Alright, he may be confused, however, his insight is into why the general populace may fear such things. Whether or not the populace is wrong is beside the point, the populace has always been obsessed with the male sex drive and how to thwart it / use it and ignored the female's and I would say they probably follow reasoning similar to his.
Quite right, I'm sure I could also try to make 500friends in RL and at least 100 of them would accept. That doesn't mean I actually have 100 friends....wait I've confused myself.
Obviously interesting enough for you to come down here and comment on it!
The interest to me is the implications that locking down wifi hotspots has towards a society. I find this interesting. If you don't read the next story.
I saw TFA and I do not see where it states that. I see that more Europeans DO secure their wireless hotspots than Americans, but not the know-how-to data you say is there.
Actually, in the US, you can sue anybody for just about any reason, including giving a malicious hacker or file-sharer internet access. I would not be surprised to hear the RIAA tracked a hub of free music back to a wireless router and accused the owner.
Assuming you are not liable, I would point out that after the victim/FBI tracks the activity back to your access point the ensuing legal battle during which you prove it was someone else may be unbearable and the accusations may never come off (e.g. if the bad guy was watching k1ddy pr0n, you'll probably lose your job and most of your friends even though you're later found innocent).
I see what you mean, but I considered that Situation B (bad guy using your unprotected wireless) is far more likely than situation A (bad guy bothers to crack your keys). The problem being that a legal case of any sort would an unbearable hassle (I live in the US, btw) and considering what the bad guy might be doing, the tarnish of the accusations may never come off as far as your job and family life are concerned. Therefore I like to reduce my chance of exposure to any of that by locking down my wireless.
In your Situation A (bad guy cracks key) I would add that wireless routers usually contain access logs which will have logged that the bad stuff occurred while a computer you nor law enforcement can account for was logged onto your router.
Actually, thats not the reason I lock down my wireless; I lock it down because my internet speed was crappy awhile back, which seemed to clear up as soon as I locked out my neighbors.
As someone who uses email autoreplies, it would be rather annoying to come back from a month of vacation to discover my auto reply was flipped off three weeks ago because I provided links to my home-business site and people have been wondering why I haven't been responding.
I would sum up your response, AC, as: "can't the users just deal with inappropriate actions of their email providers?" To which I would say no.
I am german and i don't understand the (US-)american hate against the french?!
Apparently the propaganda from US-Networks like FOX-News does an excellent job.
Most of the French words that were adapted into English don't follow the normal pronunciation rules of the rest of the language (Ballet, Faux) which makes grade school reading really hard and...Actually I have no idea, I'm from the US and I did not know we hated the French. We make fun of our exaggerations of their culture (cheese eating snobs who don't bathe) all the time, but we do that to everybody, including ourselves.
Or the US could just call up France and Switzerland and be all: "Hey we are pretty certain the LHC is going to destroy the planet; would you mind not running it till you can fix that?" I don't think any country aside from maybe North Korea would keep running the LHC at that point.
Uh, I know cockroaches are known to survive radiation well, but have we tested them in blackholes? Why aren't we launching cockroaches into blackholes? Science must be done!
Why do we assume that it takes a device of a size noticeable to authorities or the public in order to create a globally destructive black hole?
Because if some emo-kid could build one in his basement then we wouldn't be here to talk about this. However, in another couple centuries when an LHCs is on your high school biology supplies list, we might bring this concern out again.
Right, we will need to modify the Drake Equation while the earth is going all black hole. Because we will then know L to be: time from when intelligent life begins broadcasting signals till they build an LHC, which is like 70 years, yeah?
If it actually occuurred, an LHC black hole wouldnt swallow the solar system. It wouldnt even swallow the moon. It would have the same mass as the earth and would continue to follow roughly the same orbit (not accounting for solar wind and photon momentum).
Well, OK. Having the moon and the solar system would be some consolation. I'd still be kinda bummed about the whole annihilation of earth, my species and my pet cat.
I seem to recall that some physics thought that before the Trinity Explosion, that perhaps an atom explosion would vaporise the entire atmosphere.
