Unless you're called "freecreditreport" I don't see how this affects you.
IANAL but if your name is JohnSmith and you register JohnSmithsPage.com, and end up being sued by John Smith's Brewery, you'd have a fair crack at defending your page. Especially if you put "This page is not associated with John Smith's Brewery in any way" somewhere on your page.
However if your page contains trash talk about John Smith's Brewery, or is obviously trying to fool people into thinking their at John Smith's Brewery's official site, you'd have a harder time convincing a judge. FOR example, check out this site, which still manages to hang on to its domain name despite having the force of a VERY LARGE company's legal army against it.
I've been called a moron by an anonymous coward! I'm SHOCKED!
Seriously, if you think there was nothing illegal about the wiretaps, destroying emails that a court had requested, detaining foreign nationals indefinitely (wait, are they prisoners of war or NOT?) without charges or access by the International Red Cross (this little thing called the Conventions of War), and perhaps the whole Iraq war itself - all the time citing "executive privilege", well, I don't think there's a suitable name for you. The man clearly believed himself above the law, much of the government enabled this behavior, and now a dangerous precedent has been set.
I'm glad I'm not a US citizen and that way I don't have to share a voting booth with the likes of YOU.
And yes, I'm sure you've got a "system" that will "never fail" to make money.
It's not a system, it's momentum.
It's not a casino - in a casino the house pays out less than what you would get through probability. In roulette, (to keep it simple), you can bet on red or black. The fool thinks the odds are 50-50. However the fool forgets about the green 0 and 00 slots, where the house wins either color.
I lose money quite often when trading. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. There is definitely risk involved. However I consistently earn more than I lose - enough to make a living from it. The "secret" is not to bet the farm. Yeah, you can make more, if you risk more. But you're risking more. I keep the trades small. I trade based on what the market is DOING, not what I "think" it's going to do (no one can see the future). And I get out in a hurry.
But it's not like a casino at all. I can take my money off the table at any time. At a casino, once the bet is placed, you're stuck with it for better or for worse.
how am I ever going to push 30 Photorealistic Frames through the internet - I can hardly get 5 Mb/s from my ISP.
I'm far from being a computer programmer/expert.
But say you have a display at, for argument's sake, 1280x1024 pixels at 32 bits per pixel. That's 41.9 million bits per frame. Call it 42 Mbits. You want to do that at 30 frames per second? You're up to 1.26 Gb/s. Now please raise your hands who has a 2GBs internet connection? OK there will be some compression, and algorithms that mean you don't have to send the WHOLE screen every frame, but still...
Buffet routinely lobbied against the bailout legislation.
Buffet is a smart man. And everyone was against the bailout legislation. Except of course those to be bailed out, and the Pelosi inspired politicians.
I still remember the reports when it was first mentioned. "All my constituents aren't saying "No", they're saying "HELL NO!"". All that got swept under a pile of money however.
It's curious for me that, living in Costa Rica, the US dollar has plummeted against our local currency - to the point where a can of Coke is now twice as expensive here versus in the US (due to local inflation continuing despite our currency appreciating against the dollar). I think soon US citizens won't be able to afford to travel outside the US. It's a real pain in the ass for me, because I earn in dollars, so I'm becoming relatively poorer too compared to my wife who earns in local currency. We're talking 10-15% poorer in the past 3 months alone. Running the money printing presses in the US has everything to do with this. But no one listened to Ludwig von Mises the first time, anyway.
Using day trading to justify the existence of GS...
Not at all. Where do I justify GS?
I am justifying high speed/frequency trading. After all, I approximate it myself, only not with software and special connections to trading computers. Just knowing what I expect, having my closing order set up, going in and getting the hell out the second I've made what I wanted to make. I'd rather make $20 20 times a day than try to make $400 once. It's a lot easier.
GS is much more than just that high speed/frequency trading. I disagree with companies like GS. I don't believe in "too big to fail", I believe in "too big to exist". I think their very size encourages greed, corruption and the economy of a nation. But that's a whole other argument.
it is clear that their high-speed trading is effectively a zero sum game and by enriching themselves, they are not providing greater prosperity for others.
So long as I can still make money day trading on the stock market, I don't care. And I CAN still make money.
