Can you perhaps back up your claim that companies using SSNs are in defiance of the Privacy Act of 1974? I can't see any where they are breaking the law.
Can you perhaps provide a cite from the Privacy Act of 1974 saying that private companies (such as healthcare companies and insurance companies) are not supposed to be using the SSN? I can't.
Or, cop responds to 911 call about someone stealing electricity. Guy walks up and accuses cop investigating of damaging the car, even when the car was already damaged. Guy has previously been told to stay away from where he was. Cops rightfully arrest him for theft.
Seems like a straightforward story to me. I'm unclear as to why everyone is worked up.
If you had already been told not to be on the property where the water fountain was located (like this guy had), then I'm okay with you being ticketed or arrested.
Am I the only one who actually read the article? He was banned from using the tennis courts that he was using. The cops had a 911 call about the plug. He accused the cops of damaging his porperty and was confrontational. I've got no problem with him being arrested.
From my understanding, this is pretty much what Google tries to do. It takes links to another page as a "mod" for that page. This mod is then weighted (+2 posting bonus), depending upon the number of mods (karma) that the liker has.
This works pretty well for slashdot, because there is no money to be made through spamming the boards, and the users that abuse the system get shut up very fast. If, for some reason higher modded comments on slashdot meant more advertising (a lot more that is) for users then you would see a lot more "slashdot bombing"
Probably so. However, buying someone's vote is a whole lot less risky if you can get proof they voted the way you paid them too. In our current system, you can buy my vote all day long, but you'll never know whether or not I vote the way you tell me too.
On the other hand, if I had proof of how I voted, you could refuse to pay me until you've seen verification.
Their website says "The Mozilla project maintains choice and innovation on the Internet by developing the acclaimed, open source, Mozilla 1.6 web and email suite and related products and technology."
Now, I've used Phoenix (Now FireFox) in the past. I always thought that Mozilla was a web browser suite, kinda like Netscape (Browser, News, and Communicator) used to be.
However, what is confusing the hell out of me is this: "[Firefox]...and several third party Mozilla based products will be based on Mozilla 1.7"
Okay, so if Mozilla is a suite, what does it mean by based on? Does that mean that Mozilla 1.7 will have Firefox 1.0 as it's browser?
Is it that this would be a stable suite of products that you can download right now, but with each one being updated seperately?
I don't understand this. How can the encryption be tied to the physical structure of the disk, be able to play in any cd rom drive, yet be uncopyable.
I understand that perhaps you could say well, sector X is going to be unreadable, and if it is readable, then it isn't a legit copy, but I don't see any other way that this is possible, yet still able to run in CD drives. (Of course, I don't specialize in hardware of this sort.)
Actually, someone who breaks into a computer system is a hacker as well.
hacker
n. Informal
1. One who is proficient at using or programming a computer; a computer buff. 2. One who uses programming skills to gain illegal access to a computer network or file.
3. One who enthusiastically pursues a game or sport: a weekend tennis hacker
The English language is defined in terms of usage.
This is a bad example. Someone is hurt, the owner of the door now has a bullet in his door, or in his wall.
Better example: I run a red light at 2am.
Two consequences:
1.) I hit a car with 4 kids in it and kill them all.
2.) Noone is around, and I get home faster, because I didn't have to wait pointlessly at an intersection for the light to turn green.
I think it is completely okay to run that light, just as long as noone is coming.
This is an argument over the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law.
If there are parts of you you don't want seen, you should cover them apropriately.
To me, this is the key.
My girlfriend does not worry about people taking pictures of her genitals in public, because she wears underwear. Noone is invading anyone else's clothes, they are merely looking through an opening of the clothes. If the person does not want her genitals exposed, then they should realize that there is an opening at the bottom of their skirt, and take appropriate action to cover up anything they don't want seen. I really don't understand why this is controvercial. One of the things you have to expect about being in PUBLIC is that people can see you. In that case, you should take the appropriate action to make sure that they can only see what you want them to. You cannot assume that just because you don't want someone to see your genitals, they will not be able to, rather, you should take whatever action you deem appropriate to cover them.
Above all, wear underwear with a skirt... unless you're a "bad girl" that is.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you perhaps back up your claim that companies using SSNs are in defiance of the Privacy Act of 1974? I can't see any where they are breaking the law.
Can you perhaps provide a cite from the Privacy Act of 1974 saying that private companies (such as healthcare companies and insurance companies) are not supposed to be using the SSN? I can't.
Holy crap, as expensive as AAA titles are, I can only imagine what AAAAAAAAA titles will run...
