You don't need to give your personal information out to many people at all. You don't need a credit card. You don't need a cell phone. You don't need a gmail account. I even agree that companies are held to these laws for good reason. But if you are really trying to stay private then its your own stupid fault for handing that information out in the first place. To be honest I'm not entirely sure that google would have a hard time convincing any court that since the only thing revealed were first/last names that it does not constitute a breech of privacy. I get this big book tossed on my doorstep every so often. Inside the book is the names, addresses, and phone numbers of most of the people in a reasonably large area where I live. The notion that we are somehow granted a right to anonymous email through a 3rd party is laughable. I would even argue that we do have the right ot anonymous communication, but to argue that some 3rd party has to enable that for us is insane.
My point is...the people that are getting up in arms about this are reactionary kneejerk responders that haven't really stopped to think much other than "Oh my God, the glorious Google might be revealing my name to people!" In fact...in EVERY response I have read it has been a hypothetical "Well what if I was doing this..." in regard to having names revealed.
Also, by all means, continue on about your "checks and balances" things. Great reading if you pick up a history book and all, but if you bother to pick up a newspaper you will quickly realize how flimsy that really is these days. So let me revise this for you. We elect the legislative branch, the elected leaders write the laws the lobbyists paid for, the executive either vetoes it or issues signing statements to rewrite the law to be what they want, the judicial rules on the law, and the legislative and executive ignore any rulings they don't like. And as I pointed out before, the biggest privacy violation as of late has been the government demanding search records, phone records, etc. Our response through our elected leaders was to say that we don't care if the phone companies have been doing illegal things and that 3 days for FISA to decide is not enough, we want them to be able to wiretap without a warrant for 30-90 days.
Personally I'm surprised that this is getting modded Informative. I suppose the NAT piece is informative, but I think "Anyone here moved their AD outside the firewall?" qualifies as either -1 Job or +5 Funny.
Here in lies the problem. These people chose to give it to Google. If they wanted that information protected they wouldn't have given it to a 3rd party in the first place. All the people who cry about the privacy statement should be slapped quite soundly. The government writes and enforces the laws that give power to said contracts...and unless you have spent the last 8 years under a rock everyone should know how meaningless that is these days when the government demands that information. Government demanding that information also includes judges forcing them to reveal it to other 3rd parties (Viacom vs Google anyone?). So...now what if Viacom got the names and leaked them? There might be some protection, but you sure as hell didn't have any kind of privacy agreement with them now did you?
As stated previously...I think Google needs to fix this and apologize. I think the people crying foul over this should be slapped soundly for being idiots about it all.
You really are kind of deluded aren't you? How is Google revealing your first/last name through a screwup considerably different than revealing it through handing it directly to the government that asks, or company that sues? One involves a technical fuckup, the others involve "justified" revelations. But the point here is that you wanted to keep said identity hidden, so its your own damned fault for giving it to them if you wanted to keep it hidden.
Oh but their privacy agreement! The government will protect me from them violating the law! RIIIIIGHT. Especially in the case that you bring up (being critical of the government) and what I view as probably the most important reason to hide your identity. Let me see if I track you correctly. Google made an agreement and is arguably bound by law. The law is written and enforced by the government. The government is the group you are criticizing in this example. How fucking stupid is that now? Ultimately this still is passing the buck trying to say company X or government Y is required to help you hide your identity from everyone EXCEPT THEM. I don't know where this twisted ass notion of "it's the governments job to protect us from(insert everything under the sun)". Its that same "but the government will protect me" crap that has lead us into the shithole situation where we might NEED to hide our identities for real.
Seriously, this is the same kind of argument that the numbnuts government official used when he stood up and said we need to change the definition of privacy. So that the government and businesses can have access to all our personal information and we trust them to manage it. Fuck that... The ONLY...I repeat ONLY... person you can trust with your personal information is yourself. If you don't want it tied to some action, then it is YOUR responsibilty to manage that disconnection. Why on God's green earth you would trust a 3rd party with that is beyond me.
In order for you to pronounce it correctly I would have to split your tongue and pull it through your nostrils. Seems db32 is easier.
In all seriousness, I said nothing about why people use pseudonyms or why they want to separate their internet personas from their RL ones. My argument is that it is monumentally stupid to give Google that tie between your RL and internet lives if you don't want that connection to be made. Regardless of some misplaced expectation of privacy.