The high speed trading provides liquidity. I need someone to buy stock from me or sell stock to me. Without these traders, I'd place a bid/ask and wait. And wait. And wait. And maybe I'd get my price. Maybe I wouldn't, in which case I'd waste both my time and the missed opportunity. When you're day trading you usually need to get in and out FAST. Doing otherwise is called "investing", not day trading.
What concerns me is the ability of a multi-trillion dollar company to have access to more information than you (ie, level 3), and since they are brokers possibly the ability to track and uniquely identify shares. So they can, in theory, know who bought what at what price and therefore who is holding what thanks to databases, and thus use their vast resources to pressure people into closing/covering their positions to their advantage. THAT is unfair and should be illegal. It's akin to knowing the order of cards in a deck. It's an unfair advantage. However without breaking into their proprietary computer records, we'll never know if something like this is actually happening. It probably is.
The good thing is, as a little fish, it's not my 1000 share or so transactions that is going to make them want to single me out to screw me over. I pity the banks and mutual funds, however.
you have to break a law first before they can go after you.
Unless the programmers were committing fraud by asking people for investment money with no intention to return it, how are they breaking the law? I'm unaware that Madoff was hacking people's computers, creating viruses, or even downloading copyrighted movies.
If you're a programmer hired to write a financial or accounting program, and never given information as to how that program is going to be actually used - how are you breaking the law? Hell if this logic applies, go after Microsoft too because I'm sure that Madoff used Microsoft Word to send mail to some of his clients.
OK perhaps there's some detail we don't know, and will find out at trial - perhaps some programmers were in on the fact that it was a scam. However this reeks to me of overzealous prosecutors trying to spread as much blame around as possible. Hell they could start with arresting the SEC for never investigating the guy, in that case.
You realise GS pretty much pwns the US government.
And the stock market. After all, if they have a program that 'can' be used to 'manipulate the stock market', are we to take Goldman's multi-billion dollar a quarter profit making word of "oh, but HEAVENS NO, we're not manipulating the stock market, that would be illegal - perish the thought!" word for it? Arrest those programmers too.
The F4F was about the only plane that even came close to even with the Zero.
You mean the F6F Hellcat? The F4F Wildcat, while it achieved an impressive kill ratio, was a pig of a plane to fly. But it was fast - much faster than the zero. Thus boom and zoom air combat was born.
The F6F, however, was a highly maneuverable plane and could turn with a zero as well as outrun it, much to the chagrin of many a Japanese pilot.
The Allies also had plenty of leading edge technology. It is hard to have a consistent edge across the entire spectrum.
Of course the allies led in technology. That's why they won the war. There's a certain luxury to develop new technologies when you're fighting at arm's length (in the case of Britain post 1940 and the US) vs being right in the thick of things. The Soviets had already won the tank design part - as early as 1941 I believe it was von Rundstedt that commented, on inspecting a captured Soviet T-34: "If ever the Soviets can mass produce this tank, we've lost the war". Individually German tanks were far superior. However they were far more complex, resulting in engineering, maintenance and manufacturing difficulties. The Soviets had a good simple design that could take a beating and was easy to make and maintain.
Germany was, after the start of Barbarossa and the stall in the offensive, in a fight for her life. That leaves very little budget for R&D. And with 20-20 hind-sight too much of it went to tank and artillery development (a losing proposition because they were going to be beaten by sheer numbers anyway), and not enough of it to asymmetric warfare like U-Boats or aircraft. Imagine a Germany capable of sealing off the North Atlantic with hordes of type XXI U-boats, or bombing the Ural tank factories and the Norfolk shipyards with long range bombers (read about the Amerika Bomber project that got cancelled)/strategic rockets!
The Japanese were never going to win, period, unless Germany managed a complete victory in Europe and took on the US. Yamamoto even knew this before the war started. They were too small, and trying to grab too much of an empire.
American Generals refused to believe the early reports of the speed and agility of the Zero.
Surprising, considering it was stolen from Hughes Aircraft. The zero is a copy of the H-1, which the Japanese deny of course. But then again the Japanese copied a great many western things, like motorcycles and cars, for example. They were good at it, just like the Chinese are today.
I got modded troll, but I don't care. I guess we just have different definitions of "Geek". I wanted specifics.
