How about shooting the bear/wolf/coyote that's on your property and possibly threatening your spouse/child/livestock?
If you don't anticipate ever being in that situation (and don't mind taking your chances on never having a break-in) maybe you don't need a gun, but that doesn't mean they don't have "good" uses.
Wow, the site seems to have have taken Franklin seriously. If the government implemented DST because of Franklin's ideas and recommendation, why did they leave out these gems?
First. Let a tax be laid of a louis per window, on every window that is provided with shutters to keep out the light of the sun.
Second. Let the same salutary operation of police be made use of, to prevent our burning candles, that inclined us last winter to be more economical in burning wood; that is, let guards be placed in the shops of the wax and tallow chandlers, and no family be permitted to be supplied with more than one pound of candles per week.
Third. Let guards also be posted to stop all the coaches, &c. that would pass the streets after sunset, except those of physicians, surgeons, and midwives.
Fourth. Every morning, as soon as the sun rises, let all the bells in every church be set ringing; and if that is not sufficient?, let cannon be fired in every street, to wake the sluggards effectually, and make them open their eyes to see their true interest.
Franklin was basically saying, "These people need to get off their asses and follow my 'Early to bed, early to rise' philosophy." People who use the essay as a defense for DST are missing the point.
But, if the site must display the picture before the password, that means a phisher can get your image before getting your password as well.
From someone else's comment it sounded like they may need to use one of your three questions in order to first get to the image from a system where you have not previously logged in, but it probably isn't that hard to crack or to phish you for the answer(s) to those question(s).
After all, if you went to BoA right now and they asked you for one of your three questions, would you think something was phishy, or would you just assume they couldn't read your cookies or were just doing a security check? Anyone who believes a phishing email is valid is unlikely to detect fraud if it's pretty easy to guess that one of your questions is "Mother's maiden name".
That assumes that you are attentive enough to actually check the URL in the Address Bar. I would guess a phishing attack email would link to a window sans address bar, and could still display the padlock icon.
Anyone who was paying enough attention would probably notice that something was up, but that same person probably isn't the type to fall for the "your account needs updating" phishing email in the first place.
Maybe from the Google press release announcing their new China lab and specifically mentioning the employee in question? (As mentioned in the article...)
f you can demonstrate that there is even a hint of a chance that this NDA affects your ability to put food on the table, you can get it thrown out.
Oh, I'm sure they wouldn't have minded him taking a job at McDonald's...;)
Just because I perform best at a particular profession and/or it is my chosen line of work does not mean I must have or am owed a job in that area. If I signed a document saying I would not use the skills or information from my current job at my next employer, I'm sure I could find something different enough that still pays the bills. So, an argument that it is affecting my ability to provide shouldn't stand up in court. It may affect my ability to earn the most $$$ possible, but then, so would anything that keeps me from selling trade secrets to the highest bidder.
You don't need a PhD to tell the difference between a real bill and an inkjet printout. They certainly don't hire all PhDs to work bank vaults where deposits are counted and scanned for fakes. Nor do they hire all PhDs to work the checkout stands at WalMart or 7Eleven, but even those employees are generally saavy enough to tell a cheap counterfeit.
Maybe the difference is that no one expects the kids to bring in counterfeit currency for such small purchases, so they see no need to have even the most basic training for the staff collecting the money. (Bbut still, an inkjet copy on regular paper?? Maybe the staff is just too busy moving the line to notice something fishy about a $1 bill.)
Yeah, but that's where you're going to get into the complications of "what is adult content" and who's going to police what is displayed on a.com vs.xxx site.
It would be nice if self-identified adult content providers had an incentive to use the new TLD, but since so many use a business model of deceptive spam and advertising, it's unlikely you would see significant switch. You will probably always have adult sites registered at.com sites to catch the occasional web user who types in the wrong domain or sees the innocuous URL in search engine results.
While anyone looking for such content should have no problem finding it regardless of the URL, I guess the theory is you might be able to catch someone who wasn't looking for it but might still be interested in purchasing (or just giving you ad revenue) when presented with the site. And of course, to catch those few customers you might risk spamming a few thousand more with no interest at all.
Dr. Sorkin said "OK" to the first step by expressing interest in the job, and whether or not he filled out a paper form, he did apply for the position. He bailed on the second step, possibly after showing up for what he thought would be an "informational" interview and getting a classic Microsoft intelligence test.
The WiFi signal spills out beyond your property boundaries. If someone uses what's extended to them, it shouldn't be an issue if they're not compromising your bandwidth or your personal data.
How does the stolen computer know it's time to transmit the homing signal... unless it's always transmitting anytime you're connected to the internet?
