There's no doubt that disappearing would be harder for some people than others. If you think CD sufferers have it rough there just think about diabetics!
The whole experiment is an interesting way of pointing out how intertwined we all are today. 150 years ago it was trivial for someone to head into the west and reinvent themselves as whatever they wanted to be; nowadays, that would be nigh impossible. I almost wonder if we've lost something because of that.
Which, if you'd read the original article, you'd understand was the point. The article was about how, when people try to vanish, they almost inevitably fall into the same old patterns which is what ends up getting them caught. If you want to disappear, you have to completely disappear. In my case, that would mean:
Can't ever see my wife or kids again
No more wine tastings
No more Warhammer
No more visits to Slashdot, Fark, Facebook, Reason Hit-n-Run, or Tales from the Zombie War
Can't work in IT anymore; in fact, my twenty years of experience would be completely useless
Say goodbye to my veteran's benefits
This is a necessarily incomplete list. But if I tried to disappear and create a new life and did just one of those things, it's a virtual certainty that someone could find me. We all have lists like this, things that we naturally gravitate to and that if we continued doing them a dedicated investigator could find us using them. The longer your list is, and the more unique certain aspects of it are, the easier it'll be for someone to do so.
There's a reason Andy Dupre started a charter boat service in Mexico and didn't go to work for a bank down there.
The problem with using the UNIX approach to laws is that there's no presidential-veto threat hanging over small programs; there is over small laws. So if Congress passed one law stating that everyone in the country would get free health care, and another one saying the government was authorized to raise taxes 2% across the board to pay for it, the president could sign one and veto the other with potentially disastrous results. It's better to have everything spelled out in one bill that the House and Senate vote on, then send the whole thing to the President for his approval or disapproval.
However, it's a horrendously one-sided article, which covers only the incriminating facts that they can later refute, ignoring the rest of the trial as if it didn't exist, in order to make a point.
How incredibly one sided of them only to show the details that can be refuted...which just happen to be the most damning details in the case.
Personally, I think Willingham's life never would've amounted to much. There's a better than fair chance that his death will become much more meaningful for everyone, if it becomes the straw that broke the camel's back on the death penalty in Texas. So at least he's got that going for him.
How'd you get the diacritics to show up properly? Ever since/. switched to comment 2.0, I can't get any but the most mundance characters to appear without being munged being recognition.
You might not be able to choose what emotions someone stirs in you, but you do get to choose what reaction comes from those emotions. So in a sense, yes, you are choosing to be offended.
Personally, when I see signs like that, I chalk up to more evidence for the lengths of human stupidity. Then I go on about my day.
It says to avoid "telling your boss your password" and not to "talk about a password in front of others". So clearly there's a difference between your password and any given password.
What the county policy seems to aim to prevent is you giving your personal password to someone else. It cannot apply to system passwords, otherwise there could only ever be one person at a time who would know the root password to any system. That breaks so many industry best practices that it strains the imagination to assume that is what was meant.
As for the not talking about a password in front of others, he could've told his "Boss I can't divulge the password in front of these people as County policy prohibits that." And then when his boss insisted he should've asked his boss "Just to be clear, you're authorizing the breaking of county policy on this issue?" After getting an affirmative response, he could've gone ahead and divulged the password. At that point it's his boss's ass in the fire, not his.
Maybe he's a dick, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that WHAT HE DID WAS CORRECT! You do NOT give the "bus envelope", password or whatever, to some guy, the janitor, the mail boy or whoever, you give it to one of a small number of people only.
The person asking for the passwords was his immediate supervisor, the guy who was ultimately responsible for the operation of the network. If there's anyone to whom you should give up the passwords, it's him.
Just because he works in IT doesn't mean he was well paid, and it certainly doesn't mean he was rich. It's not like the guy was a Google co-founder or something, he was a civil servant for a medium sized city. I doubt he made more than $80k a year (not as much as it sounds in San Francisco).
Maybe he's just making sure those old pics of his wife that were stolen when they lost their camera on vacation don't turn up some smutty site somewhere. Ever think of that, smart guy?
Slashdot Mirror
There's no doubt that disappearing would be harder for some people than others. If you think CD sufferers have it rough there just think about diabetics!
The whole experiment is an interesting way of pointing out how intertwined we all are today. 150 years ago it was trivial for someone to head into the west and reinvent themselves as whatever they wanted to be; nowadays, that would be nigh impossible. I almost wonder if we've lost something because of that.
