As the AG and the FBI are looking into matters: "Combs has endorsed legislation enhancing information security, including a proposal that each agency designate a chief privacy officer and another to create a state Information Security Council."
Gee Susan, I think the horse has left this burning barn...unless you're looking for ways to spread the blame the next time this happens?
"I deeply regret the exposure of the personal information that occurred and am angry that it happened," [State Comptroller] Combs said in a statement.
[Translation] Let me put out this public statement saying absolutely nothing, but serving to CMA.
"I want to reassure people that the information was sealed off from any public access immediately after the mistake was discovered and was then moved to a secure location."
[Translation] I soiled myself, and berated my minions.
"We take information security very seriously"
[Translation] Oh *f+ck*! How am I going to spin this?
"...and this type of exposure will not happen again."
[Translation] With the grace of God, this'll all be forgotten by November, and I'll get reelected.
It'll eventually cycle away from the insurance blog to a NY Times Ad, and the Times itself (if you've registered in the past), and in all cases removes Back button functionality. Just and FYI if you're inclined to test NoScript against it (FAIL).
"...or a completely pointless program that has turned up nothing useful..."
Didn't the pundits of that time say something similar to the Curies?
Sometimes the next big thing is found through perseverance, and who's better qualified to say when to pull the plug and close the door on a one-of-a-kind research facility, a nuclear physicist or a career politician?
Don't Americans notice the Republicans keep throwing wrenches into all the worthwhile legislation and promoting issues that are not in the interests of the majority of Americans?
Are any politicians, of either strip? Really?
Seems like they're all Republicrats or Democans to me.
"They have promised to repeal regulations such as open-Internet rules that they say would harm the communications industry's growth and ability to create jobs."
Translation: "They are making good on promises to corporate campaign donors to foster legislation which allows wresting every farthing from an increasingly disenfranchised populace, continue outsourcing of any jobs to better the quarterly profit statement, while pay lip service that this benefits the public."
DME is #6 on that results page, what's your point?
A smart shopper would click here, and quickly find that DME is *not* a low price leader for any style of frame from that designer, pictured on the results page.
Not to mention that lower priced vendors on that page are associated with e-tailers that have standards and pull...or is Amazon not "all that" anymore?
Do your homework on the vendor you intend to buy from, don't take links blindly, and you'll be fine.
Sure, Google DecorM****s.com and the top five hits are all for that company, followed by a link to Resellerratings.com where the company has a stunning 1.39 lifetime rating out of 10.
Googling Lafont (with multiple suffixes), designer glasses or designer frames brings up a number of vendors, DecorMy... not being one of them.
Seems to me people need to hone their search skills and *always* search for ratings on vendors when ever they make a purchase, particularly when using them for the first time.
[Please note, I munged the company name, just to insure he gets no wuffie from this post]
Perhaps not as creatively, but back in the *last* century there was an browser addon that allowed you to throw tomatoes, or blast an offending webpage with different weapons [rifle or shotgun IIRC].
You could even screen cap the results and post the mutilated page as well. It soon lost its novelty and waddled off into the dustbin of Idle history. I'm sure this one will as well.
I just wish I could remember who published it, or what it was called.
Talks with Verizon seeming to undermine Net Neutrality Investment in Zynga Acquisition of Slide Discontinuation of Google Wave Rampant data mining through gmail, cookies and other methods
All of which lead me to stand by my statement "Don't be evil", my @ss.
The case cited in the article deals with cable runs through an apartment in New York, in 1982.
One wonders if a case might be made that the internet isn't "new territory", freeing it to be handled in much the same way that the American continent was handled in regards to Native Americans, thereby sidestepping this ruling and handing rights over to the settlers.
"With all the fundamentalist shit that's going about, someone - be they redneck or raghead - *someone's* going to start playing with nukes soon. And that's no use, because all that leaves us is a *pile of ash*..." Satan, Chronicles of Wormwood
Creationism to theocracy is not that much of a stretch, and is discussed here. And theocracy to nuclear exchange? You decide.
"Google said it mistakenly picked up 600 gigabytes of data from unsecured networks over the last three years."
Six.Hundred.GIGS?!?
If all Google was logging was the SSID and MAC addresses from unsecured WAPs as flat ASCII, worldwide, I'd wager that data would amount to a small fraction of that amount.
Which begs the question, just what *did* they log? (It also makes me reeeeally glad I heavily secured my WAP years ago).
Slashdot Mirror
As the AG and the FBI are looking into matters: "Combs has endorsed legislation enhancing information security, including a proposal that each agency designate a chief privacy officer and another to create a state Information Security Council."
Gee Susan, I think the horse has left this burning barn...unless you're looking for ways to spread the blame the next time this happens?
"I deeply regret the exposure of the personal information that occurred and am angry that it happened," [State Comptroller] Combs said in a statement.
[Translation] Let me put out this public statement saying absolutely nothing, but serving to CMA.
"I want to reassure people that the information was sealed off from any public access immediately after the mistake was discovered and was then moved to a secure location."
[Translation] I soiled myself, and berated my minions.
"We take information security very seriously"
[Translation] Oh *f+ck*! How am I going to spin this?
