Maybe you haven't had your original content lifted wholesale from your website and then republished by an organisation making a PROFIT off it. I have. It's not cool. They copy-pasted content without attribution (bad enough - you're only meant to do so for illustrative purposes - not as the basis for your article), and then turned around and started mocking the guy they stole it from, whilst still not providing attribution.
If another blogger stole his stuff, it wouldn't be much of a news story. The talentless scum do that on a daily basis. When a news organisation does it, it becomes newsworthy.
Indeed, but one is a private individual and one is an accountable business. I found it hard to read as well, but was amazed when I got to the part where the newspaper actually does pretend that it wrote the content itself rather than stealing it, and MOCKED the original author for even trying to lay claim to his own work.
A quick domain name lookupwhich is free and public informationwill give you those details, which we acquired–you know, being a newspaper with research capabilities and all–of our own accord (although some are trying to claim this information as their own “discovery” as a way to promote their own personal website! But enough of that)
For a "professional organisation" that is absolutely incredible. First of all they steal his content. Then they edit it to try and make it look like it wasn't stolen. And then they edit it again to actually make fun of the guy they stole it from.
OMG.. that right-hand picture.. In FF4, this end of the rack spaces are almost perfectly in line with the scrolling demarcations. Rapidly scrolling up and down makes it look 3D-esque and screws with my mind..:O
I just hope I wasn't the only one tripped out by the visual effect.:)
Indeed.. and AC who already posted clearly came along too late to experience RIPscript on BBSs. One certainly could interact with the alternate-text labelled RIPscript areas before and whilst the images were loading - which actually made graphical BBSing on a 14.4k modem bearable.
I don't understand. Are you saying people who are black shouldn't have to deal with whatever occurs in their life as a result? Before you answer - realise there are also black-only scholarships and black-only sports events, etc.
If you're saying there should be no consequence to being black, you're also saying that there should be no black-only scholarships. Unless you're saying "oh, no - only the 'bad' things are discrimination.. there's no such thing as reverse discrimination" which would just show you to be a bullshit leftie hippy with his head in the clouds.
Saying "people who can't see, shouldn't be impeded in life in any way and to even think they are is DISCRIMINATION" its lunacy. Sorry your parents didn't tell you, you're an idiot. They are ALREADY IMPEDED by the very fact they can't see. Now, I can't tell whats going through those mis-firing neurons of yours, but perhaps you think what you're trying to say is that "being blind isn't a limitation, considering it such is discrimination."
It's a limitation in the very definition of the word. A deaf person is limited in that they can't hear. A blind person is limited in that they can't see. You're limited in that you can't have an original thought. Thus - neither saying a blind person is going to have to deal with anything that arises in their life as a consequense of being blind, nor saying a black person is going to have to deal with any consequence that arises in their life as a result of being black, is discrimination. It's simple fact.
Pretending that all people are treated equally is self-delusion. Sure - they should be, but they're not. They never will be. There's plenty of shit I "deal with" in my predominantly black neighbourhood because I'm white. But I don't whinge about it on forums and say "but the law says no discrimination!". That's not the real world. That's a made up imaginary space in polititians campaign slogans.
If "disability" is defined as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity." then "you have a disability, deal with it" is accurate by admission. The individual has an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. If they didn't - all things being equal and nobody ever being prevented from doing anything in your perfect imaginary bubble world - then they wouldn't fall under that classification, would they?
The primary immediate issues, that make it unuseable for myself.
- I don't lift my fingers to click. I gently press. I don't want to have to start lifting. - Latency. - Awkward scrolling. - Muscle tension from having to hold any part of my hand off the surface at any time. - Lacks the other 5 buttons I use on my mouse.
The reason the mouse hasn't "changed" much in the last 20 years is because it works great.
You're right. I must be missing the part of history which shows "spies" using multiple fraudulent biometric iris scans.
In my knowledge of spy history, such as the Illegals Operation for example, two of the agents used their original identity - Anna Chapman included. The rest used stolen identities of American citizens. The reason these were able to be stolen is because we DON'T use biometric data or iris scans in our identification. You're commenting on an article, saying:
How do spies have multiple identities despite these "fraud proof" ID cards?
