The big thing is that returning newly allocated objects to the caller is the natural way of doing things. This is an issue in C, because it must be agreed on who will destroy the returned object.
It's also an issue in c because such newly allocated objects are typically allocated on the heap, which is much slower than automatic storage allocation. Java uses the notion of short term storage, analogous to automatic storage in c and c++, when allocating objects (which are migrated to longer term storage as necessary) so performing such allocations in Java is not typically as expensive as heap allocations are in C
This isn't any exception to the first ammendment.. this amounts to just one simple thing: a deliberate attempt to control another person's computing resources without the owner's express permission to do so.
The fact that people weren't harmed in this particular is irrelevant... the point is that people *COULD* have been harmed (and in fact, some may have been, but incidents of sufficent obscurity are unlikely to get reported). This is why, in particular, it is illegal to joke about carrying a bomb while in an airport, or yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, no matter how innocuous one's intent may be. Even if people immediately around you realize that you are joking, there can be some who may not realize it is a joke, and take the remark quite seriously. That doesn't impact freedom of speech. Neither does this.
In South Park's case, to the best of my understanding, the Amazon assistants that were affected by this prank evidently added humorous items to the user's own shopping list, which it did not evidently actually follow through and purchase, but what if there had been someone else in the same room who was not watching the episode, but was utilizing the same amazon account that Alexa is tied to while Alexa was doing this. and perhaps not realizing what alexa had done, clicked "Purchase", and ordered a bunch of items they did not want?Of course, they could later go and cancel the order, or remove the unwanted items, but what if they do not realize what has happened until they get a confirmation that the items are being sent? The order, having already been mailed out, they no option to cancel, but at best only to return the unwanted items for a refund.
So what's the problem, you might ask. The problem is that then Amazon would be footing the bill for that stunt because they'll have to pay for the return postage on the items that never would have been sent in the first place if the prank had not been pulled. If this stunt did cause any problems, we will probably hear about it within a few days, Even if it didn't however, the point remains that it could have, and that's why such practices are discouraged by laws which outlaw unauthorized computer access.
You can argue that Amazon should make their devices more secure, and I'd agree with you, but just as certainly as not locking your car door doesn't give a thief any legal permission to take it (although you may have trouble filing a theft insurance claim if it is known that your door was not locked), the failure in these devices to be properly secured to not respond to commands that happen to be emerging from a pre-recorded broadcast should not give those broadcasters any license to freely take control of other people's computing resources without those people's authorization.
What harm is done by any kind of hacking attempt where no *real* malice is intended, and no actual harm is ever actually done? The point of making it illegal is to so that people do not, even inadvertently, cause any harm to anyone by doing so. Allowing people to get away with it when no harm is done makes it only that much more likely that someone will get away with it when they *HAVE* caused harm.
There was a time when, as I mentioned above, what are now called computer viruses were not considered harmful either... originating as pranks, they evolved over time from being funny to being a minor nuisance to being harmful to being against the law.
.... point to a conspiracy theory as being the most probable cause.
Sure, nobody seems to know what happened or how or why, but the most you can do at this point is try and be watchful to see if it happens again, and hopefully be prepared enough for it to take measurements and from that, isolate a cause.
Past events for which the only existing record is human recollection, regardless of the number of people who appear to have been affected, cannot be objectively scrutinized and there is no scientifically valid basis to come to any kind of conclusion.
Seriously, if people can be called delusional (through perhaps no fault of their own) for believing in an invisible god, I see no reason to treat the belief in some kind unknown sonic weapon being used against these people any differently until, and not before, some actual evidence that goes beyond merely anecdotal is apparent.
The government is unable to control what a person says and thus they are unable to make it illegal to talk around one of these always on listening devices
Obviously.... that is why the applicability of the CFAA is largely centered around having an *intent* to access a computer without authorization. If you happened to do so simply by speaking, without any intent to cause such access, and especially if no harm was actually done, then you obviously wouldn't be considered guilty. However, that's not the case here. The writers of the script knew exactly what they were doing, and anticipated its effects quite precisely. No harm was done, but the access was still deliberate, and unauthorized.
It would be criminal under the category of unauthorized computer trespass. The specific statute would depend on the jurisdiction.
How easy it is to use a computer without authorization has no bearing on whether authorization is required to be following the law unless the circumstances are such that the person who was so trespassing had no reasonable way of realizing that they were not authorized to use that system (eg, a computer console in a library that does not have any signage indicating that it is for staff use only)) In both BK's similar stunt, as well as with this one, they knew full well what they were doing, so any claim that they did not realize they were not authorized would not hold up.
1. I didn't know that.... is Amazon alleging that the consumer does not own the device, so they are free to control it on their own as they see fit?
