better to trash it than trying to sell it on ebay. They will just boo hoo to ebay, ebay will shut the page down and hand it over. Local pawn shops are a bust too.
They have control over our children's schools, by means of what they are taught. They have control over our health care, they let them run wild and do as they please insurance wise -- prices up, care is down. They have control over our banks, they permitted them to run wild and gave them a law so they could turn a blind eye. Now they want to control of our Internet. NO!
I paid for my phone up front. It cost 89 bucks. So why should I be forced to a two year contract to pay for a phone? This is what the phone company's are saying in that article. So why didn't I get a better deal? I shouldn't of been forced to a 2 year contract. I think their reasons are rubbish. Unless I am paying for someone else's cellphone.
A thirteen year old is dead because of an adult plain and simple. many could argue that the girl had a choice, but too me it is clear that the girl was pushed over the edge, and the pusher was an adult. The adult acted no different than a person telling a child it's ok for you to run away with me, or to shoplift in the store, the adult aided the child into a decision that had dire consequences. If anything, the charges should of been aiding abetting a juvenile, and second degree manslaughter. Plus the falsely creation of a account proves that she knew she was committing a crime in my opinion. If she did not feel anything was wrong with it then why did she go out of her way to hide? One person (an employee) open the door up, and said this woman was responsible for a child committing suicide. In back articles the evidence stated that the woman whom did the crime laughed and said the kid got what she deserved. Who in their right mind could feel that way about a child? Throw the book at this woman she had no heart during the crime and she is only sorry now because she got caught. I don't feel for her one bit. Because her family also was involved in this monstrosity, I don't feel sorry for them either, the whole family is heartless they all deserve prison time. because none of them came forward, or even tried to stop the mother. In several back articles several of the family members eventually knew what was going on. I am not sure if this part is true or not, but if it is they all should be locked up.
I knew someone here would say it does not matter because my calls are not that important....
Well what about the million or so out there that have plenty to worry about?
scenario...
job calls you discuss private business on the phone that you sure don't want a rival to hear.
you call your bank to see how much cash is still in your account... many do on phone banking.
you reveal a secret that could be used to blackmail you. (could happen so don't laugh)
you reveal in conversation your whole family will be gone two weeks on vacation out of country.
(robbery?)
You have a stalker.
your teens are home alone.
Something else for you to consider is that even though most of the public doesn't care about this type equipment somewhere out there someone else is thinking the opposite reaction. This type of thing could be a gold mine to them. Some spammers spend thousands to make millions, so who is to say that this type of spyware would not be used in some illegal manner?
I have always been under the impression that a trademark in order for it to be held as valid, has to be branded as active, and popular for either the area they live, or online. Anyone can grab a idea off the web see if it is trademarked, register it if not, then sue everyone trying to use any part of it. Look at microsoftsucks.com. They got to use this domain, and there are several others like the Nissan guy which is still in court.
I did find a website with lots of links to info http://www.ggmark.com/ maybe it will help. I don't remember the case name, but a few years ago someone was dragged to court over this same issue, and the one that wanted this other person to stop, and pay up, did not get their wish. The Court ruled in favor of the website owner that was dragged to Court. Stating that the website and website name was not active participant on the Internet and was only sitting there with links all over the place. The Judge called it a trap from every aspect of the domain, down to the very content on the website.
The RIAA and MPAA will both jump in, and try to manipulate this bill to contain a few of their own bans.
But I do agree with the ones posting here that the US Gov needs to tighten down, and implement better computer security rules for their employees to follow. They also need to go after those that break the new rules. Turning a blind eye, and assuming it's secure is not good enough anymore. After all they want everyone else to be secure, but at the same time they don't want to set a good example. This is just wrong.
I like the way the Judge is handling this case so far. Dotting all the "i" and crossing all the "t" When the Courts are through with SCO they wont have a leg to stand on. Which is very fitting considering that the SCO must of known all along they did not own the license in the first place. Maybe this lawsuit is all about debunking Linux and less about SCO? After all the SCO will be in someone's history book, even if it will be a very short paragraph. So what better way to be remembered.
Say it isn't so Jim! You don't lay in bed with your rival, you always keep notes on your rival, you never turn your back on your rival. BTW... They teach this in business school.
