Please don't ever use the phrase "Mom and pop porn films" again. I can't unsee the thought that came to my head after reading those words, no matter how hard I try.
Yea, what I was thinking exactly. This could be one of the most useless & non-damaging data breaches I've ever heard of. Some phone numbers, addresses and names.. What's exactly is a hacker going to do with this information?
Men would rather give up some security for freedom, and women tend to prefer the opposite. I won't get an iPhone because I don't like the idea of not having access to certain apps because Jobs doesn't want politically oriented apps, or because women are in bikinis, or because the app might offend some people. The 'Baby Shaker' app was a good example of this - I want the freedom to download whatever I want with this device.
But my wife loves her iPhone, and she's just fine with having a device that's locked down to some degree if it means not having malicious application
The governments (as well as corporations i.e. amazon, paypal) are probably blocking wikileaks as a political statement as well. They have to realize that once something is on the internet, there's no way to ever make it disappear. It's a diplomatic statement to the US & other governments that says "hey, we totally with you - we don't want diplomatic information being released, because we probably have some secrets ourselves that would upset the public if they found out".
Maybe you could call up the Church of Scientology for some help making sure that taxpayer money isn't used. I hear they have some pretty persistent lawyers.
Ah yes, well I agree with your stance on loser-pays - I think it'd eliminate a lot of lawsuits with no merit (like this one). But the judge still ruled in favor of the Borings, so google was still technically the loser here. Loser-pays doesn't really apply. In the event the plantiff wins, I'm not so sure if I agree with the defendant paying for the plantiff's legal costs either. I like the way the ruling stands as it is.
It's more defensible to claim that they did it in response to the defeat of Hillary Clinton, in belief that that defeat might provide an opening to pick up some disappointed Clinton supporters that really were focussed on seeing a woman on the ticket. (I'm not saying this is true, or that, if true, it was a reasonable expectation on their part -- but its an argument I've heard that is certainly more plausible than the explanation that the choice was made because they thought the Clinton campaign was still going strong and that that is who they would have to face in the general.)
I'm pretty sure you're right on the money there. I can't find the exact quote, but I remember listening to a Palin speech (probably via Jon Stewart) where she said something on the lines of "Those of you that want to see a woman in the white house still have a chance to make that happen!". Other than the ability to relate to a lot of conservative America, I couldn't see any other valid reason why she would get picked as VP.
The obvious solution is to design a test to disincentivize cheating. Tell them they can bring a piece of paper with definitions, terms, equations.... anything they can fit on the page. Then design the test to test a range of knowledge. Make 1/3 easy, 1/3 difficult, and 1/3 very challenging. The very challenging questions should really probe the student's knowledge of the material; pose it in a new way, ask them to extend a concept, and other questions you just can't look up or even anticipate. This way, if the student can answer the easy and medium problems, and some of the hard problems, he'll end up with a C, which is pretty much the objective.
That might work for computer science, math, business, engineering etc.. or a number of other courses where you can create some more creative questions that involve more thinking - but there's just as many courses it won't work for. From what I remember on my biology and geology courses, it's almost 100% memorization - allowing 1 sheet with whatever can fit would mean an easy pass.
Entertain me here, but I would guess that if you are sending an invitation to someone specifically, you already know them and they probably know your real name anyway.
For games? Well no... I barely know anyone's real name for online gaming friends. I'll use steam as an example, i probably have at least 100 "friends" on my account there. If I play a random public game and enjoy the conversation, or teamwork, or experience with the people that I play with I can't see why I shouldn't be able to add them as a "friend" and hope to play with them again some time. I don't see why I should need to know them in real life. I don't need to know their names and I don't want them knowing mine. This just makes for better gaming.
There's only 6 actual friends on my battle.net account though. I don't want any random people there knowing my actual name, but I'm required to register with it. This makes for crappy gaming, and almost defeats the purpose of having online friends here.