If you really wanted to keep it separate you wouldn't create those ties in the first place, let alone trust a third party in holding them. See, on the internet you can have lots of personas, some of which are tied to you, others may not be, and it is trivial to create new ones.
More accurately "If you have something to hide you probably shouldn't be telling Google your name and its pretty stupid to be upset that your name was revealed after giving it to a public entity". I mean really...have you not been watching the news since, oh..., the dawn of the internet? Personal information being mishandled by every damned company and website imaginable. Oh but we have the big friendly government to help protect us from that with their big scary laws right? Well that worked out just peachy now didn't it, especially after the government started demanding that very information from all of these companies.
In a nutshell, if you didn't want your name to be revealed, you probably shouldn't be telling them your name in the first place. Just like if you don't want the cashier at McDonalds to know your name you pay cash. This is hardly a new concept and it frightens me to think that people suddenly believe that the internet somehow makes this all different and we should trust these companies to hold that information. Shit, Pizza Hut has been working with law enforcement for ages helping them track down addresses and whatnot, long before the internet became part of the picture.
Hell...we can't even trust government agencies not to lose laptops full of full personal information, not just first/last names. I'm not saying Google doesn't have a problem on their hands that they owe it to their customers to fix. I'm just saying its pretty stupid to hold the notion that Google has any real responsibility in protecting your personal information if you are concerned about it getting out.
Then, simply put, you are being stupid for assuming that Google would ever protect your privacy in that regard in the first place. Your name was never hidden in the first place, you gave it to Google. That giant repository of information, the holder of logs forever, the search behemoth. Not exactly a smart idea to give your name to an information dealer if you want to remain hidden.
Hmm...I have used db for a long while, so Mr. 32 actually sounds kind of neat.
I'm not saying using aliases = nefarious. Or even not always revealing your name = nefarious. I am saying that crying foul when someone pulls the mask off rather than "Heh, got me I guess" is likely to be a bit more suspect.
Mind you, I also loathe the "if you have nothing to hide" crap. But, if you are staging a revolution or something and need to remain hidden, I think you deserve to fail for being dumb enough to trust a public entity with that information in the first place.
As far as the spam factor...I can't read Russian so doesn't matter if those ones use my name. Then the endless stream of stock offers and penis pills are also easily ignored regardless of the use of my name. I mean hell...only people dumb enough to go for the spam in the first place are going to read that and say "Well he knows my name! p3n1s3xt3nd3r11921@viagra.com.huangchi.cn must be legit!"
Ok...so I only see this as an issue for people trying to hide their identity for something nefarious. I mean christ, I give out my full name a dozen times a day to people I don't know. "Hello, we have a circuit down and need to open a ticket." "Hello, I have a few questions about your product." and damned near every other statement you might make when calling another company is almost IMMEDIATELY followed by "Can I have your name please?" Of course this is after they answer the phone "Hello, my name is..."? Now granted they don't always use their last name if they are just phone jockeys, but almost anyone worth anything in terms of sales/technical/etc reps will give you their full name, email address, phone number, etc.
In other news, purchasing cigarettes and alcohol require you to disclose your first and last name when you show your ID! Even worse, there are rumors that every time you make a purchase using anything other than cash you have to disclose your first and last name. This isn't a privacy issue, maybe a privacy irritation, but certainly not anything to get in a ruffle about. It isn't like names are even really unique identifiers. Now if it revealed birthdays or SSNs or credit card numbers or something then I would understand.
Course, maybe there is something here I am ignoring. Do the people getting in a ruffle about this freak out when someone of the opposite sex asks their name? "Oh my god they are trying to invade my privacy!" Generally it is considered "normal" to give them your name so they have something to call you other than "freak" or "uberhax4234".
Because it stops discovery as I understand it. The problem is because of the immunity we will never be able to find out what really happened. Now, personally, I am inclined to believe "but we only used it on foreign communications" is a load of steaming horseshit. They had FISA that basically rubber stamped anything AND gave you 3 days to retroactively do it. The only reason to avoid FISA is if you think they are going to say no, either to the current request, or to set a precedent for future requests you know they won't pass.
Now with that bill passed we cannot find out if they had already been doing shit that FISA would have never allowed AND they get something like 90 days (by abusing all the legal holes) of warrentless wiretapping without FISA approval. So now we won't know if they do it in the future either.
