It's astonishing to me all the times when I have to contact a company because my newly created password won't work because it was too long or contained symbols that weren't allowed. But, it really astonishes me how they don't seem to think there's anything wrong with a broken password validation system.
Then there's sites that demand an on screen keyboard, but don't allow for all the possible characters that one ought to be choosing from. You're security is only as strong as your weakest link and it doesn't matter how strong your policy is if you allow for people to change it with just security question answers and family information.
The problem is that if you don't remember the answer then you're completely screwed in most cases. For some things it's perfectly acceptable to require the person to fill out a form and have it notarized, but it's more problematic on sites like Facebook where the value is somewhat dubious
Perhaps we should go back to actually funding the USPTO mainly with tax revenue. I realize that there's a lot of people here that are opposed on principle, but sometimes taxpayers are the correct party to fund things.
Give it to whom precisely? Somalia has been in a civil war for the last 20 years, there isn't anybody that can take the money and make it happen. Most folks there are more concerned with starving or being killed to do anything about this.
They wrote the contract and you cannot expect to enforce it if you don't tell anybody what the specifics of the contract are. Around here the first party can't hide terms in a contract and expect to enforce it. The reason for that is because of companies wanting to hide things in the contract which the signing party wouldn't consent to. It's easy enough to slip that sort of stuff into a contract without having to hide it.
Not really, they presumably have ToS which are a part of the contract that people have to agree to in order to do business with the site. And you don't get to write the contract in such a way that the person agreeing to it has no way of knowing when if ever they breach the contract.
So, yes, they do have an obligation to say what the rules are, I can't imagine how a contract which can be rescinded by one party without disclosure of the reason could possibly be valid.
It's not a "canard" it's a serious violation of antitrust law. You cannot use the size of your corporation to harm competition in the sector. What they're doing there is essentially double dipping. They get to show an additional ad at the expense of the competition by virtue of controlling the search results. I'm not sure how precisely it isn't an antitrust violation.
This is just like in the past where there would be links to Google products without any indication that they weren't paid results causing confusion in the browser.
I doubt that Google bans Facebook ads, that would be a tremendous antitrust violation. More likely, Facebook either doesn't bother to advertise or only advertises for search terms that you haven't entered. I personally ignore the ads so I wouldn't know.
Plus, it would be counterproductive given that Google+ is largely being sold by not being Facebook, ads for Facebook likely remind people that they want in on Google+
I'm sorry, but that's not legitimate in this case. The rules are the rules and if you want people to live up to them, then they have to be clear. If they won't tell him what the violation was, then they have a responsibility to give the money back and not to spaz out if the ad gets relisted.
One of the things about rule of law is that it doesn't work if the people being expected to live under it aren't clear as to what specifically the laws are. Granted this is just a contract, but the same logic applies.
Is this really any different than Google getting investigated for allegedly boosting results of its products? I think the jury is still out on whether or not that's been going on, but just because it's their site, doesn't mean that they can do what they like. There are certain responsibilities and limitations which come into play when you're that dominant in an industry.
That's not really how that works. You're supposed to obey the law without the government having to go in and enforce it. If the government had to bring people into court every time somebody got in their car, that would be absolutely ridiculous.
FB, definitely does have a significant enough share of the market that things like this aren't legal. If MySpace was doing it nobody would care because they're not relevant, FB OTOH is the largest site in a niche where size does in fact matter.
That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. If you've got a job that pays $20k a year then you're probably looking at an additional $20k or so in overhead, and that's for jobs where you're just providing a service, now since the stimulus money was largely focused on construction and infrastructure, you'd be looking at a hell of a lot more than that in materials.
Additionally, a lot of the stimulus spending was on things which we should have been spending money on already. The government wasn't going around damaging infrastructure just to give people a job, that was largely done by neglect and a refusal of the citizens to pay the taxes to maintain it.
The issue is that it would be created and maintained by anonymous and we have no way of guaranteeing that it isn't the same anonymous that's been releasing account information of random people without redaction. On top of that we have no way of knowing if they're securing the information rather than just hoarding it for a future release.
