"Furthermore, I really think that the anti-semitist card has been used for far too long already. Hitler did a horrible crime against Jews but Israel shouldn't use that to gain political advantage any more."
Ok, replace the word "Jews" in his final sentence with that of some other group that has not been abused in recent memory. For instance if he was ranting against Great Britain or the United States and finished it off with "Fuck you Anglo Saxons", would you think he had gone too far? If someone disagreed with the actions of Finland, what if they finished off their rant with a statement like "Fuck you Scandinavians"?
Sure, disagree with the actions of governments all you want, it pissed me off when Howard Dean called Al-Maliki an anti-semite because he has a different point of view on Israel's recent actions (especially since I seem to remember Dean whining not too long ago about being called anti-American because he disagrees with American foreign policy). But keep your criticism to the government, don't let it draw out into entire groups of people.
Umm, no. Either you are not in the US and are only drawing on stereotypes, you are still in school and have spent too much time listening to professors whine about a world they likely have never been in, or you are stuck in a crappy company and are too dense to realize that not every employer places the same value on research (which is probably the reason you are stuck in a crappy company in the first place).
Yes, private companies generally have to make money to please the investors, so what you are doing must have value to people outside of yourself (of course that will always be true). But most companies know that in order to compete in the future they need to research now. When companies are really only looking towards the next quarter's profits, they are generally in deep trouble (and the market knows this). Investors generally like it when companies are able to invest resources in research as they know that down the road, they are more likely to invent the next big thing and make millions.
Actually, mitochondria in plants fill a similar role as mitochondria in animals. These organelles are actually common to virtually all eukaryotic cells. Chloroplasts in plants and algae end up filling a very different role.
See, I knew that minor in Biology would come in handy at some point.
BTW, isn't this old news? I seem to remember hearing about this theory way back in high school... They may have found more evidence for it recently, but I don't think this is a brand new discovery as the article seems to indicate.
I'm sorry, are you saying you want to lobby politicians to make harmless non-spyware ads (which as I said, make up the vast majority of Internet ads) illegal? You really hate the Internet that much that you are willing to destroy one of its biggeste revenue sources? Or did you misread my previous post and think I was saying there were no laws against spyware?
"For your information, banks can be help responsible if they accept money from a source that has not been verified. "
Yes, I am aware that there are certain scenarios in which someone can be charged for business dealings in which the other party committed the crime. However, the source of the money being obtained through illegal means in not itself sufficient for such a charge. If you are convicted for insider trading, the feds next stop isn't going to go take down your bank because you deposited some of your profits in your savings account.
"I'm pretty sure that closing your eyes on the illegal business that's happening under your roof *is* a crime."
Yes, but only if it should have been obvious what was going on. A hacker exploiting an obscure (at least to the perspective of the marketing guys selling advertising space) IE exploit cannot be considered obvious. Or do you really think myspace (along with a number of other websites) risked their reputation (along with the reputation of Internet advertising, from which they make their income) by knowingly selling advertising space to a hacker disguising himself as a legitimate businessman?
Oh, and with regard to the statement "the company is liable", there is a difference between civil liability and criminal liability. Since the call was to prosecute MySpace, not sue them, only the former is relevant to this discussion. Unless you can prove some sort of intent, it is very unlikely you will be able to prosecute the hotel owners just because they got ripped off by a contractor.
Ok, you also would not be able to prosecute a hotel if one of their other guests breaks into your room (or perhaps walks in after you leave the door unlocked would be more appropriate, as a patch for this vulnerability is available) and kicks you in the dick, if that is somehow more relevent to you. I've personally never had that happen to me, so I didn't find it that helpful.
"This is more akin to a company building a hotel (for example) with materials and practices that don't meet standard building codes. If the hotel falls apart and someone gets hurt, the company is liable."
Thats because we have standard building codes, and inspectors who go through buildings to make sure they meet them. Finding obscure hacker exploits is much more difficult.
I'm guessing he had a real article, he just forgot to include the link in the summary. That about.com thing seems to just be support for his claim that Mario 2 did indeed come from another game (which we already knew anyways).
"When the majority of the product or service use is confirmed to be illegal, the product or service is considerd illegal. It's always worked this way."