I suspect you are right for the wrong reason. Serving 10 years in prison is what he is facing, for identity theft. Getting declared legally insane and shipped off for treatment I suspect would be a really nice way to get out of prison rape and the other joys of being incarcerated. I could be wrong, I don't know much about the guy, but somehow I suspect with his identity theft crimes and knowledge of law that he probably isn't a toughguy thug apt to make it through 10 years of prison without his asshole being stretched considerably.
In telecommunication, the term carrier (cxr) or carrier wave has the following meanings:
1. A waveform suitable for modulation by an information-bearing signal.
2. An unmodulated emission. Note: The carrier is usually a sinusoidal wave or a uniform or predictable series of pulses. Synonym: carrier wave.
However, the 1. indicates that my definition comes before yours! Modems predate ethernet cards too. And [No Carrier] is a modem problem, [No Carrier] in your sense would actually indicate that it is clear to send. Finally, I think 2. is a pretty screwy use of the word given that carrier was called carrier because it carried signals. The 2. usage shows the carrier as the signal itself meaning it isn't carrying the signal since it IS the signal.
In conclusion I find the CSMA/CD acronym to be flawed on 2 levels. Poor use of the word carrier and that if the word Signal (which is more accurate) was used we would have an acronym that could be pronounced and better remembered. SSMA/CD - Smacked! Clearly, you can see that "smacked" as an acronym is even more accurate given that it deals with collision detection.
I'm currious what kind of ethernet adapter uses a carrier. I mean, modems do, because they MOdulate and DEModulate a signal with a [CARRIER] and with [NO CARRIER] the MO-DEM fails. Of course, it could be that you are safe from this exploit by using this new fangled ethernet adapter and don't need to unplug.
As opposed to the IIS developers that got paid to shut down half the internet with wonderful things like the Code Red nonsense.
I'm not saying that code couldn't get slipped in. But it would be much harder to do without getting caught. Much harder to do and getting that code to stay in. Much harder to do and get a decent user base on your tainted version of code. When dealing with OSS you can generally upgrade anything in a pretty modular fashion. There are probably tons more versions of Apache running than of IIS. Why upgrade something that works unless there is a security problem (often dealt with by disabling the problematic feature if its not used) or you have a need for some new feature. Where with Windows you can be pretty sure you won't be seeing many IIS 5 installs on Windows 2008 servers. Forced upgrade cycle makes sure more people are on the same page and ready to be exploited.
You know, now that you mention it. I absolutely welcome these things. I can't imagine it would be to difficult to arrange it so that if your shock collar goes off you can redirect the shock across some leads to someone else. Just be discrete with the leads n such. You grab someone, they go to shock you, and the person you grab gets fried. On top of the radio hack methods you mentioned...this sounds like an unbelievable time. It would make air travel much more fun and interesting than it is these days!
This is very very very simple and it frightens me that you don't understand the problem. The people that get voted for are the ones who determine what constitutes a felony. The people being voted for effectively get to pick who votes. How in the fucking hell is that not a tremendous conflict of interests?! I hate to be the one to point this out to you, but the Declaration of Independence was fucking treason! The idea that you should prevent a criminal from voting based on his status as a criminal seems pretty fucking counter to the whole purpose here given that that very government was built by criminals. I wish I remember the specifics of the letter, but it is displayed proudly (for now) with the Declaration of Independence. "If we do not hang together in this endeavor we shall surely hang separately."
Market forces just like you said. Lets examine the average text freak. Do they understand the product/technology? Not usually. Do they have any concept of the value of money? Looking at our current financial crises and credit mess I am going to go ahead and also say no. Couple this with probably the largest group of texters have their parents footing the cellphone bill. The direct consumer of the product is not the one doing the price discrimination, its mom and dad having heart attacks when they see what littly susie did to the bill. Do they value the service highly? Well, go grab 100 cellphone toting kids and see how long they can go without texting before snapping.
Here is the deal...I imagine the vast majority of cellphone users will only generate a few text messages a month so 5 cents 10 cents 20 cents isn't that big of a deal. Think about the candy machines. 50 cents for a bag of M&Ms is outrageous when you could buy a big damned bag instead, but unless you are eating pounds of M&Ms a day 50 cents for the bag when you want a snack isn't a big deal. Now mom and dad get susie a cellphone, in the first month she racks up a $75 texting bill. Now the phone company can sell a $15 unlimited text plan to mom and dad because it is way better than $75. This really won't change until more of the text happy generation is footing their own bill, and even then, a big part of it is to sell unlimited texting plans. So in normal situation the cellphone company gouges you once for $75 and you shut off texting to prevent it from happening again OR you buy a $15 unlimited plan. The unlimited plan makes the phone company tons more money over time. The flip side to this is those little cost of data calculations go to shit when you are on an unlimited plan.
