Any time someone here asks a question like that, I can usually read the article and prove you stupid. I'm not wasting time doing that. Instead, you tell me what you used to question the methodology.
Was it the summary? did you read the summary and immediately type the first thing that came to mind? Because I bet you did.
Whoah, it's almost like software is hard or something.
15 - 50 errors per 1000 lines of delivered code, industry average (McConnell), or 0.434 for 32 projects scanned by Coverity. Or 0 for 500k for NASA, with a nearly unlimited budget.
The voting on the thing, that's some software. The transmission and collection, that's another software. The intermediates, drivers and such, that's one more software.
Any software can be softwared by software. All it takes is one software in the middle of two other softwares to software the software.
Familiar with the underhanded C, obfuscated C, and go fuck yourself C contests? Even if only the first two, then you know about how well code review will catch a determined adversary.
And anyone writing the checks for this software is the adversary. Anyone who can afford to sponsor an otherwise H1B to contribute to the code is an adversary. Are you going to trust the genius grant material that allowed holes in all kinds of open source software for decades? Oh, it's different, because people would audit this.
Well, some people will. How do you guarantee that the person who would have found the vulnerability reviewed the code? If 10 people say it's okay, did it need 100? If 1000 people say it's okay did you need a million?
Software is hard. It is not trustworthy right now to be trusted with voting. If you accept that voter fraud happens, vote buying happens, and all kinds of nefarious nonsense happens, it's still not as bad as a subtle bug could be.
I was talking with a guy for a bit who didn't understand computers. Not this time not last time, and didn't want to vote on a computer. They change them every time, you know, he said. How do you expect to audit the code when the machines change every 2 years? How complete is your audit after the manufacturer makes a code drop, which is finalized 6 months or more before the election so the hardware can be produced?
I write software, have for decades. I take it apart, have for longer than that. I think I write secure code. But I'm not writing this code. I'm not going to be responsible for a bug I write in such a system. I would do it for a job, if you were to take the blame. But only because I trust me. I wouldn't trust anyone else to do it.
Want to spend millions of dollars to prove it mathematically? I trust you even less.
Statistical anomaly remains such until more study proves otherwise.
Or do you think those contributions were original, and outside what the researchers have encountered in existing feedback?
Because it seems like you took a position Based on a poorly reported and poorly presented bit of crap research. Hint, when the conclusion is anthropomorphize, it takes a lot of evidence.
Are you aware how many times sexual reproduction evolved? Independent discovery among very different people, or species, or kingdoms, is not rare.
And when the sample size increases, the trend moves toward equilibrium. I think this is a great example of someone not understanding statistics.
In an article that starts with an anecdote from 1986, and evaluating a Republican worry "Ever since 1986", why is the data only examined from 1998 ?
In 16 years of data for 50 states, there should be about (16/6) * 2 + (16/4) for each state, or about 266 elections. That's 6 year Senate terms, and 4 year terms for governors. 20 out of a subset of 27 hardly seems relevant - that's 1% out of 10% of the sample size.
If we take this quote at the bottom:
" it tells us that the Democrats have had a significant competitive advantage in the very closest of elections, and in close elections overall, over the past 16 years, and that that advantage has grown during the Obama years."
And combine it with the opening salvo:
Sometimes, itâ(TM)s concern about the superior organization and manpower of organized labor. Sometimes, most famously in 2012, itâ(TM)s concern about the deficiencies of the GOPâ(TM)s get-out-the-vote operations and the Democratsâ(TM) superior use of data-mining and community-organizing tactics.
It is fairly self explanatory.
The part that doesn't make sense is all the time spent on a case of Chicago voter fraud from 1982. The article characterizes it as "at least 100,000 fraudulent votes had been cast in Chicago alone", implying there is more to the story. The linked article is all about Chicago.
That last paragraph makes me really suspicious of this crackpot. That I can't access the data to check for missed analysis opportunities kinda bothers me. Maybe he's not a crackpot, let's see if I can find something to support that?
As with any historical analysis, there may be limits to what this tells us as a predictive matter. These are not especially large sample sizes of races, and even if the trends are real, they may not be due to factors that can be replicated
He basically says "Don't read too much into this" right there. But you apparently did.
