Well, Kevin Mitnick got himself jail time doing this sort of thing. The only difference is that, not being a company insider, he had to start from scratch. When you already have people's SSNs because you are a high-level executive with power or influence over HR, it should be trivial.
CIA morons are stupid twits, how old are most? 28-35? Born in the 70s, grew up in the 80s maddonas age, probably never touched a computer till 1998.
Uh, GenXers like myself grew up BBSing on our C64s and phreaking Ma Bell. We have a bit of a lead on you Generation Y-bothers. I'll bet you feel really 31337 because you learned how to run a portscan this week. And for your information, the 1980s were the "Def Leppard" age.
I pray that those who modded you up as "Insightful" merely failed to read this first line:
I'd rather have a 0.00000001% chance of being blown up by terrorist events organized by the government, than to live under the draconian restrictions on freedom the same government pushes allegedly in response to those said terrorist events.
So not only do you set up a combination straw man and false dilemma, you claim that "terrorist events are organized bu the government." Bravo, your delusion is unparalleled.
I now hereby dub YOU "Bad Analogy Guy, Jr." (in reference to your previous post, of course).
Last time I checked, using and selling drugs are BOTH illegal in the U.S. Therefore, both users and dealers should be arrested.
I'm flattered that you are following my posts, but mine wasn't a bad analogy. In the USA, both running a gambling site and playing on it are illegal. Therefore, both players and proprietors should be arrested. This makes the assumption that foreign web sites are participating in American commerce when they allow Americans to patronize them-- and this is the heart of the issue. If you don't believe that, then no further argument of the issue at hand is likely to convince you. So I will further devote my energy to resolving this facet of the discussion.
Since we are largely technologists here, do we not realize how, as technology advances, laws must advance to keep up with it? In 1800, the only practical ways to sell items were to walk up to an individual's home or place of business, or welcome him into your own. In the 19th century, with improved communications we were able to have mail-order and telephone commerce. In this century, we have the ability to do business over the internet. Now, just because I don't have to get in a boat and personally visit someone in the UK to sell him something, does that mean I'm not doing business in his country? Because we use ACKs instead of friendly handshakes, it's not the same?
I understand that other countries have troublesome and sometimes unreasonable laws in place. That's why, if I were to witness Christianity to a Muslim in Morocco via the internet, I would entirely expect to be arrested once I set foot on Moroccan soil (were they to be so focused on law enforcement).
It is nuts to arrest somebody for a "crime" committed elsewhere (where it is not a crime). For example, in many parts of the world civilians are not permitted to own or carry handguns. Should somebody be arrested on landing in the UK because they happened to own/carry a handgun while in the US?
No, but if they sold and shipped the handgun to someone who lives in the UK they might be.
I have never had any issues running Symantec AV Corporate. Obviously, if you are running the home version called Norton AV on business hardware, YES you DO deserve to be fired!
Windoze requires a daily reboot and even then can have problems, regardless of activity. Free software stays up forever, regardless of activity.
These kinds of sweeping statements are not only ridiculous, untenable, and just plain wrong, but you basically eliminated any possibility that anyone would take you seriously as a professional by using a word like "Windoze."
File fragmentation is a part of all modern file systems. If it were not, up to 50% of your storage space could be wasted just because enough contiguous blocks (or clusters) were not available. So, the perception of a file system which fragments "badly" depends on which side effect of fragmentation you detest more: file or free space. If your file system algorithms favor maximizing the size of free spaces, they will result in highly fragmented files as new files are broken into small pieces to fill the holes. If the algorithms favor keeping files contiguous, they will cause the free spaces to be more numerous and smaller.
So, if you want to say that "NTFS fragments," then perhaps you should qualify that by saying "I don't like how it fragments my files" or "I don't like how it fragments my free space."
Has their been any terrorist plot foiled by airport security?
Well, an airport customs screener stopped Moussaoui (the 20th hijacker) when he attempted to sneak into the US. Obviously, it wasn't enough to foil the plot. Maybe it would have, had the CIA not totally disregarded the incident.
I believe that profile-driven searches are flawed. The flaw is that the attacker can always avoid the profile you're trying to detect. For example, if I profile for young Muslim men with turbans the attacker can simply pick disaffected white middle-class women.
