those places taht allow you to swipe it yourself are supposed to require you to show your card to the cashier after swiping. i know the thing at target says "please hand your card to cashier" after it spits it back out at you, as do the ones at CVS. it's the cashier who does't necessarily ask to see it. personally, i'm curious to see what would happen if you complained to the manager that the cashiers never compare signatures or ask to see an ID.
that's a part of it too. also, the majority of the population (a very large majority in fact), has no idea what an ebook is. the same thing goes for mp3 and divx (with it being a small majority that doesn't know what an mp3 is).
but honestly, even if they knew what ebooks were, i still believe the majority would prefer actual books because they're easier to read, regardless of what they feel about the worth of it.
that works for you... but for most, having a book is much better tahn reading on a PDA. those screens are small and not fun to read on. i also hate trying to read something on a computer screen. whenever people ask me to proofread a paper for them, i make sure it's printed out first. it's just easier. so yes, physicality is a big part of this.
if i were an MBA that cared about music (and by music i don't mean making/taking the most off of someone like britney spears), i would join the music business and do what i could to start up an alternative label that (1) gave more to the artists and (2) gave more to the consumer without ripping either off. business does not require someone to get ripped off. however, the music business not only rips off their consumers, they also rip off their employees, the artists themselves. if bands like phish and they might be giants were not signed when they were, they probably wouldn't have been able to get a record deal with a big record company. of course that record company didn't do anything to promote them more than put a few ads in some music-related magazines, they were promoted almost solely by word of mouth. the other big issue is the concert industry. unfortunately, the majority of the major venues are all run by the same corporation.
so to answer your question, some people would take a lower paying job because it's something they care about. not everyone works solely to make as much money as possible. i could easily work elsewhere and make more money, however, i like the people i work for, i like the people who work for me, and i like what i do. i'm not about to change jobs just because it could mean more money. if i knew enough about the music industry and i had an MBA, i would go to work for it and do my best to make a difference. sure it sounds very "pie in the sky", but there are a lot of people who do just that and are successful.
so let's say someone stumbled upon this accidentally... and hit enter and saw if they were accepted or not. sure, the chances of that happening 119 times are slim, but it's possible.
it's like looking at an open book sitting on your table and reading through it and then realizing it's your sister's diary. not really unethical.
i don't know... if it really was as simple as was described, i don't really think it's all that bad. would i have done it? i don't know. is there any benefit to knowing a couple days early? not at all.
actually, if you look at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=141821&cid=118 83260, the poster describes the method to find the site. it's pretty simple, not really hacking. sounds like the maker of the site didn't do anything to protect the pages that the answers were on.
it actually seems that the kid either had used the system before and knew what the pages were called to find the decision or just put in something that sounded logical until he figured it out. he didn't hack anything it sounds like and these kids did not hack anything. all they did was change the url a few times. and it was unprotected (meaning the site operator just had to change a link that wasn't available before, but the guy who discovered it figured out that by entering it in manually, you didn't need the link).
first thing... no i am not going to take the time to find a case that supports my statement, but it's not all that much different than yelling a bunch of stuff to incite a riot (you could say you were just yelling it and not purposely trying to start a riot).
the company is not obligated to fire you, but why should they continue to pay someone who will cause them to lose money?
this is different because of whistleblower laws... not to mention you are speaking in terms of public safety as opposed to personal opinion.
and what makes you think i'm a pothead? the 420 in my username? "rizzo" was already taken. i use a few different means to get it used, one is adding "420" to the end of it, another is adding "sushi" to the end of it. had i done that, would you think i'm an italian jap or that i really like sushi? it's just a way of getting it used. at least i'm not a pussy hiding under the guise of anonymous coward (hence the "coward" in anonymous coward).
a corporation is not the government... your comparing apples and oranges here... a marriage is the result of government as well, yet your wife can divorce you for calling her a bitch everyday... but that's because a marriage is not the government...
you cannot say "i have a bomb" on an airplane and not expect to be taken into immediate custody, or otherwise... you cannot sit in a theatre and yell "fire!" and not expect to be arrested for public disturbance...
free speech does not protect all speech... you cannot work for a company and go on TV and publicly say "our product sucks, buy from this other company" and not be fired. however, if you say "our product has a strong chance of injuring you", that's completely different.
you're not getting the point. ebay also says that it's a proxy bid, meaning that it increases what you pay in increments depending on other people's highest bids. if you just paid your max, there would be no proxy bidding, in which case, their whole system is pointless. and all that i just said is specifically written on their website, right near where you are supposed to put in your highest possible bid.