The fact is, if iris scans were on record for these citizens, then there identity could NOT be stolen so easily. You're arguing against the very measure which makes it more difficult for spies to operate.
"These cards" are the ones which make that more difficult. You're thinking of passports, yet talking about iris scans.
Additionally, it is extremely rare for "spies" to have multiple identifications. They have their original identification, and a cover identification arranged by their own government (not very difficult to fake a passport when you're the folks printing them). Not six different nationalities. That's movies, and very rare bad spies who get caught because they trust movies as their source for how to operate.
Indeed, I was watching Hillary say earlier that "Japan has run out of coolant, so we've had the US Air Force deliver some to them."
Made me mad that politians are allowed to just make up stupid crap like that and still hold any sort of position of authority. "Coolant" is water. Furthermore, you'd need several jumbos full of "coolant" to cool a single reactor - and as it's so heavy, you'd only be able to fill a jumbo about 1/4th. There's no way the USAF has delivered enough "coolant" to do anything.
Furthermore - Japan doesn't NEED water. They have plenty of it. They need working pumps for their backup coolant system - and in fact the pumps are fine, they're just without power, hence why Japan has mobilised over 50 generators to one nuclear plant - to power the backup coolant pumping systems.
"Porn-diallers" (ie, premium-number dialling software) have been around since before the internet, many malware-based that would dial even if you didn't want them to. The only thing unique about this case is he's one of the few to actually get caught.
There's nothing special about what he's done (besides being stupid enough to get caught), and I don't see anything awesome about stealing from generally innocent folks - who can't afford broadband connections. "Rob from the.. poor.. and give to myself!". Yeah.. no.
Every OS has a registry - an accessible record of cross-application settings and references. Unless we go backwards (ie, DOS), you'll never see an OS without a registry - even if it's not called that.
It's all about "think of the children!". The government considers gaming here to be largely a domain of children (despite their own researching showing the majority of gamers are in the 18-25 demographic, followed by the 26-35 demographic, with children a somewhat distant third) and thus as any game is going to be played by children, "there should be no R18 category - as it's not appropriate for children".
They seem to ignore the fact that introducing an R18 category would actually allow them to classify more of the "borderline" stuff into R18 that they don't really think children should be playing, yet isn't necessarily bad enough to be banned outright. (Under the current system, as there is no R18 rating, games that would fit into that category are refused classification, thus banned - hence why I use that word). Under the current system, shop owners aren't legally allowed to prevent children buying M (MA15+) rated games, as the content is legally allowed to be viewed under parental supervision. This isn't the shop owners jurisdiction. The reality here is that children actually have MORE access to violent material than they would if an R18 rating was in place.
Likewise with the firewall, apparently parents can't stop their children visiting online porn sites so the government wants to block it for you. And since they can't be sure whether or not a parent will be responsible enough to opt-into a filter system, better just to firewall everybody. Technically everywhere in the country X-rated material isn't allowed to be imported. Oh - except Canberra - so the polititians are allowed their porn. Just nobody else. Luckily - this aspect of it isn't in place yet, and instead they're doing selective ISP-level address filtering to block out child-porn, bomb-making sites, and such things. The issue is, they can take it further and block any seditious material they want to and theres no checks in place to ensure this isn't being done inappropriately.
At present, the "firewall" isn't a great issue, as the government is treading very carefully on the issue. It could be one day, though. And seriously they're going the wrong way about it. If you want to combat child porn, you don't BLOCK the honey-pot child porn credit-card-requiring pay-walls. You leave them wide open and collect credit card details. The member of parliament in charge of IT believes that if you oppose filtering, you support child-porn. It's simply a case of incompetent people in positions of power. It's not really a serious threat to the constitution of the nation, and the kind of thing that can be changed easily when the next government gets into power.
Oh, that's because we have an R18 rating for movies, just not for games. For some reason parts of the government see R18 rated games as a special kind of evil, that they need to protect us from. Its just like there's no X-rating in the majority of the country - oh, except for the Australian Capital Territory (think, Australia's version of DC) so the government officials themselves are allowed X-rated material - just not the rest of us.
