find a candidate that will represent your views on this and work towards getting this person elected. It's a win/win situation to get involved. If your candidate wins, your efforts are paid off, you have helped make America a better place.
Not a lot of experience with the American political system, I take it? Here's the problem with your premise: all the candidates are crooks and liars, who support the removal of freedoms by the federal government; at least, the candidates who actually stand a chance of winning are.
So long as monied interests control politics, we the People will have no say. Considering that the bought-and-paid-for political elite have no intention of changing the rules they created in order to make themselves kings, I posit that the ballot box has become an abject failure in the defense of liberty, and thus a complete waste of time.
I suspect some government contractors would not appreciate you suggesting that their sales somehow mean less because they were made to the government and paid for with taxes.
Possibly; then again, these are the same contractors who charge we taxpayers $600+ a pop for toilet seats, so pardon me if I don't feel sorry for them.
BTW, Manos_Of_Fate... What you did? It's there, and I see it:D
Or there's a mismatch between IT's perception of security with the user's. What did the password to your accounts control? If it was just access to a PC in the lab, most users would just go "meh" as they have their own PCs.
Faculty and staff network access; pretty major stuff.
If I'm not mistaken, it was someone in the financial office (which handles not only student accounts, but payroll as well) who had the wonderfully secure password 'Dolphin1'
I wish it had been something as benign as lab computer access, would have made my job of patching up the holes created by user generated passwords a hell of a lot easier.
having to make up your own passwords, then having to change them all the time leads to weak ones or the password being put on a post it note.
FTFY.
I used to work for a public university; when I started there, our passwords were auto-generated random strings of 8-12 alphanumerics and symbols, and we received new passwords every fiscal quarter. Our security team would run various password cracking apps on the systems, and only once did an auto-generated password get cracked.
Two years after I started there, they changed the password policy - users had to make up their own passwords. Still minimum 8 characters, at least 1 capitalized letter, 1 lower case letter, and 1 number, still changes every quarter.
With a faculty of about 150 users, we cracked approximately half of the user-defined passwords within 5 minutes of firing up JtR. My personal favorite was cracked in less than half a second:
Dolphin1
My experience is, it's less about how often the passwords change, and more an issue of users not having a good sense of what it takes to secure their data.
Due to lack of sleep, as well as general disinterest in your narcissistic, asshole assumptions, I refer you to the response given in Arkell v Pressdram.
You're wrong; people can and do advertise products that do not match up to the advertisement's promises; one only has to go as far as late night infomercials to see examples. Products that claim to increase your fuel mileage by X%, products that promise to make you a millionaire or give you muscles like a pro athlete in 30 days, and so on.
Also, any product sold under the claim that it will "help you lose weight." The vast majority of diet pills and other products do absolutely nothing to affect the weight of the user.
Now, I am not a doctor and I have no medical training of any kind,
Than anyone who buys your product based on your claims is doing so at their own risk. Which is my point - You already told them you are not a trustworthy source for medical advice; from that point on, it's caveat emptor.
Now, don't get me wrong - I'm not saying any of this is right, or how things should be. Much to the contrary, I'm a firm believer that when you give corporations of any kind any sort of slack, they'll end up with the entire reel. I'm merely pointing out how things work as of today; a simple proclamation of ignorance is apparently all one needs in order to sell snake oil.
Example: every single ToS I've ever taken the time to read.
My post was global in it's scope, his response was as if it were localized to only one particular group. He didn't "make a point," he was criticizing me for making a point I did not make. Learn to read, douchebag.
Seriously, did you even read what I posted, or were you too busy looking up terminology for your idiotic, off topic, nonsensical rant?
I'm no English major, but I do know how to fucking read. I suggest you try it yourself sometime, lest you continue to make a jackass of yourself
fail to admit he made a point
Again, as knowing that you understand implies that you actually know how to fucking read, he didn't "make a point," he accused me of singling out a particular extremist view whilst ignoring all others, which I obviously (at least, obvious to those of us who actually understand the English fucking language) did not do. Claiming otherwise only serves to prove that either you too failed to read the words I wrote, or you're just plain ol' butthurt because I've made critical statements in regards to your fuck-buddy. Either way, I'm not the one who comes off looking like a childish, ignorant fuckwad.
Do you have any idea how fucking infantile that is and how absurd it is for you to think you're making a point here?
Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about your post.
What amuses me about this is the total lack of irony or self-awareness.
Like, say, the irony of accusing me of directing my comment at a single individual, whereas the text of it does not distinguish a particular philosophy, thus indicating that it applies to extremists of all philosophies, then subsequently falling into an extremist rant yourself?
