people don't abuse drugs like heroin unless they are not happy with their lives
Oh good, an armchair psychologist. Let me confirm your chain of reasoning: JakeBurn saw more heroin addicts in the street in Sweden + JakeBurn thinks that heroin is a sign of unhappiness -> JakeBurn concludes that Sweden is unhappier than the USA.
while failing to mention nearly 5% more Europeans are unemployed versus the USA
Only an American would identify "employment" with "happiness". Quality, mah boy!
my own experiences of drug addicted panhandlers in far, far greater numbers
Again, your anecdote is irrelevant, and - as data comparing the drugs problem in the two countries confirms - but just shows that you've had a biased experience. I can't accuse you of being deliberately dishonest, so I'll chalk it up to the fact that you, like many people with a conservative mindset, just can't see beyond their own field of vision. Ghettoisation in the US is far greater than in Sweden, so - while it's nothing like India (I'm glad you've dropped that stupidity) - the Swedish middle classes will have to suffer the inconvenience of imperfect reality in day-to-day life, while someone in the US can live a couple of blocks from squalor and never really be bothered beyond hearing more distant sirens.
FWIW, Sweden has been going more USA with a hardline approach. So probably it has been getting worse there, as always happens to a European country when it is tempted by the US model. But the difference is still magnificent.
Meanwhile there will be many, many people who are getting away with doing bad things because they are smart enough to figure out how to and hard enough to catch that they can get away with it for a long time, maybe forever.
Yup: murderers, rapists, robbers, fraudsters... why do we bother with all these laws when some smart enough people will get away with each of these crimes.
The very thing that you believe is good for society would be ignored or even punished if it weren't for the very real threat that is posed by people who exploit the vulnerabilities. You may think they're immoral or amoral for doing it but they're providing a very valuable service to society even as they harm it.
It wouldn't be a threat if there weren't people who wanted to exploit vulnerabilities. Circular argument, sigh.
You know what makes a strong immune system? Exposure to germs. Guess what makes a strong internet society?
You know what germs aren't? Human. Stop reducing humans to factors in a flawed model.
(And I say have to that repeatedly as a mathematician who has to put up with dumb economists.)
Erm, bounties aren't a good reason to start security research. "Bounty hunting" is in a primitive form of compensation which is usually supplanted by more stable, reliable arrangements for all parties.
If you're good at that sort of thing, you get a perm job, being paid the money Yahoo would allocate to employees rather than PR exercises.
I mean I think Yahoo has been pointless since before the turn of the millennium, but that's another matter...
Erm, yes it does. Law enforcement are as aware of the Internet as anything else. Perhaps they misallocate resources, and perhaps that's what you need to concentrate on fixing.
Unfortunately many companies react to this helpful advice by threatening to sue or even trying to have the white hat arrested.
Anonymous reporting is easy. If you attach your name to a public report then you're really using the threat of crime for personal profit. Try not to think about it from the PoV of the ego of the hacker.
Companies should pay bug bounties when the issue is security
They're welcome to offer them, although it's really more a PR thing "We're already so secure that we only expect to pay out a small amount from this fund." It's not really a significant method of fixing bugs in your product.
"me experiencing lots of drug addicts" "vs ANYWHERE in the US" "poverty felt similar to India"
I'm going to guess you're suffering from an agonising amount of confirmation bias, carefully noticing instances of each problem in Sweden and completely ignoring your own doorstep. The drug problem in Sweden is nothing like in the US, and if you think street poverty is anything like India, you were driven between Indira Gandhi airport and a gated community with the curtains drawn in your limo.
It also might be that you misinterpreted the Swedish approach to drug addiction, which is to treat in the community rather than to lock people up as criminals (unless they're rich).
Re:"We believed we knew better what customers need
on
How BlackBerry Blew It
·
· Score: 1
Marketing gets you in the door. Your sales pitch makes the sale. If it was all flash and no substance, you know what? It would've died.
This explains why organisers of religion have been such miserable failures.
