When I returned to my office I immediately called my contact and explained what we did and that we were successful. After retrieving the ream of paper with his password, I could hear the concern in his voice since our job confirmed his worst fears. I explained to him this type of problem can be fixed by sharing the results with his employees, and that no one person should be targeted as a single point of failure.
The password under the copier stunt was simply to prove that the attempt was successful.
As I understand it, he used a fake boarding pass to fly to Bel Air, where he whistled for a cab and when it came near, the license plate said "FRESH" and it had dice in the mirror.
Nah, at Republican Party meetings, all they do is smoke big cigars and laugh over how easy it is to dupe the proles. Afterwards, they go out and throw rocks at hobos.
Thanks for clearing that up. I have of course never read Friedman and was merely quoting him third hand, obviously out of context as you point out.
I find it interesting, though, that you should say that Friedman believed that corporations should obey the law, like individuals et al. Most corporations do of course mostly obey the law, not least because breaking them often carries great risk, which outweigh the potential benefits. However, there's a whole lot of less than ethical things that can be done within the boundaries of the law. There are, for instance, no laws against lying, except under circumstances such as a sworn oath.
I still stand by my belief that corporations lie all the time, just like politicians. I'll refrain from dragging the Friedman quote into the argument in the future, though.
Don't get me wrong... I'm not neccessarily implying that the US is in greater danger of being struck by terrorists post-Iraqi invasion, although that may well be the case; I just lack the capacity to judge that.
My main point was that one of the stated rationales for invading Iraq, that it would help deter terrorist that could potentially strike against the US or bring them to justice, was total bullcrap, just like the WMDs. Whether the invasion was bad enough that it actually had the exact opposite effect is another story.
Oh, you mean you've actually seen at least two of his movies? Wow...
I could never do that... I'm too afraid I'd just die on the spot due to massive heart failure caused by the excitement of seeing such a legendary masterpiece for real.
... people start making what you believe to be baseless accusations about the environmental impact of your business.
I disagree with the assumption that the oil companies truly believe that global warming is a nonexistent threat. Remember big tobacco? They persisted in denying that cigarettes causes cancer, etc. all the while knowing full well that this was false.
A quote which is attributed to Friedman goes: "The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders." Taken to the limit, this means that a company will take any action neccessary to secure and guard profits.
I'm one of the people who believes that this is exactly what most big corporations do. Call me cynical, but I think a lot of empirical data supports this theory.
If we had to fight them over there so that we do not fight them here...then let's put in mind the fact that we've lost close to 3,000 lives in this war. The number is about the same as those lost on 9/11.
Excellent point. Those lives would not have been lost if the US had not invaded Iraq. And, of course, the invasion did absolutely nothing to deter or prevent terrorists from striking again on US soil. It was painfully obvious from the get-go that Iraq was not harboring members of Al Qaeda. Iraq did not have any WMDs to speak of either. The administration knew this beforehand, but chose to lie about it as they saw it as the best way to get the public behind them. It's fucking shameful that they were able to manipulate the public into supporting this travesty of an invasion. And no, I won't ask you to pardon my French, and yes, I know that this has been said time and again before, but it can't be said too often.
The US administration was able to get its fucking evil way by repeating lies again and again. The victims of this insanity deserve nothing less than to hear the truth, again, again, and again...
Windows-based personal computers generally lagged far behind in fusing function with form in ways that consumers found exciting.
There's no such thing as a Windows-based personal computer. Microsoft does not manufacture personal computers, and Windows is not integral to PCs. It is perfecty possible to use various other operating systems on a PC, and you can buy a PC without Windows on it, although a lot of people seem to think that it 'just comes with the computer' (even though they do of course pay for it). It annoys me to see the two get confused.
Well, I thought Windows came preinstalled with almost every new PC sold these days. It's usually hard to find vendors that are willing to sell you an OS-less machine, at least where I live (Iceland).
Anyway, people do pay quite a lot for the OEM licenses. It's just that most of them don't realize that they are paying for them. For them, Windows comes 'free' with the computer. If people were made more aware of the fact that they're paying a bunch of money for a single, CD-less copy of Windows that can't be used on any other computer than the one it's installed on, ever, I think they might become a bit pissed off.
Though many people fear cancer, Saba, `Queen of the Lyase,` may yet protect us all; `Don't worry, don't get overwhelmed,` she said, `there are lots of us working on it, and sooner or later we will have it figured out.`
Queen of the Lyase?? How cool is that? Seems to me like Dr. Saba should have been on this list.
You know, funnily enough, I never bothered to check out live.com before I read your comment. I just did now, and boy does it look exactly like Google. They have copied their entire functionality and look. Like you said, a lot of people will probably think that this is the same old Google they've been using, or something close enough. I have absolutely no doubt that this is Microsoft's motivation. Then they have the gall to off-handedly suggest that Linux violates their patents. What a pathetic way to do business.