I'm not entirely sure how the LoJack on cars works, but I seem to recall it requires you to report the theft, and then the cops/LoJack have some means for tracking the car's device. With a physical device, this might not require an always-transmitting approach so much as always-ready-to-transmit - that is, it could have enough battery power to start transmitting once it's hit with a request for broadcast. But for a software solution, how would you ping the stolen computer? (You need routing information in addition to the MAC address, right?)
Fortunately, there's a good chance that anyone booting up your stolen WinXP laptop will quickly be caught and arrested for connecting to the nearest WiFi network.
Okay, so if a grown man was on the sidewalk dancing in the water from a lawn sprinkler, it'd be kinda creepy, but would it be theft? Is he stealing "your" water that isn't even being used for the purpose of watering your lawn?
If the only notable impact of "borrowing" your network is slower response time, then why should it be a crime if someone happens to be on the network but isn't causing any problems?
I can't wait for the day when "bandwidth" is no longer a limiting factor - then the only thing that should be illegal on an open network is unauthorized access of someone else's computer. If I just happen to be sitting on a park bench outside your apartment and need to check my email, what's the problem, as long as I don't go near your sensitive data?
Most of the emails I send that are not direct replies are technically "unsolicited". They're just usually sent to people I know who don't mind an unsolicited message from a friend.
It's a tricky thing to build into a law - I could receive "unsolicited" mail from a friend-of-a-friend and it generally wouldn't be considered "spam" unless it's sent in bulk. I could also get messaged from a company with which I have a prior relationship and I would still consider it "spam" (kind of like those phone calls I keep getting from my credit card companies trying to sell me account protection).
So which part should be illegal? Initiating the email conversation? Doing it in builk? Or the end effect of annoying the recipient?
Tricky, no? And I have a hard time finding anything - other than simply annoyance - that would possibly motivate me to supporrt making this illegal. I'm sure there is some monetary impact in bandwidth or lost productivity, but then, you get the same effect from Yahoo Games.
Maybe the part that should be illegal is the selling/sharing of email addresses without the owner's permission. (And similarly, maybe the post office should stop telling everybody when I move...)
Why do you "preserve" it by calling the zoo...? I mean, if the river you pulled it out of, and in which it had managed to grow to that size, is readily available? Seems to me that's probably the fish's best chance for survival.
Not that they necessrily have to care about that particular fish's survival. I assume they were fishing in the hopes of catching something edible. And that's what they got.
Slashdot Mirror
I still think that the definition of a planet should hinge on how easily it can be viewed from Earth.
So you can definitively state that there are no planets outside our solar system?
How about shooting the bear/wolf/coyote that's on your property and possibly threatening your spouse/child/livestock? If you don't anticipate ever being in that situation (and don't mind taking your chances on never having a break-in) maybe you don't need a gun, but that doesn't mean they don't have "good" uses.
Pastafarians around the world applaud the proposed ribbon emulating His Noodly Appendage.
"Every one ... is ..." is a perfectly acceptable grammatical structure.
From http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/tenthings. html
Google does search. Google does not do horoscopes, financial advice or chat.
(Guess they better remember to update that page when they make the announcement...)
And the real burning question - When can I get my Googlescope???
Whaaa? I didn't see anything in the article that indicated this was Bush's idea, or even that he was planning to sign off on it.
/. summary...
You may have read too much into the
I think retailers can voluntarily opt not to sell to children based on the game rating, and probably do so to avoid bad PR.
Remember, folks...
"Every child deserves a mother and a father!"
But, if the site must display the picture before the password, that means a phisher can get your image before getting your password as well.
From someone else's comment it sounded like they may need to use one of your three questions in order to first get to the image from a system where you have not previously logged in, but it probably isn't that hard to crack or to phish you for the answer(s) to those question(s).
After all, if you went to BoA right now and they asked you for one of your three questions, would you think something was phishy, or would you just assume they couldn't read your cookies or were just doing a security check? Anyone who believes a phishing email is valid is unlikely to detect fraud if it's pretty easy to guess that one of your questions is "Mother's maiden name".
That assumes that you are attentive enough to actually check the URL in the Address Bar. I would guess a phishing attack email would link to a window sans address bar, and could still display the padlock icon.
Anyone who was paying enough attention would probably notice that something was up, but that same person probably isn't the type to fall for the "your account needs updating" phishing email in the first place.
Maybe from the Google press release announcing their new China lab and specifically mentioning the employee in question? (As mentioned in the article...)
"Jobless"? So the only job this person could possibly hold is a research lead at Google?
f you can demonstrate that there is even a hint of a chance that this NDA affects your ability to put food on the table, you can get it thrown out.