I recall that too. However in the parallel universes in which such an explosion does dissolve the atmosphere's atoms, they don't recall that.
One guy on the site is even ranting..
Yeah, I wish they would just ignore those guys too. However, I'd like to know that we're not risking our existence based on the old "only an idiot would think that" logical fallacy.
Well gee, if killing people is the main goal, look at all those folks piled up in front of the rigorous security checkpoint... Maybe not as dramatic as knocking a plane out of the sky, but jihadis can't be choosers if you know what I mean.
Killing people doesn't seem to be the main goal; it doesn't explain why they continue to target airplanes with ridiculous plots when there are plenty of other places to kill more people with no or minimal security and are far more crowded than any security checkpoint. Either terrorists take pride in alluding security or they really want to inconvenience travelers, but either way, maximum casualties nor convenience seems to be on their list; I wouldn't worry about checkpoints being bombed.
A sight that says "I think people called bob smith are stupid" immediately makes clear to your visitors that you are not Bob Smith sending out your political message, your someone who thinks he's stupid.
This site however looks very professional and uses pictures of Stephen Conroy in such a way as to appear to be affiliated with him. Not until reading the text under the picture of him speaking does the mental dissonance make you realize that this is a parody site, assuming you are interested to read that far.
Whether or not you agree, I and a large amount of the internet will assume FirstnameLastname.com or similar of a notable figure with a professional look and pictures of that figure to be associated with them. So I would be in support of the right to protect your name in such a way.
And on your last point,
I believe every individual should have the right to lie whenever they want.
I see we will probably never resolve this discussion as I would like some restrictions on when someone can lie, hence my disagreements with you above.
What I don't understand is that someone can download a copyrighted movie and get disconnected, yet there are literally hundreds of people in Nigeria doing this every day, yet we haven't de-peered that shithole of a country.
Here, I'll explain it to you: That one copyrighted movie had the power of billions of dollars of power from movie production associations protecting it all hammered down on one poor smuck who can't find a legal defense. On the other hand, when a similar poor smuck gets scammed out of a few thousand dollars, he bitches to some low paid local scam investigator and is put on the bottom of their "things we should care about" list.
What they do is merely an up-to-date trick of the tradeless. Beggars, hobos, petty thieves with an internet connection. A criminal enterprise ofcourse, but reverse-baiting them in vigilante fashion just reeks of classism and racism. I don't find it not much funnier than putting monopoly bills in a beggar's can.
I don't see the racist connection, they could be any race we are baiting them because they are scammers. Actually I don't see the classism either, if some CEO called me up and asked me to do something ridiculous, I would love to get him dressed in funky religious garb and post pictures on the net.
I'm tired of spammers on the internet or on the streets begging and scamming for my money it wastes my time and often scares me. I say more power to any vigilante who wants to return the annoyance, plus get some laughs for me.
Really? The tobacco industry is a scam? Maybe I'm just lying on their behalf, but I went down to the general store the other day and bought a couple cigars. They did ask me if I was 18 so maybe they are going to steal my identity with that info later, but they had no reoccurring payment scheme, no account information had to be divulged and they did deliver those cigars.
On the other hand I lost thousands to more reputable products that I would consider scams. "Scam" is not how bad the product is, it's the business scheme.
It's entirely reasonable to criticize governments when they enact stupid policies, whether they're democratically elected or not. As I recall one or two foreign entities on occasion said less than complimentary things about the Bush administration; were they wrong to do so?
As I recall a large portion of the United States said less than complimentary things about the Bush administration.
GP:
their laws are by definition reflective of their social values
Where do you live GP? I've lived in a democratice country my entire life, I know it's a rare experience, but it leads me to completely disagree with you. If I don't want to do something, I don't do it. If I don't want my neighbor doing something I expect a debate on whether that is reasonable wherever this occurs.
Slashdot Mirror
slashdotters.
Really, I don't care about most security threats past, "will it affect me?" and in this case it won't.
I'll help my mom clean your app off her computer/smart-phone later, but there just isn't time for me to worry about all the threats that will hit her.
Actually a pic wouldn't be creepy, it might even look sexy. Its the empty stares from it's soulless eyes that can only really be captured from RL.