That's the one. I must have gotten his name mixed up with someone else.
This is a necessarily incomplete list. But if I tried to disappear and create a new life and did just one of those things, it's a virtual certainty that someone could find me. We all have lists like this, things that we naturally gravitate to and that if we continued doing them a dedicated investigator could find us using them. The longer your list is, and the more unique certain aspects of it are, the easier it'll be for someone to do so.
There's a reason Andy Dupre started a charter boat service in Mexico and didn't go to work for a bank down there.
You're both Slashdotters, so of course you're alone. So very alone.
The problem with using the UNIX approach to laws is that there's no presidential-veto threat hanging over small programs; there is over small laws. So if Congress passed one law stating that everyone in the country would get free health care, and another one saying the government was authorized to raise taxes 2% across the board to pay for it, the president could sign one and veto the other with potentially disastrous results. It's better to have everything spelled out in one bill that the House and Senate vote on, then send the whole thing to the President for his approval or disapproval.
All of which is an excellent argument for requiring a working prototype prior to getting a patent.
Cool, thanks!
Whoosh.
However, it's a horrendously one-sided article, which covers only the incriminating facts that they can later refute, ignoring the rest of the trial as if it didn't exist, in order to make a point.
How incredibly one sided of them only to show the details that can be refuted...which just happen to be the most damning details in the case. Personally, I think Willingham's life never would've amounted to much. There's a better than fair chance that his death will become much more meaningful for everyone, if it becomes the straw that broke the camel's back on the death penalty in Texas. So at least he's got that going for him.
How'd you get the diacritics to show up properly? Ever since /. switched to comment 2.0, I can't get any but the most mundance characters to appear without being munged being recognition.
LOLWUT?
Que pasaria si la unica persona que habla otro idioma?
part of Port Huron statement
Personally I've always preferred the original, not the compromise second draft.
The man who approved the funds for the study must have been in the company of an attractive woman.
You might not be able to choose what emotions someone stirs in you, but you do get to choose what reaction comes from those emotions. So in a sense, yes, you are choosing to be offended.
Personally, when I see signs like that, I chalk up to more evidence for the lengths of human stupidity. Then I go on about my day.
Wouldn't Google's trademark protections already cover this event, though? What additional protection is afforded by patenting their home page?
It says to avoid "telling your boss your password" and not to "talk about a password in front of others". So clearly there's a difference between your password and any given password.
What the county policy seems to aim to prevent is you giving your personal password to someone else. It cannot apply to system passwords, otherwise there could only ever be one person at a time who would know the root password to any system. That breaks so many industry best practices that it strains the imagination to assume that is what was meant.
As for the not talking about a password in front of others, he could've told his "Boss I can't divulge the password in front of these people as County policy prohibits that." And then when his boss insisted he should've asked his boss "Just to be clear, you're authorizing the breaking of county policy on this issue?" After getting an affirmative response, he could've gone ahead and divulged the password. At that point it's his boss's ass in the fire, not his.
Maybe he's a dick, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that WHAT HE DID WAS CORRECT! You do NOT give the "bus envelope", password or whatever, to some guy, the janitor, the mail boy or whoever, you give it to one of a small number of people only.
The person asking for the passwords was his immediate supervisor, the guy who was ultimately responsible for the operation of the network. If there's anyone to whom you should give up the passwords, it's him.
Just because he works in IT doesn't mean he was well paid, and it certainly doesn't mean he was rich. It's not like the guy was a Google co-founder or something, he was a civil servant for a medium sized city. I doubt he made more than $80k a year (not as much as it sounds in San Francisco).
When the hell did San Francisco move to Texas?
Well, you can call others on other phone networks with SkypeOut, and they can call you with SkypeIn, so it's unfair to say they're a closed network.
Was this an office or a preschool?
Maybe he's just making sure those old pics of his wife that were stolen when they lost their camera on vacation don't turn up some smutty site somewhere. Ever think of that, smart guy?
Who cares if global warming is caused by humans or not?
I can't think of a more perfect quote to explain the mentality of people pushing AGW than that. Thank you very much for your honesty.
Thank God my ancestors threw off the yoke of British suzerainty! We in the United States would never stand for such a system!
Should I have used the <sarcasm> tag?