It was the Ada Initiative that initiated the issue. For them to say they were approached leaves out their initial email saying they were willing to discuss the "problem."
Always Perky Titties. The thing is the nerds in IT are easily distracted by some nice sweater stretchers which enables the bad guys to have their way with the servers while the boobs are bouncing around.
There's a difference between saying "No, your idea is bad and we're not going to use it." and "You stupid cunt faggot fuckhead asssucking peniswrinkle fuckwit douchedrinking cockswallowing fudgepacking saladtossing whore!" And it's not on the part of the person making the bad suggestion. It's entirely upon the immature and childish speaker.
Any one who thinks being a manager/supervisor/directory means you have to be abusive is only proving that they are unsuited for the job they have.
It's better because every time you log into some sit Google will know about it. How is this not better?
(I swear to god they must have a standard policy that everyone who works for the company needs to figure out additional ways to get Eric's cock into more assholes.)
The fuck would have been in the part of the email that they didn't quote. The part in the summary is from further down. Maybe you could try being informed before you have a tizzy fit about how mature we all are.
Your client must have no information about your server's self-signed certificate,
Of course. My client will know nothing about the server's certificate, it'll know about my CA.
and must accept all self-signed certificates as equally valid.
Um, did you just go full-retard? I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to do that. This statement is like someone saying they've invented a truly bulletproof vest and they're willing to test it with any gun and you respond by saying, "Oh, ok. But first you have to take off the vest."
You've now posted several times that self signed certs are useless and provide no security, in fact they lower security (from what baseline I must ask?)
So I would make a little bet with you. I will put up $100,000, my testicles in a jar with a small plaque saying "These balls once belonged to a fool." You will put up $10,000 plus any required travel expenses to carry out the wager. The terms of the wager are that I will provide a client and a server system. The server will have a self signed certificate. You will provide the networking equipment of your choice as well as any device(s) you so desire to place in between my client and server. I will make an SSL connection from my client to my server. Your job is to MITM the connection without my being able to detect said MITMing. Note that I am allowing you to build the entire network connecting my two devices, only requirement being that it be standard ethernet. Additionally you do not get to tamper with my equipment, this is about the security of self signed certificates, not whether you can literally or metaphorically crowbar open my systems and install a keylogger to capture the passphrase of my private SSL keys.
How about it? You game? I can always use an extra $10,000.
You said you were re-ripping, right? So why didn't your submit your corrected title and track information back to the databases? Seems like if you'd been a team player everything would be there ready for you to use.
Second, why don't you just write a script that grabs the track and duration and other identifying information from a newly inserted CD and then use that to locate the same piece of media from your previous rip and just move the meta-data from there?
Third, if you actually were in a hurry you'd be using every optical drive you could lay your hands on and be ripping four or five discs at a time.
It does if you'd bother to look at the fingerprint and verify it's the same as last time. Which the browsers should do, but they don't because it cuts into their CA root key inclusion fees.
The number of posts calling the president racists terms probably is 100 times more than any of those other folks.
Citation or retraction please.
A google search turned up this quote:
This reporter searched Twitter with several specialized Twitter search engines using the keywords “Romney,” “Obama,” “kill,” “shoot,” “riot” and other terms to denote violence, and found scores of original Tweets and re-Tweets advocating violent behavior against both the President and Romney. Many more of the Tweets, though, were, in fact, directed against Romney.
And these pages -- don't even bother reading the articles just scroll down through the tweets:
While these are specifically about threats against Romney, it certainly doesn't suggest a dearth of such threats. Hell searching for "twitter threats obama" turns up page after page of threats against Romney with the occasional link to something against Obama.
The controversy around Obama's church are related to a specific church in a specific city and a specific pastor. If you are claiming participation in that specific church and pastor, then I call bullshit on your statement. Jeremiah Wright has a long and documented history. You can go on youtube and hear him spout antisemitic remarks and other irrationalities.
Barack Obama is a fucking nigger! Mia Love is a fucking nigger! I'm glad that cracker Romney didn't get elected. Was offline for a few and now I'm back, glad to see my president is still black.
If the only one you call out is "Barack Obama is a fucking nigger!" then you have an agenda of criticizing your political opponents, not of speaking against racism. The fact that the statement is racist doesn't change that.
...it's on the government to make sure their contracts properly spell out their requirements.
If an agency is going to use a service provider of any kind and they have special requirements, those requirements need to be put in the RFP and the government employees need to make sure that the contracts they are accepting actually meet those requirements. There's no constitutional basis for the government to say that because they are using "lots" of private providers, those providers are now de facto government agencies in their own right and under the control of government workers and bureaucrats. Government employees and politicians don't get to do a shitty job and fix it by seizing private property.
One's free speech rights do not entitle one to a printing press, or blog platform. If I was running a blog host I have every right in the world to impose any conditions I so desire upon the use of that host. If you want to exercise your rights to the maximum it is upon you to buy your own equipment with which to broadcast your speech.
