Yeah, bloody Tory. Acting all hoity toity with their tea and putting Union Jacks on everything. Just can't accept that we showed King George what's what over 200 years ago.
So you're saying they took the body of a mustang and put in an electric engine from a 1981 golf cart and you can't understand why anyone would want to drive that?
What? I'm just taking the title and the sig to a natural progression:)
It still falls victim to becoming a terminator franchise.
Player 1 (Who we shall call skynet) advances themselves far in to the future gaining the benefit of all the future tech and production to send units back in time to kill Player 2's (Who we shall call.. John) units.
John realizes that the best thing he can do is occasionally send units back in time, but for the most part fight "in the present" with the troops at his disposal. If he can destroy the structures required to produce the units sent back in time by skynet, he can prevent those units from ever being made and therefore having killed any of his troops in the past.
This enables John to have a larger, better equipped army in the future that can easily destroy skynet's limited defenses.
Forcing diversity is a bad thing. It just causes more problems then simply having a work environment where people don't care what race you are, if you're male/female, and/or if you're straight or not. If you're just trying to do a good job, and work with others to do so, it shouldn't matter.
Now as to your experience with the differences in British vs American english and an unintentional insult, did you apologize? Did you go "I'm sorry, I was unaware and didn't mean to cause an insult"?
Or was the case more of "What insult? Why would you be offended by *THAT*? Get a thicker skin, man."
Attitude tends to be everything when dealing with people across the pond, even when we all are supposedly speaking the same language.
Statistically, what are the chances of a perfect diversity trifecta of asian guy, black guy, and white woman? In an ad, pretty good. In real life, not so much.
Until they walk into a bar, and a punchline runs them all over.
But seriously I'd have to say the company I work for is pretty diverse. I've been in several meetings with 3 or more races easily represented with only 4 or 5 people in the room.
This goes beyond non-compete clauses. At least with a non-compete, the employees sign a form acknowledging trade secrets and agreeing not to work for competitors. Deals like these, they have no say or control over.
...And, at least in the state I'm in, a non-compete isn't worth the paper it's written unless you're getting paid for the period it's covering.
Maybe. I think what they are going for is a "pay a monthly fee and get all the games/music/etc you can download" and plan to pay the rights holders from the monthly fees..
I doubt that will really happen without DRM out the ying-yang, which will lead to the model of "oh crap, we're bankrupt".
"break in" was probably not the best choice, true. The point remains, however. 20 years ago the police would have to serve you a warrant to get information or private correspondence. Now, depending on your ISP/email provider all that may be needed is for a company to have a lawyer write a subpeona, or best case serve a warrant (that you may not even be made aware of) to your ISP.
Do you now see where the problem comes from? It's not from Joe Hoodlum trying to steal and pawn your Computer.
The company has to apply and be granted CC status (which is not without liabilities). Comcast never has.
This is not something I was aware of. I also understand not being a common carrier should mean that they can't argue "but we don't know what goes on in those packets", which I understood was the common argument for why ISPs could get away with carrying usenet groups that were more questionable.
Although, I have a feeling that some place in the jungle of the Comcast TOS, there is legalese that lets them do this, but is it still right?
Just goes to prove that EVERYONE needs to be critical of their ISPs TOS and practices. Buyer Beware!
Wait, what?
I'm lost. First you argue that this should fall afoul of the wiretapping act, then you argue the TOS could let them out? Would you argue that your phone company (assuming that is also not Comcast, now that they offer VOIP) could avoid wiretapping laws?
Heck, your cellphone carrier is not allowed to read your text messages without following the same procedures that apply to listening in on a voice call, why should your ISP be able to declare "We are allowed to inspect every packet and read your email"?
A common carrier is a business that transports people, goods, or services and offers its services to the general public under license or authority provided by a regulatory body.
Which has been held to include telecommunication companies, and has been used for ISPs. Comcast certainly claims to provide service (cable, internet, and phone) to the general public under license from a regulatory body. Heck, just like the phone companies they have been granted a license to be a monopoly cable utility in various areas.