It was discovered in (actually, discovered much earlier but acknowledged in) October 2010, thus the difference between the two worlds is that folks who discover Linux bugs tend not to share them with anyone but the vendor, and the folks who discover Windows bugs tells everyone and their dog, before even notifying Microsoft. Interestingly, often the same folks in both cases.
Thus, there's nothing wrong with our world. There's something wrong with the mindset of the white-hats.
Because the business model requires piracy. Even if the MPAA and every organisation they represent put their content on a website, and charged a low monthly all-you-can-eat fee, it still wouldn't equal an unrestricted cross-organisation warez amalgamation site. They could still only legally have their own content up. That's why "stealing" isn't a "business model", its a crime. In most cases, anyhow.;)
Indeed, this is a sensible case. I've avoided Hotfile specifically for this reason. It encourages piracy so much that it screams "Honeypot". Seems not to be the case, which makes it a pretty clear-cut case of wilfully enabling and encouraging others to commit a crime. Of course, the law isn't that simple, so it'll be up to the courts to decide. As much as I am fairly neutral on "enabling" where there are other, legitimate uses - Hotfile's encouragement I cannot support.
Heh.. I saw an ad for a TV program on last week, and part of the description was "and the tips you literally cannot live without!"
I missed the show, yet am still alive. I think the presenter may have been slightly over-zealous with his usage of the term "literally".
On Topic: Indeed, it is FUD as it's a non-issue in the first place, even if the government does "spy" on Facebook, it's not spying as you've given the information to a third party - namely, a third party with one of the most awful privacy records around. Once that information is freely given to a third party, it's no longer "private". Labels such as "private" on the website are simply to indicate the status of access to that information by other USERS, not any indication of what the company themselves, or anyone they choose to share the information with, does with that information.
I propose that as part of the widely-geek-proposed "internet drivers license", one of the questions should be: Q. What does "private" mean in relation to data posted to a third-party website? 1. Private! Only myself and whomever I choose to share the information with can see it. 2. Mostly private. Only myself and the company owning the service can see the information. 3. Private, subject to subpoena. Only myself, the company, and any legal subpoenas submitted by courts to access my information can see it. 4. Public. Anyone whom the website wishes to share it with can see my data. Frequently, other users can manipulate the address line to view my "private" data.
So if you had hard evidence that, for instance, the government did 9/11 (And I don't believe it did at all, just using this as an example), and I mean hard evidence as in tape recordings of the President giving the "go ahead" for the operation - you'd sit on it and say that you have no right to release private information?
The way democracy works, any efforts by a ruling party to prevent fair, honest elections - ie, election fraud - is the most important kind of public information.
I don't really like Assange as a person either, but I wholly support the cause. If the governments "win" and manage to shut down WikiLeaks and silence Assange, what does that say about the free world? The problem with corruption is that almost nobody tries to stand up to it - it's why corruption persists. People are weak and easily bought out by money, or killed. Here's a person and an organisation who are saying "We will not be deterred, or bribed, or bullied - and wherever we get information that governments are lying or trying to hide information from its citizens that harms those citizens - we'll make that information public" and you're siding with the corrupt?
Do you realise how very rare and important it is for people to stand up to corruption? WikiLeaks may not always get it right - they're fallable just like the rest of us - and might release information they shouldn't. But by far they're the lesser of two evils - if you consider their goals an evil at all.
Don't like Assange? Fine. Don't like particular leaks? Fine. Think WikiLeaks is a bad thing for the world? Wrong - bringing corruption to light is one of the most responsible and important things an organisation can do. Especially when it makes them the enemy of every government in the "free world" because it threatens their own corrupt practices.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you haven't had your original content lifted wholesale from your website and then republished by an organisation making a PROFIT off it. I have. It's not cool. They copy-pasted content without attribution (bad enough - you're only meant to do so for illustrative purposes - not as the basis for your article), and then turned around and started mocking the guy they stole it from, whilst still not providing attribution.
If another blogger stole his stuff, it wouldn't be much of a news story. The talentless scum do that on a daily basis. When a news organisation does it, it becomes newsworthy.
