outside of the USA, and if you think there was anti-Americanism before, if Trump is elected, it will be an all-out continuous, and well-deserved shitpost on America.
To play Devil's Advocate, though, wouldn't that mean that it would be 'easier' to impersonate him, in terms of a username?
Sure it's easier, as long as nobody really looks at it. That's why "This is the CEO, and I need this info immediately!" social engineering scams work.
But now people are looking at it, and might say "hey, I think this user is you. Is it?" So he's on the spot: he can either admit or deny it.
And if he denies it, then there's always risk of followup questions, like "the DHCP logs say the imposter connected from the same address that your house had that day. Did you notice any strangers in your house?" Or "There was a security camera at coffee shop from which the imposter connected, and the imposter looks just like you! Did your mother ever let slip any hints that you might have an evil twin?"
Next thing you know, he's driving his dead fiance's parents to see his house in the Hamptons. By all means, let's pull over and buy him a housewarming gift. Take it up a notch!
As to voting out their legislators, consider that this is one single issue
The "one single issue" is corruption, not Internet access. Corrupt legislators affect everyone in the state. Whatever you happen to catch them on (today, it's this), is just going to be the tip of the iceberg.
not one that is.. on the radar of most of the state's voters.
Of course you're right about that. Hence the story and public discussion: to help get it on peoples' radar. Now, it's the job of any NC nerds reading this on Slashdot, to tell NC non-nerds about it, so that it'll be on all the right radars.
There is no right of privitization. Despite what conservatives think, capitalism is not enshrined in our Constitution and if we the people decide we want to provide something absent some fatcats making money off of it then that is our right. ..
In all the furor over states' rights everyone is forgetting peoples' rights.
If I were a federal judge, I would that we the people decided to not provide the something. This has nothing to do with conservatism or capitalism. It's a result of a state law, passed ostensibly by the will of the people. Upholding states rights which conflict with unelected federal regulator is seen as respecting peoples' rights.
Yes, duh, I get it: everyone knows that it's not really true. The state's legislators and governor (unless he vetod and was overridden) were actually trying to work against the will of the people. But a judge will never say that. Democracy is always presumed to exist. (And that's actually the best presumption; I would never want to change that.)
Repeal the ridiculous law, and you solve the problem. Vote out the people who got caught enacting that law.
Yes, it's easier said than done. But if you can't do it, then you have no reason to expect courts and judges to uphold the will of the people either.
People prioritize their concerns. It's not that people don't care; it's just that there are more important/interesting things to talk about.
And keep in mind who Trump's biggest challenger is: another powerful person. They're expected to be involved in some occasional organized crime (regardless of whether or not it's even true) and that part of their image might even be part of why you'd vote for them.
Maybe depriving adversaries of the ability to watch you makes good sense, but what if your adversary is law enforcement? You mighty have a reasonable expectation of privacy but that right is not absolute when law enforcement has probable cause to believe that your camera might provide evidence of a crime.
I think the American people need to have an adult conversation with Comey, about his criminal-aiding advice and whether or not cameras (including Comey's own camera) should be allowed to "go dark."
The two hypothesis have the same exact amount of validity and come from the same kind of unscientific thinking. It's not surprising they could be compatible.
Both are totally made up, plausible, unfalsifiable neat ideas. We have no reason to believe these things might be true, but we also can't prove they're false. Science isn't happening here.
Sure, you can speculate it. Nobody ever complained about speculating creationism either. It's a good thing to do. It's a fun thing to do! Each is a great basis for many great stories. But, yeah, it irritates me when they use the word "theory." That word means something, and these things aren't theories.
And it's a little infuriating when some dickhead says "n% likely" as though this isn't a totally arbitrary shit-dripping number pulled from his reeking ass. That's where they crossed from "neat idea" or maybe "illiterate person who doesn't know what a theory is" to being dishonest sacks of shit. They are lying (not merely speculating) when they assign a probability. Anyone who tells this lie knows he can't show his work. That's not merely an error or mistake, unless you wanna call it an ethical error.
More useful for what? Until someone describes the problem they're trying to solve, I'd hesistate to talk about the relative merits of various solutions.
It was worrying to hear that Zuckerberg deleted the image, but then I found out something that I think everyone else missed: He only deleted it from Facebook. So it's missing from (approximately; I'm just rounding to the nearest percentage) about 0% of the web, but there's still the other 100% where Zuckerberg didn't touch anything.
What are they going to? Start checking every make and model of phone as part of the pre-flight death briefing to see if there are phones on the magic banned list?
No need. Wait until after an incident, and then you check what kind of phone was involved. "Your battery was banned, and you knew. You're liable. Hey everyone who is suing us, I found the guy that you're really looking for!"
The additional protection that a no-holes design gives the product really is at least something. Even us iOS-haters gotta admit this is a tradeoff, and it won't be wrong for everyone.
