Is this precedence that using a service in violations of a terms-of-service is not criminal?
Any one caught using XSS vulnerabilities needs to just open an account, not cause any damage, and not make any money.
Does it also extend to End User License Agreements? How would it affect prosecution of small scale piracy? e.g. one legal copy installed on multiple machines - it isn't a copyright violation it is an EULA violation and by this precedence, not criminal - just a civil case?
The judge didn't want to go down a slippery slope but he may have fallen off the other side of the mountain.
She intentionally gave false information to someone (myspace) for the explicit purpose of hurting someone else. If this was done financially (bad checks from account opened with fake info) this would be easy to convict.
The issue is that the laws around the idea of using words to hurt someone else are more vague and difficult to legislate in agreement with the 1st amendment freedom of speech.
Expect to see new laws creating a new category of harassment. This would include stiffer sentencing for committing fraud (giving false information/id) during the process of harassing someone.
They should have gone after her as a child predator. She, an adult, created an online account with the intention of creating a relationship with a minor. She claims it was just to harass her but if any of the discussion was intimate then what? If it was not the mother of the ex-friend, but the father, that created the account to build the relationship, do you think they would not have prosecuted him for this.
The simple truth is she is an adult who was acting like a 13 yr old girl. She was stupid and reckless and justice will catch up with her in the civil courts.
You might want to take another look at Openfire. They stopped creating a separate "Commercial" version and released a lot of the features into the open source version. There is now logging and some other features.
They have their own drug programs to keep the government from regulating their pricing. Look uncle sam, we GIVE (a few of) our expensive twice patented drugs away to those that would otherwise require medicare to pay for them.
The programs are just smoke to keep their insanely high prices. The R&D cost excuse stopped working when they were able to get patents for trivially altered drugs.
When the original report of this event came out, the people were inserting their club cards inserting the money and then cashing out to the card without playing on the machine. They are probably going after them because they were using the machine *because* it was broken.
It takes/destroys something that was not their possession.
The moral question is "Why is slavery illegal?"
> Why do countries restrict hate speech?
It leads to other illegal acts (violence against others and their property). It has been used to rally people to replace the existing government.
> Why can't you have sex with your sister?
Close relatives breeding is known to cause unusual/fatal mutations. And successive generations of in-breeding reduces survivability of the group as a whole.
There are indeed ways to check criminal backgrounds without fingerprints. For some sensitive jobs, this is an added step in the verification process, and rightly so IMO. Do you have a problem with police officers or teachers being subjected to this as well? All of these positions have a grave responsibility with the potential for ripe abuse that can harm others. While fingerprinting and the matching of such against the NCIC does not guard against the possibility of future crimes, it does aid in an informed decision of whether the job applicant is of good enough character to hold the sensitive position in question (forgive the run on sentence).
Around here police officers and teachers ARE fingerprinted before they can get the job. Why would you trust someone who just "says" they are who they are?
I would expect that the slashdot crowd wouldn't give up their computers to anybody who showed up at their door in a police officer's uniform. They would demand to see a warrant. Call the court and verify the warrant. etc. And yet, they cry FOUL when someone demands that they verify themselves. Trusting without verification is exactly how so many people lose money to 419 scams.
Use different wavelengths for each sending processor. Each processor has a single receiver that can handle all wavelengths
or each processor has a receiver for each wavelength in the system.
You aren't suppose to connect multiple outputs to a single input. Or at least that is what I was told in my CSE course.
Not to mention the peering agreements between backbones probably have some wording in them that either allows or forbids QOS operations on their traffic. And wether they have forbidden or allowed QoS it probably applies both ways.
I wonder what ATT and Verizon will do the first day they find out the backbone providers they are peered with are dumping all traffic to and from their backbone into the lowest QoS band.
The idea of implementing QoS will probably fail because some backbone provider will have agreements that with separate providers that both allow and dont allow QoS. The company with the agreement that forbids QoS would sue that the contract was willfully and intentionally broken casuing monitary damages (i.e. have to pay QoS costs now).
The lawyers are the only ones who will make money on this scheme. (Unless all peering agreements are renegotiated simultaneously)
Just display a page with a message saying "XYZ isp is making you wait N seconds before accessing Google". Using the end user's ISP named and N being the average from that ISPs throttling. Include a link to a page explaining what the ISP is actually doing - slowing down the users connection to try to make someone else pay them money. In other words the users service was reduced intentionally (without notifying them). Just use simple words because most users don't have a clue about computers.
1. Dupe the Public 2. Steal database of iris images 3. Make contact lenses imitating others iris image 4. Profit from accessing their bank accounts 2yrs later
Central office gets a vpn server and file server (plenty of links above)
each satelite office gets a vpn endpoint/router http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/ default.asp?EDC=4 03464 (dont know how well they work yet but they seem simple and small)
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL but from a technical point of view:
Is this precedence that using a service in violations of a terms-of-service is not criminal?
Any one caught using XSS vulnerabilities needs to just open an account, not cause any damage, and not make any money.
Does it also extend to End User License Agreements? How would it affect prosecution of small scale piracy? e.g. one legal copy installed on multiple machines - it isn't a copyright violation it is an EULA violation and by this precedence, not criminal - just a civil case?
The judge didn't want to go down a slippery slope but he may have fallen off the other side of the mountain.
She intentionally gave false information to someone (myspace) for the explicit purpose of hurting someone else. If this was done financially (bad checks from account opened with fake info) this would be easy to convict.