Nevertheless, I'm still not that convinced that an OS is a viable means to fight this, although it would be exciting to watch. Microsoft just simply has too tight a grip on that market. Then again, seeing that they have essentially started a war on Google with this live.com thing, maybe it's worth a shot.
Google is expected to release an entire operating system that's supposed to compete heads on with Windows Vista, which is the result of years and years of work and billions of dollars invested? Say what you will about Windows, but it certainly is a massive behemoth with sh*tloads of functionality. You don't just shake something like that out of your sleeve in a few months.
And what's the supposed rationale behind a GoogleOS? Better integration of Windows Vista with Microsofts Live Search, or whatever they call it. Here's where the flip side of the coin comes in. Google has, for their part, invested years and years and billions of dollars in creating the best search engine out there, bar none. Is Microsoft suddenly going to undermine their user base by making their search engine integrated into Vista? I don't think so, Tim. People aren't total morons. They know how to type google.com into their search bars when they want to use a real search engine. It's no small cooincidence that the verb 'to google' has become prevalent among the English speaking, and has even been adopted and localized by many other nationalities.
There is absolutely no logical basis behind these speculations. Sheez.
I agree that the bug is first and foremost due to myspace, but the Firefox Password Manager certainly doesn't help. It should be clever enough to not fill out that particular form, as it does not direct to the myspace domain. Hopefully this will be fixed as soon as possible; seems to me that it shouldn't be such a huge fix.
But back to myspace. This fake form is extremely insidious, and looks exactly like the real thing. Only a viewing of the source HTML will reveal that there's something fishy. Allowing users to create arbitrary forms that direct to some external site is ridiculously vulnerable. If you're going to let users insert custom HTML, which is, IMHO always A Bad Idea, at least filter it VERY carefully. Again, let's hope that the myspace admins are doing whatever they can to alleviate problems like these.
I'm willing to bet both arms and both legs that Microsoft has this one covered legally. The writing of EULAs has become a finely honed art. They will cover this in the EULA, and there won't be a damn thing that people who have agreed to the EULA can do about it.
This only goes to show how stupid an futile it is to create special laws for the Internet. Solicitation of minors, or any other communication, is just that, no matter what medium is used to convey it.
Slashdot Mirror
Please RTFA before commenting in this vein.
Immediately after that sentence comes:
The password under the copier stunt was simply to prove that the attempt was successful.
As I understand it, he used a fake boarding pass to fly to Bel Air, where he whistled for a cab and when it came near, the license plate said "FRESH" and it had dice in the mirror.
Nah, at Republican Party meetings, all they do is smoke big cigars and laugh over how easy it is to dupe the proles. Afterwards, they go out and throw rocks at hobos.
Apple: Gee, Google, what are we going to do tonight?
The Google: The same thing we do every night, Apple ... Try to hold ALL THE VIDEO IN THE WORLD!
Thanks for clearing that up. I have of course never read Friedman and was merely quoting him third hand, obviously out of context as you point out.
I find it interesting, though, that you should say that Friedman believed that corporations should obey the law, like individuals et al. Most corporations do of course mostly obey the law, not least because breaking them often carries great risk, which outweigh the potential benefits. However, there's a whole lot of less than ethical things that can be done within the boundaries of the law. There are, for instance, no laws against lying, except under circumstances such as a sworn oath.
I still stand by my belief that corporations lie all the time, just like politicians. I'll refrain from dragging the Friedman quote into the argument in the future, though.
Don't get me wrong ... I'm not neccessarily implying that the US is in greater danger of being struck by terrorists post-Iraqi invasion, although that may well be the case; I just lack the capacity to judge that.
My main point was that one of the stated rationales for invading Iraq, that it would help deter terrorist that could potentially strike against the US or bring them to justice, was total bullcrap, just like the WMDs. Whether the invasion was bad enough that it actually had the exact opposite effect is another story.
Oh, you mean you've actually seen at least two of his movies? Wow ...
I could never do that ... I'm too afraid I'd just die on the spot due to massive heart failure caused by the excitement of seeing such a legendary masterpiece for real.
I disagree with the assumption that the oil companies truly believe that global warming is a nonexistent threat. Remember big tobacco? They persisted in denying that cigarettes causes cancer, etc. all the while knowing full well that this was false.
A quote which is attributed to Friedman goes: "The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders." Taken to the limit, this means that a company will take any action neccessary to secure and guard profits.
I'm one of the people who believes that this is exactly what most big corporations do. Call me cynical, but I think a lot of empirical data supports this theory.
Hey, Microsoft ... get Uwe Boll to do the Halo movie. He has an impeccable track record of making excellent movies based on video games!
And oh, IMDB is a den of lies. Ignore whatever's said there.