Well considering the vast majority of banner ads are legal and do not install spyware, then I guess Myspace is off the hook and we can stop this silly conversation. Finally.
"You mean like the government wants our ISPs to track and monitor our web usage and keep copies of all our IM's, searches and emails? Or how about our libraries revealing what books we check out? Maybe AT&T could provide a log of all your phone calls. How about the banks reveal all your financial transactions?"
No, not really...
I'm scared to ask, but how does your conspiracy theory reason why the government would want ISPs to monitor all that information, when the government itself really wouldn't have any trouble doing it themselves?
"Why can't Microsoft patch the holes in it's software?"
They do. Users just don't always install the patches.
"Why can't MySpace screen it's advertisers? They aren't showing porn site ads, because they 'screened' the ads, correct? So, how come they are serving adware?"
"This is different. This is the business putting up an advertising hoarding that is dangerous to visitors"
Actually, the business sold that advertising space to an advertiser and they put up an ad that is dangerous to visitors. So actually, it is the same thing.
Perhaps, but this type of exploit is not specific to myspace. In fact, in case you didn't RTFA (or even the summary), this ad was featured on other websites as well. Don't make the mistake that because you don't visit 'fad' websites, you are safe from this type of thing.
"How about Myspace as well? It is easily argued that Myspace controls the banner space and content added to the 'global' site (ie every page). This is akin to aiding and abetting. "
Only if Myspace knew what was going on (which they almost certainly did not). Or do you think any business transaction with criminals is 'akin to aiding and abetting'? In which case, shouldn't you also prosecute
banks, if one or more of their clients deposit money they got illegally?
hotels, in whose rooms illegal transactions (prostitution, drug dealing, whatever) take place?
computer manufacturers, whose customers use their computers to steal identities?
camera manufacturers, whose products may be used to stalk people and invade their privacy?
etc.
Ask yourself this, do you really want to go down that road? Do you really want companies to run extended background checks on you before they sell you anything to make sure you may not use it in some obscure way to harm others? Is such a police state really what you want? Or do you just not like Myspace (either because it is used by the same teenage girls who wouldn't date you in high school, or because it is owned by NewsCorp)?
Uh, actually we have changed spellings as well. When was the last time you saw words spelled like "encyclopaedia", "aeon", "phantasy", or "gaol"? Those were all official spellings Teddy Roosevelt proposed getting rid of a century ago. There were even more simplifications back in the 1800's by Noah Webster (ever wonder why Brits spell words like "cheque", "colour ", or "plough"?). However, many other changes were never accepted, so you cannot just propose a change and expect people to use it (or even consider it an acceptable variant).
"Anyone whose data was on that laptop still have to assume the data was accessed, and take appropriate steps to protect themselves from identity theft."
Which is the exact same thing people who did not have data on the computer should do. There are a lot of easier ways to steal someone's identity out there. This is hardly an unique case.
No, not really. Politicians just love to make things look better than they really are. I believe the national debt grew by over 2.5 trillion dollars in the 90's. Yes, it (very breifly) went down (very slightly) in 2000 (not part of the 90's, though), but of course that was during the rapid growth of the dot-com economy, which no one really expected to last.
"He should have done what Clinton did faced with similar news in 1999. He should have convened an all agency meeting, put the coastguard and customs on high alert, put the FBI on notice &ct. "
Yeah, the coast guard would have surely stopped the terrorists from highjacking those airplanes... I suppose customs could have stopped them if they had known about it before the terrorists got here, but that would have had to happen years ahead of schedule. And you can't blame Bush for that, as he wasn't president then.
Don't forget, your heroes in the Clinton administration let a few terrorist attacks get through. So if you think anything below a 100% success rate is unacceptable, you might want to find a better example of an ideal terrorism reponse.
And once again, this very story completely refutes your point that the US government did nothing regarding terrorism before 9/11.
Just out of curiosity, where are you getting your information regarding the government's response to terrorism threats? Are you an actual member of the US intelligence community? Or did you just read it on some Michael Moore fansite?
