In the past [Google] has produced "President Bush" when searchers hunt for "miserable failure."
And a Google search for "liar" produced as the top choice a site for a biography for British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a close ally with President Bush in the war on terror.
Google is not responsible for that; the people of the interwebs (who most likely share that opinion) are.
Perhaps he doesn't want people he doesn't know having access to his information...
Perhaps he doesn't want his prospective employers (or people he doesn't know) seeing pictures of him drinking tequila and wearing a lampshade on his head.
There are perfectly good reasons to hide information. The "the innocent have nothing to hide" argument is a slippery slope I don't like going down. It's this kind of argument that can be used to do the following...
Police: "Open up. We want to make sure you're not doing anything illegal." Guy: "You can't come in without a search warrant." Police: "Why not? If you're innocent, you have nothing to hide!"
Well... let's think... (mind you, I'm not from VA, so I have no clue about local elections laws or whatever)
There are 2 ways he can run unopposed...
1) He runs unopposed because there's no organized opposing political entity to nominate someone else to oppose him (as in, there's no local Democrat presence, or any other 3rd party presence). And even if there is a local opposing political presence, they must be uber-unorganized if they can't select someone and get them on a ballot.
2) There are multiple parties, and he is endorsed by all of them. This seems more likely.
If I was working for the RIAA, this is what I would do...
First, I'd use a filesharing app to search for offending items. I pick a file and start downloading. Then, I'd run Ethereal to determine the IP address of the person I'm connected to.
If you do that a whole bunch of times, you may start to see trends. If I had to guess, I'd say they saw a lot of IP addresses coming from University networks and took appropriate action.
And it's really no big secret if you just ask either. Having just finished school, probably almost all of the filesharing is in copyrighted material which they have no right to "share". Therefore it is illegal and should be stopped. It was disgusting to me how much people were trading movies, games, and music which didn't belong.
Indeed.
Last year (during my senior year), I had inadvertantly left Kazaa running one day, and some people did pick some files off of me. About a week later, I recieved a call from Computing Services asking me to come down to discuss a TOS-type violation, the nature of which was illegal file sharing. I was asked to sign a waiver and recieved a warning and was sent on my way without another penalty.
By the way, Computing Services was able to provide, on request, the names of the files that they detected coming from my computer.
RIAA goes after sharers of copyrighted material belonging to their clients, and they're targetting hotbeds of supposed activity. Sounds about right to me.
No... because they're doing something they want and like to do...
But this is like... doing another person's job...
Do you not see the difference? Doing another persons job is still compulsory (i.e. you have to follow regulations and direction and whatever). Going to Yosemite and hiking at your leisure is not compulsory.
And my inital post was said tongue-in-cheek. I didn't think I'd need to explain that, but so it goes.
Facebook has different levels of access depending on the relationship between you and the person whose profile you're viewing and their privacy preferences.
As an example, I have my cell phone # listed, but it's only visible to my friends. I choose who gets the sensitive pieces of info and who doesn't. Some people volunteer more info, some don't reveal much of anything. It's the user's decision.
I believe the most private settings in facebook are the following: - Profile not searchable - Entire profile not visible to any non-friends, even in the same school.
So privacy is not an issue with facebook, and if it is, PEBCAK.
The county I'm in (not in MA) has very recently (within the last 12 months) created a CIO position and filled it.
I'm guessing the reason for this is because the county executive wanted someone in charge of the government's technology needs that could be removed or replaced at will (this is a caveat of an apointed position). The way the organization is currently set up, there's a separate Information Systems department and the head of IS is a civil servant and can't be removed or demoted without cause (civil service laws require hearings and a whole-lot of red tape before anyone can be removed from a position against their will.) A impending re-organization will create a Department of Technology with the apointed CIO as the head.
In summary: a government could have a CIO in order to have more control over their own technology policies.
But seriously, it seems to me that the motives of this Professor Wilmut may not be entirely pure. Certainly, it's difficult to argue against offering treatment to victims of neuro-degenerative disorders, and I know for a fact that if I was such a victim, I'd be clamoring for treatment as loud as anyone else, but does that make it right to use humans as guinea pigs to 'speed up the pace of research'?
Absolutely. Patients have to sign the form when they get treatment. They know the risks involved. Besides, if there are no other options (usually the case when they're terminal), what do they have to lose? Everything else doesn't work, you might as well better the rest of the human race and be a guinea pig for a drug or treatment that might save the lives of thousands.
Most office-related business primarily use the Office suite (Word, Excel, Access and Outlook for the most part). Right now, unless Vista somehow improves the functionality of these programs, there's really no reason to spend resources (both time and money) to upgrade from XP.