Wrong for you? Fine; I totally understand. The overall product is wrong for me too. It'll probably be wrong for a lot of people!
But some people are going to like the tradeoff, too. It's not a necessarily stupid idea on the face of it.
The analogy is more like you don't want pay extra for the benzene that comes with your mac and cheese. You tell 'em to leave out the benzene and refund whatever it costs for them to add it. They say "go fuck yourself, you piece-of-shit worthless customer; if you don't like benzene in your mac and cheese, then go buy someone else's." Both sides seem pretty reasonable to me. I can understand why the court would side with the seller: there's plenty of other mac and cheese vendors.
On top of that, this is fucking Sony. You already expect to be getting a weird product with weird lockins. It's like a box that is literally labeled "Benzene and Cheese." That's what the Sony brand is all about. That's why you picked them. You don't buy something that is labeled "Benzene and Cheese" and then complain that it tastes horrible and makes you sick. You opted in, knowingly. Sucking is how you actively selected them!
OMG!!!!!11 A consumer electronics company's sales site had a minor administrative error on a couple of teh SKUs! This is HYUUUGE! This is like the time Sorny's 1992 model walkerman was learned to be 2.2% lighter than the 1991 model due to a cost-reduced parts list! Apple: FAAAAAAACE!
Raise your hand if you think it's reasonably likely (it's ok to not be sure what'll happen, just take a realistic gamble) that you're going to approve of the next president.
I don't see many hands. The election is still months away, and everyone is acting like America already lost. So let's stop worrying about some future hypothetical case where we lose confidence in how we choose leaders, and admit it already happened.
Our problem is that we still act like we trust the system. As far as I can tell, the worst-case scenario is that there aren't any more scandals and disaster stories, because that means America will lose the 2018 and 2020 elections too.
Chaos is good for America. Russia might not have our interests at heart, but any successes on their part can only help America anyway, simply by virtue of it finally being enough to get us off our asses. It's not like they're going to get us worse R and D candidates, are they?
No, they are not legally required to. DMCA does not require that.
By failing to take down, they merely become potentially liable for whatever infringement may have occurred (which happens be none, in this case). Complying with the DMCA takedown notice procedure is a means of avoiding such potential liability.
If they're sure there was no infringement, and also if they're sure that Warner Bros' isn't going to sue in spite of the lack of infringement (because even winning in court, can be expensive), then this is a reasonable safe decision.
If they were less sure (e.g. if it were your video instead of Warner Bros') then they would take it down. Not because they're required to (they're not) but because they'd want to not be party for any resulting lawsuit between the other two parties (e.g. you and Warner Bros).
Isn't there some penalty.. for trying to take down what shouldn't be taken down?
Nope. There isn't. That's one of peoples' objections to how DCMA works: it wasn't realized back in 1997 that millions of bogus, negligent, bad-faith or frivolous DMCA notices could simply be spammed without any consequences for the attackers.
You might be thinking of the part of DMCA which says it's perjury to misrepresent your ownership of a copyrighted work.
Let's say I don't hold the copyright on Hogan's Heroes, and I send a DMCA notice about your Cowboy Bebop fan page, claiming you are infringing my [fake] Hogan's Heroes copyright. That's perjury, per DMCA.
But nobody does that. As long as you hold the copyright to something, and claim that is what is infringed, you're safe.
Let's say I do hold the copyright on Hogan's Heroes and I send a DMCA notice about your Cowboy Bebop fanpage (and your Ride the Lightning lyrics page) (and your game walk-through) (and your Scientology OT III tuition invoice) (and a poem you wrote when you were 12 years old), claiming you are infringing my Hogan's Heroes copyright. Consequences: none. I can be as wrong as I want about whether or not you're infringing, but as long I have the copyright on the work I'm incorrectly claiming to be infringed (Hogan's Heroes), there's no perjury.
People complained about the bulk and weight of having a removable cover and another layer of hard plastic around the battery.
Does anyone have any links to these complaints? All I remember are the complaints about the batteries not being removable; that miniaturization had been fine before it compromised basic utility, but then had become a bad thing, since it made the phones be not-as-good.
If anyone complained that phones weren't thin enough, they were very quiet about it.
Maybe he isn't into texting and other shit, and in an alternate universe without Pokemon Go he would be paying attention to the road while driving?
If we're going into alternate universes, then I like this one the best: someone else struck the pedestrian, and he was playing an ambulance game where you drive to injured people and give them medical attention. In that universe, playing the game while driving caused him to save a life!
Or they could be smart and lock out users when they're moving so fast they're obviously not on foot.
If I proposed an idea that's wrong more than half the time, the last thing I'd expect anyone to call me, is "smart." That simply isn't the right word for this idea.