i've never had any of this happen to me. i've only changed my bids after i was outbid, but even bidding on an item with no bids, i paid the lowest price (ie: the starting price, not my high bid). i've also seen serious bidding and watched my bid increase, but i've never seen myself wind up bidding against myself.
people would still run it because it would be labeled cool_pics.virus and windows will hide the.virus by default so their machines would get infected immediately.
aside from the suggestion to embed the default.jpg icon in the.exe, most users that get these viruses don't care. they open up the zip (or rar in this case) and immediately double click the file without looking at it or even thinknig about it at all. people who don't think get viruses.
i don't think you got my point. you won't be running windows, you'll be running whatever it is that's on that CD and the thing won't be able to just run itself and it'll find it and get rid of it. that's why it checks it from the system itself and then boots off the cd and checks again. any discrepencies are obviously indicators of what files were affected.
the thing about rar's is that most people don't know what to do with them to begin with. i don't see how this is a problem since you need something like winrar to extract them. they aren't opened by default in windows xp or ME. and winzip can't do anything with them either. i don't see this becoming a major issue at all.
from what i've read, it sounds like the tool would be used to check while the machine is running and then you boot to the cd, which, obviously, the rootkit cannot infect. and then it checks again. and since it's running off the cd, the rootkit will not be running.
which extension opens "new window" links in new tabs? there's so many extensions that i can't keep up with them all and it's a bitch to fish through them. i like to see what extensions other people use...
if the ad is what i think you're talking about, it's not a popup or popunder. it's one of those popover ads that is actually "part of" the website. it's like a javascript thing that covers the site, but is not a new window or tab.
that makes absolutely no sense... and if it was once true, it can't be true anymore. i think the effort to get around popup and ad blockers is more for people accidentally clicking on an ad. i think some ads get money just from hits. and with new targeted advertising, it's easier for them to get people purposely clicking on the link, especially on a computer infected with a little spyware.
i shouldn't have to use adblock according to mozilla. i should be able to block any popup windows from sites that i don't have on my "allow" list. plain and simple. a popup blocker should block all popups, unless i click on a link that opens in a new window, it shouldn't open it.
Slashdot Mirror
those places taht allow you to swipe it yourself are supposed to require you to show your card to the cashier after swiping. i know the thing at target says "please hand your card to cashier" after it spits it back out at you, as do the ones at CVS. it's the cashier who does't necessarily ask to see it. personally, i'm curious to see what would happen if you complained to the manager that the cashiers never compare signatures or ask to see an ID.
that's a part of it too. also, the majority of the population (a very large majority in fact), has no idea what an ebook is. the same thing goes for mp3 and divx (with it being a small majority that doesn't know what an mp3 is).
but honestly, even if they knew what ebooks were, i still believe the majority would prefer actual books because they're easier to read, regardless of what they feel about the worth of it.
that works for you... but for most, having a book is much better tahn reading on a PDA. those screens are small and not fun to read on. i also hate trying to read something on a computer screen. whenever people ask me to proofread a paper for them, i make sure it's printed out first. it's just easier. so yes, physicality is a big part of this.
if i were an MBA that cared about music (and by music i don't mean making/taking the most off of someone like britney spears), i would join the music business and do what i could to start up an alternative label that (1) gave more to the artists and (2) gave more to the consumer without ripping either off. business does not require someone to get ripped off. however, the music business not only rips off their consumers, they also rip off their employees, the artists themselves. if bands like phish and they might be giants were not signed when they were, they probably wouldn't have been able to get a record deal with a big record company. of course that record company didn't do anything to promote them more than put a few ads in some music-related magazines, they were promoted almost solely by word of mouth. the other big issue is the concert industry. unfortunately, the majority of the major venues are all run by the same corporation.
so to answer your question, some people would take a lower paying job because it's something they care about. not everyone works solely to make as much money as possible. i could easily work elsewhere and make more money, however, i like the people i work for, i like the people who work for me, and i like what i do. i'm not about to change jobs just because it could mean more money. if i knew enough about the music industry and i had an MBA, i would go to work for it and do my best to make a difference. sure it sounds very "pie in the sky", but there are a lot of people who do just that and are successful.
but part of that requires you knowing who applied... that's not as easy.
so let's say someone stumbled upon this accidentally... and hit enter and saw if they were accepted or not. sure, the chances of that happening 119 times are slim, but it's possible.
it's like looking at an open book sitting on your table and reading through it and then realizing it's your sister's diary. not really unethical.
i don't know... if it really was as simple as was described, i don't really think it's all that bad. would i have done it? i don't know. is there any benefit to knowing a couple days early? not at all.
