Or like in my city, Minneapolis, where they installed the cameras, issued tickets, and then were told that they were unconstitutional because they assumed the guilt of the car owner with zero proof they were driving at the time. What an excellent use of my tax dollars!
Yes, that formula works IF they are monitoring realtime, which I am guessing they are not. As far as the other issues, it wouldn't matter if Trapster doesn't divulge information to law enforcement (and why would they?). And no, I don't work for Trapster - I probably only drive a couple times a year. i walk, bus, bike or carpool generally.
All that would show is that they called in tips, not that they are exceeding the speed limit. You don't even need to drive to report tips. As far as I know, Trapster has no way of determining how fast you drive. The only thing that does are radar guns. So your past record could probably be used, but anything from that database would be irrelevant.
"Or, it's just a useful target anyway to document and prosecute speeders. Most subscribers will no doubt be speeders, so as the police state becomes stronger, look for your now well-documented past to come back to haunt you."
Yes because we all know it is legal for police to hand out tickets to people that are "known speeders", even if they are obeying the speed limit at the time.
"No thanks. I'll just keep my radar detector."
You know the police have "radar detector detectors", right? And by your logic since only speeders would have these devices, police should be able to ticket you just for having a radar detector. Neat, huh?
Is it really so shocking that a country with approximately 50% of the GNP than the US would offer services at a lower price? And is speed of internet providers really the only thing that turns you off to the US so much, or is there possibly more to the story? If that is all it takes, you may want to rethink some of your global views...
The Speakeasy speed test numbers can be fudged by Comcasts "Speedboost" technology. Downloading really large files and taking an average over a period of time is the only real accurate way to know what kind of sustained speeds you are getting. Peak speeds are not a good indication.
Bingo. It is either Qwest DSL (slow but not throttled), or the citywide Wi-Fi, which I haven't heard glowing things about. I certainly wish Verizon would wire up the Twin Cities with FIOS. Anything to dump Comcast without suffering a big speed loss would be great.
"DJs" spin records (or CDs) - hence the name "disc jockeys". Playing tracks off a hard drive (or a MP3 player) is not "DJing". Any iPod can be set to random shuffle. Does that make the iPod a "DJ"? I would also imagine it is a little harder to know the DJ has a license to play the tracks off a hard drive. It is a little easier to verify when the DJ has actual records or CDs.
No. Parent claimed people would try for the Macbook Air because it was the machine most people wanted. i was saying people would go for the $10,000 regardless of the machine they had to crack to get it. My literacy is not in question, but your comprehension may be.
If I were a Scientologist (I most certainly am not), I would accuse you of deliberately trying to spread false information about their glorious leader. But since I am not, I believe you were simply mistaken.
Lafayette Ronald Hubbard (March 13, 1911 - January 24, 1986)
Not sure about you, but I am pretty impressed that this guy was writing bad sci-fi years before he was born...
"Who is to say that someone else would not have found a Vista exploit that way, in much less time than Charlie Miller did?"
Well, offhand I could think of 20,000 reasons. (Or 10,000 reasons on day 2 or 5,000 reasons on day 3)
"A: He was smart enough to wait until he could win money to let it loose."
And this was impossible to do on the Vista and Ubuntu systems why exactly?
If you would prefer a MacBook Air over the $10,000 prize, you truly are a Mac Fanboi to the highest extreme. Besides, almost $2000 for a laptop with no optical drive, and almost no ports? No thanks. Sure it's small and looks nice, but is that it? I'll take the regular Macbook for $600 less- you know the one that comes with an optical drive and USB, firewire, and ethernet ports. Yeah I know, it is almost an inch thicker and weighs a pound more. Big deal. I honestly can't see why people have such a boner over the Air.
"I have no idea why some of my boxes fall prey to security holes, so I am just going to blindly assume that X operating system is more secure than Y operating system."
There is no such thing as a "secure OS". Security is a process that is ongoing and the principles of securing a system apply to ALL operating systems. If you want a real explanation as to why your Windows machines are attacked more often than your Macs or Linux machines, try the concept of "marketshare" out. Remember a few years ago when Mac only owned a percent or two of the desktop marketshare, and there were almost no exploits being written for them? Now fast forward to triple that market share and suddenly we are seeing Mac exploits. If you think this is merely a coincidence, you need to re-think your entire security strategy. Macs aren't magical, they are just computers. A poorly configured Mac or Linux box is more vulnerable than a properly configured Windows box, and vice-versa.
