People were first presented with a question asking if they were over 13. If the users clicked yes, they proceeded to the registration page. The registration page included fields for birthdays. People who had lied on the first part could then enter their age. The form did not automatically reject users whose birthdates were not at least 13 years prior. In this case it looks like (IANAL) Xanda DID comply with the law. The FTC seems to be punishing them for making it "too easy" to get around it. This is where I have a problem. Where does it end? The FTC could just as easily say requiring a CC (to verify age) is too easy because they could borrow someone else's. There doesn't seem to be a hard line for where reasonable precautions start and end.
"According to the Federal Trade Commission, children who wanted to open a Xanga account didn't even have to show that level of ingenuity. Children merely had to check a box confirming they were over 13, according to FTC lawyer Mary Engle -- even if they'd previously entered a birth date indicating they were under 13. "
Sure, not kids can just as easily lie like they do on myspace and put a different birth year.
The problem is not that 50 people know your SSN. The issue is that companies still act as if it is a secret identifying number. To a company, if you know a name, address, and SSN, you must be that person. It is simply assumed.
The perfect example of this is the HP 2600N COLOR laser printer.
The cost is $300-350 for the printer. With the cost of one black ($75) and three color ($83/each), replacing everything would run $325. If that is the case, it is cheaper to buy a whole new printer.
Then again, the design of the 2600N (and presumably the 1600) is a bit strange and has some negative quirks.
"Schools are not blocking access to myspace because of excessive network usage, even if that's what they claim. They block it because myspace is a forum for sexual predators, substance abuse glorification, and cyber-bullying. I'm all for free speech, but there is a simple fact that the frontal cortex of a 14 year-old is not yet developed enough to question whether the guy who tells her her profile picture is "f-ing hot" has any other motives."
While I will grant you that SOME schools (especially those at lower grade levels), many are not doing it for that reason. The excuse doesn't work at the college (or realistically, at the high school level).
I can't help but question the approach used by many schools in regards to blocking social sites. The primary reason for the blocking of these sites seems to be that they utilize excessive network resources (oftentimes this is under the guise of them being inappropriate). I compare this to a town realizing "all of a sudden" that the traffic on the roads is more than they can handle. The fact is that many schools have been skating by on the bare minimum amount of bandwidth (it seems to the the norm that a school started leasing a T1 5-10 years ago and have not upgraded). Even a small increase in use strains the network. So the question is, where does it stop? By the logic being used, all IM and web traffic should be blocked as well because it strains the network.
This is not a YRO issue. Every soldier knows that they are not allowed to provide information to the "enemy." Sure, it would be great if we could release videos of everything we did, but we dimply can't. There is a very good chance that someone will see it that could use it against other soldiers. Say for instance you send a video showing you introducing the viewers (initially family and friends) to your life at a base in Iraq. During the video you walk around the entire base describing what each building is. Innocent? Sure. Is it a good idea? Hell no. Realistically, there is no way to completely keep information from falling into enemy hands, but we can make sure that it isn't widely available.
It depends on what you are trying to accomplish. The US has basically three ways it can deliver nuclear weapons.
1) By air To be able to reliably deliver nuclear weapons quickly anywhere in the world, there have to be enough at each base that might need then. That right there is probably a few thousand.
2) By sea Any ships/submarines have to have the weapons on board in order to deliver them to a target.
3) ICBM Again, you need enough to be able to deliver them to the target (and you must also plan on losing most of them to interception).
Let's play some games with the number of 6000. Hypothetically, there might be 1000 stored as ICBMs, 2,500 for aircraft delivery and another 2,500 for sea delivery. Now, there are probably a good half dozen different yields that are used. So that means that if you want to hit a target, you would only have 1,000 of the correct yield. Then you get into having to know what options are available (is aircraft delivery feasable?) and what the target is (a single city or a large country). Sure, 6,000 is a lot of nukes, but for the only superpower left, it is reasonable.
First off, you can not entirely avoid a dishonest host. Second, your vulnerability depends on the type of service you are looking for.
Dedicated: If you want to be the safest with a dedicated server, order from one of the providers such as EV1 and TP. You are less likely to be screwed. The downside to this is higher cost and less personalized service. The large companies have their problems, but them disappearing generally is not one of them.
Shared: No matter what, there is a good chance you will get screwed. It is simply the nature of the industry. There are thousands upon thousands of hosts out there. Before purchasing service, check for comments on the company at WHT (webhostingtalk.com). That will give you an idea of the hosts popularity (based on the number of complaints) and the level of service (based on the types of complaints). Most threads relating to companies are negative (a happy customer has no reason to post). More importantly, take a look at what you are getting. If the host is offering unlimited bandwidth or disk space, stay away. Every host out there counts on you using only a fraction of the resources allocated to you. If you are paying $20 month, do not expect to host a website getting thousands of visitors per day. Simply put, you get what you pay for.
