Yes, you should check your comprehension, because concurrent sentences means served in parallel. Consecutive sentences means served serially.
But more interestingly is that sexual predators (I have no idea whether this guy fits that or not) more or less have a life sentence because after their prison time is up, they can get administrative detention forever if no one believes that they have reformed.
I get the feeling that there are some people who feel that posting on facebook is the same as maintaining a relationship. And if I was one of those people whose only contact with someone was via facebook updates, I'd not consider the relationship that important.
I've got a friend nearing the end of a difficult pregnancy and who is approaching labor, and Facebook is her husband's primary way of keeping friends and family updated as to her condition. That may not be important to you, but to a bunch of people scattered all across the world - it's important as hell. We care about our friends and family and staying in touch with them, in good times and bad.
I think there are some serious definitional problems here, or perhaps a new generation needs new definitions. But the reality is that for tens of thousands of years life has gone on. People have had all sorts of important events that are of great immediate concern to them, but for their family and friends those events are not of immediate concern. Now I know a bunch of people are going to say "who are you to say it's not of immediate concern." And my answer to that is that if you don't have an action to take that makes a difference, it's not of immediate concern, e.g. my sister being in the hospital in another city going through protracted labor doesn't mean that I don't go to work today. So yes, some things are important but not important to the effect that you have to be kept up to date minute by minute.
Perhaps it's just a maturity thing, I don't know, but another example might be something like having a strong emotional reaction to the winner of American Idol or the Super Bowl. Yes they're interesting, but in your life (unless you happen to be the winner of American Idol or the Super Bowl) they are of relative insignificance. Part of growing up, I think, is learning when and why to be emotionally invested.
(As far as facebook specifically, again people have dealt with this for thousands of years without being able to update their facebook status. If you can't tell the people who need to know without using a web browser or an app on your smart phone, then you probably aren't putting enough effort into identifying a solution to the problem.)
Well you quoted the relevant line yourself and I don't see the word nuclear. All I see is "specific plant." However the fact that it looks for specific things in specific devices could mean that it's looking for specific weaknesses that they authors of the worm know about. A specific weakness doesn't mean a specific target.
First, the headline here could easily be "We have no evidence the Stuxnet worm may have targeted Iranian reactor." The case for such targeting is entirely circumstantial and not very tight. All they have is event A happened on date 1, event B happened on date 2. They must be related.
Second, human beings on the ground can humbly and quietly get about doing their work without ever engaging in direct violent confrontation, but they can still are building nuclear weapons. There are some things that are dangerous and unacceptable regardless of how quiet the people engaged in the activity are.
Microsoft employs 40,000 people in the Puget Sound area. That's 1/3 of their global workforce. Considering that you need to put your sales people and professional services staff near the customers, it's pretty unrealistic to think that every employee should be at the head office.
The parent poster knows they were around in the 90s, having followed the work done with SunOS in the early nineties. Additionally, the parent poster is aware of Ken Thompson's "Trusting Trust" and other works regarding well hidden security concerns.
At no point did the parent poster express the idea that "they've only been around since the 90s." Learn to read before you pop off in a cute little fit of nerd rage. You'll seem less stupid.
A rootkit takes over the root of your OS and hides itself. It has nothing to do with user 'root' and everything to do with embedding itself so tightly that you can't even detect it. It replaces software in the / (root) filesystem, things like ps, ls, kernel modules, whatever is necessary.
That wikipedia page was written by someone who apparently wasn't there when these things started showing up in the wild. One clue is that rootkits were around in the 1990's and every bloody reference on that wiki page is from 2000+.
When I think, and I expect most people think, when I hear bluray has been cracked is that I can pull a bit-for-bit identical stream of the bluray disk that is in the drive, not just being able to record a copy.
A) When has bluray been cracked? I know that the HDCP master key is no longer a secret and I know that a few people have then said "bluray hsa been cracked", but those people are morons. HDCP is the encryption of the digital signal sent between a video generation circuit and a monitor/television/display. In theory you could build a small device that you hook to your bluray player and then capture a digital signal and reencode the uncompressed signal, but that's hardly a crack. It's just a reinvention of the analog hole. The fact that the HDCP master key is now known has zero relevance to bluray AACS/BD+ encryption..
B) Yes they do upgraded bluray encryption periodically. And the various tools that are used to copy said movies then need an upgrade. Happens pretty regular.
The game in question apparently is played with the DS in a horizontal mode (with the screens side by side rather than above and below.) Game elements come from the left and move to the right. You apparently use the stylus on the right side screen. If you are holding the stylus with your left hand and writing on the right side screen, then the left side screen is under your hand and you can't see what is coming. However also based on the description it doesn't seem like it would be all that difficult to just turn the damned 180 degrees clockwise or counter clockwise and play that way.
