It was the SJWs who were picking authors based on their political viewpoints and their willingness to deal with people who are obsessed with what everyone is doing with their genitalia.
The Puppies groups were campaigning for works to be judged on their quality alone.
I've got news for you, man, Cyanogen doesn't need to "support" it. It simply works if the driverspace support is there because it's a part of the Android API from like 4.3 (possibly 4.2) onwards.
I've been using Skvalex's Call Recorder with CyanogenMod from 10.0 all the way through to the d2lte 11.0-M8 nightlies. It does work on my very phone although you'll generally have to route things through ALSA to avoid malfunctions (most notably, the other party hearing strange echoes of what they say).
SPH-L710, and before that the SPH-D710....although from what I can tell it's much easier with a number of other vendors. Sprint are such a pack of assholes.
This will sound a bit like capitulation but you can pay Comcast $3/month for a service that amounts to a "It ain't my freakin' problem" fee. I got so sick of them sending out techs to repair their equipment but still trying to bill me I took that route and I love it when they say "Well, it's going to cost you $XX for the technician's visit so that he can troubleshoot what's wrong in your home" and I say "No, it's not going to cost me a damn thing. It's going to cost you money if you send some guy out here to fix a problem that's on your end."
When they know they're going to eat the cost of the visit, they're much less quick to try and "solve" a problem by scheduling an on-site visit half a week in the future to get you out of their hair.
No, if you actually poke around the Android store a bit you'll find more than a few apps that will record both sides of the conversation--not just record from your mic. Recording "the entire call" is a thing that's been built into the Android APIs since at least 4.3--it just requires a bit of support from the phone to work. Said "support" is often reverse-engineered and you should Just be very sure you're in a one-party consent state before you do this, because it could get you in some legal trouble.
If you're not trying to defraud people or go out of your way to cause a problem and you live in a one-party consent state, you can basically ignore whether or not you're dealing with a caller from a two-party consent state. Every possible legal precedent will have been in your favor.
...and ignore LifeHacker already. They're a waste of your time for anything that requires expertise. Reading the instructions on a box of pudding before making it is not "pudding hacking"--it's just called "following f**king directions".
Nope. If you live in a two-party consent state (which is where these notifications could potentially very seriously matter) that satisfies the requirement that all parties be aware that the company you're calling is recording, but does not satisfy the requirement that all parties have been notified that you are recording.
Scrutinize http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... carefully to determine under which jurisdiction you live, because that's what matters.
It's because cell phone companies are cowards and are worried they might get sued, basically....also, they are probably more than a little nervous about having the feature used against them when their sales/support representatives lie about something.
The feature is actually part of Android, but apparently requires some driver magic to get the audio streams from the radio, and without that support you have to jump through a lot of hoops to get it working. Expect to try a few apps before you find one that works properly and reliably. Also, check your local statutes to find out whether or not your jurisdiction is one-party consent (meaning only one particiapant--typically you--has to know the recording is taking place) or is a two-party consent area where you must inform the other party that the call is being recorded or it's considered an illegal wiretap. I've yet to see any app that does OGM notifications of recording.
That having been said, Tennessee is a one-party consent state, which means I only have to worry about whether or not I am aware of a call being recorded. Skvalex has an application called (rather unimaginatively) Call Recorder that has worked on both the Samsung Galaxy S2 I used to have as well as the Samsung Galaxy S3 I currently have (using the ALSA method), and I've been using it for awhile. It's fairly inobtrusive, can record straight to the external SDCard, and can be configured to delete messages older than X days (unless you flag them as favorites) or limit the number of messsages and/or total amount of space used.
If your friends complain about having their calls to you recorded, tell them to STFU and install RedPhone already (or pick better friends) because the NSA is for damn sure recording their calls.
I have used Call Recorder to burn sleazy telemarketers ("FSS Secure" ring a bell for anyone?) on a few occasions now, and I'm about to make YouTube celebrities out of some "Academic Advisor" people.
The first problem is that you're conflating volumes of data and transmission speed. I'm pretty sure if your claim of "100 times more bandwidth" made any sense, it would mean you're assuming your customers would be perfectly happy browsing websites over broadband technology at a dialup speeds.
You clearly do not understand transit and peering agreements. Typically, Level3 should be charging Comcast extra because Comcast is sucking down traffic so asymmetrically. This is happening because Comcast has been attempting to engineer their infrastructure to be as lopsided as possible--mainly because they're cheap assholes. If, on the other hand, they had customers who were actually allowed to produce content, Level3 would be obligated to be less snippy about the volume of traffic Comcast is "consuming" because peering agreements are about simply saying "We could charge each other money, but we're both using about the same amount of each other's traffic so let's just call it even".
To make it clear where you are misunderstanding how all this works, there are no per-byte costs for the transmission of data when you own the hardware. There are minutely costs of maintenance, and minutely costs for operation (which is largely electricity), and upgrades should be budgeted with the same approach. Period. In fact, if you do not know approximately when your next upgrades will be and what type of upgrades they are, you have already failed.
