Well, technically, outsourcing all those jobs is a solution to the "skills shortage". It is a short-sighted, self-defeating, and destructive one, just like the strategy of management and executives not giving raises to workers so they can stuff their own wallets is destroying the U.S. economy.
Apparently, you don't know the history of the U.S. auto-industry. And, you missed the part about doing it to protest over-paid, incompetent managers and not to get stupidly high pay and benefits.
I say IT workers have a national strike day/week where we all don't show up for work and instead protest the ridiculous pay of incompetent managers and executives.
It has no real information about the exploit. The article is a summary of a summary of a presentation given at BlackHat.
This is not news. News would be a decent summary of the actual presentation with an analysis of the exploit, technical detail, etc. This is just anti-MS blogspam.
The problem is that you don't understand what the law says. Maybe if you educated yourself on what the law says you would understand what is going on in this case.
This is not about levels of security. It is about the law, the TOS of MySpace, and whether the woman obtained her access to MySpace's systems through the use deception.
And, again, what you do on your site is irrelevant because your site is not MySpace.
You are saying "No true website would be like that because my website is not like that."
A) Your opinion does not matter. B) While you may be correct, there is not legal recourse in regards to the girl. There is, however, legal recourse in the case of MySpace. C) There are no free speech ramifications to this case. To suggest that there is a free speech issue here is to suggest that there is free speech issues involved when Blockbuster or a hotel requires your true name.
Really? What about their "good name"? What about loss of advertising revenue do to closed accounts and lost opportunity?
Just because you don't know of the damages or losses, it does not follow that they did not in fact occur.
Nice to see you are resorting to ad hominem. It just shows you can not support your arguments.
As for anonymity on the internet, there really is no such thing and suggesting such shows a lack of technical accumen. Anonymity works where there is public space, but there is no true public space on the internet. Every place is "owned" in some way and the level of anonymity is governed by what those owners are willing to allow.
Do they ask you if you are white or ayrian or whatever?
Which fallacy are you pursuing moving the goal post, false analogy, or argument ad nauseum?
Also, why is a black person posting on a white supremist website? To "troll"? Is that a violation of the terms of service and can't that be considered harrassment and a violation of the right Freedom of Association of the white supremists?
And, they do cater to them intelligently, by assuming that they are good, honest people who represent themselves truthfully. And, when one is found to have misrepresented oneself, they remove one's account.
The difference in this case is that the person who deceptively obtained access, then used the access to harrass someone, in violation of the TOS, until said someone committed suicide which resulted in damage to the MySpace brand. That is fraud. And, deceptively obtaining access to a system is still illegal.
You would never lie? Yet, you believe it is not lying to knowning give false information, so how could you lie when your definition of the "not lying" includes lying?
Just because you don't care, it does not follow that others do not care. That you do or do not do something, it does not follow that others will do or not do the same thing.
You are not the final authority of what is or is not suitable for sites other than your own.
It seems you are laboring under a No True Scotsman fallacy.
You fail to understand the charges and your so-called point proves it.
You are thinking the injury in the case is to the girl, but in actuality, the injury in the charges are to MySpace, namely in damage to reputation, loss of revenue, legal costs, etc. The injuries to MySpace were done after obtaining an account through deception and using the account to badger and harrass someone in violation of the TOS. Obtaining the access through fraud and then abusing that access in violation of the TOS is what makes the access illegal.
That is irrelevant. A requirement does not need active enforcement. They do not have to expend the effort to have a requirement. Just like the government doesn't have to expend effort to catch deserters. The government does not pursue deserters, they merely wait for them to be caught in some other crime. That doesn't make desertion not a crime.
It is not your call to determine if it is fraud. It is the jury's call. They don't have to do an active check to ensure you are providing correct data to require that you provide it. They merely operate on the honor system and punish those that are found to be violating the terms. Or, do you suggest they treat everyone like they a criminal?
Slashdot Mirror
Violating other people's legal rights is not "sharing".
Grow the fuck up, asshole.
Oh, look, a game pirate has mod points.
What is the matter you cowardly fuck? Too much of a chicken shit to respond?
Because pirates are cheap, lazy, selfish scumbags.
There is the answer to "Why".
That does not change the fact that the initial submission was blogspam and plagiarized blogspam at that.
Well, technically, outsourcing all those jobs is a solution to the "skills shortage". It is a short-sighted, self-defeating, and destructive one, just like the strategy of management and executives not giving raises to workers so they can stuff their own wallets is destroying the U.S. economy.