Alright, he may be confused, however, his insight is into why the general populace may fear such things. Whether or not the populace is wrong is beside the point, the populace has always been obsessed with the male sex drive and how to thwart it / use it and ignored the female's and I would say they probably follow reasoning similar to his.
Quite right, I'm sure I could also try to make 500friends in RL and at least 100 of them would accept. That doesn't mean I actually have 100 friends. ...wait I've confused myself.
Obviously interesting enough for you to come down here and comment on it!
The interest to me is the implications that locking down wifi hotspots has towards a society. I find this interesting. If you don't read the next story.
I saw TFA and I do not see where it states that. I see that more Europeans DO secure their wireless hotspots than Americans, but not the know-how-to data you say is there.
Sure, this case is a rarity, but it points out it can be done:
http://overlawyered.com/2006/09/the-burglar-and-the-skylight-another-debunking-that-isnt/
Actually, in the US, you can sue anybody for just about any reason, including giving a malicious hacker or file-sharer internet access. I would not be surprised to hear the RIAA tracked a hub of free music back to a wireless router and accused the owner.
Probably not, but I don't know.
Assuming you are not liable, I would point out that after the victim/FBI tracks the activity back to your access point the ensuing legal battle during which you prove it was someone else may be unbearable and the accusations may never come off (e.g. if the bad guy was watching k1ddy pr0n, you'll probably lose your job and most of your friends even though you're later found innocent).
I see what you mean, but I considered that Situation B (bad guy using your unprotected wireless) is far more likely than situation A (bad guy bothers to crack your keys). The problem being that a legal case of any sort would an unbearable hassle (I live in the US, btw) and considering what the bad guy might be doing, the tarnish of the accusations may never come off as far as your job and family life are concerned. Therefore I like to reduce my chance of exposure to any of that by locking down my wireless.
In your Situation A (bad guy cracks key) I would add that wireless routers usually contain access logs which will have logged that the bad stuff occurred while a computer you nor law enforcement can account for was logged onto your router.
Actually, thats not the reason I lock down my wireless; I lock it down because my internet speed was crappy awhile back, which seemed to clear up as soon as I locked out my neighbors.
As someone who uses email autoreplies, it would be rather annoying to come back from a month of vacation to discover my auto reply was flipped off three weeks ago because I provided links to my home-business site and people have been wondering why I haven't been responding.
I would sum up your response, AC, as: "can't the users just deal with inappropriate actions of their email providers?" To which I would say no.
I am german and i don't understand the (US-)american hate against the french?!
Apparently the propaganda from US-Networks like FOX-News does an excellent job.
Most of the French words that were adapted into English don't follow the normal pronunciation rules of the rest of the language (Ballet, Faux) which makes grade school reading really hard and...Actually I have no idea, I'm from the US and I did not know we hated the French. We make fun of our exaggerations of their culture (cheese eating snobs who don't bathe) all the time, but we do that to everybody, including ourselves.
Haha, I get it. You're being a grammar Natzi in a story about Germany and France. Haha, Racy.
I wonder if that will effect people! :P
Or the US could just call up France and Switzerland and be all: "Hey we are pretty certain the LHC is going to destroy the planet; would you mind not running it till you can fix that?" I don't think any country aside from maybe North Korea would keep running the LHC at that point.
Uh, I know cockroaches are known to survive radiation well, but have we tested them in blackholes? Why aren't we launching cockroaches into blackholes? Science must be done!
Why do we assume that it takes a device of a size noticeable to authorities or the public in order to create a globally destructive black hole?
Because if some emo-kid could build one in his basement then we wouldn't be here to talk about this. However, in another couple centuries when an LHCs is on your high school biology supplies list, we might bring this concern out again.
Right, we will need to modify the Drake Equation while the earth is going all black hole. Because we will then know L to be: time from when intelligent life begins broadcasting signals till they build an LHC, which is like 70 years, yeah?
If it actually occuurred, an LHC black hole wouldnt swallow the solar system. It wouldnt even swallow the moon. It would have the same mass as the earth and would continue to follow roughly the same orbit (not accounting for solar wind and photon momentum).