Indeed, but one is a private individual and one is an accountable business. I found it hard to read as well, but was amazed when I got to the part where the newspaper actually does pretend that it wrote the content itself rather than stealing it, and MOCKED the original author for even trying to lay claim to his own work.
A quick domain name lookupwhich is free and public informationwill give you those details, which we acquired–you know, being a newspaper with research capabilities and all–of our own accord (although some are trying to claim this information as their own “discovery” as a way to promote their own personal website! But enough of that)
For a "professional organisation" that is absolutely incredible. First of all they steal his content. Then they edit it to try and make it look like it wasn't stolen. And then they edit it again to actually make fun of the guy they stole it from.
OMG.. that right-hand picture.. In FF4, this end of the rack spaces are almost perfectly in line with the scrolling demarcations. Rapidly scrolling up and down makes it look 3D-esque and screws with my mind.. :O
I just hope I wasn't the only one tripped out by the visual effect. :)
Indeed.. and AC who already posted clearly came along too late to experience RIPscript on BBSs. One certainly could interact with the alternate-text labelled RIPscript areas before and whilst the images were loading - which actually made graphical BBSing on a 14.4k modem bearable.
I don't understand. Are you saying people who are black shouldn't have to deal with whatever occurs in their life as a result? Before you answer - realise there are also black-only scholarships and black-only sports events, etc.
If you're saying there should be no consequence to being black, you're also saying that there should be no black-only scholarships. Unless you're saying "oh, no - only the 'bad' things are discrimination.. there's no such thing as reverse discrimination" which would just show you to be a bullshit leftie hippy with his head in the clouds.
Saying "people who can't see, shouldn't be impeded in life in any way and to even think they are is DISCRIMINATION" its lunacy. Sorry your parents didn't tell you, you're an idiot. They are ALREADY IMPEDED by the very fact they can't see. Now, I can't tell whats going through those mis-firing neurons of yours, but perhaps you think what you're trying to say is that "being blind isn't a limitation, considering it such is discrimination."
It's a limitation in the very definition of the word. A deaf person is limited in that they can't hear. A blind person is limited in that they can't see. You're limited in that you can't have an original thought. Thus - neither saying a blind person is going to have to deal with anything that arises in their life as a consequense of being blind, nor saying a black person is going to have to deal with any consequence that arises in their life as a result of being black, is discrimination. It's simple fact.
Pretending that all people are treated equally is self-delusion. Sure - they should be, but they're not. They never will be. There's plenty of shit I "deal with" in my predominantly black neighbourhood because I'm white. But I don't whinge about it on forums and say "but the law says no discrimination!". That's not the real world. That's a made up imaginary space in polititians campaign slogans.
If "disability" is defined as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity." then "you have a disability, deal with it" is accurate by admission. The individual has an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. If they didn't - all things being equal and nobody ever being prevented from doing anything in your perfect imaginary bubble world - then they wouldn't fall under that classification, would they?
The primary immediate issues, that make it unuseable for myself.
- I don't lift my fingers to click. I gently press. I don't want to have to start lifting.
- Latency.
- Awkward scrolling.
- Muscle tension from having to hold any part of my hand off the surface at any time.
- Lacks the other 5 buttons I use on my mouse.
The reason the mouse hasn't "changed" much in the last 20 years is because it works great.
haha. You need to grow a brain. Are you denying that spies use fake identification? That's absurd. Sometimes they are even caught red handed. Here's the first example of that off the top of my head: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Assassination_of_Mahmoud_al-Mabhouh .
Lol.. "grow a brain, moran!"
Do you see the different between people faking passports and faking biometric data?
No?
Then please, stop talking before you hurt yourself.
And apologies, I treated you as OP, although you're not. Hopefully you'll see what I was replying to originally, however.
You're right. I must be missing the part of history which shows "spies" using multiple fraudulent biometric iris scans.
In my knowledge of spy history, such as the Illegals Operation for example, two of the agents used their original identity - Anna Chapman included. The rest used stolen identities of American citizens. The reason these were able to be stolen is because we DON'T use biometric data or iris scans in our identification. You're commenting on an article, saying:
How do spies have multiple identities despite these "fraud proof" ID cards?
