How often does any company do a recall for security issues? They seem to be taking the issue at least somewhat seriously.
Looks like the made the classic mistake of assuming users would be sane enough to change the default password.
More like making the classic mistake that consumers are IT professionals.
Complaining that users aren't changing the default password is the security version of "you're holding it wrong."
If changing the password is important, then it should be a required part of the setup process.
Really, I wasn't even thinking of it in terms of "who has the legal rights to the pictures." I'm appalled that the parents would even take that question into account.
I tell my kids tough shit, suck it all the time. It's called being a parent and caving into random whims about stupid stuff. I mean... what kind of parent says no to a kid who wants ice cream for dinner! They want it so they must have it!
Seriously... everyone has baby photos. We take photos of babies and post them on the internet. Before the internet we put them in books and then drug the books out whenever our kids brought home a significant other. Get over it. You were once a baby naked and covered in mud/spaghetti sauce and your parents took a picture. It probably even got taken in to work and is hanging up in a cube/office. That time you crapped your pants? Mom and Dad remember and will bring it up. Again. And Again. You'll probably do the same thing to your kids. Suck it up. Life is tough and not everyone likes you. It's my job to make sure you have the tools to make it, not be your friend.
I suppose it is possible that these 'embarrassing' childhood photos are not the typical spaghetti covered baby photos. But if that is the case, the parents probably belong in jail for other reasons.
I am a parent. I also have respect for my child (and for people in general), and their reasonable right to their privacy. If I posted an old picture of a friend from college, and that friend said "hey, I'd rather not have that on the Internet," I'd immediately take it down.
I'm trying to wrap my brain around a parent who says no to their child's request that photos of the child be taken down from the Internet.
This isn't even an issue of good parenting, it's an issue of common courtesy!
Except that it also has to be feasible. We're talking about tens, if not hundreds, of millions of pictures a day. Any screening process (and there has to be a screening process) is going to occasionally have a false positive.
"But the company is now delaying its shipments as it conducts additional quality control testing delaying its shipments as it conducts additional quality control testing."
A bit of additional quality control testing might not be a terrible idea for summaries, as well.
From the sounds of this, they seem to be focused on true "ride-sharing," in which people going in the same direction contribute to the cost of the trip, rather than Uber's taxi-like product. In effect, carpooling.
I've already started clicking on every ad to hide it, and then choose offense / sexually explicity. Time to pollute their data set, and if they actually action on this feedback then that system will get broken if enough people also do the same.
You'd need a LOT of people (like a large majority of the userbase) to do this for it really to work. All you've done is trained the algorithm to ignore your flags.
You're looking at it the wrong way around. You need to look at the share of the population of the native country that have chosen to move to the destination country.
25k people born in Norway (0.5% of the current population) have chosen to move to the US.
9k people born in the US (0.003% of the current population) have chosen to move to Norway.
So, Norwegians are 173x more likely to have moved to the US than Americans are to have moved to Norway.
So, you think that an article about the Louisville city government possibly overstepping its authority in an attempt to make it EASIER for Google Fiber to enter the market is evidence that there are local monopoly franchises? Intriguing. Do you also view the sunrise as evidence to support your theory that we are doomed to eternal darkness?
(a) could show you had sufficient financial backing to be a viable concern
What are the common ways for startups to show (a)?
Show cash on hand, show borrowing capacity, show a business plan.
(b) agreed to cover at least a large portion of the city, if not all, and weren't just going to cherry-pick affluent neighborhoods
Is a franchisee allowed to propose a multi-year plan to cover "a large portion of the city", using revenue from one neighborhood to fund expansion into adjacent neighborhoods, or does it have to be at least borough-wide from day one?
It can be a phased rollout (don't need to have the entire network built to light it up), but reasonably rapid, and not just "attractive markets first." (can't say "we'll do Richguy Heights in 2016, and then 2% of Poverty Falls per year for the next 50 years").
Those aren't franchise monopolies. Franchise monopolies have been illegal for around 20 years. FiOS doesn't violate cable monopoly rights because those rights don't exist, not because of the physical medium Verizon chose to use.
