The courts say otherwise. Plenty of people have gone to court over, for example, constructive dismissal, where the company not only doesn't give a reason, but doesn't even fire the person.
Hmm, I haven't heard of 'constructive dismissal' before. What do you mean by the company doesn't fire them?
In that case, pretty much my entire post should then be qualified with 'when your employment is terminated by the employer'.
I guess the misunderstanding is because I incorrectly used the word 'fired' as a synonym for 'employment termination'. The other two methods I am aware of are generally not considered being fired, ie being laid off work, or quitting.
Between those two, if you are laid off then you are granted some benefits such as unemployment, and still having your employee contract fulfilled (Assuming any severance package or similar is in the contract in the first place)
When a person is terminated (fired) with reason, then generally you do not get such benefits, at least without intervention of a court. So between the two, being laid off is preferable to being fired for those reasons alone.
However I still have to stand by my assertion. The only cases I have ever seen where a company got in any legal trouble for firing someone, is when they tell the employee why they were fired, the employee sues, and a judge agrees the reason was bullshit.
So to stop that from happening, a company will simply inform you that your employment has been terminated, and if you ask why the answer is a generic 'employment is at-will from both parties, and we do not have the will' In every single case I've seen, the courts side with the company that it is their right to do that, and I have enough friends out of work whom that very thing happened to (some of which have been through court) and got nothing.
Of course there are shady companies that just out right lie about the reason, but that has a risk of getting caught in the lie, and that Does carry huge fines and penalties. Similarly, there are a handful of reasons defined as discriminatory, which if the company said is the reason for firing you, or even if they didn't say it but you can prove that is the case, the company will get in trouble for doing so.
But these days short of gross incompetence, that just doesn't happen. It's safer to keep their mouth shut, so that is the behavior many follow as a matter of course now.
...is why lots of businesses won't touch open source software. It is stuff like this that gives ammunition to the FUD.,
That's funny, every business I've seen does in fact use licensed software. Not GPL of course, but licensed to provide rights that copyright revokes.
You say business avoid (blah) because the license doesn't let them take it and do whatever they want, yet in reality businesses use nothing but (blah) despite the fact they can't take it and do whatever they want.
Try to figure out which (blah) is GPL and which is commercial:P
I love me some open Linux-y goodness, but Android isn't open.
The problem is, and you just did it too, that people use the word 'Android' to refer to two totally separate and different things.
Android is the OS. It is open. You probably will never get to use it however so that point is moot. Unless you happen to build hardware capable of running Android, then never mind:P But I will assume for now you do not build cell phone hardware. (PS, you don't have to root it, the default build has no root password set, just login as root and hit enter for the password.)
Now, what most people do is also say Android is the phone itself, which is just not true. The phones are in no way open. The phones need rooted. The phones can't run any OS you choose.
None of those very valid complaints however make the phone 'Android'
So why was Google collecting and archiving MAC addresses?
First you are a troll so this isn't directed at you (You won't read or understand it anyways, but a reply is what you get for replying to my post)
Google collects MAC addresses with the physical location of that MAC address, so that later when a device again sees that MAC address near by, you can use that data to ask Google where you are.
It's used in addition to, or as a replacement for, the government controlled GPS.
Microsoft can no more tie your job review to you giving up an iPhone than GM can fire you for driving a Ford.
Microsoft (and Ford for that matter) both can do those things.
What is illegal is telling you why they fired you, not the act of firing you for a illegitimate reason. Yes the law is worded different to imply that isn't the case, but you can't look at the written law alone, you must look at the outcomes of the court cases.
Literally not a single company has ever gotten in legal trouble for firing someone and NOT stating the reason why. It is only the ones that give a reason for being fired to the ex-employee, and a court decides that reason is a bad one.
From the outcome of all such cases, I can only conclude that firing someone for a crappy reason is not illegal, only telling them why you fired them is, as that is all that has ever been punished.
Yeah, we had such concepts once. That was before everything you did "out in the public" was recorded and followed you everywhere. *snip* I, for one, do not wish to live under the Lidless Eye.
Oh I know. Believe me, if these past months of Google stories have taught me anything, it is that I am firmly in the minority here. In fact, I'm in the minority both on Slashdot, and in the general population as well.
My original post was more intended as a "Damn I must be old now" complaint, not at all a call for change.
I've purposely refrained from posting my opinion on the matter due to that fact.
With all that said, I for one would not presume to force or even ask anyone else to live 'under the lidless eye' as you put it, against your will.
The right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution, the right to get drunk or high is not.
Really? I'm 100% certain you are incorrect.
Please quote to us the part of the constitution which removes our right to get drunk and high. I do not see it.
Yes, at one point there was such an amendment in our law, and during that time we did not have the right to get drunk (or high?) however that amendment was removed awhile ago so no longer applies.