The fact is, if iris scans were on record for these citizens, then there identity could NOT be stolen so easily. You're arguing against the very measure which makes it more difficult for spies to operate.
"These cards" are the ones which make that more difficult. You're thinking of passports, yet talking about iris scans.
Additionally, it is extremely rare for "spies" to have multiple identifications. They have their original identification, and a cover identification arranged by their own government (not very difficult to fake a passport when you're the folks printing them). Not six different nationalities. That's movies, and very rare bad spies who get caught because they trust movies as their source for how to operate.
Really? Please elaborate on your findings of "spies" using multiple copies of fraudulent biometic iris scans.
You watch too many movies.
Indeed, I was watching Hillary say earlier that "Japan has run out of coolant, so we've had the US Air Force deliver some to them."
Made me mad that politians are allowed to just make up stupid crap like that and still hold any sort of position of authority. "Coolant" is water. Furthermore, you'd need several jumbos full of "coolant" to cool a single reactor - and as it's so heavy, you'd only be able to fill a jumbo about 1/4th. There's no way the USAF has delivered enough "coolant" to do anything.
Furthermore - Japan doesn't NEED water. They have plenty of it. They need working pumps for their backup coolant system - and in fact the pumps are fine, they're just without power, hence why Japan has mobilised over 50 generators to one nuclear plant - to power the backup coolant pumping systems.
So Hillary, she's just talking complete bullshit.
I'm sure it's all accurate and such, but skimming down the page, I couldn't help but be reminded of TimeCube!
Hahaha! Already used up my mod points for today, sorry. :(
"Porn-diallers" (ie, premium-number dialling software) have been around since before the internet, many malware-based that would dial even if you didn't want them to. The only thing unique about this case is he's one of the few to actually get caught.
There's nothing special about what he's done (besides being stupid enough to get caught), and I don't see anything awesome about stealing from generally innocent folks - who can't afford broadband connections. "Rob from the .. poor.. and give to myself!". Yeah.. no.
Every OS has a registry - an accessible record of cross-application settings and references. Unless we go backwards (ie, DOS), you'll never see an OS without a registry - even if it's not called that.
It's all about "think of the children!". The government considers gaming here to be largely a domain of children (despite their own researching showing the majority of gamers are in the 18-25 demographic, followed by the 26-35 demographic, with children a somewhat distant third) and thus as any game is going to be played by children, "there should be no R18 category - as it's not appropriate for children".
They seem to ignore the fact that introducing an R18 category would actually allow them to classify more of the "borderline" stuff into R18 that they don't really think children should be playing, yet isn't necessarily bad enough to be banned outright. (Under the current system, as there is no R18 rating, games that would fit into that category are refused classification, thus banned - hence why I use that word). Under the current system, shop owners aren't legally allowed to prevent children buying M (MA15+) rated games, as the content is legally allowed to be viewed under parental supervision. This isn't the shop owners jurisdiction. The reality here is that children actually have MORE access to violent material than they would if an R18 rating was in place.
Likewise with the firewall, apparently parents can't stop their children visiting online porn sites so the government wants to block it for you. And since they can't be sure whether or not a parent will be responsible enough to opt-into a filter system, better just to firewall everybody. Technically everywhere in the country X-rated material isn't allowed to be imported. Oh - except Canberra - so the polititians are allowed their porn. Just nobody else. Luckily - this aspect of it isn't in place yet, and instead they're doing selective ISP-level address filtering to block out child-porn, bomb-making sites, and such things. The issue is, they can take it further and block any seditious material they want to and theres no checks in place to ensure this isn't being done inappropriately.
At present, the "firewall" isn't a great issue, as the government is treading very carefully on the issue. It could be one day, though. And seriously they're going the wrong way about it. If you want to combat child porn, you don't BLOCK the honey-pot child porn credit-card-requiring pay-walls. You leave them wide open and collect credit card details. The member of parliament in charge of IT believes that if you oppose filtering, you support child-porn. It's simply a case of incompetent people in positions of power. It's not really a serious threat to the constitution of the nation, and the kind of thing that can be changed easily when the next government gets into power.