And to prove that an anecdote is not the best thing to judge by, I have 2 Windows boxes at home that have been connected to the internet continuously for over 3 years. They are running XP and the built-in Windows firewall. Never been compromised, never had a virus or a rootkit. And I do occasionally surf some questionable web sites and such, but have my browsers locked down pretty good as well.
Why not make it easier and just post the administrator password for all to see? Because that is exactly what you are doing creating a shortcut with the admin password in it in clear text.
The "Internet" and "World Wide Web" are not the same thing, and using them interchangeably is incorrect usage. (WWW is just a part of the Internet)
Webopedia
Many people use the terms Internet and World Wide Web (aka. the Web) interchangeably, but in fact the two terms are not synonymous. The Internet and the Web are two separate but related things.
The Internet is a massive network of networks, a networking infrastructure. It connects millions of computers together globally, forming a network in which any computer can communicate with any other computer as long as they are both connected to the Internet. Information that travels over the Internet does so via a variety of languages known as protocols.
The World Wide Web, or simply Web, is a way of accessing information over the medium of the Internet. It is an information-sharing model that is built on top of the Internet. The Web uses the HTTP protocol, only one of the languages spoken over the Internet, to transmit data. Web services, which use HTTP to allow applications to communicate in order to exchange business logic, use the the Web to share information. The Web also utilizes browsers, such as Internet Explorer or Firefox, to access Web documents called Web pages that are linked to each other via hyperlinks. Web documents also contain graphics, sounds, text and video.
The Web is just one of the ways that information can be disseminated over the Internet. The Internet, not the Web, is also used for e-mail, which relies on SMTP, Usenet news groups, instant messaging and FTP. So the Web is just a portion of the Internet, albeit a large portion, but the two terms are not synonymous and should not be confused.
Besides, everybody knows that Al Gore invented the internet...
"BTW, the consumers really don't seem to care that the financial industry has been doing this with their ATM, Debit, Credit, and gift cards for a while now."
I was going to say the same. I know someone who is freaky about personal information issues, then I come to find out he has a couple "rewards" cards from various retailers. When I tried to explain to him that all those cards do is collect information about his habits for retailers, he laughed and called me "paranoid". Yet he searches through his logs religiously to get rid of any "tracking cookies". Hilarious stuff.
It doesn't matter. How many software agreements have you clicked the "I agree" on without reading the entire thing (or any of it at all)? Having a privacy policy that is easy to find on a site is as clearly stated as you are going to get. If people don't care if their information is tracked and how it is used (and that is about 95% of the internet which is why fighting tracking is an uphill battle) it doesn't matter how clearly it is stated. It is just like when they made the warnings on cigarettes bigger. I'm pretty sure that the problem isn't most people don't know cigarettes are harmful to your health, and if only the lettering were bigger they would somehow obtain this knowledge. The fact is that smokers do know cigarettes are bad for you, but don't care and smoke anyways.
Slashdot Mirror
Or like in my city, Minneapolis, where they installed the cameras, issued tickets, and then were told that they were unconstitutional because they assumed the guilt of the car owner with zero proof they were driving at the time. What an excellent use of my tax dollars!
"it's a conspiracy theory, go with it"
Believe me, I am trying, there are just far too many technical flaws for me to buy it completely though.
Yes, that formula works IF they are monitoring realtime, which I am guessing they are not. As far as the other issues, it wouldn't matter if Trapster doesn't divulge information to law enforcement (and why would they?). And no, I don't work for Trapster - I probably only drive a couple times a year. i walk, bus, bike or carpool generally.
All that would show is that they called in tips, not that they are exceeding the speed limit. You don't even need to drive to report tips. As far as I know, Trapster has no way of determining how fast you drive. The only thing that does are radar guns. So your past record could probably be used, but anything from that database would be irrelevant.
"Or, it's just a useful target anyway to document and prosecute speeders. Most subscribers will no doubt be speeders, so as the police state becomes stronger, look for your now well-documented past to come back to haunt you."
Yes because we all know it is legal for police to hand out tickets to people that are "known speeders", even if they are obeying the speed limit at the time.
"No thanks. I'll just keep my radar detector."
You know the police have "radar detector detectors", right? And by your logic since only speeders would have these devices, police should be able to ticket you just for having a radar detector. Neat, huh?
I have heard a few horror stories about COVAD before. Do you know if Frontier or MacLeod is still offering any type of broadband services?
Is it really so shocking that a country with approximately 50% of the GNP than the US would offer services at a lower price? And is speed of internet providers really the only thing that turns you off to the US so much, or is there possibly more to the story? If that is all it takes, you may want to rethink some of your global views...
