They definitely could have played it differently. The fact that the disclosure post was removed quickly may indicate wrongdoing, that he realized he messed up. So, fine, remove the disclosed vulnerabilities from the bounty, but still pay the bounty for the others. If he had submitted each issue separately they would have paid the others that he didn't disclose.
So you're suggesting that a better alternative is to set the same password for every device instead of shipping each device with a unique password? I didn't say anything about "foolproof". I'm saying that shipping every device with the same password is not the only option, it's not even a good option.
They have to put in something at the factory, so they put in a default.
It's not the only option is a single password for every device. They could just as easily plug it in to something, set a random password for just that device, and have a sticker print out with the password that gets put on the device. I've seen modems ship like that, with a 20-character password that is obviously random for that device (since it's printed on the same sticker as the MAC).
No, it would just make it that much more important for the politician to grab as much money and power as they can before they're out.
I see it as making the notion of a career politician obsolete, so that becoming a politician is no longer a way to lifelong wealth, and as such it would encourage those people to find their wealth elsewhere and leave the governing of the country to people who are legitimately trying to help.
Term limits do nothing except increase the probability of having bad/corrupt representation.
I suggest that we give them a try before making statements like that as if they're facts. Congress (that would be both the Senate and House) have never had term limits since the Constitution was created. I would counter your suggestion by claiming that term limits would help combat the type of de-facto oligarchy that we see today.
Think politics has gone downhill over the last 30 years? That's about how long it's been since term-limits started getting popular.
Thomas Jefferson of Virgina wrote in 1789 that he saw term limits as necessary "to prevent every danger which might arise to American freedom by continuing too long in office the members of the Continental Congress". That wasn't the first time they were discussed, either. Back when states were ratifying the Constitution in 1787-88 statesmen like Richard Henry Lee viewed the absence of term limits (as well as other perceived shortcomings of the Constitution) to be "most highly and dangerously oligarchic". The Bill Of Rights was created to address the issues that many states had with the Constitution, although term limits didn't make it in. In arguing Jefferson's side, George Mason said about Presidential and Senatorial term limits, "nothing is so essential to the preservation of a Republican government as a periodic rotation". Female historian Mercy Otis Warren, born 1728, said "there is no provision for a rotation, nor anything to prevent the perpetuity of office in the same hands for life; which by a little well-timed bribery, will probably be done". There was also discussion during the 19th century, and also the 20th, but nothing got done primarily because the people who would be hurt by term limits are also the people who need to make them law. At this point it seems like it would require an Article V convention of the states to circumvent Congress and implement term limits as a constitutional amendment.
But, instead of your suggestions about what may or may happen with Congressional term limits, and considering the fact that we have never had them and that Congress appears to not be working for the people, I would suggest that we try them and see what happens after a few decades.
I think everyone needs to write to the people of Kentucky and tell them to stop electing Mitch McConnell. He is the poster boy for what is wrong with Congress. He's been a senator for 30 years. He's been involved with politics since 1964, when he was 22, so essentially his entire adult life. In '64 he graduated with a degree in political science and then began as an intern for a senator the same year. 3 years later he got a law degree, and probably decided that some sort of military service would look good on his record so he joined the Army Reserve and spent 5 weeks stationed at Fort Knox while in law school before being discharged. He assisted another senator, then was the Deputy Assistant AG under Ford, then got elected to his first office in 1977. I can't find any record of private employment not associated with a politician, despite the degree in law. Then he became a senator in 1985 and he's still one today.
The Center for Responsive Politics puts him as the 10th richest senator, with a worth between $9.2 million and $36.5 million. That seems like a hell of a lot of money for a "public servant" to pull down over 30 years, but that's why it seems like career politicians are there to serve themselves and not the public. That's a lot of votes that have been purchased over the years. McConnell is a great example of why every member of congress needs term limits. The notion of a career politician needs to be retired and replaced by ordinary people coming out of the private sector to help run the country, and then going back into the private sector once their service is finished.