I disagree with the numbers. Most computers and nearly all tablets are much more of an appliance. People may have been told about an upgrade, but didn't care enough to even remember it.
The conscious choice was to ignore all information. If it didn't work adequately, they would not have made the same choice.
Specifically, I disagree here: " they simply didn't bother to even find out."
To most people, that's not even a thing. Not bothering means they are aware an option exists. I don't know what prompts a user might see, but it would get dismissed. Ever ask a user what they just clicked? I don't know, I just made it go away. That's the choice.
"given the digital nature of the products and the constant patching."
Instead of getting close to perfect and then burning a gold master, the intent of physical distribution is getting the data out the door. The code gets patched, often including anti crack checks with bug fixes, and progress backslides.
"Digital nature " most likely refers to the "digital download" nonsense that marketing likes to use. In other wods even the physical medium is treated like a digital download.
What the hell is wrong with the title exactly? Shellshock made people realize that open source should be reviewed, especially in things that haven't changed much lately.
With that approach, they found a few problems, patched them, and continue to look for more. It's not well written, but that's expected.
If no one but bad guys looks for these vulnerabilities, it might as well be closed source. And given the vulnerabilities and how long they have been out there, they effectively are closed source.
And when closed source projects have vulnerabilities reported, they too get fixed, or they get disabled and people will move to a competitor. Sure there are counter examples in both arenas, but closed projects will tend to patch any exploits in the wild.
If your experience with closed source vulnerabilities is from 15 years ago, maybe you will disagree. But 15 year old experience is hardly a great argument.
Finally, there is no "more secure" because there is always the next vulnerability. Both are vulnerable, unless you rely on obscurity. You would do well to remember that one, and you might as well wait until someone makes the comment to get your panties in a bunch.
The printer uses a proprietary multi-agent printing process that HP calls "Thermal Inkjet Arrays" that simultaneously apply multiple liquid agents to produce greater accuracy, resiliency and uniform part strength in all three axis directions.
Did you ever look at a 3D printer and say, this needs more nozzles?
Did you ever look at a 3D printer and say, if we had 4x nozzles we could print more accurately? And design some sort of interface to do so? And test it? And patent it?
Bullshit, because we would be reading about you.
Now, let's make fun of HP printer ink, because that seems about the speed of the mental giants here.
You ignorant dickhead, they didn't buy part of the company.
They purchased, on the secondary market, a voting share. What do they vote on? Mostly who makes up the Board. And the Board decides who is CEO.
Shareholders are not owners of the company. Not part owners. They vote.
And frequently, shareholders file a lawsuit against the CxO and/or Board of Directors for doing something like making materially false statements which overvalued the future of the stock, leading to major losses. How did it happen if shareholders are the ones in charge? And how is it a separate issue?
Also, do you have a 401(k)? You probably never voted, and don't have voting rights because your holdings are proxied to the fund manager, but you are a stockholder of ATT, almost guaranteed. Even if you don't care about retirement, are such people innocent or guilty?
The latest ATT dividend was $.46 per share. A small fine won't matter, but a big fine eats into profit, which eats into dividends. A one-time charge looks bad for people who buy stock, and people wanting to sell will have to either eat the loss or hold on to stock.
You are basing your plan on the idea that production cost should determine consumer cost.
Welcome to capitalism, where what people will pay determines the cost. Your $50 plan is what people value at $50. Your $120 plan is what people value at $120.
Some things sell at barely over cost, some at multiples of cost.
Do you hate capitalism? I'm sure you do, but you should have just posted "I hate capitalism" instead of a screed that sounds like you're not aware that ATT and Netflix are headquartered in a capitalist nation.
Is "unlimited" 4 trillion terabytes per day? Or is it more?
Or, will you accept that "unlimited" is not really unlimited?
If you have come this far without completely losing your shit because you're an idiot, then read this:
The FCC wrote a letter in July criticizing Verizon over a plan to throttle heavy users during periods of peak congestion. Verizon later backed down on that plan. The FCC said Tuesday that it was coordinating with the FTC on investigations into carriers slowing down unlimited data.
âoeWireless customers across the country are complaining that their supposedly âunlimitedâ(TM) data plans are not truly unlimited,
That kinda supports your argument, doesn't it?
