Nope, but my comment isn't in the context of an either/or situation. Frankly I don't trust them to not sell or give away my email address. My ISP address is/filled/ with spam -- and yet I have never given it out to a single person, or posted it on a single site. Now it could be that people are getting lucky and guessing my address - though it's far from a common sequence of letters and numbers; or that they spam millions of random addresses and hope a few squeak through. However, most ISPs can catch such simple ploys these days -- so the question remains, how did my email address get out there when there is only/one/ party besides me that knows it?
And based on this experience, I believe that anyone giving their ISP a private, necessary email address may be just a little bit daft.
This remains incorrect. The 500MB/is/ actual core system process memory usage. It can be greatly reduced by turning off extraneous processes. The additional memory used for superfetch - which I agree is a great thing to finally see Windows doing - is above and beyond that 500MB.
Whooooah Nelly. Erm, ortho. I'm not saying I think they're going to start spying on all of my communications -- I meant only that I don't trust them to not sell it to the first bidder. Or give it away to a 'partner or affiliate' who sells it to another 'partner or affiliate'.
How else can they do it? Via email? They'd just send it to the email address they provide you with. Who really uses isp-provided email these days? it's all webmail, so they need some window to get through to you, and maybe http is that window.
Or maybe, just maybe, they could ask you for your regular email when you sign up. This is not rocket science. There is no excuse for an ISP to be arbitrarily modifying the content of a subscriber's traffic.
You trust your ISP enough to give them your actual email address? You, sir or madam, are a braver soul than I.
I believe there's such thing as taking paranoia too far. I use firefox only (and disable activex for when i have to use ie, which is almost never). I have scripts enabled, and java and flash set to prompt before allowing. Javascript is enabled, but of course I set it so that it can't change the status bar(and hide links), open popups, etc. I do not run antivirus except once a week I as a sanity check. I use "rich web" sites as well as the more mundane variety.
I mention all of this because in the quarter-century since I first picked up a computer, I have never had a virus, a trojan, spyware, or anything malicious (unless I've installed deliberately to take a closer look at). Given this (admittedly anecdotal) evidence that it is indeed possible to both use modern tecnology, and still be safe while doing so -- don't you think you're going a little overboard?
Of course a good helpdesk would put up a recorded message in that case eg 'We are currently experiencing problems with our email server, we expect the problem to be fixed in xxx minutes'. Here, let me fix that for ya:
Of course the typical helpdesk would have emailed out a message in that case eg 'We are currently experiencing problems with our email server, we expect the problem to be fixed in xxx minutes'.
A non-compete only benefits the employee if they get something in return for the duration of the non-compete.
What the employee gets in return for a non-compete agreement is a job. This offers the opportunity to earn and save money while employed, in order to be able to live off the savings during the term of the covenant not to compete.
</devils-advocate>
What the employee gets for the non-compete agreement is nothing at all. The salary and benefits are in exchange for the work performed.
I thought being a hero involved the display of exceptional courage in the face of adversity, often even at great risk and/or personal cost. Don't get me wrong -- it's great that these guys and gals are doing what they're doing, and they've earned the right to be recognized for the service they're doing. But heroes? Give me a break.
You!=Everyone else:) You have to remember that every bad story about Vista isn't representing the whole truth - that there are thousands of folks out there who are using Vista on a day-to-day basis, and are not having problems. I agree! There are definitely thousands of folks out there who are perfectly happy with Vista. That only leaves the other few million customers...
They're public channels, why would anyone expect the conversations therein to be private? Heck, I run a loggerbot on the channels I op -- of course, the nick of that loggerbot is "GLoggerBot", so I guess it's not quite the same... They are "public" to the participants in the room (which includes your bot,as channel op) and nobody else. The "room" belongs to the channel operators and participants. Everything else is spying. It is not ethical. Technical possibility doesn't make it ethical. I would it's much more a breach of etiquette than a breach of ethics.
You declare the research crap without even reading TFA? How scientific! If you had, you'd see that the chimps trained to recognize the numbers (not in recall, just recognizing) for an unspecified period of time; and that the humans practiced the test for six months...
What's going on here? Even with six months of training, three students failed to catch up to the three young chimps, Matsuzawa said in an e-mail.
If you truly believe in the underlying principles behind OSS - that is, that information cannot be 'owned' by any one individual or group - this is no false dichotomy. If not, then my post wasn't directed at you. I thought I made that clear in original context, but I can see how it may not have been.
They're public channels, why would anyone expect the conversations therein to be private? Heck, I run a loggerbot on the channels I op -- of course, the nick of that loggerbot is "GLoggerBot", so I guess it's not quite the same...
Eh? How so? The content still showed up in a search. Further, it came up on a search for pink daises or whatever it was -- or are you just conveniently ignoring that part?
Quite possibly. Puts us OSS fans in a quandary, doesn't it? On the one hand, proprietary software is Teh Ebil. On the other hand, keeping this proprietary allows to keep a platform pseudo-open. It's really no choice at all though - either you believe in the principles FOSS or you don't. If so, then this should be released. If not, it should not. If you find yourself on the fence, perhaps you're not as firm an OSS believer as you liked to think. (Note: 'you' here is in the plural sense, not directed at parent who didn't express an opinion one way or the other...)
ou always have plausible deniability, even if you don't have a access point at all. It's completely possible and quite frequent that people's computers are 0wned by viruses and trojans, and used to route anonymous traffic, send spam, and mounts scans and attacks on other machines. If securing your systems was required to give plausible deniability, millions upon millions of computer users could be subject to criminal prosecution right now.
In case you hadn't noticed, they confiscate first and ask questions later. What happens when they confiscate and find that no, there is no malware present? That rather rules out that defense, now doesn't it.
