I can't comment on the legality of this, but there's no hypocrisy (as you seem to be implying). If statistically, a particular class of shared riders are being targeted for crime, and that class finds a way to protect themselves from being targeted, it seems reasonable to me.
White customers or customers of any particular religion have yet to show that they've been targeted for crime as Uber users, so they don't need to take protective actions of any kind.
Now, if it turns out to be illegal, we have two choices: ignore the law, because it's protecting a targeted class and does more good than harm (not my recommendation), or we use this as a way to draw attention to attacks on women customers and do something about it. I prefer that second solution.
But claiming that there's something wrong with the idea that a targeted class would prefer not to be targets is just disingenuous crap. Better class of misogynists, please.
I thought at first that AMD unveiled it "with a new furry" and I thought, finally, an interesting Slashdot story. Maybe some kind of platypus/monkey hybrid or something. But I was disappointed.
I have yet to see any compelling argument as to why the airline, TSA, or anybody else should care who I am when I fly. I could be the worst terrorist in the world, and if their security measures are adequately indicating that I'm unarmed, it's safe to let me fly.
It's a government issue and an airline issue, where they really want to know who I am for control over tickets and control over the people. Somewhere along the way their insistence that it was for security reasons became the accepted, unchallenged truth. "For security reasons" is not and should not be an excuse for anything they want to do.
P.S. Photo ID is not required to fly. They just make it way less convenient if you don't. See the TSA's own web site for info. http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-information/acceptable-ids
And if we allowed the police to search our homes, cars, and persons on a daily basis, a whole lot more criminals would be caught. I'm glad a scumbag was caught before something worse happened, but let's not pretend that one positive outcome justifies personal tracking, stops-and-frisks, and other countless increases in violations of unreasonable search and seizure in our society.
Thought it through just fine, thank you. My plan to take over the world was a jest. My complaint about requiring a password reset after X number of tries is 100% valid. Let's walk this through:
1) Bot hits my account 10 times. Account is locked. Victory! Bot doesn't get in.
2) Eventually, I request that the account get unlocked. Company has two choices:
i. Unlock the account and let me go about my business, secure in the knowledge that I have a password that can't be guessed in 10 tries. ii. Force me to choose another password according to whatever arbitrary rules Company has in place.
Option ii makes no sense to me. The bot may, or may not, have been hammering at my (locked) account all this time. So what? It's not like anything out there is keeping track of the 10 tries that failed, and will continue from there once I get around to asking Company to unlock the account.
Option i makes sense, and is user-friendly. Option ii makes no sense and is user-hostile, not to mention lazy because it shows that Company prefers the illusion of security than actually thinking it through.
Please, show me where I'm wrong. It's Slashdot, that's practically a hobby here.
Apple, among many, many other services, says that after a certain number of failed attempts, your account is locked and you have to reset your password to regain access.
This seems stupid to me because if the password kept someone out after X failed attempts it must be strong enough. So why force a new one?
Experiment: force enough password resets on a user's account until they've run out of strong passwords, then use "password" to get in. Profit!
There doesn't seem to be any valid security reason to show ID at all before flying, much less proving that your ID and boarding pass match, any more than there is when you take a bus, ferry, subway, or train.
If TSA (or whoever would be there if we abolished this waste of an organization) is doing its job, explosives should be stopped using existing technology (x-rays, random chemical swabs, not to mention, you know, looking for nervous behavior or the wrong answers to a few basic security questions which has always worked for El-Al), and any other weapons are limited in their usefulness now that cockpit doors are secured and passengers know that "shut up and behave" no longer results in a safe landing in Cuba.
ID, matching or otherwise, doesn't matter. Most (all?) of the 9/11 hijackers had valid ID. The No-Fly list is a bloated joke. The only thing ID does is ensure that the airlines control the tickets more carefully.
Made-up crisis averted by more expensive technology that lines the pockets of some lobbyist. Woot!
If people who can't sound calm are more likely to get emergency help. then over the generations they'll be more likely to survive emergencies to go on and reproduce, while the relaxed-sounding people will bleed to death in the streets. In a few generations, the overall stress level of the human race will be artificially boosted until we all sound like Gilbert Gottfried.
I'd like to see a discussion of the legal ramifications of letting your system be used as a Tor relay. Suppose I volunteer some of my home network capacity to Tor.
Putting aside the fact that it's probably a violation of my broadband provider's agreement to share my connection in this way, what if someone uses Tor for kiddie porn and happens to make the final connection to the police honeypot (so to speak) from my IP address?
If anyone can point to a good discussion of this, it would be great. I'd like to let my system be a relay for Tor, but the risk seems large.
