For example, if you know the Eurofighter can climb at a certain rate, and you know that in an exercise an F35 was unable to outclimb it, you can infer that the F35 cannot climb as quickly. Or vice versa.
Really, you only know what some plane did. Perhaps the pilot or software is sandbagging because it's an exercise and they don't want to show their hand. Your point stands about checking against sources, although the intelligence community has access to primary sources and a way to verify chains if communication, so that counts for a lot.
There is no way to prove the difference between "identity theft" on the scale where a bank is defrauded and outright dishonesty by the customer.
And there won't be until the banks are held responsible for failures. It's like this now because it's cheap and easy, but there's not much verification of identities.
I had a friend get one of his post-dated cheques cashed months before the date (with extra-salty fees attached of course). The depositor did not even falsify the date!
why should this surprise you? If you give someone a valid check, they can deposit whenever they want, regardless of the date.
No, I own the game and the CD it comes on. If I owned a license to the game, then it'd be just fine to get a burned copy of the CD and use that if mine was damaged.
How about a SBS box and some clients that can at least accommodate smoke testing? Sure, your client's box may explode or conflict with an app they use, but it'll happen less with smoke tests.
Ahh, the eternal whine - it's the same c'tion, since we're all potentially suspects in some crime. After all, you can always figure out who the victim of a robbery is - it's finding the robber and punishing them that's hard.
So, do you think I'm an incompetent admin given what I have to work with?
Sure. You don't have a test network to at least smoke patches on or you would've said something. What happens when your SBS box barfs? how long is recovery and when's the last time you tried it?
Regardless, your ethical duty is to not violate a reasonable TOS. Yes, that's fuzzy, but if you're going to get legalistic on ethics when you don't have an actual enforced code to begin with, then you're already acting unethical. This is about not being a sleaze.
Which is an awful lot like saying "knives aren't illegal but killing people with them is"... which begs the question, in this hypothetical knife scenario, "Why do we need a law stating you can't kill someone with a knife when a law stating you can't kill someone in any manner would cover that possibility?"
How does that beg the question? It asks the question, but doesn't beg it.
Uh...email spam by itself most definitely should not be illegal, and it is not unethical.
It is absolutely unethical - you're imposing a cost on people without any sort of consultation. It should be illegal, but first you have to come up with a legal test and some way to enforce penalties. Good luck on either.
Slashdot Mirror
For example, if you know the Eurofighter can climb at a certain rate, and you know that in an exercise an F35 was unable to outclimb it, you can infer that the F35 cannot climb as quickly. Or vice versa.
Really, you only know what some plane did. Perhaps the pilot or software is sandbagging because it's an exercise and they don't want to show their hand. Your point stands about checking against sources, although the intelligence community has access to primary sources and a way to verify chains if communication, so that counts for a lot.
planning on calling an airstrike on Rosslyn, VA? Seriously, military force is irrelevant to this.
I don't buy the eula. I do have a right to play the game - I bought it - and that has nothing to do with copyright.
There is no way to prove the difference between "identity theft" on the scale where a bank is defrauded and outright dishonesty by the customer.
And there won't be until the banks are held responsible for failures. It's like this now because it's cheap and easy, but there's not much verification of identities.
I had a friend get one of his post-dated cheques cashed months before the date (with extra-salty fees attached of course). The depositor did not even falsify the date!
why should this surprise you? If you give someone a valid check, they can deposit whenever they want, regardless of the date.
check fraud is no longer as simple as portrayed in Catch me if you Can.
Well yeah, it's that way, largely as a result of that :)
No, I own the game and the CD it comes on. If I owned a license to the game, then it'd be just fine to get a burned copy of the CD and use that if mine was damaged.
Ahh, I see. This policy applies only to labs dealing with human genomes and other patient data. We'll leave you alone.
How about a SBS box and some clients that can at least accommodate smoke testing? Sure, your client's box may explode or conflict with an app they use, but it'll happen less with smoke tests.
Keep in mind that a lot of kiddy porn is teenagers - finding a 16 year old attractive is no more sick than an 18 year old that looks sort of young.
Care to provide us with two files that have the same md5 and are images?
Ahh, the eternal whine - it's the same c'tion, since we're all potentially suspects in some crime. After all, you can always figure out who the victim of a robbery is - it's finding the robber and punishing them that's hard.
Then the fbi will be after your list of customers (child porn collectors) because it's more complete than theirs.
I can see it now - 'please repost parts 17, 32, and 87. Thanks in advance'.
And if that turns out to be a criminal offense, how far would the signed paper protect you?
So, do you think I'm an incompetent admin given what I have to work with?
Sure. You don't have a test network to at least smoke patches on or you would've said something. What happens when your SBS box barfs? how long is recovery and when's the last time you tried it?
I figured that you read your own link, which specifically states that people are generally using the term incorrectly.
Note that Begging the Question is a formal term and popular usage counts for fuck all. Don't use sloppy language, it's just irritating.
No it doesn't bloody mean that. Just because a bunch of people are illiterate mouth breathers doesn't mean that you're right.
Regardless, your ethical duty is to not violate a reasonable TOS. Yes, that's fuzzy, but if you're going to get legalistic on ethics when you don't have an actual enforced code to begin with, then you're already acting unethical. This is about not being a sleaze.
By which is mean you meant to say 'asks the question'? Begging the question never means asks the question.
Which is an awful lot like saying "knives aren't illegal but killing people with them is"... which begs the question, in this hypothetical knife scenario, "Why do we need a law stating you can't kill someone with a knife when a law stating you can't kill someone in any manner would cover that possibility?"
How does that beg the question? It asks the question, but doesn't beg it.
Uh...email spam by itself most definitely should not be illegal, and it is not unethical.
It is absolutely unethical - you're imposing a cost on people without any sort of consultation. It should be illegal, but first you have to come up with a legal test and some way to enforce penalties. Good luck on either.
and then your next prospective employer calls for a reference and is told that you weren't a team player, balked at management direction, etc.?
They get sued for defamation. Seriously, most places won't ever do that for fear of lawyers.
McCain isn't wealthy, Cindy is. As far as I know, McCain's only 'comfortable'.
Who says stopping a linecutter is uncivil? Who says that allowing a linecutter is civil?