Customers were not charged retroactively for the discounted amounts, but their bills were "corrected on a moving-forward basis."
This part doesn't make sense to me, obviously these customers were just as active in defrauding Comcast, they should be required to pay the money they owe at a minimum, criminal charges seems more appropriate. Why play favorites? They're equally guilty as the perpetrators of the scam. Without them, the scam wouldn't have worked.
The real hidden service URL probably just changed.
The site advert'd in the Slashdot article is probably itself a "Sting" operation to tag members of the public for the purpose of building a blacklist for the/real/ search site at some URL we don't know about.
Yeah, I'm inclined to agree, that 'dark web' URL in slapped in such plain view.. screams honeypot. Pass.
Just as a side note, for any corporate intranet with VPN and web servers facing the outside world, it really is a good idea to isolate your various services, so if one is compromised, the others aren't. This is a classic example of why you should do that: If the web server and VPN were on separate VM's, heartbleed fishing through the web server wouldn't have exposed the VPNs keys.
I wish I could afford to practice that myself, I unfortunately lump all my internet facing services on one VM, but for a corporation with more assets, it really is a cheap way to cover your butt.
Public scrutiny is a big reason we have a lot of laws protecting the environment and the public from irresponsible companies, currently. Public is and should be interested in what companies are doing behind closed doors, and those aren't even examples of a publically funded project.
Now we shift to a public entity and they want to keep things hidden because.. it might be used to do harm to someone? Puhleeeze, that is a pretty feeble argument. It's a good thing that public scrutiny has harmed a lot of people, it's been for the greater good!
I know I got tagged flamebait, but I still fail to see why public scrutiny is a bad thing. Of course it might interfere with your work, but how are we to know if your work SHOULD be interfered with if you're hiding it?
it's called precedent. once you set the precedent that all records are subject to public scrutiny if you take a dollar of public money... i think you'll have effectively crippled any kind of public funding for... well anything.
Excuse me, but.. why again is public scrutiny a bad thing?
Schnare said he wants to dig into Mann’s research. “You want to know what are the assumptions? What are the records? We have ‘Climategate’ e-mails to show he can’t even find the data.” He said U-Va. had already spent more than $750,000 in legal costs to keep the e-mails secret.
No one spends three quarters of a million dollars unless there's something very very interesting they don't want seen. The more they fight FOI, the more I want to see what they're hiding.
I don't feel the slightest amount of guilt torrenting Game of Thrones episodes. This is accessibility issue. I am HAPPY to pay for it. I already have Seasons 1 through 3 on Bluray. As soon as they put 4 on Bluray, I'll buy it too. Not going to stop me from watching the torrents, what difference does it make? I'll be paying for it, as soon as they let me.
But there is no way I'm wasting hundreds of dollars on a cable+HBO service I don't want or need. I don't even LIKE television stations, of any kind. I just want content I choose. Game of Thrones needs to be available for streaming on their site to anyone willing to pay a nominal fee. I think some where around $1 or $2 would be reasonable. Or maybe a 'subscription' to the series for $10 per season? I dunno. I do know it's an accessibility issue.
But I'm not worried either, these dinosaurs of broadcast television will switch over to a better way of offering content on a pick and choose level. Just takes time.
Sony puts a rootkit on a CD? Boycott. Apple tells you you're holding your iPhone wrong? Boycott.
Problem is it's nonsense. A boycott is the fiscal equivalence of silence. Your favorite restaurant changes the way they make ? Boycott is the equivalent of "go somewhere else." Well, that sucks. How about "tell the manager/owner you don't like the new recipe"? Try communicating that you're unhappy and why with them. Otherwise your absence means nothing. It's statistically lost in seasonal variance, for instance.
So, for this, send a letter to the company explaining your problem. Send them a "do not like" letter, basically. Boycott alone is meaningless.
