Don't forget exporting all of the phones in the country illegally. Build a wall around Palo Alto, with a name like that I'm sure it's full of bad hombres!
Not quite - you see, the manufacturer is going to create a newer, better version of their product (to preserve patent and copyright protections and maximize profits^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hbenefits to the public), so the code cleanup will probably find its way into the 2.0 version of their wonder widget/frammis/dololly.
During development of these devices, I suspect that if the software developers ever tried to raise security concerns, they were (correctly) told to worry about that after they had a device that could save lives. Not unlike documentation, once the miracle gizmo has made it past the FDA (I.e., gone into production), going back to fix kludges and clean up dirty code slides wa-a-ay down the list of priorities. Happens all the time in IT.
I get that it's some piece of crypto . . . But does it have a real value? Can I eat it? Burn it to stay warm? Wrap myself in it for shelter from the rain?
On the flip side, it's crypto. Is it legal to import/export, or am I likely to run afoul of government agents with water, rags and no sense of humor? If it's crypto and it's weak enough to import and export freely, what the hell good is it?
Look at it this way . . . increase your monthly by $5.00. Next month, it's $10.00. The month after that, $20.00 . . . soon, your plan will by YU-U-U-GE!
If the Geek Squad finds child pornography on the hard disk of a computer in their possession, shouldn't Best Buy be held criminally liable for possessing child pornography? Unless they can establish a chain of custody (i.e. - the first thing we do is a hardware binary image of all storage which we can absolutely prove is an accurate and unaltered copy of storage as received from the customer)? That's what law enforcement agencies have to do, in part to prove that any evidence they find was not planted by them.
I have a second concern along the same lines . . . let us assume that the Geek Squad isn't engaging in shenanigans for profit. How are they inspecting my hard drive, and can they assure me that they won't cause a data loss?
Yes, the bilateral opposition this incredibly promising research has faced (being bilateral) could only have come from one place - Vatican City and the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Man forbid that anything be killed that might someday achieve sentience and become a source of tithes.
Do you know what fluoridation is? It's an insidious communist plot to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face.
Not to mention - hard to make a case for libel when you're an anonymous coward. Sorry to hear about you being banned everywhere you go. Good of you to live up to all my expectations, though.
Just once, you might consider disappointing us. You know - like when you committed suicide? Your mama posted all about it here, remember? She was almost as disappointed as I'm sure your daddy was, even if neither of you has a clue who he is. After all, who'd want to be known for fathering an anonymous coward?
Now, instead of burying an enemy combatant with lead poisoning, we can use the enemy combatant's body as fertilizer to foster the growth of non-indigenous (invasive?) plant life on the battlefield.
Of course, getting enemy combatants to hang around the impact area of US military training ranges might present something of a challenge . . .
Back in the day when Telephone==Landline, if you got obnoxious, obscene or harassing phone calls, you called the phone company. If you really wanted to allege harm or damages, you got the data and sued the person that owned the phone the badness came from.
These ladies are suing the phone company for not preventing the calls in the first place.
It's an outdated metaphor, but it does express the nub of the issue. Let us remember that the phone company isn't allowed to listen in on your phone calls; by its very nature, the web does not require or even make reasonable that condition. Web hosts should be so constrained, with social media only granting exceptions for correctly identified registered users. The metaphor breaks down here because telephone technology made privacy considerations the norm. The internet by its very design makes this not so.
I can rent a minute of airtime from ABC. I can sneak an ad full of pornography onto the air. As long as ABC can definitively point a finger at me, they should get a complete pass for any wrongdoing. The instant they admit "we don't know who this is, we just ran his ad" they should be held to take complete responsibility for the content of that ad. That'll teach them to either verify my identity completely or vet my ad completely before giving it air time. Web anonymity is a wonderful thing, but so far it seems to be doing society at large more harm than good.
. . . that whole 'projecting' thing. Goes back quite a ways. Does my heart good to see that APK has learned this from me. He can accuse everyone else of projecting to his heart's content - try not to hold it against him, he's just projecting.
Still, you've gotta admit: the kid has spunk. The only thing he ever talks about (when he's not insulting everyone he can) is a hostfile manager designed to simplify surfing the darknet; but when he grows up in a decade or so, he could well be one helluva code monkey.
Of the two of you, only one (raymorris) has posted with a valid identity. Further, his post is not concealed or obfuscated in any way I can determine. Thus, 'talking behind others' backs' is not a valid allegation.
Of your two remaining complaints I can only ask this - what possible relevance to the current thread does this have? Also, how does your continuous use of ad hominem attacks add to or enhance conversation on the subject of the US Supreme Court's recent decision to not render an opinion or judgement in this case?
I have posted inappropriate things in the past, even here at Slashdot. I have also recanted of those errors and apologized as publicly as those offending posts were made. You still seem intent upon posting inappropriately here on Slashdot (sufficiently so to be banned, evidently). This is evidence that you haven't grown up. You should grow up, so that you can make a living in the IT industry. Hell, I'll bet you could even grow up to be a programmer someday . . . but you have to grow up first, something which the evidence here indicates is highly unlikely.