...because they are being throttled and they have not received appropriate notice,â said Neil Grace, an FCC spokesman. âoeWe encourage customers to contact the FCC if they are being throttled by AT&T or other cellular providers.â
Oh wait, the FCC is okay with some throttling as long as someone gets "appropriate notice".
Now, what happens if someone on an unlimited plan is streaming terrible music and you, on a 1.5GB plan under your limit, want to post stupid things to slashdot? How does the provider decide who gets priority when the tubes are full? You paid for 1.5GB and you didn't get all 1.5GB. The unlimited person is going to sue for being limited.
In that case, won't it depend on what your contract says? If it doesn't, as you seem to object, then support your statement so that both sides get equal treatment. What's that you say? Neither side gets priority? Then one is not truly limited, and the other is not truly 1.5GB. Now what does the contract say?
It's not yet settled whether there is some sort of discrimination or bias either keeping women out, or pushing them out. Until that is settled, lots of people give a fuck for many different reasons. I'm not going to enumerate them, but I do expect you to at least consider the point.
In a rare statement of my actual opinion, I don't think there is anything to study. But that doesn't mean there is nothing to study, so I support the studying. I think you are tired of reading about it, so just don't read about it.
Here's the really big problem: Now that the cat's out of the bag, social websites are picking up the story late. What is this post actually about? NPR is wrong, and is sending the wrong message.
All of the people who rely solely on NPR for their news are misinformed. And you may run into these misinformed people in a day. Isn't it better to understand what they heard, what faulty conclusions were involved, and be able to speak to those points?
Rational? I don't think you understand. It's harder to make a sarcastic point when you don't understand. You are right, that " the problem is not that simple."
Practical is the word that keeps coming up, and it fits much better than rational.
The trends, right there in one of the hundred or so links, show that enrollment goes up for women when the job market looks good, and down when it looks bad. Not grossly, but enough to satisfy numbers people. If it were just avoidance because of a possible job market, you would see a flatter line and not a trend.
If you were to study enrollment in one field vs. others for women, you would find that some fields are a fairly constant percentage, with trend lines that go down as more fields become available (99% homemaker becomes 20% teacher 20% nurse 60% homemaker, and on down through the years to art history and psychologist).
Another trend follows the potential for job security, with the numbers corrected for the first trend. A shortage of doctors or engineers or traditionally male jobs may push more women into that field. But not all women of course, and not all types of women.
The key seems to be that boys like to study how things work, and women like to use them for a purpose. Sometimes, girls use those things for the purpose of job security, or additional income, as opposed to just being a tool to assist in their chosen field.
The studies are very young, and there are a great number of variables to consider, so it's way too soon to paint this in any sort of black and white terms. Which makes it very easy to misunderstand without an awful lot more reading than has been offered here.
When something looks so obviously wrong, do you immediately assume that what you read makes no sense? Or is it more likely that you are missing something? What if it make enough sense that you could point out an obvious flaw? What if you thought about it for more than two seconds, or as many seconds as it takes to see that you might be the weak link in your argument?
72% are not obesity related. Obviously your numbers are suspect.
"While cognitive and moral disqualifications have held steady, weight issues account for 18% of disqualifications, and the number is rising steadily, according to Batschelet."
If your back of a nonexistent napkin attempt is that far off, do you really conclude that the article is the wrong one?
Because people who do not qualify cannot be ordered. You have to lower the criteria, and accept the previously unacceptable, before you can order then to undergo physical training until they are no longer obese.
Criminal history was mentioned as part of this. You can't basic train someone's arrest for hacking or weed out of the record. So there goes your plan. Try again.
From the accounts I read anywhere other than the LAMEstream MSM media, most of the images seem to have been acquired indirectly, with no CFAA violation. They were acquired by threats or in trade.
Many of the images (which I will assert I viewed as censored examples on various celebrity news sites linked from new aggregators) were selfies, which were likely sent to someone, and not hacked from that phone. The rest were obviously posing for someone else. What is the likelihood that I would snap an intimate image of the woman I am seeing with her phone?
Seriously - look at the pictures - call it research or due diligence. Build a story of who took it and why. Then conclude with the story of how it got out of the "images" folder on the phone.