actually, if you look at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=141821&cid=118 83260, the poster describes the method to find the site. it's pretty simple, not really hacking. sounds like the maker of the site didn't do anything to protect the pages that the answers were on.
it actually seems that the kid either had used the system before and knew what the pages were called to find the decision or just put in something that sounded logical until he figured it out. he didn't hack anything it sounds like and these kids did not hack anything. all they did was change the url a few times. and it was unprotected (meaning the site operator just had to change a link that wasn't available before, but the guy who discovered it figured out that by entering it in manually, you didn't need the link).
generally you have to login with your own credentials and unless you know other students' information, you can't really log in and check theirs.
disclaimer: i don't know how this specific site works or what the work around was to get the information early.
first thing... no i am not going to take the time to find a case that supports my statement, but it's not all that much different than yelling a bunch of stuff to incite a riot (you could say you were just yelling it and not purposely trying to start a riot).
the company is not obligated to fire you, but why should they continue to pay someone who will cause them to lose money?
this is different because of whistleblower laws... not to mention you are speaking in terms of public safety as opposed to personal opinion.
and what makes you think i'm a pothead? the 420 in my username? "rizzo" was already taken. i use a few different means to get it used, one is adding "420" to the end of it, another is adding "sushi" to the end of it. had i done that, would you think i'm an italian jap or that i really like sushi? it's just a way of getting it used. at least i'm not a pussy hiding under the guise of anonymous coward (hence the "coward" in anonymous coward).
a corporation is not the government... your comparing apples and oranges here... a marriage is the result of government as well, yet your wife can divorce you for calling her a bitch everyday... but that's because a marriage is not the government...
you cannot say "i have a bomb" on an airplane and not expect to be taken into immediate custody, or otherwise... you cannot sit in a theatre and yell "fire!" and not expect to be arrested for public disturbance...
free speech does not protect all speech... you cannot work for a company and go on TV and publicly say "our product sucks, buy from this other company" and not be fired. however, if you say "our product has a strong chance of injuring you", that's completely different.
if you think you live in a police state... why don't you move to a real one and see what it's actually like and tell me why it's no better in the US.
you're not getting the point. ebay also says that it's a proxy bid, meaning that it increases what you pay in increments depending on other people's highest bids. if you just paid your max, there would be no proxy bidding, in which case, their whole system is pointless. and all that i just said is specifically written on their website, right near where you are supposed to put in your highest possible bid.
i've never had any of this happen to me. i've only changed my bids after i was outbid, but even bidding on an item with no bids, i paid the lowest price (ie: the starting price, not my high bid). i've also seen serious bidding and watched my bid increase, but i've never seen myself wind up bidding against myself.
yes they do, it's called the GPL
people would still run it because it would be labeled cool_pics.virus and windows will hide the .virus by default so their machines would get infected immediately.
aside from the suggestion to embed the default .jpg icon in the .exe, most users that get these viruses don't care. they open up the zip (or rar in this case) and immediately double click the file without looking at it or even thinknig about it at all. people who don't think get viruses.
i don't think you got my point. you won't be running windows, you'll be running whatever it is that's on that CD and the thing won't be able to just run itself and it'll find it and get rid of it. that's why it checks it from the system itself and then boots off the cd and checks again. any discrepencies are obviously indicators of what files were affected.
the thing about rar's is that most people don't know what to do with them to begin with. i don't see how this is a problem since you need something like winrar to extract them. they aren't opened by default in windows xp or ME. and winzip can't do anything with them either. i don't see this becoming a major issue at all.
from what i've read, it sounds like the tool would be used to check while the machine is running and then you boot to the cd, which, obviously, the rootkit cannot infect. and then it checks again. and since it's running off the cd, the rootkit will not be running.
which extension opens "new window" links in new tabs? there's so many extensions that i can't keep up with them all and it's a bitch to fish through them. i like to see what extensions other people use...
if the ad is what i think you're talking about, it's not a popup or popunder. it's one of those popover ads that is actually "part of" the website. it's like a javascript thing that covers the site, but is not a new window or tab.
that makes absolutely no sense... and if it was once true, it can't be true anymore. i think the effort to get around popup and ad blockers is more for people accidentally clicking on an ad. i think some ads get money just from hits. and with new targeted advertising, it's easier for them to get people purposely clicking on the link, especially on a computer infected with a little spyware.
i meant to add this... for the record, this is the first page i have ever been to that allowed another window to open without my approval.
i shouldn't have to use adblock according to mozilla. i should be able to block any popup windows from sites that i don't have on my "allow" list. plain and simple. a popup blocker should block all popups, unless i click on a link that opens in a new window, it shouldn't open it.