True. When this was first posted, I didn't need to read further than "browser pop-up" to realize it's a bad thing. I am a professional IT security expert, after a couple of years you get an intuition about stupid ideas.
Will it work? Are you kidding me?
Will it have unintended consequences? Nah... neeeeever... what could possibly go wrong?
Every other source I've checked also agrees that the world population is still growing rapidly. Even optimistic estimates expect it to peak at 10 billion. That's almost 50% more than we have today.
In a court of law you do not present your evidence unless you have to. Much like in poker you don't show your cards. Not because you don't have any, or because they are bad, but... well, if you don't understand why then you've never played the game.
Whether or not their evidence will win them a conviction is another question and entirely irrelevant to the extradition hearing. All that matters is that they do have a proper case, i.e. they have more than "because we'd like to, please" when it comes to bringing this guy to trial.
The proof is so strong in this one that it doesn't even need to be shown? Is the U.S. argument that proof is so "obvious" that no one needs to see it
Correct.
Because it is an extradition hearing. They do not have to show the evidence because they do not have to establish that he is guilty.
Basically, it's like a discussion about setting the date for the trial. You don't need to have all the evidence presented at that discussion. You just need to establish if there's going to be a trial at all. And the defense claiming that they can't agree on a date without having seen and read all the evidence beforehand is just ridiculous and exactly what the court ruled: An attempt to obstruct the process.
Because obstructing the process is in the interest of the defense. It delays everything, allows Kimble to continue living in his comfortable mansion, and the longer everything lasts the higher the chance that something in the procecution goes wrong.
He will be given a trial based on American laws, when he was a German citizen doing business in New Zealand. The idea that US law applies to him at all is simply unconscionable.
Since you brought it up, at least be specific:
A previously convicted finnish-german citizen who worked with the FBI before (ratting out fellow criminals to get a reduced sentence for himself).
That last part is important. There's a lot of things that can legally put you into US jurisdiction. It's not always what you and I would consider just, but it's the reality. I've got a little bit of experience in this field because the movie mafia tried to sue me in a California court many years ago because I had the DeCSS code on my website and refused to take it down. IANAL, but I've talked to several US lawyers on topics like jurisdiction, because it once affected me.
This is not a trial about the case and thus the evidence he requests is not important. This is an extradition trial, in which the US government would not even present said evidence, because they do not have to prove he is guilty. What they have to convince the court of is something entirely different - namely that he should be extradited to the US. In order to do that, they have to prove that they have a case at all, not that they are going to win it.
Bogging down the process is a usual strategy of the defense. Kim is not currently in a jail cell, remember? He is under "house arrest" - which is a pretty comfortable thing to be if your house happens to be a multi-million dollar mansion with its own tennis court and a dozen servants and other employees. It is obviously in his interest to delay the process as long as possible for two simple reasons:
One, if he delays it long enough, statutes of limitation will become a good way to escape justice. That's not theoretical, that happens quite a lot.
Two, he doesn't have a mansion and a dozen luxury cars in the US. His stay would be quite a bit less comfortable.
Do you ever send (or receive) money outside your home country?
Constantly, and there's a dozen established ways of doing it.
Do you want a bank account no government can freeze if they decide you voted the "wrong" way last election?
I have that. It's called "living in a civilized country".
Do you believe you have every right to spend your hard-earned money playing online poker if you damned well want to?
Got that as well, it's called "not living in the USA".
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of electronic cash. I'm not convinced that Bitcoin is it, but that's besides the point. The reasons you give are weak and alarmist reasons that only appeal to a small minority of people.
Why would I want electronic cash (anonymous, untraceable, etc.)? Because it's nobodys business what I spend my money on, and not leaving a trail is the best precaution against everyone and his dog finding out because someone somewhere in the chain of payment providers has crappy security.
Passing something "up the chain" is a sure fire way to ensure it gets lost. And notifying a company behind-the-scenes of a security issue has a success rate so low, it could still legally drive.