I would really like to know why you believe they don't qualify.
You're right. No *good* ISP does this. But if you're in an area where Comcast has been given a monopoly on cable service and your phone company can't/won't provide DSL (or FIOS), do they have the right to be a bad ISP?
The market will regulate them, but only if others can provide service to the market.
No, I'm not. And neither are you. There is no resistance. There is no "skynet". Please, come down off the ledge, Bob. Also, IT has asked that you stop trying to plant "bombs" in the server room. Modeling clay with wires stuck in it will not explode.
The TJX breach didn't matter to the vast majority of TJX customers.
Most didn't hear of it, and those that did went "Oh, it was only X store and I wasn't affected"
Look at the TJ Maxx stores, they are a low end bargin retail chain, most of their business probably isn't even done with credit cards. Even those customers that were affected probably disputed the charges and moved on, without understand how crappy the security was. Most customers probably bought the "oh my, we're sorry this happened, we'll make sure it doesn't happen again" line, even though anyone with sense could point out how BAD the security hole was and that the shocking thing wasn't that it happened, but that it hadn't been going on for years (that we know of).
Let's be honest.. how many of us shopped there before? How many of us will not shop there again ever? How many will just not use a credit card at TJX stores?
Now if this were an online retailer where people think a bit more about "Hrm, where am I giving my credit card number?" A breach like this would mean more to the customers.
If all you ever use is the web, that's the extent of your issue.
Now, say your im program is set to try several different dns addresses to connect. If one has been decommissioned (but the client not updated) and your IM will try to connect, possibly passing the username and password to the server that is returned by dns for "login2.whatever.com".
Even with the web, say you have a login for a store/bank/whatever, but the latest version of there page some web developer made a typo and instead of "placeyouwanttogo.com they put "placeyouwantogo.com" (notice the number of t's). Instead of giving you a "site not found" message, you've been redirected to an ISP page that gets all of the information you were trying to pass.
Now in my example, it's possible they could push you to a typo domain as well, but the point is dns is supposed to return "Hey this doesn't exist" to your client, which then should display an error message, determined by the application doing the dns request. If it's not http, it will look like you're trying to connect to a host and it will either be A) "Connection refused" B) Answer and confuse whatever application you are running or C) appear like a black hole and never connect.
Why should we allow books or music to be licensed to us? or anything for that matter? And even if we do, why for perpetual licenses do we allow them to take away all our rights?
The doctrine of first sale was created to protect us from this behavior, but we've thrown it out the window as soon as we agree to this kind of license. Any time we agree to a perpetual license we should have certain rights that can't be signed away, and the first two I would think would be: 1) If the term is forever, you CAN NOT remove my access to the material. 2) I have the right to sell my license to someone else when I'm done with it, provided I transfer all copies of the material.
The browser is going "Show me that this cert is valid for paypal.com" and the CA is going "Here it is, for paypay.com" , at least as far as the browser is concerned. This is no more a flaw then if the CA just started letting anyone buy certs for paypal.com.
Having multiple CAs (and cheap CAs) is a good thing, but we're only ever secure with ssl as the least secure CA.
Either way, we've got 20+ years of evidence that allowing information from a unvalidated and untrusted remote data stream to cause hardware to do things that should only be issued from a local command (or at least trusted remote source) is a bad thing.
This was my first thought.. "well, there goes most MMO's.. at least Eve, WOW, and COV"
Any game that has PVP for that matter and allows "clans", "guilds", or other similar groups is out.. after all, you'll just be a gang looking to beat all the other gangs, right?
Slashdot Mirror
THERE IS NO HOPE BUT US. THERE IS NO MERCY BUT US. THERE IS NO JUSTICE. THERE IS JUST US.
Personally, my favorite Discworld Death quote came just after that:
WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN?
Rest in peace, Mr. Egan. Hopefully you found all you wished in the care of the Reaper.
Yeah, bloody Tory. Acting all hoity toity with their tea and putting Union Jacks on everything. Just can't accept that we showed King George what's what over 200 years ago.