Well, OK. Having the moon and the solar system would be some consolation. I'd still be kinda bummed about the whole annihilation of earth, my species and my pet cat.
I seem to recall that some physics thought that before the Trinity Explosion, that perhaps an atom explosion would vaporise the entire atmosphere.
I recall that too. However in the parallel universes in which such an explosion does dissolve the atmosphere's atoms, they don't recall that.
One guy on the site is even ranting..
Yeah, I wish they would just ignore those guys too. However, I'd like to know that we're not risking our existence based on the old "only an idiot would think that" logical fallacy.
Well gee, if killing people is the main goal, look at all those folks piled up in front of the rigorous security checkpoint... Maybe not as dramatic as knocking a plane out of the sky, but jihadis can't be choosers if you know what I mean.
Killing people doesn't seem to be the main goal; it doesn't explain why they continue to target airplanes with ridiculous plots when there are plenty of other places to kill more people with no or minimal security and are far more crowded than any security checkpoint. Either terrorists take pride in alluding security or they really want to inconvenience travelers, but either way, maximum casualties nor convenience seems to be on their list; I wouldn't worry about checkpoints being bombed.
This site however looks very professional and uses pictures of Stephen Conroy in such a way as to appear to be affiliated with him. Not until reading the text under the picture of him speaking does the mental dissonance make you realize that this is a parody site, assuming you are interested to read that far.
Whether or not you agree, I and a large amount of the internet will assume FirstnameLastname.com or similar of a notable figure with a professional look and pictures of that figure to be associated with them. So I would be in support of the right to protect your name in such a way.
And on your last point,
I believe every individual should have the right to lie whenever they want.
I see we will probably never resolve this discussion as I would like some restrictions on when someone can lie, hence my disagreements with you above.
What I don't understand is that someone can download a copyrighted movie and get disconnected, yet there are literally hundreds of people in Nigeria doing this every day, yet we haven't de-peered that shithole of a country.
Here, I'll explain it to you: That one copyrighted movie had the power of billions of dollars of power from movie production associations protecting it all hammered down on one poor smuck who can't find a legal defense. On the other hand, when a similar poor smuck gets scammed out of a few thousand dollars, he bitches to some low paid local scam investigator and is put on the bottom of their "things we should care about" list.
What they do is merely an up-to-date trick of the tradeless. Beggars, hobos, petty thieves with an internet connection. A criminal enterprise ofcourse, but reverse-baiting them in vigilante fashion just reeks of classism and racism. I don't find it not much funnier than putting monopoly bills in a beggar's can.
I don't see the racist connection, they could be any race we are baiting them because they are scammers. Actually I don't see the classism either, if some CEO called me up and asked me to do something ridiculous, I would love to get him dressed in funky religious garb and post pictures on the net.
I'm tired of spammers on the internet or on the streets begging and scamming for my money it wastes my time and often scares me. I say more power to any vigilante who wants to return the annoyance, plus get some laughs for me.
Really? The tobacco industry is a scam? Maybe I'm just lying on their behalf, but I went down to the general store the other day and bought a couple cigars. They did ask me if I was 18 so maybe they are going to steal my identity with that info later, but they had no reoccurring payment scheme, no account information had to be divulged and they did deliver those cigars. On the other hand I lost thousands to more reputable products that I would consider scams. "Scam" is not how bad the product is, it's the business scheme.
This robotic puma will have the head of a woman, and the wings of an eagle. We'll start its trial runs by Thebes.
It's entirely reasonable to criticize governments when they enact stupid policies, whether they're democratically elected or not. As I recall one or two foreign entities on occasion said less than complimentary things about the Bush administration; were they wrong to do so?
As I recall a large portion of the United States said less than complimentary things about the Bush administration.
GP:
their laws are by definition reflective of their social values
Where do you live GP? I've lived in a democratice country my entire life, I know it's a rare experience, but it leads me to completely disagree with you. If I don't want to do something, I don't do it. If I don't want my neighbor doing something I expect a debate on whether that is reasonable wherever this occurs.