I still don't quite get that line. Doesn't everyone have something to hide? And yes, I mean everyone. Could be an embarrassing action done while younger and drunk, someone you bumped uglies with, a medical condition, a fetish etc.. Everyone has something they think, believe or have done that would probably embarrass them if other people knew about it. The next time someone asks me that I'll say "why yes, of course I have things I don't want you knowing. Is there nothing that you've said or done or thought that you wouldn't care about if other people knew"?
I love hearing that line "putting lives in danger" when juicy info comes out. Makes me laugh every time. Lets try an analogy of that:
I'm currently having an affair with my wife, and my wife is known to be a little bit unstable and crazy. You know I'm having that affair, and you're about to tell her, but I implore you not to tell her because you're "putting lives in danger (countless?)". Why? Well, because if she finds out, she might kill me and / or my mistress!!
Yes, that's a bit of a silly example, but it pretty much illustrates the point captain obvious made it clear from the beginning - if you think your life may be in danger because someone finds out something you did, then maybe you shouldn't have been doing it in the first place! . I've done embarrassing things that I'd rather not have anyone know about, but I seriously doubt anyone would ever kill me for something I did or said. Perhaps it's time to rethink your job, if your job involves fucking with someone else so much that they would kill you if they knew what you were really up to. And yes, I'm aware that some jobs may be considered more noble than others where secrecy is needed (i.e. an undercover cop as a mole in the Mafia) and in an ideal world we wouldn't need this, but there's a fine line between doing what you think is noble or right, and doing any sort of shady deal / backstabbing for your own (or own nation's) game. Somehow I'd like to think the latter is more applicable in the majority of these documents that are being released.
I find the number of "why would you want to live forever?" comments surprisingly high for a slashdot thread. I see a large proportion of anti-religious posts on here so I would imagine the majority of posters here don't believe in some sort of afterlife - which would give you even more incentive to want to live forever (or at least until you choose when to go). I'm sure the idea of death is a lot more comforting to those that believe that life actually isn't over for them when their physical body dies.
I don't believe in any sort of after life and death terrifies the shit out of me. Reading this article provides a happy glimpse into the future, and may eventually provide a way to significantly extend life. I can maybe understand why though - people in chronic physical pain or paralyzed or physically or mentally crippled to a point where life isn't the least bit enjoyable wouldn't want to extend their life any further, and perhaps the only reason they're still living is because they can't quite end it themselves. Maybe if you're in your 50's or 60's you start to get more medical problems and pain and begin to think "I wouldn't want to live like this for another 100 years". But for me, there's way too much to do - cultures, languages, instruments, travel etc... to fill in for a few hundred years.
When I started reading this article, I thought to myself "what possible incentive could they possibly provide if I opt in for targeted ads? Maybe a cheaper monthly bill?" Then I found this little gem:
The companies now offering ad services based on deep packet inspection believe they have learned how to make the services acceptable to privacy advocates and Internet users. This includes asking for permission up front and offering people incentives to receive targeted ads, such as Kindsight's free security service, which includes identity-theft protection. Customers can pay a monthly fee to receive no ads.
Wow, that's just fucking fantastic. So according to their model, you're going to have to pay your ISP to not receive ads..? Great, now my ISP is going to start a protection racket - "hey, for a small monthly fee, we won't bombard you with ads and snoop your data!".
Quit whining, grow a pair of testicles, and realize that just because it's "radioactive" doesn't mean the world is going to end if someone looks at it wrong.
Well, I had a working pair of testicles before but I suspected something was wrong with them when I got scared and read this story and your quote. So I went to the doctor, and got them checked to make sure they were functioning. He said they were working fine, but unfortunately he used a medical device with some radioactive material for the testing, and now they won't work:(
Just to comment on your note that amazon "shifts responsibility for the tax to the end customer - they don't because it's a hassle to figure out to who". That's really the core of the debate here - there is virtually no hassle in figuring out what the sales tax should be. How hard would it be to add sales tax based on the zip code of the delivery address? You pay the sales tax based on where it gets shipped.
