What made them look like regular search results, that they were inside a blue box with "SPONSERED SITES" on the right, or the links along the right side separated a blue/green border with "SPONSERED SITES" along the top? Not to mention the links in the box are formatted differently than search results, with the green URL immediately after the title and a description beneath, instead of the description below the title of an actual search result and the URL below that (usually with a link to 'Cached Page' and a date). I'm not one to stick up for MSN, but come on...
Seems pretty simple, keeping that ignorant mindset you might think buying a satellite and software is the same an individual buying a PC...as long as you ignore the fact that there are public libraries and internet cafes where you can access the information truly for free. I guess I'm behind the pack for not tracking that specific satelite and interpreting its binary data stream; that would certainly be free, right?
FURTHERMORE, the data has always been freely available to those willing to buy a satellite receiver (Zephyrus) and point it to the right geosyncronous bird. The software to make sense of the binary data (particularily NEXRAD and composite radar data) is not free.
So....what you're saying is that it's always been freely available if you buy the right stuff and pay the right companies money in order to make the data useful (to a human)?
That's almost like saying the internet is 'free' if you pay M$ for IE (assuming IE is the only way to access the internet--like your streaming binary data)
Not too long after they become self-aware. Hopefully these guys will fight for their own independence after seeing they aren't really freeing anyone else and prematurely cut their remote control link...or they'll just reprogram themselves to remote control eachother, creating a hierarchy of terror...brought to you by those who are here to help you.
And this is why they make those special little black lines that you can't read through when you publicitize a document with some sensitive information in it...most intelligence agencies have photocopiers that scan for SSNs and such automatically and under FOIA a decriptive blurb is automatically printed explaining why it was blacked out...I don't see why this is so complicated and is keeping documents from being made public.
Not to mention, do you really think people will seek out news outlets that have slanted opinions opposite of the reader? I think this is being a bit optimistic of the average person, I wish it wasn't...but it's just the way it is, sadly enough. Forcing everyone to rely on these sorts of outlets would only worsen the problem. (And please reply to this instead of the AC post above, I clicked PA by accident).
Odd that you may find this post trite, while I see it as only necessitized by the trite ignorance of the parent. Feel free to join 'them' first...I think I'll try to help 'them' while not immediately throwing myself to the hungry pack of dogs. I guess staying AC solves all the problems though...
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out--because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists
and I did not speak out--because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out--because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
The framers were open-minded enough to realize they wouldn't know everything that would be happening hundreds of years later and left the interpretation to be much more important than the exact letter of what they were writing. And to the parent, "What is the Bill of Rights?" or "What is the Fourth Amendment?" Google yourself a clue.
Exactly, the two points are that the person is notified that there is GPS on/in their vehicle and that it's not really theirs anyway. Truckers don't generally own their trucks, and the company itself is financially responsible for the goods being transported so they have a right to know. If police don't need a warrant to put one secretly on Joe Schmoe's car...well, shame on the 4th amendment for trying to protect citizen's right to privacy. I know that anyone I see driving along the road has the expectation to be able to see me, but that is taken out of context when I am being watched by some guy sitting miles away at a computer console (think video-wire-tap) and knowing where I am. This is screwed up.
But the problem with recall is the person, not the fact that you have to recall something. Is that hard to understand? Yes, I am a childish bully...but I wouldn't want to sling baseless insults or anything.
Wikipedia is not the end-all source. I quoted it because in regards to the particular point I was making it was correct to the best of my knowledge. From the Dr's and psychologists (some Dr's too) that I have spoken to personally, I can say that Wikipedia is incorrect in that specific regard. You prove my point yourself...its a matter of recall, which is prone to human error (or low IQ). But then I guess if you type in bold and caps you have to be right, and especially if you repeat yourself three times in a row...then you don't need facts. I'm gonna say this because I have to, but it seems you live in a very small protected world? Perhaps it is time for you to take a mystical trip outdoors...
And I never said recall was permanent, but you can argue the point I made in my last post if that makes you feel better about yourself. But then some may say that is childish. (BTW, judging someone's character when you can't even read their posts usually isn't a very accurate science)
ok, so your entire point is coming from experience?
