As minimal summaries go this one will take some beating.
"All you need to do is register a new account using that email address
Wait, which email address? (the person whose account who want to gain access to, says the article)
and even though that address is already used (and the registration process does tell you this) you can still complete the new account process and then sign in using that account Info (original post in Russian)"
Right, and then what? You seem to have missed the entire rest of the process where you actually carry out the password reset trick. Make me read the bloody article indeed...
The reason this works is simple, but it’s still worrying. When you use an existing email address to sign up with Skype again, the service emails you a reminder of your username, which is okay, since no one else should have access to your email. Unfortunately, because this method enables you to get a password reset token sent to the Skype app itself, this allows a third party to redeem it and claim ownership of your original username and thus account.
you can get permission to sit in on a class at most public universities.
"Get permission" is not the same thing as "wander in off the street." Also they get even funnier about it when you try to apply the same logic to high schools, for some reason.
Did the reporters agree in advance to be limited to 20 tweets? I missed that in the article.
I think it's safe to assume that they have indeed agreed to university's live coverage policy.
because stuff that happens in public
I'm not convinced that a football game is a public event. It's an event which the public may attend on payment.
General Patraeus can't sue CNN for using his image without permission
How is that the same? For one thing, no-one's talking about legal action. This'd be more like... General Patraeus organising a football game and levying a condition on journalists that they can only tweet 20 times, and if they don't they can't come to the next game.
I warned you this would happen if you tried to push this ridiculous issue.
One party wants to impose a restriction on the second party, who can take it or leave it. Happens a billion times a day.
Who cares what the University wants or what TV and radio stations have "paid handsomely" for?
Off the top of my head, the University, and the TV and radio stations.
I paid handsomely for my bright pink Hummer H3, but that does not give me the right to demand that my neighbors stop calling me a goof for having bought it or tweeting about my horrible driving.
But your neighbours haven't entered in an agreement with you to give them access to your property in order to watch you driving your car.
This relatively new belief that descriptions of a public event...
The public can attend if they pay. I agree with your point about universities being public institutions - and let's not get into the whole ridiculous college football, situation - but it's not like they wouldn't frown on you for wandering in and attending lectures on your days off from work just because you've paid your taxes.
Should people be prevented from describing the shitty meal they got at Olive Garden last night?
Yes, if both parties have previously agreed to the restrictions. I'd take that deal for 50% off, if for some reason they decided to offer it.
Or maybe a political candidate should be able to prevent journalists from describing the debate where he was high on booze and pills based upon his proprietary ownership of the content of his own words?
Again, if he's managed to get them to agree to such a deal beforehand, why not? They'd be idiots for doing so, of course.
But in this case it's not their employer imposing the restriction. It's the University, who don't want people "tuning" into Twitter for a play-by-play - they want them tuning in to the local radio or TV stations that have paid handsomely for the broadcast privileges.
Spongebob forbid that a journalist should make even a minimal effort to make his article more accessible to a wider audience by briefly redefining an infrequently used mainly scientific term into everyday language.
Because of his efforts to extract chemicals from natural chemical plans McAfee was able to justify his experiments in a country that is largely unregulated."
Err... what? What's meant by "natural chemical plans" here? And why would he have to justify his experiments if the country is largely unregulated?
So if I write "I am the champion of the world!" I could be imprisoned.
Only if:
his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it
is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause
distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he
intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there seriously a need to come up with new methods other than good old fashioned fucking?
No - if you consider humanity only as a homogeneous mass of animal flesh.
On another note...when asking "why"....is it like we have some type of population problems? Not enough people being born?
No, it's because individuals have this crazy instinct to fulfil their biological urges by propagating their DNA.
Know then that it is the year 10191
That opening line has stuck with me ever since I first saw the film twenty-plus years ago.
There's another shitty movie on the way and Disney don't want word of mouth spreading?
"All you need to do is register a new account using that email address
Wait, which email address? (the person whose account who want to gain access to, says the article)
and even though that address is already used (and the registration process does tell you this) you can still complete the new account process and then sign in using that account Info (original post in Russian)"
Right, and then what? You seem to have missed the entire rest of the process where you actually carry out the password reset trick. Make me read the bloody article indeed...