So you're saying they took the body of a mustang and put in an electric engine from a 1981 golf cart and you can't understand why anyone would want to drive that?
:)
What? I'm just taking the title and the sig to a natural progression
To make sure none of their citizenry plays "Mercenaries 2" and try to overthrow the gov't.
It still falls victim to becoming a terminator franchise.
Player 1 (Who we shall call skynet) advances themselves far in to the future gaining the benefit of all the future tech and production to send units back in time to kill Player 2's (Who we shall call.. John) units.
John realizes that the best thing he can do is occasionally send units back in time, but for the most part fight "in the present" with the troops at his disposal. If he can destroy the structures required to produce the units sent back in time by skynet, he can prevent those units from ever being made and therefore having killed any of his troops in the past.
This enables John to have a larger, better equipped army in the future that can easily destroy skynet's limited defenses.
Forcing diversity is a bad thing. It just causes more problems then simply having a work environment where people don't care what race you are, if you're male/female, and/or if you're straight or not. If you're just trying to do a good job, and work with others to do so, it shouldn't matter.
Now as to your experience with the differences in British vs American english and an unintentional insult, did you apologize? Did you go "I'm sorry, I was unaware and didn't mean to cause an insult"?
Or was the case more of "What insult? Why would you be offended by *THAT*? Get a thicker skin, man."
Attitude tends to be everything when dealing with people across the pond, even when we all are supposedly speaking the same language.
Statistically, what are the chances of a perfect diversity trifecta of asian guy, black guy, and white woman? In an ad, pretty good. In real life, not so much.
Until they walk into a bar, and a punchline runs them all over.
But seriously I'd have to say the company I work for is pretty diverse. I've been in several meetings with 3 or more races easily represented with only 4 or 5 people in the room.
This goes beyond non-compete clauses. At least with a non-compete, the employees sign a form acknowledging trade secrets and agreeing not to work for competitors. Deals like these, they have no say or control over.
Maybe. I think what they are going for is a "pay a monthly fee and get all the games/music/etc you can download" and plan to pay the rights holders from the monthly fees..
I doubt that will really happen without DRM out the ying-yang, which will lead to the model of "oh crap, we're bankrupt".
Colonization?
"break in" was probably not the best choice, true. The point remains, however. 20 years ago the police would have to serve you a warrant to get information or private correspondence. Now, depending on your ISP/email provider all that may be needed is for a company to have a lawyer write a subpeona, or best case serve a warrant (that you may not even be made aware of) to your ISP.
Do you now see where the problem comes from? It's not from Joe Hoodlum trying to steal and pawn your Computer.
The company has to apply and be granted CC status (which is not without liabilities). Comcast never has.
This is not something I was aware of. I also understand not being a common carrier should mean that they can't argue "but we don't know what goes on in those packets", which I understood was the common argument for why ISPs could get away with carrying usenet groups that were more questionable.
Although, I have a feeling that some place in the jungle of the Comcast TOS, there is legalese that lets them do this, but is it still right?
Just goes to prove that EVERYONE needs to be critical of their ISPs TOS and practices. Buyer Beware!
Wait, what?
I'm lost. First you argue that this should fall afoul of the wiretapping act, then you argue the TOS could let them out? Would you argue that your phone company (assuming that is also not Comcast, now that they offer VOIP) could avoid wiretapping laws?
Heck, your cellphone carrier is not allowed to read your text messages without following the same procedures that apply to listening in on a voice call, why should your ISP be able to declare "We are allowed to inspect every packet and read your email"?
From ye olde wikipedia:
A common carrier is a business that transports people, goods, or services and offers its services to the general public under license or authority provided by a regulatory body.
Which has been held to include telecommunication companies, and has been used for ISPs. Comcast certainly claims to provide service (cable, internet, and phone) to the general public under license from a regulatory body. Heck, just like the phone companies they have been granted a license to be a monopoly cable utility in various areas.
I would really like to know why you believe they don't qualify.