It's actually supposed to be a tactic used when they're NOT responding to their customer's wishes. But... no company seems to be listening to their customers? Do you seriously think sending GM a email, or even a snail mail letter is going to amount to anything other than going to/dev/null (or shredded paper)?
Of course there is the possibility I and many of us are so convinced of this fact, we don't bother sending hate mail anymore, seems like such a waste of time and effort. Maybe a glut of hate mail will do something? I'm not sure.
I am sure of this, though: When people in mass numbers cease to buy your product, you go out of business. Period.
Not sure if continuing to not buy something you wouldn't buy anyway qualifies as boycott, but it's the thought that counts:)
Maybe. If I'm in the grocery store and see a General Mills' product, I'm going to keep walking, even if the product looks like something I'd like, from now on.
It occurred to me, maybe if we, as in as many of us as possible, crafted asinine EULA's for communicating with each other, then sueing each other over breaches.. if we all started doing this, flooding the court system with all these retarded EULA's which we created just to be jerks to the system.. how do you think the legal system in the USA would respond?
It doesn't sound like piracy is making much of a impact to me.
And it likely never did. It was a big bunch of scare mongering, "Oh no the pirates are cutting hard core into our profits!!!!"
There is a basic fact about piracy... most people who pirate software fall into two categories:
1. The group that bought the software, but wants to remove it's DRM. 2. The group that will NEVER buy the software, regardless of price or DRM.
I think Steam proves this. Piracy is still alive and well, yes? So it wasn't a problem of accessibility. Steam erased accessibility issues. Bottom line: Pirates are likely never to be your customers, no matter what.
Hmmm... no energy or a few degrees higher temp and global catastrophe from climate change? I'll take the latter please. I like energy. Everyone likes energy, it makes people happy (seriously, countries with more energy available to population are more prosperous.)
So the short answer? Absolutely not. We cannot end the binge. We need other ways to fuel it, and in fact, we need MORE energy.
Look up Thorium Remix 2011 on YouTube. Very much promotes LFTR but also discusses alternate reactor designs (and is a very excellent educational piece about nuclear power in general). He also touches on Wind, gas and solar being silly and unable to meet our long term demands.
Both IFR's and LFTR's are EXCELLENT and very safe nuclear reactor designs, both having passive safety systems (unlike our boiling water reactors) which makes them really really hard to melt down.
Gawd, even the guy who INVENTED the boiling water reactor tried very very hard to keep them out of the picture, he knew they were unsafe and a bad idea.
From your link, "17 bus passengers were killed in one single incident in Brazil in March 2012", is there a Brazil in the UK ?
Dont get sucked in by prooganda.
Did you even read the report? You're referring to two separate areas of the hazards of Wind turbines. The example in the UK was of construction/maintenance hazards. The bus thing is related to uninvolved civilians being injured by Wind turbines. Not the workers.
Wind is a joke. It's not only intermittent, it doesn't generate much power.
I read (or seen) somewhere, it's estimated it would take us 50 years alone to build enough wind turbines across the earth to even touch the power we're getting from coal.
Nuclear is the only way, that is where people need to wake up and open their eyes. We have the technology... just have a lot of fear (no doubt stirred up at every chance by oil and gas) too. It's the only solution that we can build fast enough and generate enough power (constantly, none of this intermittent BS) to offset our appetite for fossil fuels.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't fork SSL, we need to keep one standard, I'd think. This is a bad idea. These resources could be used to improve OpenSSL directly.
Customers were not charged retroactively for the discounted amounts, but their bills were "corrected on a moving-forward basis."
This part doesn't make sense to me, obviously these customers were just as active in defrauding Comcast, they should be required to pay the money they owe at a minimum, criminal charges seems more appropriate. Why play favorites? They're equally guilty as the perpetrators of the scam. Without them, the scam wouldn't have worked.
The real hidden service URL probably just changed.
The site advert'd in the Slashdot article is probably itself a "Sting" operation to tag members of the public for the purpose /real/ search site at some URL we don't know about.
of building a blacklist for the
Yeah, I'm inclined to agree, that 'dark web' URL in slapped in such plain view.. screams honeypot. Pass.
