Its "I don't approve of your condition and the negative impacts that it has on your life, so I am goin gto impose new negative impacts to help you".
I believe the point is that the existing negative impacts haven't deterred the behavior so far. What would you do to discourage negative behaviors for which the natural impacts do not deter the behavior?
This avatar patent is just negative reinforcement to encourage healthy behavior, no matter who owns it. For a player of this game, if the player is in a healthy weight range, the game takes away the unfavorable image of a fat avatar.
He is still obligated to supply the passwords as they are not his property.
The passwords don't belong to Childs? Really? That would imply that the passwords are not of Childs' design. He created those passwords to protect the network that he was employed to administer.
The passwords belong to Childs and only to Childs, and only those who were authorized by policy to ask him for them will be told what they are (in this case, he told the mayor).
If the passwords are someone else's property, then they were created by someone else's design. Find me one example of a sysadmin who uses someone else's passwords.
This is more like "I hired a company to look after off-site storage for me, and now I want the keys to their place because I fired them, but my data's still there."
That's irrelevant. What matters is whether or not whoever ordered the passwords was authorized to receive them.
If the people harassing Childs (before or after termination of Childs' employment) weren't authorized to receive the passwords, then Childs was in no position to give them the passwords. If he had surrendered the passwords to people not on the whitelist, then he would have been labelled as an incompetent network admin, and the network would be at the mercy of people who didn't know what they were doing. What Childs did was safe and secure, totally in line with how any sysadmin worth his root access should behave.
Normally, I'd agree with you, but the summary says they were told that the messages wouldn't be read if they paid the excess charges themselves.
Don't mind me; just being a little pedantic.... Pointing out that, even under the informal arrangement, they could have had their messages read.
And I'm pretty sure it's pointed out elsewhere in this thread that, according to TFA, the company's formal policy explicitly said not to expect privacy.
No duh GGP was based more on Karl Marx than the Acts of the Apostles. But I need to know: Did you actually go and check Acts 2:44-45 before you told GP to check his sources?
New American Bible, Saint Joseph Edition, from around 2003 or so, Acts 2:44-45 -
All who believed were together and had all things in common, they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one's need.
Marx was a philosopher, as we all know, so why shouldn't he have read up on his early Christianity? Acts 2:44-45 came before Marx, and Marx should have known his Christian stuff as a philosopher, and all this I would call evidence, though not proof, that Marx could have has his line inspired by the Acts verses.
"Nice" and "evil" are not mutually exclusive. Google can very well donate lots of code to OSS project and rape our privacy at the same time.
This very issue came up back when Google Chrome was released, and it was discovered that the browser phones home with information that can uniquely identify the user (not necessarily by name/SSN, but by some sort of unique metadata). In fact, that's what got me considering that Google could be evil.
And more recently, they just seem to be wanting to grab as much information as they possibly can. Problem is, both corporate and government executives repeatedly display a lack of consideration for being on the business end (if you will) of whatever they propose. An example of what this should mean for Eric Schmidt is below. And I'm pretty sure that someone in Congress tried to propose that voting for the public option in the health care plan should be equivalent to signing up for it. Didn't work out, but boy was that a good idea. If it's good enough for the American People, it should be good enough for Congress, right?
I suppose the tl;dr version is that the dogs should eat the dog food, yet they never seem to do so.
I oppose blanket surveillance, whether by a government or by a corporation. If Google is of the opinion that I shouldn't have a right to privacy then Google is evil. Simple as that.
I agree with that. I sort of hope after this statement that Schmidt is ready to tell me his date of birth, his full legal name, his credit card number, his email address, his bank account numbers, balances, and associated PINs, and his social security number if I ask. After all, if he's not doing anything wrong with these, he should be perfectly happy to hand these out to anyone, right?
No, some people need privacy. Actually, I'm even trying to think of what 4chan/b/ would do if they were to get their hands on that sort of information on the guy.
