Young David wasn't just looking around for any old account to break into, he was actively working on the account of a political opponent of his father's.
This also implies that David, despite claims that it was for "lulz", was almost certainly conducting a targeted search of her email. There would be no other reason for the son of a prominent Democrat to do what he did.
This is Watergate. The only difference is the desire of the American media to tar and feather those involved.
Prevalence of cell phone ownership. Understanding of property ownership. Unlisted numbers. Non-automated nature of phone records. Limited name information in phone records. (A B Smith? Really?)
Getting government, online records faces none of these data quality issues.
When open records laws were first conceived, it mostly applied to such records as people would have legal concerns about - birth/death, who owns a piece of property, etc.
Here's the thing.
All those records were primarily local, and were kept as paper - there were no computers. So if you wanted a record, you had to go to the place it was kept, wait in a line, and pay a document fee so a government clerk could go make you an Official Copy of whatever record you wanted. The fee covered the cost of the clerk's time and supplies, which, considering how manual this task is, was appropriate.
So if you wanted to know any of this "open" information, it amounted to a fair amount of trouble and expense. But if you had a good reason to need/want to know, you could know, and it wasn't a problem.
But today, with computers and intarwebs and such things, these records are free and pretty broadly available. So someone who, say, wants to letter bomb the residents and owners of every apartment in a tri-county area, can do it with virtually no effort or expense.
This is not good.
Privacy was maintained not by legislation, but by the simple difficulty of getting things done.
Now that these things are easy, we need a higher standard to limit access, not a lower one.
The government in the UK is running out of public camera bandwidth. There are a lot of those cameras around, you know!
How can you keep an electronic eye on everyone if public bandwidth is clogged by bothersome subjects pirating American mass media? A massive roll-out of British Broadband means Her Majesty's Peepers (aka HeMP) will be able to see all, and know all.
When the decisions were made about what government-owned information should be publically available, even telephones didn't exist.
This meant that, if you wanted local information on who ownes what plot of land, what leinholder holds interest in it, and what the tax rate is, it wasn't all that easy to get. You had to travel to the town, pay a clerk a document fee, and wait while they go find the record and copy it for you. This was very time- and effort-intensive, as well as somewhat expensive if you want more than a few records.
Now that everything's online, shady mortgage brokers can find out the assessed value of your house, as well as the fact that you own it. People can (unless you're the president) look up your birth certificate and find out where and when you were born. All of this and more is available online, to automated bulk requests.
Privacy is suffering in a way never intended. The information is supposed to be available, but not simple to access.
There are 2 core problems with translating: 1. Language requires a cultural frame of reference. You can see this in understanding humor in different societies. For example Monty Python is a product of a British perspective. The English language, as spoken in England, only works when you understand the culture behind it. For example, "daily bread" only works in western languages because of the shared Christian influence. In Japanese, for example, "daily rice" might bring up a similar understanding that "daily bread" doesn't carry.
2. Language is a moving target. References keep changing, and a computer (or even a foreign-based translator) has a hard time keeping up. Think about what Tea Party meant just 5 years ago, as opposed to today.
All this means that you're going to get a really good computer translator about the time you get a really good computer painter. Even the best of the given translations in the responses to this story aren't anything someone would want to publish as an example of good English usage - the only benefit is a moderate ability to get the point of the subject.
Or to drive the point home, try passing Goethe through the translator and see if the English is as good as the German. That's the true test of a translator - can it retain excellence, beyond base meaning?
example: Wenn ein Edler gegen dich fehlt, so tu als hättest dus nicht gezählt!..... Er wird es in sein Schuldbuch schreiben und dir nicht lange im Gebet bleiben.
becomes When the gentleman wanting against you, then do as you would not have counted's!..... He will write it in his book of guilt and you do not stay long in prayer.
Sure you get the idea, but the artistry is pure fail.
So I take it you're in favor of whatever it is you do for a living being fully controlled by the federal government, including what income you're allowed to have?
It's all well and good to say that those people over there have to render the services which are a product of years of education and experience, as well as tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt. But what about you? What such effort are you going to donate to the collective?
At some point you have to realize that you're just robbing your neighbors by using the federal government as a weapon. After all, tax comes under penalty of "financial oblivion at best, and death at worst".