It's good to give them the chance. Once. With a short time for a reply. Make sure your tell them you expect a reply until (insert date). If they don't reply, or bullshit you, go full disclosure with names and details. Bad publicity is about the only thing you can create that gets a company into motion.
If there is applicable legislation and an official you can contact, do that as well. Many states and countries require companies to disclose known data breaches.
Right. Which is why there is about one million apps for iOS and Android.
The Web is not, never was and never will be the only eco-system. What about the many, many non-web Internet applications? Not everyone uses webmail, and even webmail uses SMTP, not SOAP or REST to deliver its messages. There are calender services, bittorrent, games and thousands of other protocols and services, none of which have anything to do with the web.
There's a lot that is a website these days, granted. But you are a total idiot if you think that nothing that is not a website exists, that HTML/JS is the only programming language left etc.
Heck, Apple even tried this already when they released the original iPhone and told us that Web Apps are where it's at and we don't need native apps.
How about a little more realism and modesty? The web is one eco-system, and a very strong one. Why this obsession with being "the only", this desire for monopoly and dominance? WTF is wrong with being one among many?
They do not scam large corporations with deep pockets.
Basically, a good scammer knows to not scam marks that can cause him trouble. You can scam a million people with no resources to fight you and be fine. But go against one mark who does have the resources and you're toast.
Humans might be the top of the food chain in the animal kingdom, but we are the bottom of the food chain in the society we have built. Corporations, criminals, politicians - every parasite in existence preys upon the common citizen first and foremost, because we are the easy targets.
I'm pretty sure that my coding does not satisfy some theoretical top-of-the-mountain coding structure fanatics. But that is "wrong" in the sense that it does not satisfy opinions. And when it comes to coding styles, in the end they're just opinions and ten years from now we'll laugh about most of todays patterns.
And then there is programmatically correct, not unnecessarily wasteful with resources and easy to understand. Those are no opinions - your code either gives the right result or it doesn't, it either uses resources well or it doesn't, it can be understood or it can't. There's a bit of grey area regarding just how easy or how wasteful is ok, so it's not binary, but it's measurable along an objective axis.
After a few years in other fields, I'm doing some serious coding again. Postgres and Doctrine. I can do in a few lines of code and SQL what would take a small program or module to do without the power of SQL and an ORM.
Anyone who reinvents that wheel because he thinks he can do the 2% he recoded better is a moron.
What makes you think it'll be humans that move out into the galaxy and not some other species that only has us as an ancestor? The super-human, to speak with Nietzsche (abused as it was by the nazis, his concept of the Ãoebermensch was not racial in nature, but evolutionary).
We might just be one of a few million intelligent species in this galaxy, but we are likely the only one around for a couple hundred light years.
The "you know" part scares me. Millions of people "knew" the earth is flat. Heck, millions of people today "know" that gays are evil, women are the root of all evil, christians/muslims/jews/atheists/blacks/whites/cats are responsible for whatever.
If you can't prove it in a court of law, then how do you "know"?
Not to mention that in any civilized society, confession under torture is not admissible in court.
A ball-peen hammer or garden sheers to the knuckles works wonders
[citation required]
All the evidence I have seen indicates the opposite. Torture is a horribly ineffective means of finding the truth. In fact, throwing a coin is probably better.
If it isn't obvious why, the very simplified causation is roughly this: As torture proceeds, the goal of the victim becomes very simple: Make it end, no matter what. We KNOW that people will readily admit to crimes they did not commit under torture, including crimes that carry the death penalty. We know that people under torture reach a point where they would not only say "yes" but also thank you for it if you offered to kill them right then and there. We know that they will invent not only details of the crimes they are being questioned about, but also entirely new crimes.
We have historic evidence of people admitting crimes under torture where later investigations found conclusive evidence that they could not possible have committed them.
I sure hope the prosecutors look at the possibility that they in fact conspired on this, knowing that for each individual case one of them would have an alibi and if they both claim innocence and can show alibis for a part of the cases, a procesutor trying to get one of the convicted will fail.
More succinctly, what is the future cost of allowing these two guys to go free to continue his/their crime spree?
