No, because it was all in Amazon. Who needs tape when you have the cloud, right?
So the stuff they had backed up from Amazon to Amazon, was still controlled by the same logins (or the ones the hacker had created).
So when he/she/they started deleting stuff, the backups also got deleted.
Sounds like a brilliant strategy, and an epic demonstration of what can go wrong with the cloud.
If you host your own stuff, you do your own backups. If you backup your cloud data to the cloud using the same stuff as the rest of it... well, your backups are hardly secure, are they.
So unless Amazon has offsite tape backups (which I highly doubt)... they're pretty much screwed.
I think this is about the same as backing up your hard drive to itself so you have a spare copy.
So, collectively the US and the UK have decided it is their right to spy on the entire world and share that information among themselves and the rest of the "5 eyes"?
Fuck them all, the rest of the world didn't sign up for this.
So, basically, the US and the UK have given the rest of the world carte blanche to spy on them. Unless they'll somehow claim it's OK if they do it but not for anybody else.
And then there's porn. Some of those shows are so hot that the connection cables are overheating. So that's the other reason you need Monster Cables (Ka-boom!)
LOL... does Monster make CAT-5?
Because I suspect there's an awful lot of those cables which are running a little warm if that's the case.;-)
And politicians will be required to tell us if they're dishonest, and police officers to notify us when they're on the take.
I predict this will do nothing at all for the problem.
People will ignore it, or someone will set up a 'think tank' or something which pays people for some suitably abstract thing, while in reality paying them to shill on Wikipedia.
For inclusion in their own for-pay music streaming service unless you agree to their one-sided terms? Not so much.
There are now two classes of videos on YouTube -- things Google has figured out how to directly monetize (beyond ads), and things that Google hasn't yet figured out how to directly monetize.
But basically, anything in the latter category is just waiting until it joins the former, and you should have zero expectation they won't eventually do it to the rest of it.
You're free to upload your videos, cat, music, or other.
Until they change their mind again.
At this point, why would you put any trust in Google that they won't create a subscription only CatTube exclusively for cat videos and demand the same thing? BabyTube? HowTube?
If Google are going to constantly change the ToS to prop up their revenue model, and force these changes on you... you might as well assume now that Google will screw you in the end and stop providing them with content.
Because this amounts to "when we decide we're making money off it beyond ads, we're simply going to take it from you".
This amounts to "once we figure out how to monetize this, we'll own your stuff and you can't do anything about it unless you agree to the pittance we'll offer".
And what happens when soundcloud does the same thing?
There's a long history of companies getting their users to create their content, and then deciding they own the content.
The problem is that now Google has suddenly decided that a platform to post free videos, available to pretty much anybody, isn't the same when you are someone who has commercial interests.
And I wonder how, exactly, this is different from when companies put up their own videos. Is Google going to say "we want a cut of your product or we'll take down your video".
I see this as extortion, plain and simple. "Nice video, shame if something happened to it".
This just seems like they're selectively treating one class of videos as different from another, specifically in the case where they want to make money from it.
So what happens when I post a how-to video, and in a year or so Google decides they're going to charge for access to that really helpful video? If I don't agree to get paid 1 cent for every million views, they'll take down the video? Maybe they'll decide that by posting it they already own the video?
This is straight up appropriating the work of others for their own gain, and treating anything they stand to make money from as somehow different from all the rest of the videos.
Google is now saying that anybody who has a song up on YouTube that Google would like to include in their (for pay) streaming services (at a crappy rate of compensation) will have it removed from YouTube unless the artist signs up for these terms.
So all of a sudden Google is strong-arming people and saying "we will remove you from YouTube unless you sign this one sided deal".
Do we conclude that the TOS for YouTube now means unless you sign the rights for Google to use your video for commercial gain, you can't have a video up? Or can we conclude that they're only applying this to musicians in order to force them to sign up?
If they're going to apply this uniformly, the video of your child dancing is now something they can use for their own profit. If we say "of course not, those are home videos" how can you claim it's any different? This is Google deciding that their other commercial interests are going to change how YouTube works.