You're absolutely right about the easements (and, more importantly, rights of way on public property). Again, if you want to start a competing service, you're welcome to do so, but the municipality won't just let you build what you want, where you want (i.e. you can't just cherry pick serving densely populated rich neighborhoods), just as the cable and Telco provider weren't allowed to only serve part of the municipality.
It's not illegal at all - how do you think Verizon is rolling out FiOS? If you wanted to launch the Raymorris Cable Company, and deploy service in NYC, you could certainly do so, provided you (a) could show you had sufficient financial backing to be a viable concern, and (b) agreed to cover at least a large portion of the city, if not all, and weren't just going to cherry-pick affluent neighborhoods.
Just about all non-conservative people under 40 supported Sanders over Clinton
I don't have data handy with a +/-40 break point, but while Sanders did dominate in 18-24 (65/27), 24-34 was essentially tied (45/44), and Clinton won handily 35-44 (54/34). So, overall, Sanders probably had an edge for under 40 as a whole, but it's around 55/45, not "just about all".
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/15/1...
Well, clearly some of your countrymen can, since there are around 25k Norwegian-born people living in the US, vs. only about 9k US-born people living in Norway.
Whenever FB puts an adv. in my feed I flag it as being Offensive and Sexually explicit. It may not screw FB over by much to do so, but it makes me feel good.
I'm glad it makes you feel good, but pretty much all you've done is get the algorithm to ignore all your flags going forward.
Facebook's in the business of selling ads. If they keep adblockers from working, then some people will just put up with the ads, and some people will stop using Facebook. I bet the second group is actually pretty darn small (/. readers are HIGHLY non-representative of the population as a whole), and, since they aren't generating any revenue for FB, I don't think they'll be crushed to see them go.
If you're filing for bankruptcy, you have to list all your creditors. If you don't list something, then you risk having it not be covered by the bankruptcy.
Slashdot Mirror
How often does any company do a recall for security issues? They seem to be taking the issue at least somewhat seriously.
Looks like the made the classic mistake of assuming users would be sane enough to change the default password.
More like making the classic mistake that consumers are IT professionals. Complaining that users aren't changing the default password is the security version of "you're holding it wrong." If changing the password is important, then it should be a required part of the setup process.
Really, I wasn't even thinking of it in terms of "who has the legal rights to the pictures." I'm appalled that the parents would even take that question into account.
I tell my kids tough shit, suck it all the time. It's called being a parent and caving into random whims about stupid stuff. I mean... what kind of parent says no to a kid who wants ice cream for dinner! They want it so they must have it!
Seriously... everyone has baby photos. We take photos of babies and post them on the internet. Before the internet we put them in books and then drug the books out whenever our kids brought home a significant other. Get over it. You were once a baby naked and covered in mud/spaghetti sauce and your parents took a picture. It probably even got taken in to work and is hanging up in a cube/office. That time you crapped your pants? Mom and Dad remember and will bring it up. Again. And Again. You'll probably do the same thing to your kids. Suck it up. Life is tough and not everyone likes you. It's my job to make sure you have the tools to make it, not be your friend.
I suppose it is possible that these 'embarrassing' childhood photos are not the typical spaghetti covered baby photos. But if that is the case, the parents probably belong in jail for other reasons.
I am a parent. I also have respect for my child (and for people in general), and their reasonable right to their privacy. If I posted an old picture of a friend from college, and that friend said "hey, I'd rather not have that on the Internet," I'd immediately take it down.
I'm trying to wrap my brain around a parent who says no to their child's request that photos of the child be taken down from the Internet. This isn't even an issue of good parenting, it's an issue of common courtesy!
Gotta shove them back into alleyways and get them out of sight again.
This is Manhattan. No alleys.
Except that it also has to be feasible. We're talking about tens, if not hundreds, of millions of pictures a day. Any screening process (and there has to be a screening process) is going to occasionally have a false positive.
UK: £90, or $120 UK VAT: 20% UK price before VAT: $100 So, the price that Amazon actually gets (after tax) is 11% higher in the UK than the US.
"But the company is now delaying its shipments as it conducts additional quality control testing delaying its shipments as it conducts additional quality control testing." A bit of additional quality control testing might not be a terrible idea for summaries, as well.
From the sounds of this, they seem to be focused on true "ride-sharing," in which people going in the same direction contribute to the cost of the trip, rather than Uber's taxi-like product. In effect, carpooling.