I was with you 100% right up until you seem to imply the Republican concept of morality is even remotely related to promoting a moral society. Putting kiddy diddlers in charge of committees set up to protect children. Breaking the law on a whim when they decide it shouldn't apply to them. The strange tendancy for these sexually repressed closet homosexuals to be the most vocal anti gay bigots. Then we have the support for the war on drug nonsense, not to mention crack (dems nigga drugs) gets you a FAR worse sentence than coke (rich white boy drug). The unending attacks on science and reason. I still can't believe that NASA Bushie with the fake degree tried to kill the Big Bang thing. Not to mention the Republicans have approved more spending than any Liberal could ever hope to get away with when they had dual control of the White House and Congress. "Pork, it's whats for dinner" was apparently stolen by the Republican Party. No...The current Republican party is little more than a theocratic nightmare waiting to happen. Those assclowns need to be removed from office and locked away. There is also a bit of a misrepresentation of the modern Liberal. Yes, they tend to play fast and loose with morals so long as you pay up to the government, but one of those Liberal things is that noone can say anything bad or mean and everyone has to play nice together. Hate crime laws (which I think are a tremendous waste of time) are an example of this.
Politics aside I am interested that you would rather have morality laws than money laws. Your day to day life (morality) is more related to your freedom than what you can and can't spend money on. You are basically saying we should trade our individual freedoms for basically nothing (lets be real, government intervention or not companies will fuck the shit out of any consumer asshole they can get their hands on. Government regulation just means the lawyers make more money trying to find the ways that they can weasle through and legally fuck us).
For the most part I agree. Still depressing to watch. My only real problem with it is when they fuck things up for everyone else. For example, look at the modern "dream" chaser racking up debt and a stupid rate getting those material things. The problem here is of economics, when you supply everyone with imaginary money it basically has the same economic effect of an increased income. Increased income increases demand, increased demand raises prices. So because everyone is so willing to swipe their card, sign the loan, etc, etc, the price of goods goes up. Look at our current credit crisis as evidence of this. Between get rich quick real estate nonsense and people being extended large amounts of credit and accepting stupid rates it has caused quite a shockwave effect. Now, among other things, my tax dollars are being used to bail these assholes out in a variety of forms. Tax dollars that should either be being spent on better things that the government SHOULD be doing (funding education, road repairs, emergency services) or sitting in my own pocket still.
You misunderstand. The system is fine, its the people that have fucked it all up and are otherwise fucking our society up. It isn't the gays, the straights, the christians, the atheists. Its the greedy pricks that think they are entitled to whatever they want and are more apt to manipulate their way into higher earnings rather than actually work for it and take pride in what they do. Those types of people come in every variety (gay,striaght,christian, athiest, etc)
I totally agree with the lease issue. I think it is bullshit that they tell you it is a sale when it really is closer to a lease situation. Not that it affects me much as I primarily use linux or OSX, and have long been away from most of the PC gaming world.
You just want to be careful with the comparison lest they get the idea that they are indeed charging too little for their "lease".
This is the kind of shit that bothers me about modern America. Oh noes, those guys get paid more than me, I am the suck and must leave for greener grass. It is unbelievably short sighted and materialistic to base these kinds of comparisons strictly on salary. Even outside of taking into account other benefits such as medical, retirements, or other such things there is who you work with, who you work for, where you work, where you live, what you actually do. You know, lots of job satisfaction things. It saddens me to watch people constantly bail on jobs they like for more money only to find they hate their new job, don't get to do what they want, have completely lost seniority, etc.
I turned down job offers easily 30k more than what I make now. They weren't where I wanted to be for one. Also, while at my current employ I had to have some major surgery on my ankle. I spent 3 weeks "working" from home, which was really little more than keep up on what was going on and help with what I could through the fog of pain killers. No vacation or sick time used. Then when I did take some vacation time they had to get a hold of me for a few things, on those days they didn't charge me vacation time. I enjoy the people I work with, my boss is great about letting me just get things done (I have worked for micromanaging cockmasters before so this is GOLD in my book), and generally enjoy doing my work even on the shitty days.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't need to give your personal information out to many people at all. You don't need a credit card. You don't need a cell phone. You don't need a gmail account. I even agree that companies are held to these laws for good reason. But if you are really trying to stay private then its your own stupid fault for handing that information out in the first place. To be honest I'm not entirely sure that google would have a hard time convincing any court that since the only thing revealed were first/last names that it does not constitute a breech of privacy. I get this big book tossed on my doorstep every so often. Inside the book is the names, addresses, and phone numbers of most of the people in a reasonably large area where I live. The notion that we are somehow granted a right to anonymous email through a 3rd party is laughable. I would even argue that we do have the right ot anonymous communication, but to argue that some 3rd party has to enable that for us is insane.