I cringe every time I see this binary techie thinking applied to the legal system.
Nowhere in TFA does it say that anyone is even considering letting them go. It's a very short piece on one particular part of the trial. The courts do NOT work like a compiler, they don't just stop the case and throw an error message when they encounter an unusual condition.
Almost certainly, the prosecution is not spending sleepless nights pondering whether to spend a million or let them go. Rather, they spend productive days wondering if there are other, cheaper, ways to get a conviction. Checking for an alibi, for example. See if one of them was with people who CAN tell the two apart at the time of the crime. Stuff like that.
DNA evidence is just one part of the puzzle in a good case.
Apparently, yes. A friend of mine told me recently that she loves good whiskey, but hates getting drunk. If she could remove the alcohol, she'd do it.
But the large picture is what you allege. Just look at sales numbers. Obviously, the cheapest alcohol sells most, not just by amounts but also by total revenue. Most people want to get drunk.
I live near a famous street full of bars. The amount of anti-social behaviour and frankly speaking dumbfucks I see over the weekend is enough to make the best man doubt humanity as a species. Most of it, thanks to alcohol.
I'm sure most of these people are tolerable when they're sober. But what I see of them when they come here is in the "they should have their license to breathe withdrawn" category.
And that's not even taking into account the drunk driving, alcoholism and other measurable damages to society and individuals.
Claiming that selling office for iOS would bring them more profit ignores all the side-effects and especially that the only reason MS is as rich as they are is monopoly rent.
Basically, they are drug dealers who would NOT profit from selling their customers a "brew at home" kit, even though such a thing might seem like a great idea with massive revenue potential.
Slashdot Mirror
True. When this was first posted, I didn't need to read further than "browser pop-up" to realize it's a bad thing. I am a professional IT security expert, after a couple of years you get an intuition about stupid ideas.
Will it work? Are you kidding me?
Will it have unintended consequences? Nah... neeeeever... what could possibly go wrong?
Just about every (if not every) demographic group on the planet is showing decreased levels of birth per person
In which reality?
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
Every other source I've checked also agrees that the world population is still growing rapidly. Even optimistic estimates expect it to peak at 10 billion. That's almost 50% more than we have today.
Paranoid ramblings.
In a court of law you do not present your evidence unless you have to. Much like in poker you don't show your cards. Not because you don't have any, or because they are bad, but ... well, if you don't understand why then you've never played the game.
Whether or not their evidence will win them a conviction is another question and entirely irrelevant to the extradition hearing. All that matters is that they do have a proper case, i.e. they have more than "because we'd like to, please" when it comes to bringing this guy to trial.
The proof is so strong in this one that it doesn't even need to be shown? Is the U.S. argument that proof is so "obvious" that no one needs to see it
Correct.
Because it is an extradition hearing. They do not have to show the evidence because they do not have to establish that he is guilty.
Basically, it's like a discussion about setting the date for the trial. You don't need to have all the evidence presented at that discussion. You just need to establish if there's going to be a trial at all. And the defense claiming that they can't agree on a date without having seen and read all the evidence beforehand is just ridiculous and exactly what the court ruled: An attempt to obstruct the process.
Because obstructing the process is in the interest of the defense. It delays everything, allows Kimble to continue living in his comfortable mansion, and the longer everything lasts the higher the chance that something in the procecution goes wrong.
He will be given a trial based on American laws, when he was a German citizen doing business in New Zealand. The idea that US law applies to him at all is simply unconscionable.
Since you brought it up, at least be specific:
A previously convicted finnish-german citizen who worked with the FBI before (ratting out fellow criminals to get a reduced sentence for himself).
That last part is important. There's a lot of things that can legally put you into US jurisdiction. It's not always what you and I would consider just, but it's the reality. I've got a little bit of experience in this field because the movie mafia tried to sue me in a California court many years ago because I had the DeCSS code on my website and refused to take it down. IANAL, but I've talked to several US lawyers on topics like jurisdiction, because it once affected me.
Who modded you up?