And woludn't such a behavior be more or less what cookies actually do?
Yes, except it's all done on the server side. After all what is a cookie anyway? It's just a token. But in this case _YOU_ don't get to see it, play with it, attempt to hack it, be paranoid about it, third parties can't use it to track you, etc.
unless there is a real good reason to avoid them.
How about people are just paranoid about cookies? Is that a good reason enough? Look at what happened between the White House and YouTube. Actions based on a completely groundless paranoia and utter failure to comprehend what a cookie actually IS.
You say that the process above "happens on the SERVER side, and is invisible to the user." Now, I think: don't session ids get generated, in general, on the server site? don't you need prior action of the user, even if the ua handled it transparently, in both cases?
Yes. However if I put a file (the cookie) on your computer, everyone in the world potentially has access to it. I'm vulnerable to tampering by the owner of the computer and/or security vulnerabilities in their computer or browser. Supposedly cookies can only be read by the site that created them, unless specifically made otherwise. But if I keep my own private database on the server side, only I have access to it. Period. No one can hack it. No one can try to figure out how I create the unique hash to identify you. No one can exploit it or use it to track my visitors.
Both are equally vulnerable to MITM attacks
If you can't trust the connection between you and me, ANYTHING is vulnerable to a MITM attack. Including encryption - because who is to say that the keys we are sharing are genuine? However in the above case I'm not leaving a text file on your computer that can potentially be read/copied by anyone.
whay would your system overcome the problem.
Again - a cookie is just a file that uniquely identifies you. That file can be set to be read ONLY by me as the web site server, or by ANYONE. However who enforces that setting is your browser. Plus, you can always read the file manually, it's on your hard drive. So a cookie implies trust - I have to trust your browser software. I have to trust you. And I have to trust the whole world that someone doesn't develop a way to covertly scan your coookies and then visit me pretending to be you.
For a session ID, all I have to trust is that a) you haven't given your password to anyone and only you can log into the site and b) no one is intercepting our communication and doing a "man in the middle", feeding both of us false information - situations that would compromise security ANYWAY. However I don't have to worry about cookie exploits or hacks, or security holes in your browser.
I can't really go into more detail, I don't have time. However I'm a doctor not a computer programmer. I've come up with this on my own. The information is out there and freely available. If you want to know more, research!
It appears that some information is missing in this page. When you hit the back button you are automatically logged out. This is a security feature to protect your account with us from unwanted access. In the future, you can navigate to any page on this website by using our menu. I'm afraid you're going to have to log in again to continue.
Login:
PS: If you're willing to go a few layers into my pages, accidentally hit the back button, and are prepared to log in again, you're interested in what I have to offer. If you're not interested in what I have to offer, I'm not interested in paying for bandwidth for you.
The article fails to discuss any technology involved in finding the subs. In fact, at 2600 feet deep, these subs aren't even as deep as the Titanic (12600ft).
This whole story provoked a "oh, that's nice, good for them" feeling. Certainly not earth-shattering news about cutting edge IT/physics/nano/quantum technology... Or I wonder how much the NY Times is paying slashdot. Didn't we already agree that Rupert Murdoch is evil enough?
How would you store the session ID without a cookie?
Easy. Your browser accesses my page. My index or main page creates some random ID for your session as soon as you hit the page. I store this random token in a database on the server. Every time you request a new page, the page you were on calls the new page with a POST command that includes this ID. When the new page loads, it looks up this ID in the database along with any other associated data stored for your session. Etc. ad nauseam. All of this happens on the SERVER side, and is invisible to the user. Unlike a GET, which appears in the URL, you can't hack a POST unless of course you have physical access to the server.
If it weren't for cookies, this site wouldn't remember my login.
But then again, having a site "remember you" between sessions is a security risk. I mean ok, who cares if your brother starts trolling people with your slashdot account if he comes over for the weekend... but just the concept. You know, you CAN provide unique service to someone using a login, session ID's and designing your website with the appropriate GET/POST commands. Admittedly it is a LOT more work for the web designer, but far more secure than cookies. However you guarantee that the session "expires" the minute you close the web browser.
Exactly the point I was going to make. Besides, I think the value of properties in that town is a trade secret, but we'll declare the property to be worth $100. What percentage annual property tax were they charging again?