My point is...the people that are getting up in arms about this are reactionary kneejerk responders that haven't really stopped to think much other than "Oh my God, the glorious Google might be revealing my name to people!" In fact...in EVERY response I have read it has been a hypothetical "Well what if I was doing this..." in regard to having names revealed.
Also, by all means, continue on about your "checks and balances" things. Great reading if you pick up a history book and all, but if you bother to pick up a newspaper you will quickly realize how flimsy that really is these days. So let me revise this for you. We elect the legislative branch, the elected leaders write the laws the lobbyists paid for, the executive either vetoes it or issues signing statements to rewrite the law to be what they want, the judicial rules on the law, and the legislative and executive ignore any rulings they don't like. And as I pointed out before, the biggest privacy violation as of late has been the government demanding search records, phone records, etc. Our response through our elected leaders was to say that we don't care if the phone companies have been doing illegal things and that 3 days for FISA to decide is not enough, we want them to be able to wiretap without a warrant for 30-90 days.
Personally I'm surprised that this is getting modded Informative. I suppose the NAT piece is informative, but I think "Anyone here moved their AD outside the firewall?" qualifies as either -1 Job or +5 Funny.
Here in lies the problem. These people chose to give it to Google. If they wanted that information protected they wouldn't have given it to a 3rd party in the first place. All the people who cry about the privacy statement should be slapped quite soundly. The government writes and enforces the laws that give power to said contracts...and unless you have spent the last 8 years under a rock everyone should know how meaningless that is these days when the government demands that information. Government demanding that information also includes judges forcing them to reveal it to other 3rd parties (Viacom vs Google anyone?). So...now what if Viacom got the names and leaked them? There might be some protection, but you sure as hell didn't have any kind of privacy agreement with them now did you?
As stated previously...I think Google needs to fix this and apologize. I think the people crying foul over this should be slapped soundly for being idiots about it all.
You really are kind of deluded aren't you? How is Google revealing your first/last name through a screwup considerably different than revealing it through handing it directly to the government that asks, or company that sues? One involves a technical fuckup, the others involve "justified" revelations. But the point here is that you wanted to keep said identity hidden, so its your own damned fault for giving it to them if you wanted to keep it hidden.
Oh but their privacy agreement! The government will protect me from them violating the law! RIIIIIGHT. Especially in the case that you bring up (being critical of the government) and what I view as probably the most important reason to hide your identity. Let me see if I track you correctly. Google made an agreement and is arguably bound by law. The law is written and enforced by the government. The government is the group you are criticizing in this example. How fucking stupid is that now? Ultimately this still is passing the buck trying to say company X or government Y is required to help you hide your identity from everyone EXCEPT THEM. I don't know where this twisted ass notion of "it's the governments job to protect us from(insert everything under the sun)". Its that same "but the government will protect me" crap that has lead us into the shithole situation where we might NEED to hide our identities for real.
Seriously, this is the same kind of argument that the numbnuts government official used when he stood up and said we need to change the definition of privacy. So that the government and businesses can have access to all our personal information and we trust them to manage it. Fuck that... The ONLY...I repeat ONLY... person you can trust with your personal information is yourself. If you don't want it tied to some action, then it is YOUR responsibilty to manage that disconnection. Why on God's green earth you would trust a 3rd party with that is beyond me.
In order for you to pronounce it correctly I would have to split your tongue and pull it through your nostrils. Seems db32 is easier.
In all seriousness, I said nothing about why people use pseudonyms or why they want to separate their internet personas from their RL ones. My argument is that it is monumentally stupid to give Google that tie between your RL and internet lives if you don't want that connection to be made. Regardless of some misplaced expectation of privacy.
If you really wanted to keep it separate you wouldn't create those ties in the first place, let alone trust a third party in holding them. See, on the internet you can have lots of personas, some of which are tied to you, others may not be, and it is trivial to create new ones.