All in all, Anonymous can get my info, I'm pretty sure of that, but I'm not going to hand it over directly. That would be pretty dumb and quite frankly anybody that bites on this is probably an informant or agent of some sort. Well, or so stupid that they deserve to be compromised.
That was my thought precisely. I wonder why we should trust the same anonymous that just recently leaked 90k military email accounts to handle the security of the information. Sure, I bet they know how to secure it, I just question whether they'd bother to. Or worse how we'd know that the information was secure.
Doesn't matter, unless you're enough of a majority to amend the constitution it doesn't matter whether it's 49% of the population opposed or 49 people, we still have rights, for now since you haven't yet had a chance to sell out the rest of them.
Obviously, it isn't tiresome if only now are folks refusing at the airport to go along with it. I've personally been boycotting the airlines for years now, precisely because I care about my rights. If you don't care about your rights, fine, then get the fuck out of my country. I'm sure there's plenty of nations willing to take your rights for a vaguely worded promise of security.
That's the thing, for a few dollars you can get a bit of extra safety. The correlation between the device and the harm is clear cut. Having one doesn't demean or in any way harm the individual and the worst case scenario you end up replacing it from time to time because you haven't had a fire.
OTOH, with these security screenings that haven't been demonstrated to be effective the best case scenario is that you've got millions of people being sexually assaulted as a condition of getting on their plane. And the worst case scenario is that somebody just bombs the check point where they're sexually abusing folks.
It astonishes me that the court was OK with the machines because we have the ability to opt into a pat down. I'm curious where in the constitution the founding fathers granted the right to a pat down just because you want to travel. Seems pretty counter the whole point of the 4th amendment if the government is allowed by the courts to ignore it.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, there's no regulatory requirement and it's typically cheaper for them to just pay out when somebody successfully breaches security.
It's astonishing to me all the times when I have to contact a company because my newly created password won't work because it was too long or contained symbols that weren't allowed. But, it really astonishes me how they don't seem to think there's anything wrong with a broken password validation system.
Then there's sites that demand an on screen keyboard, but don't allow for all the possible characters that one ought to be choosing from. You're security is only as strong as your weakest link and it doesn't matter how strong your policy is if you allow for people to change it with just security question answers and family information.
The problem is that if you don't remember the answer then you're completely screwed in most cases. For some things it's perfectly acceptable to require the person to fill out a form and have it notarized, but it's more problematic on sites like Facebook where the value is somewhat dubious
Perhaps we should go back to actually funding the USPTO mainly with tax revenue. I realize that there's a lot of people here that are opposed on principle, but sometimes taxpayers are the correct party to fund things.
You're doing it wrong, you need a block of text so obfuscated that the USPTO isn't quite sure what they're granting.
And your point is? Regardless of how the nation came to be in the state that it's in, there isn't any functioning government there at the moment.
Does that mean that they won't be able to afford to pay the fees to get the patent granted?
Missed it by that much.
Give it to whom precisely? Somalia has been in a civil war for the last 20 years, there isn't anybody that can take the money and make it happen. Most folks there are more concerned with starving or being killed to do anything about this.
They wrote the contract and you cannot expect to enforce it if you don't tell anybody what the specifics of the contract are. Around here the first party can't hide terms in a contract and expect to enforce it. The reason for that is because of companies wanting to hide things in the contract which the signing party wouldn't consent to. It's easy enough to slip that sort of stuff into a contract without having to hide it.
Not really, they presumably have ToS which are a part of the contract that people have to agree to in order to do business with the site. And you don't get to write the contract in such a way that the person agreeing to it has no way of knowing when if ever they breach the contract.
So, yes, they do have an obligation to say what the rules are, I can't imagine how a contract which can be rescinded by one party without disclosure of the reason could possibly be valid.
It's not a "canard" it's a serious violation of antitrust law. You cannot use the size of your corporation to harm competition in the sector. What they're doing there is essentially double dipping. They get to show an additional ad at the expense of the competition by virtue of controlling the search results. I'm not sure how precisely it isn't an antitrust violation.