Excellent point. Those lives would not have been lost if the US had not invaded Iraq. And, of course, the invasion did absolutely nothing to deter or prevent terrorists from striking again on US soil. It was painfully obvious from the get-go that Iraq was not harboring members of Al Qaeda. Iraq did not have any WMDs to speak of either. The administration knew this beforehand, but chose to lie about it as they saw it as the best way to get the public behind them. It's fucking shameful that they were able to manipulate the public into supporting this travesty of an invasion. And no, I won't ask you to pardon my French, and yes, I know that this has been said time and again before, but it can't be said too often.
The US administration was able to get its fucking evil way by repeating lies again and again. The victims of this insanity deserve nothing less than to hear the truth, again, again, and again ...
It stands to reason that you can't lose if you can type iddqd whenever you get into trouble.
Didn't you get the memo? They're putting the bubble back together again.
The Global Standardized Committee of the Coining of Phrases coins all phrases. No one else is allowed to do so on pain of ... pain.
There's no such thing as a Windows-based personal computer. Microsoft does not manufacture personal computers, and Windows is not integral to PCs. It is perfecty possible to use various other operating systems on a PC, and you can buy a PC without Windows on it, although a lot of people seem to think that it 'just comes with the computer' (even though they do of course pay for it). It annoys me to see the two get confused.
Well, I thought Windows came preinstalled with almost every new PC sold these days. It's usually hard to find vendors that are willing to sell you an OS-less machine, at least where I live (Iceland).
Anyway, people do pay quite a lot for the OEM licenses. It's just that most of them don't realize that they are paying for them. For them, Windows comes 'free' with the computer. If people were made more aware of the fact that they're paying a bunch of money for a single, CD-less copy of Windows that can't be used on any other computer than the one it's installed on, ever, I think they might become a bit pissed off.
From TFA:
Queen of the Lyase?? How cool is that? Seems to me like Dr. Saba should have been on this list.
From TFA:
Seems simple enough, but it's amazing how often this is ignored or implemented badly.
Yeah. Malicious Injection was a pretty good flick. I can't wait for Malicious Injection: The SQL.
You know, funnily enough, I never bothered to check out live.com before I read your comment. I just did now, and boy does it look exactly like Google. They have copied their entire functionality and look. Like you said, a lot of people will probably think that this is the same old Google they've been using, or something close enough. I have absolutely no doubt that this is Microsoft's motivation. Then they have the gall to off-handedly suggest that Linux violates their patents. What a pathetic way to do business.
Nevertheless, I'm still not that convinced that an OS is a viable means to fight this, although it would be exciting to watch. Microsoft just simply has too tight a grip on that market. Then again, seeing that they have essentially started a war on Google with this live.com thing, maybe it's worth a shot.
Let me get this straight ...
Google is expected to release an entire operating system that's supposed to compete heads on with Windows Vista, which is the result of years and years of work and billions of dollars invested? Say what you will about Windows, but it certainly is a massive behemoth with sh*tloads of functionality. You don't just shake something like that out of your sleeve in a few months.
And what's the supposed rationale behind a GoogleOS? Better integration of Windows Vista with Microsofts Live Search, or whatever they call it. Here's where the flip side of the coin comes in. Google has, for their part, invested years and years and billions of dollars in creating the best search engine out there, bar none. Is Microsoft suddenly going to undermine their user base by making their search engine integrated into Vista? I don't think so, Tim. People aren't total morons. They know how to type google.com into their search bars when they want to use a real search engine. It's no small cooincidence that the verb 'to google' has become prevalent among the English speaking, and has even been adopted and localized by many other nationalities.
There is absolutely no logical basis behind these speculations. Sheez.
I agree that the bug is first and foremost due to myspace, but the Firefox Password Manager certainly doesn't help. It should be clever enough to not fill out that particular form, as it does not direct to the myspace domain. Hopefully this will be fixed as soon as possible; seems to me that it shouldn't be such a huge fix.
But back to myspace. This fake form is extremely insidious, and looks exactly like the real thing. Only a viewing of the source HTML will reveal that there's something fishy. Allowing users to create arbitrary forms that direct to some external site is ridiculously vulnerable. If you're going to let users insert custom HTML, which is, IMHO always A Bad Idea, at least filter it VERY carefully. Again, let's hope that the myspace admins are doing whatever they can to alleviate problems like these.
Don't see what's so hard about that ...
I'm willing to bet both arms and both legs that Microsoft has this one covered legally. The writing of EULAs has become a finely honed art. They will cover this in the EULA, and there won't be a damn thing that people who have agreed to the EULA can do about it.
The only real escape is not to use Vista.
This only goes to show how stupid an futile it is to create special laws for the Internet. Solicitation of minors, or any other communication, is just that, no matter what medium is used to convey it.
In other news:
The tides turn due to ... the tidal effect!