Just as a side note, for any corporate intranet with VPN and web servers facing the outside world, it really is a good idea to isolate your various services, so if one is compromised, the others aren't. This is a classic example of why you should do that: If the web server and VPN were on separate VM's, heartbleed fishing through the web server wouldn't have exposed the VPNs keys.
I wish I could afford to practice that myself, I unfortunately lump all my internet facing services on one VM, but for a corporation with more assets, it really is a cheap way to cover your butt.
Public scrutiny is a big reason we have a lot of laws protecting the environment and the public from irresponsible companies, currently. Public is and should be interested in what companies are doing behind closed doors, and those aren't even examples of a publically funded project.
Now we shift to a public entity and they want to keep things hidden because.. it might be used to do harm to someone? Puhleeeze, that is a pretty feeble argument. It's a good thing that public scrutiny has harmed a lot of people, it's been for the greater good!
I know I got tagged flamebait, but I still fail to see why public scrutiny is a bad thing. Of course it might interfere with your work, but how are we to know if your work SHOULD be interfered with if you're hiding it?
So because some people might use the information to do harm then no of us are allowed to see it? That makes sense!
it's called precedent. once you set the precedent that all records are subject to public scrutiny if you take a dollar of public money... i think you'll have effectively crippled any kind of public funding for... well anything.
Excuse me, but.. why again is public scrutiny a bad thing?
I hope the pressure continues.
Schnare said he wants to dig into Mann’s research. “You want to know what are the assumptions? What are the records? We have ‘Climategate’ e-mails to show he can’t even find the data.” He said U-Va. had already spent more than $750,000 in legal costs to keep the e-mails secret.
No one spends three quarters of a million dollars unless there's something very very interesting they don't want seen. The more they fight FOI, the more I want to see what they're hiding.
I don't feel the slightest amount of guilt torrenting Game of Thrones episodes. This is accessibility issue. I am HAPPY to pay for it. I already have Seasons 1 through 3 on Bluray. As soon as they put 4 on Bluray, I'll buy it too. Not going to stop me from watching the torrents, what difference does it make? I'll be paying for it, as soon as they let me.
But there is no way I'm wasting hundreds of dollars on a cable+HBO service I don't want or need. I don't even LIKE television stations, of any kind. I just want content I choose. Game of Thrones needs to be available for streaming on their site to anyone willing to pay a nominal fee. I think some where around $1 or $2 would be reasonable. Or maybe a 'subscription' to the series for $10 per season? I dunno. I do know it's an accessibility issue.
But I'm not worried either, these dinosaurs of broadcast television will switch over to a better way of offering content on a pick and choose level. Just takes time.
Don't buy their products. Boycott.
People keep suggesting things like this.
Sony puts a rootkit on a CD? Boycott. Apple tells you you're holding your iPhone wrong? Boycott.
Problem is it's nonsense. A boycott is the fiscal equivalence of silence. Your favorite restaurant changes the way they make ? Boycott is the equivalent of "go somewhere else." Well, that sucks. How about "tell the manager/owner you don't like the new recipe"? Try communicating that you're unhappy and why with them. Otherwise your absence means nothing. It's statistically lost in seasonal variance, for instance.
So, for this, send a letter to the company explaining your problem. Send them a "do not like" letter, basically. Boycott alone is meaningless.
It's actually supposed to be a tactic used when they're NOT responding to their customer's wishes. But... no company seems to be listening to their customers? Do you seriously think sending GM a email, or even a snail mail letter is going to amount to anything other than going to /dev/null (or shredded paper)?
Of course there is the possibility I and many of us are so convinced of this fact, we don't bother sending hate mail anymore, seems like such a waste of time and effort. Maybe a glut of hate mail will do something? I'm not sure.
I am sure of this, though: When people in mass numbers cease to buy your product, you go out of business. Period.