You've either purchased sufficiently capable routers or you haven't. It only makes sense to start getting picky about the volumes of traffic when your hardware is insufficient to the workload presented, which means it's either already past time for you to upgrade or you did not deploy sufficient equipment from the start. Do not make the mistake so many lazy-assed cable companies are making and assuming your infrastructure is something you deploy once and profit from forever. Budget regular upgrades and include them in the costs to the customer or stop pretending you know what you are doing. It will not matter if your competition (if it even exists) is charging a bit less when their service will be unreliable and slow because they did not budget properly.
If you are in a position of management for this ISP and do not understand these things, then you should get out of the residential internet business now and let someone else who knows what they're doing handle it.
This isn't news--this is an opinion piece, and it's a bad opinion piece at that. The bulk of it is not only wrong but eye-wateringly wrong and factually incorrect.
Whether or not ESPN wanted to monetize their viewers or not has nothing to do with Net Neutrality or a lack thereof. ESPN is an over-the-top provider in this case just like dozens or other companies. This argument is just thrown in to confuse people and pretend that there is precedent for the argument the morons are trying to make.
"the increasingly elaborate infrastructure required to make the Internet do something it was never designed to do in the first place: stream high-speed video"
That quote deserves special contempt because it's not only bullshit but is also a shamefully ignorant statement to make. Not only was the Internet designed to route traffic without passing judgement, IPv6 (the protocol broadband would be moving to if they weren't so busy punting around) handles all sorts of data in special ways to facilitate these sorts of things. Furthermore, multicast, bitches. It was designed for doing things like streaming video something like twenty years ago.
As to this stuff about a "two-sided market"... it's simply a load of nonsense. Broadband providers don't need a special incentive to "help". What they need is actual competition so they'll stop goofing off, actually invest in upgrades like any healthy technology company should, and stop paying people to write shillery like this. The fact that they're already being paid by their customers at rates higher than almost everywhere else in the world, for notably slower connections should be a big red flag that they're negligent in this obligation.
We're not "assuming" broadband providers are throttling Netflix--we can prove it, because unlike paid shills, we can actually analyze and diagnose networking issues. Fifteen minutes of Googling will readily turn up multiple reports (from both skilled individuals and capable technical organiztions) demonstrating that the broadband ISPs are throttling the traffic.
If you want abuses of power, this article is one. It's nothing but a pack of lies designed to muddy the waters. Are we going to start seeing reposts of the stupid shit FOX News says now?
What qualifications would those be? The ability to rapidly spin stories so that they sound less critical of people in power? The ability to tap into voicemail systems and listen in on people's private messages and then later claim they had no idea it was wrong? The ability to take a good, solid beating from the police without complaint? Their ability to ignore hard news that people might find boring, and instead publish full-page articles about someone's cat finding it's way home? Their ability to accurately gauge what amount of bribe money needs to go to which hands so as to not strain their employers 'petty cash' accounting? Perhaps it is their ability to report what the AP already reported about something and pretend they were actually there to personally witness it?...or perhaps it's their ability to take stories from PR firms and publish them largely unedited as op-ed pieces....or perhaps it's their ability to listen to even the most delusional politician's explanations about things which are so counter to common-knowledge that you'd think they were auditioning for a role in a science fiction movie, and not even once ask the interviewee, 'Wait... do you mean to tell me you actually believe this load of horse-shit you're telling me?"
Yes, those are some hard qualifications to meet. Most people would suffer from insomnia, depression, and a host of other maladies just from encountering even a few of those problems.
In pretty much every case lately where certain someones have wanted to stomp on the freedom of the press, it hasn't really mattered whether they're a blogger, a radio news journalist, a television news reporter, or a mechanical-typewriter toting hardliner for the New York Times. The cops haven't made any distinction between these at all and have simply done their level best to completely silence the press.
This is merely a distraction from the actual problem that freedom of the press is as big of a joke as freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. If you want any of those 'freedoms' you basically have to bribe someone for them or you get thrown in jail for daring to use them.
Lieberman Software is in the business of selling IT security products. Is it really that hard to believe that they've sufficient incentive to "creatively restate" the parameters of the their testing in order to sell more product? Bias matters, and that study is not unbiased.
Net-security.org, for their part, are only inflaming matters further by restating things an even more inflammatory manner.
Basically, you need to ask something that this article neglects to question: Did 26% of the respondents merely say they were aware of other employees *using* the shared passwords, or did it specifically detail abuse of a shared password to gain unauthorized access to information that ethically-speaking, they shouldn't be going anywhere near. Both of those are cases are considered felonies, by the way. It's very easy for someone to argue that *any* shared password use is an "abuse" and that any information access from that point is "illicit"--but without knowing specifically what question was asked, these "results" are more likely just a distortion of fact in order to sell products and services.