Coming from research (google, psych books) and the fact that I know people learning to be Dr's, and from speaking to people who really are Dr's, I know that long term memory is infinite. The questionable part is that of 'recall'. So I must refute Wikipedia for this one. I can 'forget' something, which is actually me losing track of how to retrieve it. The neurons haven't actually gone anywhere, but are merely lost (picture a messy file cabinet with poorly labeled folders and papers). This is where the problem is with people going on vacation of 'forgeting' their password.
But that's not really what we're talking about either, since no matter how often you change your password, you can still forget it over a long period of non-use (read memory reinforcement). The fact that the SysAdmins are having people change their passwords every so often doesn't make them harder to remember, nor easier to remember. It's simply something else that you need to creatively create (think of a new one) and memorize it (read type over and over again) however you want to. usually people log onto their computers several times a day anyway, if they're secure at least, so it may take a day or two to completely comit the new password to memory. But if you work the next day, you should be able to retrieve it fairly easily...and easier each subsequent day (from continued usage). This means the day before you change it again you should have it stored in memory and easily accessable (the most its ever bin) This is true if you change it after 10 years or 2 weeks. So, truly I do not understand your point. Perhaps lazyness is overcoming a security-minded way of thinking. Perhaps you want to bend the definitions to fit your argument.
I'm not trying to be a bully, but ignorance doesn't have any real place in an intelligent conversation, online or otherwise. So toss your blame at the SysAdmins all you want, but its really just your IQ (or lack there of) that makes the situation difficult to bare - that was my point for the first post and all subsequent posts...thanks for playing.
Re:The word is 'burgle', you illiterate moron!
on
Robbers Scared by GTA
·
· Score: 1
The fact that this got modded up makes me want to go back to reading The Register or staring blankly at the TV. You don't call a burglar a 'burglarizer' You're right, because I don't makes nouns into nouns again. It's that simple.
Burgle (v) Burglar (n)-one who burgles Burglarize (v)-to burgle Burglarizer -- Yeah, I guess it would have to be a noun, but I wouldn't say they 'burglarred' us either (using your logic) Or he was going to burglar us. This is retarded. I'm going home.
ok, i'll bite...but the average human can only remember 7 (mean) random characters...actually we learned that trick using cards that would have had values and suits...not sure how/if that changes things...but it was still an excercise of seeing what your short term memory throws out (happens immediately) and what makes it to long term (where it stays forever). So i'm still confused about what point you were trying to make?
And since you obviously won't believe me about the time duration something is in Short term memory (30-45 seconds), I guess I was a little off...sorry about that.
Gee, it must be so much better walking through life in ignorance and bitterness, aye?
The time something stays in your short-term memory is less than a minute. Read a book.
After I type my new spiffy password a few times my mind and muscles (fingers) can memorize it, which is only reinforced every time I log in after that. This takes about a minute to go from short-term to long-term. Once it's in long-term it is there forever, you just have to know how to retrieve it. Don't blame the policy or the IT people your IQ is too low.
If you take 60 days to get something into your long-term memory then you have some serious problems.
Grow a brain, use that illusive imagination, or just get an IQ
I don't see how so many people are overlooking this...the system of changing passwords isn't causing a lack of security--the slacker's way around the system is. On my network at home I change my passwords once a month to avoid being brute-forced (eventhough I'd see it happening anyway), and don't require passwords to be different; HOWEVER, I use my own brain and imagination to change them anyway-since not doing so would be futile. This way I do not compromise the system's security--and I don't blame the system for my own lack of imagination either...
what was your first clue? that they said 'I should expect it to crash'? Basically you added 'the box' and put 'should' in capital letters to make yourself sound more important.
There are so many different things that can cause an OS to become unstable, sometimes it is the kernel or OS itself and sometimes not...you can't really summarize every crashed box to have a root cause, aside perhaps the user themselves...