So yea, which part in there do you believe grants the government the ability to revoke our right to get drunk or high?
Just like firewall rules, if you don't find a matching rule, the default policy is to allow.
1. the admins are still guilty of being careless and incompetent.
2. that guy is still guilty of the computer equivalent of breaking an entering.
And I think neither diminishes the other.
That is how I see things as well. My apologies for snapping at you implying you were diminishing the other parties involved. As I said, it rubs me a bit wrong, so I am sorry.
One simple fact of the matter, this perp was not given permission to be there, and that is the root of what he did wrong. The 'extras' of what he did wrong involve the fact, once an unknown person is on a system, you must assume it is fully compromised and treat it as such (spending the same time effort and money on a clean install), so I can see why the admins are pissed.
It's just half of what they are pissed about is their own fault. Both need punished, as well as the problem fixed (However if firing them is part of the punishment, that might kill two birds with one stone)
For the stereotypical grandma with Windows plugged right in a cable modem, I would fully agree that is a person whom we have no expectation of computer knowledge, nor who has even accepted that responsibility. That would be a victim free of blame.
You know, the whole "victims are to blame if they didn't make the crime impossible" meme is starting to rub me the wrong way.
And calling the criminals 'victims' is rubbing me the wrong way.
These people were hired to secure those computers from unauthorized access. They are professionals hired for this task, which happened because they lied and claimed they are computer security staff.
You want to punish this guy for breaking in? Ok. What about the guys that literally held the doors to our country open for any real terrorists to come in. As a direct result of the lying of their skills and abilities, and accepting a position specifically to secure computers.. they can not possibly be 'victims' for tricking our government into believing them. They are criminals.
Personally I could care less what happens to the 'hacker' (aka the guy that hit enter at the password prompts) as no damage was caused. The sys admins however opened a window of opportunity for true damage, and must be held accountable for that. I know you agree since you already say this guy deserves punished for what he MIGHT have done (and to an extent, I agree. You can't be sure what he did, so must assume the worst) but by the same logic, these system admins set a blank password and thus have directly if not inadvertently granted all of China and N Korea and everywhere else access to our systems. Punish them for what could have happened as a direct result of their actions as well.
Not for the people who are involved. If your systems get "browsed through" would you not be combing through just to make sure the guy didn't decide to do something malicious instead? Or do you trust the hacker that just cracked your SSH password that all he did was "look around"?
Well maybe if that had any bearing on reality...
As the case happens to be, not a single of those systems had a password. He just hit enter at that prompt.
So no, I fully believe that if you refuse to set a password on your computer when its painfully obvious to anyone passwords exist and can be used, then no you won't give a rats ass when someone else accesses that data.
In this case, the people whos JOB it was, assigned by our government, who were tasked with securing these systems from the public, are the ones that need to be in prison on death row for treason charges.
The system operators refusing to put passwords on it are the ones that provided the window of opportunity for true terrorists to take advantage of their stupidity and cause massive harm to our country. These assholes got paid to make sure this didn't happen, and clearly are incompetent as they don't know what a password is. It is besides the fact that no actual terrorist attack happened, but they sure as fuck held the door open for them so deserve punished for all the potential crimes that are a direct result of their actions.
Deal with the real problem first, and set a password. If someone actually broke in through a password, we might be a little more sympathetic.
And before anyone says "But it shouldn't be MY fault if someone breaks in my house cuz I didn't lock my door..." sure, maybe, unless you accepted the job of securing that house from terrorists and accepted a fat paycheck to do so, AND lied to the public claiming you are doing a great job securing that house. Then yes, yes it is your fault, and yes you should be held accountable.
If hitting enter on a password prompt is a crime, then the person not setting that password committed it, as they are the only person who could do anything about it. Not the person hitting enter.
The moderation point system here is a little weird in that it only applies to the newest accounts.
You and I have low UIDs and thus will not see mod points more than twice a year at best. Personally I just got a batch of mod points maybe 2-3 months ago, but that was the first time in almost five years.
Now look at the UIDs of the people replying:
You: 614729 (6 digits, mid range) Me: 172727 (6 digits, low range) Parent: 903350 (Yes 6 digits but right close to the million mark) Poster below: 1091003 (Finally at 7 digits)
Those two are newer members so get more mod points. Older members get then less frequently if at all.
I'm not aware that this is the case. Do you see this when you visit The Times [thetimes.co.uk]? I am able to read the front page.
How?? Seriously, you can click on any front page story and read it? No referral spoofers or anything? (If so, that's cool too, but please share the trick!)
When I load thetimes.co.uk I see all the summaries of what articles are available, but when I click any article to read it, I am unable to do so like you can. I see a pay wall.
Here, maybe this will help in case we are misunderstanding.
I simply copied "thetimes.co.uk" to my address bar and let it correct things. At that point I was redirected to the URL http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/ which displays summaries of all the front page articles.