Of course, no added sales tax means a lower total price, which means more customers so there's no incentive to add any.
That's it, I've had enough of this country. My rights have been violated far too much by Harper's government to justify living here. I'm moving to the US!
I don't get the name of this browser. Why the fuck is it called "Rock Me It"? What the fuck does the phrase "rock me it" even mean?
It sounds like the sort of broken English I'd heard dumbasses down in Arkansas and Alabama speaking, back when I had the misfortune of doing some contract work over there.
Well duh, the "it" is for IT - information technology, not "it" the pronoun. Sounds like a good premise - I really don't find that putting time into database management, web hosting, consulting and hardware management are really "rocking me". I find it rather bores me, or maybe even sucks the life out of me. But if these guys can deliver on their promise to provide some sort of information technology that really rocks me - wow! They'll be billionaires in no time! Not sure what they have to offer - maybe the next time I see an ERD it'll slowly move around in 3-d with flashing colors and fireworks in the background with images instead of boring text labels, with laser beams connecting the database tables and Iron Maiden blasting in the background. So far, we only see "rocking IT" depictions in bad hacker movies, I can't wait to see what they have to offer! Please rock me, IT!
Also, I'm aware that it's meLt, not meit. Just saved you a whoosh.
Hold on a second. Are you super - duper sure you want to get lawyers involved in this issue?
Here's the not-so-fine print. Lawyers have been and always will be the blood sucking leeches that they are until the end of time that serve little or no purpose to most people and generally contribute more to stagnation than progress. Lawyers also most certainly do NOT "need the money"
This public service announcement is brought to you on behalf of your friends on slashdot
Slashdot Mirror
I mean what do they think these smart phones are?
Another method of turning taxpayer money into corporate profit
Please don't ever use the phrase "Mom and pop porn films" again. I can't unsee the thought that came to my head after reading those words, no matter how hard I try.
Yea, what I was thinking exactly. This could be one of the most useless & non-damaging data breaches I've ever heard of. Some phone numbers, addresses and names.. What's exactly is a hacker going to do with this information?
"The IQ of a mob is the IQ of its most stupid member divided by the number of mobsters." - Terry Pratchett
"Ah, there's no Justice like angry mob justice" - Principle Skinner, member of Mensa
Men would rather give up some security for freedom, and women tend to prefer the opposite. I won't get an iPhone because I don't like the idea of not having access to certain apps because Jobs doesn't want politically oriented apps, or because women are in bikinis, or because the app might offend some people. The 'Baby Shaker' app was a good example of this - I want the freedom to download whatever I want with this device.
But my wife loves her iPhone, and she's just fine with having a device that's locked down to some degree if it means not having malicious application
The governments (as well as corporations i.e. amazon, paypal) are probably blocking wikileaks as a political statement as well. They have to realize that once something is on the internet, there's no way to ever make it disappear. It's a diplomatic statement to the US & other governments that says "hey, we totally with you - we don't want diplomatic information being released, because we probably have some secrets ourselves that would upset the public if they found out".
Maybe you could call up the Church of Scientology for some help making sure that taxpayer money isn't used. I hear they have some pretty persistent lawyers.
Ah yes, well I agree with your stance on loser-pays - I think it'd eliminate a lot of lawsuits with no merit (like this one). But the judge still ruled in favor of the Borings, so google was still technically the loser here. Loser-pays doesn't really apply. In the event the plantiff wins, I'm not so sure if I agree with the defendant paying for the plantiff's legal costs either. I like the way the ruling stands as it is.
The loser did pay in this case. A whole $1
It's more defensible to claim that they did it in response to the defeat of Hillary Clinton, in belief that that defeat might provide an opening to pick up some disappointed Clinton supporters that really were focussed on seeing a woman on the ticket. (I'm not saying this is true, or that, if true, it was a reasonable expectation on their part -- but its an argument I've heard that is certainly more plausible than the explanation that the choice was made because they thought the Clinton campaign was still going strong and that that is who they would have to face in the general.)