Nothing can protect you from having to deal with the police or the FBI. The RIAA habitually uses bogus, unreliable IP records to prosecute people who had nothing to do with the accused crime. The police are known to make similar mistakes, and the FBI has a long honorable history of seizing computer hardware on "hunches" or anonymous unsubstantiated tips they received.
Keeping your network open doesn't put you in any more legal danger. But more importantly, locking down your network doesn't make you any safer from arbitrary harassment by the authorities.
Where to begin on this. Let me see if I get it right: sometimes mistakes are made, so if someone is/really/ doing something illegal on your open network, you don't have any increased chance of getting blamed for it. How's that again?
This is actually a very big deal - because of his prior refusal not to GPL qmail, there have been a series of ugly hacks and patches needed to make qmail usable. With this, they can finally be incorporated into the trunk -- and sites like this will no longer be necessary.
Violence doesn't have this same sacred relationship with existance. It doesn't? Tell that to any of the thousands of mammalian species that engage in either violent or ritualized violent mating rituals. In addition, defense of young from predators is just as "sacred" a relationship with existence, is it not?
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, but my comment isn't in the context of an either/or situation. Frankly I don't trust them to not sell or give away my email address. My ISP address is /filled/ with spam -- and yet I have never given it out to a single person, or posted it on a single site. Now it could be that people are getting lucky and guessing my address - though it's far from a common sequence of letters and numbers; or that they spam millions of random addresses and hope a few squeak through. However, most ISPs can catch such simple ploys these days -- so the question remains, how did my email address get out there when there is only /one/ party besides me that knows it?
And based on this experience, I believe that anyone giving their ISP a private, necessary email address may be just a little bit daft.
This remains incorrect. The 500MB /is/ actual core system process memory usage. It can be greatly reduced by turning off extraneous processes. The additional memory used for superfetch - which I agree is a great thing to finally see Windows doing - is above and beyond that 500MB.
Whooooah Nelly. Erm, ortho. I'm not saying I think they're going to start spying on all of my communications -- I meant only that I don't trust them to not sell it to the first bidder. Or give it away to a 'partner or affiliate' who sells it to another 'partner or affiliate'.
Or maybe, just maybe, they could ask you for your regular email when you sign up. This is not rocket science. There is no excuse for an ISP to be arbitrarily modifying the content of a subscriber's traffic.
You trust your ISP enough to give them your actual email address? You, sir or madam, are a braver soul than I.I believe there's such thing as taking paranoia too far. I use firefox only (and disable activex for when i have to use ie, which is almost never). I have scripts enabled, and java and flash set to prompt before allowing. Javascript is enabled, but of course I set it so that it can't change the status bar(and hide links), open popups, etc. I do not run antivirus except once a week I as a sanity check. I use "rich web" sites as well as the more mundane variety.
I mention all of this because in the quarter-century since I first picked up a computer, I have never had a virus, a trojan, spyware, or anything malicious (unless I've installed deliberately to take a closer look at). Given this (admittedly anecdotal) evidence that it is indeed possible to both use modern tecnology, and still be safe while doing so -- don't you think you're going a little overboard?
Did you report them?
More likely, I think, is that it's a misguided attempt from a would-be supporter to help his favored candidate.
Black comedy? Some of my best friends are black people, and they do /not/ have a tendency to find humor in the macabre you insensitive clod!
What the employee gets in return for a non-compete agreement is a job. This offers the opportunity to earn and save money while employed, in order to be able to live off the savings during the term of the covenant not to compete.
</devils-advocate>
What the employee gets for the non-compete agreement is nothing at all. The salary and benefits are in exchange for the work performed.I thought being a hero involved the display of exceptional courage in the face of adversity, often even at great risk and/or personal cost. Don't get me wrong -- it's great that these guys and gals are doing what they're doing, and they've earned the right to be recognized for the service they're doing. But heroes? Give me a break.
Are you sure you're at the right web site?
I would it's much more a breach of etiquette than a breach of ethics.
You declare the research crap without even reading TFA? How scientific! If you had, you'd see that the chimps trained to recognize the numbers (not in recall, just recognizing) for an unspecified period of time; and that the humans practiced the test for six months...
What's going on here? Even with six months of training, three students failed to catch up to the three young chimps, Matsuzawa said in an e-mail.If you truly believe in the underlying principles behind OSS - that is, that information cannot be 'owned' by any one individual or group - this is no false dichotomy. If not, then my post wasn't directed at you. I thought I made that clear in original context, but I can see how it may not have been.
They're public channels, why would anyone expect the conversations therein to be private? Heck, I run a loggerbot on the channels I op -- of course, the nick of that loggerbot is "GLoggerBot", so I guess it's not quite the same...
Eh? How so? The content still showed up in a search. Further, it came up on a search for pink daises or whatever it was -- or are you just conveniently ignoring that part?
Quite possibly. Puts us OSS fans in a quandary, doesn't it? On the one hand, proprietary software is Teh Ebil. On the other hand, keeping this proprietary allows to keep a platform pseudo-open. It's really no choice at all though - either you believe in the principles FOSS or you don't. If so, then this should be released. If not, it should not. If you find yourself on the fence, perhaps you're not as firm an OSS believer as you liked to think. (Note: 'you' here is in the plural sense, not directed at parent who didn't express an opinion one way or the other...)
Where to begin on this. Let me see if I get it right: sometimes mistakes are made, so if someone is /really/ doing something illegal on your open network, you don't have any increased chance of getting blamed for it. How's that again?
This is actually a very big deal - because of his prior refusal not to GPL qmail, there have been a series of ugly hacks and patches needed to make qmail usable. With this, they can finally be incorporated into the trunk -- and sites like this will no longer be necessary.
All your bases...