Or were they denied because the standards have changed due to some recently publicized abuses, meaning how many would have been denied if submitted about two years ago?
All we have are some numbers, and now people will claim conclusions that fit their desired viewpoint.
Could it? Yes. Will it? No. The other OSes will always be putting something in that makes it break, and playing catchup isn't viable. You also don't want always to be the tail getting wagged by the big dogs.
I wasn't trying to say the musician copied, just that the parent's assertion doesn't logically hold that this shows at least three of the four claimants must have copied their material since they all claim copyright infringement against the same piece. I understand the fuzzy matching problem that probably caused the claims.
Except there are five claims against him from four different sources. If the claims are based on copying, then at least three others copied from the exact same source and have filed violation claims based on pilfered content.
Your logic is broken. His work is 10 hours long and each of the five claims could be for different, non-overlapping sections within it, so none of the five need contain any content from another. For example, if I took five songs from five different performers and concatenated them together, all five would have the right to make a copyright claim even though none contain another's work. The claims in this case though are still garbage.
In all fairness, if using the phone extensively can cause the battery to bulge, then that is a problem with the phone's or battery's design. The fact it is made more likely to occur by the malware doesn't change that the phone's design is flawed.
What part of the internet is owned and operated by the Government?
We are talking about regulations that govern how a company is allowed to operate, specifically companies deemed to be communication carriers, meaning companies that transmit traffic on behalf of third parties. Government ownership or government operation isn't required.
The Difference between one scenario and the other is exactly the same. Each organization has the right to control packets on its network or it doesn't. There is not "public" Internet owned by the government. Now you're saying the Government has a right to dictate what a company can do with its own network, and that would apply to ANY network, not just those connecting tho a peering node.
No, they are different. You are allowed to do what you want with the traffic destined for you once it reaches you. A company in the business of delivering data that is handed a data packet addressed to you shouldn't have the right to decide on their own that they chose not to deliver it unless you have given them that right. No more than AT&T can receive a call request from Sprint destined for your phone and decide they don't want to let the call go through since it came from Sprint (again, barring legitimate operational or legal reasons). The government's purpose is to protect the rights of its citizens, and in this case, that means the right to be treated fairly. The argument is what is fair.
If Comcast throttles/blocks traffic on its network, based on source IP or whatever, what is the difference to our organization throttling/blocking it?
The difference is in one scenario your organization chose what traffic they didn't want to process, and in the other an entity outside of your control did it without you having any say (other than changing providers if that option exists).
Our work blocks all sorts of IP addresses from unsavory countries. That is a violation of Net Neutrality.
That concept seems to appear in a lot of the comments, and isn't true. An end user (you work) is free to what they want since it is their traffic. Net Neutrality deals with a middleman making that decision for the end users without the end users consent, and without a clear network protection or legally required purpose.
I doubt the professor used a public terminal to work on student records. More likely, the professor logged into his account from a computer in a lecture hall to pull up a presentation, and with one username/password for all activities, that gave the student access to what the professor did in the grading system as well.
This reminds me of the US patent debate. It is the same type of spying that has been happening since forever, except with "over the Internet" attached. Yes, the Internet makes the remote access attacks easier, but really it is just a different form of the same type has has always existed. Countries have been stealing the weapon plans of other nations, and will continue to do so using whatever mechanisms are available, and no one should be surprised.
How long would anyone keep doing business with an armored car company that keeps forgetting to lock the doors?
Businesses don't care - it is the consumers being hurt, not the businesses using Equifax's services. It would be like a local store that keeps getting broken into and robbed in the middle of the night. Would a person stop buying from them just because they're losing stuff? It doesn't effect them (assuming the data doesn't get modified). As long as they have what the person wants at a reasonable price when they want it, why should they care that the business has a loss problem?
The most likely reason why it could become an issue is if the losing business ends up having to raise prices to compensate, or has to shutter its doors. THEN you can just go to a competitor.
What's Equifax's excuse going to be this time?
All remediation wasn't yet fully in place, or maybe, it was contracted out and the subcontractor failed, so they will never, ever, use that firm again, lesson learned. Or some other pass the buck statement.
When he says "password", I think he may mean "passcode". After the passcode is entered to unlock the phone, it will then unlock using only TouchID for a week before requiring the passcode again be entered (unless two days go by without being unlocked). The passcode prompt often appears to be random since you keep unlocking the phone with a finger, then suddenly it says no, give me the passcode instead (often at a rather inconvenient time).