Where does all this "dismantle civilization" stuff come from? Changing power sources is dismantling civilization?
That, Little Johnny, is what we call "over-the-top hyperbolic rhetoric spawning from extremist zealots."
Typically, when someone starts screaming that this or that will lead to the end of civilization as we know it, you're best off to just keep on truckin' by...
"I'm sure the aristocracy of England thought the same thing of those pesky colonists circa the 1770's."
Because nothing at all has changed since the 1700s, right? Nope. No new guns that shoot 1000+ rounds a SECOND. No new satellites. Nothing. Jeez. Now you're just being silly.
Gee, I guess you're right - I mean, it's not like a ragtag group of citizens has ever overthrown their far more well armed governments in the last hundred years, huh?
Egypt or Libya ringing any bells?
"cap all corporate profits at 30%"
An now you're just being TOO silly.
Hence the reason I qualified the statement with "Is it a perfect plan? Probably not, but it's leaps and bounds ahead of anything proposed by the Republicrats."
This could never work, and I hardly even know where to begin with why
Then I posit that you truly don't know, and are posting merely for the sake of being arch. Which would be cute, if you weren't such a needlessly condescending dickhead about it.
but I'll start with the simple fact that company's only turn a "profit" when it's convenient.
You... aren't an Econ major, are you?
It shows.
The Japanese did a cap on income based on 10x your lowest paid employee. Globalize that and change 'income' to 'wealth' and we might have something.
American CEO's often aren't "paid" much more than their employees; it's their "compensation package," which does not include their actual paycheck, that amount to outrageous sums. So as good of an idea as that is, and as well as that may work for the Japanese, it will never work in our system. Believing otherwise is living in a world of pure fantasy.
"While all men are created equal, that doesn't mean we all have to march in lockstep when it comes to philosophy"
There's your problem. You're busy thinking about philosophy and what you feel is fair.
What do you think, that the term 'philosophy' implies a bunch of guys in toga's sitting around pontificating about the best way to bugger their apprentices? That's pants-on-head retarded; I'm talking about personal philosophy, you know, the way an individual feels about a particular topic?
It appears your problem is a far more contracted understanding of the world than you believe yourself to have.
The world is too complex a place for 'philosophy'; e.g. for hard and fast rules.
Oh, I see, you have no idea what philosophy actually is. Sorry, thought I was talking to an adult who passed high school English. My bad.
It is obviously not legal advise because it is NOT advising anyone to do anything!
The statement "This is clearly such a case." can easily be construed to imply reference to legal precedent.
Reference to legal precedent is not giving legal advice.
But discussing ones personal experience with medicine is? That's the point I'm trying to make.
According to the state of NC, no, you do not have responsibility for your own actions in regards to nutrition. They have relegated it to a topic like medicine that you must be licensed to practice. If you disagree with that, that would be a valid discussion, but for this story, the only discussion is if his web site and interactions with people meet the definition of being a practicing nutritionist in NC.
Well, then, that's just pants-on-head retarded, isn't it? Remind me to thank $deity that I live in a state that respects my right to make my own decisions, stupid or otherwise. Knowing NC requires government licensure before allowing their citizens to think does explain quite a bit about the region, though...
On the issue of whether or not his actions qualify as being a "practicing nutritionist" (the term alone makes me want to spit), I would say that the only place the ADA really has an argument is where he's charging people for "telephone support." Otherwise, he clearly states that he is not a medical professional - caveat emptor.
1.
a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
2.
a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
Nothing in either of those definitions infers credibility on the part of the skeptic. For example, I can openly question the validity of the results of the LHC experiments, but that by no means lends any credibility to me, nor does it detract from the credibility of the scientists doing the research.
I think maybe you misunderstand the meaning of the word credible.
Slashdot Mirror
find a candidate that will represent your views on this and work towards getting this person elected. It's a win/win situation to get involved. If your candidate wins, your efforts are paid off, you have helped make America a better place.
Not a lot of experience with the American political system, I take it? Here's the problem with your premise: all the candidates are crooks and liars, who support the removal of freedoms by the federal government; at least, the candidates who actually stand a chance of winning are.
So long as monied interests control politics, we the People will have no say. Considering that the bought-and-paid-for political elite have no intention of changing the rules they created in order to make themselves kings, I posit that the ballot box has become an abject failure in the defense of liberty, and thus a complete waste of time.
Are hardware and software companies going to be taken down by lawsuits over failed security?
Probably not because they write the EULAs, as in, "You use the product at your own risk." type language.