Expect further development of Ad pushing technologies, because the websites will need to get paid or they will go out of business.
That's OK, ad-pushing technologies will inevitably be met with ad-blocking technologies. Maybe that will lead to an internet business model that does not rely on advertising. There's no law chiseled in stone which proclaims that advertising is the only way to make money from publishing content, there's only a lack of creativity when the largest, lowest-hanging fruit involves irritating your "customers" for a quick cent or two.
So when you join a labor union or incorporate your business, you think you're surrendering your rights to free speech?
Seriously, you guys are funny with your arguments. No where, at no time, has any INDIVIDUAL ever surrendered their right to free speech because they started a business. Their INDIVIDUAL rights have never been abridged because of that.
That's a fine strawman you have there, but to answer your specific question, no, I have no problems with the first amendment, I never claimed I did, that's not what he's protesting, and that's not what the problem is about. That's a pretty common debate tactic for people on your side though, I see you got the memo. The problem is the corrupt influence of money in politics. There is a tremendous amount of money in politics today. The Citizens United ruling not only does nothing to help that problem go away, but it magnifies the problem tenfold. You can go on and on about how corporations should have the right to free speech and frame yourself as some sort of valiant defender of the constitution and your opponents as godless communists, but the fact is that the CU ruling made the problem of money in politics and the corruption that goes with it exponentially worse. Consider the fact that Hillary Clinton believes she needs a goal of $2.5 billion to win the election. That equates to spending $20 for each American voter. That's the problem, and all of the lobbying and backroom deals that go with it. But I know you're just going to ignore the issue and instead talk about how much you love the first amendment, so you just go right ahead.
No, they arrested an idiot who is supposed to have a pilot license who does not understand the concept of a 'no-fly-zone'.
You might be the idiot. He fully understood all of the implications of what he was doing, and worked out several scenarios. His expected scenario was that a Blackhawk would be scrambled from Quantico, but would overfly him as he was flying so low and slow, and he hoped that by the time the Blackhawk caught up to him that they would have orders to not shoot him down. His biggest worries were that he would be shot down or that he wouldn't have the nerve to do it in the first place. I can't imagine the adrenaline going through him as he was flying across the national mall in sight of the Capitol without a single LEO or military aircraft in sight.
He's right, too. Campaign finance laws and all of the corruption that goes with them is the single largest problem with the current government, and apathy from people like you helps to ensure that it doesn't get fixed. Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice. Whichever R or D you want to pick will be just fine.
He's a complete jackass for doing it in the first place.
I applaud him. He's protesting what is the #1 problem in government today in a peaceful way that was sure to make headlines. The problem isn't people like him, the problem is people who are apathetic about the issue in the first place.
Before he took off he also called his friend back home to tell him the plan. His friend had the business card of a Secret Service agent who had previously visited and interviewed them after hearing about his plan for a "big thing" to call attention to campaign finance reform. His friend called the Secret Service agent, got no answer, but left a message informing him of the impending flight. He never got a call back, and the authorities claimed they were not aware of the flight. So, yeah, bit of an intelligence failure there.
Here's a much better article that includes a video at the bottom of him actually landing on the lawn, as well as the text of the letters he was trying to deliver. Note the complete lack of any resistance to him landing, the Capitol Police weren't out there and it took a little while to hear the first sirens.
But in two of the games, Nakamura was allowed assistance of an older chess program on a laptop
That hardly seems fair.
"Grandmaster, we're going to pit you against the best computer program to ever play chess, it represents the combined efforts of decades of engineering. But, don't worry, here's a 386SX with Chessmaster 3000 to help you out."
Can you get to 208 degrees F at the internal pressure at which the space station is maintained?
No. No one on the design team thought about that, so they're going to go through all of the expense of designing, building, and launching an espresso machine to the ISS only to realize that no one though about pressure. The launch got postponed though, you better call up NASA and ask them if anyone thought of pressure before it's too late. Feel free to offer your own expertise.
