TFA didn't include any explanation from Steve Dowling as to why they paid $100m other than "we might get some of it back", which seems a pretty lousy return on investment to me.
If you have more info, I'd be intrigued to read it.
It is not 'intolerance of other's opinion' to deny your child something which he could potentially hurt you or other people with if you don't believe he's intelligent or responsible enough to use it. It is common fucking sense.
The only thing more unbelievable than the fact that you actually believe any of this is that one day you might give birth and inflict this absurd reasoning on the rest of your forsaken community.
So your plan, if you ever raised a child, is to kowtow to what he wants rather than try and teach him how to be a good person? That disciplining a child is "bigoted" and "fascist" because it's not what they want you to do? So, if your child set your sofa on fire (an example) you would say "Well done! That's what you wanted to do and therefore we applaud it!"
Wow. Just... wow. I hope you become sterile in a set of very fortunate circumstances. Fortunate for the rest of us, that is.
Maybe, if he wasn't being a rebellious little prick and his parents explained it to him, he'd notice that his parents actually had his best interests at heart.
No, kids should not be trusted up to a certain age because they don't know any better. Your parents can only help you learn from your mistakes if they know where you're making them. So instead, when I was a kid, of my parents saying that I couldn't use the car because I'm not responsible enough, theoretical teenagers parents now say "You can use the car, as long as you're responsible with it, and we'll be making sure of that until such time as you've proved you are". In my view, they are actually giving their kid more freedom, not less.
Isn't this what people have been demanding all along? That parents take responsibility for their offspring? I know I have.
Re:Find that in the Constitution, bright boy.
on
AOL CTO Shown the Door
·
· Score: 2, Informative
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'"
How does this have anything to do with AOL wanting to know what searches you have done? From a more appropriate area:
"Our goal is to better personalize your experience with the AOL Network. The AOL Network plans to use information about the searches you perform through the Network, and how you use the results of those searches, to help customize and improve an AOL Network user's search results and, over time, to provide more relevant content and offers to you."
So, in a publically accessible area of the site, they have told you that they are collecting search information. Not to mention there is a privacy policy that you should be reading before you use the service.
If there is someone to blame for your lack of privacy it is you, throwing your personal information on to a publically available and accessible service, operated by a privately owned company who have told you in explicit terms they are going to use your data however the see fit.
Stop throwing away your own goddamn freedoms, idiot.
They are exactly the same in the sense that anyone would assume, rightly, that you have nothing to worry about security-wise when doing either of those things.
(He got modded insightful because most people understood the comparison)
Actually, how you say something is a damn good proportion of the point you're trying to make.
Again, you can only say that something is true, PERIOD, when you have conclusive evidence.
You've provided the evidence for which power has been consolidated, which I will grant you, but you've yet to provide proof that this agency 'distracts'. Distracts from what? It's doing a really bad job of distracting from Bush policy, if that's what you mean, because every high terror alert makes people remember that the US government is fighting two wars in the middle east, which isn't exactly popular right now. Maybe it distracts them from other issues, but considering that if that is true, you're making people forget a controversial policy decision by drawing their attention a completely different but as controversial policy decision.
It's like distracting someone from the fact that you're stabbing their family by stabbing them instead.
If you can't put in the characters requested the first time, it will continue to request those characters until you successfully log in.
The issue is definitely with keyloggers, but one has to wonder if this is something that HSBC can actually be blamed for, or the person who doesn't run a firewall and anti-virus while connected directly to the net, like a lot of people in the UK are.
The DHS is a shell organization set up to distract and consolodate power. Period.
You see, using "Period." at the end of a sentence implies that you have some kind of factual basis for your claims, including documented evidence.
Sorry! My mistake! Evidence is for 'The Man', whereas true revolutionaries can act on speculation and the assumption that what you say is empirically true.
It would help if Mac stopped releasing adverts which are trying to maintain that "cool", which unfortunately instead are actually "irritating", "stupid" and "fundamentally untrue".
Thank god there's someone with a brain around here.
I would like to add to this fairly standard observation that:
a) This is the Register quoting the Observer who quoted 'some guys'. If you're British and realise the Observer is published by the Guardian, then you'll begin to understand exactly how 'accurate' this report is.
b) You're assuming that Labour will win the next election. Let's be honest, who wants Gordon Brown running a piss-up in a brewery, let alone the country? I'd rather vote Liberal Democrat and that's saying something.
c) Shops have been required to submit this kind of information on request for a looooooooong time. This just makes the process automatic. It is a POLICE database, not public access. It's no more or less secure or Big Brother-esque than the system that's been in place for the last 10-15 years.