Idle computer resources that are not getting used for anything else are worthless. Might as well fill them up with something
And yet, Vista being a RAM hog when idle with that whole superfetch thing or whatever it was was considered a bad idea....
So which is it? Should my computer always be occupying most of its RAM and CPU time? Or should it be using only a tiny fraction of what it has available?
It's a bit of a stretch for me to believe that.cm is a typo of.com. When I mistype.com, it's usually.co or.cmo. But I never just forget the o like that.
For example, didn't some group release a quiz that revealed that it not only had access to your complete profile, but the profiles of your friends?
That was a while ago, wasn't it? I don't do apps/quizzes/etc that often, but IIRC, such things explicitly warn you in a dialog that you must confirm that it will pull info from your profile and from your friends. My guess would be that it's using the permissions of your account, since your account is the one that explicitly allowed the information-ripping. Because you can see all of your own profile and all of your friends' profiles, it makes sense that the quiz would have all that info, too.
And what about that Manulife case where an insurance recipient was denied after posting pics to their "private" profile?
Oh yeah. I forget, how did those pics come to light? Did one of her fb friends send something in? Or did someone abuse higher privileges to access such info? Again, if it was one of those applications, permission was granted to access this stuff. But if Manulife got escalated privileges somehow (that is, greater than the privs you or I generally have on fb) and artificially bypassed the privacy settings, then at the very least, it's a case of extremely unethical admin abuse.
Likewise, if the FBI worms their way into my friend list or I take one of their quizzes, and they get the info they want, then I explicitly allowed it. But if the FBI is not part of a group to which I gave explicit permission to view my profile, then I expect that my profile is safe from their eyes, barring an appropriately-issued warrant.
"Private" means zip. It may imply that only your friends can see stuff in your profile, but it's effectively public.
You're implying that facebook's privacy settings don't work as they are described. In that case, we may want to think about filing a class action against the organization for blatantly lying about the security details of our data and defrauding users into posting information publicly that they expected would be private.
I see this as no different from "the Feds" looking at your webpage to see what you post there, or your "personal" blog.
You're joking, right? I'm pretty sure it's very different, if I set facebook to let only my friends see my stuff. I never saw a friend request from the FBI, so why should they be allowed to probe my facebook stuff? That seems like a digital analogue to the feds just storming someone's house without first getting the owner's permission to enter the home.
In other words, they better have a darn good reason and a written warrant with that reason if they want to see my facebook without first being my facebook friend.
If you want to put personal information on the web for "the public" to see, I don't see how you think "the Feds" can't look at it... just like everyone else.
And if I set up my settings such that only certain people have explicit permission to view such information, then it ain't exactly "for the public to see", is it?
First the Catholics with child rape, now the Scientologists with slavery and human trafficking.
Any wagers on which one true religion will be busted next?
Wait, wait, wait, isn't the VERY important difference the fact that the Catholic Church does not condone child abuse, and does not justify the actions of those who acted inappropriately?
Pardon me if I'm ignorant of how things actually work. I live by the published teachings of things like being a decent person and protecting children.
Slashdot Mirror
Its "I don't approve of your condition and the negative impacts that it has on your life, so I am goin gto impose new negative impacts to help you".
I believe the point is that the existing negative impacts haven't deterred the behavior so far. What would you do to discourage negative behaviors for which the natural impacts do not deter the behavior?
This avatar patent is just negative reinforcement to encourage healthy behavior, no matter who owns it. For a player of this game, if the player is in a healthy weight range, the game takes away the unfavorable image of a fat avatar.
He is still obligated to supply the passwords as they are not his property.
The passwords don't belong to Childs? Really? That would imply that the passwords are not of Childs' design. He created those passwords to protect the network that he was employed to administer.
The passwords belong to Childs and only to Childs, and only those who were authorized by policy to ask him for them will be told what they are (in this case, he told the mayor).