I just now noticed the sections at the top, and I did not try any other section than the default 'News', but we ARE talking about the front page here, which 'news' decidedly is.
Now granted, the message isn't identical, but I'm pretty sure he was parapharsing to make a point.
GP said: But I never would have even considered subscribing if, on my first visit to the site, I had been greeted with a big wall that said "You can't see ANYTHING here until you pay us."
So replace "You can't see ANYTHING here until you pay us." with "Available exclusively by subscription." Not as rude (as expected) but decidedly not allowing me to see anything without paying them.
No. It transfers the data via WiFi. Don't tell me you didn't even read the summary?
Believing the summary was the error I believe;}
From the linked article, quoting from Apple directly:
For customers who do not toggle location-based service capabilities to "Off," Apple collects information about the device's location (latitude/longitude coordinates) when an ad request is made. This information is transmitted securely to the Apple iAd server via a cellular network connection or Wi-Fi Internet connection.
So it looks like it can/does use either. And with the recent bait n switch they pulled on the unlimited data plans, it is not entirely unreasonable to not want to pay for a single packet, let alone however many packets the data is.
Like, wow... just wow. I'd say that people that stupid deserve whatever they get, except that they are likely to do damage to other systems than their own.
So wait, you are claiming that average Joe is supposed to automatically know better about technology than GOOGLE?!
And yet you are calling someone Else stupid?! Wow, just wow
The expedient service was what struck me most though; the next day a guy in a van drove up to where I stayed and dropped it off needing a signature and ID to confirm. All this was free, all of it was worked out and the lady at the desk looked astonished at me if I asked there was a fee to expedite getting my suitcase back - it contained mostly clothing that I could buy at a mall or whatever, but also a few items somewhat more important.
I actually used to work for a delivery company here in town at the airport (Was called state wide delivery) and our entire business was picking up lost luggage from the airline and making deliveries to peoples homes with it.
Any given day was easily 50 bags from the central Columbus airport, to be delivered anywhere in the state of Ohio. There was a distance rate charged (At the time it was something like $8 for in the city, and went up the further out you were, up to something like $50 for a 3 hr drive)
On holidays like Christmas and new years, there was easily 500 bags a day to deliver for two weeks straight.
Even more amazing, we were one of two companies that existed that did solely this!
The lost luggage business is huge, and there is already an entire delivery system and pricing infrastructure for delivery setup that is just simply factored into their cost of doing business as a matter of course.
I've probably only personally taken 30 flights in my life, and I am completely amazed my luggage has never been misrouted even once. With the type of business we did, I don't see how that would be possible to not lose at least 1 out of 30 bags I've had go through airlines.
Because it's discriminatory. Why should I have to pay more because I'm a larger person than you? I'm slender at 200 lbs., and I don't see any reason why I should have to pay more because I was born to be larger. It doesn't matter how much I exercise, I'm not going to ever way 105 lbs., even 160 would be a stretch and unhealthy, following your logic, I should pay more simply because I was unfortunate enough to be born with genes to be larger.
First let me say, I am a 6'0 male weighing in at a tiny 115 lbs. Try as I might to put on even a healthy amount of weight, let alone a noticeable amount, just does not work. I seem to have a similar problem adjusting my weight, just in the other direction of things. So I 100% believe you that this is not your fault and you do not have full control over that either.
That said, when it comes to planes and weight, it all comes down to fuel.
It costs one amount to fly me, and yet another slightly higher amount to fly you the same distance. That is a real measurable cost that simply needs paid to even get the job done.
If my cost is $50 in fuel, and your cost is $100 in fuel (numbers pulled from my ass, and apologies for the blanket doubling, its just for example) then assuming the profit margin is the same for both of us, charging the same price would either lose them money as they can not afford the fuel to fly you, OR as the case happens to be, they charge me for 2x the fuel that's needed to transport me the same distance, and pocket the profit.
Neither is fair.
Either I am getting ripped off for paying for fuel that will not be purchased, or you are getting ripped off by having to pay for the fuel needed to fly you.
When it comes to fairness, paying for the resources you use and need is more fair than over charging everyone.
Personally I think the issues with the airlines are far more deep seated than that, and such discriminatory pricing will not help when combined with the other bad practices that are standard operating procedure now. So I am not arguing for them to change to this pricing modal. It might be more fair in theory, but the airlines will still fuck it up with greed in the end.
Your post makes it sound like you don't want to pay for your share and expect to be subsidized. I'm sure that wasn't your intent, but there will no doubt be some flames along those lines already
If I am not hungry and a small fry for $0.69 is enough for a meal for me, you seem to be under the impression that just because you need a full meal with burger and fry and all, they shouldn't charge you more than the $0.69 small fry, because that is what they charged me.