"The FBI already had one of the plotters. "
Really? Who? You had better not be thinking of Moussaoui. Just because the man can convince 12 jurors that he is not the irrelevant loser all the evidence makes him appear to be doesn't mean he is high enough in the terrorism food chain to be considered a 'plotter' (hell even the federal government didn't go as far to accuse him of helping develop the plot itself). At best he was hired help.
"Every time something that is completely foreseable happens the incompetents in the administration say 'nobody could have predicted'."
Really? When did they say that? Really, I want an exact quote of someone high in the Bush administration (or better yet, Bush himself since that is who your rant is primarily against) saying "nobody could have predicted (whatever)".
"True, but when Bush was handed the report titled 'Bin Laden determined to attack USA' he replied 'OK so you have covered your asses' and instead of doing something that might have stopped the attack took the afternoon off. "
Really? What would he have done? Banned all Arabs from flying in airplanes? Or maybe take a card out from FDR's playbook and lock them all up in prison camps?
Boy I would hate to be president. Either you are robbing the nation of its civil liberties by doing too much to fight terrorism, or you are being incompetent by doing too little.
"Whether it was known or not is irrelevent. The question is: Will random spying prevent future attacks?
No, random spying will likely not prevent many terrorist attacks (however that is a long reach from saying that it cannot). Luckily that is not what anyone is alleging is happening. Which really renders the rest of your post moot.
"People who do not understand that will look at the extreme rarity of "terrorist attacks" in the US (try to name 5 attacks in the US in the last 100 years without using Google) and conclude that the time / money / effort spent was successful."
Off the top of my head (and in no particular order)...
9/11
The DC snipers
McVeigh
The first WTC bombing
The KKK's bombing of the Birmingham church
The Anthrax letters shortly after 9/11
Ted Kaczynski (ok, I cheated and used google to figure out how to spell his name).
Wait, I'm already past five. Sorry about that.
Anyways, other people (such as yourself) seem content to look at the rarity of successful terrorist attacks and claim there is no legitimate threat, which counterbalances those who think it is greater than it really is.
"
However, looking at the budget, you will see that our government is BORROWING the money."
Does that really surprise you? The federal government is always borrowing money. In fact the last time there was no deficit, I believe Jackson was president (and he was a jackass, so lets not repeat that).
Slashdot Mirror
"Think about it... in the commercial software industry, have you ever seen any company that didn't do their projects in death-march style..."
How long has Vista been delayed now?
"...release stuff half-tested to make some quarterly revenue numbers..."
Yes, many companies that develop life and death products (such as defense contractors) must adhere to strict quality standards.
"...or take any development option that cost more up-front?"
Think about how much Sun spent on Java back in the 90s well before J2EE became big.
"Can anyone name a company that has a more long-term focus than they did 10 years ago?"
Well Google would be the obvious example.
"Can anyone not name 100 companies with the opposite problem?"
Too much long term focus? Thats been the complaint investors have had against Sun for years.
"Furthermore, I really think that the anti-semitist card has been used for far too long already. Hitler did a horrible crime against Jews but Israel shouldn't use that to gain political advantage any more."
Ok, replace the word "Jews" in his final sentence with that of some other group that has not been abused in recent memory. For instance if he was ranting against Great Britain or the United States and finished it off with "Fuck you Anglo Saxons", would you think he had gone too far? If someone disagreed with the actions of Finland, what if they finished off their rant with a statement like "Fuck you Scandinavians"?
Sure, disagree with the actions of governments all you want, it pissed me off when Howard Dean called Al-Maliki an anti-semite because he has a different point of view on Israel's recent actions (especially since I seem to remember Dean whining not too long ago about being called anti-American because he disagrees with American foreign policy). But keep your criticism to the government, don't let it draw out into entire groups of people.
Umm, no. Either you are not in the US and are only drawing on stereotypes, you are still in school and have spent too much time listening to professors whine about a world they likely have never been in, or you are stuck in a crappy company and are too dense to realize that not every employer places the same value on research (which is probably the reason you are stuck in a crappy company in the first place).
Yes, private companies generally have to make money to please the investors, so what you are doing must have value to people outside of yourself (of course that will always be true). But most companies know that in order to compete in the future they need to research now. When companies are really only looking towards the next quarter's profits, they are generally in deep trouble (and the market knows this). Investors generally like it when companies are able to invest resources in research as they know that down the road, they are more likely to invent the next big thing and make millions.