No, I said that free speech as guaranteed by the first amendment is to allow people to participate in the political discourse. Then I gave several examples of things that are not participation in said discourse that are not allowed and have have government enforced / supported consequences. The government providing a framework to have your assets seized isn't going to jail. And that's only one type of speech that isn't completely free of consequences. Why don't you address the others, seriously, make a credible threat on the president. Then come back and tell us how there are no consequences. Punk.
Didn't say you'd go to jail, said there are consequences. For example, everyone now knows you're an idiot because you think Obama is a muslim, or Obama could sue you for libel. Either one is a consequence. The first just normal social ostracism, the second a civil legal action. The fact that people get away with things doesn't mean that they aren't actionable.
In regards to the limits of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, please explain where I'm wrong. As regards the actual events that took place (or didn't take place), I have no facts -- only experience as to what is likely based on recent trends in social behaviors.
No, I'm saying that in my experience, people who do something stupid and get caught, most of the time unfortunately, do not step up and admit what they did. Rather they present what they believe are mitigating factors that will reduce the severity of the consequences ("I don't recall", "I didn't notice my speed", "I was drunk"). Ideally they'd recognize why there is an issue and grow from the experience.
The purpose of the fifth amendment isn't to allow people to get off, it's to prevent the government from beating confessions out of people. While it happens, the theory is that the judicial arm of the government will provide a check on the executive branch and this is one cast in stone rule that facilitates that.
First off, the constitution only protects US citizens. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..." doesn't apply to some dumbass British citizen who sends drunken expletive-filled diatribes to the president. For all we know, it had direct threats on him in it.
SCOTUS has held that the US Constitution does apply to non-citizens.
But other than that I agree with you. This kid has had an opportunity to learn about life. Hope he gets it.
Unless you are much much much older than I suspect (like hundreds of years old) you've never had consequence-free free speech. What the US Constitution provides is for the opportunity to participate in the political discourse without the government interfering. There are lots of things you cannot blithely say, you can't threaten to kill people (in particular the president of the us), you can't make false statements about people, you can't lie while under oath, etc.
Besides there's more to this than some kind sending a one liner saying "Hey Obama, you're a punk!" You can tell by the way he claims not to know what he wrote, kind of like you always tell the officer that you don't know why he pulled you over or how fast you were driving.
But did you build your OS via tapping bits onto the SATA bus with a paperclip? Otherwise you have no idea what your OS is putting in there. See Ken Thompson Reflections on Trusting Trust.
Patches and updates are what the publisher/developer has to do in order not to have to cough up the retail price for every unit sold due to the software being defective.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you should check your comprehension, because concurrent sentences means served in parallel. Consecutive sentences means served serially.
But more interestingly is that sexual predators (I have no idea whether this guy fits that or not) more or less have a life sentence because after their prison time is up, they can get administrative detention forever if no one believes that they have reformed.
I get the feeling that there are some people who feel that posting on facebook is the same as maintaining a relationship. And if I was one of those people whose only contact with someone was via facebook updates, I'd not consider the relationship that important.
I think there are some serious definitional problems here, or perhaps a new generation needs new definitions. But the reality is that for tens of thousands of years life has gone on. People have had all sorts of important events that are of great immediate concern to them, but for their family and friends those events are not of immediate concern. Now I know a bunch of people are going to say "who are you to say it's not of immediate concern." And my answer to that is that if you don't have an action to take that makes a difference, it's not of immediate concern, e.g. my sister being in the hospital in another city going through protracted labor doesn't mean that I don't go to work today. So yes, some things are important but not important to the effect that you have to be kept up to date minute by minute.
Perhaps it's just a maturity thing, I don't know, but another example might be something like having a strong emotional reaction to the winner of American Idol or the Super Bowl. Yes they're interesting, but in your life (unless you happen to be the winner of American Idol or the Super Bowl) they are of relative insignificance. Part of growing up, I think, is learning when and why to be emotionally invested.
(As far as facebook specifically, again people have dealt with this for thousands of years without being able to update their facebook status. If you can't tell the people who need to know without using a web browser or an app on your smart phone, then you probably aren't putting enough effort into identifying a solution to the problem.)
That's called stalking. You should stop.
Well you quoted the relevant line yourself and I don't see the word nuclear. All I see is "specific plant." However the fact that it looks for specific things in specific devices could mean that it's looking for specific weaknesses that they authors of the worm know about. A specific weakness doesn't mean a specific target.
First, the headline here could easily be "We have no evidence the Stuxnet worm may have targeted Iranian reactor." The case for such targeting is entirely circumstantial and not very tight. All they have is event A happened on date 1, event B happened on date 2. They must be related.
Second, human beings on the ground can humbly and quietly get about doing their work without ever engaging in direct violent confrontation, but they can still are building nuclear weapons. There are some things that are dangerous and unacceptable regardless of how quiet the people engaged in the activity are.