Someday, some geek will try to overclock his artificial heart...
Heck people overclock their normal hearts today anyway. It's called cocaine...
I've actually seen someone with a cocaine inducedlong QT syndrome. A hairy day in the ER that was, considering he was psychotic at the time... it took quite a few of us to hold him still enough to get the IV going.
"Binding on future decisions" conflicts with "it may be decided differently".
Anyway, IANAL, and therefore I can't argue like one nor do I have the training to back up my claims. I think that any law that's "open to a degree of interpretation" is a badly written law, and can be - no, IS abused. Maybe I haven't seen enough cases, but I doubt that you are likely to find absolutely identical situations, ever. Maybe similar, but never identical.
Like that stupid example that always gets shoved into my face here on slashdot about corporations being OBLIGED to maximize profit because of some ruling in shareholders vs. Doge or Ford or something in 1930-odd. Usually this is thrown back at me when I point out a corporation acting irresponsibly in manufacturing or selling a product, this is justified because corporations HAVE to make as much money as possible - because of case law.
It's not right. When I was younger there was something called being a responsible citizen - corporate or physical. There are certain things you don't do because they are WRONG - and not necessarily all WRONG things are illegal (thank god). Take for example "cyber bullying". This is an up and comer. Some idiot posts inflammatory remarks on the internet and some depressive committed suicide and now suddenly it's becoming a CRIME to be RUDE. If you're a decent person, you won't set out to intentionally upset someone else. However any number of people WILL get upset by anything you can possibly say - that's just the way the world is. Hell, some people are probably pissed at this post. But wait - give the legislators room to make new laws (when they're not printing money for their banker buddies), and give some judges a chance to set precedents, and soon you won't be able to say anything on the internet for fear of being sued or even better - arrested... that's case law for you.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you're called "freecreditreport" I don't see how this affects you.
IANAL but if your name is JohnSmith and you register JohnSmithsPage.com, and end up being sued by John Smith's Brewery, you'd have a fair crack at defending your page. Especially if you put "This page is not associated with John Smith's Brewery in any way" somewhere on your page.
However if your page contains trash talk about John Smith's Brewery, or is obviously trying to fool people into thinking their at John Smith's Brewery's official site, you'd have a harder time convincing a judge. FOR example, check out this site, which still manages to hang on to its domain name despite having the force of a VERY LARGE company's legal army against it.
I've been called a moron by an anonymous coward! I'm SHOCKED!
Seriously, if you think there was nothing illegal about the wiretaps, destroying emails that a court had requested, detaining foreign nationals indefinitely (wait, are they prisoners of war or NOT?) without charges or access by the International Red Cross (this little thing called the Conventions of War), and perhaps the whole Iraq war itself - all the time citing "executive privilege", well, I don't think there's a suitable name for you. The man clearly believed himself above the law, much of the government enabled this behavior, and now a dangerous precedent has been set.
I'm glad I'm not a US citizen and that way I don't have to share a voting booth with the likes of YOU.
And yes, I'm sure you've got a "system" that will "never fail" to make money.
It's not a system, it's momentum.
It's not a casino - in a casino the house pays out less than what you would get through probability. In roulette, (to keep it simple), you can bet on red or black. The fool thinks the odds are 50-50. However the fool forgets about the green 0 and 00 slots, where the house wins either color.
I lose money quite often when trading. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. There is definitely risk involved. However I consistently earn more than I lose - enough to make a living from it. The "secret" is not to bet the farm. Yeah, you can make more, if you risk more. But you're risking more. I keep the trades small. I trade based on what the market is DOING, not what I "think" it's going to do (no one can see the future). And I get out in a hurry.
But it's not like a casino at all. I can take my money off the table at any time. At a casino, once the bet is placed, you're stuck with it for better or for worse.
how am I ever going to push 30 Photorealistic Frames through the internet - I can hardly get 5 Mb/s from my ISP.
I'm far from being a computer programmer/expert.
But say you have a display at, for argument's sake, 1280x1024 pixels at 32 bits per pixel. That's 41.9 million bits per frame. Call it 42 Mbits. You want to do that at 30 frames per second? You're up to 1.26 Gb/s. Now please raise your hands who has a 2GBs internet connection? OK there will be some compression, and algorithms that mean you don't have to send the WHOLE screen every frame, but still...