No, PDF support just means that Office 12 will be able to export to PDF without having Acrobat or another PDF writer installed. OpenOffice already does this (leveraging Ghostscript behind the scenes, I believe). Not a big deal, but a very convenient feature. Acrobat's integration into Office apps can be a little... problematic sometimes. And slow.
I can't wait to see the first postings in the newsgroups, blogs, and discussion boards from novice computer users who see the Netscape name and blindly upgrade:
"Hey! Where'd my mail go?"
The interesting thing is that the missing mail component isn't mentioned anywhere on the Netscape 8 Web site, unless you already understand the code-word "streamlined" to mean "we jettisoned mail".
How sad the world has become when an artificially-enhanced eye produces references to Speaker for the Dead instead of the much earlier Six Million Dollar Man...
Don't you recall that the eye was the "better" part of the "better, faster, stronger" improvements they gave Steve Austin, a man barely alive? And you with such a low Slashdot ID, too... tsk, tsk.
That actually explains something that happened to me recently. I have an decade-old AOL screen name that I use only for obscure, identity-fuzzed postings, questionable registrations, etc. that I would never, ever have used with my actual address or telephone number. This year, I started getting mortgage spam on that quasi-anonymous account targeted to my real name and street address. That was hard to explain, unless someone inside gave out my data.
So we're not just talking about compromized AOL accounts here -- we're talking about accounts and the personal information tied to them. That's a *much* bigger crime, and a much bigger deal, and I hope AOL ruins this asshole's life as much as he deserves.
There was also Marcia Hardy's Aloha AOL e-mail client for the Newton.
Aloha wasn't authorized by AOL, if I recall, and broke a number of times as AOL modified their protocol in ways that Aloha wasn't expecting. The only third-party mail client ever authorized to send/receive AOL mail was Claris Emailer.
The hidden party behind the experiment was clearly a wealthy mouse who found himself dying young, and started this contest as a way to extend mouse lives. Now, members of the experiment just need a way to get in touch with each other...
It *is* immoral to sell a government agency a system that is known to be flawed when that agency has plans to use the system to protect people from harm.
And henceforth, the government will only buy perfect goods and services, known to be without flaw, under penalty of law.
Or is it, perhaps, moral to sell a government agency (and for that agency to buy) a product that is thought to be good enough for its purpose, as I have no doubt the Microsoft representatives already believe? Your opinion may be that they're wrong, but this hardly rises to the level of immorality.
Linux is not without flaws either. No operating system or computer platform is. You may freely disagree with their choices, but please get off the moral high horse.
"Your honor, I have here two peer-reviewed, meticulous studies which show how the Daubert decision prevents legitimate science from being submitted..."
I am not a lawyer (not that this fact stops anyone else on/., so I'll keep going) but it seems to me that placing files on a publicly-accessible server along with software to make it searchable/available is very similar to publishing. Publishing material to which you don't own the rights is pretty well covered by the existing laws. Connect those dots, and you've got yourself a case.
Frankly, I'm happy to see them going after illegal behavior rather than potentially illegal tools. They're idiots who are poisoning their customer base, but they're doing it (finally) in the only morally and legally defensible way.
Perhaps I'm just paranoid where Microsoft is concerned, but could it, possibly, maybe, be a coincidence that Microsoft released all of this hoopla on the start of the WWDC, when Apple will be announcing all kinds of hardware and software releases?
Of course it's coincidence. What was I thinking? Never mind.
Recall that I never said that junk mail was good; just that it's different enough that AOL can fight spam and send CDs without being hypocrites.
Another key difference: although you shouldn't have to opt-out of junk mail, you can, and it mostly works. I contact the Direct Marketing Association every few years to tell their members to cut it out, and the only junk mail I get for the most part is crap my family actually requests. I haven't seen an AOL CD in years, to be honest.
Junk mail sucks, and I'd love to see it abolished, but it follows some rules we can work with, if we bother to. Spam is an uncontrolled mess, and needs to be slapped down hard. AOL isn't being hypocritical by doing that.
So can I sue AOL for spamming me with all those frigging CDs?
That depends. Does AOL make you pay shipping and handling for those CDs? No? Then it's not spam.
Direct marketing (i.e., junk mail, paid by the sender) may be odious, but it's a different issue from spam (essentially free to the sender, burden to pay on the rest of us, including AOL). AOL is not really being hypocritical by fighting one and using the other, no matter how funny it may seem to claim otherwise.
Yeah, but does god mode work?
on
Duke3d in Linux
·
· Score: 1
All I care about is being able to cheat effectively. Anyone try it?
My other question would be whether it compiles in Cygwin. Who needs a Windows port then?
Slashdot Mirror
I can't comment on the legality of this, but there's no hypocrisy (as you seem to be implying). If statistically, a particular class of shared riders are being targeted for crime, and that class finds a way to protect themselves from being targeted, it seems reasonable to me.
