global warming doesn't exist as described by green peace. Climate changes happen on a regular basis. Local weather can be mildly affected by local industry.
Now to agree with you...junk food is horrible for you, and it's only healthIER to be fat if the alternative is to be a greater percentage UNDERweight. That doesn't mean it's actually HEALTHY to be fat.
I don't know if CFL bulbs are a danger or not, but learning that halogen bulbs were subject to explode if you touch them kept me away from them entirely. I want my bulbs cheap, easy to use, and relatively low on the "things I fear in my house" meter.
I understand why you would say that you'd be more skeptical of the evidence, but from the way it sounds to me, the defense didn't claim the CDs weren't his. They just claimed the CDs were obtained improperly and couldn't be used as evidence. I agree that you don't want to assume that even when someone is "caught red handed" that there is no possible way that there isn't another story behind it. However, the way you define reasonable, in this case, is not accurate. Stacks of CDs containing child porn being in his room is a very reasonable way to show that he was in possession of child p0rn. It's the same as drugs being found under the driver's seat of a vehicle. You could come up with a thousand stories about how it got there, but it is a reasonable expectation that you put them there if you were driving the car.
I just don't see how you meet reasonable doubt with something found in such large quantities in his room.
That's why I say no one REALLY believes it. Even fanboys on both sides know, whether secretly or overtly, that their favorite OS isn't perfect. You'll see it mostly when groups of fanboys on the same side are together in a room with their favorite OS and can be found cursing why it does such and such.
People may pretend that their OS is great and infallible, but they all know better.
I think because no one really believes that Apple software is completely bulletproof. No software is completely bulletproof. I'm sure someone could find an exploit even for a Hello World program. Windows gets the majority of the "bad press" from flaws because it has a gigantic market share compared to Apple, so the security holes and related patches affect many more people.
Yes, some Windows folks will see this as a "haha" nelson moment. However, it isn't a haha moment until the headline reads that someone found 25 Apple exploits and released a huge virus to exploit them. And while I am firmly planted in my Windows environment, I will not be interested in laughing at my Apple compadres when or if that happens.
nuke second life....get it fucking shutdown..it's nothing but a bane to our existence in every way. No one gives a fuck if some small group of people is trading gold for $$$ on WoW. The real problem is this stupid ass SecondLife thing that people pay INSANE amounts of money for completely virtual CRAP. WTF? Then all they really do is fuck around, literally...no socially redeeming value to SecondLife...its useless. Get rid of it before we get taxed because of it!
I'm not questioning you per se, but I would be interested to see what laws there are that say they have to read it. My guess is, that judges being the arbiters of the written law that they are, that they are precisely the ones that would know how to work around it.
I did read the whole article. And while I greatly appreciate that there are people willing to go the extra mile to point out where our judicial system isn't working as intended, I felt it would be worthwhile to point out other potential reasons for the motion being rejected. Chances are pretty high that the judge didn't even get the motion in his own hands but instead some course assistant shuffled it through and the judge just said "nope, case closed."
What an asshole you are. I'm mostly saying that if I was a judge and detected someone attempting to booby-trap a motion to see if I read it, I would immediately reject it for that reason. Alas, I'm not a judge and probably couldn't be for that and many other reasons. Then again, if I were the judge, the motion to reconsider would be coming from the spammer, as I would definitely lean on the side of the spam victims.
True, but from the look of the picture, the pages don't just flop open like you would expect. Sorry, this is slashdot, I want to see evidence that the system is foolproof !
And found a motion with two pages glued together, at the very least I would immediately reject it. I might go so far as to call out the person who submitted it...maybe even wonder aloud to the officers of the court whether the substance may be something illegal...or dangerous.
Also, since most/.ers will read an article summary and REJECT its value without reading the whole article, I can see a judge reading the opening part of a motion, seeing that it has no merit and rejecting it.
Or maybe the judges read them as is, wondered why the motion made no sense because of the "missing" page and rejected it because of that?
Maybe if you spent more time making valid motions than gluing paper together then you'd have more success in court?
Maybe I am not seeing the same thing as you, but basically the change to sitekey means that first you must intercept their user id, encrypt and pass it to BoA just as BoA's main page would have, then present the sitekey image/words as if it were coming from BoA to intercept their passcode. The whole idea of sitekey was to prove that the site you were entering your secondary ID (passcode) on was indeed BoA.
I think the BoA sitekey is definitely one step above username/password on the front page. However, I agree that while it provides an added SENSE of security, it can make people trust something more that they really can't trust any more. When it was released, I did almost exactly what this guy did just to see if it would work. I was not terribly surprised that I could create a wrapper to retrieve the sitekey picture and words while still intercepting the passcode. It was actually pretty easy. Unlike the study about the people who ignored their sitekey, I do pay attention to it. However, I also pay attention to whether I'm really on BoA. I never go there from a link in an email. While someone could still redirect my request for BoA to somewhere else, I also practice safe browsing practices that at least limit that potential issue on MY computer. The convenience of online banking is just too high for me to NOT use it.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this a joke? What exactly do you think the article is about?
global warming doesn't exist as described by green peace. Climate changes happen on a regular basis. Local weather can be mildly affected by local industry.
Now to agree with you...junk food is horrible for you, and it's only healthIER to be fat if the alternative is to be a greater percentage UNDERweight. That doesn't mean it's actually HEALTHY to be fat.