From the video alone it is not apparent that they are sunglasses. What the video shows is a police officer picking an item up from the ground, in a crime scene, and moving that item to another part of the crime scene closer to the man that he just shot. Regardless of what the object is, that alone is questionable.
He appears to be reaching for the officer's gun and when he fails runs for his life.
The officer said the man was reaching for his taser, not his weapon. But, even so, is attempting and failing to grab a taser and then running away justification to shoot someone 8 times? I'll say that if a cop was trying to shoot me with a taser, and I didn't want to be shot, my natural instinct would be to try and grab the taser and point it away from me. That sounds like I should be tackled and arrested, not shot 8 times from behind. The guy was 50 years old and overweight and the cop had backup on the way, where was he going to go that the cops wouldn't be able to get him? The cop should have continued the chase, not pulled out his weapon and shot the guy 8 times while he's running away.
It would be best if Mozilla, Microsoft, et. al. followed suit.
It would, for the sake of their own customers, but in reality it's not even necessary. TFA calls Chrome the second most popular browser, although I'm pretty sure it's firmly in first place. If those certificates are not trusted in Chrome then, regardless of whether or not they are trusted in IE or Firefox, the website owners are still going to get a new certificate from a different CA. Even with only Google taking these steps, CNNIC is hosed. If Mozilla follows suit it's really only academic at that point, but it would be right for them to do so just to remove an untrusted CA.
Slashdot Mirror
They definitely could have played it differently. The fact that the disclosure post was removed quickly may indicate wrongdoing, that he realized he messed up. So, fine, remove the disclosed vulnerabilities from the bounty, but still pay the bounty for the others. If he had submitted each issue separately they would have paid the others that he didn't disclose.
So you're suggesting that a better alternative is to set the same password for every device instead of shipping each device with a unique password? I didn't say anything about "foolproof". I'm saying that shipping every device with the same password is not the only option, it's not even a good option.
They have to put in something at the factory, so they put in a default.
It's not the only option is a single password for every device. They could just as easily plug it in to something, set a random password for just that device, and have a sticker print out with the password that gets put on the device. I've seen modems ship like that, with a 20-character password that is obviously random for that device (since it's printed on the same sticker as the MAC).
No, it would just make it that much more important for the politician to grab as much money and power as they can before they're out.
I see it as making the notion of a career politician obsolete, so that becoming a politician is no longer a way to lifelong wealth, and as such it would encourage those people to find their wealth elsewhere and leave the governing of the country to people who are legitimately trying to help.
Term limits do nothing except increase the probability of having bad/corrupt representation.
I suggest that we give them a try before making statements like that as if they're facts. Congress (that would be both the Senate and House) have never had term limits since the Constitution was created. I would counter your suggestion by claiming that term limits would help combat the type of de-facto oligarchy that we see today.
Think politics has gone downhill over the last 30 years? That's about how long it's been since term-limits started getting popular.
Thomas Jefferson of Virgina wrote in 1789 that he saw term limits as necessary "to prevent every danger which might arise to American freedom by continuing too long in office the members of the Continental Congress". That wasn't the first time they were discussed, either. Back when states were ratifying the Constitution in 1787-88 statesmen like Richard Henry Lee viewed the absence of term limits (as well as other perceived shortcomings of the Constitution) to be "most highly and dangerously oligarchic". The Bill Of Rights was created to address the issues that many states had with the Constitution, although term limits didn't make it in. In arguing Jefferson's side, George Mason said about Presidential and Senatorial term limits, "nothing is so essential to the preservation of a Republican government as a periodic rotation". Female historian Mercy Otis Warren, born 1728, said "there is no provision for a rotation, nor anything to prevent the perpetuity of office in the same hands for life; which by a little well-timed bribery, will probably be done". There was also discussion during the 19th century, and also the 20th, but nothing got done primarily because the people who would be hurt by term limits are also the people who need to make them law. At this point it seems like it would require an Article V convention of the states to circumvent Congress and implement term limits as a constitutional amendment.