2. Intent is largely irrelevant when the actions are still illegal... you can't go into a bank with a water gun in your hand either and expect that the teller is going to have a sense of humor about it.
3. That's a fair point... but the action is still criminal, and in some jurisdictions could be prosecutable by the state, or the communications commission.
4. What makes BK's stunt "in poor faith" and this one not? Nobody got harmed, but how can people know in advance that they aren't going to be being harmed by the act? That's ultimate why BK's stunt was not well received, after all.
Ah yes.... name-calling. The classic resort of a person who doesn't actually have any real argument.
Perhaps you don't remember that Burger King got in a whole mess of trouble just last Spring when they did something along the same lines... hijacking people's voice-activated home devices in pretty much the exact same way.
I have a sense of humor, I just don't think that one should be using the excuse of "I was only joking" or "nobody actually got harmed" as an excuse to do something that is, on a fundamental level, disrespectful an individual's right to dictate who may use their own personal property and when. It's fine if you want to play such jokes on somebody you personally know, but it's not so okay to play such pranks on an unsuspecting public.
.... unauthorized access of a person's computer or computing resources. This is, to the best of my knowledge, a criminal offense.
Unless I give you permission to use devices in my own home, you have no legal business showing off with childish pranks that you happen to be able to control it.
Obviously it's a security issue that needs to be addressed by both Amazon and Google, but that doesn't pardon those who deliberately exploit it in the interim, even if their actions happened to be innocuous.... this time.
The cost of living is less, but you'd also likely find that your income won't stretch quite as far as it used to. The gross pay is about the same after converting between different currencies, but the tax rates are generally higher in Canada than they are in most places in the USA.
Toronto is right on the shore of Lake Ontario, and I'd be surprised if there isn't at least *SOME* fishing there.
Vancouver's climate is nicer (and the scenery is probably nicer as well), but the cost of living is also higher there. Vancouver has the reputation of being, or so I've heard, the most expensive place for housing in all of North America (I think it's in the top 3 worldwide).
(Quick fact double check... yep, I'm right. It's in third place). The only two cities that are more unaffordable than Vancouver are apparently Hong Kong and Sydney.
The lawsuit alleges that opportunities to advance and get better paid positions were denied to female employees.
Key word there... "alleges". The biggest problem with this particular allegation is that, like most conspiracy theories, it is not falsifiable... and utilizes the fallacy of cherry-picking to make its argument, as well as falling for the fallacy of perception itself caused by pareidolia.
Gender or minority-based pay discrimination can be identified by answering just one simple question: are there any jobs in the company or organization that are performed both by people across the relevant demographics being compared with approximately the same level of experience where there is a difference in rate of pay? If yes, then there is discrimination. If not, then you cannot infer that there is any. Even when the jobs that pay the most are dominated by whiite males, for example, you cannot reasonably infer pay discrimination based upon that statistic because there can be a multitude of factors which can impact which people even both to apply for certain types of jobs, and which are entirely outside of the company's ability to control. The only thing you can reasonably expect a company to do is to pay its employees ethically and fairly for the work that they do, and this pay should be reflective only of the demands that the work places upon an individual. Trying to get companies to fix sociological and societal problems that might cause people of mostly one gender to apply only for certain types of positions in the first place cannot reasonably be expected to be a company's responsibility to mitigate. That responsibility falls on all of us... not to give women or minorities more incentive to apply for such jobs, but to not give them any disincentive to do so.
When you consider that there are over 167 million American adults with at least one credit card (2014 US Census), 143 million Americans would be equivalent to 85% of all credit card holders.
Basically, if you have a credit card in the US, you should probably be checking with your bank now, if you haven't already... and determining what course of action you can best immediately take to ensure that no damage is done.
It's higher than that. About 25% of the nation's population is under 18, and are less likely to be impacted anyways. Since top execs are typically over 18, it is probsbly closer to 55 or 60 percent
Speaking for myself, about $40 for the case protecting my iPhone 6+. The case will protect it far longer than the period of any warranty offered for that price. I accidentally dropped it in the stairwell of a parkade once... where it tumbled down a flight and a half of concrete stairs before coming to rest on a landing, and the case protected my phone just fine.
(Effectively, that is... you can sue them if you get their permission first, but all that actually seems to mean is that they are willing to reach a settlement)
Rephrasing the headline, it says simply that movement reduces the effects of a lack of movement. While that might not quite be a tautology, it might be about the nest closest thing to one.
True enough.... I was overly specific when I said a startup would be VC-funded. Self-funded startups are, of course, still startups, even though they are not VC funded.
It's my understanding that what makes a person a VC is when they fund somebody else's endeavor.