I own a Zune HD, which works from the same concept. Allow me to explain it to you.
The idea is similar to how a desktop works stretched across multiple monitors. Yes, the background spans them all. However, any individual application only uses 1 monitor's worth of space. You go side-to-side to access another slice of screen, which is easily done by tapping your finger once on that side of the screen, where you see the next "monitor's worth" as a mini-screen off to that side, dimmer, and "off in the distance". So it is simultaneously 3-dimensional and multi-monitor, as though the monitors were arranged on a rotating platform.
It actually works very well. I like it. I can see how you can come away thinking that it's just part of a big screen, based on the released desktop mock-ups. But you're missing the point completely, and need to sit down with the hardware and try it out.
If you don't want any risks in life, you can have the cozy job at the big corporation, where no one expects you to be anything better than mediocre. You can have subsidized health insurance, a steady income, and a sniff of a bonus from time to time. If you lose your job, the government will give you money for several months while you find something else.
However, if you want to put yourself out there and use the capital between your ears, yeah, there's a lot of risk. Your ability to afford anything - including the absolute basics - depends on your ability to market yourself and then do what you say you can do. You have to handle finances, research options and hustle. If your business fails, the government isn't going to come and bail you out - you're neither small nor large enough to give a damn about. But you can do way, way better for yourself.
Some people thrive on this challenge. And some others just want someone to handle it all for them.
Time was, the USA was where people around the world went when they wanted to handle the risk and get the reward. Nowadays, though, the USA is full of people who feel entitled to everything the world has to offer, just because they were born here.
From realpolice.net: In this 9 year period (1994-2002), the data showed that there were 2654 fatal crashes involving 3965 vehicles of which there were 3146 fatalities. Of these, 1088 were to people not in the fleeing vehicle.
If frying someone's car results in a better outcome than the above, I'm all for it.
So let me ask you this: If subsidies are a tool of the wealthy to oppress the poor, then why does Costa Rica force its people to buy only domestic beans?
Beans produced in Costa Rica cost more than 50% more than beans produced in Nicaragua. Considering that beans are a key staple of the Costa Rican people, who benefits?
Why must you harm both your own people and Nicaragua in this way?
This is not the only stupid, protective trade manipulation Costa Rica has. Yet they feel free to complain to the WTO (which they did join) about others - Costa Rica has 4 active complaints on file. Only 1 is against the US, and that is for textiles.
Now to the thing which must be said: The problem with you South American-types is that your dictators treat you like mushrooms - feed you shit and keep you in the dark. And not only this, but you get all puffed-up and proud about the shit and the darkness, like it's somehow noble to be screwed over by some potbellied, squinty-eyed dictator who cloaks the crap he feeds you in bold, revolutionary speeches.
The best thing you can do is stop worrying about what the US is going to do and fix your own country. With 2 ongoing wars and a child in the White House, you could probably blow up half the US Navy and nothing would happen. So don't worry about us and fix your own shit.
If this was Microsoft trolling a Apple release, we'd call it FUD and wonder if the tablet would be made of folding chairs, and if you would throw it to reboot.
Since the USA does not grant titles or patents of nobility, the appropriate award would be the Presidential Medal of Freedom. This can be, and sometimes is, granted to non-citizens, such as Tony Blair, Pope John Paul II, and Mother Theresa. (I don't know any examples of foreign entertainment-types offhand, but it is applicable)
You just don't understand what google is doing. I quote: "Google does not deliver the package of ads with gratuitous attractive content supplied by traditional media."
Google's content is, "an answer to your question".
It's not movies. It's not music. It's not political commentary.
It's an answer to the question, where do I find ___.
The essential problem, the reason for revolt, is that on google, THE ADVERTISING CONFLICTS WITH THE CONTENT. Maybe you want to buy a honda. But here's this nissan ad, and you click on it. See how this could get someone upset?
Another example: I want my users to type in my domain and drill down to pages. This gets me maybe 3 or 4 pageviews. Coming in straight from google gets me one pageview. See how this could get someone upset?
My sister is a public school teacher, and once you count the value of the extra vacation, fully-employer-paid health insurance, compensated continuing education, we make the same money.