Actually, mitochondria in plants fill a similar role as mitochondria in animals. These organelles are actually common to virtually all eukaryotic cells. Chloroplasts in plants and algae end up filling a very different role.
See, I knew that minor in Biology would come in handy at some point.
BTW, isn't this old news? I seem to remember hearing about this theory way back in high school... They may have found more evidence for it recently, but I don't think this is a brand new discovery as the article seems to indicate.
Of course by the time 2008 comes around, these fads will all be over, by then we will have brand new pointless fads to buy into!
I'm sorry, are you saying you want to lobby politicians to make harmless non-spyware ads (which as I said, make up the vast majority of Internet ads) illegal? You really hate the Internet that much that you are willing to destroy one of its biggeste revenue sources? Or did you misread my previous post and think I was saying there were no laws against spyware?
Yes, I am aware that there are certain scenarios in which someone can be charged for business dealings in which the other party committed the crime. However, the source of the money being obtained through illegal means in not itself sufficient for such a charge. If you are convicted for insider trading, the feds next stop isn't going to go take down your bank because you deposited some of your profits in your savings account.
"I'm pretty sure that closing your eyes on the illegal business that's happening under your roof *is* a crime."
Yes, but only if it should have been obvious what was going on. A hacker exploiting an obscure (at least to the perspective of the marketing guys selling advertising space) IE exploit cannot be considered obvious. Or do you really think myspace (along with a number of other websites) risked their reputation (along with the reputation of Internet advertising, from which they make their income) by knowingly selling advertising space to a hacker disguising himself as a legitimate businessman?
Well, yeah, but they didn't put that content on their site, the advertiser did.
"Furthermore, if you study how 'responsibility' plays out in the business world, particularly with lawsuits-"
Yes, lawsuits are funny. You can sue a restaurant for serving you with hot coffee. However, you cannot prosecute them for it.
Oh, and with regard to the statement "the company is liable", there is a difference between civil liability and criminal liability. Since the call was to prosecute MySpace, not sue them, only the former is relevant to this discussion. Unless you can prove some sort of intent, it is very unlikely you will be able to prosecute the hotel owners just because they got ripped off by a contractor.
Ok, you also would not be able to prosecute a hotel if one of their other guests breaks into your room (or perhaps walks in after you leave the door unlocked would be more appropriate, as a patch for this vulnerability is available) and kicks you in the dick, if that is somehow more relevent to you. I've personally never had that happen to me, so I didn't find it that helpful.
Thats because we have standard building codes, and inspectors who go through buildings to make sure they meet them. Finding obscure hacker exploits is much more difficult.
I'm guessing he had a real article, he just forgot to include the link in the summary. That about.com thing seems to just be support for his claim that Mario 2 did indeed come from another game (which we already knew anyways).
Well considering the vast majority of banner ads are legal and do not install spyware, then I guess Myspace is off the hook and we can stop this silly conversation. Finally.
No, not really...
I'm scared to ask, but how does your conspiracy theory reason why the government would want ISPs to monitor all that information, when the government itself really wouldn't have any trouble doing it themselves?
"Why can't Microsoft patch the holes in it's software?"
They do. Users just don't always install the patches.
"Why can't MySpace screen it's advertisers? They aren't showing porn site ads, because they 'screened' the ads, correct? So, how come they are serving adware?"
What part of 'hidden in the ad' did you not get?
Actually, the business sold that advertising space to an advertiser and they put up an ad that is dangerous to visitors. So actually, it is the same thing.
Perhaps, but this type of exploit is not specific to myspace. In fact, in case you didn't RTFA (or even the summary), this ad was featured on other websites as well. Don't make the mistake that because you don't visit 'fad' websites, you are safe from this type of thing.
Only if Myspace knew what was going on (which they almost certainly did not). Or do you think any business transaction with criminals is 'akin to aiding and abetting'? In which case, shouldn't you also prosecute
- banks, if one or more of their clients deposit money they got illegally?
- hotels, in whose rooms illegal transactions (prostitution, drug dealing, whatever) take place?
- computer manufacturers, whose customers use their computers to steal identities?