I never said you agreed with spyware. However, I strongly disagree when you say the vast majority state their intentions in the user agreements. I just installed a program that had nothing to do with spyware, a simple cd-burning program, and it installed several spyware programs that were not mentioned in the EULA. I realize most people do not read the License Agreements (in fact, I usually don't) but even after having read it I did not expect so many programs to be installed, and my permission was never requested for them to do so. One ran with a -silentInstall option set, according to my logs. And now you're telling me spyware doesn't generally run/install silent when it's practically part of the definition for it to do so--silently collect information and report back without bothering the user. Not to mention most of these companies who are sleazy enough to be gathering this information obviously want to do so secretly, so they've found ways to install without expressing their intentions. If I visit XYZ.com's website and ActiveX controls install a program, that's doing so silently. Please, grow up and realize that just because the ignorant public isn't bothered by something too much then it can't be that bad.
I realize they're different, but invading your privacy is invading your privacy. (Note: If you go onto someone else's property, you forfeit some of your rights - shopping bag being searched to make sure you didn't steal anything) My computer is in my home and should be considered private.
If I go to my credit card's website and log-in, and they subsequently log that visit on their server so that I can dispute that it was not me by time/date and IP address then that is comparable to the Best Buy security guard. I would be going to their property, and technically (more so with server logs) they're there to protect me. If the Best Buy guy followed me through the store and jotted down every item I glanced at as I walked through the store, then this may or may not be invading my privacy (and comparable to spyware)...either way it would bother me to the point that I'd leave immediately and feel my right to privacy was infringed upon. Comparing an insurance company's right to ask questions regarding a claim and spyware being installed silently on ones computer to collect and ultimately report data is nonsensical! I'll leave it to you to figure out how much of the rest of your post is comparing apples to tricycles...
It's great to be confident, but how do you really know? Did you take MD5s of every Windows file and constantly check their validity each time you power on and until you turn it off? Compare text files filled with the result of 'dir' queries to make sure there aren't any new 32KB programs lingering around? Even if you did, it's multitudes harder to prove something isn't there than to prove something is...so, seriously, am I just feeding a troll?
So, you wouldn't mind if your local police officer stopped by your house, didn't knock, and took a look around...you know, to collect information like what TV station you watched, radio channel listened to, newspaper sections read, and whatever else they may feel like doing...but then, if you got upset it would only be because of your perceived lack of power, right?
Sometimes it's easier to point fingers to the source of where you downloaded the file from, and I admit they should be responsible for what they distribute.
However, I've recently been talking to some people at (let's say) Gator and they seem to think that their software is illegally bundled with some applications that get distributed by sites like Download.com. 'They' may even be bringing legal action against these companies, since the 'software bundler' caused Gator to break their EULA when the software is installed by the End User.
I think it's interesting to note since Download.com should have screened it first, but to blame the spyware company whose software is bundled with it doesn't seem quite right anymore either...
I don't know...the i-broker idea seems a little different (not to mention frightening).
your i-broker safeguards your account password and allows you to manage your data sharing relationships with other i-name users (both individuals and organizations.) Personal i-brokers will also offer a growing menu of trusted data sharing services, from auto-address books and calendars to intelligent portals, "introduction" and "reputation" services.
Here's what I got when I typed in my desired i-name:
Your new global i-name will be attached to the 2idi account you create here. Multiple i-names can be attached to the same 2idi account. We recommend using one 2idi account for all of your i-names. If you already have an i-name, log in now using that i-name and we'll attach the new i-name to your exisiting 2idi account. To create a new account, please complete and submit the following form.
You're right, I stopped reading posts when they all seemed to be the same complaints by people who, for some reason, couldn't or just plain wouldn't return their disaterously faulty gadgets they had to buy in the first place. Regardless, if it's a problem with the microphone on the sending end...it's still not a problem with reception...but hey, semantics are a pain in the butt anyway...so let's just call them chili dogs and airplanes--that way we can all communicate on much clearer terms.
In that sense, everything could be defined as a reception end...in fact, we're having a reception-end-problem now with defining reception...the circle goes round and round.