"the people who stole those celebrity pictures," in other words, may not have stolen anything. The difficulty is in separating the source of the photos from any intermediary who might use the collection for money or coercion. Search for "underground celebrity picture trading" for more.
And it would be quite a stretch to say this qualifies under the CFAA, unless the only thing you know about it is "unauthorized access". I can see an argument for routine evidence gathering, where the police may be able to look for incriminating evidence such as texts or pictures, and the officer never exceeded authorized access. Keep in mind that the user in that case does not determine what is excessive - the law does. It doesn't mean I agree with procedures, I'm just pointing out that CFAA is not the obvious conclusion in either case.
They want every tool, no one can fault that. It is not up to them, it is up to the courts to tell them which tools are off limits. It is not up to "us". If you think otherwise, you do not understand how law in this land works. The things you mentioned are definitely off limits for police.
Us? If you mean "the people", then us are not elected. Us meaning the legislators? We don't legislate, we elect the legislators.
The courts deciding the law is a FUNDAMENTAL separation of powers. The police decide who and why to arrest. The state or national legislature decide what the laws are. The state or national courts decide if the laws, as enforced by the police, are constitutional. The courts decide if the laws, as passed, are constitutional.
What is up to "us"?
Consider Waco, TX. Would fighter jets have been off limits if other means had not succeeded? Nukes?
Put yourself on the offensive in the Red Scare, would mass surveillance be acceptable?
I don't mean your opinion, that is clear enough, and agreeable enough. The courts decide law, and unless you can convince a bunch of lawyers otherwise, that is the law of the land.
Could the people selling devices which people buy also give feedback? It is not mutually exclusive.
Or another way, I will not buy a device that does not give feedback. If I have my current device for as long as I live, I will not be disappointed more than I am. If I have the opportunity to buy a better device, I will not hesitate. A trade-off is not acceptable.
Slashdot wants to take me to my own profile, because JS is disabled, so I don't know who "we" represents, if you have otherwise specified.
I am a niche market - it takes me years to buy anything. But I do not think that my desire for near-instant feedback is misplaced or otherwise specific to me.
I considered clarifying that the UI responds.. eventually. But I thought that was clear.
Regardless, buying a device is not about a single feature.
Slashdot Mirror
Any time someone here asks a question like that, I can usually read the article and prove you stupid. I'm not wasting time doing that. Instead, you tell me what you used to question the methodology.
Was it the summary? did you read the summary and immediately type the first thing that came to mind? Because I bet you did.
Whoah, it's almost like software is hard or something.
15 - 50 errors per 1000 lines of delivered code, industry average (McConnell), or 0.434 for 32 projects scanned by Coverity. Or 0 for 500k for NASA, with a nearly unlimited budget.
The voting on the thing, that's some software. The transmission and collection, that's another software. The intermediates, drivers and such, that's one more software.
Any software can be softwared by software. All it takes is one software in the middle of two other softwares to software the software.
Familiar with the underhanded C, obfuscated C, and go fuck yourself C contests? Even if only the first two, then you know about how well code review will catch a determined adversary.
And anyone writing the checks for this software is the adversary. Anyone who can afford to sponsor an otherwise H1B to contribute to the code is an adversary. Are you going to trust the genius grant material that allowed holes in all kinds of open source software for decades? Oh, it's different, because people would audit this.
Well, some people will. How do you guarantee that the person who would have found the vulnerability reviewed the code? If 10 people say it's okay, did it need 100? If 1000 people say it's okay did you need a million?
Software is hard. It is not trustworthy right now to be trusted with voting. If you accept that voter fraud happens, vote buying happens, and all kinds of nefarious nonsense happens, it's still not as bad as a subtle bug could be.
I was talking with a guy for a bit who didn't understand computers. Not this time not last time, and didn't want to vote on a computer. They change them every time, you know, he said. How do you expect to audit the code when the machines change every 2 years? How complete is your audit after the manufacturer makes a code drop, which is finalized 6 months or more before the election so the hardware can be produced?
I write software, have for decades. I take it apart, have for longer than that. I think I write secure code. But I'm not writing this code. I'm not going to be responsible for a bug I write in such a system. I would do it for a job, if you were to take the blame. But only because I trust me. I wouldn't trust anyone else to do it.
