Yep, that sounds about right. I was definitely involved in a few building evacuations following a (presumably) hoax threat, so I'm not convinced that many threats were ignored.
What I meant was that as far as I know, people have always evacuated buildings when there's been a bomb threat, regardless of the chances of it being real or not.
Possibly. They're rumoured to have armies of shills waiting to post opinions on Slashdot, so maybe they've decided to just submit loads of stories instead.
I was actually making a more general point about politicians and the people's will. Certainly in the UK, the majority of people were against the Iraq wars and that didn't have much effect. There's lots of examples of politicians following or ignoring "the public opinion", so I think my point stands that politicians follow their own motives.
I personally don't mind the "opt-out" nature of the filtering, but what concerns me more is the way that people are accepting that the internet is routinely filtered by the ISPs (and GCHQ, NSA etc). I did go to have a look at the survey you linked to as I wondered if they had asked loaded questions to skew the results, but when I went to look at the survey details and full results, the link was broken. Suspicious? Moi?
"Elements of rape"? You realise that what you wrote could be considered libel as you're accusing the people involved of criminal acts? Do you have any evidence that rape was in any way involved in any of the acts depicted?
The problem isn't the politicians' lack of intelligence, but the fact that their motives aren't aligned with what the people want. Unfortunately, the democratic process ensures that the top politicians are the most power-hungry and effective liars.
I'm not convinced that anything has changed. I lived through the 1970s in England when we had a large number of IRA bomb threats, some real, some made up. I'm not aware of anything being different these days, although the US does seem particularly scared of terrorism whereas in England we just keep calm and carry on.
I'm not convinced that it's easy to cut down the false positives so much without also increasing the chance that you get it wrong once. Bear in mind that there's not typically going to be much time to do a forensic evalutation of the threat, so you're going to have to rely on the people who receive the threat (who might not be well trained security professionals) to make a judgement call.
The problem is that it's not considered acceptable to leave people in a threatened building when you have advance notice of the threat and most people won't take the risk when they realise that one choice leads to a bit of time and money wasted and the other choice involves explaining to family members why you chose to endanger people unnecessarily.
And if his grandfather had been involved in actually making the building, then he would have been paid for the work he performed (usually time based) and there would be no question of continuing to receive benefit from his idea and work.
There's a world of difference, though, between acting on an actual threat (although fake) and assuming a threat based on some visible wiring (although safe).
If you receive a bomb threat, it makes sense to follow procedure and evacuate the building even though 99 times out of a 100 the threat is fake. Would you be happy ignoring a fire alarm due to the fact that most of the time there isn't an actual fire or would you rather evacuate the building to be on the safe side?
Although I think the potential sentence is somewhat harsh, he did more than just a bad prank. He essentially threatened everyone in the building and the people concerned weren't to know that the threat was a hoax. Never mind the cost and disruption involved with bomb threats.
Ah, I didn't realise it was like that. I was under the impression that it was an improvement over the old dos boot method, but maybe not so much.
In principle I still think that Secure Boot itself is not the problem if the users are always allowed to use keys of their choosing. However, it's being abused to lock hardware to the manufacturer rather than letting the buyers do what they want with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Looks like we got ourselves a breeder here!
Yep, that sounds about right. I was definitely involved in a few building evacuations following a (presumably) hoax threat, so I'm not convinced that many threats were ignored.
What I meant was that as far as I know, people have always evacuated buildings when there's been a bomb threat, regardless of the chances of it being real or not.
Well, that's just typical of the things that you say.
An ex-software developer turned sci-fi/horror author.
I personally love his Laundry series (modern day Lovecraftian/spy horror stories) and haven't read too much of his other stuff.
You should really hand in your geek card if you haven't heard of him.
Possibly. They're rumoured to have armies of shills waiting to post opinions on Slashdot, so maybe they've decided to just submit loads of stories instead.
(By the way, "their" should have been "there").
So, it has come to this.
Yep, that's kinda what I was getting at. Rape cannot be agreed to as then it's no longer rape (where "agreed to" means not against their will).
I was actually making a more general point about politicians and the people's will. Certainly in the UK, the majority of people were against the Iraq wars and that didn't have much effect. There's lots of examples of politicians following or ignoring "the public opinion", so I think my point stands that politicians follow their own motives.
I personally don't mind the "opt-out" nature of the filtering, but what concerns me more is the way that people are accepting that the internet is routinely filtered by the ISPs (and GCHQ, NSA etc). I did go to have a look at the survey you linked to as I wondered if they had asked loaded questions to skew the results, but when I went to look at the survey details and full results, the link was broken. Suspicious? Moi?
So, it has come to this.
That sounds like terrorist talk! Seize his computer!
I prefer to think that we're reasonably priced.
"Elements of rape"? You realise that what you wrote could be considered libel as you're accusing the people involved of criminal acts? Do you have any evidence that rape was in any way involved in any of the acts depicted?
The problem isn't the politicians' lack of intelligence, but the fact that their motives aren't aligned with what the people want. Unfortunately, the democratic process ensures that the top politicians are the most power-hungry and effective liars.
Also, the parents are often parents due to their own lack of sex education.
I'm not convinced that anything has changed. I lived through the 1970s in England when we had a large number of IRA bomb threats, some real, some made up. I'm not aware of anything being different these days, although the US does seem particularly scared of terrorism whereas in England we just keep calm and carry on.
I'm not convinced that it's easy to cut down the false positives so much without also increasing the chance that you get it wrong once. Bear in mind that there's not typically going to be much time to do a forensic evalutation of the threat, so you're going to have to rely on the people who receive the threat (who might not be well trained security professionals) to make a judgement call.
The problem is that it's not considered acceptable to leave people in a threatened building when you have advance notice of the threat and most people won't take the risk when they realise that one choice leads to a bit of time and money wasted and the other choice involves explaining to family members why you chose to endanger people unnecessarily.
I take your point, but the problem is how you assign a cost to the one time that a bomb does go off and the building wasn't evacuated.
They just Arrrrrr!
And if his grandfather had been involved in actually making the building, then he would have been paid for the work he performed (usually time based) and there would be no question of continuing to receive benefit from his idea and work.
There's a world of difference, though, between acting on an actual threat (although fake) and assuming a threat based on some visible wiring (although safe).
If you receive a bomb threat, it makes sense to follow procedure and evacuate the building even though 99 times out of a 100 the threat is fake. Would you be happy ignoring a fire alarm due to the fact that most of the time there isn't an actual fire or would you rather evacuate the building to be on the safe side?
Although I think the potential sentence is somewhat harsh, he did more than just a bad prank. He essentially threatened everyone in the building and the people concerned weren't to know that the threat was a hoax. Never mind the cost and disruption involved with bomb threats.
Is that like saying that an electricity company has the right to see how their electricity is used?
A paper manufacturer has the right to read whatever you write on their products?
A gynaecologist has the right to film any sexual congress performed with genitals that he has worked with?
A kitchen cookbook/recipe display would be a good use for this.
Ah, I didn't realise it was like that. I was under the impression that it was an improvement over the old dos boot method, but maybe not so much.
In principle I still think that Secure Boot itself is not the problem if the users are always allowed to use keys of their choosing. However, it's being abused to lock hardware to the manufacturer rather than letting the buyers do what they want with it.