This is just like in the past where there would be links to Google products without any indication that they weren't paid results causing confusion in the browser.
I think the bigger concern is that they'll have to back off ass raping their users' privacy because of Google.
I doubt that Google bans Facebook ads, that would be a tremendous antitrust violation. More likely, Facebook either doesn't bother to advertise or only advertises for search terms that you haven't entered. I personally ignore the ads so I wouldn't know.
Plus, it would be counterproductive given that Google+ is largely being sold by not being Facebook, ads for Facebook likely remind people that they want in on Google+
I'm sorry, but that's not legitimate in this case. The rules are the rules and if you want people to live up to them, then they have to be clear. If they won't tell him what the violation was, then they have a responsibility to give the money back and not to spaz out if the ad gets relisted.
One of the things about rule of law is that it doesn't work if the people being expected to live under it aren't clear as to what specifically the laws are. Granted this is just a contract, but the same logic applies.
I'll do that if I can't remember whether it's a .net .com or .org TLD. I'd rather give a little bit of money to Google than to link farmers.
It would have already happened, but have you priced silver lately?
Is this really any different than Google getting investigated for allegedly boosting results of its products? I think the jury is still out on whether or not that's been going on, but just because it's their site, doesn't mean that they can do what they like. There are certain responsibilities and limitations which come into play when you're that dominant in an industry.
That's not really how that works. You're supposed to obey the law without the government having to go in and enforce it. If the government had to bring people into court every time somebody got in their car, that would be absolutely ridiculous.
FB, definitely does have a significant enough share of the market that things like this aren't legal. If MySpace was doing it nobody would care because they're not relevant, FB OTOH is the largest site in a niche where size does in fact matter.
That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. If you've got a job that pays $20k a year then you're probably looking at an additional $20k or so in overhead, and that's for jobs where you're just providing a service, now since the stimulus money was largely focused on construction and infrastructure, you'd be looking at a hell of a lot more than that in materials.
Additionally, a lot of the stimulus spending was on things which we should have been spending money on already. The government wasn't going around damaging infrastructure just to give people a job, that was largely done by neglect and a refusal of the citizens to pay the taxes to maintain it.
The issue is that it would be created and maintained by anonymous and we have no way of guaranteeing that it isn't the same anonymous that's been releasing account information of random people without redaction. On top of that we have no way of knowing if they're securing the information rather than just hoarding it for a future release.
All in all, Anonymous can get my info, I'm pretty sure of that, but I'm not going to hand it over directly. That would be pretty dumb and quite frankly anybody that bites on this is probably an informant or agent of some sort. Well, or so stupid that they deserve to be compromised.
That was my thought precisely. I wonder why we should trust the same anonymous that just recently leaked 90k military email accounts to handle the security of the information. Sure, I bet they know how to secure it, I just question whether they'd bother to. Or worse how we'd know that the information was secure.
Doesn't matter, unless you're enough of a majority to amend the constitution it doesn't matter whether it's 49% of the population opposed or 49 people, we still have rights, for now since you haven't yet had a chance to sell out the rest of them.
Obviously, it isn't tiresome if only now are folks refusing at the airport to go along with it. I've personally been boycotting the airlines for years now, precisely because I care about my rights. If you don't care about your rights, fine, then get the fuck out of my country. I'm sure there's plenty of nations willing to take your rights for a vaguely worded promise of security.
That's the thing, for a few dollars you can get a bit of extra safety. The correlation between the device and the harm is clear cut. Having one doesn't demean or in any way harm the individual and the worst case scenario you end up replacing it from time to time because you haven't had a fire.
OTOH, with these security screenings that haven't been demonstrated to be effective the best case scenario is that you've got millions of people being sexually assaulted as a condition of getting on their plane. And the worst case scenario is that somebody just bombs the check point where they're sexually abusing folks.
It astonishes me that the court was OK with the machines because we have the ability to opt into a pat down. I'm curious where in the constitution the founding fathers granted the right to a pat down just because you want to travel. Seems pretty counter the whole point of the 4th amendment if the government is allowed by the courts to ignore it.