Microsoft employs 40,000 people in the Puget Sound area. That's 1/3 of their global workforce. Considering that you need to put your sales people and professional services staff near the customers, it's pretty unrealistic to think that every employee should be at the head office.
The parent poster knows they were around in the 90s, having followed the work done with SunOS in the early nineties. Additionally, the parent poster is aware of Ken Thompson's "Trusting Trust" and other works regarding well hidden security concerns.
At no point did the parent poster express the idea that "they've only been around since the 90s." Learn to read before you pop off in a cute little fit of nerd rage. You'll seem less stupid.
They're only human, no need to call them tools.
A rootkit takes over the root of your OS and hides itself. It has nothing to do with user 'root' and everything to do with embedding itself so tightly that you can't even detect it. It replaces software in the / (root) filesystem, things like ps, ls, kernel modules, whatever is necessary.
That wikipedia page was written by someone who apparently wasn't there when these things started showing up in the wild. One clue is that rootkits were around in the 1990's and every bloody reference on that wiki page is from 2000+.
That's interesting, please expand.
When I think, and I expect most people think, when I hear bluray has been cracked is that I can pull a bit-for-bit identical stream of the bluray disk that is in the drive, not just being able to record a copy.
A) When has bluray been cracked? I know that the HDCP master key is no longer a secret and I know that a few people have then said "bluray hsa been cracked", but those people are morons. HDCP is the encryption of the digital signal sent between a video generation circuit and a monitor/television/display. In theory you could build a small device that you hook to your bluray player and then capture a digital signal and reencode the uncompressed signal, but that's hardly a crack. It's just a reinvention of the analog hole. The fact that the HDCP master key is now known has zero relevance to bluray AACS/BD+ encryption..
B) Yes they do upgraded bluray encryption periodically. And the various tools that are used to copy said movies then need an upgrade. Happens pretty regular.
b) They didn't catch him. The parents of the victims reported him.
Right ... because you've never sent or received an email with your name or home address in it.
A) I guess you'd agree then that the gulf oil spill wasn't the fault of BP, but rather an BP employee's fault.
B) They have a privacy policy! Their internal infrastructure should be built to support that privacy policy.
The game in question apparently is played with the DS in a horizontal mode (with the screens side by side rather than above and below.) Game elements come from the left and move to the right. You apparently use the stylus on the right side screen. If you are holding the stylus with your left hand and writing on the right side screen, then the left side screen is under your hand and you can't see what is coming. However also based on the description it doesn't seem like it would be all that difficult to just turn the damned 180 degrees clockwise or counter clockwise and play that way.
No, I said that free speech as guaranteed by the first amendment is to allow people to participate in the political discourse. Then I gave several examples of things that are not participation in said discourse that are not allowed and have have government enforced / supported consequences. The government providing a framework to have your assets seized isn't going to jail. And that's only one type of speech that isn't completely free of consequences. Why don't you address the others, seriously, make a credible threat on the president. Then come back and tell us how there are no consequences. Punk.
Didn't say you'd go to jail, said there are consequences. For example, everyone now knows you're an idiot because you think Obama is a muslim, or Obama could sue you for libel. Either one is a consequence. The first just normal social ostracism, the second a civil legal action. The fact that people get away with things doesn't mean that they aren't actionable.
In regards to the limits of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, please explain where I'm wrong. As regards the actual events that took place (or didn't take place), I have no facts -- only experience as to what is likely based on recent trends in social behaviors.
No, I'm saying that in my experience, people who do something stupid and get caught, most of the time unfortunately, do not step up and admit what they did. Rather they present what they believe are mitigating factors that will reduce the severity of the consequences ("I don't recall", "I didn't notice my speed", "I was drunk"). Ideally they'd recognize why there is an issue and grow from the experience.
The purpose of the fifth amendment isn't to allow people to get off, it's to prevent the government from beating confessions out of people. While it happens, the theory is that the judicial arm of the government will provide a check on the executive branch and this is one cast in stone rule that facilitates that.
SCOTUS has held that the US Constitution does apply to non-citizens.
But other than that I agree with you. This kid has had an opportunity to learn about life. Hope he gets it.
Unless you are much much much older than I suspect (like hundreds of years old) you've never had consequence-free free speech. What the US Constitution provides is for the opportunity to participate in the political discourse without the government interfering. There are lots of things you cannot blithely say, you can't threaten to kill people (in particular the president of the us), you can't make false statements about people, you can't lie while under oath, etc.
Besides there's more to this than some kind sending a one liner saying "Hey Obama, you're a punk!" You can tell by the way he claims not to know what he wrote, kind of like you always tell the officer that you don't know why he pulled you over or how fast you were driving.
But did you build your OS via tapping bits onto the SATA bus with a paperclip? Otherwise you have no idea what your OS is putting in there. See Ken Thompson Reflections on Trusting Trust.
Patches and updates are what the publisher/developer has to do in order not to have to cough up the retail price for every unit sold due to the software being defective.