If the passwords are someone else's property, then they were created by someone else's design. Find me one example of a sysadmin who uses someone else's passwords.
This is more like "I hired a company to look after off-site storage for me, and now I want the keys to their place because I fired them, but my data's still there."
Thanks. At least I knew it was some power of 5, not 10.
Sorry for the extra multiplication by 25.
That's irrelevant. What matters is whether or not whoever ordered the passwords was authorized to receive them.
If the people harassing Childs (before or after termination of Childs' employment) weren't authorized to receive the passwords, then Childs was in no position to give them the passwords. If he had surrendered the passwords to people not on the whitelist, then he would have been labelled as an incompetent network admin, and the network would be at the mercy of people who didn't know what they were doing. What Childs did was safe and secure, totally in line with how any sysadmin worth his root access should behave.
What analogy needs to be made? The subject matter of the article is pizza. How do you compare something to itself?
But a pizza with 60 slices would be the most versatile of all!
You could divide it evenly between 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 10 people!
A metric pizza would have a circumference of 1 meter
Fine, then.
With a diameter of 100/pi
Okay...
you would have a radius of 50/pi
So far, so good...
an area of 10,000/pi cm2.
What? Re-check your math. r = 50/pi, and so r^2 = 62500/(pi^2). Therefore, the area is 62,500/pi cm ^2
After that, I have no idea how you got your area-per-person numbers, so I don't know how wrong they are.
Unrelated: the volume of a pizza of radius z and thickness a is pi*z*z*a
Normally, I'd agree with you, but the summary says they were told that the messages wouldn't be read if they paid the excess charges themselves.
Don't mind me; just being a little pedantic.... Pointing out that, even under the informal arrangement, they could have had their messages read.
And I'm pretty sure it's pointed out elsewhere in this thread that, according to TFA, the company's formal policy explicitly said not to expect privacy.
No duh GGP was based more on Karl Marx than the Acts of the Apostles. But I need to know: Did you actually go and check Acts 2:44-45 before you told GP to check his sources?
New American Bible, Saint Joseph Edition, from around 2003 or so, Acts 2:44-45 -
All who believed were together and had all things in common, they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one's need.
Marx was a philosopher, as we all know, so why shouldn't he have read up on his early Christianity? Acts 2:44-45 came before Marx, and Marx should have known his Christian stuff as a philosopher, and all this I would call evidence, though not proof, that Marx could have has his line inspired by the Acts verses.
You can find Adblock right here.
Works with SRWare Iron 4.x.
Now, quit complaining that Chrome doesn't have Adblock.
You mean this?
"Nice" and "evil" are not mutually exclusive. Google can very well donate lots of code to OSS project and rape our privacy at the same time.
This very issue came up back when Google Chrome was released, and it was discovered that the browser phones home with information that can uniquely identify the user (not necessarily by name/SSN, but by some sort of unique metadata). In fact, that's what got me considering that Google could be evil.
And more recently, they just seem to be wanting to grab as much information as they possibly can. Problem is, both corporate and government executives repeatedly display a lack of consideration for being on the business end (if you will) of whatever they propose. An example of what this should mean for Eric Schmidt is below. And I'm pretty sure that someone in Congress tried to propose that voting for the public option in the health care plan should be equivalent to signing up for it. Didn't work out, but boy was that a good idea. If it's good enough for the American People, it should be good enough for Congress, right?
I suppose the tl;dr version is that the dogs should eat the dog food, yet they never seem to do so.
I oppose blanket surveillance, whether by a government or by a corporation. If Google is of the opinion that I shouldn't have a right to privacy then Google is evil. Simple as that.
I agree with that. I sort of hope after this statement that Schmidt is ready to tell me his date of birth, his full legal name, his credit card number, his email address, his bank account numbers, balances, and associated PINs, and his social security number if I ask. After all, if he's not doing anything wrong with these, he should be perfectly happy to hand these out to anyone, right?