You're attacking a straw-man, as profiling doesn't mean you have to use race, sex, or appearance as your sole parameters. Clearly, you didn't even read the article summary because it mentions a married woman of unspecified race (implying that she is NOT arabic) and a guy with an Scottish or Irish-sounding name wearing a "trucker's cap." Since none of the 9/11 hijackers was wearing any "Kenworth"-branded clothing or female, we can assume that the profiling is remaining relatively broad.
I think there must be a black hole between that person's ears. Seriously; I'm trying to picture what they thought the conversation was really about. "Light can't escape a black person?"
We would take a user's drivers license (why did we not have picture school IDs back then?) and if we caught them doing anything "bad" we would holdd their license and call the campus security. I had a serious problem with this and refused to take licenses and/or get involved in a posible free-speech debate.
You definitely did the right thing. Taking people's driver's licenses might not even be legal.
Looking at the moderation on your post, I guess one Slashdotter's decision between "-1, Supports Bush Administration Policy" and "+1, Provides Tech Solution to Social Problem" was resolved by choosing the former.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only that, but you don't need to be an alumnus-- you can be an undergraduate. It was my impression that most of the Facebook users are undergrads.
She's not the CEO. She's the chairman. Hurd is the CEO. At HP the responsibilites for those two offices are divided.
Well, Kevin Mitnick got himself jail time doing this sort of thing. The only difference is that, not being a company insider, he had to start from scratch. When you already have people's SSNs because you are a high-level executive with power or influence over HR, it should be trivial.
I'd rather have a 0.00000001% chance of being blown up by terrorist events organized by the government, than to live under the draconian restrictions on freedom the same government pushes allegedly in response to those said terrorist events.
So not only do you set up a combination straw man and false dilemma, you claim that "terrorist events are organized bu the government." Bravo, your delusion is unparalleled.That stinks. In the USA, 100% is covered up to 100,000.
Don't forget Breakout... and Super Breakout!
That story is false.
I'm flattered that you are following my posts, but mine wasn't a bad analogy. In the USA, both running a gambling site and playing on it are illegal. Therefore, both players and proprietors should be arrested. This makes the assumption that foreign web sites are participating in American commerce when they allow Americans to patronize them-- and this is the heart of the issue. If you don't believe that, then no further argument of the issue at hand is likely to convince you. So I will further devote my energy to resolving this facet of the discussion.
Since we are largely technologists here, do we not realize how, as technology advances, laws must advance to keep up with it? In 1800, the only practical ways to sell items were to walk up to an individual's home or place of business, or welcome him into your own. In the 19th century, with improved communications we were able to have mail-order and telephone commerce. In this century, we have the ability to do business over the internet. Now, just because I don't have to get in a boat and personally visit someone in the UK to sell him something, does that mean I'm not doing business in his country? Because we use ACKs instead of friendly handshakes, it's not the same?
I understand that other countries have troublesome and sometimes unreasonable laws in place. That's why, if I were to witness Christianity to a Muslim in Morocco via the internet, I would entirely expect to be arrested once I set foot on Moroccan soil (were they to be so focused on law enforcement).
So, you would support arresting drug users and letting the dealers go: correct?
I hereby dub thee "Bad Analogy Guy Jr."
Then it should have been Kbps.
I have never had any issues running Symantec AV Corporate. Obviously, if you are running the home version called Norton AV on business hardware, YES you DO deserve to be fired!
File fragmentation is a part of all modern file systems. If it were not, up to 50% of your storage space could be wasted just because enough contiguous blocks (or clusters) were not available. So, the perception of a file system which fragments "badly" depends on which side effect of fragmentation you detest more: file or free space. If your file system algorithms favor maximizing the size of free spaces, they will result in highly fragmented files as new files are broken into small pieces to fill the holes. If the algorithms favor keeping files contiguous, they will cause the free spaces to be more numerous and smaller. So, if you want to say that "NTFS fragments," then perhaps you should qualify that by saying "I don't like how it fragments my files" or "I don't like how it fragments my free space."
I think there must be a black hole between that person's ears. Seriously; I'm trying to picture what they thought the conversation was really about. "Light can't escape a black person?"
Looking at the moderation on your post, I guess one Slashdotter's decision between "-1, Supports Bush Administration Policy" and "+1, Provides Tech Solution to Social Problem" was resolved by choosing the former.
Or, more likely, you'll be eaten by a grue.