The issue is that the laws around the idea of using words to hurt someone else are more vague and difficult to legislate in agreement with the 1st amendment freedom of speech.
Expect to see new laws creating a new category of harassment. This would include stiffer sentencing for committing fraud (giving false information/id) during the process of harassing someone.
They should have gone after her as a child predator.
She, an adult, created an online account with the intention of creating a relationship with a minor. She claims it was just to harass her but if any of the discussion was intimate then what?
If it was not the mother of the ex-friend, but the father, that created the account to build the relationship, do you think they would not have prosecuted him for this.
The simple truth is she is an adult who was acting like a 13 yr old girl. She was stupid and reckless and justice will catch up with her in the civil courts.
The borrowers were told that they would refinance in a couple of years to get another low rate.
There was a lot of short sightedness and trusting the fox to watch the hen house.
You might want to take another look at Openfire. They stopped creating a separate "Commercial" version and released a lot of the features into the open source version. There is now logging and some other features.
Just start by publishing the list of people who got home loans (foreclosures) they couldn't afford, and the loan officers that approved the loans.
And when you sue your former employer "Mega*Mart" you will have to pay for their legal defense team first.
No, Thank you.
Up front costs just ensures that only the rich can sue.
Post judgment paying for the costs ensures that anyone can sue but you better be sure you can .
They have their own drug programs to keep the government from regulating their pricing. Look uncle sam, we GIVE (a few of) our expensive twice patented drugs away to those that would otherwise require medicare to pay for them.
The programs are just smoke to keep their insanely high prices. The R&D cost excuse stopped working when they were able to get patents for trivially altered drugs.
When the original report of this event came out, the people were inserting their club cards inserting the money and then cashing out to the card without playing on the machine. They are probably going after them because they were using the machine *because* it was broken.
> Why is murder wrong?
It takes/destroys something that was not their possession.
The moral question is "Why is slavery illegal?"
> Why do countries restrict hate speech?
It leads to other illegal acts (violence against others and their property).
It has been used to rally people to replace the existing government.
> Why can't you have sex with your sister?
Close relatives breeding is known to cause unusual/fatal mutations. And successive generations of in-breeding reduces survivability of the group as a whole.
The Safe Harbor provision of the DMCA.
Most new developers think lisp is what makes daffy and donald duck talk funny.
There are indeed ways to check criminal backgrounds without fingerprints. For some sensitive jobs, this is an added step in the verification process, and rightly so IMO. Do you have a problem with police officers or teachers being subjected to this as well? All of these positions have a grave responsibility with the potential for ripe abuse that can harm others. While fingerprinting and the matching of such against the NCIC does not guard against the possibility of future crimes, it does aid in an informed decision of whether the job applicant is of good enough character to hold the sensitive position in question (forgive the run on sentence).
Around here police officers and teachers ARE fingerprinted before they can get the job. Why would you trust someone who just "says" they are who they are?
I would expect that the slashdot crowd wouldn't give up their computers to anybody who showed up at their door in a police officer's uniform. They would demand to see a warrant. Call the court and verify the warrant. etc. And yet, they cry FOUL when someone demands that they verify themselves. Trusting without verification is exactly how so many people lose money to 419 scams.
Use different wavelengths for each sending processor.
Each processor has a single receiver that can handle all wavelengths
or each processor has a receiver for each wavelength in the system.
You aren't suppose to connect multiple outputs to a single input. Or at least that is what I was told in my CSE course.
Seal the transmission corridors to keep dust out.
And then file the appeal based on the judge using information from some one lying under oath.
Not to mention the peering agreements between backbones probably have some wording in them that either allows or forbids QOS operations on their traffic. And wether they have forbidden or allowed QoS it probably applies both ways.
I wonder what ATT and Verizon will do the first day they find out the backbone providers they are peered with are dumping all traffic to and from their backbone into the lowest QoS band.
The idea of implementing QoS will probably fail because some backbone provider will have agreements that with separate providers that both allow and dont allow QoS. The company with the agreement that forbids QoS would sue that the contract was willfully and intentionally broken casuing monitary damages (i.e. have to pay QoS costs now).
The lawyers are the only ones who will make money on this scheme. (Unless all peering agreements are renegotiated simultaneously)
Just display a page with a message saying "XYZ isp is making you wait N seconds before accessing Google".
Using the end user's ISP named and N being the average from that ISPs throttling. Include a link to a page explaining what the ISP is actually doing - slowing down the users connection to try to make someone else pay them money. In other words the users service was reduced intentionally (without notifying them). Just use simple words because most users don't have a clue about computers.
If the packets do travel through the AT&T backbone and the website your using has *not* paid AT&T 'protection money', those packets will slow down.
1. Dupe the Public
2. Steal database of iris images
3. Make contact lenses imitating others iris image
4. Profit from accessing their bank accounts 2yrs later
Wouldnt this be better as a wireless NAS?
try http://jef.raskincenter.org/humane_interface/summa ry_of_thi.html
They leaked. I lost an Abit motherboard to em. You could tell when all the capacitors of the same brand and rating were leaking on the board.
I just have to leave an mp3 cd paused using media player 9. Ill get a BSOD once a week or so.
And the patent office wouldnt be able to find any prior art for it either!
Maybe it's your timing?
Central office gets a vpn server and file server
/ default.asp?EDC=4 03464
(plenty of links above)
each satelite office gets a vpn endpoint/router
http://www.cdw.com/shop/products
(dont know how well they work yet but they seem simple and small)