That depends. Several things play into crimes that are even difficult to conceal. Just because we know Joe was murdered doesn't mean we find his killer. Just because we find Joe's killer doesn't mean we can get a conviction. Even if you can get a conviction doesn't mean the crime is punished in the same way. Add to that that in the long term, a bias in enforcement can cause behavior shifts in the populous and that further complicates the matter.
Just have a directive that all city officials will be frisked at least once randomly each day. I'm sure once people see their public officials undergoing the same unwarranted searches they will be perfectly fine with it... assuming the public official don't quit first.
Indeed. A couple sites I visit have captcha's on their login pages, not account creation, login, and the really annoying ones that even I, a well sighted person, can't read about 1/2 of them. I know they want to avoid spambots, but seriously, why do I need this stuff when I already have an account? You afraid someone is going to hammer the login? Well, I can tell you implementing a simple couple second timer is far less annoying than those captcha's are.
Just to be a bit silly: Actually, you'd still be a contributing factor to the rear-ender. If you are close enough that a low speed collision pushed you ahead into the car ahead of you, you are too close. If you are speaking of a high speed collision, then I'm pretty sure the damage to the rear of your vehicle would speak just as well to the point that it wasn't your fault.
That all depends. Don't know about Comcast, but both my local providers, the modem and the router are the same thing. They are a combined device. Not even sure you can get separate ones anymore.
My thoughts exactly, this sounds great in theory until you realize that the driving populous is no where even remotely responsible or consistent enough for something like to work. Add deviants deliberately sabotaging the system in and this is just a pipe dream at best.
Apparently not, but they figure the reason for such is the passengers tend to compensate with their own awareness for the distraction they add. Remote people can't compensate in this manner, and obviously the phone itself does not either.
You assume that is an option. Many of these are have network components and require network access. You can probably do some heavy duty port blocking and such, but even that assumes the user has enough knowledge to know what they can and can't block.
While some might quibble with the general principle, I quibble merely with the means of communication. Email is seriously unreliable and should never be designated the necessary avenue to deal with issues. Convenient, perhaps, but by no means solid enough to base such a declaration on.
Even if she is lying and did join herself (something I seriously doubt), this is NOT the way it should be handled. This is the equivalent of guilty until proven innocent for someone else's crime. It is disgraceful. Oh, and gives me yet another reason to never join facebook.
Well, if it was like CSI (Miami I think it was), they had blood and were able to determine who's it was by antibody analysis. Here I assume they have semen rather than blood and I have no idea with an antibody analysis is really practical even if they did.
Intent plays into that. If I engage in an act (that in itself is not illegal) that I unknowingly facilitate an illegal act, I'm generally going to get off. However, if I engage in that same act and I know it will facilitate an illegal act, then I'm now generally accountable as well.
While they may indeed lobby for such, it actually already is illegal. If you copy the data, you are infringing copyright, even if you don't keep the copy. Only reason the ISPs don't get hit with this as is is the DMCA protects them.
Didn't they already try to sue the proxy user for something like this. You aren't off the hook legally just because you disguise who you are dealing with. All I see this doing is having them shifting from suing the download'er to the proxy'er.
The credit card info was encrypted. Passwords were hashed. The personal info was the bit unencrypted but that's not exactly uncommon (even Valve doesn't encrypt that as their breach revealed).
I suppose that makes some sense, but must say the auditors are pretty easily deceived if that gets by them, at least in any place with a hard inventory. In a service industry when stock is non-existent of perishable that could work, although making a uber register doesn't help at all there as you can still easily just not input the sale into the register.
Indeed. Not to mention customers coming back to your store and wanting to see a receipt for a sale that was on their account. Also, I'm puzzled by the notion of requiring a print out. What good is that going to do? If they want no printed version, a print out is pretty easy to destroy (you can also easily make a computer think it's printing a physical copy when it is only printing a virtual copy, or even to the big bit bucket in the sky). Then there is the whole issue if you lose power, most businesses want at least some ability to continue functioning even if the computer is totally unavailable. I just don't get it.
Certain core features, yes, definitely, but that would be far from sufficient for most businesses I know. As well, most businesses I know have a hard time keeping a competent IT guy on staff, let alone a team of programmers that many would need to implement the features they desire and maintain them. And since most Point of Sale software enhancements have no need to release to the general public, even if open source, you'll end up with 100s of forks (which won't work if it is supposed to be 1 master system), and most the solutions will be kept private, meaning most businesses, even if they have common needs, will still have to start from scratch every time. I just simply don't see this working at all. You either get one master system that is seriously unwieldy as it tries to cover a massive number of competing and will likely end up covering them all fairly poorly, or you get 100s of separate systems that are superficially similar which seems completely contrary to the whole point of the exercise to get 1 system.
I code a Point of Sale, and while I could easily under report, even the most elementary audit would make it blatantly obvious that this was occurring, at least all the ways I would think to do it. I'm also curious how they plan to make 1 cash register program that covers the needs let alone desires of every business out there.
And as I said, just because it was let go by before does not mean it was okay, even before. It just means they didn't voice objection till now. I'm not drawing any conclusions as to the merit of this particular complaint, but the argument 'well they didn't complain before' is very weak.
Slashdot Mirror
That depends. Several things play into crimes that are even difficult to conceal. Just because we know Joe was murdered doesn't mean we find his killer. Just because we find Joe's killer doesn't mean we can get a conviction. Even if you can get a conviction doesn't mean the crime is punished in the same way. Add to that that in the long term, a bias in enforcement can cause behavior shifts in the populous and that further complicates the matter.