Oh, that's because we have an R18 rating for movies, just not for games. For some reason parts of the government see R18 rated games as a special kind of evil, that they need to protect us from. Its just like there's no X-rating in the majority of the country - oh, except for the Australian Capital Territory (think, Australia's version of DC) so the government officials themselves are allowed X-rated material - just not the rest of us.
All the female geeks migrated... http://xkcd.com/624/
It was discovered in (actually, discovered much earlier but acknowledged in) October 2010, thus the difference between the two worlds is that folks who discover Linux bugs tend not to share them with anyone but the vendor, and the folks who discover Windows bugs tells everyone and their dog, before even notifying Microsoft. Interestingly, often the same folks in both cases.
Thus, there's nothing wrong with our world. There's something wrong with the mindset of the white-hats.
Because the business model requires piracy. Even if the MPAA and every organisation they represent put their content on a website, and charged a low monthly all-you-can-eat fee, it still wouldn't equal an unrestricted cross-organisation warez amalgamation site. They could still only legally have their own content up. That's why "stealing" isn't a "business model", its a crime. In most cases, anyhow. ;)
Indeed, this is a sensible case. I've avoided Hotfile specifically for this reason. It encourages piracy so much that it screams "Honeypot". Seems not to be the case, which makes it a pretty clear-cut case of wilfully enabling and encouraging others to commit a crime. Of course, the law isn't that simple, so it'll be up to the courts to decide. As much as I am fairly neutral on "enabling" where there are other, legitimate uses - Hotfile's encouragement I cannot support.
If you've never used it, how do you know it's a POS?
Heh.. I saw an ad for a TV program on last week, and part of the description was "and the tips you literally cannot live without!"
I missed the show, yet am still alive. I think the presenter may have been slightly over-zealous with his usage of the term "literally".
On Topic: Indeed, it is FUD as it's a non-issue in the first place, even if the government does "spy" on Facebook, it's not spying as you've given the information to a third party - namely, a third party with one of the most awful privacy records around. Once that information is freely given to a third party, it's no longer "private". Labels such as "private" on the website are simply to indicate the status of access to that information by other USERS, not any indication of what the company themselves, or anyone they choose to share the information with, does with that information.
I propose that as part of the widely-geek-proposed "internet drivers license", one of the questions should be:
Q. What does "private" mean in relation to data posted to a third-party website?
1. Private! Only myself and whomever I choose to share the information with can see it.
2. Mostly private. Only myself and the company owning the service can see the information.
3. Private, subject to subpoena. Only myself, the company, and any legal subpoenas submitted by courts to access my information can see it.
4. Public. Anyone whom the website wishes to share it with can see my data. Frequently, other users can manipulate the address line to view my "private" data.
The correct answer is 4.
So if you had hard evidence that, for instance, the government did 9/11 (And I don't believe it did at all, just using this as an example), and I mean hard evidence as in tape recordings of the President giving the "go ahead" for the operation - you'd sit on it and say that you have no right to release private information?
The way democracy works, any efforts by a ruling party to prevent fair, honest elections - ie, election fraud - is the most important kind of public information.
I don't really like Assange as a person either, but I wholly support the cause. If the governments "win" and manage to shut down WikiLeaks and silence Assange, what does that say about the free world? The problem with corruption is that almost nobody tries to stand up to it - it's why corruption persists. People are weak and easily bought out by money, or killed. Here's a person and an organisation who are saying "We will not be deterred, or bribed, or bullied - and wherever we get information that governments are lying or trying to hide information from its citizens that harms those citizens - we'll make that information public" and you're siding with the corrupt?
Do you realise how very rare and important it is for people to stand up to corruption? WikiLeaks may not always get it right - they're fallable just like the rest of us - and might release information they shouldn't. But by far they're the lesser of two evils - if you consider their goals an evil at all.
Don't like Assange? Fine. Don't like particular leaks? Fine. Think WikiLeaks is a bad thing for the world? Wrong - bringing corruption to light is one of the most responsible and important things an organisation can do. Especially when it makes them the enemy of every government in the "free world" because it threatens their own corrupt practices.