It's already too late for you, I'm afraid. You've already read the stub of the article which was copied from the original website by another person. The virus jumped through their monitor (writing directly onto their retina using a zero-day exploit) which was then transcoded into nerve pulses. These were transfered to the poster's fingers which caused very small, but significant, induced current in their keyboard. The virus travelled through the USB port and into the PC, and got posted to slashdot. It now resides in your brain, and mine, ready to be exploited at the author's whim.
The one ISP who joined the trial to prove that the filtering scheme is broken has pulled out. Doesn't this mean that a major influence in the scheme's failure has just been dismissed?
I'm sure the Aus government are sobbing their little black hearts out over the loss.
The last CD I bought was 10,000 Days by Tool. That was 2006.
Since then, I've either listened to what I already own (as it's better than what's been recently released), I've listened to Creative Commons licensed music, or I've listened to streamed net radio for recently released music.
I stopped buying CD's based on the attitudes of the record companies and their affiliates. I don't care who it harms; I'm not supporting that method of business, and anyone with links to it deserves to fail.
1. Click this link: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ie8 2. On the second search result, read the first line of the description. 3.... 4. (Don't) profit!
Unfortunately, you have to prove that they based their verdict on anything other than logical thought and the evidence put forward in court. I don't know about you, but I'd rather be tasked wityh defending that Fritzel guy at this moment.
Have a PRNG have the outcome of 313373 cause the bot to either: - Fall on own grenade. - Rocket-jump at 25 health. - Hump the face of the nearest corpse.
I carried my mobile phone all the time, and used it in the common area to talk to my girlfriend, check my email etc.
I had access to the internet through a wireless hotspot, and I read/. and The Register, NotAlwaysRight.com and other chod websites, and chatted with some other jurours.
I was told that the case had to be decided upon by the edivence heard in court, and that I wasn't to discuss the case outside of the court room or deliberation room. So I didn't. It was that simple.
It's not a question of the rules needing to be changed, it's the need for people to follow them. If they don't, they tarnish the legal process and the people will lose faith. Trial by Jury will become Trial by Media, and we all know that they are TOTALLY unbias.
As usual, this is an education problem, not a rule problem. As IT folk, you should know that the answer is almsot always "educate the user" not "restrict the user".
There is a concept of intent. Take GBH, for example.
GBH (Layman: the causing of serious injury to a person) is a criminal offence. You can cause GBH to somebody in numerous ways, many of them accidental i.e. without intent. However, you can also cause GBH with intent, a seperate offence in UK law (having been on a jury dealing with such a case). The punishment is less for the former charge, but it is still a crime and still has punisments.
Criminal intent is not a "get-out"from responsibility for your actions if you do break the law without intending to. You may just be guilty of a different offence, in this case Viewing indecent images of a minor, instead of creating, distributing, or paricipating. It is still an offence.
"In the United Kingdom, it is illegal to take, make, distribute, show or possess an indecent image of a child. Accessing an indecent image is considered to be "making" the image, meaning that a defendant can be charged under the Protection of Children Act if he accessed an image without saving it."
It is illegal to view the image. It's just how the law is written.
Slashdot Mirror
Who's Ron Paul? I didn't see him on the TV between episodes of America's Next Top Model.
Sorry, I was attempting to do an impression of the voting populace of the US, but instead I stated fact.
It's already too late for you, I'm afraid. You've already read the stub of the article which was copied from the original website by another person. The virus jumped through their monitor (writing directly onto their retina using a zero-day exploit) which was then transcoded into nerve pulses. These were transfered to the poster's fingers which caused very small, but significant, induced current in their keyboard. The virus travelled through the USB port and into the PC, and got posted to slashdot. It now resides in your brain, and mine, ready to be exploited at the author's whim.
Or, you really need to take off the tinfoil hat.
The one ISP who joined the trial to prove that the filtering scheme is broken has pulled out. Doesn't this mean that a major influence in the scheme's failure has just been dismissed?