... ;)
Oh, I'm sure they wouldn't have minded him taking a job at McDonald's
Just because I perform best at a particular profession and/or it is my chosen line of work does not mean I must have or am owed a job in that area. If I signed a document saying I would not use the skills or information from my current job at my next employer, I'm sure I could find something different enough that still pays the bills. So, an argument that it is affecting my ability to provide shouldn't stand up in court. It may affect my ability to earn the most $$$ possible, but then, so would anything that keeps me from selling trade secrets to the highest bidder.
You don't need a PhD to tell the difference between a real bill and an inkjet printout. They certainly don't hire all PhDs to work bank vaults where deposits are counted and scanned for fakes. Nor do they hire all PhDs to work the checkout stands at WalMart or 7Eleven, but even those employees are generally saavy enough to tell a cheap counterfeit.
Maybe the difference is that no one expects the kids to bring in counterfeit currency for such small purchases, so they see no need to have even the most basic training for the staff collecting the money. (Bbut still, an inkjet copy on regular paper?? Maybe the staff is just too busy moving the line to notice something fishy about a $1 bill.)
No, no, it's...
In Soviet Russia, mission scrubs you!
Yeah, but that's where you're going to get into the complications of "what is adult content" and who's going to police what is displayed on a .com vs .xxx site.
.com sites to catch the occasional web user who types in the wrong domain or sees the innocuous URL in search engine results.
It would be nice if self-identified adult content providers had an incentive to use the new TLD, but since so many use a business model of deceptive spam and advertising, it's unlikely you would see significant switch. You will probably always have adult sites registered at
While anyone looking for such content should have no problem finding it regardless of the URL, I guess the theory is you might be able to catch someone who wasn't looking for it but might still be interested in purchasing (or just giving you ad revenue) when presented with the site. And of course, to catch those few customers you might risk spamming a few thousand more with no interest at all.
Dr. Sorkin said "OK" to the first step by expressing interest in the job, and whether or not he filled out a paper form, he did apply for the position. He bailed on the second step, possibly after showing up for what he thought would be an "informational" interview and getting a classic Microsoft intelligence test.
The WiFi signal spills out beyond your property boundaries. If someone uses what's extended to them, it shouldn't be an issue if they're not compromising your bandwidth or your personal data.
How does the stolen computer know it's time to transmit the homing signal... unless it's always transmitting anytime you're connected to the internet?
I'm not entirely sure how the LoJack on cars works, but I seem to recall it requires you to report the theft, and then the cops/LoJack have some means for tracking the car's device. With a physical device, this might not require an always-transmitting approach so much as always-ready-to-transmit - that is, it could have enough battery power to start transmitting once it's hit with a request for broadcast. But for a software solution, how would you ping the stolen computer? (You need routing information in addition to the MAC address, right?)
Fortunately, there's a good chance that anyone booting up your stolen WinXP laptop will quickly be caught and arrested for connecting to the nearest WiFi network.
Okay, so if a grown man was on the sidewalk dancing in the water from a lawn sprinkler, it'd be kinda creepy, but would it be theft? Is he stealing "your" water that isn't even being used for the purpose of watering your lawn?
If the only notable impact of "borrowing" your network is slower response time, then why should it be a crime if someone happens to be on the network but isn't causing any problems?
I can't wait for the day when "bandwidth" is no longer a limiting factor - then the only thing that should be illegal on an open network is unauthorized access of someone else's computer. If I just happen to be sitting on a park bench outside your apartment and need to check my email, what's the problem, as long as I don't go near your sensitive data?
Most of the emails I send that are not direct replies are technically "unsolicited". They're just usually sent to people I know who don't mind an unsolicited message from a friend.
It's a tricky thing to build into a law - I could receive "unsolicited" mail from a friend-of-a-friend and it generally wouldn't be considered "spam" unless it's sent in bulk. I could also get messaged from a company with which I have a prior relationship and I would still consider it "spam" (kind of like those phone calls I keep getting from my credit card companies trying to sell me account protection).
So which part should be illegal? Initiating the email conversation? Doing it in builk? Or the end effect of annoying the recipient?
Tricky, no? And I have a hard time finding anything - other than simply annoyance - that would possibly motivate me to supporrt making this illegal. I'm sure there is some monetary impact in bandwidth or lost productivity, but then, you get the same effect from Yahoo Games.
Maybe the part that should be illegal is the selling/sharing of email addresses without the owner's permission. (And similarly, maybe the post office should stop telling everybody when I move...)
How many $20 orders do you make in a typical day?
And ny comparison, how often do you mke mistakes in your emails?
It seems nothing has changed when people find something rare. Exploit it.
I assume you refer to the international news coveage?
Why do you "preserve" it by calling the zoo...? I mean, if the river you pulled it out of, and in which it had managed to grow to that size, is readily available? Seems to me that's probably the fish's best chance for survival.
Not that they necessrily have to care about that particular fish's survival. I assume they were fishing in the hopes of catching something edible. And that's what they got.