Add to that the fact that she gets a legislatively-guaranteed raise every year that exceeds inflation and has union protections including tenure, and the deal isn't bad at all.
My boss has the perfect answer for this: Get everyone set up with dinner/beverages. Then, go home, sign in from there, walk away from the computer and keep the pager close.
We page him if we need anything, or when we get finished.
Out of our hair, but still handy if needed. Perfect.
Electricity was limited in its uses to lighting and some minor household gadgets.
People mostly heated their homes with wood, coal, or some petroleum product. Usually coal.
Today, no, it would be unthinkable to not have electricity. But that's mostly because people rely on it for heat, hot water and cooking. (modern furnances almost never have a pilot light). But back then it was a nicety. Much like broadband is today.
Which isn't to say there isn't a place for municipal broadband. I consider an internet connection, today, to be as important as a library.
However, we're getting to used to the notion that things are rights. Here's a simple test: if you can buy it, it's not a right.
"But when you are not accusing a scientist of basic incompetence or outright fraud, the raw data it's pretty useless."
So what, then, would be the purpose of deleting it? A-ha!
You need to drop the shroud of mysticism from your calling. Your work is not as unique as you think it is.
I would remind you that 32,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Petition, which states that, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
Of course, the most likely thing is, is that you're just a chem major at some second-rate university sounding off.
Slashdot Mirror
The perp here is the son of Mike Kernell, a long-serving Democrat in the Tennessee state legislature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Kernell
Young David wasn't just looking around for any old account to break into, he was actively working on the account of a political opponent of his father's.
This also implies that David, despite claims that it was for "lulz", was almost certainly conducting a targeted search of her email. There would be no other reason for the son of a prominent Democrat to do what he did.
This is Watergate. The only difference is the desire of the American media to tar and feather those involved.
The Hubble telescope runs off Intel 486 chips.
I remember reading somewhere that NASA scours resale shops for electronics to keep the shuttle flying.
You never know, hoarding could mean you have the "Right Stuff" for space exploration.
Prevalence of cell phone ownership.
Understanding of property ownership.
Unlisted numbers.
Non-automated nature of phone records.
Limited name information in phone records. (A B Smith? Really?)
Getting government, online records faces none of these data quality issues.
When open records laws were first conceived, it mostly applied to such records as people would have legal concerns about - birth/death, who owns a piece of property, etc.
Here's the thing.
All those records were primarily local, and were kept as paper - there were no computers. So if you wanted a record, you had to go to the place it was kept, wait in a line, and pay a document fee so a government clerk could go make you an Official Copy of whatever record you wanted. The fee covered the cost of the clerk's time and supplies, which, considering how manual this task is, was appropriate.
So if you wanted to know any of this "open" information, it amounted to a fair amount of trouble and expense. But if you had a good reason to need/want to know, you could know, and it wasn't a problem.
But today, with computers and intarwebs and such things, these records are free and pretty broadly available. So someone who, say, wants to letter bomb the residents and owners of every apartment in a tri-county area, can do it with virtually no effort or expense.
This is not good.
Privacy was maintained not by legislation, but by the simple difficulty of getting things done.
Now that these things are easy, we need a higher standard to limit access, not a lower one.
Keep vital records offline, please.
The government in the UK is running out of public camera bandwidth. There are a lot of those cameras around, you know!
How can you keep an electronic eye on everyone if public bandwidth is clogged by bothersome subjects pirating American mass media?
A massive roll-out of British Broadband means Her Majesty's Peepers (aka HeMP) will be able to see all, and know all.
HeMP for all Britain!
When the decisions were made about what government-owned information should be publically available, even telephones didn't exist.
This meant that, if you wanted local information on who ownes what plot of land, what leinholder holds interest in it, and what the tax rate is, it wasn't all that easy to get. You had to travel to the town, pay a clerk a document fee, and wait while they go find the record and copy it for you. This was very time- and effort-intensive, as well as somewhat expensive if you want more than a few records.
Now that everything's online, shady mortgage brokers can find out the assessed value of your house, as well as the fact that you own it. People can (unless you're the president) look up your birth certificate and find out where and when you were born. All of this and more is available online, to automated bulk requests.