Some of us would still prefer to count on our fingers, and be able to recognize the humor content of a joke and thus prevent such stuff from making its way up the brain for further processing that shouldn't be done;}
Basically, this article asks "please prove the non-existance of payment". Next article will be "please prove the non-existance of God", followed by "please prove the non-existance of purple-orange striped midget Yeti's".
You cannot prove something does not exist.
Oh sure, Now you tell me, after all the work I just did to cause the extinction of the purple orange striped midget yeti's:{
It's possible for a PS3 owner to share everything they buy on the Playstation Store with up to 5 other people. For example, if a friend of mine buys Final Fantasy VII off the store, I can download it and play it, for free, on my PS3 and PSP because I have access, and so do 4 of his other friends. And this is a supported feature of the Playstation Network. Despite this fact, developers continue putting games and downloadable content on the PSN. This isn't a case of partial functionality either; anything and everything can be shared and work 100% this way. So either developers are losing money hand over fist from this piracy or it's profitable somehow... it can't really be both.
It is not called piracy when you have the copyright holders permission.
Your example of harmful piracy is lacking the piracy.
First off Apple is making it very difficult to return phones, and I can assure you there are LOTS of people in the Apple stores trying to get the phones fixed and threatening to return them.
That little fact has actually been very frustrating to me to no end this past week...
Despite the issues with iPhone 4, I still want one. Really want one:/ Unfortunately due to another issue, using a credit card is not exactly an option for me for a number of months. More months than I would like to wait to be honest. (Using someone else card could would with paying them ahead of time, but it's an inconvenience for all involved.) The in-store delay in my city still seems to be about 3+ weeks, and even then I assume that is only if you are on the waiting list.
I desperately wish I could find one of these people that want to return their phone. I would *gladly* pay their full price back, if they would sell it to me to transfer to my account.
The thing is, I can't find a single person willing to do this.
So, if there is anyone out there in the central Ohio area who is so pissed about these problems they want to return the phone and Apple is giving you the slightest problems (or not!), please contact me! You'll get your money back, it will just be from me. If just one person that is this upset and wanting to wash their hands of the whole thing would be willing to sell their phone to me instead of 'sticking it to the man' with a return, you would make a geek very happy!
Well, if you use the 4th movie in the series (The Anamatrix), parts 2 and 3 (The renascence stories, its a 2 parter) addresses all of that.
The humans picked a fight with the AI. The AI fought back and of course won.
We took their main power source (The sun) so they turned to other power sources. (Us)
So unfortunately yes, the failings of that plot line are valid complaints.
This plot/story of that 4th part is pretty much directly from the minds of the Wachowski's and their crew (writters and stuff) Hollywood didn't even want to put that on the big screen....
I'm no authority on the story, but the original comics everyone claims the movies were based on was a power management problem more so than a VR simulation. The VR was just the machine version of prison camps for us.
If you haven't seen it and are interested, I do highly recomend the anamatrix! It fleshes out parts of the story that had to be cut or broken from the first 3 movies.
Just had to post that everyone should be running OpenDNS and if possible DD-WRT of Tomato (for homes). You just cant beat that combo. It's fast, secure, and offers tons of security/configuration features that no one else does.
So when a user saves their DD-WRT username and password in their browser, and someone uses the exploit in the article, how again does your answer change anything?
I have used DD-WRT and happen to know for a fact it does have a login screen, so don't try to claim it isn't affected:P
He will no doubt allow (even optimise for, like many other pay to view sites) the Google bots access to his content (if he doesn't already) to ensure decent search engine rankings though.
On one hand, Murdock has already threatened to pressed charges against Google to stop indexing his website. Yes, the very same website that Murdock gave permission to Google to index first (via robots.txt) He isn't known for his smarts in this area after all;}
So because he is pretty dumb when it comes to 'customers eyes' as a product, you Could be correct... It would not be the first time he said something should be, and did the opposite. But I would not think he would allow that after everything that has gone down already.
Plus, after being threatened with lawsuits, I don't think the choice is in Murdock's hands anymore if his websites get indexed at Google. They could just preemptively remove him from the web search results like his lawsuit threat demands.
I do fully agree with you on sites returning different content to Google's official bot and everything else though. In fact I would Love a Google preference option to have my personal search results adjusted so all such websites 'google bot' results are ignored. Perhaps I will send Google that suggestion (If you haven't already) one never knows what you'll get;}
Slashdot Mirror
The courts say otherwise. Plenty of people have gone to court over, for example, constructive dismissal, where the company not only doesn't give a reason, but doesn't even fire the person.
Hmm, I haven't heard of 'constructive dismissal' before. What do you mean by the company doesn't fire them?
In that case, pretty much my entire post should then be qualified with 'when your employment is terminated by the employer'.
I guess the misunderstanding is because I incorrectly used the word 'fired' as a synonym for 'employment termination'.