Want to spend millions of dollars to prove it mathematically? I trust you even less.
Statistical anomaly remains such until more study proves otherwise.
Or do you think those contributions were original, and outside what the researchers have encountered in existing feedback?
Because it seems like you took a position Based on a poorly reported and poorly presented bit of crap research. Hint, when the conclusion is anthropomorphize, it takes a lot of evidence.
Are you aware how many times sexual reproduction evolved? Independent discovery among very different people, or species, or kingdoms, is not rare.
And when the sample size increases, the trend moves toward equilibrium. I think this is a great example of someone not understanding statistics.
In an article that starts with an anecdote from 1986, and evaluating a Republican worry "Ever since 1986", why is the data only examined from 1998 ?
In 16 years of data for 50 states, there should be about (16/6) * 2 + (16/4) for each state, or about 266 elections. That's 6 year Senate terms, and 4 year terms for governors. 20 out of a subset of 27 hardly seems relevant - that's 1% out of 10% of the sample size.
If we take this quote at the bottom:
And combine it with the opening salvo:
It is fairly self explanatory.
The part that doesn't make sense is all the time spent on a case of Chicago voter fraud from 1982. The article characterizes it as "at least 100,000 fraudulent votes had been cast in Chicago alone", implying there is more to the story. The linked article is all about Chicago.
That last paragraph makes me really suspicious of this crackpot. That I can't access the data to check for missed analysis opportunities kinda bothers me. Maybe he's not a crackpot, let's see if I can find something to support that?
He basically says "Don't read too much into this" right there. But you apparently did.
I disagree with the numbers. Most computers and nearly all tablets are much more of an appliance. People may have been told about an upgrade, but didn't care enough to even remember it.
The conscious choice was to ignore all information. If it didn't work adequately, they would not have made the same choice.
Specifically, I disagree here: " they simply didn't bother to even find out."
To most people, that's not even a thing. Not bothering means they are aware an option exists. I don't know what prompts a user might see, but it would get dismissed. Ever ask a user what they just clicked? I don't know, I just made it go away. That's the choice.
We don't want hard data, we want predictive data that health care or insurance companies don't have yet. Or maybe charge too much for.
So scientists, linked in the article, are trying to add data points outside of searches and make better predictions.
In fact, they may have read your comment and gone back in time to address your concerns. Well done!
"given the digital nature of the products and the constant patching."
Instead of getting close to perfect and then burning a gold master, the intent of physical distribution is getting the data out the door. The code gets patched, often including anti crack checks with bug fixes, and progress backslides.
"Digital nature " most likely refers to the "digital download" nonsense that marketing likes to use. In other wods even the physical medium is treated like a digital download.
What a shame that context is so easily ignored.
Often you don't know until people complain. Loudly.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/...
Great point, except they won't stop buying. We know that and game publishers know that.
Instead of the obvious, impossible option, do we have an alternative suggestion?
What the hell is wrong with the title exactly? Shellshock made people realize that open source should be reviewed, especially in things that haven't changed much lately.
With that approach, they found a few problems, patched them, and continue to look for more. It's not well written, but that's expected.
Defend.
If no one but bad guys looks for these vulnerabilities, it might as well be closed source. And given the vulnerabilities and how long they have been out there, they effectively are closed source.
And when closed source projects have vulnerabilities reported, they too get fixed, or they get disabled and people will move to a competitor. Sure there are counter examples in both arenas, but closed projects will tend to patch any exploits in the wild.
If your experience with closed source vulnerabilities is from 15 years ago, maybe you will disagree. But 15 year old experience is hardly a great argument.
Finally, there is no "more secure" because there is always the next vulnerability. Both are vulnerable, unless you rely on obscurity. You would do well to remember that one, and you might as well wait until someone makes the comment to get your panties in a bunch.
It's insightful because retards.
Did you ever look at a 3D printer and say, this needs more nozzles?
Did you ever look at a 3D printer and say, if we had 4x nozzles we could print more accurately? And design some sort of interface to do so? And test it? And patent it?
Bullshit, because we would be reading about you.
Now, let's make fun of HP printer ink, because that seems about the speed of the mental giants here.
You ignorant dickhead, they didn't buy part of the company.