But if you read the follow-up, it doesn't have to be with a third-party wireless card. It's also a fault with the default wireless capabilities. See here.
I mean, I don't mind Mac users thinking they're invulnerable, it's no skin off my nose at all, because I know that I am vulnerable and I take those precautions. But not having a defense plan just because you don't think there's anything to defend against is naive, and the moment that something does happen that can exploit all these unprotected boxes then that's when the trouble will begin.
Apple aren't helping themselves via their own personal mantra of "Mac's don't get viruses", because when a Mac virus does arrive (it's inevitable for the reasons I stated) they'll be liable for all the data that people will lose.
The exact wording was "XXX doesn't count because it doesn't do anything", not "XXX doesn't count as it's almost impossible to execute".
Even taking your point into account, if the delivery system has the distinct possibility of someone (even an idiot) being able to accidentally trigger it, as was the case, it's still an attack vector and still needs to be taken into consideration.
Again, and again, and again: "There's no such thing as a secure system".
I can't remember how many times I've said "There's no such thing as a secure system", but people don't listen.
I do agree with you, but don't expect anybody to stop screaming "ZOMG MY MAC IS PERFECTLY SAFE THIS IS ALL COINCIDENCE THE SOURCE ISN'T REPUTABLE AND I'M NOT AFFECTED BECAUSE I CONVENIENTLY IGNORE FACTS SO MY MAC IS OBVIOUSLY FINE YOU APPLE-BASHER".
Your analogy would be better served if you mentioned that the healthy person had been running around and jumping in AIDS guy's face shouting about how he never ever gets sick.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. Invented.
You didn't, say, just steal the concept of rounders at all.
Well I found this funny, but mod points are never around when you need them...
TFA didn't include any explanation from Steve Dowling as to why they paid $100m other than "we might get some of it back", which seems a pretty lousy return on investment to me.
If you have more info, I'd be intrigued to read it.
Can we hear your theory then as to why Apple decided that paying $100m was better than fighting this patent then?
It is not 'intolerance of other's opinion' to deny your child something which he could potentially hurt you or other people with if you don't believe he's intelligent or responsible enough to use it. It is common fucking sense.
The only thing more unbelievable than the fact that you actually believe any of this is that one day you might give birth and inflict this absurd reasoning on the rest of your forsaken community.
So your plan, if you ever raised a child, is to kowtow to what he wants rather than try and teach him how to be a good person? That disciplining a child is "bigoted" and "fascist" because it's not what they want you to do? So, if your child set your sofa on fire (an example) you would say "Well done! That's what you wanted to do and therefore we applaud it!"
Wow. Just... wow. I hope you become sterile in a set of very fortunate circumstances. Fortunate for the rest of us, that is.
Maybe, if he wasn't being a rebellious little prick and his parents explained it to him, he'd notice that his parents actually had his best interests at heart.
No, kids should not be trusted up to a certain age because they don't know any better. Your parents can only help you learn from your mistakes if they know where you're making them. So instead, when I was a kid, of my parents saying that I couldn't use the car because I'm not responsible enough, theoretical teenagers parents now say "You can use the car, as long as you're responsible with it, and we'll be making sure of that until such time as you've proved you are". In my view, they are actually giving their kid more freedom, not less.
Isn't this what people have been demanding all along? That parents take responsibility for their offspring? I know I have.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'"
How does this have anything to do with AOL wanting to know what searches you have done? From a more appropriate area:
"Our goal is to better personalize your experience with the AOL Network. The AOL Network plans to use information about the searches you perform through the Network, and how you use the results of those searches, to help customize and improve an AOL Network user's search results and, over time, to provide more relevant content and offers to you."
So, in a publically accessible area of the site, they have told you that they are collecting search information. Not to mention there is a privacy policy that you should be reading before you use the service.
If there is someone to blame for your lack of privacy it is you, throwing your personal information on to a publically available and accessible service, operated by a privately owned company who have told you in explicit terms they are going to use your data however the see fit.
Stop throwing away your own goddamn freedoms, idiot.
Old computers!
I used to have a Commodore Amiga that wouldn't read disks unless I slipped a playing card in on top of it.
They are exactly the same in the sense that anyone would assume, rightly, that you have nothing to worry about security-wise when doing either of those things.
(He got modded insightful because most people understood the comparison)
Okay, so let's say that Leopard comes out before Vista (not a stretch).
