Read The Fucking Article - she didn't put the information on there, someone else did (and Facebook's extremely poor privacy controls allowed it). That was kind of the point:
... the president of the Queer Chorus, a choir group she had recently joined, inadvertently exposed Ms. Duncan's sexuality to her nearly 200 Facebook friends, including her father, by adding her to a Facebook Inc. discussion group
Do you understand what this is about? Facebook allows other people to add you to groups - in other words, your 'friends' can basically edit an aspect of your profile. It's bizarrely stupid, and has been a common complaint for a long time, and this wouldn't have happened if Facebook didn't do this, but Facebook defends this practice.
"Markets" are only trading platforms... the businesses themselves wouldn't move. Some jobs would be lost (or rather, move overseas) that are directly related to implementing a stock exchange, but it wouldn't represent some cataclysm... 99% of America wouldn't even notice any difference.
In the sense that you are implying, it's not... don't worry, calm down, sleep peacefully, the 'nation's power grid' is in no way going to be brought down by hackers. This is called 'fearmongering'.
Stop worrying about the government, because corporations are already harvesting
Bad governments have killed hundreds of millions in the last 100 years alone... I think I'd prefer to base what I worry most about on actual evidence, thanks.
I do own a phone (an old Nokia) but likewise, Apple's behavior against Samsung is immoral, and my next phone purchase will probably be a Samsung. I like a lot of what Apple did historically (loved the early Mac's) but their behavior now, boycotting Apple is unfortunately the only moral thing to do.
I've been reading these overblown scare stories with regularity since I've been reading/.... it just means it's budget allocation time again for the 'cybersecurity divisions' and these types of reports are just a way of trying to justify oversized budgets for ever-larger 'departments' to push paper around while pretending to protect you from something.
Actually I think there's more to this than you think - I suspect most suicides are probably the result of someone being treated like shit by some asshole for years. And actually, if you think about it, it is precisely the suicide victim who deserves to live, and precisely the tormentor who deserves to die.
Smugly and derisively pointing out suicide is a form of Darwinism is something you would only hear from the type of person who treats others like shit.
It's valuable to "Pinkie Pie", but not the many other team members who put in collectively probably man-years worth of work and get zero publicity. And only because he was lucky enough to win at all, it could have gone the other way, i.e. put in months of work and get nothing. Would you work for months for nothing? Would you? Yes/no
Do you really think the hackers start looking for exploits when they arrive at the event? Don't be stupid - they obviously spend months searching for vulnerabilities before the competition - what do you think these hackers are, wizards that magically sit and in a few hours find an exploit? No, they work their butts off for months, at home in their free time.
It doesn't merely "acknowledge" that fact, it "abuses" and "exploits" that fact. I don't use words like "exploit" lightly, but when you are effectively knowingly getting people to work for you for free, that kind of pushes my buttons.. and the fact is that Google are letting people do highly skilled and valuable work for them, for free, which they then use for private commercial gain... I think it is immoral on some level to knowingly allow someone to work for you for free, even if they want to (e.g. if maybe they're from a third-world country or something and in a desperate situation). And I'm saying that as an essentially pro-corporate libertarian who hates when people use words like "exploit". I'm not saying anyone's rights have been violated, but it is still repugnant, Google are just assholes but it's not illegal to be assholes.
Nobody claimed it was a substitute, so I don't know why you said that. Regression testing is something you do "anyway", so the question is, how much value does this add in addition to that, and the answer is 'a lot more than the cost of the competition'... the amount of effective testing performed by competitors collectively is probably equivalent to an entire small team of $100K+/year experts working for months, not to mention the savings of not having damage caused by the exploit being used by someone maliciously.
Certainly no point in putting up billboards for self driving cars, the AI isn't going to care
Remember it's an advertising company, Google, that are pushing automated driving. No we see why.. your automated car will be plastered with screens blaring ads at you.
Mining: 15 years from now, there will be moderately increased mining by remote-controlled devices but most mining-related jobs will still require going to work. Utilities: 15 years from now, most jobs in utilities will still require going to work. Construction: Automated construction will only be in its relative infancy - most construction work will still require moving the fuck around. Manufacturing: Even with increased automation, I can't see that most manufacturing jobs will be telecommuting-based in 15 years. Wholesale: Not that many telecommuting opportunities, except maybe some admin jobs Retail: Likewise Transportation and warehousing: Likewise Information: OK, telecommuting applicable Finance and insurance: Yes, increased telecommuting possible Real estate: Requires moving around etc. etc.