But, instead of your suggestions about what may or may happen with Congressional term limits, and considering the fact that we have never had them and that Congress appears to not be working for the people, I would suggest that we try them and see what happens after a few decades.
I think everyone needs to write to the people of Kentucky and tell them to stop electing Mitch McConnell. He is the poster boy for what is wrong with Congress. He's been a senator for 30 years. He's been involved with politics since 1964, when he was 22, so essentially his entire adult life. In '64 he graduated with a degree in political science and then began as an intern for a senator the same year. 3 years later he got a law degree, and probably decided that some sort of military service would look good on his record so he joined the Army Reserve and spent 5 weeks stationed at Fort Knox while in law school before being discharged. He assisted another senator, then was the Deputy Assistant AG under Ford, then got elected to his first office in 1977. I can't find any record of private employment not associated with a politician, despite the degree in law. Then he became a senator in 1985 and he's still one today.
The Center for Responsive Politics puts him as the 10th richest senator, with a worth between $9.2 million and $36.5 million. That seems like a hell of a lot of money for a "public servant" to pull down over 30 years, but that's why it seems like career politicians are there to serve themselves and not the public. That's a lot of votes that have been purchased over the years. McConnell is a great example of why every member of congress needs term limits. The notion of a career politician needs to be retired and replaced by ordinary people coming out of the private sector to help run the country, and then going back into the private sector once their service is finished.
Also, he looks like a turtle.
Expect further development of Ad pushing technologies, because the websites will need to get paid or they will go out of business.
That's OK, ad-pushing technologies will inevitably be met with ad-blocking technologies. Maybe that will lead to an internet business model that does not rely on advertising. There's no law chiseled in stone which proclaims that advertising is the only way to make money from publishing content, there's only a lack of creativity when the largest, lowest-hanging fruit involves irritating your "customers" for a quick cent or two.
So when you join a labor union or incorporate your business, you think you're surrendering your rights to free speech?
Seriously, you guys are funny with your arguments. No where, at no time, has any INDIVIDUAL ever surrendered their right to free speech because they started a business. Their INDIVIDUAL rights have never been abridged because of that.
That's a fine strawman you have there, but to answer your specific question, no, I have no problems with the first amendment, I never claimed I did, that's not what he's protesting, and that's not what the problem is about. That's a pretty common debate tactic for people on your side though, I see you got the memo. The problem is the corrupt influence of money in politics. There is a tremendous amount of money in politics today. The Citizens United ruling not only does nothing to help that problem go away, but it magnifies the problem tenfold. You can go on and on about how corporations should have the right to free speech and frame yourself as some sort of valiant defender of the constitution and your opponents as godless communists, but the fact is that the CU ruling made the problem of money in politics and the corruption that goes with it exponentially worse. Consider the fact that Hillary Clinton believes she needs a goal of $2.5 billion to win the election. That equates to spending $20 for each American voter. That's the problem, and all of the lobbying and backroom deals that go with it. But I know you're just going to ignore the issue and instead talk about how much you love the first amendment, so you just go right ahead.
he's supposed to drop that mail off at a mail processing facility, not the Capitol itself.
Such as the US post office in room HT-1 of the US Capitol?
No, they arrested an idiot who is supposed to have a pilot license who does not understand the concept of a 'no-fly-zone'.
You might be the idiot. He fully understood all of the implications of what he was doing, and worked out several scenarios. His expected scenario was that a Blackhawk would be scrambled from Quantico, but would overfly him as he was flying so low and slow, and he hoped that by the time the Blackhawk caught up to him that they would have orders to not shoot him down. His biggest worries were that he would be shot down or that he wouldn't have the nerve to do it in the first place. I can't imagine the adrenaline going through him as he was flying across the national mall in sight of the Capitol without a single LEO or military aircraft in sight.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/p...
