Generally, no. But global warming deniers are like the guys who deny we landed on the moon. Total nutjobs who can't be reasoned with, so why not have a little fun at their expense?
I read the story. It doesn't say much about what the parents did or didn't do, or how involved they were in their daughter's life. At the very least, they could ask her, "So what have you been up to online? Meet anyone interesting?" The fact that Megan did not turn to them when she felt rejected by the "boy" shows that she did not trust her parents. They could have, at the very least, done more to build trust with their daughter.
Also, new research shows that, although people with the short version of the seratonin synthesis gene are prone to depression, it still takes a traumatic incident or prolonged emotional suffering between the ages of 8-12 to trigger it. People with the short gene who do not suffer that kind of stress do not develop major depression. So something happened to this girl before this to trigger her depression.
From my original post:
I agree that a law would serve no purpose here, but I also think that we as a society need to protect the weak. What was your point again?
Well, as I understand it, in truly sensitive applications, the thermite grenade is triggered manually as the area is evacuated. Which basically amounts to "Don't let your enemy achieve unrestricted access to your hardware, because they will find a way to get what they want." Which kinda makes this whole discussion moot, because this discussion revolves around "How to prevent an enemy with unrestricted access to your hardware from getting what they want." Which, as we know, is basically next to impossible.
Nothing except the thermite grenade I have installed, linked to sensors on the case to detect you opening it. >:) That's one way to solve the problem, and I believe, is the actual solution used in high security/high risk areas such as forward command posts and what-not.
Ah, so you would put a new hard drive in and boot from it to use the sift for keys/memory dump software. Unless I'm missing something, you've now wiped the key from RAM, the only place it is ever stored.
You know what helps when reading things? Reading them completely before getting in a huff and firing off an inaccurate response. Try going back and rereading what I wrote, and see if I actually disagree with you.
There's enough blame to go around here, it's not mutually exclusive. I'm really upset by all the closed minded, dogmatic people sounding off in this discussion because they don't like the implications of one interpretation or another. Its as if you think that if you admit that anyone else besides the girl or her parents were to blame, Big Bad Government will step in and drink your milkshake.
Let's see if we can come to some sort of agreement on the basics here, everyone?
1.) The girl was unstable, and prone to suicide. The fact that she committed suicide should not even be part of the discussion because, as you say, it could have been a real boy doing this for any number of reasons.
2.) The parents could have done more to oversee her Internet activities, or at least talk to her about her feelings about this "boy."
3.) What the woman did was incredibly mean spirited and childish, and she deserves to have her entire community know what she did (which has happened, it seems.)
4.) Laws aren't going to fix this problem.
Honestly, for all the emotional hullabaloo in this thread, I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe that ANYONE here disagrees on those four points. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I guess you must think the grown woman who set out to destroy this girl's life is NOT to blame? How can you POSSIBLY read into what I wrote that I blame "society?" I was blaming the woman who set out to ruin a thirteen year old girl's life. Are you seriously going to defend her?
You don't have kids, I take it. And with your attitude, no woman is ever going to come close enough to you for you to breed.
The story mentions the fact that the girl suffered from clinical depression and was on medication. I agree, this is not a case where any kind of new law is needed. All that really needs to be done in this case is to out the cold hearted bitch that did this in front of her family, community, church, and anyone else who might care. The fact that the poor girl killed herself is almost immaterial. What everyone should know is that this woman spent a month of her life just to hurt a vulnerable and mentally ill girl. That alone would make any right minded person want to shun any contact with her.
SO every clinically depressed thirteen year old girl on medication should be standing up for herself? Against an adult who took a month to gain her trust and then viciously turned on her? I agree that a law would server no purpose here, but I also think that we as a society need to protect the weak. Not everyone has the capacity to stand up for themselves in all circumstances. That is one of the reasons people joined together into societies in the first place, to protect each other and be protected against threats that can't be handled alone.
Saying that this thirteen year old girl should have been protecting herself is just cruel.
Okay, you posted AC so I feel no compunctions against pointing out how blindingly stupid you are. How can the bad guys take your hard drive, put it in their machine, and get your encryption key out of it? Hell, put a thermite grenade triggered by a tamper switch inside the case. Problem solved.
I was envisioning a hardware module that detected a power failure and wiped the RAM. The only way around that would be to pop the RAM out of a running system, which might work, or it might fry the RAM. But if the hardware module were incorporated into the DIMM, that would work.
Really, though, who would this affect? Top secret government stuff. I bet they've just got vials of acid or explosives or something. Tamper with the case and the contents (and maybe you) go bye-bye.
So, that would stop me from physically turning off the computer and popping out the RAM, how exactly? What we need is a battery backed up hardware module that scrambles the RAM when the system loses power.
Don't be an ass. Of course we understand that what CNN did was legal and constitutional. They may even have a moral right to do so. But we have a moral right to be pissed about it, to complain about it, to bring their actions to light, and to refuse to do business with them.
On a tangent, why do you continue to post to a site whose members you obviously don't respect?
Damn straight. Seriously, what? Who's gonna spend hundreds of thousands dollars putting up something they're not sure is going to work? That's what test suites are for. And those are just a few open source test systems. There's a ton more commercial suites. Sure, you may get much more traffic than expected, but you should plan for that too. Build scalable systems and have a plan for how to get more hardware in place quickly if demand for the service is greater than you thought it would be.
Well, it appears you are correct. Don't know where I'd heard that Dan was hurt, but a quick google for some news reports shows that he was "not seriously injured."
Slashdot Mirror
Oh hey, now there's a smart, low tech solution that would actually work. Good thinking.
Generally, no. But global warming deniers are like the guys who deny we landed on the moon. Total nutjobs who can't be reasoned with, so why not have a little fun at their expense?