Factoring all overheads (e.g. HR, office space, equipment), how much would a company like Google have to pay to hire a security team to do the amount of security testing work done collectively at this "competition"? Well above $2,000,000. A whole bunch of people do free testing, and one guy gets $60,000 'and a free Chromebook, wow' - not that impressive an amount, considering the amount of self-training and self-development you have to put it in to reach that level of expertise, and the amount of time needed to find a security problem. $60K is, what, maybe 6 months salary of hiring a person of that skill level to do similar work.. when you factor in overhead costs, maybe even just 3 or 4 months worth (Google would probably have been very lucky to hire someone to find that bug for that cost). Come on Google, you can afford to pay people properly for such valuable work.. I don't like these cheap tricks that companies like Google use to effectively get people to work for them for free or peanuts.
There is no real meaningful difference between morality and ethics (it's a pointless "debate"), though the usual difference given is along the lines of that 'morality' says it would be wrong to defend a known murderer but 'ethics' dictates a laywer must argue for his client even if he believes the client to be guilty. However, when you really think about why we have due process and fair trials, the distinction disappears. Think about it - it's both 'unethical' and 'immoral' to take other people's stuff, and to steal a bank teller's bank.
If you truly understood freedoms, you'd also understand the concepts of due process and a fair trial and burden of proof, and if you understood these concepts, you wouldn't be automatically quite possibly falsely claiming the guy is definitely guilty of making 'actual threats' with no fucking evidence whatsofuckingever.
circletimessquare has it on good authority that some article on the internet vaguely mentioned something about the guy possibly saying something along the lines of "not minding" maybe some kids getting killed for no particular specified reasons... so just take it at his word, he is DEFINITELY right, the guy clearly made ACTUAL THREATS OF REAL WORLD VIOLENCE.
Getting Apple involved "somehow"? You're f'king kidding me, right, or did you just miss that this whole entire recent debate about 'doing away with save' and saving continually is driven entirely by recent changes to OS X? I didn't bring Apple into it, the previous poster effectively did. And your post has three logical fallacies packed into it.
Slashdot Mirror
Read The Fucking Article - she didn't put the information on there, someone else did (and Facebook's extremely poor privacy controls allowed it). That was kind of the point:
Do you understand what this is about? Facebook allows other people to add you to groups - in other words, your 'friends' can basically edit an aspect of your profile. It's bizarrely stupid, and has been a common complaint for a long time, and this wouldn't have happened if Facebook didn't do this, but Facebook defends this practice.
"Markets" are only trading platforms ... the businesses themselves wouldn't move. Some jobs would be lost (or rather, move overseas) that are directly related to implementing a stock exchange, but it wouldn't represent some cataclysm ... 99% of America wouldn't even notice any difference.
So how many major power grids have been brought offline by hackers so far? Ever? Has there been one even?
In the sense that you are implying, it's not ... don't worry, calm down, sleep peacefully, the 'nation's power grid' is in no way going to be brought down by hackers. This is called 'fearmongering'.
Stop worrying about the government, because corporations are already harvesting
Bad governments have killed hundreds of millions in the last 100 years alone ... I think I'd prefer to base what I worry most about on actual evidence, thanks.
I do own a phone (an old Nokia) but likewise, Apple's behavior against Samsung is immoral, and my next phone purchase will probably be a Samsung. I like a lot of what Apple did historically (loved the early Mac's) but their behavior now, boycotting Apple is unfortunately the only moral thing to do.
Wow, I've never heard that joke before!
I've been reading these overblown scare stories with regularity since I've been reading /. ... it just means it's budget allocation time again for the 'cybersecurity divisions' and these types of reports are just a way of trying to justify oversized budgets for ever-larger 'departments' to push paper around while pretending to protect you from something.
Actually I think there's more to this than you think - I suspect most suicides are probably the result of someone being treated like shit by some asshole for years. And actually, if you think about it, it is precisely the suicide victim who deserves to live, and precisely the tormentor who deserves to die.
Smugly and derisively pointing out suicide is a form of Darwinism is something you would only hear from the type of person who treats others like shit.
Probably some kind of legal "CYA" measure on the cops part.
It's valuable to "Pinkie Pie", but not the many other team members who put in collectively probably man-years worth of work and get zero publicity. And only because he was lucky enough to win at all, it could have gone the other way, i.e. put in months of work and get nothing. Would you work for months for nothing? Would you? Yes/no
Do you really think the hackers start looking for exploits when they arrive at the event? Don't be stupid - they obviously spend months searching for vulnerabilities before the competition - what do you think these hackers are, wizards that magically sit and in a few hours find an exploit? No, they work their butts off for months, at home in their free time.