It might not protect our privacy down the road. But how do they plan to protect the public from corrupted voting booths, and politicians? No paper trial means no proof. So in some ways the Bill would be a blessing. I just hope it doesn't turn into a curse years down the road. Paper trails can be abused too.
They need to work some on blowing up vans though, their producer, sucks. Replace him/her maybe? Their Technical adviser needs to grow up, and then go to school. Fiction maybe? That would explain it.
Quick! everyone test that theory. Best way to find out is to send attachments to Hotmail accounts.
In the news... Hotmail was brought to it's knees after several hundred thousand users tested the service to see if their attachments would actually get through. Film at 11./nutty humor
Yes I spoof my name, but not my number. I do this so I will know if it is a telemarketer or not. They call asking for the spoof, then I know they got the number from my so called friends at BellSouth/AT&T. Even though I am on the No call list I still get them. But the thing is, the telemarketers found a way to spoof too. So when they call, all that shows for the most part is a toll free number, Or just the initials of whom is calling, with a phone number that no one answers if you call them back. Hopefully, and I have no intentions of holding my breath, this will put a end to telemarketers spoofing too. I thought being on the no call list would help but apparently some phone companies hand your info over, and claim you have a relationship with their affiliates, because you are a customer of theirs. Therefore they can call.
Cyber-Ark Software, a company that, naturally specializes in password protection.
Maybe they proved their point about access to the departments data. But they didn't prove to me that they accessed the data in order to commit harm to the business. There is maybe a slight number of ex employees that still have access that you probably need to worry about more. Those will be the ones, that would never admit to being able to access the data.
Cyber-Ark Software has a lot to gain by inflating the risk.
I think this is a conniving scheme by the RIAA. Your forgetting that because it's radio, in the past if a artist came in to a station, and they didn't have the RIAA backing them, then too bad for the RIAA. But if the station is paying for the Artist that is backed by the RIAA then out the window goes the artist that strikes out on their own with no RIAA backing. All the RIAA has to do is set minimums for the stations to play. The Artist that has no RIAA has no backing, their song(s) are not played because the station doesn't have a time slot for the artist. Up till now Radio has started playing these no label, or own their own label artist. This is a clever way for the RIAA to stop them. The other thing this does, is introduce the RIAA to be able to collect royalties from Internet Radio. They only need to insert that clause into the new Radio Station payola.
Another way for the RIAA to fool and screw the public.
I don't understand why no one has created new software that a Host can use to scan their customers for the nasty's Like phishing, viruses, worms, Trojans etc. A user has this type software but a Host doesn't?
is if they create a way to verify in the first place. If you have a domain that closely resembles any of the banking institutions, or paypal, etc already on record, then you have to walk the paperwork into the Domain registrar. You just can't be permitted to even create a Domain with any of the Banking institutions Domain names already on record online. Or else it will fail because anyone will still be able to create a domain like citibank.bank.myscam.com Perhaps they need to change where and how a banking institution signs up in the first place? Like the regular everyday domain signs up at the popular places online to get their new domains, but the banking industry, and the ones found to be heavey with phishing attacks like paypal are switched to the new system to verify, and pay for theirs. They simply are not handled online anymore. This will cut back on the amount of phishers too, if the bad guy has to show up with ID, and 50 grand, and fill out paperwork, and show proof they have a valid Banking institutions FDIC paperwork, or what ever is needed in their country.
I also have questions about the Host of such phishing websites, if they allow a person to register a website that is phishing another website, is there any clear way for the Host of such websites to watch their own customers? I believe this should be a joint effort. Not just left up to the domain registrar to deal with.
Yes but your average consumer goes for the major ISP carriers that support broadband. If those ISP's agreed to checking for botnets and blocking them, then your botnets will be forced onto just the dialup accounts. This would help some. It wont clean the Net up, but if a user can't get broadband and they are forced onto dialup they may listen to what their ISP is telling them. Everyone eventually accepts change if the change is for a good reason. Case in point seat belts. No one likes them, but we use them any way in the States.
Slashdot Mirror
better to trash it than trying to sell it on ebay. They will just boo hoo to ebay, ebay will shut the page down and hand it over. Local pawn shops are a bust too.