Fast movement doesn't imply driving. I'll grant that if you can determine the vehicle is a bicycle or motorcycle, chances are over 50% that the driver is playing. (Motorcycle passengers are unlikely to have free hands.) But if it's basically any other type of vehicle (or if no vehicle is involved at all), you're throwing babies out more often than you're throwing out bathwater! Why would you use a word like "smart" for this?!?
Slashdot Mirror
Why the "outside of the USA" qualifier?
Sure it's easier, as long as nobody really looks at it. That's why "This is the CEO, and I need this info immediately!" social engineering scams work.
But now people are looking at it, and might say "hey, I think this user is you. Is it?" So he's on the spot: he can either admit or deny it.
And if he denies it, then there's always risk of followup questions, like "the DHCP logs say the imposter connected from the same address that your house had that day. Did you notice any strangers in your house?" Or "There was a security camera at coffee shop from which the imposter connected, and the imposter looks just like you! Did your mother ever let slip any hints that you might have an evil twin?"
Next thing you know, he's driving his dead fiance's parents to see his house in the Hamptons. By all means, let's pull over and buy him a housewarming gift. Take it up a notch!
The "one single issue" is corruption, not Internet access. Corrupt legislators affect everyone in the state. Whatever you happen to catch them on (today, it's this), is just going to be the tip of the iceberg.
Of course you're right about that. Hence the story and public discussion: to help get it on peoples' radar. Now, it's the job of any NC nerds reading this on Slashdot, to tell NC non-nerds about it, so that it'll be on all the right radars.
Yes. "Oh, and also, please re-elect me."
If I were a federal judge, I would that we the people decided to not provide the something. This has nothing to do with conservatism or capitalism. It's a result of a state law, passed ostensibly by the will of the people. Upholding states rights which conflict with unelected federal regulator is seen as respecting peoples' rights.
Yes, duh, I get it: everyone knows that it's not really true. The state's legislators and governor (unless he vetod and was overridden) were actually trying to work against the will of the people. But a judge will never say that. Democracy is always presumed to exist. (And that's actually the best presumption; I would never want to change that.)
Repeal the ridiculous law, and you solve the problem. Vote out the people who got caught enacting that law.
Yes, it's easier said than done. But if you can't do it, then you have no reason to expect courts and judges to uphold the will of the people either.
People prioritize their concerns. It's not that people don't care; it's just that there are more important/interesting things to talk about.
And keep in mind who Trump's biggest challenger is: another powerful person. They're expected to be involved in some occasional organized crime (regardless of whether or not it's even true) and that part of their image might even be part of why you'd vote for them.
Maybe depriving adversaries of the ability to watch you makes good sense, but what if your adversary is law enforcement? You mighty have a reasonable expectation of privacy but that right is not absolute when law enforcement has probable cause to believe that your camera might provide evidence of a crime.
I think the American people need to have an adult conversation with Comey, about his criminal-aiding advice and whether or not cameras (including Comey's own camera) should be allowed to "go dark."
The two hypothesis have the same exact amount of validity and come from the same kind of unscientific thinking. It's not surprising they could be compatible.
Both are totally made up, plausible, unfalsifiable neat ideas. We have no reason to believe these things might be true, but we also can't prove they're false. Science isn't happening here.
Sure, you can speculate it. Nobody ever complained about speculating creationism either. It's a good thing to do. It's a fun thing to do! Each is a great basis for many great stories. But, yeah, it irritates me when they use the word "theory." That word means something, and these things aren't theories.
And it's a little infuriating when some dickhead says "n% likely" as though this isn't a totally arbitrary shit-dripping number pulled from his reeking ass. That's where they crossed from "neat idea" or maybe "illiterate person who doesn't know what a theory is" to being dishonest sacks of shit. They are lying (not merely speculating) when they assign a probability. Anyone who tells this lie knows he can't show his work. That's not merely an error or mistake, unless you wanna call it an ethical error.
Maybe his tooth hurts, but wants to hire him in spite of his assholeyness, because his reviews are so..hey, wait a minute.
This is just another culture-shattering consequence of piracy!
More useful for what? Until someone describes the problem they're trying to solve, I'd hesistate to talk about the relative merits of various solutions.
It was worrying to hear that Zuckerberg deleted the image, but then I found out something that I think everyone else missed: He only deleted it from Facebook. So it's missing from (approximately; I'm just rounding to the nearest percentage) about 0% of the web, but there's still the other 100% where Zuckerberg didn't touch anything.
No need. Wait until after an incident, and then you check what kind of phone was involved. "Your battery was banned, and you knew. You're liable. Hey everyone who is suing us, I found the guy that you're really looking for!"
The additional protection that a no-holes design gives the product really is at least something. Even us iOS-haters gotta admit this is a tradeoff, and it won't be wrong for everyone.
Wrong for you? Fine; I totally understand. The overall product is wrong for me too. It'll probably be wrong for a lot of people!