The other two methods I am aware of are generally not considered being fired, ie being laid off work, or quitting.
Between those two, if you are laid off then you are granted some benefits such as unemployment, and still having your employee contract fulfilled (Assuming any severance package or similar is in the contract in the first place)
When a person is terminated (fired) with reason, then generally you do not get such benefits, at least without intervention of a court. So between the two, being laid off is preferable to being fired for those reasons alone.
However I still have to stand by my assertion. The only cases I have ever seen where a company got in any legal trouble for firing someone, is when they tell the employee why they were fired, the employee sues, and a judge agrees the reason was bullshit.
So to stop that from happening, a company will simply inform you that your employment has been terminated, and if you ask why the answer is a generic 'employment is at-will from both parties, and we do not have the will'
In every single case I've seen, the courts side with the company that it is their right to do that, and I have enough friends out of work whom that very thing happened to (some of which have been through court) and got nothing.
Of course there are shady companies that just out right lie about the reason, but that has a risk of getting caught in the lie, and that Does carry huge fines and penalties.
Similarly, there are a handful of reasons defined as discriminatory, which if the company said is the reason for firing you, or even if they didn't say it but you can prove that is the case, the company will get in trouble for doing so.
But these days short of gross incompetence, that just doesn't happen. It's safer to keep their mouth shut, so that is the behavior many follow as a matter of course now.
...is why lots of businesses won't touch open source software. It is stuff like this that gives ammunition to the FUD.,
That's funny, every business I've seen does in fact use licensed software.
Not GPL of course, but licensed to provide rights that copyright revokes.
You say business avoid (blah) because the license doesn't let them take it and do whatever they want, yet in reality businesses use nothing but (blah) despite the fact they can't take it and do whatever they want.
Try to figure out which (blah) is GPL and which is commercial :P
I love me some open Linux-y goodness, but Android isn't open.
The problem is, and you just did it too, that people use the word 'Android' to refer to two totally separate and different things.
Android is the OS. It is open. You probably will never get to use it however so that point is moot. Unless you happen to build hardware capable of running Android, then never mind :P But I will assume for now you do not build cell phone hardware.
(PS, you don't have to root it, the default build has no root password set, just login as root and hit enter for the password.)
Now, what most people do is also say Android is the phone itself, which is just not true.
The phones are in no way open. The phones need rooted. The phones can't run any OS you choose.
None of those very valid complaints however make the phone 'Android'
So why was Google collecting and archiving MAC addresses?
First you are a troll so this isn't directed at you (You won't read or understand it anyways, but a reply is what you get for replying to my post)
Google collects MAC addresses with the physical location of that MAC address, so that later when a device again sees that MAC address near by, you can use that data to ask Google where you are.
It's used in addition to, or as a replacement for, the government controlled GPS.
Microsoft can no more tie your job review to you giving up an iPhone than GM can fire you for driving a Ford.
Microsoft (and Ford for that matter) both can do those things.
What is illegal is telling you why they fired you, not the act of firing you for a illegitimate reason.
Yes the law is worded different to imply that isn't the case, but you can't look at the written law alone, you must look at the outcomes of the court cases.
Literally not a single company has ever gotten in legal trouble for firing someone and NOT stating the reason why.
It is only the ones that give a reason for being fired to the ex-employee, and a court decides that reason is a bad one.
From the outcome of all such cases, I can only conclude that firing someone for a crappy reason is not illegal, only telling them why you fired them is, as that is all that has ever been punished.
Yeah, we had such concepts once. That was before everything you did "out in the public" was recorded and followed you everywhere.
*snip*
I, for one, do not wish to live under the Lidless Eye.
Oh I know. Believe me, if these past months of Google stories have taught me anything, it is that I am firmly in the minority here. In fact, I'm in the minority both on Slashdot, and in the general population as well.
My original post was more intended as a "Damn I must be old now" complaint, not at all a call for change.
I've purposely refrained from posting my opinion on the matter due to that fact.
With all that said, I for one would not presume to force or even ask anyone else to live 'under the lidless eye' as you put it, against your will.
*sigh*
That was some really nice street view mapping, location discovery, and concept of 'out in the public' we had there once :/
The right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution, the right to get drunk or high is not.
Really? I'm 100% certain you are incorrect.
Please quote to us the part of the constitution which removes our right to get drunk and high. I do not see it.
Yes, at one point there was such an amendment in our law, and during that time we did not have the right to get drunk (or high?) however that amendment was removed awhile ago so no longer applies.
So yea, which part in there do you believe grants the government the ability to revoke our right to get drunk or high?
Just like firewall rules, if you don't find a matching rule, the default policy is to allow.
It seems to me like:
1. the admins are still guilty of being careless and incompetent.
2. that guy is still guilty of the computer equivalent of breaking an entering.