What they're providing is a "free to anybody unless we get a DMCA takedown" video service which is being turned into "unless we want to make money from it, and then it isn't free unless it's on our terms".
I'd say this is well into the "Google have become assholes" end of things. In fact, I'd say Google is fast becoming evil assholes.
Unless they've been strong-arming everybody who puts up a video in the same way, they can't suddenly pretend like one class of videos is different from another.
Can't say I've ever had freedom fries... are they similar to french fries or is that just the PC way of saying it?
Sadly, this is what happened when France didn't want to join the coalition of the willing with Bush and he was in full-on screeching "you're either with us or you're against us".
A Canadian politician got into trouble for calling it the coalition of idiots.
But given what was actually accomplished in Iraq, one has to agree with these sentiments, and remember that Bush was doing it without any good basis.
Honestly, they were french fries for years, if you're offended by the name, deal with it... we shouldn't change names because they offend a few people.
No, it was butt-hurt Americans who were upset because people wouldn't blindly follow them into Iraq on flimsy evidence (which was subsequently proven to be false) and very sketchy reasoning.
It speaks more about the people who renamed it than anything.
Any business model which relies on a mass campaign to get 1-2% response rate is quite likely to be a lucrative business model.
All you need is a small percentage of people who will fall for this, and when you're sending out millions of messages, 1-2% is probably enough to pay pretty well.
Hell, I recently saw a couple of spam messages for Viagra slip through spam filters... and anybody who actually buys Viagra from a random email is asking to get screwed, only not in the way they hope.
At my company, they do phishing/spam testing on a fairly regular basis. And it's astounding to me the number of people who actually fall for it. These people get sent for additional internet security training.
When my parents first went on-line, I told them in no uncertain terms to never trust anything unless they were damned sure it was from someone they knew and trusted. And, if there was any doubt, don't ever do anything unless you can directly call the company with a published number.
And they've told me on numerous occasions that advice has done well for them.
Sadly, lots of people still fall for this crap, but if it didn't pay, nobody would be going through the effort.
And don't get me started on the calls from the "Windows Service Provider" who want to do tech support for me. I've known a few people whose parents have fallen for that one.
I use it exclusively for work related stuff I have no choice but to use.
Because, sometimes, some wanker decides that I need to use some 3rd party Flash crap to do my annual review or for some training.
For everything else... it's pretty much anything else except IE. IE has been in the category of "browsers I don't trust and only use when absolutely required" for a long time now, and I don't see that changing any time soon.
I certainly wouldn't use IE for day to day browsing.
allowing you to use your Xbox controller to play games in IE
Is there a demand for this?
If I want to play a console game, I'll use a console.
This sounds like a solution in search of a problem to me, not something anybody is going to care about.
And, of course, being a new Web API, it's probably safest to assume it will be a massive security hole. Because, let's face it, IE seems to be the most vulnerable browser around.
The Congress shall have power... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
In its modern day form in America, it sure as hell is supposed to be about innovation.
Instead it's mostly about rent-seeking and making sure nobody can make anything without giving you a cut.
No, one of the main problems (especially for things like listeria) is poor cleaning standards for commercial food processing stuff.
Yes, there certainly are good bacteria which promote health... but in some of these cases with listeria, the company hasn't been properly cleaning the insides of commercial machines.
Similarly, things show up in all sorts of places where they shouldn't because of agricultural practices or food companies... if your lettuce is getting salmonella or e coli on it, it's not because it started out there, but got cross contaminated either in the field, in transit, or in the processing plants.
On an industrial scale, modern food processing is pretty gross.
Slashdot Mirror
No, because it was all in Amazon. Who needs tape when you have the cloud, right?
So the stuff they had backed up from Amazon to Amazon, was still controlled by the same logins (or the ones the hacker had created).
So when he/she/they started deleting stuff, the backups also got deleted.
Sounds like a brilliant strategy, and an epic demonstration of what can go wrong with the cloud.
If you host your own stuff, you do your own backups. If you backup your cloud data to the cloud using the same stuff as the rest of it ... well, your backups are hardly secure, are they.
So unless Amazon has offsite tape backups (which I highly doubt) ... they're pretty much screwed.