But some people are going to like the tradeoff, too. It's not a necessarily stupid idea on the face of it.
The analogy is more like you don't want pay extra for the benzene that comes with your mac and cheese. You tell 'em to leave out the benzene and refund whatever it costs for them to add it. They say "go fuck yourself, you piece-of-shit worthless customer; if you don't like benzene in your mac and cheese, then go buy someone else's." Both sides seem pretty reasonable to me. I can understand why the court would side with the seller: there's plenty of other mac and cheese vendors.
On top of that, this is fucking Sony. You already expect to be getting a weird product with weird lockins. It's like a box that is literally labeled "Benzene and Cheese." That's what the Sony brand is all about. That's why you picked them. You don't buy something that is labeled "Benzene and Cheese" and then complain that it tastes horrible and makes you sick. You opted in, knowingly. Sucking is how you actively selected them!
OMG!!!!!11 A consumer electronics company's sales site had a minor administrative error on a couple of teh SKUs! This is HYUUUGE! This is like the time Sorny's 1992 model walkerman was learned to be 2.2% lighter than the 1991 model due to a cost-reduced parts list! Apple: FAAAAAAACE!
Raise your hand if you think it's reasonably likely (it's ok to not be sure what'll happen, just take a realistic gamble) that you're going to approve of the next president.
I don't see many hands. The election is still months away, and everyone is acting like America already lost. So let's stop worrying about some future hypothetical case where we lose confidence in how we choose leaders, and admit it already happened.
Our problem is that we still act like we trust the system. As far as I can tell, the worst-case scenario is that there aren't any more scandals and disaster stories, because that means America will lose the 2018 and 2020 elections too.
Chaos is good for America. Russia might not have our interests at heart, but any successes on their part can only help America anyway, simply by virtue of it finally being enough to get us off our asses. It's not like they're going to get us worse R and D candidates, are they?
No, they are not legally required to. DMCA does not require that.
By failing to take down, they merely become potentially liable for whatever infringement may have occurred (which happens be none, in this case). Complying with the DMCA takedown notice procedure is a means of avoiding such potential liability.
If they're sure there was no infringement, and also if they're sure that Warner Bros' isn't going to sue in spite of the lack of infringement (because even winning in court, can be expensive), then this is a reasonable safe decision.
If they were less sure (e.g. if it were your video instead of Warner Bros') then they would take it down. Not because they're required to (they're not) but because they'd want to not be party for any resulting lawsuit between the other two parties (e.g. you and Warner Bros).
Nope. There isn't. That's one of peoples' objections to how DCMA works: it wasn't realized back in 1997 that millions of bogus, negligent, bad-faith or frivolous DMCA notices could simply be spammed without any consequences for the attackers.
You might be thinking of the part of DMCA which says it's perjury to misrepresent your ownership of a copyrighted work.
Let's say I don't hold the copyright on Hogan's Heroes, and I send a DMCA notice about your Cowboy Bebop fan page, claiming you are infringing my [fake] Hogan's Heroes copyright. That's perjury, per DMCA.
But nobody does that. As long as you hold the copyright to something, and claim that is what is infringed, you're safe.
Let's say I do hold the copyright on Hogan's Heroes and I send a DMCA notice about your Cowboy Bebop fanpage (and your Ride the Lightning lyrics page) (and your game walk-through) (and your Scientology OT III tuition invoice) (and a poem you wrote when you were 12 years old), claiming you are infringing my Hogan's Heroes copyright. Consequences: none. I can be as wrong as I want about whether or not you're infringing, but as long I have the copyright on the work I'm incorrectly claiming to be infringed (Hogan's Heroes), there's no perjury.
Does anyone have any links to these complaints? All I remember are the complaints about the batteries not being removable; that miniaturization had been fine before it compromised basic utility, but then had become a bad thing, since it made the phones be not-as-good.
If anyone complained that phones weren't thin enough, they were very quiet about it.
The usual: password re-use. You use this list to try to break into somewhere else.
That's how you know Dungeons and Dragons is a good game.
If we're going into alternate universes, then I like this one the best: someone else struck the pedestrian, and he was playing an ambulance game where you drive to injured people and give them medical attention. In that universe, playing the game while driving caused him to save a life!
If I proposed an idea that's wrong more than half the time, the last thing I'd expect anyone to call me, is "smart." That simply isn't the right word for this idea.
Fast movement doesn't imply driving. I'll grant that if you can determine the vehicle is a bicycle or motorcycle, chances are over 50% that the driver is playing. (Motorcycle passengers are unlikely to have free hands.) But if it's basically any other type of vehicle (or if no vehicle is involved at all), you're throwing babies out more often than you're throwing out bathwater! Why would you use a word like "smart" for this?!?
One of the problems we face today, is that some people are, believe it or not, still using Facebook. I think this will help.