He's right, too. Campaign finance laws and all of the corruption that goes with them is the single largest problem with the current government, and apathy from people like you helps to ensure that it doesn't get fixed. Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice. Whichever R or D you want to pick will be just fine.
He's a complete jackass for doing it in the first place.
I applaud him. He's protesting what is the #1 problem in government today in a peaceful way that was sure to make headlines. The problem isn't people like him, the problem is people who are apathetic about the issue in the first place.
What is the exact ratio between citizens and representatives which defines a democracy?
All of this, of course, ignores the fact that the US is not, and has never been, an actual democracy. It is a Federal Republic.
Before he took off he also called his friend back home to tell him the plan. His friend had the business card of a Secret Service agent who had previously visited and interviewed them after hearing about his plan for a "big thing" to call attention to campaign finance reform. His friend called the Secret Service agent, got no answer, but left a message informing him of the impending flight. He never got a call back, and the authorities claimed they were not aware of the flight. So, yeah, bit of an intelligence failure there.
Here's a much better article that includes a video at the bottom of him actually landing on the lawn, as well as the text of the letters he was trying to deliver. Note the complete lack of any resistance to him landing, the Capitol Police weren't out there and it took a little while to hear the first sirens.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/p...
But in two of the games, Nakamura was allowed assistance of an older chess program on a laptop
That hardly seems fair.
"Grandmaster, we're going to pit you against the best computer program to ever play chess, it represents the combined efforts of decades of engineering. But, don't worry, here's a 386SX with Chessmaster 3000 to help you out."
Cheating is rampant in all things anymore.
Except in grammar classes.
So after all the problems with malware-ridden popups and other unwanted crap Google gives us this?
Does that really surprise you? How does Google make their money?
I can't really think of any quality reason anyone would choose TSA screening as a career.
Consider the fact that some TSA employees take career advice from a pizza box.
Better hurry up.
http://www.palcohol.com/
Can you get to 208 degrees F at the internal pressure at which the space station is maintained?
No. No one on the design team thought about that, so they're going to go through all of the expense of designing, building, and launching an espresso machine to the ISS only to realize that no one though about pressure. The launch got postponed though, you better call up NASA and ask them if anyone thought of pressure before it's too late. Feel free to offer your own expertise.
You give them your credit card when you sign up, and they charge it once the ride ends and email the receipt.
From the video alone it is not apparent that they are sunglasses. What the video shows is a police officer picking an item up from the ground, in a crime scene, and moving that item to another part of the crime scene closer to the man that he just shot. Regardless of what the object is, that alone is questionable.
He appears to be reaching for the officer's gun and when he fails runs for his life.
The officer said the man was reaching for his taser, not his weapon. But, even so, is attempting and failing to grab a taser and then running away justification to shoot someone 8 times? I'll say that if a cop was trying to shoot me with a taser, and I didn't want to be shot, my natural instinct would be to try and grab the taser and point it away from me. That sounds like I should be tackled and arrested, not shot 8 times from behind. The guy was 50 years old and overweight and the cop had backup on the way, where was he going to go that the cops wouldn't be able to get him? The cop should have continued the chase, not pulled out his weapon and shot the guy 8 times while he's running away.
It would be best if Mozilla, Microsoft, et. al. followed suit.
It would, for the sake of their own customers, but in reality it's not even necessary. TFA calls Chrome the second most popular browser, although I'm pretty sure it's firmly in first place. If those certificates are not trusted in Chrome then, regardless of whether or not they are trusted in IE or Firefox, the website owners are still going to get a new certificate from a different CA. Even with only Google taking these steps, CNNIC is hosed. If Mozilla follows suit it's really only academic at that point, but it would be right for them to do so just to remove an untrusted CA.
No. Apparently Slashdot did not start supporting Unicode.