I don't understand why it's so hard for parents to check out the games that their kids want. It's a simple matter of hitting Google to pull up a rating, and any decent review will mention the level of blood/sex/whatever. If you're worried that your kids are going to the store without you and hiding the games, find what's stored around the console/computer. No, this won't solve the problem 100%, but it should help.
You mean the problem would be solved if parents were more proactive and responsible in raising their children? You speak of pipedreams!
If parents even knew what the ratings meant, they'd know a lot more about the content of games than they do now. Forget about getting parents to research games before their kids buy them; let's at least educate parents as to the current ratings system first, because that's fundamental. Every parent knows what to expect from an R rated movie, but I have a feeling they don't know what the "M" in the corner of the video game case means (if they even notice it.)
And what good is the software if nodoby knows about it?
Software development is important, yes. But in order to get new users, you have to reach out to them, and this is where marketing comes in. Giving a new product to the same customer base will not result in growth. The number of people using the product have to increase in order for there to be growth, and that's what the marketing campaign aims to achieve.
Having an ad campaign for a product update is a solid course of action. It lets people who don't use Firefox see the new features and possibly switch over, and it lets the existing users know about the updates.
Networks are freaking out over this because it has the possibility of messing with the status-quo.
The business model is that shows are only available as a television broadcast or DVD purchase. Sure, you have Tivo, but that's still television.
Now, you're taking the content of television and putting it onto a new medium: the digital medium. Networks are going to throw up rad flags, thinking "WE'RE GOING TO LOSE MONEY! FUCK!"
Then again, digital content is a hot-topic issue (see: illegal use of P2P apps). This is a natural extension of that paranoia.
Payola is illegal because you're dealing with public airspace. You'd have to know how what the FCC's main function is to know why payola is unfair.
Basically, payola wouldn't be illegal on a premium medium like satellite radio (if it is illegal, then it shouldn't be IMO).
Basically, the FCC grants licenses to stations, and the FCC has pretty much total control over said license. If it doesn't like what the station is doing, the license can be suspended, removed, the station can be fined, etc. "Free market" doesn't exist in public radio per-se. Sure, it's free, but the FCC has so much control over the stations, it's would be hard to say the stations can do whatever they want, because they really can't.
So, payola is bad because it gives what should be a public resource (radio airwaves) to the highest bidder, effectively shutting out many voices which should not be, since the practice of payola goes against what makes the medium a public one.
Look in a phone book for your name. If you're listed, you'll find your phone number next to your name, else you won't find your name at all. The phone number listed in the phone book is most likely a landline phone.
Now, ask yourself this... is there a phone book for mobile phones (or any publically available database of cell phone numbers)? The answer is no.
I don't know if telemarketing to mobile phones is illegal. But from this fact, you can see that it's certainly impractical.
1) Mozilla's the good guys. Microsoft's the evil empire.
Good and evil are completely subjective. Someone pro-Microsoft could think Firefox is the devil incarnate (let's not discuss why someone would be pro-Microsoft and just grant the premise that there could exist a tech savvy zealot with either something against Mozilla or a hard-on for MS)
2) As said in the summary, these guys could get, "real names, web site URLs, e-mail addresses, IM screenames, and home addresses." No credit card information, no bank account numbers, nothing of value other than matching a name&address to a login. Since nobody's sharing any MP3s or warez or doing anything illegal, how does a name&address hurt anybody?
Web site URLs, email addresses, IM screennames = new targets for spamming. If we assume the intruders acted with spamming in mind, electronic contact info of any kind is key.
3) I myself haven't even heard of SpreadFireFox's website until today. It's not a big-name deal. I doubt anybody's going to get their name on CNN for this. So, no publicity beyond Slashdot.
So, why hack SpreadFirefox?
Why do hackers hack anything?
Because they can.
I can't answer the third point directly, but a hacker's motivation is partially driven by "can I do this?"
If I can beat Super Mario Bros. 3 in less time than it takes to have my unprotected machine infected, then my machine isn't being infected fast enough.
Why not? The worst that would happen is you lose your saved game data.
Would it?
The greater the functionality of the PSP, the greater the possibility for damage from malicious attacks.
I had no idea the PSP was internet capable. But if people are putting movies and stuff on their PSP, the PSP acts as a mini-computer, and is vulnerable as a regular computer is.
Slashdot Mirror
Google bomb FTW.
Perhaps he doesn't want people he doesn't know having access to his information...
Perhaps he doesn't want his prospective employers (or people he doesn't know) seeing pictures of him drinking tequila and wearing a lampshade on his head.
There are perfectly good reasons to hide information. The "the innocent have nothing to hide" argument is a slippery slope I don't like going down. It's this kind of argument that can be used to do the following...