That's 5 iterations of Mac OS X at 129 dollars a pop compared to XP with it's free patching over a very similar length of time.
So that's 650 dollars to keep your OS up to date compared to just 250 for XP.
Nice try, though!
Actually, how you say something is a damn good proportion of the point you're trying to make.
Again, you can only say that something is true, PERIOD, when you have conclusive evidence.
You've provided the evidence for which power has been consolidated, which I will grant you, but you've yet to provide proof that this agency 'distracts'. Distracts from what? It's doing a really bad job of distracting from Bush policy, if that's what you mean, because every high terror alert makes people remember that the US government is fighting two wars in the middle east, which isn't exactly popular right now. Maybe it distracts them from other issues, but considering that if that is true, you're making people forget a controversial policy decision by drawing their attention a completely different but as controversial policy decision.
It's like distracting someone from the fact that you're stabbing their family by stabbing them instead.
To be fair, HSBC do the same.
If you can't put in the characters requested the first time, it will continue to request those characters until you successfully log in.
The issue is definitely with keyloggers, but one has to wonder if this is something that HSBC can actually be blamed for, or the person who doesn't run a firewall and anti-virus while connected directly to the net, like a lot of people in the UK are.
The DHS is a shell organization set up to distract and consolodate power. Period.
You see, using "Period." at the end of a sentence implies that you have some kind of factual basis for your claims, including documented evidence.
Sorry! My mistake! Evidence is for 'The Man', whereas true revolutionaries can act on speculation and the assumption that what you say is empirically true.
I'll let you get back to that.
It would help if Mac stopped releasing adverts which are trying to maintain that "cool", which unfortunately instead are actually "irritating", "stupid" and "fundamentally untrue".
Thank god there's someone with a brain around here.
I would like to add to this fairly standard observation that:
a) This is the Register quoting the Observer who quoted 'some guys'. If you're British and realise the Observer is published by the Guardian, then you'll begin to understand exactly how 'accurate' this report is.
b) You're assuming that Labour will win the next election. Let's be honest, who wants Gordon Brown running a piss-up in a brewery, let alone the country? I'd rather vote Liberal Democrat and that's saying something.
c) Shops have been required to submit this kind of information on request for a looooooooong time. This just makes the process automatic. It is a POLICE database, not public access. It's no more or less secure or Big Brother-esque than the system that's been in place for the last 10-15 years.
You're really in a position to complain about spelling and grammar.
But if you read the follow-up, it doesn't have to be with a third-party wireless card. It's also a fault with the default wireless capabilities. See here.
I mean, I don't mind Mac users thinking they're invulnerable, it's no skin off my nose at all, because I know that I am vulnerable and I take those precautions. But not having a defense plan just because you don't think there's anything to defend against is naive, and the moment that something does happen that can exploit all these unprotected boxes then that's when the trouble will begin.
Apple aren't helping themselves via their own personal mantra of "Mac's don't get viruses", because when a Mac virus does arrive (it's inevitable for the reasons I stated) they'll be liable for all the data that people will lose.
That conversation has always gone so differently in my experience.
But that's subjective, huh.
Not what was said and you know it.
The exact wording was "XXX doesn't count because it doesn't do anything", not "XXX doesn't count as it's almost impossible to execute".
Even taking your point into account, if the delivery system has the distinct possibility of someone (even an idiot) being able to accidentally trigger it, as was the case, it's still an attack vector and still needs to be taken into consideration.
Again, and again, and again: "There's no such thing as a secure system".
I can't remember how many times I've said "There's no such thing as a secure system", but people don't listen.
;)
I do agree with you, but don't expect anybody to stop screaming "ZOMG MY MAC IS PERFECTLY SAFE THIS IS ALL COINCIDENCE THE SOURCE ISN'T REPUTABLE AND I'M NOT AFFECTED BECAUSE I CONVENIENTLY IGNORE FACTS SO MY MAC IS OBVIOUSLY FINE YOU APPLE-BASHER".
Or substitute 'MAC' for 'LINUX'.
Or even 'WINDOWS', it has been known.
Your analogy would be better served if you mentioned that the healthy person had been running around and jumping in AIDS guy's face shouting about how he never ever gets sick.
It's called "getting your comeuppance".
So the delivery system is invalidated because there's no payload?
Thank god you're not in charge of security.
Once they got rid of the guns, they had to come up with something else to go after.
Outlawing guns =/= destroying all the guns in the country.
They're still very free to go after people who have a gun because they're definitely breaking the law, rather than just probably.
The Law does not giveth, yet the Law taketh away?