I am personally aware of shared passwords in many organizations. I am also occasionally privy to information I shouldn't be--specifically, people's emails. The key difference being, I *don't want to know*. I, and thousands of admins like me, wind up seeing your boring little emails while trying to figure out why they didn't arrive in your inbox already. Over time, we develop the ability to be self-redacting and immediately forget what was just on our screens--because not being able to do that means being burdened with other people's secrets that you'd feel better not knowing. This is a far, far cry from the sort of "abuse" this report pretends to show, but vendors loooove to construe one as the other in order to sell service contracts.
Frankly, this doesn't sound any more realistic than the old one about employees giving up their passwords for a candy bar. What you don't get told about those is that the employees are usually being told they have to give their password up to their immediate supervisor, and not being given any guidance as to why they're being directly ordered to violate company policy. In most offices, people who ignore direct orders being given by a live person over something written on a policy paper tend to suffer bouts of sudden and chronic unemployment--so... plenty of reason to "violate policy" there, normally "secure" employees are going to capitulate for that kind of request. Then the people doing the "analysis" stand around later and say "oh my gosh people give up their passwords for no reason!". I've personally, been given such a request in the past, and frankly since I was being directly instructed to do so, I turned over a hand-written copy of my password on the form provided...or at least, what my password was at that specific moment in time. Since I'm a twisted bastard I made up a new password just for them, set it in the system and then filled in the blank....and since the one written down was now "compromised", I then made up another password and changed it in the system again. I was unamused to find out later that someone was doing this as a "survey".
Don't be a gullible noob. Trust no "survey" coming from a vendor selling a related product unless you are being shown the exact details of the survey--because they're going to lie about it. Of that you can be sure.
Well... I guess this explains why it was that Facebook was trying to chum the waters about Google's social search features--because they were planning on partnering with Bing to do the exact same thing with social searches.
No, it's PCWorld that's brain dead.
I know this will probably be about the zillionth time someone's asked this, but it bears repeating until a decent answer shows itself:
Why the hell is Slashdot linking to anything written in a rag that's only of interest to bored secretaries and marketing people?...especially a jackass article like the one being linked. Using their same logic, literacy is dead because most people are functionally illiterate.
What the hell?
The Commodore's BASIC interpreter was not Microsoft BASIC. It was just the Commodore's variant of the BASIC language. Microsoft had not a bloody thing to do with it.
What? Have things now become so gentrified that this question even needs to be asked?
Release it already.
The 90's were great because there were active threats from all sides, spurring people to meet the challenge with actual defenses against the mayhem. By comparison now things are much more secure, but they are also incredibly less exciting, and markedly less progressive. If developers/coders are driven by a need to scratch an "itch" then by all means let's make things itchy again.
The software is non-malicious you say? Great! If nothing else it'll serve as some things for people to think about as they continue to develop their environments, and at the very least it sounds like you may have identified some genuinely soft spots in the current generation of Linux distributions. You would be far from the first person to post non-malicious proof-of-concept code to say, Bugtraq. This is not new ground--no one is going to claim you did something wrong by publishing.
Release it already!
Either we're tough enough to handle it, or we'll get tough enough to handle it.
What I don't get is how this slipped past their attorney without him realizing it actually constitutes a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Follow along with me carefully here...
The TOS of most of these sites only allows the individual to use their account for their own uses, and generally explicitly forbids sharing the account with anyone for any reason (barring the strange convolutions of minor-guardian relationships). Doesn't matter what Bozeman puts on the form--it doesn't and can't change the existing agreement between the user and the social networking site.
Violating the TOS basically invalidates the account, meaning it's very much not okay for someone other than the actual account owner to use it.
That's absolutely using a set of authentication credentials to exceed ones access knowingly, because it doesn't matter *what* the girl from HR was doing in that Facebook account--it's not their account, the owner can't legally give it to them, and Facebook expressly prohibits anyone other than the account owner from using it. This is rather explicitly illegal and has been for oh, about twenty years now.
Well, it's somewhat obvious that the news poster hasn't played GTA3 either, because if he had he'd have known it wasn't based in Liberty City.
It's kind of a rather massive thing to overlook that CJ left Liberty City to move to San Andreas for his mother's funeral. The first GTA was the one that was based in Liberty City (notwithstanding the "Liberty City Stories" mini that came out after GTAIII).
So far, this thread has mainly been composed of two groups of opinions. The first opinion, which is definitely the minority so far, is claiming that these customers are morally obligated to pay Amazon the money that Amazon was supposed to have charged them in the first place.
The second group seems to simply be saying "Screw 'em. The law says it's a done deal and no takesies-backsies."
Both of these responses are actually equally valid, taken away from their context, and both seem to be rooted in a sense of what is "fair". Which of the two is the usefully "correct" answer given the context has yet to be addressed, so I'll address it.
People should be treated as you'd like them to treat you. It's as simple as that. Good people make moral decisions. They do what's "right". Anyone arguing this? Of course not. The problem is that this is not the context in which this transaction took place. Amazon is not a person. Amazon is a corporation. This does not automatically mean one should be looking to screw them over, so follow along carefully.