Privacy is suffering in a way never intended. The information is supposed to be available, but not simple to access.
There are 2 core problems with translating:
1. Language requires a cultural frame of reference.
You can see this in understanding humor in different societies. For example Monty Python is a product of a British perspective. The English language, as spoken in England, only works when you understand the culture behind it. For example, "daily bread" only works in western languages because of the shared Christian influence. In Japanese, for example, "daily rice" might bring up a similar understanding that "daily bread" doesn't carry.
2. Language is a moving target.
References keep changing, and a computer (or even a foreign-based translator) has a hard time keeping up. Think about what Tea Party meant just 5 years ago, as opposed to today.
All this means that you're going to get a really good computer translator about the time you get a really good computer painter. Even the best of the given translations in the responses to this story aren't anything someone would want to publish as an example of good English usage - the only benefit is a moderate ability to get the point of the subject.
Or to drive the point home, try passing Goethe through the translator and see if the English is as good as the German.
That's the true test of a translator - can it retain excellence, beyond base meaning?
example: ..... Er wird es in sein Schuldbuch schreiben und dir nicht lange im Gebet bleiben.
Wenn ein Edler gegen dich fehlt, so tu als hättest dus nicht gezählt!
becomes ..... He will write it in his book of guilt and you do not stay long in prayer.
When the gentleman wanting against you, then do as you would not have counted's!
Sure you get the idea, but the artistry is pure fail.
So I take it you're in favor of whatever it is you do for a living being fully controlled by the federal government, including what income you're allowed to have?
It's all well and good to say that those people over there have to render the services which are a product of years of education and experience, as well as tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt. But what about you? What such effort are you going to donate to the collective?
At some point you have to realize that you're just robbing your neighbors by using the federal government as a weapon. After all, tax comes under penalty of "financial oblivion at best, and death at worst".
It's clear you don't understand how the UI works.
I own a Zune HD, which works from the same concept. Allow me to explain it to you.
The idea is similar to how a desktop works stretched across multiple monitors.
Yes, the background spans them all. However, any individual application only uses 1 monitor's worth of space.
You go side-to-side to access another slice of screen, which is easily done by tapping your finger once on that side of the screen, where you see the next "monitor's worth" as a mini-screen off to that side, dimmer, and "off in the distance".
So it is simultaneously 3-dimensional and multi-monitor, as though the monitors were arranged on a rotating platform.
It actually works very well. I like it.
I can see how you can come away thinking that it's just part of a big screen, based on the released desktop mock-ups. But you're missing the point completely, and need to sit down with the hardware and try it out.
You see, the basic formula is this:
risk = reward
If you don't want any risks in life, you can have the cozy job at the big corporation, where no one expects you to be anything better than mediocre. You can have subsidized health insurance, a steady income, and a sniff of a bonus from time to time. If you lose your job, the government will give you money for several months while you find something else.
However, if you want to put yourself out there and use the capital between your ears, yeah, there's a lot of risk. Your ability to afford anything - including the absolute basics - depends on your ability to market yourself and then do what you say you can do. You have to handle finances, research options and hustle. If your business fails, the government isn't going to come and bail you out - you're neither small nor large enough to give a damn about.
But you can do way, way better for yourself.
Some people thrive on this challenge.
And some others just want someone to handle it all for them.
Time was, the USA was where people around the world went when they wanted to handle the risk and get the reward.
Nowadays, though, the USA is full of people who feel entitled to everything the world has to offer, just because they were born here.
Stripping back the address to "www." instead of "blog." renders....
And so I have to ask....is CmdrTaco, or a friend, an investor? Because this is obviously a ploy for attention to a brand new web business.
I mean, what's more current than dissing banks? And Citi's a zombie, so definitely a target....this is an obvious media ploy.
Obviously you've never had 2-4 flat tires at 100mph.
From realpolice.net:
In this 9 year period (1994-2002), the data showed that there were 2654 fatal crashes involving 3965 vehicles of which there were 3146 fatalities. Of these, 1088 were to people not in the fleeing vehicle.
If frying someone's car results in a better outcome than the above, I'm all for it.
Sounds like a great replacement for caltrops.
Sometimes things do have to be said.