They purchased, on the secondary market, a voting share. What do they vote on? Mostly who makes up the Board. And the Board decides who is CEO.
Shareholders are not owners of the company. Not part owners. They vote.
And frequently, shareholders file a lawsuit against the CxO and/or Board of Directors for doing something like making materially false statements which overvalued the future of the stock, leading to major losses. How did it happen if shareholders are the ones in charge? And how is it a separate issue?
Also, do you have a 401(k)? You probably never voted, and don't have voting rights because your holdings are proxied to the fund manager, but you are a stockholder of ATT, almost guaranteed. Even if you don't care about retirement, are such people innocent or guilty?
The latest ATT dividend was $.46 per share. A small fine won't matter, but a big fine eats into profit, which eats into dividends. A one-time charge looks bad for people who buy stock, and people wanting to sell will have to either eat the loss or hold on to stock.
http://www.att.com/gen/investo...
I think you are going to have to say how the shareholders are not innocent. Very specifically.
You are basing your plan on the idea that production cost should determine consumer cost.
Welcome to capitalism, where what people will pay determines the cost. Your $50 plan is what people value at $50. Your $120 plan is what people value at $120.
Some things sell at barely over cost, some at multiples of cost.
Do you hate capitalism? I'm sure you do, but you should have just posted "I hate capitalism" instead of a screed that sounds like you're not aware that ATT and Netflix are headquartered in a capitalist nation.
Is "unlimited" 4 trillion terabytes per day? Or is it more?
Or, will you accept that "unlimited" is not really unlimited?
If you have come this far without completely losing your shit because you're an idiot, then read this:
That kinda supports your argument, doesn't it?
Oh wait, the FCC is okay with some throttling as long as someone gets "appropriate notice".
Now, what happens if someone on an unlimited plan is streaming terrible music and you, on a 1.5GB plan under your limit, want to post stupid things to slashdot? How does the provider decide who gets priority when the tubes are full? You paid for 1.5GB and you didn't get all 1.5GB. The unlimited person is going to sue for being limited.
In that case, won't it depend on what your contract says? If it doesn't, as you seem to object, then support your statement so that both sides get equal treatment. What's that you say? Neither side gets priority? Then one is not truly limited, and the other is not truly 1.5GB. Now what does the contract say?
It's not yet settled whether there is some sort of discrimination or bias either keeping women out, or pushing them out. Until that is settled, lots of people give a fuck for many different reasons. I'm not going to enumerate them, but I do expect you to at least consider the point.
In a rare statement of my actual opinion, I don't think there is anything to study. But that doesn't mean there is nothing to study, so I support the studying. I think you are tired of reading about it, so just don't read about it.
Here's the really big problem: Now that the cat's out of the bag, social websites are picking up the story late. What is this post actually about? NPR is wrong, and is sending the wrong message.
All of the people who rely solely on NPR for their news are misinformed. And you may run into these misinformed people in a day. Isn't it better to understand what they heard, what faulty conclusions were involved, and be able to speak to those points?
Rational? I don't think you understand. It's harder to make a sarcastic point when you don't understand. You are right, that " the problem is not that simple."
Practical is the word that keeps coming up, and it fits much better than rational.
The trends, right there in one of the hundred or so links, show that enrollment goes up for women when the job market looks good, and down when it looks bad. Not grossly, but enough to satisfy numbers people. If it were just avoidance because of a possible job market, you would see a flatter line and not a trend.
If you were to study enrollment in one field vs. others for women, you would find that some fields are a fairly constant percentage, with trend lines that go down as more fields become available (99% homemaker becomes 20% teacher 20% nurse 60% homemaker, and on down through the years to art history and psychologist).
Another trend follows the potential for job security, with the numbers corrected for the first trend. A shortage of doctors or engineers or traditionally male jobs may push more women into that field. But not all women of course, and not all types of women.
The key seems to be that boys like to study how things work, and women like to use them for a purpose. Sometimes, girls use those things for the purpose of job security, or additional income, as opposed to just being a tool to assist in their chosen field.
The studies are very young, and there are a great number of variables to consider, so it's way too soon to paint this in any sort of black and white terms. Which makes it very easy to misunderstand without an awful lot more reading than has been offered here.