I think this is about the same as backing up your hard drive to itself so you have a spare copy.
Yo dawg, I hear you like clouds.
So, collectively the US and the UK have decided it is their right to spy on the entire world and share that information among themselves and the rest of the "5 eyes"?
Fuck them all, the rest of the world didn't sign up for this.
So, basically, the US and the UK have given the rest of the world carte blanche to spy on them. Unless they'll somehow claim it's OK if they do it but not for anybody else.
Making a former lobbyist for wireless and Cable the head of the FCC is a sign the FCC is entirely pointless.
Why, the insightful and informative discussions of topical issues we used to have, grounded in solid science and without bias.
LOL, ok, I can't even type that without laughing.
LOL ... does Monster make CAT-5?
Because I suspect there's an awful lot of those cables which are running a little warm if that's the case. ;-)
And politicians will be required to tell us if they're dishonest, and police officers to notify us when they're on the take.
I predict this will do nothing at all for the problem.
People will ignore it, or someone will set up a 'think tank' or something which pays people for some suitably abstract thing, while in reality paying them to shill on Wikipedia.
For ads, that was expected.
For inclusion in their own for-pay music streaming service unless you agree to their one-sided terms? Not so much.
There are now two classes of videos on YouTube -- things Google has figured out how to directly monetize (beyond ads), and things that Google hasn't yet figured out how to directly monetize.
But basically, anything in the latter category is just waiting until it joins the former, and you should have zero expectation they won't eventually do it to the rest of it.
Until they change their mind again.
At this point, why would you put any trust in Google that they won't create a subscription only CatTube exclusively for cat videos and demand the same thing? BabyTube? HowTube?
If Google are going to constantly change the ToS to prop up their revenue model, and force these changes on you ... you might as well assume now that Google will screw you in the end and stop providing them with content.
Because this amounts to "when we decide we're making money off it beyond ads, we're simply going to take it from you".
This amounts to "once we figure out how to monetize this, we'll own your stuff and you can't do anything about it unless you agree to the pittance we'll offer".
And what happens when soundcloud does the same thing?
There's a long history of companies getting their users to create their content, and then deciding they own the content.
The problem is that now Google has suddenly decided that a platform to post free videos, available to pretty much anybody, isn't the same when you are someone who has commercial interests.
And I wonder how, exactly, this is different from when companies put up their own videos. Is Google going to say "we want a cut of your product or we'll take down your video".
I see this as extortion, plain and simple. "Nice video, shame if something happened to it".
This just seems like they're selectively treating one class of videos as different from another, specifically in the case where they want to make money from it.
So what happens when I post a how-to video, and in a year or so Google decides they're going to charge for access to that really helpful video? If I don't agree to get paid 1 cent for every million views, they'll take down the video? Maybe they'll decide that by posting it they already own the video?
This is straight up appropriating the work of others for their own gain, and treating anything they stand to make money from as somehow different from all the rest of the videos.
YouTube is a free to anybody video site.
Google is now saying that anybody who has a song up on YouTube that Google would like to include in their (for pay) streaming services (at a crappy rate of compensation) will have it removed from YouTube unless the artist signs up for these terms.
So all of a sudden Google is strong-arming people and saying "we will remove you from YouTube unless you sign this one sided deal".
Do we conclude that the TOS for YouTube now means unless you sign the rights for Google to use your video for commercial gain, you can't have a video up? Or can we conclude that they're only applying this to musicians in order to force them to sign up?
If they're going to apply this uniformly, the video of your child dancing is now something they can use for their own profit. If we say "of course not, those are home videos" how can you claim it's any different? This is Google deciding that their other commercial interests are going to change how YouTube works.
What they're providing is a "free to anybody unless we get a DMCA takedown" video service which is being turned into "unless we want to make money from it, and then it isn't free unless it's on our terms".
I'd say this is well into the "Google have become assholes" end of things. In fact, I'd say Google is fast becoming evil assholes.
Unless they've been strong-arming everybody who puts up a video in the same way, they can't suddenly pretend like one class of videos is different from another.
I believe it actually improves the economy of Mexico, since that's where they're moving production.