I'm pretty sure you're right on the money there. I can't find the exact quote, but I remember listening to a Palin speech (probably via Jon Stewart) where she said something on the lines of "Those of you that want to see a woman in the white house still have a chance to make that happen!". Other than the ability to relate to a lot of conservative America, I couldn't see any other valid reason why she would get picked as VP.
The obvious solution is to design a test to disincentivize cheating. Tell them they can bring a piece of paper with definitions, terms, equations.... anything they can fit on the page. Then design the test to test a range of knowledge. Make 1/3 easy, 1/3 difficult, and 1/3 very challenging. The very challenging questions should really probe the student's knowledge of the material; pose it in a new way, ask them to extend a concept, and other questions you just can't look up or even anticipate. This way, if the student can answer the easy and medium problems, and some of the hard problems, he'll end up with a C, which is pretty much the objective.
That might work for computer science, math, business, engineering etc.. or a number of other courses where you can create some more creative questions that involve more thinking - but there's just as many courses it won't work for. From what I remember on my biology and geology courses, it's almost 100% memorization - allowing 1 sheet with whatever can fit would mean an easy pass.
Entertain me here, but I would guess that if you are sending an invitation to someone specifically, you already know them and they probably know your real name anyway.
For games? Well no... I barely know anyone's real name for online gaming friends. I'll use steam as an example, i probably have at least 100 "friends" on my account there. If I play a random public game and enjoy the conversation, or teamwork, or experience with the people that I play with I can't see why I shouldn't be able to add them as a "friend" and hope to play with them again some time. I don't see why I should need to know them in real life. I don't need to know their names and I don't want them knowing mine. This just makes for better gaming.
There's only 6 actual friends on my battle.net account though. I don't want any random people there knowing my actual name, but I'm required to register with it. This makes for crappy gaming, and almost defeats the purpose of having online friends here.
Perhaps you failed to account for the decrease in the computational power of the brain in the future. Didn't you see that documentary - Idiocracy?
I still don't quite get that line. Doesn't everyone have something to hide? And yes, I mean everyone. Could be an embarrassing action done while younger and drunk, someone you bumped uglies with, a medical condition, a fetish etc.. Everyone has something they think, believe or have done that would probably embarrass them if other people knew about it. The next time someone asks me that I'll say "why yes, of course I have things I don't want you knowing. Is there nothing that you've said or done or thought that you wouldn't care about if other people knew"?
I love hearing that line "putting lives in danger" when juicy info comes out. Makes me laugh every time. Lets try an analogy of that :
I'm currently having an affair with my wife, and my wife is known to be a little bit unstable and crazy. You know I'm having that affair, and you're about to tell her, but I implore you not to tell her because you're "putting lives in danger (countless?)". Why? Well, because if she finds out, she might kill me and / or my mistress!!
Yes, that's a bit of a silly example, but it pretty much illustrates the point captain obvious made it clear from the beginning - if you think your life may be in danger because someone finds out something you did, then maybe you shouldn't have been doing it in the first place! . I've done embarrassing things that I'd rather not have anyone know about, but I seriously doubt anyone would ever kill me for something I did or said. Perhaps it's time to rethink your job, if your job involves fucking with someone else so much that they would kill you if they knew what you were really up to. And yes, I'm aware that some jobs may be considered more noble than others where secrecy is needed (i.e. an undercover cop as a mole in the Mafia) and in an ideal world we wouldn't need this, but there's a fine line between doing what you think is noble or right, and doing any sort of shady deal / backstabbing for your own (or own nation's) game. Somehow I'd like to think the latter is more applicable in the majority of these documents that are being released.