"...and this type of exposure will not happen again."
[Translation] With the grace of God, this'll all be forgotten by November, and I'll get reelected.
TYVM meat.
"And you, the team's geeky tech genius, have just failed...."
Failure is not an option.
Strategic retreat on the other hand...
There's a reason one of the longest running USENET groups is alt.aol.sucks.
AOL allows it's userbase unfettered access USENET: Eternal September
AOL merges with Time/Warner: Why it failed
AOL billing practices: Just reverse the charges
AOL layoffs: Keep your bags packed
Good luck HuffPost...you may need it.
I hear dead tree editions have gained ground on this news.
It'll eventually cycle away from the insurance blog to a NY Times Ad, and the Times itself (if you've registered in the past), and in all cases removes Back button functionality. Just and FYI if you're inclined to test NoScript against it (FAIL).
"...or a completely pointless program that has turned up nothing useful..."
Didn't the pundits of that time say something similar to the Curies?
Sometimes the next big thing is found through perseverance, and who's better qualified to say when to pull the plug and close the door on a one-of-a-kind research facility, a nuclear physicist or a career politician?
Another shining example of basic science exploration falling prey to the short sighted budgetary whims of bureaucrats elected on an ephemeral basis.
When you've got one of these?
Don't Americans notice the Republicans keep throwing wrenches into all the worthwhile legislation and promoting issues that are not in the interests of the majority of Americans?
Are any politicians, of either strip? Really?
Seems like they're all Republicrats or Democans to me.
"They have promised to repeal regulations such as open-Internet rules that they say would harm the communications industry's growth and ability to create jobs."
Translation: "They are making good on promises to corporate campaign donors to foster legislation which allows wresting every farthing from an increasingly disenfranchised populace, continue outsourcing of any jobs to better the quarterly profit statement, while pay lip service that this benefits the public."
Don't have an IP handy, but this might do:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/14/julian-assange-bail-grant_n_796421.html
But I will always remember you most for your portrayal of Commander J.J. Adams in Forbidden Planet. You and Robbie rocked!
Google: Christian Audigier glasses
DME is #6 on that results page, what's your point?
A smart shopper would click here, and quickly find that DME is *not* a low price leader for any style of frame from that designer, pictured on the results page.
Not to mention that lower priced vendors on that page are associated with e-tailers that have standards and pull...or is Amazon not "all that" anymore?
Do your homework on the vendor you intend to buy from, don't take links blindly, and you'll be fine.
Sure, Google DecorM****s.com and the top five hits are all for that company, followed by a link to Resellerratings.com where the company has a stunning 1.39 lifetime rating out of 10.
Googling Lafont (with multiple suffixes), designer glasses or designer frames brings up a number of vendors, DecorMy... not being one of them.
Seems to me people need to hone their search skills and *always* search for ratings on vendors when ever they make a purchase, particularly when using them for the first time.
[Please note, I munged the company name, just to insure he gets no wuffie from this post]
Perhaps not as creatively, but back in the *last* century there was an browser addon that allowed you to throw tomatoes, or blast an offending webpage with different weapons [rifle or shotgun IIRC].
You could even screen cap the results and post the mutilated page as well. It soon lost its novelty and waddled off into the dustbin of Idle history. I'm sure this one will as well.
I just wish I could remember who published it, or what it was called.
For a "pollution" tax on online transactions, since sales taxes still fail to pass muster.
After all, "It's for the planet".
Modded "Troll"? Truth hurt there, Google fanbois?
Consider:
Talks with Verizon seeming to undermine Net Neutrality
Investment in Zynga
Acquisition of Slide
Discontinuation of Google Wave
Rampant data mining through gmail, cookies and other methods
All of which lead me to stand by my statement "Don't be evil", my @ss.
Now, mod me down again.
My @ss.
The case cited in the article deals with cable runs through an apartment in New York, in 1982.
One wonders if a case might be made that the internet isn't "new territory", freeing it to be handled in much the same way that the American continent was handled in regards to Native Americans, thereby sidestepping this ruling and handing rights over to the settlers.
"With all the fundamentalist shit that's going about, someone - be they redneck or raghead - *someone's* going to start playing with nukes soon. And that's no use, because all that leaves us is a *pile of ash*..." Satan, Chronicles of Wormwood
Creationism to theocracy is not that much of a stretch, and is discussed here. And theocracy to nuclear exchange? You decide.
There are only *corporate* rights (and by extension, those of the shareholders).
Move along now, nothing to see here.
"Google said it mistakenly picked up 600 gigabytes of data from unsecured networks over the last three years."
Six.Hundred.GIGS?!?
If all Google was logging was the SSID and MAC addresses from unsecured WAPs as flat ASCII, worldwide, I'd wager that data would amount to a small fraction of that amount.
Which begs the question, just what *did* they log? (It also makes me reeeeally glad I heavily secured my WAP years ago).
These are obvious. http://www.visioncarefilters.com/products_3M.html
If you decide to go this route, remember Google (or the SE of your choice) is your friend.
Took 3 seconds to find a 3M Model PF 17.0, listed on the site above for $104.05 at B&H for 56.50.