Depends on where you live; Some nations/states have laws that all products of category X must be warrantied for Y number of years.
Didn't Apple get burned on this very thing over in France not too long ago?
mind if i steal that arkell vs pressdram line?
go nuts; it's a good one!
Yea, I love that one. Just aching for a chance to use it IRL...
Anyway, sorry if I've been a dick, man, it's been a long day and I'm way behind on my sleep.
I suspect some government contractors would not appreciate you suggesting that their sales somehow mean less because they were made to the government and paid for with taxes.
Possibly; then again, these are the same contractors who charge we taxpayers $600+ a pop for toilet seats, so pardon me if I don't feel sorry for them.
:D
BTW, Manos_Of_Fate... What you did? It's there, and I see it
Or there's a mismatch between IT's perception of security with the user's. What did the password to your accounts control? If it was just access to a PC in the lab, most users would just go "meh" as they have their own PCs.
Faculty and staff network access; pretty major stuff.
If I'm not mistaken, it was someone in the financial office (which handles not only student accounts, but payroll as well) who had the wonderfully secure password 'Dolphin1'
I wish it had been something as benign as lab computer access, would have made my job of patching up the holes created by user generated passwords a hell of a lot easier.
having to make up your own passwords, then having to change them all the time leads to weak ones or the password being put on a post it note.
FTFY.
I used to work for a public university; when I started there, our passwords were auto-generated random strings of 8-12 alphanumerics and symbols, and we received new passwords every fiscal quarter. Our security team would run various password cracking apps on the systems, and only once did an auto-generated password get cracked.
Two years after I started there, they changed the password policy - users had to make up their own passwords. Still minimum 8 characters, at least 1 capitalized letter, 1 lower case letter, and 1 number, still changes every quarter.
With a faculty of about 150 users, we cracked approximately half of the user-defined passwords within 5 minutes of firing up JtR. My personal favorite was cracked in less than half a second:
Dolphin1
My experience is, it's less about how often the passwords change, and more an issue of users not having a good sense of what it takes to secure their data.
Ah, "smart" phone auto(in)correct - making reasonably intelligent people sound like complete morons since 2006.
I have to wonder, what would Apple's numbers look like if you took away all the taxpayer subsidized contracts with public schools?
Precisely.
Thank $deity at least someone actually read and understood what I wrote before replying.
Thanks for that.
Due to lack of sleep, as well as general disinterest in your narcissistic, asshole assumptions, I refer you to the response given in Arkell v Pressdram.
Also, any product sold under the claim that it will "help you lose weight." The vast majority of diet pills and other products do absolutely nothing to affect the weight of the user.
Now, I am not a doctor and I have no medical training of any kind,
Than anyone who buys your product based on your claims is doing so at their own risk. Which is my point - You already told them you are not a trustworthy source for medical advice; from that point on, it's caveat emptor.
Now, don't get me wrong - I'm not saying any of this is right, or how things should be. Much to the contrary, I'm a firm believer that when you give corporations of any kind any sort of slack, they'll end up with the entire reel. I'm merely pointing out how things work as of today; a simple proclamation of ignorance is apparently all one needs in order to sell snake oil.
Example: every single ToS I've ever taken the time to read.
Seriously, did you even read what I posted, or were you too busy looking up terminology for your idiotic, off topic, nonsensical rant?
I'm no English major, but I do know how to fucking read. I suggest you try it yourself sometime, lest you continue to make a jackass of yourself
fail to admit he made a point
Again, as knowing that you understand implies that you actually know how to fucking read, he didn't "make a point," he accused me of singling out a particular extremist view whilst ignoring all others, which I obviously (at least, obvious to those of us who actually understand the English fucking language) did not do. Claiming otherwise only serves to prove that either you too failed to read the words I wrote, or you're just plain ol' butthurt because I've made critical statements in regards to your fuck-buddy. Either way, I'm not the one who comes off looking like a childish, ignorant fuckwad.
Do you have any idea how fucking infantile that is and how absurd it is for you to think you're making a point here?
Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about your post.
Not a horror film = no need for expendable minorities, I suppose.
I do not think that means what you think it means.
Hey, look, we both failed to get each other's point! That never happens on the internet!
Serious, though, I'm running on about 3 hours of sleep right now, so my thought processes are a bit... muddied.
whoosh, sir. whoosh to thee.
I don't think that means what you think it means.
Also... ever heard of capitalization?
We'll already be fully aware who our biggest enemy is: big business.
I'm certain the inevitable legislation to come from this will fairly and accurately reflect that fact...