I don't know if CFL bulbs are a danger or not, but learning that halogen bulbs were subject to explode if you touch them kept me away from them entirely. I want my bulbs cheap, easy to use, and relatively low on the "things I fear in my house" meter.
even more fascinating is that it's on slashdot....
I understand why you would say that you'd be more skeptical of the evidence, but from the way it sounds to me, the defense didn't claim the CDs weren't his. They just claimed the CDs were obtained improperly and couldn't be used as evidence. I agree that you don't want to assume that even when someone is "caught red handed" that there is no possible way that there isn't another story behind it. However, the way you define reasonable, in this case, is not accurate. Stacks of CDs containing child porn being in his room is a very reasonable way to show that he was in possession of child p0rn. It's the same as drugs being found under the driver's seat of a vehicle. You could come up with a thousand stories about how it got there, but it is a reasonable expectation that you put them there if you were driving the car.
I just don't see how you meet reasonable doubt with something found in such large quantities in his room.
That's why I say no one REALLY believes it. Even fanboys on both sides know, whether secretly or overtly, that their favorite OS isn't perfect. You'll see it mostly when groups of fanboys on the same side are together in a room with their favorite OS and can be found cursing why it does such and such.
People may pretend that their OS is great and infallible, but they all know better.
I think because no one really believes that Apple software is completely bulletproof. No software is completely bulletproof. I'm sure someone could find an exploit even for a Hello World program. Windows gets the majority of the "bad press" from flaws because it has a gigantic market share compared to Apple, so the security holes and related patches affect many more people.
Yes, some Windows folks will see this as a "haha" nelson moment. However, it isn't a haha moment until the headline reads that someone found 25 Apple exploits and released a huge virus to exploit them. And while I am firmly planted in my Windows environment, I will not be interested in laughing at my Apple compadres when or if that happens.
hard nippled, don't care which color...
nuke second life....get it fucking shutdown..it's nothing but a bane to our existence in every way. No one gives a fuck if some small group of people is trading gold for $$$ on WoW. The real problem is this stupid ass SecondLife thing that people pay INSANE amounts of money for completely virtual CRAP. WTF? Then all they really do is fuck around, literally...no socially redeeming value to SecondLife...its useless. Get rid of it before we get taxed because of it!
I believe you because of your signature ;)
I'm not questioning you per se, but I would be interested to see what laws there are that say they have to read it. My guess is, that judges being the arbiters of the written law that they are, that they are precisely the ones that would know how to work around it.
Another reason that I'm NOT a judge...
I did read the whole article. And while I greatly appreciate that there are people willing to go the extra mile to point out where our judicial system isn't working as intended, I felt it would be worthwhile to point out other potential reasons for the motion being rejected. Chances are pretty high that the judge didn't even get the motion in his own hands but instead some course assistant shuffled it through and the judge just said "nope, case closed."
I probably wouldn't notice. However, like I said, if I DID notice....
Dear Anonymous Coward,
I did read the article. Which part of the article do you think that I didn't read?
Thank you
What an asshole you are. I'm mostly saying that if I was a judge and detected someone attempting to booby-trap a motion to see if I read it, I would immediately reject it for that reason. Alas, I'm not a judge and probably couldn't be for that and many other reasons. Then again, if I were the judge, the motion to reconsider would be coming from the spammer, as I would definitely lean on the side of the spam victims.
True, but from the look of the picture, the pages don't just flop open like you would expect. Sorry, this is slashdot, I want to see evidence that the system is foolproof !
And found a motion with two pages glued together, at the very least I would immediately reject it. I might go so far as to call out the person who submitted it ...maybe even wonder aloud to the officers of the court whether the substance may be something illegal...or dangerous.
/.ers will read an article summary and REJECT its value without reading the whole article, I can see a judge reading the opening part of a motion, seeing that it has no merit and rejecting it.
Also, since most
Or maybe the judges read them as is, wondered why the motion made no sense because of the "missing" page and rejected it because of that?
Maybe if you spent more time making valid motions than gluing paper together then you'd have more success in court?
The motions would be more successful if you Booby-trapped them with real boobies.
I just figured out HTML1 and I am still crying that doesn't work! :~(
No one is compatible with HTML5.
Where are these security questions that let you in?
Maybe I am not seeing the same thing as you, but basically the change to sitekey means that first you must intercept their user id, encrypt and pass it to BoA just as BoA's main page would have, then present the sitekey image/words as if it were coming from BoA to intercept their passcode. The whole idea of sitekey was to prove that the site you were entering your secondary ID (passcode) on was indeed BoA.
I think the BoA sitekey is definitely one step above username/password on the front page. However, I agree that while it provides an added SENSE of security, it can make people trust something more that they really can't trust any more. When it was released, I did almost exactly what this guy did just to see if it would work. I was not terribly surprised that I could create a wrapper to retrieve the sitekey picture and words while still intercepting the passcode. It was actually pretty easy. Unlike the study about the people who ignored their sitekey, I do pay attention to it. However, I also pay attention to whether I'm really on BoA. I never go there from a link in an email. While someone could still redirect my request for BoA to somewhere else, I also practice safe browsing practices that at least limit that potential issue on MY computer. The convenience of online banking is just too high for me to NOT use it.
It could be an alternative to pliers for the removal of that stick you got stuck up there...