Corporations, unlike people, do not make moral decisions. They make decisions based on profit margins and a curious thing called "stockholder interest", which, while it does involve people, has little to nothing to do with morality. It's simply a fact that even if someone in the corporation dared to make a decision where the moral response differs from the profitable solution by any significant degree, the organization would consider the un-profitable moral response to be incorrect (and probably fire that person if it was a large enough difference). Corporations are amoral, which is different from "immoral" so if you're having trouble understanding this, use the intertubes to look up the meanings of the words.
Taking the context of the situation into account, the customers, from a purely moral standpoint shouldn't have made the deal they did. However, you can pretty much bank on the fact that the corporation would not be making this same distinction. Corporations, while enjoying the benefits of being declared a "business entity" can be counted on to go with the letter of the law and no further in a situation involving assets of almost any kind, including money, and for this reason these customers should treat Amazon the same way Amazon would treat them. By the letter of the law, these customers owe Amazon no more money than what they were charged, Amazon would be breaking the law by charging their credit cards after the fact, and the customers should fight them every step of the way because that's what Amazon would do if the roles were reversed, simply because it would be profitable for Amazon to do so, and seldom does the issue of the morality of a business decision ever become challenged. When a non-entity which has no moral incentive is granted rights by law to be an "entity" with the same rights as a person--by acting in an amoral fashion they have to accept that their customers will behave with the exact same level of self-interest if the corporation being given these rights is to be anything approaching fair. Otherwise, ethically speaking, a corporation is no more than a paper facade for large groups of people to make decisions and interact with other people without being hindered by moral judgements. Fail to understand this, and the corporations will eventually gobble up everything.
Is everyone that moderated this "Informative" high? It is not informative, it is mis-informative!
Habeas Corpus is not a protection against unreasonable restraint or seizure as the poster is claiming. In Latin, it means literally "SHOW ME THE BODY". It is the tenet that requires physical evidence of the crime be presentable before a judge before charges can be brought and has nothing to do with what the poster is claiming.
The bill doesn't legalize torture quite the way the poster claims, either. It legalizes some forms of torture by redefining them as not being torture. This is what Bush was talking about when he made the claim to the press that the acts cited by Article 3 of the Geneva Convention were "arguably vague" and that he "intend[s] to argue them". They're not even the least bit vague, and all the things he's trying to get legalized are very clearly forbidden by Article 3.
I'm downright startled by the volume of pure, unadulterated asshattery evidenced in Thurrot's article. Some of his strongest "points" are just dead wrong.
His comments that Windows had simultaneous 32-bit and 64-bit support "last year" in XP x64 Edition is just laughable. Anyone who actually attempted the upgrade to find missing drivers, and then that their 32-bit licence had been invalidated by the attempted upgrade, will be heartily rolling their eyes at that one.
When he talks about "Spaces" he mentions that Microsoft at one point put this into a version of NT long before to support his claims that Microsoft did all this stuff first, and then he mentions Linux. Linux has had a multiple-desktop pager solution available for pretty much as long as I can remember (which is a long ways back). Microsoft invented what again?
He repeatedly attempts to imply that OSX's GUI widgets are rip-offs of Vista's "glass" theme, somehow without noticing that Apple has had Aqua just about forever now.
Is this guy campaigning to work for the Bush administration or what?
GazetteNET has managed to get their hands on a leaked picture of the new recommended swimming helmet designed by the supercomputing software. Here's the photo. Looks pretty slick to me.:)
Doing an expensive audit after an intrusion is the cost of not having enough security in the first place. If you got hacked, you got hacked. It's true that it doesn't matter whether or not anything else was done with respect to the follow-up audit.
Having someone come forward and say "you've got a rather specific problem that needs fixing and here's a way to maybe fix it" and then going and doing your damnedest to ruin their career and/or put that person in jail is simply needlessly shooting the messenger.
Having someone break into your network and steal all your company's secrets and go sell them to a competitor without you knowing about it is called "a complete @#$@% disaster" and is usually the end of your company.
Generally, I would want the first group to get to my company before the second group does, since there's a chance my job would actually remain afterwards.
Your analogy is simply broken and does not apply to this situation in the way you want it to.
It's not good for banks to be robbed, but it is good for honest people to be thinking about how their bank might be robbed and to go to the management and say "Hey, I've noticed that you've got this weakness that would let me walk off with a lot of money"....provided, of course, that they're not summarily charged with conspiracy and sentenced to a few years in jail.
What? Are you trolling or just high? Your premises don't just fail to support your conclusion-- they would appear to support the exact opposite conclusion. You've distinguished "ethical hackers" as being separate from crooks, and then blamed the "ethical hackers" for the problem.
It's crooks who are the problem, but more commonly it just appears to be lawyers who are the major part of it, since they so often find themselves "forced" to do due-diligence and attempt to prosecute every little thing that comes along, catching the ethical hackers (who obviously aren't trying very hard to avoid being noticed, since they're not up to much, and who usually step forward and give them the information needed to send them to court thinking some sanity will prevail) and going full-tilt on them to make up for staff being utterly unable to cope with the actual criminals.
Slashdot Mirror
You have this entirely backwards.