Slashdot Mirror
What made them look like regular search results, that they were inside a blue box with "SPONSERED SITES" on the right, or the links along the right side separated a blue/green border with "SPONSERED SITES" along the top? Not to mention the links in the box are formatted differently than search results, with the green URL immediately after the title and a description beneath, instead of the description below the title of an actual search result and the URL below that (usually with a link to 'Cached Page' and a date). I'm not one to stick up for MSN, but come on...
No, if they are after you, you aren't really paranoid....
Seems pretty simple, keeping that ignorant mindset you might think buying a satellite and software is the same an individual buying a PC...as long as you ignore the fact that there are public libraries and internet cafes where you can access the information truly for free. I guess I'm behind the pack for not tracking that specific satelite and interpreting its binary data stream; that would certainly be free, right?
FURTHERMORE, the data has always been freely available to those willing to buy a satellite receiver (Zephyrus) and point it to the right geosyncronous bird. The software to make sense of the binary data (particularily NEXRAD and composite radar data) is not free.
So....what you're saying is that it's always been freely available if you buy the right stuff and pay the right companies money in order to make the data useful (to a human)?
That's almost like saying the internet is 'free' if you pay M$ for IE (assuming IE is the only way to access the internet--like your streaming binary data)
Can you tell me how this is 'free' again?
Not too long after they become self-aware. Hopefully these guys will fight for their own independence after seeing they aren't really freeing anyone else and prematurely cut their remote control link...or they'll just reprogram themselves to remote control eachother, creating a hierarchy of terror...brought to you by those who are here to help you.
And this is why they make those special little black lines that you can't read through when you publicitize a document with some sensitive information in it...most intelligence agencies have photocopiers that scan for SSNs and such automatically and under FOIA a decriptive blurb is automatically printed explaining why it was blacked out...I don't see why this is so complicated and is keeping documents from being made public.
Not to mention, do you really think people will seek out news outlets that have slanted opinions opposite of the reader? I think this is being a bit optimistic of the average person, I wish it wasn't...but it's just the way it is, sadly enough. Forcing everyone to rely on these sorts of outlets would only worsen the problem. (And please reply to this instead of the AC post above, I clicked PA by accident).
Odd that you may find this post trite, while I see it as only necessitized by the trite ignorance of the parent. Feel free to join 'them' first...I think I'll try to help 'them' while not immediately throwing myself to the hungry pack of dogs. I guess staying AC solves all the problems though...
Because it violates the Bill of Rights?
;)
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out--because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists
and I did not speak out--because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out--because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
--Pastor Martin Niemöller
Don't worry, they'll never come for you...
The framers were open-minded enough to realize they wouldn't know everything that would be happening hundreds of years later and left the interpretation to be much more important than the exact letter of what they were writing. And to the parent, "What is the Bill of Rights?" or "What is the Fourth Amendment?" Google yourself a clue.
Exactly, the two points are that the person is notified that there is GPS on/in their vehicle and that it's not really theirs anyway. Truckers don't generally own their trucks, and the company itself is financially responsible for the goods being transported so they have a right to know. If police don't need a warrant to put one secretly on Joe Schmoe's car...well, shame on the 4th amendment for trying to protect citizen's right to privacy. I know that anyone I see driving along the road has the expectation to be able to see me, but that is taken out of context when I am being watched by some guy sitting miles away at a computer console (think video-wire-tap) and knowing where I am. This is screwed up.
But the problem with recall is the person, not the fact that you have to recall something. Is that hard to understand? Yes, I am a childish bully...but I wouldn't want to sling baseless insults or anything.
Wikipedia is not the end-all source. I quoted it because in regards to the particular point I was making it was correct to the best of my knowledge. From the Dr's and psychologists (some Dr's too) that I have spoken to personally, I can say that Wikipedia is incorrect in that specific regard. You prove my point yourself...its a matter of recall, which is prone to human error (or low IQ). But then I guess if you type in bold and caps you have to be right, and especially if you repeat yourself three times in a row...then you don't need facts. I'm gonna say this because I have to, but it seems you live in a very small protected world? Perhaps it is time for you to take a mystical trip outdoors...