White customers or customers of any particular religion have yet to show that they've been targeted for crime as Uber users, so they don't need to take protective actions of any kind.
Now, if it turns out to be illegal, we have two choices: ignore the law, because it's protecting a targeted class and does more good than harm (not my recommendation), or we use this as a way to draw attention to attacks on women customers and do something about it. I prefer that second solution.
But claiming that there's something wrong with the idea that a targeted class would prefer not to be targets is just disingenuous crap. Better class of misogynists, please.
... but I kept losing it.
I thought at first that AMD unveiled it "with a new furry" and I thought, finally, an interesting Slashdot story. Maybe some kind of platypus/monkey hybrid or something. But I was disappointed.
I have yet to see any compelling argument as to why the airline, TSA, or anybody else should care who I am when I fly. I could be the worst terrorist in the world, and if their security measures are adequately indicating that I'm unarmed, it's safe to let me fly.
It's a government issue and an airline issue, where they really want to know who I am for control over tickets and control over the people. Somewhere along the way their insistence that it was for security reasons became the accepted, unchallenged truth. "For security reasons" is not and should not be an excuse for anything they want to do.
P.S. Photo ID is not required to fly. They just make it way less convenient if you don't. See the TSA's own web site for info. http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-information/acceptable-ids
And if we allowed the police to search our homes, cars, and persons on a daily basis, a whole lot more criminals would be caught. I'm glad a scumbag was caught before something worse happened, but let's not pretend that one positive outcome justifies personal tracking, stops-and-frisks, and other countless increases in violations of unreasonable search and seizure in our society.
Thought it through just fine, thank you. My plan to take over the world was a jest. My complaint about requiring a password reset after X number of tries is 100% valid. Let's walk this through:
1) Bot hits my account 10 times. Account is locked. Victory! Bot doesn't get in.
2) Eventually, I request that the account get unlocked. Company has two choices:
i. Unlock the account and let me go about my business, secure in the knowledge that I have a password that can't be guessed in 10 tries.
ii. Force me to choose another password according to whatever arbitrary rules Company has in place.
Option ii makes no sense to me. The bot may, or may not, have been hammering at my (locked) account all this time. So what? It's not like anything out there is keeping track of the 10 tries that failed, and will continue from there once I get around to asking Company to unlock the account.
Option i makes sense, and is user-friendly. Option ii makes no sense and is user-hostile, not to mention lazy because it shows that Company prefers the illusion of security than actually thinking it through.
Please, show me where I'm wrong. It's Slashdot, that's practically a hobby here.
Apple, among many, many other services, says that after a certain number of failed attempts, your account is locked and you have to reset your password to regain access.
This seems stupid to me because if the password kept someone out after X failed attempts it must be strong enough. So why force a new one?
Experiment: force enough password resets on a user's account until they've run out of strong passwords, then use "password" to get in. Profit!
There doesn't seem to be any valid security reason to show ID at all before flying, much less proving that your ID and boarding pass match, any more than there is when you take a bus, ferry, subway, or train.
If TSA (or whoever would be there if we abolished this waste of an organization) is doing its job, explosives should be stopped using existing technology (x-rays, random chemical swabs, not to mention, you know, looking for nervous behavior or the wrong answers to a few basic security questions which has always worked for El-Al), and any other weapons are limited in their usefulness now that cockpit doors are secured and passengers know that "shut up and behave" no longer results in a safe landing in Cuba.
ID, matching or otherwise, doesn't matter. Most (all?) of the 9/11 hijackers had valid ID. The No-Fly list is a bloated joke. The only thing ID does is ensure that the airlines control the tickets more carefully.
Made-up crisis averted by more expensive technology that lines the pockets of some lobbyist. Woot!
It will be revolutionary when it's released in 1991!
If people who can't sound calm are more likely to get emergency help. then over the generations they'll be more likely to survive emergencies to go on and reproduce, while the relaxed-sounding people will bleed to death in the streets. In a few generations, the overall stress level of the human race will be artificially boosted until we all sound like Gilbert Gottfried.
I'd like to see a discussion of the legal ramifications of letting your system be used as a Tor relay. Suppose I volunteer some of my home network capacity to Tor.
Putting aside the fact that it's probably a violation of my broadband provider's agreement to share my connection in this way, what if someone uses Tor for kiddie porn and happens to make the final connection to the police honeypot (so to speak) from my IP address?
If anyone can point to a good discussion of this, it would be great. I'd like to let my system be a relay for Tor, but the risk seems large.
No, PDF support just means that Office 12 will be able to export to PDF without having Acrobat or another PDF writer installed. OpenOffice already does this (leveraging Ghostscript behind the scenes, I believe). Not a big deal, but a very convenient feature. Acrobat's integration into Office apps can be a little... problematic sometimes. And slow.