And I think neither diminishes the other.
That is how I see things as well.
My apologies for snapping at you implying you were diminishing the other parties involved. As I said, it rubs me a bit wrong, so I am sorry.
One simple fact of the matter, this perp was not given permission to be there, and that is the root of what he did wrong. The 'extras' of what he did wrong involve the fact, once an unknown person is on a system, you must assume it is fully compromised and treat it as such (spending the same time effort and money on a clean install), so I can see why the admins are pissed.
It's just half of what they are pissed about is their own fault. Both need punished, as well as the problem fixed (However if firing them is part of the punishment, that might kill two birds with one stone)
For the stereotypical grandma with Windows plugged right in a cable modem, I would fully agree that is a person whom we have no expectation of computer knowledge, nor who has even accepted that responsibility. That would be a victim free of blame.
You know, the whole "victims are to blame if they didn't make the crime impossible" meme is starting to rub me the wrong way.
And calling the criminals 'victims' is rubbing me the wrong way.
These people were hired to secure those computers from unauthorized access. They are professionals hired for this task, which happened because they lied and claimed they are computer security staff.
You want to punish this guy for breaking in? Ok.
What about the guys that literally held the doors to our country open for any real terrorists to come in. As a direct result of the lying of their skills and abilities, and accepting a position specifically to secure computers.. they can not possibly be 'victims' for tricking our government into believing them. They are criminals.
Personally I could care less what happens to the 'hacker' (aka the guy that hit enter at the password prompts) as no damage was caused.
The sys admins however opened a window of opportunity for true damage, and must be held accountable for that. I know you agree since you already say this guy deserves punished for what he MIGHT have done (and to an extent, I agree. You can't be sure what he did, so must assume the worst) but by the same logic, these system admins set a blank password and thus have directly if not inadvertently granted all of China and N Korea and everywhere else access to our systems. Punish them for what could have happened as a direct result of their actions as well.
Not for the people who are involved. If your systems get "browsed through" would you not be combing through just to make sure the guy didn't decide to do something malicious instead? Or do you trust the hacker that just cracked your SSH password that all he did was "look around"?
Well maybe if that had any bearing on reality...
As the case happens to be, not a single of those systems had a password. He just hit enter at that prompt.
So no, I fully believe that if you refuse to set a password on your computer when its painfully obvious to anyone passwords exist and can be used, then no you won't give a rats ass when someone else accesses that data.
In this case, the people whos JOB it was, assigned by our government, who were tasked with securing these systems from the public, are the ones that need to be in prison on death row for treason charges.
The system operators refusing to put passwords on it are the ones that provided the window of opportunity for true terrorists to take advantage of their stupidity and cause massive harm to our country.
These assholes got paid to make sure this didn't happen, and clearly are incompetent as they don't know what a password is.
It is besides the fact that no actual terrorist attack happened, but they sure as fuck held the door open for them so deserve punished for all the potential crimes that are a direct result of their actions.
Deal with the real problem first, and set a password. If someone actually broke in through a password, we might be a little more sympathetic.
And before anyone says "But it shouldn't be MY fault if someone breaks in my house cuz I didn't lock my door..." sure, maybe, unless you accepted the job of securing that house from terrorists and accepted a fat paycheck to do so, AND lied to the public claiming you are doing a great job securing that house.
Then yes, yes it is your fault, and yes you should be held accountable.
If hitting enter on a password prompt is a crime, then the person not setting that password committed it, as they are the only person who could do anything about it. Not the person hitting enter.
The moderation point system here is a little weird in that it only applies to the newest accounts.
You and I have low UIDs and thus will not see mod points more than twice a year at best. Personally I just got a batch of mod points maybe 2-3 months ago, but that was the first time in almost five years.
Now look at the UIDs of the people replying:
You: 614729 (6 digits, mid range)
Me: 172727 (6 digits, low range)
Parent: 903350 (Yes 6 digits but right close to the million mark)
Poster below: 1091003 (Finally at 7 digits)
Those two are newer members so get more mod points. Older members get then less frequently if at all.
I'm not aware that this is the case. Do you see this when you visit The Times [thetimes.co.uk]? I am able to read the front page.
How?? Seriously, you can click on any front page story and read it? No referral spoofers or anything? (If so, that's cool too, but please share the trick!)
When I load thetimes.co.uk I see all the summaries of what articles are available, but when I click any article to read it, I am unable to do so like you can. I see a pay wall.
Here, maybe this will help in case we are misunderstanding.
I simply copied "thetimes.co.uk" to my address bar and let it correct things. At that point I was redirected to the URL http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/ which displays summaries of all the front page articles.
Being a news paper, this will change fairly soon I suspect, so this is a screenshot of that page as of right now:
http://img153.imageshack.us/i/18684894.png/
The summaries titled 'Ex-MI5 chief...', 'Nato split on afghan...', lower down 'Reunions', and even the ad looking 'latest news' first story.