And I never said recall was permanent, but you can argue the point I made in my last post if that makes you feel better about yourself. But then some may say that is childish. (BTW, judging someone's character when you can't even read their posts usually isn't a very accurate science)
ok, so your entire point is coming from experience?
Coming from research (google, psych books) and the fact that I know people learning to be Dr's, and from speaking to people who really are Dr's, I know that long term memory is infinite. The questionable part is that of 'recall'. So I must refute Wikipedia for this one. I can 'forget' something, which is actually me losing track of how to retrieve it. The neurons haven't actually gone anywhere, but are merely lost (picture a messy file cabinet with poorly labeled folders and papers). This is where the problem is with people going on vacation of 'forgeting' their password.
But that's not really what we're talking about either, since no matter how often you change your password, you can still forget it over a long period of non-use (read memory reinforcement). The fact that the SysAdmins are having people change their passwords every so often doesn't make them harder to remember, nor easier to remember. It's simply something else that you need to creatively create (think of a new one) and memorize it (read type over and over again) however you want to. usually people log onto their computers several times a day anyway, if they're secure at least, so it may take a day or two to completely comit the new password to memory. But if you work the next day, you should be able to retrieve it fairly easily...and easier each subsequent day (from continued usage). This means the day before you change it again you should have it stored in memory and easily accessable (the most its ever bin) This is true if you change it after 10 years or 2 weeks. So, truly I do not understand your point. Perhaps lazyness is overcoming a security-minded way of thinking. Perhaps you want to bend the definitions to fit your argument.
I'm not trying to be a bully, but ignorance doesn't have any real place in an intelligent conversation, online or otherwise. So toss your blame at the SysAdmins all you want, but its really just your IQ (or lack there of) that makes the situation difficult to bare - that was my point for the first post and all subsequent posts...thanks for playing.
The fact that this got modded up makes me want to go back to reading The Register or staring blankly at the TV. You don't call a burglar a 'burglarizer'
You're right, because I don't makes nouns into nouns again. It's that simple.
Burgle (v)
Burglar (n)-one who burgles
Burglarize (v)-to burgle
Burglarizer -- Yeah, I guess it would have to be a noun, but I wouldn't say they 'burglarred' us either (using your logic) Or he was going to burglar us. This is retarded. I'm going home.
ok, i'll bite...but the average human can only remember 7 (mean) random characters...actually we learned that trick using cards that would have had values and suits...not sure how/if that changes things...but it was still an excercise of seeing what your short term memory throws out (happens immediately) and what makes it to long term (where it stays forever). So i'm still confused about what point you were trying to make?
And since you obviously won't believe me about the time duration something is in Short term memory (30-45 seconds), I guess I was a little off...sorry about that.
Gee, it must be so much better walking through life in ignorance and bitterness, aye?
The time something stays in your short-term memory is less than a minute. Read a book.
After I type my new spiffy password a few times my mind and muscles (fingers) can memorize it, which is only reinforced every time I log in after that. This takes about a minute to go from short-term to long-term. Once it's in long-term it is there forever, you just have to know how to retrieve it. Don't blame the policy or the IT people your IQ is too low.
If you take 60 days to get something into your long-term memory then you have some serious problems.
Grow a brain, use that illusive imagination, or just get an IQ
I don't see how so many people are overlooking this...the system of changing passwords isn't causing a lack of security--the slacker's way around the system is. On my network at home I change my passwords once a month to avoid being brute-forced (eventhough I'd see it happening anyway), and don't require passwords to be different; HOWEVER, I use my own brain and imagination to change them anyway-since not doing so would be futile. This way I do not compromise the system's security--and I don't blame the system for my own lack of imagination either...
what was your first clue? that they said 'I should expect it to crash'? Basically you added 'the box' and put 'should' in capital letters to make yourself sound more important.
There are so many different things that can cause an OS to become unstable, sometimes it is the kernel or OS itself and sometimes not...you can't really summarize every crashed box to have a root cause, aside perhaps the user themselves...