The reason this works is simple, but it’s still worrying. When you use an existing email address to sign up with Skype again, the service emails you a reminder of your username, which is okay, since no one else should have access to your email. Unfortunately, because this method enables you to get a password reset token sent to the Skype app itself, this allows a third party to redeem it and claim ownership of your original username and thus account.
Or something like that.
is because you haven't understood it right.
I dunno, that sounds more like something Apple would say...
Stop saying bedazzle!
you can get permission to sit in on a class at most public universities.
"Get permission" is not the same thing as "wander in off the street." Also they get even funnier about it when you try to apply the same logic to high schools, for some reason.
Did the reporters agree in advance to be limited to 20 tweets? I missed that in the article.
I think it's safe to assume that they have indeed agreed to university's live coverage policy.
because stuff that happens in public
I'm not convinced that a football game is a public event. It's an event which the public may attend on payment.
General Patraeus can't sue CNN for using his image without permission
How is that the same? For one thing, no-one's talking about legal action. This'd be more like... General Patraeus organising a football game and levying a condition on journalists that they can only tweet 20 times, and if they don't they can't come to the next game.
I warned you this would happen if you tried to push this ridiculous issue.
One party wants to impose a restriction on the second party, who can take it or leave it. Happens a billion times a day.
Could be something fracked up at Slashdot just then - someone else did the same thing around the same time.
Who cares what the University wants or what TV and radio stations have "paid handsomely" for?
Off the top of my head, the University, and the TV and radio stations.
I paid handsomely for my bright pink Hummer H3, but that does not give me the right to demand that my neighbors stop calling me a goof for having bought it or tweeting about my horrible driving.
But your neighbours haven't entered in an agreement with you to give them access to your property in order to watch you driving your car.
This relatively new belief that descriptions of a public event...
The public can attend if they pay. I agree with your point about universities being public institutions - and let's not get into the whole ridiculous college football, situation - but it's not like they wouldn't frown on you for wandering in and attending lectures on your days off from work just because you've paid your taxes.
Should people be prevented from describing the shitty meal they got at Olive Garden last night?
Yes, if both parties have previously agreed to the restrictions. I'd take that deal for 50% off, if for some reason they decided to offer it.
Or maybe a political candidate should be able to prevent journalists from describing the debate where he was high on booze and pills based upon his proprietary ownership of the content of his own words?
Again, if he's managed to get them to agree to such a deal beforehand, why not? They'd be idiots for doing so, of course.
1) It's a compulsory fee that carries criminal penalties for evasion.
It's not compulsory. Don't watch TV.
Leave the tech stuff to those can, pops.
Ah, good, there's the ironic error I was hoping for.
But in this case it's not their employer imposing the restriction. It's the University, who don't want people "tuning" into Twitter for a play-by-play - they want them tuning in to the local radio or TV stations that have paid handsomely for the broadcast privileges.
Let's hope Steam on Linux gathers... steam
*sunglasses* yeeeaaahh?
either incorrect or completely wrong.
But possibly not both? This quantum shit is weird.
Congratulations on seceding from both correct spelling and the right article :)
I'm sorry, but you suck for your intolerance.
You suck for replying to the wrong article ;)
Spongebob forbid that a journalist should make even a minimal effort to make his article more accessible to a wider audience by briefly redefining an infrequently used mainly scientific term into everyday language.
Because of his efforts to extract chemicals from natural chemical plans McAfee was able to justify his experiments in a country that is largely unregulated."
Err... what? What's meant by "natural chemical plans" here? And why would he have to justify his experiments if the country is largely unregulated?
Blocked in my country (the UK, ironically) but I know the sketch. It worked better on the radio show, though, as did most of the recycled material.
* Death Star? Dark Side? Who the hell would name their crowning technical achievement and religion using such negatively charged words?
Baddies. Duh.
Nevermind that the patent was actually filed in 1989
Nevermind is an album by Nirvana, not a word.
Yours faithfully,
Captain Pedantic
Maybe they would like to arrest him too?
Er, why? Did he commit an offence under the Malicious Communications Act?
So if I write "I am the champion of the world!" I could be imprisoned.
Only if:
his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.
Rising carbon dioxide levels at the edge of space are apparently reducing the pull
Isn't it more of a push?
Nadia,
Moist and dewy
I think I know her.