They have control over our children's schools, by means of what they are taught. They have control over our health care, they let them run wild and do as they please insurance wise -- prices up, care is down. They have control over our banks, they permitted them to run wild and gave them a law so they could turn a blind eye. Now they want to control of our Internet. NO!
Get a real job!
I paid for my phone up front. It cost 89 bucks. So why should I be forced to a two year contract to pay for a phone? This is what the phone company's are saying in that article. So why didn't I get a better deal? I shouldn't of been forced to a 2 year contract. I think their reasons are rubbish. Unless I am paying for someone else's cellphone.
A thirteen year old is dead because of an adult plain and simple. many could argue that the girl had a choice, but too me it is clear that the girl was pushed over the edge, and the pusher was an adult. The adult acted no different than a person telling a child it's ok for you to run away with me, or to shoplift in the store, the adult aided the child into a decision that had dire consequences. If anything, the charges should of been aiding abetting a juvenile, and second degree manslaughter. Plus the falsely creation of a account proves that she knew she was committing a crime in my opinion. If she did not feel anything was wrong with it then why did she go out of her way to hide? One person (an employee) open the door up, and said this woman was responsible for a child committing suicide. In back articles the evidence stated that the woman whom did the crime laughed and said the kid got what she deserved. Who in their right mind could feel that way about a child? Throw the book at this woman she had no heart during the crime and she is only sorry now because she got caught. I don't feel for her one bit. Because her family also was involved in this monstrosity, I don't feel sorry for them either, the whole family is heartless they all deserve prison time. because none of them came forward, or even tried to stop the mother. In several back articles several of the family members eventually knew what was going on. I am not sure if this part is true or not, but if it is they all should be locked up.
I knew someone here would say it does not matter because my calls are not that important....
Well what about the million or so out there that have plenty to worry about?
scenario...
job calls you discuss private business on the phone that you sure don't want a rival to hear.
you call your bank to see how much cash is still in your account... many do on phone banking.
you reveal a secret that could be used to blackmail you. (could happen so don't laugh)
you reveal in conversation your whole family will be gone two weeks on vacation out of country. (robbery?)
You have a stalker.
your teens are home alone.
Something else for you to consider is that even though most of the public doesn't care about this type equipment somewhere out there someone else is thinking the opposite reaction. This type of thing could be a gold mine to them. Some spammers spend thousands to make millions, so who is to say that this type of spyware would not be used in some illegal manner?I have always been under the impression that a trademark in order for it to be held as valid, has to be branded as active, and popular for either the area they live, or online. Anyone can grab a idea off the web see if it is trademarked, register it if not, then sue everyone trying to use any part of it. Look at microsoftsucks.com. They got to use this domain, and there are several others like the Nissan guy which is still in court. I did find a website with lots of links to info http://www.ggmark.com/ maybe it will help. I don't remember the case name, but a few years ago someone was dragged to court over this same issue, and the one that wanted this other person to stop, and pay up, did not get their wish. The Court ruled in favor of the website owner that was dragged to Court. Stating that the website and website name was not active participant on the Internet and was only sitting there with links all over the place. The Judge called it a trap from every aspect of the domain, down to the very content on the website.
The RIAA and MPAA will both jump in, and try to manipulate this bill to contain a few of their own bans.
But I do agree with the ones posting here that the US Gov needs to tighten down, and implement better computer security rules for their employees to follow. They also need to go after those that break the new rules. Turning a blind eye, and assuming it's secure is not good enough anymore. After all they want everyone else to be secure, but at the same time they don't want to set a good example. This is just wrong.
I like the way the Judge is handling this case so far. Dotting all the "i" and crossing all the "t" When the Courts are through with SCO they wont have a leg to stand on. Which is very fitting considering that the SCO must of known all along they did not own the license in the first place. Maybe this lawsuit is all about debunking Linux and less about SCO? After all the SCO will be in someone's history book, even if it will be a very short paragraph. So what better way to be remembered.
Say it isn't so Jim! You don't lay in bed with your rival, you always keep notes on your rival, you never turn your back on your rival. BTW... They teach this in business school.
*Weebit does the happy dance!*
the perfect Crystals. Where are the pics?