No, some people need privacy. Actually, I'm even trying to think of what 4chan/b/ would do if they were to get their hands on that sort of information on the guy.
Idle computer resources that are not getting used for anything else are worthless. Might as well fill them up with something
And yet, Vista being a RAM hog when idle with that whole superfetch thing or whatever it was was considered a bad idea....
So which is it? Should my computer always be occupying most of its RAM and CPU time? Or should it be using only a tiny fraction of what it has available?
Death called, and he's asking for the joke.
Oh yeah, that is also true. Sorry that I didn't think of being one of the "friends" in that scenario.
In that case, I'm de-friending whoever lets the FBI into my information.
But that wasn't enough, so I had my balls cut off.
But did you chop your balls off LIKE A BOSS?
It's a bit of a stretch for me to believe that .cm is a typo of .com. When I mistype .com, it's usually .co or .cmo. But I never just forget the o like that.
For example, didn't some group release a quiz that revealed that it not only had access to your complete profile, but the profiles of your friends?
That was a while ago, wasn't it? I don't do apps/quizzes/etc that often, but IIRC, such things explicitly warn you in a dialog that you must confirm that it will pull info from your profile and from your friends. My guess would be that it's using the permissions of your account, since your account is the one that explicitly allowed the information-ripping. Because you can see all of your own profile and all of your friends' profiles, it makes sense that the quiz would have all that info, too.
And what about that Manulife case where an insurance recipient was denied after posting pics to their "private" profile?
Oh yeah. I forget, how did those pics come to light? Did one of her fb friends send something in? Or did someone abuse higher privileges to access such info? Again, if it was one of those applications, permission was granted to access this stuff. But if Manulife got escalated privileges somehow (that is, greater than the privs you or I generally have on fb) and artificially bypassed the privacy settings, then at the very least, it's a case of extremely unethical admin abuse.
Likewise, if the FBI worms their way into my friend list or I take one of their quizzes, and they get the info they want, then I explicitly allowed it. But if the FBI is not part of a group to which I gave explicit permission to view my profile, then I expect that my profile is safe from their eyes, barring an appropriately-issued warrant.
"Private" means zip. It may imply that only your friends can see stuff in your profile, but it's effectively public.
You're implying that facebook's privacy settings don't work as they are described. In that case, we may want to think about filing a class action against the organization for blatantly lying about the security details of our data and defrauding users into posting information publicly that they expected would be private.
I see this as no different from "the Feds" looking at your webpage to see what you post there, or your "personal" blog.
You're joking, right? I'm pretty sure it's very different, if I set facebook to let only my friends see my stuff. I never saw a friend request from the FBI, so why should they be allowed to probe my facebook stuff? That seems like a digital analogue to the feds just storming someone's house without first getting the owner's permission to enter the home.
In other words, they better have a darn good reason and a written warrant with that reason if they want to see my facebook without first being my facebook friend.
If you want to put personal information on the web for "the public" to see, I don't see how you think "the Feds" can't look at it ... just like everyone else.
And if I set up my settings such that only certain people have explicit permission to view such information, then it ain't exactly "for the public to see", is it?
Almost. I remember skimming over the last two links.
No, the malware is the update. They didn't have this problem before Windows Update did its thing.
*skips most of the comments*
Windows 8 will be released on 21 December 2012.
(Score:-1,Redundant)
Slashdot isn't singular? What's the inverse of Slashdot, then?
So then the Irish are wack-jobs, if that's true.
I still haven't heard anything about the Bishop of Rome appearing to approve even remotely of any of these actions.
First the Catholics with child rape, now the Scientologists with slavery and human trafficking.
Any wagers on which one true religion will be busted next?
Wait, wait, wait, isn't the VERY important difference the fact that the Catholic Church does not condone child abuse, and does not justify the actions of those who acted inappropriately?
Pardon me if I'm ignorant of how things actually work. I live by the published teachings of things like being a decent person and protecting children.