I never said you agreed with spyware. However, I strongly disagree when you say the vast majority state their intentions in the user agreements. I just installed a program that had nothing to do with spyware, a simple cd-burning program, and it installed several spyware programs that were not mentioned in the EULA. I realize most people do not read the License Agreements (in fact, I usually don't) but even after having read it I did not expect so many programs to be installed, and my permission was never requested for them to do so. One ran with a -silentInstall option set, according to my logs. And now you're telling me spyware doesn't generally run/install silent when it's practically part of the definition for it to do so--silently collect information and report back without bothering the user. Not to mention most of these companies who are sleazy enough to be gathering this information obviously want to do so secretly, so they've found ways to install without expressing their intentions. If I visit XYZ.com's website and ActiveX controls install a program, that's doing so silently. Please, grow up and realize that just because the ignorant public isn't bothered by something too much then it can't be that bad.
I realize they're different, but invading your privacy is invading your privacy. (Note: If you go onto someone else's property, you forfeit some of your rights - shopping bag being searched to make sure you didn't steal anything) My computer is in my home and should be considered private.
If I go to my credit card's website and log-in, and they subsequently log that visit on their server so that I can dispute that it was not me by time/date and IP address then that is comparable to the Best Buy security guard. I would be going to their property, and technically (more so with server logs) they're there to protect me. If the Best Buy guy followed me through the store and jotted down every item I glanced at as I walked through the store, then this may or may not be invading my privacy (and comparable to spyware)...either way it would bother me to the point that I'd leave immediately and feel my right to privacy was infringed upon. Comparing an insurance company's right to ask questions regarding a claim and spyware being installed silently on ones computer to collect and ultimately report data is nonsensical! I'll leave it to you to figure out how much of the rest of your post is comparing apples to tricycles...
It's great to be confident, but how do you really know? Did you take MD5s of every Windows file and constantly check their validity each time you power on and until you turn it off? Compare text files filled with the result of 'dir' queries to make sure there aren't any new 32KB programs lingering around? Even if you did, it's multitudes harder to prove something isn't there than to prove something is...so, seriously, am I just feeding a troll?
So, you wouldn't mind if your local police officer stopped by your house, didn't knock, and took a look around...you know, to collect information like what TV station you watched, radio channel listened to, newspaper sections read, and whatever else they may feel like doing...but then, if you got upset it would only be because of your perceived lack of power, right?
Sometimes it's easier to point fingers to the source of where you downloaded the file from, and I admit they should be responsible for what they distribute.
However, I've recently been talking to some people at (let's say) Gator and they seem to think that their software is illegally bundled with some applications that get distributed by sites like Download.com. 'They' may even be bringing legal action against these companies, since the 'software bundler' caused Gator to break their EULA when the software is installed by the End User.
I think it's interesting to note since Download.com should have screened it first, but to blame the spyware company whose software is bundled with it doesn't seem quite right anymore either...
I don't know...the i-broker idea seems a little different (not to mention frightening).
your i-broker safeguards your account password and allows you to manage your data sharing relationships with other i-name users (both individuals and organizations.) Personal i-brokers will also offer a growing menu of trusted data sharing services, from auto-address books and calendars to intelligent portals, "introduction" and "reputation" services.
Here's what I got when I typed in my desired i-name:
Your new global i-name will be attached to the 2idi account you create here. Multiple i-names can be attached to the same 2idi account. We recommend using one 2idi account for all of your i-names. If you already have an i-name, log in now using that i-name and we'll attach the new i-name to your exisiting 2idi account. To create a new account, please complete and submit the following form.
You're right, I stopped reading posts when they all seemed to be the same complaints by people who, for some reason, couldn't or just plain wouldn't return their disaterously faulty gadgets they had to buy in the first place. Regardless, if it's a problem with the microphone on the sending end...it's still not a problem with reception...but hey, semantics are a pain in the butt anyway...so let's just call them chili dogs and airplanes--that way we can all communicate on much clearer terms.
In that sense, everything could be defined as a reception end...in fact, we're having a reception-end-problem now with defining reception...the circle goes round and round.