How is telling someone "unlimited video streaming at 480p," and then delivering unlimited video streaming at 480p, fraud by any possible definition?
I wonder, could you use a VPN app to get full-rate video?
I've already started clicking on every ad to hide it, and then choose offense / sexually explicity. Time to pollute their data set, and if they actually action on this feedback then that system will get broken if enough people also do the same.
You'd need a LOT of people (like a large majority of the userbase) to do this for it really to work. All you've done is trained the algorithm to ignore your flags.
Amen. People in politics tend to skew white, male, and middle-aged. Middle-aged white men are also the most likely to commit suicide.
You're looking at it the wrong way around. You need to look at the share of the population of the native country that have chosen to move to the destination country. 25k people born in Norway (0.5% of the current population) have chosen to move to the US. 9k people born in the US (0.003% of the current population) have chosen to move to Norway. So, Norwegians are 173x more likely to have moved to the US than Americans are to have moved to Norway.
So, you think that an article about the Louisville city government possibly overstepping its authority in an attempt to make it EASIER for Google Fiber to enter the market is evidence that there are local monopoly franchises? Intriguing. Do you also view the sunrise as evidence to support your theory that we are doomed to eternal darkness?
(a) could show you had sufficient financial backing to be a viable concern
What are the common ways for startups to show (a)?
Show cash on hand, show borrowing capacity, show a business plan.
(b) agreed to cover at least a large portion of the city, if not all, and weren't just going to cherry-pick affluent neighborhoods
Is a franchisee allowed to propose a multi-year plan to cover "a large portion of the city", using revenue from one neighborhood to fund expansion into adjacent neighborhoods, or does it have to be at least borough-wide from day one?
It can be a phased rollout (don't need to have the entire network built to light it up), but reasonably rapid, and not just "attractive markets first." (can't say "we'll do Richguy Heights in 2016, and then 2% of Poverty Falls per year for the next 50 years").
Those aren't franchise monopolies. Franchise monopolies have been illegal for around 20 years. FiOS doesn't violate cable monopoly rights because those rights don't exist, not because of the physical medium Verizon chose to use. You're absolutely right about the easements (and, more importantly, rights of way on public property). Again, if you want to start a competing service, you're welcome to do so, but the municipality won't just let you build what you want, where you want (i.e. you can't just cherry pick serving densely populated rich neighborhoods), just as the cable and Telco provider weren't allowed to only serve part of the municipality.
It's not illegal at all - how do you think Verizon is rolling out FiOS? If you wanted to launch the Raymorris Cable Company, and deploy service in NYC, you could certainly do so, provided you (a) could show you had sufficient financial backing to be a viable concern, and (b) agreed to cover at least a large portion of the city, if not all, and weren't just going to cherry-pick affluent neighborhoods.
Just about all non-conservative people under 40 supported Sanders over Clinton
I don't have data handy with a +/-40 break point, but while Sanders did dominate in 18-24 (65/27), 24-34 was essentially tied (45/44), and Clinton won handily 35-44 (54/34). So, overall, Sanders probably had an edge for under 40 as a whole, but it's around 55/45, not "just about all". http://www.vox.com/2016/1/15/1...
Well, clearly some of your countrymen can, since there are around 25k Norwegian-born people living in the US, vs. only about 9k US-born people living in Norway.
This isn't that unusual - if you buy a dead tree newspaper, that doesn't mean that you get one without the ads.
Whenever FB puts an adv. in my feed I flag it as being Offensive and Sexually explicit. It may not screw FB over by much to do so, but it makes me feel good.
I'm glad it makes you feel good, but pretty much all you've done is get the algorithm to ignore all your flags going forward.
Facebook's in the business of selling ads. If they keep adblockers from working, then some people will just put up with the ads, and some people will stop using Facebook. I bet the second group is actually pretty darn small (/. readers are HIGHLY non-representative of the population as a whole), and, since they aren't generating any revenue for FB, I don't think they'll be crushed to see them go.
I believe that Hogan sued both Gawker as a company and Denton personally - he's jointly and severally liable for the judgment.
If you're filing for bankruptcy, you have to list all your creditors. If you don't list something, then you risk having it not be covered by the bankruptcy.