This is not a trial about the case and thus the evidence he requests is not important. This is an extradition trial, in which the US government would not even present said evidence, because they do not have to prove he is guilty. What they have to convince the court of is something entirely different - namely that he should be extradited to the US. In order to do that, they have to prove that they have a case at all, not that they are going to win it.
Bogging down the process is a usual strategy of the defense. Kim is not currently in a jail cell, remember? He is under "house arrest" - which is a pretty comfortable thing to be if your house happens to be a multi-million dollar mansion with its own tennis court and a dozen servants and other employees. It is obviously in his interest to delay the process as long as possible for two simple reasons:
One, if he delays it long enough, statutes of limitation will become a good way to escape justice. That's not theoretical, that happens quite a lot.
Two, he doesn't have a mansion and a dozen luxury cars in the US. His stay would be quite a bit less comfortable.
Do you ever send (or receive) money outside your home country?
Constantly, and there's a dozen established ways of doing it.
Do you want a bank account no government can freeze if they decide you voted the "wrong" way last election?
I have that. It's called "living in a civilized country".
Do you believe you have every right to spend your hard-earned money playing online poker if you damned well want to?
Got that as well, it's called "not living in the USA".
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of electronic cash. I'm not convinced that Bitcoin is it, but that's besides the point. The reasons you give are weak and alarmist reasons that only appeal to a small minority of people.
Why would I want electronic cash (anonymous, untraceable, etc.)? Because it's nobodys business what I spend my money on, and not leaving a trail is the best precaution against everyone and his dog finding out because someone somewhere in the chain of payment providers has crappy security.
No, I understand it fully and posted it precisely because it applies here.
It's a clickbait article, nothing more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
That's an interesting way to read it. I'm not sure it was intended, but it would make more sense.
Passing something "up the chain" is a sure fire way to ensure it gets lost. And notifying a company behind-the-scenes of a security issue has a success rate so low, it could still legally drive.
It's good to give them the chance. Once. With a short time for a reply. Make sure your tell them you expect a reply until (insert date). If they don't reply, or bullshit you, go full disclosure with names and details. Bad publicity is about the only thing you can create that gets a company into motion.
If there is applicable legislation and an official you can contact, do that as well. Many states and countries require companies to disclose known data breaches.
the only remaining eco-system is the web
Right. Which is why there is about one million apps for iOS and Android.
The Web is not, never was and never will be the only eco-system. What about the many, many non-web Internet applications? Not everyone uses webmail, and even webmail uses SMTP, not SOAP or REST to deliver its messages. There are calender services, bittorrent, games and thousands of other protocols and services, none of which have anything to do with the web.
There's a lot that is a website these days, granted. But you are a total idiot if you think that nothing that is not a website exists, that HTML/JS is the only programming language left etc.
Heck, Apple even tried this already when they released the original iPhone and told us that Web Apps are where it's at and we don't need native apps.
How about a little more realism and modesty? The web is one eco-system, and a very strong one. Why this obsession with being "the only", this desire for monopoly and dominance? WTF is wrong with being one among many?
They do not scam large corporations with deep pockets.
Basically, a good scammer knows to not scam marks that can cause him trouble. You can scam a million people with no resources to fight you and be fine. But go against one mark who does have the resources and you're toast.
Humans might be the top of the food chain in the animal kingdom, but we are the bottom of the food chain in the society we have built. Corporations, criminals, politicians - every parasite in existence preys upon the common citizen first and foremost, because we are the easy targets.
There's "wrong" and there's wrong.
I'm pretty sure that my coding does not satisfy some theoretical top-of-the-mountain coding structure fanatics. But that is "wrong" in the sense that it does not satisfy opinions. And when it comes to coding styles, in the end they're just opinions and ten years from now we'll laugh about most of todays patterns.
And then there is programmatically correct, not unnecessarily wasteful with resources and easy to understand. Those are no opinions - your code either gives the right result or it doesn't, it either uses resources well or it doesn't, it can be understood or it can't. There's a bit of grey area regarding just how easy or how wasteful is ok, so it's not binary, but it's measurable along an objective axis.
Mod parent up.