I don't think this is meant to be used for games.
Buffet routinely lobbied against the bailout legislation.
Buffet is a smart man. And everyone was against the bailout legislation. Except of course those to be bailed out, and the Pelosi inspired politicians.
I still remember the reports when it was first mentioned. "All my constituents aren't saying "No", they're saying "HELL NO!"". All that got swept under a pile of money however.
It's curious for me that, living in Costa Rica, the US dollar has plummeted against our local currency - to the point where a can of Coke is now twice as expensive here versus in the US (due to local inflation continuing despite our currency appreciating against the dollar). I think soon US citizens won't be able to afford to travel outside the US. It's a real pain in the ass for me, because I earn in dollars, so I'm becoming relatively poorer too compared to my wife who earns in local currency. We're talking 10-15% poorer in the past 3 months alone. Running the money printing presses in the US has everything to do with this. But no one listened to Ludwig von Mises the first time, anyway.
Using day trading to justify the existence of GS...
Not at all. Where do I justify GS?
I am justifying high speed/frequency trading. After all, I approximate it myself, only not with software and special connections to trading computers. Just knowing what I expect, having my closing order set up, going in and getting the hell out the second I've made what I wanted to make. I'd rather make $20 20 times a day than try to make $400 once. It's a lot easier.
GS is much more than just that high speed/frequency trading. I disagree with companies like GS. I don't believe in "too big to fail", I believe in "too big to exist". I think their very size encourages greed, corruption and the economy of a nation. But that's a whole other argument.
it is clear that their high-speed trading is effectively a zero sum game and by enriching themselves, they are not providing greater prosperity for others.
So long as I can still make money day trading on the stock market, I don't care. And I CAN still make money.
The high speed trading provides liquidity. I need someone to buy stock from me or sell stock to me. Without these traders, I'd place a bid/ask and wait. And wait. And wait. And maybe I'd get my price. Maybe I wouldn't, in which case I'd waste both my time and the missed opportunity. When you're day trading you usually need to get in and out FAST. Doing otherwise is called "investing", not day trading.
What concerns me is the ability of a multi-trillion dollar company to have access to more information than you (ie, level 3), and since they are brokers possibly the ability to track and uniquely identify shares. So they can, in theory, know who bought what at what price and therefore who is holding what thanks to databases, and thus use their vast resources to pressure people into closing/covering their positions to their advantage. THAT is unfair and should be illegal. It's akin to knowing the order of cards in a deck. It's an unfair advantage. However without breaking into their proprietary computer records, we'll never know if something like this is actually happening. It probably is.
The good thing is, as a little fish, it's not my 1000 share or so transactions that is going to make them want to single me out to screw me over. I pity the banks and mutual funds, however.
Because the US is a nation of laws
George Bush proved that wrong.
you have to break a law first before they can go after you.
Unless the programmers were committing fraud by asking people for investment money with no intention to return it, how are they breaking the law? I'm unaware that Madoff was hacking people's computers, creating viruses, or even downloading copyrighted movies.
If you're a programmer hired to write a financial or accounting program, and never given information as to how that program is going to be actually used - how are you breaking the law? Hell if this logic applies, go after Microsoft too because I'm sure that Madoff used Microsoft Word to send mail to some of his clients.
OK perhaps there's some detail we don't know, and will find out at trial - perhaps some programmers were in on the fact that it was a scam. However this reeks to me of overzealous prosecutors trying to spread as much blame around as possible. Hell they could start with arresting the SEC for never investigating the guy, in that case.
You realise GS pretty much pwns the US government.
And the stock market. After all, if they have a program that 'can' be used to 'manipulate the stock market', are we to take Goldman's multi-billion dollar a quarter profit making word of "oh, but HEAVENS NO, we're not manipulating the stock market, that would be illegal - perish the thought!" word for it? Arrest those programmers too.
So tell me, when are they going to go after the programmers at Goldman Sachs?
The F4F was about the only plane that even came close to even with the Zero.
You mean the F6F Hellcat? The F4F Wildcat, while it achieved an impressive kill ratio, was a pig of a plane to fly. But it was fast - much faster than the zero. Thus boom and zoom air combat was born.