Police: "Open up. We want to make sure you're not doing anything illegal."
Guy: "You can't come in without a search warrant."
Police: "Why not? If you're innocent, you have nothing to hide!"
Well... let's think... (mind you, I'm not from VA, so I have no clue about local elections laws or whatever)
There are 2 ways he can run unopposed...
1) He runs unopposed because there's no organized opposing political entity to nominate someone else to oppose him (as in, there's no local Democrat presence, or any other 3rd party presence). And even if there is a local opposing political presence, they must be uber-unorganized if they can't select someone and get them on a ballot.
2) There are multiple parties, and he is endorsed by all of them. This seems more likely.
If I was working for the RIAA, this is what I would do...
First, I'd use a filesharing app to search for offending items. I pick a file and start downloading. Then, I'd run Ethereal to determine the IP address of the person I'm connected to.
If you do that a whole bunch of times, you may start to see trends. If I had to guess, I'd say they saw a lot of IP addresses coming from University networks and took appropriate action.
And it's really no big secret if you just ask either. Having just finished school, probably almost all of the filesharing is in copyrighted material which they have no right to "share". Therefore it is illegal and should be stopped. It was disgusting to me how much people were trading movies, games, and music which didn't belong.
Indeed.
Last year (during my senior year), I had inadvertantly left Kazaa running one day, and some people did pick some files off of me. About a week later, I recieved a call from Computing Services asking me to come down to discuss a TOS-type violation, the nature of which was illegal file sharing. I was asked to sign a waiver and recieved a warning and was sent on my way without another penalty.
By the way, Computing Services was able to provide, on request, the names of the files that they detected coming from my computer.
RIAA goes after sharers of copyrighted material belonging to their clients, and they're targetting hotbeds of supposed activity. Sounds about right to me.
No... because they're doing something they want and like to do...
But this is like... doing another person's job...
Do you not see the difference? Doing another persons job is still compulsory (i.e. you have to follow regulations and direction and whatever). Going to Yosemite and hiking at your leisure is not compulsory.
And my inital post was said tongue-in-cheek. I didn't think I'd need to explain that, but so it goes.
Why would I want to work during my vacation? IT'S MY VACATION!
It doesn't matter that it's a different job! It's WORK! And work is something I'm against in any form!
I'll pass.
Facebook has different levels of access depending on the relationship between you and the person whose profile you're viewing and their privacy preferences.
As an example, I have my cell phone # listed, but it's only visible to my friends. I choose who gets the sensitive pieces of info and who doesn't. Some people volunteer more info, some don't reveal much of anything. It's the user's decision.
I believe the most private settings in facebook are the following:
- Profile not searchable
- Entire profile not visible to any non-friends, even in the same school.
So privacy is not an issue with facebook, and if it is, PEBCAK.
We do get to see Luke's childhood friends though.
Remember, Biggs grew up with Luke (maybe Wedge did too, I forget), and I'm pretty sure there's a girl named Camie that's also from Tatooine.
State? How about counties?
The county I'm in (not in MA) has very recently (within the last 12 months) created a CIO position and filled it.
I'm guessing the reason for this is because the county executive wanted someone in charge of the government's technology needs that could be removed or replaced at will (this is a caveat of an apointed position). The way the organization is currently set up, there's a separate Information Systems department and the head of IS is a civil servant and can't be removed or demoted without cause (civil service laws require hearings and a whole-lot of red tape before anyone can be removed from a position against their will.) A impending re-organization will create a Department of Technology with the apointed CIO as the head.
In summary: a government could have a CIO in order to have more control over their own technology policies.
But seriously, it seems to me that the motives of this Professor Wilmut may not be entirely pure. Certainly, it's difficult to argue against offering treatment to victims of neuro-degenerative disorders, and I know for a fact that if I was such a victim, I'd be clamoring for treatment as loud as anyone else, but does that make it right to use humans as guinea pigs to 'speed up the pace of research'?
Absolutely. Patients have to sign the form when they get treatment. They know the risks involved. Besides, if there are no other options (usually the case when they're terminal), what do they have to lose? Everything else doesn't work, you might as well better the rest of the human race and be a guinea pig for a drug or treatment that might save the lives of thousands.
Exactly.
Most office-related business primarily use the Office suite (Word, Excel, Access and Outlook for the most part). Right now, unless Vista somehow improves the functionality of these programs, there's really no reason to spend resources (both time and money) to upgrade from XP.
If my metadata could be viewed by other people inside and outside my organization, there's an easy solution to this.
Don't fill out the metadata fields!
..just gun down all the share holders... that's what I'd do.
That would be the Penny Arcade approach.
