Suppose I have a house for sale. The house is nice but it has it's problems and so do I. I'll sell it for $150,000 if that's all I can get, and make a profit at that, but I'm asking $300,000 and I've only got offers at $175,000. You come in and it's the house of your dreams. You're willing to pay the $300,000 if you have to, but you'll have to borrow a lot and make a great many sacrifices to by it at that price, but $200,000 is what you want and could really afford. Do you agree to the full price or do you make a lesser offer?
Now suppose I have two or three friends who, when you come over to view the house, also show up and act as if they're looking too. They quietly but audibly discuss the house, what they've offered, and what they're willing to pay within earshot of you - misleading you about the amount of interest in the house and its value to others. In addition, since I'm a techie, I've got microphones hidden in the house eavesdropping on everything you say so I learn what you want to pay and what you're willing to. Let's even go one better - your lender/agent is more interested in helping me than you and feeds me that info too. The point being that I know exactly what your range is and I'm manipulating your price.
Too many people argue that if you're willing to pay a price on ebay then you're getting a deal at that or anything less - even if the price to you was artificially inflated to more than you wanted to pay. Do those same people automatically pay the asking price for a house, even though it may be tens or hundreds of thousands more than they could actually buy it for? No. Would they be upset if they were manipulated into paying tens or hundreds of thousands more than they could actually buy it for. Yes. Aside from the amount of money, how does it differ?
Does it even need to be enforced? The warning could be a listing in the local newspaper. "The following businesses were found to have unsecured WiFi connections in violation of ordinance XXx.y: " Now, if you deal with customer data, you have angry customers after you so you secure your network. If you only have your own data to worry about you still secure your network because the whole county now knows it's open.
I've heard of many lawsuits rejected because of this, but to date I've never heard of anyone challenging based on inappropriate actions. You know, if a position has a strict, documented, procedure and this isn't followed then the individual wasn't performing his job and the agency wasn't performing its job in supervising.
Seems this would allow government officials abusing power to be sued beause they weren't acting in their official power and capacity.
I always wonder if this has been argued and has failed, hasn't been argued, or is just settled and hushed enough that it's not common knowledge.
I don't remember why at the time but it popped into my head to search the Amazon Wishlists. Upon entering an Alghamdi in Florida I found the following wishlist containing references to pilots guides to airports:
take note of the dates the items were added, well before the sept 11 attack, that this individual is ahmad vs ahmed (on the list), and also that no items have been added since this time period.
I immediately reported this to the FBI via their reporting form and suggested that wishlists could be used to openly and safely communicate needs. I never heard anything back so I can only assume it was investigated. If is was however, and found to be suspicious or related, I have no doubt that all open wishlists are now monitored for known aliases.
Note that this person may not be the hijacker. I've oft wondered since if some innocent pilot could be sitting secretly in jail because I found his wishlist.
Guard: Excuse me sir, we aren't getting a valid reading. You're going to have to do something to increase the blood flow.
Me: (pulling out the Playboy) Ok, just a sec...
Zzzziiippp!
Guard: Sir, what are you doing?
Me: Increasing the blood flow like you asked.
Guard: To your hand sir. To your hand.
Me: It works both ways.
Guard: Sir, please don't.
Guard: SIR
Me: Just a sec, I'm almost done.
Guard: SIR, please don't do that here..
Guard: (to other guard) Just open the door, I'm not cleaning the scanner.
The state of California has mounted a campaign to eradicate the Mount Diablo buckwheat, a flower recently rediscovered after being thought extinct for decades. Lab tests on the flower indicate that it causes cancer in the state of California.
In related news, while trying to rejuvenate his image Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger pledged to "Terminate" the cancer causing flower. Later that same day famed California channeler and psychic Lorraine Howard held a news conference during which she channeled the flower and responded to the governor in devilish voice saying, "I'll be back."