You have to offset the sales with the lost jobs and everything else it used to put into the economy.
Sadly, this is what happened when France didn't want to join the coalition of the willing with Bush and he was in full-on screeching "you're either with us or you're against us".
A Canadian politician got into trouble for calling it the coalition of idiots.
But given what was actually accomplished in Iraq, one has to agree with these sentiments, and remember that Bush was doing it without any good basis.
No, it was butt-hurt Americans who were upset because people wouldn't blindly follow them into Iraq on flimsy evidence (which was subsequently proven to be false) and very sketchy reasoning.
It speaks more about the people who renamed it than anything.
Any business model which relies on a mass campaign to get 1-2% response rate is quite likely to be a lucrative business model.
All you need is a small percentage of people who will fall for this, and when you're sending out millions of messages, 1-2% is probably enough to pay pretty well.
Hell, I recently saw a couple of spam messages for Viagra slip through spam filters ... and anybody who actually buys Viagra from a random email is asking to get screwed, only not in the way they hope.
At my company, they do phishing/spam testing on a fairly regular basis. And it's astounding to me the number of people who actually fall for it. These people get sent for additional internet security training.
When my parents first went on-line, I told them in no uncertain terms to never trust anything unless they were damned sure it was from someone they knew and trusted. And, if there was any doubt, don't ever do anything unless you can directly call the company with a published number.
And they've told me on numerous occasions that advice has done well for them.
Sadly, lots of people still fall for this crap, but if it didn't pay, nobody would be going through the effort.
And don't get me started on the calls from the "Windows Service Provider" who want to do tech support for me. I've known a few people whose parents have fallen for that one.
Hmmm ... likely an entire hemisphere, so practically just around the corner.
I have never eaten 'freedom' fries. Pommes frites, bitches.
Same place they get the rest of their culture. Television.
Well, a more neutral way of saying that would be if they allocate that savings ... maybe they don't perceive it as a waste. ;-)
i just checked the back of my Cisco PVR.
And it says it's rated for 500W.
Why on earth would it even *need* to be rated that high?
Someone clearly expected at some point it might need to draw that much power, I just can't figure out why. That seems really really high to me.
*shudder* Oh, wow ... that stuff is just nasty.
Got completely disgusted by that over a decade ago. Couldn't possibly do it again.
I use it exclusively for work related stuff I have no choice but to use.
Because, sometimes, some wanker decides that I need to use some 3rd party Flash crap to do my annual review or for some training.
For everything else ... it's pretty much anything else except IE. IE has been in the category of "browsers I don't trust and only use when absolutely required" for a long time now, and I don't see that changing any time soon.
I certainly wouldn't use IE for day to day browsing.
And here I thought the Europeans had a much richer food history than to have actually ever ordered pizza from Domino's.
You're not that far from where pizza was invented, surely you can do better than that.
Only if you're stupid enough to not have turned off AutoRun -- one of the stupidest features from a security perspective Microsoft ever came up with.
Is there a demand for this?
If I want to play a console game, I'll use a console.
This sounds like a solution in search of a problem to me, not something anybody is going to care about.
And, of course, being a new Web API, it's probably safest to assume it will be a massive security hole. Because, let's face it, IE seems to be the most vulnerable browser around.
In its modern day form in America, it sure as hell is supposed to be about innovation.
Instead it's mostly about rent-seeking and making sure nobody can make anything without giving you a cut.
No, one of the main problems (especially for things like listeria) is poor cleaning standards for commercial food processing stuff.
Yes, there certainly are good bacteria which promote health ... but in some of these cases with listeria, the company hasn't been properly cleaning the insides of commercial machines.
Similarly, things show up in all sorts of places where they shouldn't because of agricultural practices or food companies ... if your lettuce is getting salmonella or e coli on it, it's not because it started out there, but got cross contaminated either in the field, in transit, or in the processing plants.
On an industrial scale, modern food processing is pretty gross.
Not quite.
A single shot of espresso is about 7g of coffee. A double is, therefore, about 14g.
So, really, it's a bargain at $133 per single shot of espresso. ;-)