More important than anything else, keep backups. If you don't have a backup from the previous 48 hours, it is your own fault.
"A government representative commented that they 'hope that this video will put to rest the conspiracy theories.'"
It doesn't matter. The government can't win. There are two possible scenerios for releasing the tape:
1) They release it immediately after the attack. People claim that there is no way they could release the tape that quick so it must have been fabricated beforehand.
2) They release it well after the attack. People claim they had enough time to fabricate the tape.
From what I can tell, TFA is saying that because much of Windows has been rewritten (including logon and authentication), it is going to be a pita to adapt existing software. No frigging kidding. Doesn't this happen with every major update? If so, why is Slashdot even reporting this? It is something that is normal.
"If you scan through the PC reviews, on this and any other site, you will notice an overabundance of games that lost points or otherwise hampered their players' experience by being unpolished, full of bugs, and sometimes downright annoying to play."
That is precisely what I am NOT seeing. One if the biggest problems with reviews is that the reviewer rarely depends on the product (or even pretends to). For instance, take a new car review. The reviewer might mention (this happened in a long term study in a major car magazine recently) that they had to have it in the shop on average once every three weeks for eight months. For those of us in the real world, being without our vehicle for at LEAST 2-3 hours (often 2-3 days) every month would cause major problems. For them, it is a minor issue because they are not dependant on the product.
The same applies to gaming. If I purchase a product and it won't work correctly out of the box on my system (most recent example: galciv2), I can't play it. This is because I have one decent gaming system. Sure, for those out there that have more than one gaming system it is a minor inconvenience, but for the other 99%... Reviewers constantly ignore this. If they have that issue they simply use another review system and note it in the review. The game may lose 2/10 points for that. Unfortunately, saying a game is say 7/10 including that issue does not reveal the actual rating of the product, because many people will be unable to use it, making it a 0/10.
The response to this is often "just wait for a patch." Fantastic. I paid $50 for a game that by the time it is playable for me the retail price has dropped to $40 and I am just then getting to play. Can I take it back? Nope, not under current laws. Does the consumer get screwed? Yep.
Again, this is a different situation. First, it is a bit of a moral issue. TV stations get paid based on the number of viewers. There is no direct correlation between viewers and leads/purchases. With net advertising, it is generally either based on number of clicks, sales, or impressions. The first two require that people view and click/buy. The third is the only one close to being the same as TV advertising.
TV is a different situation. With TV the station get's paid to run the ad. With online services, it is tracked on a click basis (or number of impressions). This means that people not viewing the ad has a much greater impact.
I think any of us that work on computer systems long ago figured out that the rebuilding of a system is far easier than trying to remove each piece of malware. Now, in cases where there is critical data on the machine then it would be worth it to try. The fact is, but the time we hear about the issue, it isn't a matter of removing one or two pieces, it is usually closer to 20 or 30.
Pre-rending/simulated screens are everywhere in ads shown in the US. Take a look at the text at the bottom of the next TV/game/cell phone ad (which you will probably need a 32" tv to read). It is very rare anymore to see actual screen images.
1) If you have good software that will handle the students screwing around (such as DeepFreeze or whatever).
2) Expect vandalism of the computers. All cases should be locked. All equipment rooms should be locked.
3) In general, the faculty has not a clue how to use a computer. They actually tend to be less teachable than the average person. If you have 50 faculty, 2 might be knowledgeable (as in, enough to build computers and such), 5 will not have to contact you about anything as they can fix it, and the rest will be nightmares.
A company of that size does not NEED to use black hat techniques. Google's algorythms are good enough that a company of that size is almost always the top search (the only time I have not seen that is when there were two large companies with similar names). Using these techniques make it easier, but they are not needed.
Also note, it does set an example. They are not going after *just* bmw.de.
Slashdot Mirror
From the article, the following happened:
People were first presented with a question asking if they were over 13. If the users clicked yes, they proceeded to the registration page. The registration page included fields for birthdays. People who had lied on the first part could then enter their age. The form did not automatically reject users whose birthdates were not at least 13 years prior. In this case it looks like (IANAL) Xanda DID comply with the law. The FTC seems to be punishing them for making it "too easy" to get around it. This is where I have a problem. Where does it end? The FTC could just as easily say requiring a CC (to verify age) is too easy because they could borrow someone else's. There doesn't seem to be a hard line for where reasonable precautions start and end.