Like you, I don't get Apple/iCloud password prompts unless performing very specific actions where it makes sense. If I did, I would know since my Apple password is long, complex, and a pain in the ass to enter.
Congress deliberately passes broad sweeping laws that leave a lot of discretion for the enacting agencies since Congress can't be bothered by the minutia. In this case it is the FCC that put the current Net-Neutrality provisions in place, not Congress, and the FCC can take them away. The comments aren't a vote, but they will certainly be used by the politicians to justify their actions - "Look, we were doing what the public demanded. 90% of those commenting were against Net Neutrality, so we did what they public wanted us to do."
Exactly, the two sides are still communicating, though not as well. Think about it this way - if they weren't communicating it would be impossible for a person to do common activities like walking, since the each half controls a leg and without coordinating the legs couldn't move cooperatively and the person would just fall down. Likewise, driving would be a nightmare, and the list goes on.
"In other words, they looked for the issues causing division in America, and hammered on them."
That is maybe the most accurate and succinct description of the Trump agenda ever written.
That is very specious. All candidates attempt to divide the electorate with the intent that the division puts the majority on their side of the divide. That for example was a desired consequence of Hillary calling Trump supporters "deplorables" - to split the electorate into two sides and, as the strategy tried, to either support her, or be a member of a deplorable group. Division and politics go hand in hand.
If you don't look directly at the iPhone, it won't unlock. I'm guessing you can look down at your lap for longer than a cop can hold a phone in front of you.
The courts have held that the police have the right to take your fingerprints or picture. They have never said that they can force you to look at something.
They can force you to give handwriting sample and to read selected text to evaluate your voice. I am certain they can legally compel you to look at a phone. That is why people concerned about it should disable the biometric access before entering the border area, or any area where they fear such coercion. Then they just need to determine if contempt charges or monkey wrench cryptography (depending on jurisdiction) is worth the consequences.
Personally, I'd just lock my credit records with Equifax. Leave them open with the other agencies, so lenders can still approve loans. Just not with Equifax.
Is your name, address, birthdate, social security number, etc., with TransUnion and Experian different than the information leaked by Equifax? If so, why do you only worry about locking Equifax?
About 15 years ago when I moved and signed up with Comcast for a cable modem (they were the only high speed choice there - too far for DSL), the lady tried to upsell me by adding a TV package. She said If I bundled the two I would get a $15 discount. and mentioned various TV packages from $40 to over $100. I asked if there was anything cheaper since I had heard about a basic "must carry" level, and she admitted it existed and was $8. I confirmed with her that by signing up for a $8 basic TV package, I would get a $15 discount off the pair, and she said yes. So by letting TV signals enter my house (no TV attached though), I paid $7 less than just getting Internet. Sadly, about three years later the price increases and new FCC taxes for cable TV made the TV portion more expensive than the discount so I dropped it. I still have a grandfathered plan though that gives me 100Mbps at half the cost of my neighbors.
Fired or not, he is still a viable Exhibit A, and now with Google being on record showing how they treat people who try to raise constructive criticism to diversity issues.
Someone at Gizmodo should be shot or sued for editing the memo, "Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber," by removing the references—"hyperlinks," as they call them.
Shooting may be satisfying, but too extreme (IMO, YMMV), and sued would fail big time due to freedom of the press.
The hyperlinks are to many scholarly journal pieces and otherwise respectable publications. Without the references to back up the author's claims, he just looks like a boob to most folks.
I think you have discovered their probable intent. I suspect the article's author will be rewarded since the vast majority will read and accept the article's implied message without looking further. It is the small minority that will seek truth, and not just drink what is fed to them.
Why did Google report the searches to the SEC? Did he short their stock or something?;-)
Google didn't report it, they found that he did those searches after they were already looking at him, at least that is what the article implies since it is scant on details. My question though is how they know about the searches? Was it forensics on his computer, or did they get the search history from Google? I'm betting the former.
Given the environment of this admission I can't be the only one who doubts this.
I don't doubt it, but I think he is spinning it. Think about the problem of attribution in the cyber realm, then think about what good such an agreement would be? All it would do is become something for groups to use to try and attack others in public while doing absolutely nothing to stop any of the cyber attacks. The administration probably "ignored it" (meaning told them to take a hike) because they saw it as a nothing-burger proposed solely for propaganda reasons.
News reports as I write, on CNN, FOX, and MSNBC, are quoting two congressmen saying both are sure the person they spoke to and asked whether democrats or republicans were playing, is the person whose photo is appearing on the news broadcasts. How are the early reports wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
Or were they denied because the standards have changed due to some recently publicized abuses, meaning how many would have been denied if submitted about two years ago?