All of those front page articles are unreadable. I see this pay wall:
http://img514.imageshack.us/i/33791945.png/
I just now noticed the sections at the top, and I did not try any other section than the default 'News', but we ARE talking about the front page here, which 'news' decidedly is.
Now granted, the message isn't identical, but I'm pretty sure he was parapharsing to make a point.
GP said: But I never would have even considered subscribing if, on my first visit to the site, I had been greeted with a big wall that said "You can't see ANYTHING here until you pay us."
So replace "You can't see ANYTHING here until you pay us." with "Available exclusively by subscription."
Not as rude (as expected) but decidedly not allowing me to see anything without paying them.
No. It transfers the data via WiFi. Don't tell me you didn't even read the summary?
Believing the summary was the error I believe ;}
From the linked article, quoting from Apple directly:
For customers who do not toggle location-based service capabilities to "Off," Apple collects information about the device's location (latitude/longitude coordinates) when an ad request is made. This information is transmitted securely to the Apple iAd server via a cellular network connection or Wi-Fi Internet connection.
So it looks like it can/does use either. And with the recent bait n switch they pulled on the unlimited data plans, it is not entirely unreasonable to not want to pay for a single packet, let alone however many packets the data is.
Like, wow... just wow.
I'd say that people that stupid deserve whatever they get, except that they are likely to do damage to other systems than their own.
So wait, you are claiming that average Joe is supposed to automatically know better about technology than GOOGLE?!
And yet you are calling someone Else stupid?! Wow, just wow
The expedient service was what struck me most though; the next day a guy in a van drove up to where I stayed and dropped it off needing a signature and ID to confirm. All this was free, all of it was worked out and the lady at the desk looked astonished at me if I asked there was a fee to expedite getting my suitcase back - it contained mostly clothing that I could buy at a mall or whatever, but also a few items somewhat more important.
I actually used to work for a delivery company here in town at the airport (Was called state wide delivery) and our entire business was picking up lost luggage from the airline and making deliveries to peoples homes with it.
Any given day was easily 50 bags from the central Columbus airport, to be delivered anywhere in the state of Ohio.
There was a distance rate charged (At the time it was something like $8 for in the city, and went up the further out you were, up to something like $50 for a 3 hr drive)
On holidays like Christmas and new years, there was easily 500 bags a day to deliver for two weeks straight.
Even more amazing, we were one of two companies that existed that did solely this!
The lost luggage business is huge, and there is already an entire delivery system and pricing infrastructure for delivery setup that is just simply factored into their cost of doing business as a matter of course.
I've probably only personally taken 30 flights in my life, and I am completely amazed my luggage has never been misrouted even once. With the type of business we did, I don't see how that would be possible to not lose at least 1 out of 30 bags I've had go through airlines.
Because it's discriminatory. Why should I have to pay more because I'm a larger person than you? I'm slender at 200 lbs., and I don't see any reason why I should have to pay more because I was born to be larger. It doesn't matter how much I exercise, I'm not going to ever way 105 lbs., even 160 would be a stretch and unhealthy, following your logic, I should pay more simply because I was unfortunate enough to be born with genes to be larger.
First let me say, I am a 6'0 male weighing in at a tiny 115 lbs. Try as I might to put on even a healthy amount of weight, let alone a noticeable amount, just does not work. I seem to have a similar problem adjusting my weight, just in the other direction of things. So I 100% believe you that this is not your fault and you do not have full control over that either.
That said, when it comes to planes and weight, it all comes down to fuel.
It costs one amount to fly me, and yet another slightly higher amount to fly you the same distance. That is a real measurable cost that simply needs paid to even get the job done.
If my cost is $50 in fuel, and your cost is $100 in fuel (numbers pulled from my ass, and apologies for the blanket doubling, its just for example) then assuming the profit margin is the same for both of us, charging the same price would either lose them money as they can not afford the fuel to fly you, OR as the case happens to be, they charge me for 2x the fuel that's needed to transport me the same distance, and pocket the profit.
Neither is fair.
Either I am getting ripped off for paying for fuel that will not be purchased, or you are getting ripped off by having to pay for the fuel needed to fly you.
When it comes to fairness, paying for the resources you use and need is more fair than over charging everyone.
Personally I think the issues with the airlines are far more deep seated than that, and such discriminatory pricing will not help when combined with the other bad practices that are standard operating procedure now. So I am not arguing for them to change to this pricing modal.
It might be more fair in theory, but the airlines will still fuck it up with greed in the end.
Your post makes it sound like you don't want to pay for your share and expect to be subsidized. I'm sure that wasn't your intent, but there will no doubt be some flames along those lines already
If I am not hungry and a small fry for $0.69 is enough for a meal for me, you seem to be under the impression that just because you need a full meal with burger and fry and all, they shouldn't charge you more than the $0.69 small fry, because that is what they charged me.