More accurately "If you have something to hide you probably shouldn't be telling Google your name and its pretty stupid to be upset that your name was revealed after giving it to a public entity". I mean really...have you not been watching the news since, oh..., the dawn of the internet? Personal information being mishandled by every damned company and website imaginable. Oh but we have the big friendly government to help protect us from that with their big scary laws right? Well that worked out just peachy now didn't it, especially after the government started demanding that very information from all of these companies.
In a nutshell, if you didn't want your name to be revealed, you probably shouldn't be telling them your name in the first place. Just like if you don't want the cashier at McDonalds to know your name you pay cash. This is hardly a new concept and it frightens me to think that people suddenly believe that the internet somehow makes this all different and we should trust these companies to hold that information. Shit, Pizza Hut has been working with law enforcement for ages helping them track down addresses and whatnot, long before the internet became part of the picture.
Hell...we can't even trust government agencies not to lose laptops full of full personal information, not just first/last names. I'm not saying Google doesn't have a problem on their hands that they owe it to their customers to fix. I'm just saying its pretty stupid to hold the notion that Google has any real responsibility in protecting your personal information if you are concerned about it getting out.
Then, simply put, you are being stupid for assuming that Google would ever protect your privacy in that regard in the first place. Your name was never hidden in the first place, you gave it to Google. That giant repository of information, the holder of logs forever, the search behemoth. Not exactly a smart idea to give your name to an information dealer if you want to remain hidden.
Hmm...I have used db for a long while, so Mr. 32 actually sounds kind of neat.
I'm not saying using aliases = nefarious. Or even not always revealing your name = nefarious. I am saying that crying foul when someone pulls the mask off rather than "Heh, got me I guess" is likely to be a bit more suspect.
Mind you, I also loathe the "if you have nothing to hide" crap. But, if you are staging a revolution or something and need to remain hidden, I think you deserve to fail for being dumb enough to trust a public entity with that information in the first place.
As far as the spam factor...I can't read Russian so doesn't matter if those ones use my name. Then the endless stream of stock offers and penis pills are also easily ignored regardless of the use of my name. I mean hell...only people dumb enough to go for the spam in the first place are going to read that and say "Well he knows my name! p3n1s3xt3nd3r11921@viagra.com.huangchi.cn must be legit!"
Ok...so I only see this as an issue for people trying to hide their identity for something nefarious. I mean christ, I give out my full name a dozen times a day to people I don't know. "Hello, we have a circuit down and need to open a ticket." "Hello, I have a few questions about your product." and damned near every other statement you might make when calling another company is almost IMMEDIATELY followed by "Can I have your name please?" Of course this is after they answer the phone "Hello, my name is..."? Now granted they don't always use their last name if they are just phone jockeys, but almost anyone worth anything in terms of sales/technical/etc reps will give you their full name, email address, phone number, etc.
In other news, purchasing cigarettes and alcohol require you to disclose your first and last name when you show your ID! Even worse, there are rumors that every time you make a purchase using anything other than cash you have to disclose your first and last name. This isn't a privacy issue, maybe a privacy irritation, but certainly not anything to get in a ruffle about. It isn't like names are even really unique identifiers. Now if it revealed birthdays or SSNs or credit card numbers or something then I would understand.
Course, maybe there is something here I am ignoring. Do the people getting in a ruffle about this freak out when someone of the opposite sex asks their name? "Oh my god they are trying to invade my privacy!" Generally it is considered "normal" to give them your name so they have something to call you other than "freak" or "uberhax4234".
Because it stops discovery as I understand it. The problem is because of the immunity we will never be able to find out what really happened. Now, personally, I am inclined to believe "but we only used it on foreign communications" is a load of steaming horseshit. They had FISA that basically rubber stamped anything AND gave you 3 days to retroactively do it. The only reason to avoid FISA is if you think they are going to say no, either to the current request, or to set a precedent for future requests you know they won't pass.
Now with that bill passed we cannot find out if they had already been doing shit that FISA would have never allowed AND they get something like 90 days (by abusing all the legal holes) of warrentless wiretapping without FISA approval. So now we won't know if they do it in the future either.
I suspect you are right for the wrong reason. Serving 10 years in prison is what he is facing, for identity theft. Getting declared legally insane and shipped off for treatment I suspect would be a really nice way to get out of prison rape and the other joys of being incarcerated. I could be wrong, I don't know much about the guy, but somehow I suspect with his identity theft crimes and knowledge of law that he probably isn't a toughguy thug apt to make it through 10 years of prison without his asshole being stretched considerably.