You're right. No *good* ISP does this. But if you're in an area where Comcast has been given a monopoly on cable service and your phone company can't/won't provide DSL (or FIOS), do they have the right to be a bad ISP?
The market will regulate them, but only if others can provide service to the market.
No, I'm not. And neither are you. There is no resistance. There is no "skynet". Please, come down off the ledge, Bob.
Also, IT has asked that you stop trying to plant "bombs" in the server room. Modeling clay with wires stuck in it will not explode.
Interesting about the ownership in WoW.. Aren't you a licensor by agreeing to the license?
I don't have any real illusions about who owns things, but it is an interesting legal question...
The TJX breach didn't matter to the vast majority of TJX customers.
Most didn't hear of it, and those that did went "Oh, it was only X store and I wasn't affected"
Look at the TJ Maxx stores, they are a low end bargin retail chain, most of their business probably isn't even done with credit cards. Even those customers that were affected probably disputed the charges and moved on, without understand how crappy the security was. Most customers probably bought the "oh my, we're sorry this happened, we'll make sure it doesn't happen again" line, even though anyone with sense could point out how BAD the security hole was and that the shocking thing wasn't that it happened, but that it hadn't been going on for years (that we know of).
Let's be honest.. how many of us shopped there before? How many of us will not shop there again ever? How many will just not use a credit card at TJX stores?
Now if this were an online retailer where people think a bit more about "Hrm, where am I giving my credit card number?" A breach like this would mean more to the customers.
If all you ever use is the web, that's the extent of your issue.
Now, say your im program is set to try several different dns addresses to connect. If one has been decommissioned (but the client not updated) and your IM will try to connect, possibly passing the username and password to the server that is returned by dns for "login2.whatever.com".
Even with the web, say you have a login for a store/bank/whatever, but the latest version of there page some web developer made a typo and instead of "placeyouwanttogo.com they put "placeyouwantogo.com" (notice the number of t's). Instead of giving you a "site not found" message, you've been redirected to an ISP page that gets all of the information you were trying to pass.
Now in my example, it's possible they could push you to a typo domain as well, but the point is dns is supposed to return "Hey this doesn't exist" to your client, which then should display an error message, determined by the application doing the dns request. If it's not http, it will look like you're trying to connect to a host and it will either be A) "Connection refused" B) Answer and confuse whatever application you are running or C) appear like a black hole and never connect.
And this is where I think we all went wrong.
Why should we allow books or music to be licensed to us? or anything for that matter?
And even if we do, why for perpetual licenses do we allow them to take away all our rights?
The doctrine of first sale was created to protect us from this behavior, but we've thrown it out the window as soon as we agree to this kind of license.
Any time we agree to a perpetual license we should have certain rights that can't be signed away, and the first two I would think would be:
1) If the term is forever, you CAN NOT remove my access to the material.
2) I have the right to sell my license to someone else when I'm done with it, provided I transfer all copies of the material.
If the browser stops reading at "paypal.com" and sends a request to the CA for the cert for "paypal.com" it's behaving correctly.
If it isn't in one place, but is in the other, then yes, there is a browser issue.
Either way, the CA is the weakest link here.
This isn't really a browser issue.
The browser is going "Show me that this cert is valid for paypal.com" and the CA is going "Here it is, for paypay.com" , at least as far as the browser is concerned.
This is no more a flaw then if the CA just started letting anyone buy certs for paypal.com.
Having multiple CAs (and cheap CAs) is a good thing, but we're only ever secure with ssl as the least secure CA.
Either way, we've got 20+ years of evidence that allowing information from a unvalidated and untrusted remote data stream to cause hardware to do things that should only be issued from a local command (or at least trusted remote source) is a bad thing.
How do we keep making the same design mistakes?
This reminds me of the days when on a BBS a badly calibrated modem would actually hang up if someone put +++ATH0 in the message. *sigh* I feel so old.
This was my first thought.. "well, there goes most MMO's.. at least Eve, WOW, and COV"
Any game that has PVP for that matter and allows "clans", "guilds", or other similar groups is out.. after all, you'll just be a gang looking to beat all the other gangs, right?