Let's not forget pirates. That's a fairly popular theme too.
See people, this is why we need car analogies ! Well, yeroner, comcast didn't put the intertruck up on blocks, but it did disconnect the throttle.
I read the story. It doesn't say much about what the parents did or didn't do, or how involved they were in their daughter's life. At the very least, they could ask her, "So what have you been up to online? Meet anyone interesting?" The fact that Megan did not turn to them when she felt rejected by the "boy" shows that she did not trust her parents. They could have, at the very least, done more to build trust with their daughter.
Also, new research shows that, although people with the short version of the seratonin synthesis gene are prone to depression, it still takes a traumatic incident or prolonged emotional suffering between the ages of 8-12 to trigger it. People with the short gene who do not suffer that kind of stress do not develop major depression. So something happened to this girl before this to trigger her depression.
You know, I tried selling snake oil. Turns out, very few people oil their snakes these days.
Oh, and I'm like Rush Limbaugh? How so?
Well, as I understand it, in truly sensitive applications, the thermite grenade is triggered manually as the area is evacuated. Which basically amounts to "Don't let your enemy achieve unrestricted access to your hardware, because they will find a way to get what they want." Which kinda makes this whole discussion moot, because this discussion revolves around "How to prevent an enemy with unrestricted access to your hardware from getting what they want." Which, as we know, is basically next to impossible.
Are you implying that anything Megan might have said justified the actions this woman took? And why do you need to wonder, did you not RTFA?
Nothing except the thermite grenade I have installed, linked to sensors on the case to detect you opening it. >:) That's one way to solve the problem, and I believe, is the actual solution used in high security/high risk areas such as forward command posts and what-not.
Ah, so you would put a new hard drive in and boot from it to use the sift for keys/memory dump software. Unless I'm missing something, you've now wiped the key from RAM, the only place it is ever stored.
You know what helps when reading things? Reading them completely before getting in a huff and firing off an inaccurate response. Try going back and rereading what I wrote, and see if I actually disagree with you.
There's enough blame to go around here, it's not mutually exclusive. I'm really upset by all the closed minded, dogmatic people sounding off in this discussion because they don't like the implications of one interpretation or another. Its as if you think that if you admit that anyone else besides the girl or her parents were to blame, Big Bad Government will step in and drink your milkshake.
Let's see if we can come to some sort of agreement on the basics here, everyone?
1.) The girl was unstable, and prone to suicide. The fact that she committed suicide should not even be part of the discussion because, as you say, it could have been a real boy doing this for any number of reasons.
2.) The parents could have done more to oversee her Internet activities, or at least talk to her about her feelings about this "boy."
3.) What the woman did was incredibly mean spirited and childish, and she deserves to have her entire community know what she did (which has happened, it seems.)
4.) Laws aren't going to fix this problem.
Honestly, for all the emotional hullabaloo in this thread, I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe that ANYONE here disagrees on those four points. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I guess you must think the grown woman who set out to destroy this girl's life is NOT to blame? How can you POSSIBLY read into what I wrote that I blame "society?" I was blaming the woman who set out to ruin a thirteen year old girl's life. Are you seriously going to defend her?
You don't have kids, I take it. And with your attitude, no woman is ever going to come close enough to you for you to breed.
The story mentions the fact that the girl suffered from clinical depression and was on medication. I agree, this is not a case where any kind of new law is needed. All that really needs to be done in this case is to out the cold hearted bitch that did this in front of her family, community, church, and anyone else who might care. The fact that the poor girl killed herself is almost immaterial. What everyone should know is that this woman spent a month of her life just to hurt a vulnerable and mentally ill girl. That alone would make any right minded person want to shun any contact with her.
SO every clinically depressed thirteen year old girl on medication should be standing up for herself? Against an adult who took a month to gain her trust and then viciously turned on her? I agree that a law would server no purpose here, but I also think that we as a society need to protect the weak. Not everyone has the capacity to stand up for themselves in all circumstances. That is one of the reasons people joined together into societies in the first place, to protect each other and be protected against threats that can't be handled alone.
Saying that this thirteen year old girl should have been protecting herself is just cruel.
Okay, you posted AC so I feel no compunctions against pointing out how blindingly stupid you are. How can the bad guys take your hard drive, put it in their machine, and get your encryption key out of it? Hell, put a thermite grenade triggered by a tamper switch inside the case. Problem solved.
Locking the case would not stop a guy with a power saw.
Do you find it wisable when I mention my fwiend at Micwosoft, Nice White?
I was envisioning a hardware module that detected a power failure and wiped the RAM. The only way around that would be to pop the RAM out of a running system, which might work, or it might fry the RAM. But if the hardware module were incorporated into the DIMM, that would work.
Really, though, who would this affect? Top secret government stuff. I bet they've just got vials of acid or explosives or something. Tamper with the case and the contents (and maybe you) go bye-bye.
So, that would stop me from physically turning off the computer and popping out the RAM, how exactly? What we need is a battery backed up hardware module that scrambles the RAM when the system loses power.
Don't be an ass. Of course we understand that what CNN did was legal and constitutional. They may even have a moral right to do so. But we have a moral right to be pissed about it, to complain about it, to bring their actions to light, and to refuse to do business with them.
On a tangent, why do you continue to post to a site whose members you obviously don't respect?
Damn straight. Seriously, what? Who's gonna spend hundreds of thousands dollars putting up something they're not sure is going to work? That's what test suites are for. And those are just a few open source test systems. There's a ton more commercial suites. Sure, you may get much more traffic than expected, but you should plan for that too. Build scalable systems and have a plan for how to get more hardware in place quickly if demand for the service is greater than you thought it would be.
Well, it appears you are correct. Don't know where I'd heard that Dan was hurt, but a quick google for some news reports shows that he was "not seriously injured."