It was the SJWs who were picking authors based on their political viewpoints and their willingness to deal with people who are obsessed with what everyone is doing with their genitalia.
The Puppies groups were campaigning for works to be judged on their quality alone.
I've got news for you, man, Cyanogen doesn't need to "support" it. It simply works if the driverspace support is there because it's a part of the Android API from like 4.3 (possibly 4.2) onwards.
I've been using Skvalex's Call Recorder with CyanogenMod from 10.0 all the way through to the d2lte 11.0-M8 nightlies. It does work on my very phone although you'll generally have to route things through ALSA to avoid malfunctions (most notably, the other party hearing strange echoes of what they say).
SPH-L710, and before that the SPH-D710. ...although from what I can tell it's much easier with a number of other vendors. Sprint are such a pack of assholes.
This will sound a bit like capitulation but you can pay Comcast $3/month for a service that amounts to a "It ain't my freakin' problem" fee. I got so sick of them sending out techs to repair their equipment but still trying to bill me I took that route and I love it when they say "Well, it's going to cost you $XX for the technician's visit so that he can troubleshoot what's wrong in your home" and I say "No, it's not going to cost me a damn thing. It's going to cost you money if you send some guy out here to fix a problem that's on your end."
When they know they're going to eat the cost of the visit, they're much less quick to try and "solve" a problem by scheduling an on-site visit half a week in the future to get you out of their hair.
No, if you actually poke around the Android store a bit you'll find more than a few apps that will record both sides of the conversation--not just record from your mic. Recording "the entire call" is a thing that's been built into the Android APIs since at least 4.3--it just requires a bit of support from the phone to work. Said "support" is often reverse-engineered and you should Just be very sure you're in a one-party consent state before you do this, because it could get you in some legal trouble.
If you're not trying to defraud people or go out of your way to cause a problem and you live in a one-party consent state, you can basically ignore whether or not you're dealing with a caller from a two-party consent state. Every possible legal precedent will have been in your favor.
...and ignore LifeHacker already. They're a waste of your time for anything that requires expertise. Reading the instructions on a box of pudding before making it is not "pudding hacking"--it's just called "following f**king directions".
http://www.vegress.com/index.p...
It's just amazing the things a search engine can uncover.
Nope. If you live in a two-party consent state (which is where these notifications could potentially very seriously matter) that satisfies the requirement that all parties be aware that the company you're calling is recording, but does not satisfy the requirement that all parties have been notified that you are recording. Scrutinize http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... carefully to determine under which jurisdiction you live, because that's what matters.
It's because cell phone companies are cowards and are worried they might get sued, basically. ...also, they are probably more than a little nervous about having the feature used against them when their sales/support representatives lie about something.
The feature is actually part of Android, but apparently requires some driver magic to get the audio streams from the radio, and without that support you have to jump through a lot of hoops to get it working. Expect to try a few apps before you find one that works properly and reliably. Also, check your local statutes to find out whether or not your jurisdiction is one-party consent (meaning only one particiapant--typically you--has to know the recording is taking place) or is a two-party consent area where you must inform the other party that the call is being recorded or it's considered an illegal wiretap. I've yet to see any app that does OGM notifications of recording.
That having been said, Tennessee is a one-party consent state, which means I only have to worry about whether or not I am aware of a call being recorded. Skvalex has an application called (rather unimaginatively) Call Recorder that has worked on both the Samsung Galaxy S2 I used to have as well as the Samsung Galaxy S3 I currently have (using the ALSA method), and I've been using it for awhile. It's fairly inobtrusive, can record straight to the external SDCard, and can be configured to delete messages older than X days (unless you flag them as favorites) or limit the number of messsages and/or total amount of space used.
If your friends complain about having their calls to you recorded, tell them to STFU and install RedPhone already (or pick better friends) because the NSA is for damn sure recording their calls.
I have used Call Recorder to burn sleazy telemarketers ("FSS Secure" ring a bell for anyone?) on a few occasions now, and I'm about to make YouTube celebrities out of some "Academic Advisor" people.
The first problem is that you're conflating volumes of data and transmission speed. I'm pretty sure if your claim of "100 times more bandwidth" made any sense, it would mean you're assuming your customers would be perfectly happy browsing websites over broadband technology at a dialup speeds.
You clearly do not understand transit and peering agreements. Typically, Level3 should be charging Comcast extra because Comcast is sucking down traffic so asymmetrically. This is happening because Comcast has been attempting to engineer their infrastructure to be as lopsided as possible--mainly because they're cheap assholes. If, on the other hand, they had customers who were actually allowed to produce content, Level3 would be obligated to be less snippy about the volume of traffic Comcast is "consuming" because peering agreements are about simply saying "We could charge each other money, but we're both using about the same amount of each other's traffic so let's just call it even".
To make it clear where you are misunderstanding how all this works, there are no per-byte costs for the transmission of data when you own the hardware. There are minutely costs of maintenance, and minutely costs for operation (which is largely electricity), and upgrades should be budgeted with the same approach. Period. In fact, if you do not know approximately when your next upgrades will be and what type of upgrades they are, you have already failed.