All we have are some numbers, and now people will claim conclusions that fit their desired viewpoint.
Could it? Yes. Will it? No. The other OSes will always be putting something in that makes it break, and playing catchup isn't viable. You also don't want always to be the tail getting wagged by the big dogs.
I wasn't trying to say the musician copied, just that the parent's assertion doesn't logically hold that this shows at least three of the four claimants must have copied their material since they all claim copyright infringement against the same piece. I understand the fuzzy matching problem that probably caused the claims.
Except there are five claims against him from four different sources. If the claims are based on copying, then at least three others copied from the exact same source and have filed violation claims based on pilfered content.
Your logic is broken. His work is 10 hours long and each of the five claims could be for different, non-overlapping sections within it, so none of the five need contain any content from another. For example, if I took five songs from five different performers and concatenated them together, all five would have the right to make a copyright claim even though none contain another's work. The claims in this case though are still garbage.
In all fairness, if using the phone extensively can cause the battery to bulge, then that is a problem with the phone's or battery's design. The fact it is made more likely to occur by the malware doesn't change that the phone's design is flawed.
What part of the internet is owned and operated by the Government?
We are talking about regulations that govern how a company is allowed to operate, specifically companies deemed to be communication carriers, meaning companies that transmit traffic on behalf of third parties. Government ownership or government operation isn't required.
The Difference between one scenario and the other is exactly the same. Each organization has the right to control packets on its network or it doesn't. There is not "public" Internet owned by the government. Now you're saying the Government has a right to dictate what a company can do with its own network, and that would apply to ANY network, not just those connecting tho a peering node.
No, they are different. You are allowed to do what you want with the traffic destined for you once it reaches you. A company in the business of delivering data that is handed a data packet addressed to you shouldn't have the right to decide on their own that they chose not to deliver it unless you have given them that right. No more than AT&T can receive a call request from Sprint destined for your phone and decide they don't want to let the call go through since it came from Sprint (again, barring legitimate operational or legal reasons). The government's purpose is to protect the rights of its citizens, and in this case, that means the right to be treated fairly. The argument is what is fair.
If Comcast throttles/blocks traffic on its network, based on source IP or whatever, what is the difference to our organization throttling/blocking it?
The difference is in one scenario your organization chose what traffic they didn't want to process, and in the other an entity outside of your control did it without you having any say (other than changing providers if that option exists).
Our work blocks all sorts of IP addresses from unsavory countries. That is a violation of Net Neutrality.
That concept seems to appear in a lot of the comments, and isn't true. An end user (you work) is free to what they want since it is their traffic. Net Neutrality deals with a middleman making that decision for the end users without the end users consent, and without a clear network protection or legally required purpose.
There is a flaw in the premise. Does this show the type of alcohol affects the mood, or the mood/personality affects the choice of alcohol?
I doubt the professor used a public terminal to work on student records. More likely, the professor logged into his account from a computer in a lecture hall to pull up a presentation, and with one username/password for all activities, that gave the student access to what the professor did in the grading system as well.
This reminds me of the US patent debate. It is the same type of spying that has been happening since forever, except with "over the Internet" attached. Yes, the Internet makes the remote access attacks easier, but really it is just a different form of the same type has has always existed. Countries have been stealing the weapon plans of other nations, and will continue to do so using whatever mechanisms are available, and no one should be surprised.
How long would anyone keep doing business with an armored car company that keeps forgetting to lock the doors?
Businesses don't care - it is the consumers being hurt, not the businesses using Equifax's services. It would be like a local store that keeps getting broken into and robbed in the middle of the night. Would a person stop buying from them just because they're losing stuff? It doesn't effect them (assuming the data doesn't get modified). As long as they have what the person wants at a reasonable price when they want it, why should they care that the business has a loss problem?
The most likely reason why it could become an issue is if the losing business ends up having to raise prices to compensate, or has to shutter its doors. THEN you can just go to a competitor.
What's Equifax's excuse going to be this time?
All remediation wasn't yet fully in place, or maybe, it was contracted out and the subcontractor failed, so they will never, ever, use that firm again, lesson learned. Or some other pass the buck statement.
You're holding it wrong. :)
When he says "password", I think he may mean "passcode". After the passcode is entered to unlock the phone, it will then unlock using only TouchID for a week before requiring the passcode again be entered (unless two days go by without being unlocked). The passcode prompt often appears to be random since you keep unlocking the phone with a finger, then suddenly it says no, give me the passcode instead (often at a rather inconvenient time).