I can't wait to see the first postings in the newsgroups, blogs, and discussion boards from novice computer users who see the Netscape name and blindly upgrade:
"Hey! Where'd my mail go?"
The interesting thing is that the missing mail component isn't mentioned anywhere on the Netscape 8 Web site, unless you already understand the code-word "streamlined" to mean "we jettisoned mail".
Hilarity ensues...
How sad the world has become when an artificially-enhanced eye produces references to Speaker for the Dead instead of the much earlier Six Million Dollar Man...
Don't you recall that the eye was the "better" part of the "better, faster, stronger" improvements they gave Steve Austin, a man barely alive? And you with such a low Slashdot ID, too... tsk, tsk.
That actually explains something that happened to me recently. I have an decade-old AOL screen name that I use only for obscure, identity-fuzzed postings, questionable registrations, etc. that I would never, ever have used with my actual address or telephone number. This year, I started getting mortgage spam on that quasi-anonymous account targeted to my real name and street address. That was hard to explain, unless someone inside gave out my data.
So we're not just talking about compromized AOL accounts here -- we're talking about accounts and the personal information tied to them. That's a *much* bigger crime, and a much bigger deal, and I hope AOL ruins this asshole's life as much as he deserves.
There was also Marcia Hardy's Aloha AOL e-mail client for the Newton.
Aloha wasn't authorized by AOL, if I recall, and broke a number of times as AOL modified their protocol in ways that Aloha wasn't expecting. The only third-party mail client ever authorized to send/receive AOL mail was Claris Emailer.
Did I mention I'm getting married Saturday? "Honey, I know we just got back from the honeymoon, but this is PANTHER!!!"
Sorry, but a real Mac fan would have said "Honey, I know we're still on our honeymoon, but this is PANTHER!!!"
Of course, your average /. reader would more likely only be able to say "Honey, it's sweet and comes from bees."
The hidden party behind the experiment was clearly a wealthy mouse who found himself dying young, and started this contest as a way to extend mouse lives. Now, members of the experiment just need a way to get in touch with each other...
"Ears are short."
"But tails are long..."
"Not 'while the evil D-Con comes not'"
It *is* immoral to sell a government agency a system that is known to be flawed when that agency has plans to use the system to protect people from harm.
And henceforth, the government will only buy perfect goods and services, known to be without flaw, under penalty of law.
Or is it, perhaps, moral to sell a government agency (and for that agency to buy) a product that is thought to be good enough for its purpose, as I have no doubt the Microsoft representatives already believe? Your opinion may be that they're wrong, but this hardly rises to the level of immorality.
Linux is not without flaws either. No operating system or computer platform is. You may freely disagree with their choices, but please get off the moral high horse.
"Your honor, I have here two peer-reviewed, meticulous studies which show how the Daubert decision prevents legitimate science from being submitted ..."
"Evidence denied. Next case!"Show me the standing law against file sharing.
I am not a lawyer (not that this fact stops anyone else on /., so I'll keep going) but it seems to me that placing files on a publicly-accessible server along with software to make it searchable/available is very similar to publishing. Publishing material to which you don't own the rights is pretty well covered by the existing laws. Connect those dots, and you've got yourself a case.
Frankly, I'm happy to see them going after illegal behavior rather than potentially illegal tools. They're idiots who are poisoning their customer base, but they're doing it (finally) in the only morally and legally defensible way.
Perhaps I'm just paranoid where Microsoft is concerned, but could it, possibly, maybe, be a coincidence that Microsoft released all of this hoopla on the start of the WWDC, when Apple will be announcing all kinds of hardware and software releases?
Of course it's coincidence. What was I thinking? Never mind.
Recall that I never said that junk mail was good; just that it's different enough that AOL can fight spam and send CDs without being hypocrites.
Another key difference: although you shouldn't have to opt-out of junk mail, you can, and it mostly works. I contact the Direct Marketing Association every few years to tell their members to cut it out, and the only junk mail I get for the most part is crap my family actually requests. I haven't seen an AOL CD in years, to be honest.
Junk mail sucks, and I'd love to see it abolished, but it follows some rules we can work with, if we bother to. Spam is an uncontrolled mess, and needs to be slapped down hard. AOL isn't being hypocritical by doing that.
So can I sue AOL for spamming me with all those frigging CDs?
That depends. Does AOL make you pay shipping and handling for those CDs? No? Then it's not spam.
Direct marketing (i.e., junk mail, paid by the sender) may be odious, but it's a different issue from spam (essentially free to the sender, burden to pay on the rest of us, including AOL). AOL is not really being hypocritical by fighting one and using the other, no matter how funny it may seem to claim otherwise.
All I care about is being able to cheat effectively. Anyone try it?
My other question would be whether it compiles in Cygwin. Who needs a Windows port then?