While the internet had its roots in DARPA, the reality is that the "public infrastructure" is privately owned. Critical government systems should not be on it. Critical privately owned and operated services (power, telecom, etc.) should be hardened to the extent that the provider desires or the contracts that they signed with various municipalities require.
I've worked contract gigs with the armed services and I have a lot of respect for the technical skills they have, but that's irrelevant. Companies and businesses should be able to make their own decisions and benefit from their good decision making or suffer from their poor decision making. Anywhere that government intersects with private industry, it's on the government to make sure their contracts properly spell out their requirements. End of story.
Depends on if your goal is theoretical economic efficiency or robustness. Consider for example 9/11, the banking crisis, and hurricane Sandy. The country would be better off if there were fewer centralized institutions. That is, there is no reason that brokers and traders based outside of the US North East to not have been able to trade during Sandy. Shutting down the exchange merely ensured that the NY based bankers didn't miss out on days of trading. If there were more medium-large banks rather than fewer enormous banks, then individual institutions would cause less of a shock to the system when they get caught in their own poor decision making and fail. Not to mention the rest of the country wouldn't be playing a heads they win, tails we lose situation of having to bail out the risk-prone banks. And if more of our financial institutions were spread around the country, there would be less possibility for substantial damage caused by direct terror attacks.
An additional effect of having more medium sized institutions scattered around the country is that it allows for economic development to occur in multiple states and also provides more laboratories for innovation. There is a point where big is big enough and it better serves the interests of the populace to start branching out. Even if it is less "efficient."
TLDR: it's easier to kill all the elephants on the Serengeti than all the ants.
Maybe you should go read the ruling, it's conveniently linked from Apple's website. But to save you the trouble, here is the link to the ruling of the Court of Appeal:
What do you know, Apple is in complete compliance.
What's more if you read paragraph 82 you'll note that the Court of Appeal didn't even have a problem with the quotes ("not as cool", etc.) being included. It was their inclusion of the ruling from the German courts that the Court of Appeal felt was confusing. Oh, and in paragraph 86 the judge reduced the amount of time that they have to maintain the statement.
Looks to me like Apple is complying and the Court of Appeal isn't too fussed in general.
Slashdot Mirror
According to this link:
http://www.securitybsides.com/w/page/35868077/BSidesSanFrancisco
It was the Ada Initiative that initiated the issue. For them to say they were approached leaves out their initial email saying they were willing to discuss the "problem."
Always Perky Titties. The thing is the nerds in IT are easily distracted by some nice sweater stretchers which enables the bad guys to have their way with the servers while the boobs are bouncing around.
There's a difference between saying "No, your idea is bad and we're not going to use it." and "You stupid cunt faggot fuckhead asssucking peniswrinkle fuckwit douchedrinking cockswallowing fudgepacking saladtossing whore!" And it's not on the part of the person making the bad suggestion. It's entirely upon the immature and childish speaker.
Any one who thinks being a manager/supervisor/directory means you have to be abusive is only proving that they are unsuited for the job they have.
Not some new kind of child porn as you're hoping (j/k), but low orbit ion cannon. Aka, Anomalous' Mighty Weapon! Of ASS! DeSTRUCTION!!!!
It's better because every time you log into some sit Google will know about it. How is this not better?
(I swear to god they must have a standard policy that everyone who works for the company needs to figure out additional ways to get Eric's cock into more assholes.)
However the "to fourth power" is exponential -- almost the definition of exponential. Which was my point.
Uhhhh, what?
The fuck would have been in the part of the email that they didn't quote. The part in the summary is from further down. Maybe you could try being informed before you have a tizzy fit about how mature we all are.
So explain this.
(Hint: who signed that certificate?)
Of course. My client will know nothing about the server's certificate, it'll know about my CA.
Um, did you just go full-retard? I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to do that. This statement is like someone saying they've invented a truly bulletproof vest and they're willing to test it with any gun and you respond by saying, "Oh, ok. But first you have to take off the vest."
You've now posted several times that self signed certs are useless and provide no security, in fact they lower security (from what baseline I must ask?)
So I would make a little bet with you. I will put up $100,000, my testicles in a jar with a small plaque saying "These balls once belonged to a fool." You will put up $10,000 plus any required travel expenses to carry out the wager. The terms of the wager are that I will provide a client and a server system. The server will have a self signed certificate. You will provide the networking equipment of your choice as well as any device(s) you so desire to place in between my client and server. I will make an SSL connection from my client to my server. Your job is to MITM the connection without my being able to detect said MITMing. Note that I am allowing you to build the entire network connecting my two devices, only requirement being that it be standard ethernet. Additionally you do not get to tamper with my equipment, this is about the security of self signed certificates, not whether you can literally or metaphorically crowbar open my systems and install a keylogger to capture the passphrase of my private SSL keys.
How about it? You game? I can always use an extra $10,000.
