very richest you will probably have to do it. I imagine lots of businesses haven't done this, but we won't be talking about how rich one of the partners is, because the money isn't concentrated in his hands.
That sounds reasonable to me. However, playing only to win with no care for consequences sounds exactly like how big business is being run the last couple of decades, and most of those guys are making insane amounts of money, even in the middle of an economic crisis. Their position appears to be one that cannot lose, even when they fail. That's an enviable perch, is it not? Perhaps it is our viewpoint of real-life work which needs to adjust.
Yes, your campaign has worked. Congratulations! You'll find the jack in Kansas City.
I doubt that. Autism has too many social downsides; without social acceptance, the ability to procreate is negatively impacted, and survival/procreation is what evolution is all about.
$50 says this idiot has never programmed anything in his life.
Of course he hasn't. Since when do we expect a CEO to know anything about programming? What's next, his opinion on mops?
What would happen if someone posed as a pedo to lure dumbass teens to a park to teach them a lesson about having sex with pedos? That would be a much more interesting show.
I suspect it would be more useful, as well; you'd be dealing with the party who is merely exercising poor judgment instead of the one ruled by biological urges. The problem is that, while both programs are exploitation, Hansen is exploiting "evil" people and so nobody cares; there would be an outcry for doing the same thing to "innocent" children.
"the same BS being used here to arrest and jail a person could be used to arrest and jail almost any of us for things we do"
No, basically just the stuff that's illegal. You won't usually get arrested for being propositioned to commit a crime; YOU have to take some concrete step in commiting that crime.
Taking a step toward committing a crime isn't the same thing as committing a crime, though. Lots of people walk into banks without robbing them. I agree that "intent" crimes are on pretty shaky ground, morally speaking. We're locking people up for what we believe they were about to do, not for what they did - there is no way to prove that we are right, though. Maybe if the 13 year old girl existed and he met her, he would have gotten cold feet, bought her an ice cream cone, and gone home. The only evidence we have that he was going to have sex with a minor is that he said he would... but many people every day say something like, "I will kill that bastard!" They aren't tried and convicted of murder, and rightfully so. Sometimes people say things they don't really mean, or that they do mean at that moment but don't follow up, or that they entirely mean but find themselves physically or emotionally unable to carry through.
If he had a record of such activity, that would be different; his past actions would be evidence that we had prevented a repeat offense. There is no mention of such a past here.
He didn't molest a little girl. He didn't proposition a little girl. He didn't actually do anything wrong. Yet he's quite possibly going to die in prison.
I rest my case.
Once a few of these cameras are vandalized, we'll need cameras that point down to protect them.
The problem here is that it's never enough, is it? If you think abortion is horrible, you are free not to have one. If you think the 2nd amendment is awesome - well, it's in the Constitution, so you're covered - your position is in the fact the law of the land. The country has already accommodated you, so why aren't you happy? The problem is that isn't what you want - what you want is for your opinions to be the only viable answer.
It's one thing to copy someone else's successful designs, and a whole different thing to make your own.
True, but as any number of self-taught programmers can tell you, the two are hardly mutually exclusive, and largely irrelevant to future production.
...now compare that with Western countries where the political leadership is dominated by lawyers.
I wish our government was dominated by lawyers... then maybe we could hammer out some decent laws given enough time. Unfortunately, what we have are businessmen masquerading as lawyers, for whom laws are merely means to a much more important end: short-term profits.
"Freedom of speech" means exactly that: there can be no legal consequences for anything you might happen to say. Anything less would be absurd. That (plainly unconstitutional, at least here in the US) exceptions are made for the categories you listed simply means that the government does not completely recognize our right to freedom of speech.
The really absurd part of this case is that the court is basing much of its reasoning on the idea that this information has already been made "public". Well, if it were really public, why do they need a court order to get at it? Either the order is about private information, or the order is unnecessary. Which is it?
Words have consequences. Even Freedom of Speech must recognize this, and in a truly free society that wants to have any order, some things will be illegal to say. The standard example is that if you, just for laughs, shout, "FIRE" in a crowded theatre and several people are killed in the ensuing stampede to the doorways, you cannot smugly say, "freedom of speech, baby," and escape unscathed. That's not freedom; it's anarchy. They're not the same thing.
[1] A bunch of women.
I've never understood why this is a real problem; if a page is never served then it costs virtually nothing so what's the downside? Besides, that's hardly the standard they use; pages with enough fans willing to maintain them were also excised.
Every time somebody claims we can save money by further cutting into public education (as opposed to meaningfully reforming it, which I absolutely support), I literally cringe. Penny wise and pound foolish is no way to improve our standing.
The hard part about education reform is that if the people were smart/educated enough to embrace proper reform, the system would already be fine.
No, we don't; this is a point I forgot to make. If he is right then when aliens come, the side with the higher tech level will decide what happens next, probably in light of their own self-interest, regardless. Our actions up until then will be irrelevant in the face of the technological gap.
Making all decisions based on fear is no way to exist.
None of that has been created nor changed by the advent of the Internet. Inserting a mole into an organization and framing people to avoid - or mete out - retribution are far older than the transistor.
Openness is the Internet's primary strength, not a problem.