Is that why you can't sue me for libel (as you've often threatened to do)? I'd begun to wonder after I ensured that you have current and correct contact information with which to serve me a process or subpoena - now I'm beginning to suspect the reason for no libel suit is that you're a minor child and have no legal standing to bring suit of any sort. If psychiatric help is not available for whatever it is you have, perhaps maturing will correct the problem.
In closing, let me point out that Everyone Loves Raymond - but nobody loves a bloated, spray-painted orange mess that only knows how to be dishonest, antagonistic, bellicose and insulting. Until you learn this, please stick to Twitter.
Slashdot Mirror
And based on the number of comments in this thread, nobody cares.
Don't forget exporting all of the phones in the country illegally. Build a wall around Palo Alto, with a name like that I'm sure it's full of bad hombres!
It could've been some 400 pound kid on a couch somewhere. You know, it's nearly impossible to prove these things unless you catch them in the act.
Not quite - you see, the manufacturer is going to create a newer, better version of their product (to preserve patent and copyright protections and maximize profits^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hbenefits to the public), so the code cleanup will probably find its way into the 2.0 version of their wonder widget/frammis/dololly.
Boy, they're gonna catch some FLAC over this.
Al, is that you?
True story.
On the flip side, it's crypto. Is it legal to import/export, or am I likely to run afoul of government agents with water, rags and no sense of humor? If it's crypto and it's weak enough to import and export freely, what the hell good is it?
You seem to have confused cause and effect.
That's Drumpf. Herr Drumpf to you.
What's so bad about GoDaddy? Except for not having commercials with scantily-clad hotties anymore, that is.
I agree. So is forcing vaccination of school children, auto insurance, minimum wage, taxes, selective service registration, . . .
At best, I'll cover some small bits of the display at the edge. More likely, I'll be accidentally doing a multi-touch long-press.
Look at it this way . . . increase your monthly by $5.00. Next month, it's $10.00. The month after that, $20.00 . . . soon, your plan will by YU-U-U-GE!
Bing never caught on because people want to use a search engine, not a decision engine. Microsoft has to catch up somehow, don't they?
2) How long will it be before this stuff is commercially available?
I have a second concern along the same lines . . . let us assume that the Geek Squad isn't engaging in shenanigans for profit. How are they inspecting my hard drive, and can they assure me that they won't cause a data loss?
God save us all from religious fundies!
Do you know what fluoridation is? It's an insidious communist plot to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face.
Just once, you might consider disappointing us. You know - like when you committed suicide? Your mama posted all about it here, remember? She was almost as disappointed as I'm sure your daddy was, even if neither of you has a clue who he is. After all, who'd want to be known for fathering an anonymous coward?
Carly Fiorina?
Of course, getting enemy combatants to hang around the impact area of US military training ranges might present something of a challenge . . .
These ladies are suing the phone company for not preventing the calls in the first place.
It's an outdated metaphor, but it does express the nub of the issue. Let us remember that the phone company isn't allowed to listen in on your phone calls; by its very nature, the web does not require or even make reasonable that condition. Web hosts should be so constrained, with social media only granting exceptions for correctly identified registered users. The metaphor breaks down here because telephone technology made privacy considerations the norm. The internet by its very design makes this not so.
I can rent a minute of airtime from ABC. I can sneak an ad full of pornography onto the air. As long as ABC can definitively point a finger at me, they should get a complete pass for any wrongdoing. The instant they admit "we don't know who this is, we just ran his ad" they should be held to take complete responsibility for the content of that ad. That'll teach them to either verify my identity completely or vet my ad completely before giving it air time. Web anonymity is a wonderful thing, but so far it seems to be doing society at large more harm than good.
Still, you've gotta admit: the kid has spunk. The only thing he ever talks about (when he's not insulting everyone he can) is a hostfile manager designed to simplify surfing the darknet; but when he grows up in a decade or so, he could well be one helluva code monkey.
Of the two of you, only one (raymorris) has posted with a valid identity. Further, his post is not concealed or obfuscated in any way I can determine. Thus, 'talking behind others' backs' is not a valid allegation.
Of your two remaining complaints I can only ask this - what possible relevance to the current thread does this have? Also, how does your continuous use of ad hominem attacks add to or enhance conversation on the subject of the US Supreme Court's recent decision to not render an opinion or judgement in this case?
I have posted inappropriate things in the past, even here at Slashdot. I have also recanted of those errors and apologized as publicly as those offending posts were made. You still seem intent upon posting inappropriately here on Slashdot (sufficiently so to be banned, evidently). This is evidence that you haven't grown up. You should grow up, so that you can make a living in the IT industry. Hell, I'll bet you could even grow up to be a programmer someday . . . but you have to grow up first, something which the evidence here indicates is highly unlikely.
Is that why you can't sue me for libel (as you've often threatened to do)? I'd begun to wonder after I ensured that you have current and correct contact information with which to serve me a process or subpoena - now I'm beginning to suspect the reason for no libel suit is that you're a minor child and have no legal standing to bring suit of any sort. If psychiatric help is not available for whatever it is you have, perhaps maturing will correct the problem.
In closing, let me point out that Everyone Loves Raymond - but nobody loves a bloated, spray-painted orange mess that only knows how to be dishonest, antagonistic, bellicose and insulting. Until you learn this, please stick to Twitter.