Actually I believe Apple have already accomplished this at least once :)
Which one, leading the end of civilization, or the screaming about it?
Come to think of it, probably both...
BTW, your sig cracks me up.
What amuses me about this is the total lack of irony or self-awareness.
Like, say, the irony of accusing me of directing my comment at a single individual, whereas the text of it does not distinguish a particular philosophy, thus indicating that it applies to extremists of all philosophies, then subsequently falling into an extremist rant yourself?
Here, this should help: http://abcteach.com/directory/reading_comprehension/
Where does all this "dismantle civilization" stuff come from? Changing power sources is dismantling civilization?
That, Little Johnny, is what we call "over-the-top hyperbolic rhetoric spawning from extremist zealots."
Typically, when someone starts screaming that this or that will lead to the end of civilization as we know it, you're best off to just keep on truckin' by...
Wow all valve games? So that's like 7? OMG!
I'll take 7 good-to-awesome games over 4000 shitty ones any day of the week.
Quality, comrade, not quantity (lol, tity...).
"I'm sure the aristocracy of England thought the same thing of those pesky colonists circa the 1770's."
Because nothing at all has changed since the 1700s, right? Nope. No new guns that shoot 1000+ rounds a SECOND. No new satellites. Nothing. Jeez. Now you're just being silly.
Gee, I guess you're right - I mean, it's not like a ragtag group of citizens has ever overthrown their far more well armed governments in the last hundred years, huh?
Egypt or Libya ringing any bells?
"cap all corporate profits at 30%"
An now you're just being TOO silly.
Hence the reason I qualified the statement with "Is it a perfect plan? Probably not, but it's leaps and bounds ahead of anything proposed by the Republicrats."
This could never work, and I hardly even know where to begin with why
Then I posit that you truly don't know, and are posting merely for the sake of being arch. Which would be cute, if you weren't such a needlessly condescending dickhead about it.
but I'll start with the simple fact that company's only turn a "profit" when it's convenient.
You... aren't an Econ major, are you?
It shows.
The Japanese did a cap on income based on 10x your lowest paid employee. Globalize that and change 'income' to 'wealth' and we might have something.
American CEO's often aren't "paid" much more than their employees; it's their "compensation package," which does not include their actual paycheck, that amount to outrageous sums. So as good of an idea as that is, and as well as that may work for the Japanese, it will never work in our system. Believing otherwise is living in a world of pure fantasy.
"While all men are created equal, that doesn't mean we all have to march in lockstep when it comes to philosophy"
There's your problem. You're busy thinking about philosophy and what you feel is fair.
What do you think, that the term 'philosophy' implies a bunch of guys in toga's sitting around pontificating about the best way to bugger their apprentices? That's pants-on-head retarded; I'm talking about personal philosophy, you know, the way an individual feels about a particular topic?
It appears your problem is a far more contracted understanding of the world than you believe yourself to have.
The world is too complex a place for 'philosophy'; e.g. for hard and fast rules.
Oh, I see, you have no idea what philosophy actually is. Sorry, thought I was talking to an adult who passed high school English. My bad.
Victor should decide not to entangle the photons whenever Alice and Bob's polarizations are correlated. That'll rip physics a new one...
Sounds like the most boring ménage à trois in human history...
:D
Past, present, and future
It is obviously not legal advise because it is NOT advising anyone to do anything!
The statement "This is clearly such a case." can easily be construed to imply reference to legal precedent.
Reference to legal precedent is not giving legal advice.
But discussing ones personal experience with medicine is? That's the point I'm trying to make.
According to the state of NC, no, you do not have responsibility for your own actions in regards to nutrition. They have relegated it to a topic like medicine that you must be licensed to practice. If you disagree with that, that would be a valid discussion, but for this story, the only discussion is if his web site and interactions with people meet the definition of being a practicing nutritionist in NC.
Well, then, that's just pants-on-head retarded, isn't it? Remind me to thank $deity that I live in a state that respects my right to make my own decisions, stupid or otherwise. Knowing NC requires government licensure before allowing their citizens to think does explain quite a bit about the region, though...
On the issue of whether or not his actions qualify as being a "practicing nutritionist" (the term alone makes me want to spit), I would say that the only place the ADA really has an argument is where he's charging people for "telephone support." Otherwise, he clearly states that he is not a medical professional - caveat emptor.
1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual. 2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
Nothing in either of those definitions infers credibility on the part of the skeptic. For example, I can openly question the validity of the results of the LHC experiments, but that by no means lends any credibility to me, nor does it detract from the credibility of the scientists doing the research.
I think maybe you misunderstand the meaning of the word credible.