You've either purchased sufficiently capable routers or you haven't. It only makes sense to start getting picky about the volumes of traffic when your hardware is insufficient to the workload presented, which means it's either already past time for you to upgrade or you did not deploy sufficient equipment from the start. Do not make the mistake so many lazy-assed cable companies are making and assuming your infrastructure is something you deploy once and profit from forever. Budget regular upgrades and include them in the costs to the customer or stop pretending you know what you are doing. It will not matter if your competition (if it even exists) is charging a bit less when their service will be unreliable and slow because they did not budget properly.
If you are in a position of management for this ISP and do not understand these things, then you should get out of the residential internet business now and let someone else who knows what they're doing handle it.
This isn't news--this is an opinion piece, and it's a bad opinion piece at that. The bulk of it is not only wrong but eye-wateringly wrong and factually incorrect.
Whether or not ESPN wanted to monetize their viewers or not has nothing to do with Net Neutrality or a lack thereof. ESPN is an over-the-top provider in this case just like dozens or other companies. This argument is just thrown in to confuse people and pretend that there is precedent for the argument the morons are trying to make.
That quote deserves special contempt because it's not only bullshit but is also a shamefully ignorant statement to make. Not only was the Internet designed to route traffic without passing judgement, IPv6 (the protocol broadband would be moving to if they weren't so busy punting around) handles all sorts of data in special ways to facilitate these sorts of things. Furthermore, multicast, bitches. It was designed for doing things like streaming video something like twenty years ago.
As to this stuff about a "two-sided market"... it's simply a load of nonsense. Broadband providers don't need a special incentive to "help". What they need is actual competition so they'll stop goofing off, actually invest in upgrades like any healthy technology company should, and stop paying people to write shillery like this. The fact that they're already being paid by their customers at rates higher than almost everywhere else in the world, for notably slower connections should be a big red flag that they're negligent in this obligation.
We're not "assuming" broadband providers are throttling Netflix--we can prove it, because unlike paid shills, we can actually analyze and diagnose networking issues. Fifteen minutes of Googling will readily turn up multiple reports (from both skilled individuals and capable technical organiztions) demonstrating that the broadband ISPs are throttling the traffic.
If you want abuses of power, this article is one. It's nothing but a pack of lies designed to muddy the waters. Are we going to start seeing reposts of the stupid shit FOX News says now?
What qualifications would those be? The ability to rapidly spin stories so that they sound less critical of people in power? The ability to tap into voicemail systems and listen in on people's private messages and then later claim they had no idea it was wrong? The ability to take a good, solid beating from the police without complaint? Their ability to ignore hard news that people might find boring, and instead publish full-page articles about someone's cat finding it's way home? Their ability to accurately gauge what amount of bribe money needs to go to which hands so as to not strain their employers 'petty cash' accounting? Perhaps it is their ability to report what the AP already reported about something and pretend they were actually there to personally witness it? ...or perhaps it's their ability to take stories from PR firms and publish them largely unedited as op-ed pieces. ...or perhaps it's their ability to listen to even the most delusional politician's explanations about things which are so counter to common-knowledge that you'd think they were auditioning for a role in a science fiction movie, and not even once ask the interviewee, 'Wait... do you mean to tell me you actually believe this load of horse-shit you're telling me?"
Yes, those are some hard qualifications to meet. Most people would suffer from insomnia, depression, and a host of other maladies just from encountering even a few of those problems.
In pretty much every case lately where certain someones have wanted to stomp on the freedom of the press, it hasn't really mattered whether they're a blogger, a radio news journalist, a television news reporter, or a mechanical-typewriter toting hardliner for the New York Times. The cops haven't made any distinction between these at all and have simply done their level best to completely silence the press.
This is merely a distraction from the actual problem that freedom of the press is as big of a joke as freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. If you want any of those 'freedoms' you basically have to bribe someone for them or you get thrown in jail for daring to use them.
Lieberman Software is in the business of selling IT security products. Is it really that hard to believe that they've sufficient incentive to "creatively restate" the parameters of the their testing in order to sell more product? Bias matters, and that study is not unbiased.
...and since the one written down was now "compromised", I then made up another password and changed it in the system again. I was unamused to find out later that someone was doing this as a "survey".
Net-security.org, for their part, are only inflaming matters further by restating things an even more inflammatory manner.
Basically, you need to ask something that this article neglects to question: Did 26% of the respondents merely say they were aware of other employees *using* the shared passwords, or did it specifically detail abuse of a shared password to gain unauthorized access to information that ethically-speaking, they shouldn't be going anywhere near. Both of those are cases are considered felonies, by the way. It's very easy for someone to argue that *any* shared password use is an "abuse" and that any information access from that point is "illicit"--but without knowing specifically what question was asked, these "results" are more likely just a distortion of fact in order to sell products and services.