Oh, for fuck's sake, this argument is just awful. "Well, people SHOULD pay protection money, because otherwise anyone with enough strength might break their legs."
This is mafia reasoning, and it's shameful that geeks are increasingly engaging in this sort of argument.
Guess what? I can also break into most people's houses and nick their stuff without getting caught. They have ground floor windows, old doors, &c. That doesn't mean they owe me anything for NOT doing that, nor for sending them unsolicited notices that it would be easy to take their stuff. Indeed, English law at least is comfortable with the idea that you never owe anything for unsolicited work, even if it's beneficial. No one was making these "hackers" do the work - they were either bored or wanted the notoriety.
Yeah, but it's the sort of troll I'd encourage, as it brings out all the genuine misogynists who agree with him. Funny how a lot of people I'd guess were greybeards are posting anti-women rants here. Maybe it's just an upbringing thing: "Waa waa we don't have assumed superiority any more."
Slashdot Mirror
Well summarised.
I'm railing against the idiot commenters who believe that such threats - overt or veiled - are a valid way to go about business.
people don't abuse drugs like heroin unless they are not happy with their lives
Oh good, an armchair psychologist. Let me confirm your chain of reasoning: JakeBurn saw more heroin addicts in the street in Sweden + JakeBurn thinks that heroin is a sign of unhappiness -> JakeBurn concludes that Sweden is unhappier than the USA.
while failing to mention nearly 5% more Europeans are unemployed versus the USA
Only an American would identify "employment" with "happiness". Quality, mah boy!
my own experiences of drug addicted panhandlers in far, far greater numbers
Again, your anecdote is irrelevant, and - as data comparing the drugs problem in the two countries confirms - but just shows that you've had a biased experience. I can't accuse you of being deliberately dishonest, so I'll chalk it up to the fact that you, like many people with a conservative mindset, just can't see beyond their own field of vision. Ghettoisation in the US is far greater than in Sweden, so - while it's nothing like India (I'm glad you've dropped that stupidity) - the Swedish middle classes will have to suffer the inconvenience of imperfect reality in day-to-day life, while someone in the US can live a couple of blocks from squalor and never really be bothered beyond hearing more distant sirens.
FWIW, Sweden has been going more USA with a hardline approach. So probably it has been getting worse there, as always happens to a European country when it is tempted by the US model. But the difference is still magnificent.
Meanwhile there will be many, many people who are getting away with doing bad things because they are smart enough to figure out how to and hard enough to catch that they can get away with it for a long time, maybe forever.
Yup: murderers, rapists, robbers, fraudsters... why do we bother with all these laws when some smart enough people will get away with each of these crimes.
The very thing that you believe is good for society would be ignored or even punished if it weren't for the very real threat that is posed by people who exploit the vulnerabilities. You may think they're immoral or amoral for doing it but they're providing a very valuable service to society even as they harm it.
It wouldn't be a threat if there weren't people who wanted to exploit vulnerabilities. Circular argument, sigh.
You know what makes a strong immune system? Exposure to germs. Guess what makes a strong internet society?
You know what germs aren't? Human. Stop reducing humans to factors in a flawed model.
(And I say have to that repeatedly as a mathematician who has to put up with dumb economists.)
The guy who merely tells you is not a racketeer.
The guy who threatens to commit a crime against you if you don't pay him money IS a racketeer.
Erm, bounties aren't a good reason to start security research. "Bounty hunting" is in a primitive form of compensation which is usually supplanted by more stable, reliable arrangements for all parties.
If you're good at that sort of thing, you get a perm job, being paid the money Yahoo would allocate to employees rather than PR exercises.
I mean I think Yahoo has been pointless since before the turn of the millennium, but that's another matter...
Just because you're a cunt, it doesn't mean everyone who finds a vulnerability is.
There are plenty of skilled people out there who don't care about building a better society or who have different moralities.
And they must be dealt with, not pandered to.