You said you were re-ripping, right? So why didn't your submit your corrected title and track information back to the databases? Seems like if you'd been a team player everything would be there ready for you to use.
Second, why don't you just write a script that grabs the track and duration and other identifying information from a newly inserted CD and then use that to locate the same piece of media from your previous rip and just move the meta-data from there?
Third, if you actually were in a hurry you'd be using every optical drive you could lay your hands on and be ripping four or five discs at a time.
No you can't. The i7 has an integrated memory controller and it's DDR3.
It does if you'd bother to look at the fingerprint and verify it's the same as last time. Which the browsers should do, but they don't because it cuts into their CA root key inclusion fees.
Citation or retraction please.
A google search turned up this quote:
And these pages -- don't even bother reading the articles just scroll down through the tweets:
http://twitchy.com/2012/10/14/death-threats-against-mitt-romney-proliferate/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-supporters-continue-threats-to-riot-assassinate-romney.html
http://www.infowars.com/threats-to-assassinate-romney-explode-after-debate/
While these are specifically about threats against Romney, it certainly doesn't suggest a dearth of such threats. Hell searching for "twitter threats obama" turns up page after page of threats against Romney with the occasional link to something against Obama.
The controversy around Obama's church are related to a specific church in a specific city and a specific pastor. If you are claiming participation in that specific church and pastor, then I call bullshit on your statement. Jeremiah Wright has a long and documented history. You can go on youtube and hear him spout antisemitic remarks and other irrationalities.
Say you have a collection of statements:
Barack Obama is a fucking nigger!
Mia Love is a fucking nigger!
I'm glad that cracker Romney didn't get elected.
Was offline for a few and now I'm back, glad to see my president is still black.
If the only one you call out is "Barack Obama is a fucking nigger!" then you have an agenda of criticizing your political opponents, not of speaking against racism. The fact that the statement is racist doesn't change that.
You apparently missed the bit where I said:
If an agency is going to use a service provider of any kind and they have special requirements, those requirements need to be put in the RFP and the government employees need to make sure that the contracts they are accepting actually meet those requirements. There's no constitutional basis for the government to say that because they are using "lots" of private providers, those providers are now de facto government agencies in their own right and under the control of government workers and bureaucrats. Government employees and politicians don't get to do a shitty job and fix it by seizing private property.
One's free speech rights do not entitle one to a printing press, or blog platform. If I was running a blog host I have every right in the world to impose any conditions I so desire upon the use of that host. If you want to exercise your rights to the maximum it is upon you to buy your own equipment with which to broadcast your speech.
While the internet had its roots in DARPA, the reality is that the "public infrastructure" is privately owned. Critical government systems should not be on it. Critical privately owned and operated services (power, telecom, etc.) should be hardened to the extent that the provider desires or the contracts that they signed with various municipalities require.
I've worked contract gigs with the armed services and I have a lot of respect for the technical skills they have, but that's irrelevant. Companies and businesses should be able to make their own decisions and benefit from their good decision making or suffer from their poor decision making. Anywhere that government intersects with private industry, it's on the government to make sure their contracts properly spell out their requirements. End of story.
And chemical weapons and actually have a habit of sending their young men to military service.
Depends on if your goal is theoretical economic efficiency or robustness. Consider for example 9/11, the banking crisis, and hurricane Sandy. The country would be better off if there were fewer centralized institutions. That is, there is no reason that brokers and traders based outside of the US North East to not have been able to trade during Sandy. Shutting down the exchange merely ensured that the NY based bankers didn't miss out on days of trading. If there were more medium-large banks rather than fewer enormous banks, then individual institutions would cause less of a shock to the system when they get caught in their own poor decision making and fail. Not to mention the rest of the country wouldn't be playing a heads they win, tails we lose situation of having to bail out the risk-prone banks. And if more of our financial institutions were spread around the country, there would be less possibility for substantial damage caused by direct terror attacks.
An additional effect of having more medium sized institutions scattered around the country is that it allows for economic development to occur in multiple states and also provides more laboratories for innovation. There is a point where big is big enough and it better serves the interests of the populace to start branching out. Even if it is less "efficient."
TLDR: it's easier to kill all the elephants on the Serengeti than all the ants.
It's almost like they're writing the Linux kernel.
Maybe you should go read the ruling, it's conveniently linked from Apple's website. But to save you the trouble, here is the link to the ruling of the Court of Appeal:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html
Go read paragraph 85. I'll wait.
What do you know, Apple is in complete compliance.
What's more if you read paragraph 82 you'll note that the Court of Appeal didn't even have a problem with the quotes ("not as cool", etc.) being included. It was their inclusion of the ruling from the German courts that the Court of Appeal felt was confusing. Oh, and in paragraph 86 the judge reduced the amount of time that they have to maintain the statement.
Looks to me like Apple is complying and the Court of Appeal isn't too fussed in general.
They have to take an ad out in the papers. I don't think they give a fuck about the "Streisand effect."