I am personally aware of shared passwords in many organizations. I am also occasionally privy to information I shouldn't be--specifically, people's emails. The key difference being, I *don't want to know*. I, and thousands of admins like me, wind up seeing your boring little emails while trying to figure out why they didn't arrive in your inbox already. Over time, we develop the ability to be self-redacting and immediately forget what was just on our screens--because not being able to do that means being burdened with other people's secrets that you'd feel better not knowing. This is a far, far cry from the sort of "abuse" this report pretends to show, but vendors loooove to construe one as the other in order to sell service contracts.
Frankly, this doesn't sound any more realistic than the old one about employees giving up their passwords for a candy bar. What you don't get told about those is that the employees are usually being told they have to give their password up to their immediate supervisor, and not being given any guidance as to why they're being directly ordered to violate company policy. In most offices, people who ignore direct orders being given by a live person over something written on a policy paper tend to suffer bouts of sudden and chronic unemployment--so... plenty of reason to "violate policy" there, normally "secure" employees are going to capitulate for that kind of request. Then the people doing the "analysis" stand around later and say "oh my gosh people give up their passwords for no reason!". I've personally, been given such a request in the past, and frankly since I was being directly instructed to do so, I turned over a hand-written copy of my password on the form provided...or at least, what my password was at that specific moment in time. Since I'm a twisted bastard I made up a new password just for them, set it in the system and then filled in the blank.
Don't be a gullible noob. Trust no "survey" coming from a vendor selling a related product unless you are being shown the exact details of the survey--because they're going to lie about it. Of that you can be sure.
Well... I guess this explains why it was that Facebook was trying to chum the waters about Google's social search features--because they were planning on partnering with Bing to do the exact same thing with social searches.
No, it's PCWorld that's brain dead. I know this will probably be about the zillionth time someone's asked this, but it bears repeating until a decent answer shows itself: Why the hell is Slashdot linking to anything written in a rag that's only of interest to bored secretaries and marketing people? ...especially a jackass article like the one being linked. Using their same logic, literacy is dead because most people are functionally illiterate.
What the hell? The Commodore's BASIC interpreter was not Microsoft BASIC. It was just the Commodore's variant of the BASIC language. Microsoft had not a bloody thing to do with it.
What? Have things now become so gentrified that this question even needs to be asked?
Release it already.
The 90's were great because there were active threats from all sides, spurring people to meet the challenge with actual defenses against the mayhem. By comparison now things are much more secure, but they are also incredibly less exciting, and markedly less progressive. If developers/coders are driven by a need to scratch an "itch" then by all means let's make things itchy again.
The software is non-malicious you say? Great! If nothing else it'll serve as some things for people to think about as they continue to develop their environments, and at the very least it sounds like you may have identified some genuinely soft spots in the current generation of Linux distributions. You would be far from the first person to post non-malicious proof-of-concept code to say, Bugtraq. This is not new ground--no one is going to claim you did something wrong by publishing.
Release it already!
Either we're tough enough to handle it, or we'll get tough enough to handle it.
What I don't get is how this slipped past their attorney without him realizing it actually constitutes a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Follow along with me carefully here...
The TOS of most of these sites only allows the individual to use their account for their own uses, and generally explicitly forbids sharing the account with anyone for any reason (barring the strange convolutions of minor-guardian relationships). Doesn't matter what Bozeman puts on the form--it doesn't and can't change the existing agreement between the user and the social networking site.
Violating the TOS basically invalidates the account, meaning it's very much not okay for someone other than the actual account owner to use it.
That's absolutely using a set of authentication credentials to exceed ones access knowingly, because it doesn't matter *what* the girl from HR was doing in that Facebook account--it's not their account, the owner can't legally give it to them, and Facebook expressly prohibits anyone other than the account owner from using it. This is rather explicitly illegal and has been for oh, about twenty years now.
Well, it's somewhat obvious that the news poster hasn't played GTA3 either, because if he had he'd have known it wasn't based in Liberty City.
It's kind of a rather massive thing to overlook that CJ left Liberty City to move to San Andreas for his mother's funeral. The first GTA was the one that was based in Liberty City (notwithstanding the "Liberty City Stories" mini that came out after GTAIII).
So far, this thread has mainly been composed of two groups of opinions. The first opinion, which is definitely the minority so far, is claiming that these customers are morally obligated to pay Amazon the money that Amazon was supposed to have charged them in the first place.
The second group seems to simply be saying "Screw 'em. The law says it's a done deal and no takesies-backsies."
Both of these responses are actually equally valid, taken away from their context, and both seem to be rooted in a sense of what is "fair". Which of the two is the usefully "correct" answer given the context has yet to be addressed, so I'll address it.
People should be treated as you'd like them to treat you. It's as simple as that. Good people make moral decisions. They do what's "right". Anyone arguing this? Of course not. The problem is that this is not the context in which this transaction took place. Amazon is not a person. Amazon is a corporation. This does not automatically mean one should be looking to screw them over, so follow along carefully.