Or, cop responds to 911 call about someone stealing electricity. Guy walks up and accuses cop investigating of damaging the car, even when the car was already damaged. Guy has previously been told to stay away from where he was. Cops rightfully arrest him for theft. Seems like a straightforward story to me. I'm unclear as to why everyone is worked up.
If you had already been told not to be on the property where the water fountain was located (like this guy had), then I'm okay with you being ticketed or arrested.
Seems justified to me. They had a 911 call from someone about power being stolen.
Am I the only one who actually read the article? He was banned from using the tennis courts that he was using. The cops had a 911 call about the plug. He accused the cops of damaging his porperty and was confrontational. I've got no problem with him being arrested.
But, what happens when the "robotic spacecraft mechanic" breaks down?
From my understanding, this is pretty much what Google tries to do. It takes links to another page as a "mod" for that page. This mod is then weighted (+2 posting bonus), depending upon the number of mods (karma) that the liker has.
This works pretty well for slashdot, because there is no money to be made through spamming the boards, and the users that abuse the system get shut up very fast. If, for some reason higher modded comments on slashdot meant more advertising (a lot more that is) for users then you would see a lot more "slashdot bombing"
What's up wuth the "503 Service is unavailable" errors? Is slashdot getting slashdotted?
Probably so. However, buying someone's vote is a whole lot less risky if you can get proof they voted the way you paid them too. In our current system, you can buy my vote all day long, but you'll never know whether or not I vote the way you tell me too.
On the other hand, if I had proof of how I voted, you could refuse to pay me until you've seen verification.
OpenOffice or something of the sort would be nice. An office package is always useful.
As far as the courts go, yes they are.
Copyrights and patents are both forms of intellectual property .
Okay, I have a stupid question.
What is Mozilla?
Their website says "The Mozilla project maintains choice and innovation on the Internet by developing the acclaimed, open source, Mozilla 1.6 web and email suite and related products and technology."
Now, I've used Phoenix (Now FireFox) in the past. I always thought that Mozilla was a web browser suite, kinda like Netscape (Browser, News, and Communicator) used to be.
However, what is confusing the hell out of me is this: "[Firefox]...and several third party Mozilla based products will be based on Mozilla 1.7"
Okay, so if Mozilla is a suite, what does it mean by based on? Does that mean that Mozilla 1.7 will have Firefox 1.0 as it's browser?
Is it that this would be a stable suite of products that you can download right now, but with each one being updated seperately?
Man, I feel like an idiot asking this...
Here you go.
If you look at Google's press release on the matter, you will note it is dated April 1, 2004 UTC.
All of their other press releases are simply dated, without the timezone...
Hmmm.. That's odd. Wonder why?
Which is why Linux had a 6% advantage over Win2k in the WebServer market.
Why not do online backup? Many companies offer this fairly cheaply...
For instance NovaStor
I don't understand this. How can the encryption be tied to the physical structure of the disk, be able to play in any cd rom drive, yet be uncopyable.
I understand that perhaps you could say well, sector X is going to be unreadable, and if it is readable, then it isn't a legit copy, but I don't see any other way that this is possible, yet still able to run in CD drives. (Of course, I don't specialize in hardware of this sort.)
Thanks, I appreciate it.
Actually, someone who breaks into a computer system is a hacker as well.
hacker
n. Informal
1. One who is proficient at using or programming a computer; a computer buff.
2. One who uses programming skills to gain illegal access to a computer network or file.
3. One who enthusiastically pursues a game or sport: a weekend tennis hacker
The English language is defined in terms of usage.
Easy...
Oklahoma.
This is a bad example. Someone is hurt, the owner of the door now has a bullet in his door, or in his wall.
Better example: I run a red light at 2am.
Two consequences:
1.) I hit a car with 4 kids in it and kill them all.
2.) Noone is around, and I get home faster, because I didn't have to wait pointlessly at an intersection for the light to turn green.
I think it is completely okay to run that light, just as long as noone is coming.
This is an argument over the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law.
If there are parts of you you don't want seen, you should cover them apropriately. To me, this is the key. My girlfriend does not worry about people taking pictures of her genitals in public, because she wears underwear. Noone is invading anyone else's clothes, they are merely looking through an opening of the clothes. If the person does not want her genitals exposed, then they should realize that there is an opening at the bottom of their skirt, and take appropriate action to cover up anything they don't want seen. I really don't understand why this is controvercial. One of the things you have to expect about being in PUBLIC is that people can see you. In that case, you should take the appropriate action to make sure that they can only see what you want them to. You cannot assume that just because you don't want someone to see your genitals, they will not be able to, rather, you should take whatever action you deem appropriate to cover them. Above all, wear underwear with a skirt... unless you're a "bad girl" that is.
This is what we use at work.