Touche, from the wiki.
In telecommunication, the term carrier (cxr) or carrier wave has the following meanings:
1. A waveform suitable for modulation by an information-bearing signal.
2. An unmodulated emission. Note: The carrier is usually a sinusoidal wave or a uniform or predictable series of pulses. Synonym: carrier wave.
However, the 1. indicates that my definition comes before yours! Modems predate ethernet cards too. And [No Carrier] is a modem problem, [No Carrier] in your sense would actually indicate that it is clear to send. Finally, I think 2. is a pretty screwy use of the word given that carrier was called carrier because it carried signals. The 2. usage shows the carrier as the signal itself meaning it isn't carrying the signal since it IS the signal.
In conclusion I find the CSMA/CD acronym to be flawed on 2 levels. Poor use of the word carrier and that if the word Signal (which is more accurate) was used we would have an acronym that could be pronounced and better remembered. SSMA/CD - Smacked! Clearly, you can see that "smacked" as an acronym is even more accurate given that it deals with collision detection.
I'm currious what kind of ethernet adapter uses a carrier. I mean, modems do, because they MOdulate and DEModulate a signal with a [CARRIER] and with [NO CARRIER] the MO-DEM fails. Of course, it could be that you are safe from this exploit by using this new fangled ethernet adapter and don't need to unplug.
As opposed to the IIS developers that got paid to shut down half the internet with wonderful things like the Code Red nonsense.
I'm not saying that code couldn't get slipped in. But it would be much harder to do without getting caught. Much harder to do and getting that code to stay in. Much harder to do and get a decent user base on your tainted version of code. When dealing with OSS you can generally upgrade anything in a pretty modular fashion. There are probably tons more versions of Apache running than of IIS. Why upgrade something that works unless there is a security problem (often dealt with by disabling the problematic feature if its not used) or you have a need for some new feature. Where with Windows you can be pretty sure you won't be seeing many IIS 5 installs on Windows 2008 servers. Forced upgrade cycle makes sure more people are on the same page and ready to be exploited.
You know, now that you mention it. I absolutely welcome these things. I can't imagine it would be to difficult to arrange it so that if your shock collar goes off you can redirect the shock across some leads to someone else. Just be discrete with the leads n such. You grab someone, they go to shock you, and the person you grab gets fried. On top of the radio hack methods you mentioned...this sounds like an unbelievable time. It would make air travel much more fun and interesting than it is these days!
In other words. Don't vote.
This is very very very simple and it frightens me that you don't understand the problem. The people that get voted for are the ones who determine what constitutes a felony. The people being voted for effectively get to pick who votes. How in the fucking hell is that not a tremendous conflict of interests?! I hate to be the one to point this out to you, but the Declaration of Independence was fucking treason! The idea that you should prevent a criminal from voting based on his status as a criminal seems pretty fucking counter to the whole purpose here given that that very government was built by criminals. I wish I remember the specifics of the letter, but it is displayed proudly (for now) with the Declaration of Independence. "If we do not hang together in this endeavor we shall surely hang separately."
Market forces just like you said. Lets examine the average text freak. Do they understand the product/technology? Not usually. Do they have any concept of the value of money? Looking at our current financial crises and credit mess I am going to go ahead and also say no. Couple this with probably the largest group of texters have their parents footing the cellphone bill. The direct consumer of the product is not the one doing the price discrimination, its mom and dad having heart attacks when they see what littly susie did to the bill. Do they value the service highly? Well, go grab 100 cellphone toting kids and see how long they can go without texting before snapping.
Here is the deal...I imagine the vast majority of cellphone users will only generate a few text messages a month so 5 cents 10 cents 20 cents isn't that big of a deal. Think about the candy machines. 50 cents for a bag of M&Ms is outrageous when you could buy a big damned bag instead, but unless you are eating pounds of M&Ms a day 50 cents for the bag when you want a snack isn't a big deal. Now mom and dad get susie a cellphone, in the first month she racks up a $75 texting bill. Now the phone company can sell a $15 unlimited text plan to mom and dad because it is way better than $75. This really won't change until more of the text happy generation is footing their own bill, and even then, a big part of it is to sell unlimited texting plans. So in normal situation the cellphone company gouges you once for $75 and you shut off texting to prevent it from happening again OR you buy a $15 unlimited plan. The unlimited plan makes the phone company tons more money over time. The flip side to this is those little cost of data calculations go to shit when you are on an unlimited plan.