Some of us would still prefer to count on our fingers, and be able to recognize the humor content of a joke and thus prevent such stuff from making its way up the brain for further processing that shouldn't be done ;}
Basically, this article asks "please prove the non-existance of payment". Next article will be "please prove the non-existance of God", followed by "please prove the non-existance of purple-orange striped midget Yeti's".
You cannot prove something does not exist.
Oh sure, Now you tell me, after all the work I just did to cause the extinction of the purple orange striped midget yeti's :{
It's possible for a PS3 owner to share everything they buy on the Playstation Store with up to 5 other people. For example, if a friend of mine buys Final Fantasy VII off the store, I can download it and play it, for free, on my PS3 and PSP because I have access, and so do 4 of his other friends. And this is a supported feature of the Playstation Network. Despite this fact, developers continue putting games and downloadable content on the PSN. This isn't a case of partial functionality either; anything and everything can be shared and work 100% this way. So either developers are losing money hand over fist from this piracy or it's profitable somehow... it can't really be both.
It is not called piracy when you have the copyright holders permission.
Your example of harmful piracy is lacking the piracy.
First off Apple is making it very difficult to return phones, and I can assure you there are LOTS of people in the Apple stores trying to get the phones fixed and threatening to return them.
That little fact has actually been very frustrating to me to no end this past week...
Despite the issues with iPhone 4, I still want one. Really want one :/
Unfortunately due to another issue, using a credit card is not exactly an option for me for a number of months. More months than I would like to wait to be honest. (Using someone else card could would with paying them ahead of time, but it's an inconvenience for all involved.) The in-store delay in my city still seems to be about 3+ weeks, and even then I assume that is only if you are on the waiting list.
I desperately wish I could find one of these people that want to return their phone.
I would *gladly* pay their full price back, if they would sell it to me to transfer to my account.
The thing is, I can't find a single person willing to do this.
So, if there is anyone out there in the central Ohio area who is so pissed about these problems they want to return the phone and Apple is giving you the slightest problems (or not!), please contact me! You'll get your money back, it will just be from me.
If just one person that is this upset and wanting to wash their hands of the whole thing would be willing to sell their phone to me instead of 'sticking it to the man' with a return, you would make a geek very happy!
Oddly enough, at one time 12 was considered old enough, particularly in emergencies
At one time, 12 was the age to get married, because in another year you will be ready to have children of your own to continue the family line.
I guess the only thing one can take from these facts are, times change.
Well, if you use the 4th movie in the series (The Anamatrix), parts 2 and 3 (The renascence stories, its a 2 parter) addresses all of that.
The humans picked a fight with the AI. The AI fought back and of course won.
We took their main power source (The sun) so they turned to other power sources. (Us)
So unfortunately yes, the failings of that plot line are valid complaints.
This plot/story of that 4th part is pretty much directly from the minds of the Wachowski's and their crew (writters and stuff)
Hollywood didn't even want to put that on the big screen....
I'm no authority on the story, but the original comics everyone claims the movies were based on was a power management problem more so than a VR simulation. The VR was just the machine version of prison camps for us.
If you haven't seen it and are interested, I do highly recomend the anamatrix! It fleshes out parts of the story that had to be cut or broken from the first 3 movies.
part 1 and
part 2
(Each part is ~10 min)
Enjoy
Just had to post that everyone should be running OpenDNS and if possible DD-WRT of Tomato (for homes). You just cant beat that combo. It's fast, secure, and offers tons of security/configuration features that no one else does.
So when a user saves their DD-WRT username and password in their browser, and someone uses the exploit in the article, how again does your answer change anything?
I have used DD-WRT and happen to know for a fact it does have a login screen, so don't try to claim it isn't affected :P
He will no doubt allow (even optimise for, like many other pay to view sites) the Google bots access to his content (if he doesn't already) to ensure decent search engine rankings though.
On one hand, Murdock has already threatened to pressed charges against Google to stop indexing his website. ;}
Yes, the very same website that Murdock gave permission to Google to index first (via robots.txt) He isn't known for his smarts in this area after all
So because he is pretty dumb when it comes to 'customers eyes' as a product, you Could be correct... It would not be the first time he said something should be, and did the opposite. But I would not think he would allow that after everything that has gone down already.
Plus, after being threatened with lawsuits, I don't think the choice is in Murdock's hands anymore if his websites get indexed at Google. They could just preemptively remove him from the web search results like his lawsuit threat demands.
I do fully agree with you on sites returning different content to Google's official bot and everything else though. ;}
In fact I would Love a Google preference option to have my personal search results adjusted so all such websites 'google bot' results are ignored. Perhaps I will send Google that suggestion (If you haven't already) one never knows what you'll get