Which would be kinda ironic if that actually happened... given their history.
I don't understand why it's so hard for parents to check out the games that their kids want. It's a simple matter of hitting Google to pull up a rating, and any decent review will mention the level of blood/sex/whatever. If you're worried that your kids are going to the store without you and hiding the games, find what's stored around the console/computer. No, this won't solve the problem 100%, but it should help.
You mean the problem would be solved if parents were more proactive and responsible in raising their children? You speak of pipedreams!
If parents even knew what the ratings meant, they'd know a lot more about the content of games than they do now. Forget about getting parents to research games before their kids buy them; let's at least educate parents as to the current ratings system first, because that's fundamental. Every parent knows what to expect from an R rated movie, but I have a feeling they don't know what the "M" in the corner of the video game case means (if they even notice it.)
And what good is the software if nodoby knows about it?
Software development is important, yes. But in order to get new users, you have to reach out to them, and this is where marketing comes in. Giving a new product to the same customer base will not result in growth. The number of people using the product have to increase in order for there to be growth, and that's what the marketing campaign aims to achieve.
Having an ad campaign for a product update is a solid course of action. It lets people who don't use Firefox see the new features and possibly switch over, and it lets the existing users know about the updates.
Networks are freaking out over this because it has the possibility of messing with the status-quo.
The business model is that shows are only available as a television broadcast or DVD purchase. Sure, you have Tivo, but that's still television.
Now, you're taking the content of television and putting it onto a new medium: the digital medium. Networks are going to throw up rad flags, thinking "WE'RE GOING TO LOSE MONEY! FUCK!"
Then again, digital content is a hot-topic issue (see: illegal use of P2P apps). This is a natural extension of that paranoia.
Payola is illegal because you're dealing with public airspace. You'd have to know how what the FCC's main function is to know why payola is unfair.
Basically, payola wouldn't be illegal on a premium medium like satellite radio (if it is illegal, then it shouldn't be IMO).
Basically, the FCC grants licenses to stations, and the FCC has pretty much total control over said license. If it doesn't like what the station is doing, the license can be suspended, removed, the station can be fined, etc. "Free market" doesn't exist in public radio per-se. Sure, it's free, but the FCC has so much control over the stations, it's would be hard to say the stations can do whatever they want, because they really can't.
So, payola is bad because it gives what should be a public resource (radio airwaves) to the highest bidder, effectively shutting out many voices which should not be, since the practice of payola goes against what makes the medium a public one.
Think about this...
Look in a phone book for your name. If you're listed, you'll find your phone number next to your name, else you won't find your name at all. The phone number listed in the phone book is most likely a landline phone.
Now, ask yourself this... is there a phone book for mobile phones (or any publically available database of cell phone numbers)? The answer is no.
I don't know if telemarketing to mobile phones is illegal. But from this fact, you can see that it's certainly impractical.
That was a bad move on her part if she was expecting any of the geek vote
Yeah, and us geeks (especially video game geeks) are a huge demographic that politicians strive to appease.
1) Mozilla's the good guys. Microsoft's the evil empire.
Good and evil are completely subjective. Someone pro-Microsoft could think Firefox is the devil incarnate (let's not discuss why someone would be pro-Microsoft and just grant the premise that there could exist a tech savvy zealot with either something against Mozilla or a hard-on for MS)
2) As said in the summary, these guys could get, "real names, web site URLs, e-mail addresses, IM screenames, and home addresses." No credit card information, no bank account numbers, nothing of value other than matching a name&address to a login. Since nobody's sharing any MP3s or warez or doing anything illegal, how does a name&address hurt anybody?
Web site URLs, email addresses, IM screennames = new targets for spamming. If we assume the intruders acted with spamming in mind, electronic contact info of any kind is key.
3) I myself haven't even heard of SpreadFireFox's website until today. It's not a big-name deal. I doubt anybody's going to get their name on CNN for this. So, no publicity beyond Slashdot.
So, why hack SpreadFirefox?
Why do hackers hack anything?
Because they can.
I can't answer the third point directly, but a hacker's motivation is partially driven by "can I do this?"
There is nothing on nintendo.com or ign.com
I'm seriously doubting the validity of this article.
If I can beat Super Mario Bros. 3 in less time than it takes to have my unprotected machine infected, then my machine isn't being infected fast enough.
The 11 minute barrier is still alive!
Why not? The worst that would happen is you lose your saved game data.
Would it?
The greater the functionality of the PSP, the greater the possibility for damage from malicious attacks.
I had no idea the PSP was internet capable. But if people are putting movies and stuff on their PSP, the PSP acts as a mini-computer, and is vulnerable as a regular computer is.