You are what you do, not whatever your title happens to be. If you've funded a startup, then by definition you are its VC, even if you would not otherwise be considered a VC.
Slashdot Mirror
It's also an issue in c because such newly allocated objects are typically allocated on the heap, which is much slower than automatic storage allocation. Java uses the notion of short term storage, analogous to automatic storage in c and c++, when allocating objects (which are migrated to longer term storage as necessary) so performing such allocations in Java is not typically as expensive as heap allocations are in C
This isn't any exception to the first ammendment.. this amounts to just one simple thing: a deliberate attempt to control another person's computing resources without the owner's express permission to do so.
The fact that people weren't harmed in this particular is irrelevant... the point is that people *COULD* have been harmed (and in fact, some may have been, but incidents of sufficent obscurity are unlikely to get reported). This is why, in particular, it is illegal to joke about carrying a bomb while in an airport, or yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, no matter how innocuous one's intent may be. Even if people immediately around you realize that you are joking, there can be some who may not realize it is a joke, and take the remark quite seriously. That doesn't impact freedom of speech. Neither does this.
In South Park's case, to the best of my understanding, the Amazon assistants that were affected by this prank evidently added humorous items to the user's own shopping list, which it did not evidently actually follow through and purchase, but what if there had been someone else in the same room who was not watching the episode, but was utilizing the same amazon account that Alexa is tied to while Alexa was doing this. and perhaps not realizing what alexa had done, clicked "Purchase", and ordered a bunch of items they did not want?Of course, they could later go and cancel the order, or remove the unwanted items, but what if they do not realize what has happened until they get a confirmation that the items are being sent? The order, having already been mailed out, they no option to cancel, but at best only to return the unwanted items for a refund.
So what's the problem, you might ask. The problem is that then Amazon would be footing the bill for that stunt because they'll have to pay for the return postage on the items that never would have been sent in the first place if the prank had not been pulled. If this stunt did cause any problems, we will probably hear about it within a few days, Even if it didn't however, the point remains that it could have, and that's why such practices are discouraged by laws which outlaw unauthorized computer access.
You can argue that Amazon should make their devices more secure, and I'd agree with you, but just as certainly as not locking your car door doesn't give a thief any legal permission to take it (although you may have trouble filing a theft insurance claim if it is known that your door was not locked), the failure in these devices to be properly secured to not respond to commands that happen to be emerging from a pre-recorded broadcast should not give those broadcasters any license to freely take control of other people's computing resources without those people's authorization.
What harm is done by any kind of hacking attempt where no *real* malice is intended, and no actual harm is ever actually done? The point of making it illegal is to so that people do not, even inadvertently, cause any harm to anyone by doing so. Allowing people to get away with it when no harm is done makes it only that much more likely that someone will get away with it when they *HAVE* caused harm.
There was a time when, as I mentioned above, what are now called computer viruses were not considered harmful either... originating as pranks, they evolved over time from being funny to being a minor nuisance to being harmful to being against the law.
This is no different.
Sure, nobody seems to know what happened or how or why, but the most you can do at this point is try and be watchful to see if it happens again, and hopefully be prepared enough for it to take measurements and from that, isolate a cause.
Past events for which the only existing record is human recollection, regardless of the number of people who appear to have been affected, cannot be objectively scrutinized and there is no scientifically valid basis to come to any kind of conclusion.
Seriously, if people can be called delusional (through perhaps no fault of their own) for believing in an invisible god, I see no reason to treat the belief in some kind unknown sonic weapon being used against these people any differently until, and not before, some actual evidence that goes beyond merely anecdotal is apparent.
Obviously.... that is why the applicability of the CFAA is largely centered around having an *intent* to access a computer without authorization. If you happened to do so simply by speaking, without any intent to cause such access, and especially if no harm was actually done, then you obviously wouldn't be considered guilty. However, that's not the case here. The writers of the script knew exactly what they were doing, and anticipated its effects quite precisely. No harm was done, but the access was still deliberate, and unauthorized.
In the USA, it's called the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
What are now called computer viruses were once just pranks too.
How easy it is to use a computer without authorization has no bearing on whether authorization is required to be following the law unless the circumstances are such that the person who was so trespassing had no reasonable way of realizing that they were not authorized to use that system (eg, a computer console in a library that does not have any signage indicating that it is for staff use only)) In both BK's similar stunt, as well as with this one, they knew full well what they were doing, so any claim that they did not realize they were not authorized would not hold up.
They also received one heck of a lot of negative backlash about it, including a reprimand from Google.
1. I didn't know that.... is Amazon alleging that the consumer does not own the device, so they are free to control it on their own as they see fit?
2. Intent is largely irrelevant when the actions are still illegal... you can't go into a bank with a water gun in your hand either and expect that the teller is going to have a sense of humor about it.