I find the number of "why would you want to live forever?" comments surprisingly high for a slashdot thread. I see a large proportion of anti-religious posts on here so I would imagine the majority of posters here don't believe in some sort of afterlife - which would give you even more incentive to want to live forever (or at least until you choose when to go). I'm sure the idea of death is a lot more comforting to those that believe that life actually isn't over for them when their physical body dies.
I don't believe in any sort of after life and death terrifies the shit out of me. Reading this article provides a happy glimpse into the future, and may eventually provide a way to significantly extend life. I can maybe understand why though - people in chronic physical pain or paralyzed or physically or mentally crippled to a point where life isn't the least bit enjoyable wouldn't want to extend their life any further, and perhaps the only reason they're still living is because they can't quite end it themselves. Maybe if you're in your 50's or 60's you start to get more medical problems and pain and begin to think "I wouldn't want to live like this for another 100 years". But for me, there's way too much to do - cultures, languages, instruments, travel etc... to fill in for a few hundred years.
There's no justice like angry mob justice.
The companies now offering ad services based on deep packet inspection believe they have learned how to make the services acceptable to privacy advocates and Internet users. This includes asking for permission up front and offering people incentives to receive targeted ads, such as Kindsight's free security service, which includes identity-theft protection. Customers can pay a monthly fee to receive no ads.
Wow, that's just fucking fantastic. So according to their model, you're going to have to pay your ISP to not receive ads..? Great, now my ISP is going to start a protection racket - "hey, for a small monthly fee, we won't bombard you with ads and snoop your data!".
Quit whining, grow a pair of testicles, and realize that just because it's "radioactive" doesn't mean the world is going to end if someone looks at it wrong.
Well, I had a working pair of testicles before but I suspected something was wrong with them when I got scared and read this story and your quote. So I went to the doctor, and got them checked to make sure they were functioning. He said they were working fine, but unfortunately he used a medical device with some radioactive material for the testing, and now they won't work :(
Or did that header with "Fry" and "Sniffer Project" make you immediately think of the smell-o-scope from futurama?
Just to comment on your note that amazon "shifts responsibility for the tax to the end customer - they don't because it's a hassle to figure out to who". That's really the core of the debate here - there is virtually no hassle in figuring out what the sales tax should be. How hard would it be to add sales tax based on the zip code of the delivery address? You pay the sales tax based on where it gets shipped.
Of course, no added sales tax means a lower total price, which means more customers so there's no incentive to add any.
Troll on slashdot. Great for relieving stress!
That's it, I've had enough of this country. My rights have been violated far too much by Harper's government to justify living here. I'm moving to the US!
I don't get the name of this browser. Why the fuck is it called "Rock Me It"? What the fuck does the phrase "rock me it" even mean?
It sounds like the sort of broken English I'd heard dumbasses down in Arkansas and Alabama speaking, back when I had the misfortune of doing some contract work over there.
Well duh, the "it" is for IT - information technology, not "it" the pronoun. Sounds like a good premise - I really don't find that putting time into database management, web hosting, consulting and hardware management are really "rocking me". I find it rather bores me, or maybe even sucks the life out of me. But if these guys can deliver on their promise to provide some sort of information technology that really rocks me - wow! They'll be billionaires in no time! Not sure what they have to offer - maybe the next time I see an ERD it'll slowly move around in 3-d with flashing colors and fireworks in the background with images instead of boring text labels, with laser beams connecting the database tables and Iron Maiden blasting in the background. So far, we only see "rocking IT" depictions in bad hacker movies, I can't wait to see what they have to offer! Please rock me, IT!
Also, I'm aware that it's meLt, not meit. Just saved you a whoosh.
I say bring on the lawyers, they need the money
Hold on a second. Are you super - duper sure you want to get lawyers involved in this issue?
Here's the not-so-fine print. Lawyers have been and always will be the blood sucking leeches that they are until the end of time that serve little or no purpose to most people and generally contribute more to stagnation than progress. Lawyers also most certainly do NOT "need the money"
This public service announcement is brought to you on behalf of your friends on slashdot