Those high value jobs you speak of generally require experience. Experienced gained in the lower tiers, which are the one's being outsourced.
How does one qualify for one of those jobs if one can not get the required experience?
Apparently, you don't know the history of the U.S. auto-industry. And, you missed the part about doing it to protest over-paid, incompetent managers and not to get stupidly high pay and benefits.
Hey, shithead, why don't you shove your political trolling up your ass and die of the infection?
I say IT workers have a national strike day/week where we all don't show up for work and instead protest the ridiculous pay of incompetent managers and executives.
It has no real information about the exploit. The article is a summary of a summary of a presentation given at BlackHat.
This is not news. News would be a decent summary of the actual presentation with an analysis of the exploit, technical detail, etc. This is just anti-MS blogspam.
See, that is why you are fucking shithead. This is not about censorship. Maybe you should learn to fucking read, you pathetic shit-eating git.
Now, go fucking die in a fire.
No one takes you seriously, period.
The problem is that you don't understand what the law says. Maybe if you educated yourself on what the law says you would understand what is going on in this case.
So, are you one of my modstalker?
While you are right, you are also wrong, because she obtained her access through fraud.
And, your opinion is irrelevant.
This is not about levels of security. It is about the law, the TOS of MySpace, and whether the woman obtained her access to MySpace's systems through the use deception.
And, again, what you do on your site is irrelevant because your site is not MySpace.
You are saying "No true website would be like that because my website is not like that."
A) Your opinion does not matter.
B) While you may be correct, there is not legal recourse in regards to the girl. There is, however, legal recourse in the case of MySpace.
C) There are no free speech ramifications to this case. To suggest that there is a free speech issue here is to suggest that there is free speech issues involved when Blockbuster or a hotel requires your true name.
Your opinion is irrelevant. My opinion directly contradicts yours, so what makes your opinion "better" than mine?
What is relevant is legal precedence and the opinion of the jury.
Really? What about their "good name"? What about loss of advertising revenue do to closed accounts and lost opportunity?
Just because you don't know of the damages or losses, it does not follow that they did not in fact occur.
Nice to see you are resorting to ad hominem. It just shows you can not support your arguments.
As for anonymity on the internet, there really is no such thing and suggesting such shows a lack of technical accumen. Anonymity works where there is public space, but there is no true public space on the internet. Every place is "owned" in some way and the level of anonymity is governed by what those owners are willing to allow.
Do they ask you if you are white or ayrian or whatever?
Which fallacy are you pursuing moving the goal post, false analogy, or argument ad nauseum?
Also, why is a black person posting on a white supremist website? To "troll"? Is that a violation of the terms of service and can't that be considered harrassment and a violation of the right Freedom of Association of the white supremists?
And, they do cater to them intelligently, by assuming that they are good, honest people who represent themselves truthfully. And, when one is found to have misrepresented oneself, they remove one's account.
The difference in this case is that the person who deceptively obtained access, then used the access to harrass someone, in violation of the TOS, until said someone committed suicide which resulted in damage to the MySpace brand. That is fraud. And, deceptively obtaining access to a system is still illegal.
You would never lie? Yet, you believe it is not lying to knowning give false information, so how could you lie when your definition of the "not lying" includes lying?
Just because you don't care, it does not follow that others do not care. That you do or do not do something, it does not follow that others will do or not do the same thing.
You are not the final authority of what is or is not suitable for sites other than your own.
It seems you are laboring under a No True Scotsman fallacy.
You fail to understand the charges and your so-called point proves it.
You are thinking the injury in the case is to the girl, but in actuality, the injury in the charges are to MySpace, namely in damage to reputation, loss of revenue, legal costs, etc. The injuries to MySpace were done after obtaining an account through deception and using the account to badger and harrass someone in violation of the TOS. Obtaining the access through fraud and then abusing that access in violation of the TOS is what makes the access illegal.
And, the illegal access was obtained via fraud. That is why you will always fail. You only see what you want to be true, and not what is true.
That is irrelevant. A requirement does not need active enforcement. They do not have to expend the effort to have a requirement. Just like the government doesn't have to expend effort to catch deserters. The government does not pursue deserters, they merely wait for them to be caught in some other crime. That doesn't make desertion not a crime.
It is not your call to determine if it is fraud. It is the jury's call. They don't have to do an active check to ensure you are providing correct data to require that you provide it. They merely operate on the honor system and punish those that are found to be violating the terms. Or, do you suggest they treat everyone like they a criminal?