"According to the Federal Trade Commission, children who wanted to open a Xanga account didn't even have to show that level of ingenuity. Children merely had to check a box confirming they were over 13, according to FTC lawyer Mary Engle -- even if they'd previously entered a birth date indicating they were under 13. "
Sure, not kids can just as easily lie like they do on myspace and put a different birth year.
The problem is not that 50 people know your SSN. The issue is that companies still act as if it is a secret identifying number. To a company, if you know a name, address, and SSN, you must be that person. It is simply assumed.
The perfect example of this is the HP 2600N COLOR laser printer.
The cost is $300-350 for the printer. With the cost of one black ($75) and three color ($83/each), replacing everything would run $325. If that is the case, it is cheaper to buy a whole new printer.
Then again, the design of the 2600N (and presumably the 1600) is a bit strange and has some negative quirks.
"Schools are not blocking access to myspace because of excessive network usage, even if that's what they claim. They block it because myspace is a forum for sexual predators, substance abuse glorification, and cyber-bullying. I'm all for free speech, but there is a simple fact that the frontal cortex of a 14 year-old is not yet developed enough to question whether the guy who tells her her profile picture is "f-ing hot" has any other motives."
While I will grant you that SOME schools (especially those at lower grade levels), many are not doing it for that reason. The excuse doesn't work at the college (or realistically, at the high school level).
I can't help but question the approach used by many schools in regards to blocking social sites. The primary reason for the blocking of these sites seems to be that they utilize excessive network resources (oftentimes this is under the guise of them being inappropriate). I compare this to a town realizing "all of a sudden" that the traffic on the roads is more than they can handle. The fact is that many schools have been skating by on the bare minimum amount of bandwidth (it seems to the the norm that a school started leasing a T1 5-10 years ago and have not upgraded). Even a small increase in use strains the network. So the question is, where does it stop? By the logic being used, all IM and web traffic should be blocked as well because it strains the network.
This is not a YRO issue. Every soldier knows that they are not allowed to provide information to the "enemy." Sure, it would be great if we could release videos of everything we did, but we dimply can't. There is a very good chance that someone will see it that could use it against other soldiers. Say for instance you send a video showing you introducing the viewers (initially family and friends) to your life at a base in Iraq. During the video you walk around the entire base describing what each building is. Innocent? Sure. Is it a good idea? Hell no. Realistically, there is no way to completely keep information from falling into enemy hands, but we can make sure that it isn't widely available.
Duh? When US based companies release a new (virtual) product, they usually test it in a single market first.
"If you don't want someone to use it then you have to keep the radio waves out of his property."
This has been proven false in court. Even though say Dish Network signals are being broadcast into my home, it is illiegal for me to tap into them.
Wouldn't the lack of action by the bar association for Thompson's actions in the past three years indicate that the bar association does not care?
It depends on what you are trying to accomplish. The US has basically three ways it can deliver nuclear weapons.
1) By air
To be able to reliably deliver nuclear weapons quickly anywhere in the world, there have to be enough at each base that might need then. That right there is probably a few thousand.
2) By sea
Any ships/submarines have to have the weapons on board in order to deliver them to a target.
3) ICBM
Again, you need enough to be able to deliver them to the target (and you must also plan on losing most of them to interception).
Let's play some games with the number of 6000. Hypothetically, there might be 1000 stored as ICBMs, 2,500 for aircraft delivery and another 2,500 for sea delivery. Now, there are probably a good half dozen different yields that are used. So that means that if you want to hit a target, you would only have 1,000 of the correct yield. Then you get into having to know what options are available (is aircraft delivery feasable?) and what the target is (a single city or a large country). Sure, 6,000 is a lot of nukes, but for the only superpower left, it is reasonable.
First off, you can not entirely avoid a dishonest host. Second, your vulnerability depends on the type of service you are looking for.
Dedicated:
If you want to be the safest with a dedicated server, order from one of the providers such as EV1 and TP. You are less likely to be screwed. The downside to this is higher cost and less personalized service. The large companies have their problems, but them disappearing generally is not one of them.
Shared:
No matter what, there is a good chance you will get screwed. It is simply the nature of the industry. There are thousands upon thousands of hosts out there. Before purchasing service, check for comments on the company at WHT (webhostingtalk.com). That will give you an idea of the hosts popularity (based on the number of complaints) and the level of service (based on the types of complaints). Most threads relating to companies are negative (a happy customer has no reason to post). More importantly, take a look at what you are getting. If the host is offering unlimited bandwidth or disk space, stay away. Every host out there counts on you using only a fraction of the resources allocated to you. If you are paying $20 month, do not expect to host a website getting thousands of visitors per day. Simply put, you get what you pay for.