3. That's a fair point... but the action is still criminal, and in some jurisdictions could be prosecutable by the state, or the communications commission.
4. What makes BK's stunt "in poor faith" and this one not? Nobody got harmed, but how can people know in advance that they aren't going to be being harmed by the act? That's ultimate why BK's stunt was not well received, after all.
Ah yes.... name-calling. The classic resort of a person who doesn't actually have any real argument.
Perhaps you don't remember that Burger King got in a whole mess of trouble just last Spring when they did something along the same lines... hijacking people's voice-activated home devices in pretty much the exact same way.
I have a sense of humor, I just don't think that one should be using the excuse of "I was only joking" or "nobody actually got harmed" as an excuse to do something that is, on a fundamental level, disrespectful an individual's right to dictate who may use their own personal property and when. It's fine if you want to play such jokes on somebody you personally know, but it's not so okay to play such pranks on an unsuspecting public.
Unless I give you permission to use devices in my own home, you have no legal business showing off with childish pranks that you happen to be able to control it.
Obviously it's a security issue that needs to be addressed by both Amazon and Google, but that doesn't pardon those who deliberately exploit it in the interim, even if their actions happened to be innocuous.... this time.
The cost of living is less, but you'd also likely find that your income won't stretch quite as far as it used to. The gross pay is about the same after converting between different currencies, but the tax rates are generally higher in Canada than they are in most places in the USA.
Toronto is right on the shore of Lake Ontario, and I'd be surprised if there isn't at least *SOME* fishing there.
Vancouver's climate is nicer (and the scenery is probably nicer as well), but the cost of living is also higher there. Vancouver has the reputation of being, or so I've heard, the most expensive place for housing in all of North America (I think it's in the top 3 worldwide).
(Quick fact double check... yep, I'm right. It's in third place). The only two cities that are more unaffordable than Vancouver are apparently Hong Kong and Sydney.
Key word there... "alleges". The biggest problem with this particular allegation is that, like most conspiracy theories, it is not falsifiable... and utilizes the fallacy of cherry-picking to make its argument, as well as falling for the fallacy of perception itself caused by pareidolia.
Gender or minority-based pay discrimination can be identified by answering just one simple question: are there any jobs in the company or organization that are performed both by people across the relevant demographics being compared with approximately the same level of experience where there is a difference in rate of pay? If yes, then there is discrimination. If not, then you cannot infer that there is any. Even when the jobs that pay the most are dominated by whiite males, for example, you cannot reasonably infer pay discrimination based upon that statistic because there can be a multitude of factors which can impact which people even both to apply for certain types of jobs, and which are entirely outside of the company's ability to control. The only thing you can reasonably expect a company to do is to pay its employees ethically and fairly for the work that they do, and this pay should be reflective only of the demands that the work places upon an individual. Trying to get companies to fix sociological and societal problems that might cause people of mostly one gender to apply only for certain types of positions in the first place cannot reasonably be expected to be a company's responsibility to mitigate. That responsibility falls on all of us... not to give women or minorities more incentive to apply for such jobs, but to not give them any disincentive to do so.
When you consider that there are over 167 million American adults with at least one credit card (2014 US Census), 143 million Americans would be equivalent to 85% of all credit card holders.
Basically, if you have a credit card in the US, you should probably be checking with your bank now, if you haven't already... and determining what course of action you can best immediately take to ensure that no damage is done.
It's higher than that. About 25% of the nation's population is under 18, and are less likely to be impacted anyways. Since top execs are typically over 18, it is probsbly closer to 55 or 60 percent
Clunky, obtuse, and difficult are nice adjectives, but they are still quite vague on details.
Ah... well, I learned something today.. I thought a VC would be anyone who expected to get their money back.
Speaking for myself, about $40 for the case protecting my iPhone 6+. The case will protect it far longer than the period of any warranty offered for that price. I accidentally dropped it in the stairwell of a parkade once... where it tumbled down a flight and a half of concrete stairs before coming to rest on a landing, and the case protected my phone just fine.
(Effectively, that is... you can sue them if you get their permission first, but all that actually seems to mean is that they are willing to reach a settlement)
It's probably subjective, but can you be more specific?
Rephrasing the headline, it says simply that movement reduces the effects of a lack of movement. While that might not quite be a tautology, it might be about the nest closest thing to one.
True enough.... I was overly specific when I said a startup would be VC-funded. Self-funded startups are, of course, still startups, even though they are not VC funded.
It's my understanding that what makes a person a VC is when they fund somebody else's endeavor.
You are what you do, not whatever your title happens to be. If you've funded a startup, then by definition you are its VC, even if you would not otherwise be considered a VC.