Nope, though you could Alta-Vista it to find the link.
It doesn't merely "acknowledge" that fact, it "abuses" and "exploits" that fact. I don't use words like "exploit" lightly, but when you are effectively knowingly getting people to work for you for free, that kind of pushes my buttons .. and the fact is that Google are letting people do highly skilled and valuable work for them, for free, which they then use for private commercial gain ... I think it is immoral on some level to knowingly allow someone to work for you for free, even if they want to (e.g. if maybe they're from a third-world country or something and in a desperate situation). And I'm saying that as an essentially pro-corporate libertarian who hates when people use words like "exploit". I'm not saying anyone's rights have been violated, but it is still repugnant, Google are just assholes but it's not illegal to be assholes.
Nobody claimed it was a substitute, so I don't know why you said that. Regression testing is something you do "anyway", so the question is, how much value does this add in addition to that, and the answer is 'a lot more than the cost of the competition' ... the amount of effective testing performed by competitors collectively is probably equivalent to an entire small team of $100K+/year experts working for months, not to mention the savings of not having damage caused by the exploit being used by someone maliciously.
Certainly no point in putting up billboards for self driving cars, the AI isn't going to care
Remember it's an advertising company, Google, that are pushing automated driving. No we see why .. your automated car will be plastered with screens blaring ads at you.
I don't know, it looks to me like in most sectors people will still have to commute ... not everyone is in IT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States_by_sector
Mining: 15 years from now, there will be moderately increased mining by remote-controlled devices but most mining-related jobs will still require going to work.
Utilities: 15 years from now, most jobs in utilities will still require going to work.
Construction: Automated construction will only be in its relative infancy - most construction work will still require moving the fuck around.
Manufacturing: Even with increased automation, I can't see that most manufacturing jobs will be telecommuting-based in 15 years.
Wholesale: Not that many telecommuting opportunities, except maybe some admin jobs
Retail: Likewise
Transportation and warehousing: Likewise
Information: OK, telecommuting applicable
Finance and insurance: Yes, increased telecommuting possible
Real estate: Requires moving around
etc. etc.
I hear there's a great new search engine called Goo-, something or other.
Factoring all overheads (e.g. HR, office space, equipment), how much would a company like Google have to pay to hire a security team to do the amount of security testing work done collectively at this "competition"? Well above $2,000,000. A whole bunch of people do free testing, and one guy gets $60,000 'and a free Chromebook, wow' - not that impressive an amount, considering the amount of self-training and self-development you have to put it in to reach that level of expertise, and the amount of time needed to find a security problem. $60K is, what, maybe 6 months salary of hiring a person of that skill level to do similar work .. when you factor in overhead costs, maybe even just 3 or 4 months worth (Google would probably have been very lucky to hire someone to find that bug for that cost). Come on Google, you can afford to pay people properly for such valuable work .. I don't like these cheap tricks that companies like Google use to effectively get people to work for them for free or peanuts.
There is no real meaningful difference between morality and ethics (it's a pointless "debate"), though the usual difference given is along the lines of that 'morality' says it would be wrong to defend a known murderer but 'ethics' dictates a laywer must argue for his client even if he believes the client to be guilty. However, when you really think about why we have due process and fair trials, the distinction disappears. Think about it - it's both 'unethical' and 'immoral' to take other people's stuff, and to steal a bank teller's bank.
If you truly understood freedoms, you'd also understand the concepts of due process and a fair trial and burden of proof, and if you understood these concepts, you wouldn't be automatically quite possibly falsely claiming the guy is definitely guilty of making 'actual threats' with no fucking evidence whatsofuckingever.
circletimessquare has it on good authority that some article on the internet vaguely mentioned something about the guy possibly saying something along the lines of "not minding" maybe some kids getting killed for no particular specified reasons ... so just take it at his word, he is DEFINITELY right, the guy clearly made ACTUAL THREATS OF REAL WORLD VIOLENCE.
Here, this is if you want to catch up to the debate:
http://macperformanceguide.com/MountainLion-SaveAs-data-destruction.html
Getting Apple involved "somehow"? You're f'king kidding me, right, or did you just miss that this whole entire recent debate about 'doing away with save' and saving continually is driven entirely by recent changes to OS X? I didn't bring Apple into it, the previous poster effectively did. And your post has three logical fallacies packed into it.
Why would someone who has no vested interest in the page do any work on improving it?
Are you making a joke? How do you think Wikipedia came to exist?