Not sure what that has to do with my point, which is that religions are very successful even though core beliefs have no substance.
The internet doesn't have cops
Erm, yes it does. Law enforcement are as aware of the Internet as anything else. Perhaps they misallocate resources, and perhaps that's what you need to concentrate on fixing.
Unfortunately many companies react to this helpful advice by threatening to sue or even trying to have the white hat arrested.
Anonymous reporting is easy. If you attach your name to a public report then you're really using the threat of crime for personal profit. Try not to think about it from the PoV of the ego of the hacker.
Companies should pay bug bounties when the issue is security
They're welcome to offer them, although it's really more a PR thing "We're already so secure that we only expect to pay out a small amount from this fund." It's not really a significant method of fixing bugs in your product.
Forget legality/morality for a second
No, that's an awful idea.
and just think about incentives.
My incentive is that I build a better society through responsible disclosure. Morality helps me reach that conclusion.
I'm not sure what cognitive fault causes people to blame the victim, but it seems like a common thought process.
Yes, companies should take more care with data (or, more widely, people should stop putting their data in the hands of random private businesses).
No, that doesn't mean it's their fault when someone malicious takes the data.
No, protection money is never an acceptable demand.
Capitalism works because it is easy to convince people that they need/want to be exploited.
Well, it's even easier to convince a computer that they "should" be doing something.
"me experiencing lots of drug addicts"
"vs ANYWHERE in the US"
"poverty felt similar to India"
I'm going to guess you're suffering from an agonising amount of confirmation bias, carefully noticing instances of each problem in Sweden and completely ignoring your own doorstep. The drug problem in Sweden is nothing like in the US, and if you think street poverty is anything like India, you were driven between Indira Gandhi airport and a gated community with the curtains drawn in your limo.
It also might be that you misinterpreted the Swedish approach to drug addiction, which is to treat in the community rather than to lock people up as criminals (unless they're rich).
Marketing gets you in the door. Your sales pitch makes the sale. If it was all flash and no substance, you know what? It would've died.
This explains why organisers of religion have been such miserable failures.
Oh wait.
Dreams are prevalent everywhere.
Oh, for fuck's sake, this argument is just awful. "Well, people SHOULD pay protection money, because otherwise anyone with enough strength might break their legs."
This is mafia reasoning, and it's shameful that geeks are increasingly engaging in this sort of argument.
Guess what? I can also break into most people's houses and nick their stuff without getting caught. They have ground floor windows, old doors, &c. That doesn't mean they owe me anything for NOT doing that, nor for sending them unsolicited notices that it would be easy to take their stuff. Indeed, English law at least is comfortable with the idea that you never owe anything for unsolicited work, even if it's beneficial. No one was making these "hackers" do the work - they were either bored or wanted the notoriety.
Relax, dude, the Invisible Hand isn't going to strike you down for not defending it at every turn.
Pure capitalism and pure communism are both miserable failures. Sorry!
Apple sales have always been about consumers liking the product rather than being marketed to.
Ahahahahahahaha hahahahahaha hahahahaha lameness filter hahahahahaha hahahaha hahaha hahahah ahahahah ahahahahah ahahaha hahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahaha decompress ha hahahahah ahahahah ahahaha hahaha hahahaha hahahah ahahahaha.
That was just the right length of post to say that Breaking Bad is even less worth watching than a Murder She Wrote re-run.
Right?
Your rich American tourist anecdote benefits us all.
Every -ism is exploitation by powerful old men of everyone else.
Yes, reader, INCLUDING the one you cling on to.
Yeah any country could have a change of law or revolution which reintroduces the draft, too.
It's about likelihood. Most people who have voluntarily joined the military are, in contrast to those who haven't, highly likely to be deployed.
Yeah, but it's the sort of troll I'd encourage, as it brings out all the genuine misogynists who agree with him. Funny how a lot of people I'd guess were greybeards are posting anti-women rants here. Maybe it's just an upbringing thing: "Waa waa we don't have assumed superiority any more."