Just have a directive that all city officials will be frisked at least once randomly each day. I'm sure once people see their public officials undergoing the same unwarranted searches they will be perfectly fine with it... assuming the public official don't quit first.
Indeed. A couple sites I visit have captcha's on their login pages, not account creation, login, and the really annoying ones that even I, a well sighted person, can't read about 1/2 of them. I know they want to avoid spambots, but seriously, why do I need this stuff when I already have an account? You afraid someone is going to hammer the login? Well, I can tell you implementing a simple couple second timer is far less annoying than those captcha's are.
Just to be a bit silly: Actually, you'd still be a contributing factor to the rear-ender. If you are close enough that a low speed collision pushed you ahead into the car ahead of you, you are too close. If you are speaking of a high speed collision, then I'm pretty sure the damage to the rear of your vehicle would speak just as well to the point that it wasn't your fault.
That all depends. Don't know about Comcast, but both my local providers, the modem and the router are the same thing. They are a combined device. Not even sure you can get separate ones anymore.
My thoughts exactly, this sounds great in theory until you realize that the driving populous is no where even remotely responsible or consistent enough for something like to work. Add deviants deliberately sabotaging the system in and this is just a pipe dream at best.
Apparently not, but they figure the reason for such is the passengers tend to compensate with their own awareness for the distraction they add. Remote people can't compensate in this manner, and obviously the phone itself does not either.
You assume that is an option. Many of these are have network components and require network access. You can probably do some heavy duty port blocking and such, but even that assumes the user has enough knowledge to know what they can and can't block.
While some might quibble with the general principle, I quibble merely with the means of communication. Email is seriously unreliable and should never be designated the necessary avenue to deal with issues. Convenient, perhaps, but by no means solid enough to base such a declaration on.
Even if she is lying and did join herself (something I seriously doubt), this is NOT the way it should be handled. This is the equivalent of guilty until proven innocent for someone else's crime. It is disgraceful. Oh, and gives me yet another reason to never join facebook.
...the grid lock in Congress will surely make it so this won't come to pass... right... right?! No? God *bleep* it!
Come on now, the combine trauma of those 100,000 people having their emails... oh never mind, I just can't say it with a straight face.
Well, if it was like CSI (Miami I think it was), they had blood and were able to determine who's it was by antibody analysis. Here I assume they have semen rather than blood and I have no idea with an antibody analysis is really practical even if they did.
Maybe this is what makes a man go neutral...
Intent plays into that. If I engage in an act (that in itself is not illegal) that I unknowingly facilitate an illegal act, I'm generally going to get off. However, if I engage in that same act and I know it will facilitate an illegal act, then I'm now generally accountable as well.
While they may indeed lobby for such, it actually already is illegal. If you copy the data, you are infringing copyright, even if you don't keep the copy. Only reason the ISPs don't get hit with this as is is the DMCA protects them.
Didn't they already try to sue the proxy user for something like this. You aren't off the hook legally just because you disguise who you are dealing with. All I see this doing is having them shifting from suing the download'er to the proxy'er.
The credit card info was encrypted. Passwords were hashed. The personal info was the bit unencrypted but that's not exactly uncommon (even Valve doesn't encrypt that as their breach revealed).
I suppose that makes some sense, but must say the auditors are pretty easily deceived if that gets by them, at least in any place with a hard inventory. In a service industry when stock is non-existent of perishable that could work, although making a uber register doesn't help at all there as you can still easily just not input the sale into the register.
Indeed. Not to mention customers coming back to your store and wanting to see a receipt for a sale that was on their account. Also, I'm puzzled by the notion of requiring a print out. What good is that going to do? If they want no printed version, a print out is pretty easy to destroy (you can also easily make a computer think it's printing a physical copy when it is only printing a virtual copy, or even to the big bit bucket in the sky). Then there is the whole issue if you lose power, most businesses want at least some ability to continue functioning even if the computer is totally unavailable. I just don't get it.
Certain core features, yes, definitely, but that would be far from sufficient for most businesses I know. As well, most businesses I know have a hard time keeping a competent IT guy on staff, let alone a team of programmers that many would need to implement the features they desire and maintain them. And since most Point of Sale software enhancements have no need to release to the general public, even if open source, you'll end up with 100s of forks (which won't work if it is supposed to be 1 master system), and most the solutions will be kept private, meaning most businesses, even if they have common needs, will still have to start from scratch every time. I just simply don't see this working at all. You either get one master system that is seriously unwieldy as it tries to cover a massive number of competing and will likely end up covering them all fairly poorly, or you get 100s of separate systems that are superficially similar which seems completely contrary to the whole point of the exercise to get 1 system.
I code a Point of Sale, and while I could easily under report, even the most elementary audit would make it blatantly obvious that this was occurring, at least all the ways I would think to do it. I'm also curious how they plan to make 1 cash register program that covers the needs let alone desires of every business out there.
Problem is, if it gets triggered all the time...
Even more hilarious, it says that right in the summary. This one seems to be a good test for people actually reading the summary.
And as I said, just because it was let go by before does not mean it was okay, even before. It just means they didn't voice objection till now. I'm not drawing any conclusions as to the merit of this particular complaint, but the argument 'well they didn't complain before' is very weak.