Like you, I don't get Apple/iCloud password prompts unless performing very specific actions where it makes sense. If I did, I would know since my Apple password is long, complex, and a pain in the ass to enter.
Oh you poor naive fool.
Congress deliberately passes broad sweeping laws that leave a lot of discretion for the enacting agencies since Congress can't be bothered by the minutia. In this case it is the FCC that put the current Net-Neutrality provisions in place, not Congress, and the FCC can take them away. The comments aren't a vote, but they will certainly be used by the politicians to justify their actions - "Look, we were doing what the public demanded. 90% of those commenting were against Net Neutrality, so we did what they public wanted us to do."
Exactly, the two sides are still communicating, though not as well. Think about it this way - if they weren't communicating it would be impossible for a person to do common activities like walking, since the each half controls a leg and without coordinating the legs couldn't move cooperatively and the person would just fall down. Likewise, driving would be a nightmare, and the list goes on.
That is maybe the most accurate and succinct description of the Trump agenda ever written.
That is very specious. All candidates attempt to divide the electorate with the intent that the division puts the majority on their side of the divide. That for example was a desired consequence of Hillary calling Trump supporters "deplorables" - to split the electorate into two sides and, as the strategy tried, to either support her, or be a member of a deplorable group. Division and politics go hand in hand.
If you don't look directly at the iPhone, it won't unlock. I'm guessing you can look down at your lap for longer than a cop can hold a phone in front of you.
The courts have held that the police have the right to take your fingerprints or picture. They have never said that they can force you to look at something.
They can force you to give handwriting sample and to read selected text to evaluate your voice. I am certain they can legally compel you to look at a phone. That is why people concerned about it should disable the biometric access before entering the border area, or any area where they fear such coercion. Then they just need to determine if contempt charges or monkey wrench cryptography (depending on jurisdiction) is worth the consequences.
Personally, I'd just lock my credit records with Equifax. Leave them open with the other agencies, so lenders can still approve loans. Just not with Equifax.
Is your name, address, birthdate, social security number, etc., with TransUnion and Experian different than the information leaked by Equifax? If so, why do you only worry about locking Equifax?
About 15 years ago when I moved and signed up with Comcast for a cable modem (they were the only high speed choice there - too far for DSL), the lady tried to upsell me by adding a TV package. She said If I bundled the two I would get a $15 discount. and mentioned various TV packages from $40 to over $100. I asked if there was anything cheaper since I had heard about a basic "must carry" level, and she admitted it existed and was $8. I confirmed with her that by signing up for a $8 basic TV package, I would get a $15 discount off the pair, and she said yes. So by letting TV signals enter my house (no TV attached though), I paid $7 less than just getting Internet. Sadly, about three years later the price increases and new FCC taxes for cable TV made the TV portion more expensive than the discount so I dropped it. I still have a grandfathered plan though that gives me 100Mbps at half the cost of my neighbors.
Fired or not, he is still a viable Exhibit A, and now with Google being on record showing how they treat people who try to raise constructive criticism to diversity issues.
Someone at Gizmodo should be shot or sued for editing the memo, "Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber," by removing the references—"hyperlinks," as they call them.
Shooting may be satisfying, but too extreme (IMO, YMMV), and sued would fail big time due to freedom of the press.
The hyperlinks are to many scholarly journal pieces and otherwise respectable publications. Without the references to back up the author's claims, he just looks like a boob to most folks.
I think you have discovered their probable intent. I suspect the article's author will be rewarded since the vast majority will read and accept the article's implied message without looking further. It is the small minority that will seek truth, and not just drink what is fed to them.
Why did Google report the searches to the SEC? Did he short their stock or something? ;-)
Google didn't report it, they found that he did those searches after they were already looking at him, at least that is what the article implies since it is scant on details. My question though is how they know about the searches? Was it forensics on his computer, or did they get the search history from Google? I'm betting the former.
Given the environment of this admission I can't be the only one who doubts this.
I don't doubt it, but I think he is spinning it. Think about the problem of attribution in the cyber realm, then think about what good such an agreement would be? All it would do is become something for groups to use to try and attack others in public while doing absolutely nothing to stop any of the cyber attacks. The administration probably "ignored it" (meaning told them to take a hike) because they saw it as a nothing-burger proposed solely for propaganda reasons.
News reports as I write, on CNN, FOX, and MSNBC, are quoting two congressmen saying both are sure the person they spoke to and asked whether democrats or republicans were playing, is the person whose photo is appearing on the news broadcasts. How are the early reports wrong?