More important than anything else, keep backups. If you don't have a backup from the previous 48 hours, it is your own fault.
I'm just going by what a bunch of conspiracy nuts have said about other incidents. Sure, it makes no sense to me, but that is still the argument.
"A government representative commented that they 'hope that this video will put to rest the conspiracy theories.'"
It doesn't matter. The government can't win. There are two possible scenerios for releasing the tape:
1) They release it immediately after the attack. People claim that there is no way they could release the tape that quick so it must have been fabricated beforehand.
2) They release it well after the attack. People claim they had enough time to fabricate the tape.
It's a no-win situation.
From what I can tell, TFA is saying that because much of Windows has been rewritten (including logon and authentication), it is going to be a pita to adapt existing software. No frigging kidding. Doesn't this happen with every major update? If so, why is Slashdot even reporting this? It is something that is normal.
"If you scan through the PC reviews, on this and any other site, you will notice an overabundance of games that lost points or otherwise hampered their players' experience by being unpolished, full of bugs, and sometimes downright annoying to play."
That is precisely what I am NOT seeing. One if the biggest problems with reviews is that the reviewer rarely depends on the product (or even pretends to). For instance, take a new car review. The reviewer might mention (this happened in a long term study in a major car magazine recently) that they had to have it in the shop on average once every three weeks for eight months. For those of us in the real world, being without our vehicle for at LEAST 2-3 hours (often 2-3 days) every month would cause major problems. For them, it is a minor issue because they are not dependant on the product.
The same applies to gaming. If I purchase a product and it won't work correctly out of the box on my system (most recent example: galciv2), I can't play it. This is because I have one decent gaming system. Sure, for those out there that have more than one gaming system it is a minor inconvenience, but for the other 99%... Reviewers constantly ignore this. If they have that issue they simply use another review system and note it in the review. The game may lose 2/10 points for that. Unfortunately, saying a game is say 7/10 including that issue does not reveal the actual rating of the product, because many people will be unable to use it, making it a 0/10.
The response to this is often "just wait for a patch." Fantastic. I paid $50 for a game that by the time it is playable for me the retail price has dropped to $40 and I am just then getting to play. Can I take it back? Nope, not under current laws. Does the consumer get screwed? Yep.
If all of the material a professor is teaching is available in a single textbook, that means one of two things:
1) The subject is very straightforward (ie math)
2) The professor is teaching the textbook and nothing more.
I've had one, exactly one professor produce his own notes and sell them at cost. I believe it was about 80 pages of text and cost about $9.
Again, this is a different situation. First, it is a bit of a moral issue. TV stations get paid based on the number of viewers. There is no direct correlation between viewers and leads/purchases. With net advertising, it is generally either based on number of clicks, sales, or impressions. The first two require that people view and click/buy. The third is the only one close to being the same as TV advertising.
TV is a different situation. With TV the station get's paid to run the ad. With online services, it is tracked on a click basis (or number of impressions). This means that people not viewing the ad has a much greater impact.
I think any of us that work on computer systems long ago figured out that the rebuilding of a system is far easier than trying to remove each piece of malware. Now, in cases where there is critical data on the machine then it would be worth it to try. The fact is, but the time we hear about the issue, it isn't a matter of removing one or two pieces, it is usually closer to 20 or 30.
Pre-rending/simulated screens are everywhere in ads shown in the US. Take a look at the text at the bottom of the next TV/game/cell phone ad (which you will probably need a 32" tv to read). It is very rare anymore to see actual screen images.
1) If you have good software that will handle the students screwing around (such as DeepFreeze or whatever).
2) Expect vandalism of the computers. All cases should be locked. All equipment rooms should be locked.
3) In general, the faculty has not a clue how to use a computer. They actually tend to be less teachable than the average person. If you have 50 faculty, 2 might be knowledgeable (as in, enough to build computers and such), 5 will not have to contact you about anything as they can fix it, and the rest will be nightmares.
Google states that the data being requested has no relevance to what the government (specifically, the government-hired researches) wants to prove.
Interestingly, they (the government) could just come around and request more specific data which would be relevant.
In a word, bull.
A company of that size does not NEED to use black hat techniques. Google's algorythms are good enough that a company of that size is almost always the top search (the only time I have not seen that is when there were two large companies with similar names). Using these techniques make it easier, but they are not needed.
Also note, it does set an example. They are not going after *just* bmw.de.
In other news today thousands of geeks were seen standing outside their parent's houses blinking at the sunglight for the first time in months.
Sure, mass media does catch on to stories posted on the net, but they are usually 2-3 days behind (and often 4-5 behind Slashdot).