- camera manufacturers, whose products may be used to stalk people and invade their privacy?
- etc.
Ask yourself this, do you really want to go down that road? Do you really want companies to run extended background checks on you before they sell you anything to make sure you may not use it in some obscure way to harm others? Is such a police state really what you want? Or do you just not like Myspace (either because it is used by the same teenage girls who wouldn't date you in high school, or because it is owned by NewsCorp)?Uh, actually we have changed spellings as well. When was the last time you saw words spelled like "encyclopaedia", "aeon", "phantasy", or "gaol"? Those were all official spellings Teddy Roosevelt proposed getting rid of a century ago. There were even more simplifications back in the 1800's by Noah Webster (ever wonder why Brits spell words like "cheque", "colour ", or "plough"?). However, many other changes were never accepted, so you cannot just propose a change and expect people to use it (or even consider it an acceptable variant).
I think you are missing the gp's point. The words are phonetic in their root language, the problem is just that English has many root languages.
Which is the exact same thing people who did not have data on the computer should do. There are a lot of easier ways to steal someone's identity out there. This is hardly an unique case.
No, not really. Politicians just love to make things look better than they really are. I believe the national debt grew by over 2.5 trillion dollars in the 90's. Yes, it (very breifly) went down (very slightly) in 2000 (not part of the 90's, though), but of course that was during the rapid growth of the dot-com economy, which no one really expected to last.
Yeah, the coast guard would have surely stopped the terrorists from highjacking those airplanes... I suppose customs could have stopped them if they had known about it before the terrorists got here, but that would have had to happen years ahead of schedule. And you can't blame Bush for that, as he wasn't president then.
Don't forget, your heroes in the Clinton administration let a few terrorist attacks get through. So if you think anything below a 100% success rate is unacceptable, you might want to find a better example of an ideal terrorism reponse.
And once again, this very story completely refutes your point that the US government did nothing regarding terrorism before 9/11.
Just out of curiosity, where are you getting your information regarding the government's response to terrorism threats? Are you an actual member of the US intelligence community? Or did you just read it on some Michael Moore fansite?
"The FBI already had one of the plotters. "
Really? Who? You had better not be thinking of Moussaoui. Just because the man can convince 12 jurors that he is not the irrelevant loser all the evidence makes him appear to be doesn't mean he is high enough in the terrorism food chain to be considered a 'plotter' (hell even the federal government didn't go as far to accuse him of helping develop the plot itself). At best he was hired help.
"Every time something that is completely foreseable happens the incompetents in the administration say 'nobody could have predicted'."
Really? When did they say that? Really, I want an exact quote of someone high in the Bush administration (or better yet, Bush himself since that is who your rant is primarily against) saying "nobody could have predicted (whatever)".
BTW, I think this very story pretty much refutes your entire point. Good timing.
Really? What would he have done? Banned all Arabs from flying in airplanes? Or maybe take a card out from FDR's playbook and lock them all up in prison camps?
Boy I would hate to be president. Either you are robbing the nation of its civil liberties by doing too much to fight terrorism, or you are being incompetent by doing too little.
No, random spying will likely not prevent many terrorist attacks (however that is a long reach from saying that it cannot). Luckily that is not what anyone is alleging is happening. Which really renders the rest of your post moot.
"People who do not understand that will look at the extreme rarity of "terrorist attacks" in the US (try to name 5 attacks in the US in the last 100 years without using Google) and conclude that the time / money / effort spent was successful."
Off the top of my head (and in no particular order)...
- 9/11
- The DC snipers
- McVeigh
- The first WTC bombing
- The KKK's bombing of the Birmingham church
- The Anthrax letters shortly after 9/11
- Ted Kaczynski (ok, I cheated and used google to figure out how to spell his name).
Wait, I'm already past five. Sorry about that.Anyways, other people (such as yourself) seem content to look at the rarity of successful terrorist attacks and claim there is no legitimate threat, which counterbalances those who think it is greater than it really is.
" However, looking at the budget, you will see that our government is BORROWING the money."
Does that really surprise you? The federal government is always borrowing money. In fact the last time there was no deficit, I believe Jackson was president (and he was a jackass, so lets not repeat that).