Slashdot Mirror
Suppose I have a house for sale. The house is nice but it has it's problems and so do I. I'll sell it for $150,000 if that's all I can get, and make a profit at that, but I'm asking $300,000 and I've only got offers at $175,000. You come in and it's the house of your dreams. You're willing to pay the $300,000 if you have to, but you'll have to borrow a lot and make a great many sacrifices to by it at that price, but $200,000 is what you want and could really afford. Do you agree to the full price or do you make a lesser offer?
Now suppose I have two or three friends who, when you come over to view the house, also show up and act as if they're looking too. They quietly but audibly discuss the house, what they've offered, and what they're willing to pay within earshot of you - misleading you about the amount of interest in the house and its value to others. In addition, since I'm a techie, I've got microphones hidden in the house eavesdropping on everything you say so I learn what you want to pay and what you're willing to. Let's even go one better - your lender/agent is more interested in helping me than you and feeds me that info too. The point being that I know exactly what your range is and I'm manipulating your price.
Too many people argue that if you're willing to pay a price on ebay then you're getting a deal at that or anything less - even if the price to you was artificially inflated to more than you wanted to pay. Do those same people automatically pay the asking price for a house, even though it may be tens or hundreds of thousands more than they could actually buy it for? No. Would they be upset if they were manipulated into paying tens or hundreds of thousands more than they could actually buy it for. Yes. Aside from the amount of money, how does it differ?
Illogical thinkers such as yourself shouldn't argue logical fallacies.
Yep, you're missing out on the actual announcment made today - http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/dec/HQ_06371_ Ames_Google.html
I noticed that too. Seems someone posted the url for a year old announcement instead of the current one http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/dec/HQ_06371_ Ames_Google.html
Does it even need to be enforced? The warning could be a listing in the local newspaper. "The following businesses were found to have unsecured WiFi connections in violation of ordinance XXx.y: " Now, if you deal with customer data, you have angry customers after you so you secure your network. If you only have your own data to worry about you still secure your network because the whole county now knows it's open.
I've heard of many lawsuits rejected because of this, but to date I've never heard of anyone challenging based on inappropriate actions. You know, if a position has a strict, documented, procedure and this isn't followed then the individual wasn't performing his job and the agency wasn't performing its job in supervising. Seems this would allow government officials abusing power to be sued beause they weren't acting in their official power and capacity. I always wonder if this has been argued and has failed, hasn't been argued, or is just settled and hushed enough that it's not common knowledge.
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/092701hjpic .htm
I don't remember why at the time but it popped into my head to search the Amazon Wishlists. Upon entering an Alghamdi in Florida I found the following wishlist containing references to pilots guides to airports:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/registry.html/?e ncoding=UTF8&type=wishlist&id=1UWSWIH3NXQJN
take note of the dates the items were added, well before the sept 11 attack, that this individual is ahmad vs ahmed (on the list), and also that no items have been added since this time period.
I immediately reported this to the FBI via their reporting form and suggested that wishlists could be used to openly and safely communicate needs. I never heard anything back so I can only assume it was investigated. If is was however, and found to be suspicious or related, I have no doubt that all open wishlists are now monitored for known aliases.
Note that this person may not be the hijacker. I've oft wondered since if some innocent pilot could be sitting secretly in jail because I found his wishlist.
Guard: Excuse me sir, we aren't getting a valid reading. You're going to have to do something to increase the blood flow. Me: (pulling out the Playboy) Ok, just a sec... Zzzziiippp! Guard: Sir, what are you doing? Me: Increasing the blood flow like you asked. Guard: To your hand sir. To your hand. Me: It works both ways. Guard: Sir, please don't. Guard: SIR Me: Just a sec, I'm almost done. Guard: SIR, please don't do that here.. Guard: (to other guard) Just open the door, I'm not cleaning the scanner.
The state of California has mounted a campaign to eradicate the Mount Diablo buckwheat, a flower recently rediscovered after being thought extinct for decades. Lab tests on the flower indicate that it causes cancer in the state of California.
In related news, while trying to rejuvenate his image Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger pledged to "Terminate" the cancer causing flower. Later that same day famed California channeler and psychic Lorraine Howard held a news conference during which she channeled the flower and responded to the governor in devilish voice saying, "I'll be back."