The F6F, however, was a highly maneuverable plane and could turn with a zero as well as outrun it, much to the chagrin of many a Japanese pilot.
You're right - he owns the Wall St. Journal. Brain freeze. My bad.
The Allies also had plenty of leading edge technology. It is hard to have a consistent edge across the entire spectrum.
Of course the allies led in technology. That's why they won the war. There's a certain luxury to develop new technologies when you're fighting at arm's length (in the case of Britain post 1940 and the US) vs being right in the thick of things. The Soviets had already won the tank design part - as early as 1941 I believe it was von Rundstedt that commented, on inspecting a captured Soviet T-34: "If ever the Soviets can mass produce this tank, we've lost the war". Individually German tanks were far superior. However they were far more complex, resulting in engineering, maintenance and manufacturing difficulties. The Soviets had a good simple design that could take a beating and was easy to make and maintain.
Germany was, after the start of Barbarossa and the stall in the offensive, in a fight for her life. That leaves very little budget for R&D. And with 20-20 hind-sight too much of it went to tank and artillery development (a losing proposition because they were going to be beaten by sheer numbers anyway), and not enough of it to asymmetric warfare like U-Boats or aircraft. Imagine a Germany capable of sealing off the North Atlantic with hordes of type XXI U-boats, or bombing the Ural tank factories and the Norfolk shipyards with long range bombers (read about the Amerika Bomber project that got cancelled)/strategic rockets!
The Japanese were never going to win, period, unless Germany managed a complete victory in Europe and took on the US. Yamamoto even knew this before the war started. They were too small, and trying to grab too much of an empire.
American Generals refused to believe the early reports of the speed and agility of the Zero.
Surprising, considering it was stolen from Hughes Aircraft. The zero is a copy of the H-1, which the Japanese deny of course. But then again the Japanese copied a great many western things, like motorcycles and cars, for example. They were good at it, just like the Chinese are today.
I got modded troll, but I don't care. I guess we just have different definitions of "Geek". I wanted specifics.
And woludn't such a behavior be more or less what cookies actually do?
Yes, except it's all done on the server side. After all what is a cookie anyway? It's just a token. But in this case _YOU_ don't get to see it, play with it, attempt to hack it, be paranoid about it, third parties can't use it to track you, etc.
unless there is a real good reason to avoid them.
How about people are just paranoid about cookies? Is that a good reason enough? Look at what happened between the White House and YouTube. Actions based on a completely groundless paranoia and utter failure to comprehend what a cookie actually IS.
You say that the process above "happens on the SERVER side, and is invisible to the user." Now, I think: don't session ids get generated, in general, on the server site? don't you need prior action of the user, even if the ua handled it transparently, in both cases?
Yes. However if I put a file (the cookie) on your computer, everyone in the world potentially has access to it. I'm vulnerable to tampering by the owner of the computer and/or security vulnerabilities in their computer or browser. Supposedly cookies can only be read by the site that created them, unless specifically made otherwise. But if I keep my own private database on the server side, only I have access to it. Period. No one can hack it. No one can try to figure out how I create the unique hash to identify you. No one can exploit it or use it to track my visitors.
Both are equally vulnerable to MITM attacks
If you can't trust the connection between you and me, ANYTHING is vulnerable to a MITM attack. Including encryption - because who is to say that the keys we are sharing are genuine? However in the above case I'm not leaving a text file on your computer that can potentially be read/copied by anyone.
whay would your system overcome the problem.
Again - a cookie is just a file that uniquely identifies you. That file can be set to be read ONLY by me as the web site server, or by ANYONE. However who enforces that setting is your browser. Plus, you can always read the file manually, it's on your hard drive. So a cookie implies trust - I have to trust your browser software. I have to trust you. And I have to trust the whole world that someone doesn't develop a way to covertly scan your coookies and then visit me pretending to be you.
For a session ID, all I have to trust is that a) you haven't given your password to anyone and only you can log into the site and b) no one is intercepting our communication and doing a "man in the middle", feeding both of us false information - situations that would compromise security ANYWAY. However I don't have to worry about cookie exploits or hacks, or security holes in your browser.