Danger Will Robinson! Danger!
It might not protect our privacy down the road. But how do they plan to protect the public from corrupted voting booths, and politicians? No paper trial means no proof. So in some ways the Bill would be a blessing. I just hope it doesn't turn into a curse years down the road. Paper trails can be abused too.
They need to work some on blowing up vans though, their producer, sucks. Replace him/her maybe? Their Technical adviser needs to grow up, and then go to school. Fiction maybe? That would explain it.
Linspire is no longer a Linux "Opensource" Product. Shame on them!
Hell no. I don't look forward to OEM, or on-board parts. The serious computer users wont tolerate it.
Quick! everyone test that theory. Best way to find out is to send attachments to Hotmail accounts. In the news... Hotmail was brought to it's knees after several hundred thousand users tested the service to see if their attachments would actually get through. Film at 11. /nutty humor
I suppose this means that net neutrality is a thing of the past?
Yes I spoof my name, but not my number. I do this so I will know if it is a telemarketer or not. They call asking for the spoof, then I know they got the number from my so called friends at BellSouth/AT&T. Even though I am on the No call list I still get them. But the thing is, the telemarketers found a way to spoof too. So when they call, all that shows for the most part is a toll free number, Or just the initials of whom is calling, with a phone number that no one answers if you call them back. Hopefully, and I have no intentions of holding my breath, this will put a end to telemarketers spoofing too. I thought being on the no call list would help but apparently some phone companies hand your info over, and claim you have a relationship with their affiliates, because you are a customer of theirs. Therefore they can call.
Maybe they proved their point about access to the departments data. But they didn't prove to me that they accessed the data in order to commit harm to the business. There is maybe a slight number of ex employees that still have access that you probably need to worry about more. Those will be the ones, that would never admit to being able to access the data.
Cyber-Ark Software has a lot to gain by inflating the risk.
I think this is a conniving scheme by the RIAA. Your forgetting that because it's radio, in the past if a artist came in to a station, and they didn't have the RIAA backing them, then too bad for the RIAA. But if the station is paying for the Artist that is backed by the RIAA then out the window goes the artist that strikes out on their own with no RIAA backing. All the RIAA has to do is set minimums for the stations to play. The Artist that has no RIAA has no backing, their song(s) are not played because the station doesn't have a time slot for the artist. Up till now Radio has started playing these no label, or own their own label artist. This is a clever way for the RIAA to stop them. The other thing this does, is introduce the RIAA to be able to collect royalties from Internet Radio. They only need to insert that clause into the new Radio Station payola. Another way for the RIAA to fool and screw the public.
I don't understand why no one has created new software that a Host can use to scan their customers for the nasty's Like phishing, viruses, worms, Trojans etc. A user has this type software but a Host doesn't?
is if they create a way to verify in the first place. If you have a domain that closely resembles any of the banking institutions, or paypal, etc already on record, then you have to walk the paperwork into the Domain registrar. You just can't be permitted to even create a Domain with any of the Banking institutions Domain names already on record online. Or else it will fail because anyone will still be able to create a domain like citibank.bank.myscam.com Perhaps they need to change where and how a banking institution signs up in the first place? Like the regular everyday domain signs up at the popular places online to get their new domains, but the banking industry, and the ones found to be heavey with phishing attacks like paypal are switched to the new system to verify, and pay for theirs. They simply are not handled online anymore. This will cut back on the amount of phishers too, if the bad guy has to show up with ID, and 50 grand, and fill out paperwork, and show proof they have a valid Banking institutions FDIC paperwork, or what ever is needed in their country.
I also have questions about the Host of such phishing websites, if they allow a person to register a website that is phishing another website, is there any clear way for the Host of such websites to watch their own customers? I believe this should be a joint effort. Not just left up to the domain registrar to deal with.
Yes but your average consumer goes for the major ISP carriers that support broadband. If those ISP's agreed to checking for botnets and blocking them, then your botnets will be forced onto just the dialup accounts. This would help some. It wont clean the Net up, but if a user can't get broadband and they are forced onto dialup they may listen to what their ISP is telling them. Everyone eventually accepts change if the change is for a good reason. Case in point seat belts. No one likes them, but we use them any way in the States.