When something looks so obviously wrong, do you immediately assume that what you read makes no sense? Or is it more likely that you are missing something? What if it make enough sense that you could point out an obvious flaw? What if you thought about it for more than two seconds, or as many seconds as it takes to see that you might be the weak link in your argument?
72% are not obesity related. Obviously your numbers are suspect.
"While cognitive and moral disqualifications have held steady, weight issues account for 18% of disqualifications, and the number is rising steadily, according to Batschelet."
If your back of a nonexistent napkin attempt is that far off, do you really conclude that the article is the wrong one?
Because people who do not qualify cannot be ordered. You have to lower the criteria, and accept the previously unacceptable, before you can order then to undergo physical training until they are no longer obese.
Criminal history was mentioned as part of this. You can't basic train someone's arrest for hacking or weed out of the record. So there goes your plan. Try again.
From the accounts I read anywhere other than the LAMEstream MSM media, most of the images seem to have been acquired indirectly, with no CFAA violation. They were acquired by threats or in trade.
Many of the images (which I will assert I viewed as censored examples on various celebrity news sites linked from new aggregators) were selfies, which were likely sent to someone, and not hacked from that phone. The rest were obviously posing for someone else. What is the likelihood that I would snap an intimate image of the woman I am seeing with her phone?
Seriously - look at the pictures - call it research or due diligence. Build a story of who took it and why. Then conclude with the story of how it got out of the "images" folder on the phone.
"the people who stole those celebrity pictures," in other words, may not have stolen anything. The difficulty is in separating the source of the photos from any intermediary who might use the collection for money or coercion. Search for "underground celebrity picture trading" for more.
And it would be quite a stretch to say this qualifies under the CFAA, unless the only thing you know about it is "unauthorized access". I can see an argument for routine evidence gathering, where the police may be able to look for incriminating evidence such as texts or pictures, and the officer never exceeded authorized access. Keep in mind that the user in that case does not determine what is excessive - the law does. It doesn't mean I agree with procedures, I'm just pointing out that CFAA is not the obvious conclusion in either case.
Which side of your agreement are wired providers on?
Do you intend to subsidize the old folks in getting a wireless plan and converter to replace the DTV converter we just subsidized?
Come back when you have thought this through.
The police are wrong for trying.
They want every tool, no one can fault that. It is not up to them, it is up to the courts to tell them which tools are off limits. It is not up to "us". If you think otherwise, you do not understand how law in this land works. The things you mentioned are definitely off limits for police.
Us? If you mean "the people", then us are not elected. Us meaning the legislators? We don't legislate, we elect the legislators.
The courts deciding the law is a FUNDAMENTAL separation of powers. The police decide who and why to arrest. The state or national legislature decide what the laws are. The state or national courts decide if the laws, as enforced by the police, are constitutional. The courts decide if the laws, as passed, are constitutional.
What is up to "us"?
Consider Waco, TX. Would fighter jets have been off limits if other means had not succeeded? Nukes?
Put yourself on the offensive in the Red Scare, would mass surveillance be acceptable?
I don't mean your opinion, that is clear enough, and agreeable enough. The courts decide law, and unless you can convince a bunch of lawyers otherwise, that is the law of the land.
Have your forgotten your basic education?
I stand by my interpretation that once you type the domain, and verify a few certificates, you don't care.
You, specifically, are not "you", the collective.
Even an amateurish attack will be successful from time to time.
If a nation state tries to intercept the easy, hard, and next-to-impossible data, is it still amateurish? Defend.
How do I take any advantage of your comment? It is good advice in general, but if I am a consumer, how do I modify my purchasing?
Could the people selling devices which people buy also give feedback? It is not mutually exclusive.
Or another way, I will not buy a device that does not give feedback. If I have my current device for as long as I live, I will not be disappointed more than I am. If I have the opportunity to buy a better device, I will not hesitate. A trade-off is not acceptable.
Slashdot wants to take me to my own profile, because JS is disabled, so I don't know who "we" represents, if you have otherwise specified.
I am a niche market - it takes me years to buy anything. But I do not think that my desire for near-instant feedback is misplaced or otherwise specific to me.
I considered clarifying that the UI responds.. eventually. But I thought that was clear.
Regardless, buying a device is not about a single feature.