So let me ask you this:
If subsidies are a tool of the wealthy to oppress the poor, then why does Costa Rica force its people to buy only domestic beans?
Beans produced in Costa Rica cost more than 50% more than beans produced in Nicaragua. Considering that beans are a key staple of the Costa Rican people, who benefits?
Why must you harm both your own people and Nicaragua in this way?
This is not the only stupid, protective trade manipulation Costa Rica has. Yet they feel free to complain to the WTO (which they did join) about others - Costa Rica has 4 active complaints on file. Only 1 is against the US, and that is for textiles.
Now to the thing which must be said:
The problem with you South American-types is that your dictators treat you like mushrooms - feed you shit and keep you in the dark. And not only this, but you get all puffed-up and proud about the shit and the darkness, like it's somehow noble to be screwed over by some potbellied, squinty-eyed dictator who cloaks the crap he feeds you in bold, revolutionary speeches.
The best thing you can do is stop worrying about what the US is going to do and fix your own country. With 2 ongoing wars and a child in the White House, you could probably blow up half the US Navy and nothing would happen. So don't worry about us and fix your own shit.
Being mummified on live TV isn't all that different from what kids are doing with Facebook these days, anyway.
If this was Microsoft trolling a Apple release, we'd call it FUD and wonder if the tablet would be made of folding chairs, and if you would throw it to reboot.
Can we wait with more speculative crap "stories" until there's more substance to this tablet rumor than there is to Duke Nukem Forever?
Since the USA does not grant titles or patents of nobility, the appropriate award would be the Presidential Medal of Freedom. This can be, and sometimes is, granted to non-citizens, such as Tony Blair, Pope John Paul II, and Mother Theresa. (I don't know any examples of foreign entertainment-types offhand, but it is applicable)
Amazing how fast a train can run when you use the blood of your critics to lube the rails.
You just don't understand what google is doing.
I quote: "Google does not deliver the package of ads with gratuitous attractive content supplied by traditional media."
Google's content is, "an answer to your question".
It's not movies.
It's not music.
It's not political commentary.
It's an answer to the question, where do I find ___.
The essential problem, the reason for revolt, is that on google, THE ADVERTISING CONFLICTS WITH THE CONTENT.
Maybe you want to buy a honda. But here's this nissan ad, and you click on it. See how this could get someone upset?
Another example: I want my users to type in my domain and drill down to pages. This gets me maybe 3 or 4 pageviews.
Coming in straight from google gets me one pageview.
See how this could get someone upset?
My sister is a public school teacher, and once you count the value of the extra vacation, fully-employer-paid health insurance, compensated continuing education, we make the same money.
Add to that the fact that she gets a legislatively-guaranteed raise every year that exceeds inflation and has union protections including tenure, and the deal isn't bad at all.
My boss has the perfect answer for this:
Get everyone set up with dinner/beverages. Then, go home, sign in from there, walk away from the computer and keep the pager close.
We page him if we need anything, or when we get finished.
Out of our hair, but still handy if needed. Perfect.
This was 1900, people.
Electricity was limited in its uses to lighting and some minor household gadgets.
People mostly heated their homes with wood, coal, or some petroleum product. Usually coal.
Today, no, it would be unthinkable to not have electricity. But that's mostly because people rely on it for heat, hot water and cooking. (modern furnances almost never have a pilot light). But back then it was a nicety. Much like broadband is today.
Which isn't to say there isn't a place for municipal broadband. I consider an internet connection, today, to be as important as a library.
However, we're getting to used to the notion that things are rights. Here's a simple test: if you can buy it, it's not a right.
This comment deserves to be Score:5, Troll, if I've ever seen one. Give 'em a +1, underrated.
Sure, it's a troll, but it's oh-so accurate. There's no reason a troll can't be admired, on rare occasions.
"But when you are not accusing a scientist of basic incompetence or outright fraud, the raw data it's pretty useless."
So what, then, would be the purpose of deleting it? A-ha!
You need to drop the shroud of mysticism from your calling. Your work is not as unique as you think it is.
I would remind you that 32,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Petition, which states that, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
Of course, the most likely thing is, is that you're just a chem major at some second-rate university sounding off.