I'm sure the Aus government are sobbing their little black hearts out over the loss.
I'm 25 :(
Now get off... Get off my l... No, I won't say it!
It's a matter of emfarsys.
Balls yourself. If both of these browsers don't render the page correctly, then the guy with the rubbish site deserves the lost business.
The last CD I bought was 10,000 Days by Tool. That was 2006.
Since then, I've either listened to what I already own (as it's better than what's been recently released), I've listened to Creative Commons licensed music, or I've listened to streamed net radio for recently released music.
I stopped buying CD's based on the attitudes of the record companies and their affiliates. I don't care who it harms; I'm not supporting that method of business, and anyone with links to it deserves to fail.
There's only one piece of extra code needed when a page won't render properly in IE.
<a href="http://www.getfirefox.com">Page doesn't look right? Click here.</a>
1. Click this link: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ie8 ...
2. On the second search result, read the first line of the description.
3.
4. (Don't) profit!
Considering where you're posting, why aren't you one of *those* guys?
You check wikileaks from work? Are you sure that's a good idea?
The plural of baby is babies. I think you meant babieses.
:(
Sorry
Wouldn't want to get that one mixed up at a wedding...
Unfortunately, you have to prove that they based their verdict on anything other than logical thought and the evidence put forward in court. I don't know about you, but I'd rather be tasked wityh defending that Fritzel guy at this moment.
Have a PRNG have the outcome of 313373 cause the bot to either:
- Fall on own grenade.
- Rocket-jump at 25 health.
- Hump the face of the nearest corpse.
I carried my mobile phone all the time, and used it in the common area to talk to my girlfriend, check my email etc.
/. and The Register, NotAlwaysRight.com and other chod websites, and chatted with some other jurours.
I had access to the internet through a wireless hotspot, and I read
I was told that the case had to be decided upon by the edivence heard in court, and that I wasn't to discuss the case outside of the court room or deliberation room. So I didn't. It was that simple.
It's not a question of the rules needing to be changed, it's the need for people to follow them. If they don't, they tarnish the legal process and the people will lose faith. Trial by Jury will become Trial by Media, and we all know that they are TOTALLY unbias.
As usual, this is an education problem, not a rule problem. As IT folk, you should know that the answer is almsot always "educate the user" not "restrict the user".
Thanks for the points, but I wasn't being sarcastic.
There is a concept of intent. Take GBH, for example.
GBH (Layman: the causing of serious injury to a person) is a criminal offence. You can cause GBH to somebody in numerous ways, many of them accidental i.e. without intent. However, you can also cause GBH with intent, a seperate offence in UK law (having been on a jury dealing with such a case). The punishment is less for the former charge, but it is still a crime and still has punisments.
Criminal intent is not a "get-out"from responsibility for your actions if you do break the law without intending to. You may just be guilty of a different offence, in this case Viewing indecent images of a minor, instead of creating, distributing, or paricipating. It is still an offence.
But what's to stop a person of suitable intelligence and malicious intent from subverting your system?
Check this article on MD5 collisions in speed camera captures from 2005. This was applied to a database of images where the public didn't have access.
You want to apply the same theory to images on the internet? Goodluckwiththat.
Yes, he has one of those devices which filters oxygen out of a vacuum on his utility belt.
i r on ur rokkitz, awaying ur stow!
Check out the Protection of Children Act 1978. From the Wikipedia article on the subject:
"In the United Kingdom, it is illegal to take, make, distribute, show or possess an indecent image of a child. Accessing an indecent image is considered to be "making" the image, meaning that a defendant can be charged under the Protection of Children Act if he accessed an image without saving it."
It is illegal to view the image. It's just how the law is written.
Would the answer be any different?
Exploit an ATM from the card reader?
You've watched D.A.R.Y.L. one too many times.
If only it were one specific banking establishment. Diebold sell ATMs to all banks.
Money under the matress much?