I was with you 100% right up until you seem to imply the Republican concept of morality is even remotely related to promoting a moral society. Putting kiddy diddlers in charge of committees set up to protect children. Breaking the law on a whim when they decide it shouldn't apply to them. The strange tendancy for these sexually repressed closet homosexuals to be the most vocal anti gay bigots. Then we have the support for the war on drug nonsense, not to mention crack (dems nigga drugs) gets you a FAR worse sentence than coke (rich white boy drug). The unending attacks on science and reason. I still can't believe that NASA Bushie with the fake degree tried to kill the Big Bang thing. Not to mention the Republicans have approved more spending than any Liberal could ever hope to get away with when they had dual control of the White House and Congress. "Pork, it's whats for dinner" was apparently stolen by the Republican Party. No...The current Republican party is little more than a theocratic nightmare waiting to happen. Those assclowns need to be removed from office and locked away. There is also a bit of a misrepresentation of the modern Liberal. Yes, they tend to play fast and loose with morals so long as you pay up to the government, but one of those Liberal things is that noone can say anything bad or mean and everyone has to play nice together. Hate crime laws (which I think are a tremendous waste of time) are an example of this.
Politics aside I am interested that you would rather have morality laws than money laws. Your day to day life (morality) is more related to your freedom than what you can and can't spend money on. You are basically saying we should trade our individual freedoms for basically nothing (lets be real, government intervention or not companies will fuck the shit out of any consumer asshole they can get their hands on. Government regulation just means the lawyers make more money trying to find the ways that they can weasle through and legally fuck us).
How will you getting a lobotomy help the cause?
Though on a related note. I know a lawyer that became a lawyer because "how else will I find an honest lawyer?"
There are a few. I switched to Monicker. Nodaddy.com has some suggestions for places to switch to.
For the most part I agree. Still depressing to watch. My only real problem with it is when they fuck things up for everyone else. For example, look at the modern "dream" chaser racking up debt and a stupid rate getting those material things. The problem here is of economics, when you supply everyone with imaginary money it basically has the same economic effect of an increased income. Increased income increases demand, increased demand raises prices. So because everyone is so willing to swipe their card, sign the loan, etc, etc, the price of goods goes up. Look at our current credit crisis as evidence of this. Between get rich quick real estate nonsense and people being extended large amounts of credit and accepting stupid rates it has caused quite a shockwave effect. Now, among other things, my tax dollars are being used to bail these assholes out in a variety of forms. Tax dollars that should either be being spent on better things that the government SHOULD be doing (funding education, road repairs, emergency services) or sitting in my own pocket still.
You misunderstand. The system is fine, its the people that have fucked it all up and are otherwise fucking our society up. It isn't the gays, the straights, the christians, the atheists. Its the greedy pricks that think they are entitled to whatever they want and are more apt to manipulate their way into higher earnings rather than actually work for it and take pride in what they do. Those types of people come in every variety (gay,striaght,christian, athiest, etc)
I totally agree with the lease issue. I think it is bullshit that they tell you it is a sale when it really is closer to a lease situation. Not that it affects me much as I primarily use linux or OSX, and have long been away from most of the PC gaming world.
You just want to be careful with the comparison lest they get the idea that they are indeed charging too little for their "lease".
This is the kind of shit that bothers me about modern America. Oh noes, those guys get paid more than me, I am the suck and must leave for greener grass. It is unbelievably short sighted and materialistic to base these kinds of comparisons strictly on salary. Even outside of taking into account other benefits such as medical, retirements, or other such things there is who you work with, who you work for, where you work, where you live, what you actually do. You know, lots of job satisfaction things. It saddens me to watch people constantly bail on jobs they like for more money only to find they hate their new job, don't get to do what they want, have completely lost seniority, etc.
I turned down job offers easily 30k more than what I make now. They weren't where I wanted to be for one. Also, while at my current employ I had to have some major surgery on my ankle. I spent 3 weeks "working" from home, which was really little more than keep up on what was going on and help with what I could through the fog of pain killers. No vacation or sick time used. Then when I did take some vacation time they had to get a hold of me for a few things, on those days they didn't charge me vacation time. I enjoy the people I work with, my boss is great about letting me just get things done (I have worked for micromanaging cockmasters before so this is GOLD in my book), and generally enjoy doing my work even on the shitty days.