After a few years in other fields, I'm doing some serious coding again. Postgres and Doctrine. I can do in a few lines of code and SQL what would take a small program or module to do without the power of SQL and an ORM.
Anyone who reinvents that wheel because he thinks he can do the 2% he recoded better is a moron.
(sorry for double-posting, a stray tag ate most of the first reply)
Once a human, always a human.
Individual, yes. Species change. Well, unless you're one of the insane people who deny evolution, climate change, reason and using your brain.
You mix up species, classes, families and other levels of classification as if they were the same thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_classification
Once a human, always a human.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_classification
What makes you think it'll be humans that move out into the galaxy and not some other species that only has us as an ancestor? The super-human, to speak with Nietzsche (abused as it was by the nazis, his concept of the Ãoebermensch was not racial in nature, but evolutionary).
We might just be one of a few million intelligent species in this galaxy, but we are likely the only one around for a couple hundred light years.
The "you know" part scares me. Millions of people "knew" the earth is flat. Heck, millions of people today "know" that gays are evil, women are the root of all evil, christians/muslims/jews/atheists/blacks/whites/cats are responsible for whatever.
If you can't prove it in a court of law, then how do you "know"?
Not to mention that in any civilized society, confession under torture is not admissible in court.
A ball-peen hammer or garden sheers to the knuckles works wonders
[citation required]
All the evidence I have seen indicates the opposite. Torture is a horribly ineffective means of finding the truth. In fact, throwing a coin is probably better.
If it isn't obvious why, the very simplified causation is roughly this: As torture proceeds, the goal of the victim becomes very simple: Make it end, no matter what. We KNOW that people will readily admit to crimes they did not commit under torture, including crimes that carry the death penalty. We know that people under torture reach a point where they would not only say "yes" but also thank you for it if you offered to kill them right then and there. We know that they will invent not only details of the crimes they are being questioned about, but also entirely new crimes.
We have historic evidence of people admitting crimes under torture where later investigations found conclusive evidence that they could not possible have committed them.
Torture does not work if your goal is truth.
Who says there's an innocent one?
I sure hope the prosecutors look at the possibility that they in fact conspired on this, knowing that for each individual case one of them would have an alibi and if they both claim innocence and can show alibis for a part of the cases, a procesutor trying to get one of the convicted will fail.
More succinctly, what is the future cost of allowing these two guys to go free to continue his/their crime spree?
I cringe every time I see this binary techie thinking applied to the legal system.
Nowhere in TFA does it say that anyone is even considering letting them go. It's a very short piece on one particular part of the trial. The courts do NOT work like a compiler, they don't just stop the case and throw an error message when they encounter an unusual condition.
Almost certainly, the prosecution is not spending sleepless nights pondering whether to spend a million or let them go. Rather, they spend productive days wondering if there are other, cheaper, ways to get a conviction. Checking for an alibi, for example. See if one of them was with people who CAN tell the two apart at the time of the crime. Stuff like that.
DNA evidence is just one part of the puzzle in a good case.
Apparently, yes. A friend of mine told me recently that she loves good whiskey, but hates getting drunk. If she could remove the alcohol, she'd do it.
But the large picture is what you allege. Just look at sales numbers. Obviously, the cheapest alcohol sells most, not just by amounts but also by total revenue. Most people want to get drunk.
Please put that into the water supply.
I live near a famous street full of bars. The amount of anti-social behaviour and frankly speaking dumbfucks I see over the weekend is enough to make the best man doubt humanity as a species. Most of it, thanks to alcohol.
I'm sure most of these people are tolerable when they're sober. But what I see of them when they come here is in the "they should have their license to breathe withdrawn" category.
And that's not even taking into account the drunk driving, alcoholism and other measurable damages to society and individuals.
No, they are not leaving money on the table.
Claiming that selling office for iOS would bring them more profit ignores all the side-effects and especially that the only reason MS is as rich as they are is monopoly rent.
Basically, they are drug dealers who would NOT profit from selling their customers a "brew at home" kit, even though such a thing might seem like a great idea with massive revenue potential.