Agree 100%. Small claims courts are a powerful tool. we should use them more.
Good thing I lease. I never owned it to begin with. Nyah!
Not sure if continuing to not buy something you wouldn't buy anyway qualifies as boycott, but it's the thought that counts :)
Maybe. If I'm in the grocery store and see a General Mills' product, I'm going to keep walking, even if the product looks like something I'd like, from now on.
It occurred to me, maybe if we, as in as many of us as possible, crafted asinine EULA's for communicating with each other, then sueing each other over breaches.. if we all started doing this, flooding the court system with all these retarded EULA's which we created just to be jerks to the system.. how do you think the legal system in the USA would respond?
Could be interesting!
Don't buy their products. Boycott.
Corporations only listen to their bottom line, and we can make a lot of noise by simply not buying and encouraging everyone we know to do the same.
Sadly, I was not a fan of General Mills' products to begin with. Fortunately, it'll make a boycott for me rather painless.
But sending a message that this sort of behavior is unacceptable would be a good thing.
It doesn't sound like piracy is making much of a impact to me.
And it likely never did. It was a big bunch of scare mongering, "Oh no the pirates are cutting hard core into our profits!!!!"
There is a basic fact about piracy... most people who pirate software fall into two categories:
1. The group that bought the software, but wants to remove it's DRM.
2. The group that will NEVER buy the software, regardless of price or DRM.
I think Steam proves this. Piracy is still alive and well, yes? So it wasn't a problem of accessibility. Steam erased accessibility issues. Bottom line: Pirates are likely never to be your customers, no matter what.
So in other words, it just brings truth to the old saying: The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Cool.
Does this give us a free pass to revolt now?
I do believe the founding fathers would like it that way.. if the government isn't right, take up arms, overthrow it, and put it back the right way.
Hmmm... no energy or a few degrees higher temp and global catastrophe from climate change? I'll take the latter please. I like energy. Everyone likes energy, it makes people happy (seriously, countries with more energy available to population are more prosperous.)
So the short answer? Absolutely not. We cannot end the binge. We need other ways to fuel it, and in fact, we need MORE energy.
Look up Thorium Remix 2011 on YouTube. Very much promotes LFTR but also discusses alternate reactor designs (and is a very excellent educational piece about nuclear power in general). He also touches on Wind, gas and solar being silly and unable to meet our long term demands.
Both IFR's and LFTR's are EXCELLENT and very safe nuclear reactor designs, both having passive safety systems (unlike our boiling water reactors) which makes them really really hard to melt down.
Gawd, even the guy who INVENTED the boiling water reactor tried very very hard to keep them out of the picture, he knew they were unsafe and a bad idea.
From your link, "17 bus passengers were killed in one single incident in Brazil in March 2012", is there a Brazil in the UK ?
Dont get sucked in by prooganda.
Did you even read the report? You're referring to two separate areas of the hazards of Wind turbines. The example in the UK was of construction/maintenance hazards. The bus thing is related to uninvolved civilians being injured by Wind turbines. Not the workers.
Solar is questionably useful. It's intermittent.
Wind is a joke. It's not only intermittent, it doesn't generate much power.
I read (or seen) somewhere, it's estimated it would take us 50 years alone to build enough wind turbines across the earth to even touch the power we're getting from coal.
Nuclear is the only way, that is where people need to wake up and open their eyes. We have the technology... just have a lot of fear (no doubt stirred up at every chance by oil and gas) too. It's the only solution that we can build fast enough and generate enough power (constantly, none of this intermittent BS) to offset our appetite for fossil fuels.
Fusion is for stars, not for earth. Too complex, too expensive.
4th Gen nuclear power plant designs are the way to go: IFR and LFTR
So basically, they're proposing beginning amateur terraforming on the only habitable planet we have?
Not sure I think that's such a grand idea. So much that could go wrong experimenting with terraforming on the only ball we got to play with.