I can't really go into more detail, I don't have time. However I'm a doctor not a computer programmer. I've come up with this on my own. The information is out there and freely available. If you want to know more, research!
It appears that some information is missing in this page. When you hit the back button you are automatically logged out. This is a security feature to protect your account with us from unwanted access. In the future, you can navigate to any page on this website by using our menu. I'm afraid you're going to have to log in again to continue.
Login:
PS: If you're willing to go a few layers into my pages, accidentally hit the back button, and are prepared to log in again, you're interested in what I have to offer. If you're not interested in what I have to offer, I'm not interested in paying for bandwidth for you.
And this is news for nerds because?
The article fails to discuss any technology involved in finding the subs. In fact, at 2600 feet deep, these subs aren't even as deep as the Titanic (12600ft).
This whole story provoked a "oh, that's nice, good for them" feeling. Certainly not earth-shattering news about cutting edge IT/physics/nano/quantum technology... Or I wonder how much the NY Times is paying slashdot. Didn't we already agree that Rupert Murdoch is evil enough?
How would you store the session ID without a cookie?
Easy. Your browser accesses my page. My index or main page creates some random ID for your session as soon as you hit the page. I store this random token in a database on the server. Every time you request a new page, the page you were on calls the new page with a POST command that includes this ID. When the new page loads, it looks up this ID in the database along with any other associated data stored for your session. Etc. ad nauseam. All of this happens on the SERVER side, and is invisible to the user. Unlike a GET, which appears in the URL, you can't hack a POST unless of course you have physical access to the server.
No cookie required.
If it weren't for cookies, this site wouldn't remember my login.
But then again, having a site "remember you" between sessions is a security risk. I mean ok, who cares if your brother starts trolling people with your slashdot account if he comes over for the weekend... but just the concept. You know, you CAN provide unique service to someone using a login, session ID's and designing your website with the appropriate GET/POST commands. Admittedly it is a LOT more work for the web designer, but far more secure than cookies. However you guarantee that the session "expires" the minute you close the web browser.
The only billionaires I see are the owners of the site, racking up huge listing fees. But - but, NO ONE HAS ACTUALLY BID ON THE ITEMS! Shocked.
Exactly the point I was going to make. Besides, I think the value of properties in that town is a trade secret, but we'll declare the property to be worth $100. What percentage annual property tax were they charging again?
Why aren't the cops there getting customers lists from McColo and going after the fraudsters?
Because the police are far too busy going after the real criminals to waste time with legitimate fraudsters.
I thought they'd switched off geocities already?
Someday, some geek will try to overclock his artificial heart...
Heck people overclock their normal hearts today anyway. It's called cocaine...
I've actually seen someone with a cocaine induced long QT syndrome. A hairy day in the ER that was, considering he was psychotic at the time... it took quite a few of us to hold him still enough to get the IV going.
"Binding on future decisions" conflicts with "it may be decided differently".
Anyway, IANAL, and therefore I can't argue like one nor do I have the training to back up my claims. I think that any law that's "open to a degree of interpretation" is a badly written law, and can be - no, IS abused. Maybe I haven't seen enough cases, but I doubt that you are likely to find absolutely identical situations, ever. Maybe similar, but never identical.
Like that stupid example that always gets shoved into my face here on slashdot about corporations being OBLIGED to maximize profit because of some ruling in shareholders vs. Doge or Ford or something in 1930-odd. Usually this is thrown back at me when I point out a corporation acting irresponsibly in manufacturing or selling a product, this is justified because corporations HAVE to make as much money as possible - because of case law.
It's not right. When I was younger there was something called being a responsible citizen - corporate or physical. There are certain things you don't do because they are WRONG - and not necessarily all WRONG things are illegal (thank god). Take for example "cyber bullying". This is an up and comer. Some idiot posts inflammatory remarks on the internet and some depressive committed suicide and now suddenly it's becoming a CRIME to be RUDE. If you're a decent person, you won't set out to intentionally upset someone else. However any number of people WILL get upset by anything you can possibly say - that's just the way the world is. Hell, some people are probably pissed at this post. But wait - give the legislators room to make new laws (when they're not printing money for their banker buddies), and give some judges a chance to set precedents, and soon you won't be able to say anything on the internet for fear of being sued or even better - arrested... that's case law for you.