Corporations, unlike people, do not make moral decisions. They make decisions based on profit margins and a curious thing called "stockholder interest", which, while it does involve people, has little to nothing to do with morality. It's simply a fact that even if someone in the corporation dared to make a decision where the moral response differs from the profitable solution by any significant degree, the organization would consider the un-profitable moral response to be incorrect (and probably fire that person if it was a large enough difference). Corporations are amoral, which is different from "immoral" so if you're having trouble understanding this, use the intertubes to look up the meanings of the words.
Taking the context of the situation into account, the customers, from a purely moral standpoint shouldn't have made the deal they did. However, you can pretty much bank on the fact that the corporation would not be making this same distinction. Corporations, while enjoying the benefits of being declared a "business entity" can be counted on to go with the letter of the law and no further in a situation involving assets of almost any kind, including money, and for this reason these customers should treat Amazon the same way Amazon would treat them. By the letter of the law, these customers owe Amazon no more money than what they were charged, Amazon would be breaking the law by charging their credit cards after the fact, and the customers should fight them every step of the way because that's what Amazon would do if the roles were reversed, simply because it would be profitable for Amazon to do so, and seldom does the issue of the morality of a business decision ever become challenged. When a non-entity which has no moral incentive is granted rights by law to be an "entity" with the same rights as a person--by acting in an amoral fashion they have to accept that their customers will behave with the exact same level of self-interest if the corporation being given these rights is to be anything approaching fair. Otherwise, ethically speaking, a corporation is no more than a paper facade for large groups of people to make decisions and interact with other people without being hindered by moral judgements. Fail to understand this, and the corporations will eventually gobble up everything.
Is everyone that moderated this "Informative" high? It is not informative, it is mis-informative!
Habeas Corpus is not a protection against unreasonable restraint or seizure as the poster is claiming. In Latin, it means literally "SHOW ME THE BODY". It is the tenet that requires physical evidence of the crime be presentable before a judge before charges can be brought and has nothing to do with what the poster is claiming.
The bill doesn't legalize torture quite the way the poster claims, either. It legalizes some forms of torture by redefining them as not being torture. This is what Bush was talking about when he made the claim to the press that the acts cited by Article 3 of the Geneva Convention were "arguably vague" and that he "intend[s] to argue them". They're not even the least bit vague, and all the things he's trying to get legalized are very clearly forbidden by Article 3.
I'm downright startled by the volume of pure, unadulterated asshattery evidenced in Thurrot's article. Some of his strongest "points" are just dead wrong.
His comments that Windows had simultaneous 32-bit and 64-bit support "last year" in XP x64 Edition is just laughable. Anyone who actually attempted the upgrade to find missing drivers, and then that their 32-bit licence had been invalidated by the attempted upgrade, will be heartily rolling their eyes at that one.
When he talks about "Spaces" he mentions that Microsoft at one point put this into a version of NT long before to support his claims that Microsoft did all this stuff first, and then he mentions Linux. Linux has had a multiple-desktop pager solution available for pretty much as long as I can remember (which is a long ways back). Microsoft invented what again?
He repeatedly attempts to imply that OSX's GUI widgets are rip-offs of Vista's "glass" theme, somehow without noticing that Apple has had Aqua just about forever now.
Is this guy campaigning to work for the Bush administration or what?
GazetteNET has managed to get their hands on a leaked picture of the new recommended swimming helmet designed by the supercomputing software. Here's the photo. Looks pretty slick to me. :)
g
http://www.gazettenet.com/business/02242003/14.jp
Doing an expensive audit after an intrusion is the cost of not having enough security in the first place. If you got hacked, you got hacked. It's true that it doesn't matter whether or not anything else was done with respect to the follow-up audit.
Having someone come forward and say "you've got a rather specific problem that needs fixing and here's a way to maybe fix it" and then going and doing your damnedest to ruin their career and/or put that person in jail is simply needlessly shooting the messenger.
Having someone break into your network and steal all your company's secrets and go sell them to a competitor without you knowing about it is called "a complete @#$@% disaster" and is usually the end of your company.
Generally, I would want the first group to get to my company before the second group does, since there's a chance my job would actually remain afterwards.
Your analogy is simply broken and does not apply to this situation in the way you want it to.
...provided, of course, that they're not summarily charged with conspiracy and sentenced to a few years in jail.
It's not good for banks to be robbed, but it is good for honest people to be thinking about how their bank might be robbed and to go to the management and say "Hey, I've noticed that you've got this weakness that would let me walk off with a lot of money".
What? Are you trolling or just high? Your premises don't just fail to support your conclusion-- they would appear to support the exact opposite conclusion. You've distinguished "ethical hackers" as being separate from crooks, and then blamed the "ethical hackers" for the problem.
It's crooks who are the problem, but more commonly it just appears to be lawyers who are the major part of it, since they so often find themselves "forced" to do due-diligence and attempt to prosecute every little thing that comes along, catching the ethical hackers (who obviously aren't trying very hard to avoid being noticed, since they're not up to much, and who usually step forward and give them the information needed to send them to court thinking some sanity will prevail) and going full-tilt on them to make up for staff being utterly unable to cope with the actual criminals.