The Speakeasy speed test numbers can be fudged by Comcasts "Speedboost" technology. Downloading really large files and taking an average over a period of time is the only real accurate way to know what kind of sustained speeds you are getting. Peak speeds are not a good indication.
Bingo. It is either Qwest DSL (slow but not throttled), or the citywide Wi-Fi, which I haven't heard glowing things about. I certainly wish Verizon would wire up the Twin Cities with FIOS. Anything to dump Comcast without suffering a big speed loss would be great.
"DJs" spin records (or CDs) - hence the name "disc jockeys". Playing tracks off a hard drive (or a MP3 player) is not "DJing". Any iPod can be set to random shuffle. Does that make the iPod a "DJ"? I would also imagine it is a little harder to know the DJ has a license to play the tracks off a hard drive. It is a little easier to verify when the DJ has actual records or CDs.
"There are lower-impact sports, such as cycling"
Ah, but the trade-off there is that you have to wear those fruity little pants. No thanks, I'll risk the knee injuries.
"The majority of Windows PCs advertise displaying millions of colors just like Apple does."
If that is truly the case, it should be no problem for you to cite one please?
No. Parent claimed people would try for the Macbook Air because it was the machine most people wanted. i was saying people would go for the $10,000 regardless of the machine they had to crack to get it. My literacy is not in question, but your comprehension may be.
If I were a Scientologist (I most certainly am not), I would accuse you of deliberately trying to spread false information about their glorious leader. But since I am not, I believe you were simply mistaken.
Lafayette Ronald Hubbard (March 13, 1911 - January 24, 1986)
Not sure about you, but I am pretty impressed that this guy was writing bad sci-fi years before he was born...
"Who is to say that someone else would not have found a Vista exploit that way, in much less time than Charlie Miller did?"
Well, offhand I could think of 20,000 reasons. (Or 10,000 reasons on day 2 or 5,000 reasons on day 3)
"A: He was smart enough to wait until he could win money to let it loose."
And this was impossible to do on the Vista and Ubuntu systems why exactly?
If you would prefer a MacBook Air over the $10,000 prize, you truly are a Mac Fanboi to the highest extreme.
Besides, almost $2000 for a laptop with no optical drive, and almost no ports? No thanks. Sure it's small and looks nice, but is that it? I'll take the regular Macbook for $600 less- you know the one that comes with an optical drive and USB, firewire, and ethernet ports. Yeah I know, it is almost an inch thicker and weighs a pound more. Big deal. I honestly can't see why people have such a boner over the Air.
But it was hacked remotely. All it took was a visit to one website, and from that point on it was owned remotely.
I can summarize your post -
"I have no idea why some of my boxes fall prey to security holes, so I am just going to blindly assume that X operating system is more secure than Y operating system."
There is no such thing as a "secure OS". Security is a process that is ongoing and the principles of securing a system apply to ALL operating systems. If you want a real explanation as to why your Windows machines are attacked more often than your Macs or Linux machines, try the concept of "marketshare" out. Remember a few years ago when Mac only owned a percent or two of the desktop marketshare, and there were almost no exploits being written for them? Now fast forward to triple that market share and suddenly we are seeing Mac exploits. If you think this is merely a coincidence, you need to re-think your entire security strategy. Macs aren't magical, they are just computers. A poorly configured Mac or Linux box is more vulnerable than a properly configured Windows box, and vice-versa.
And to prove that an anecdote is not the best thing to judge by, I have 2 Windows boxes at home that have been connected to the internet continuously for over 3 years. They are running XP and the built-in Windows firewall. Never been compromised, never had a virus or a rootkit. And I do occasionally surf some questionable web sites and such, but have my browsers locked down pretty good as well.
"Oh sweet jesus... Apple owners... spinning a truly piss-poor performance into a plus."
You really must be new here. Welcome to Slashdot!!
You know you are on Slashdot, right?
ANY problem can be tied back to Microsoft, no matter what it is.
Cancer? Microsoft
War? Microsoft
Famine? Microsoft
Bryan Adams? Microsoft
Disease? Microsoft
Why not make it easier and just post the administrator password for all to see? Because that is exactly what you are doing creating a shortcut with the admin password in it in clear text.
The "Internet" and "World Wide Web" are not the same thing, and using them interchangeably is incorrect usage. (WWW is just a part of the Internet)
Webopedia
Many people use the terms Internet and World Wide Web (aka. the Web) interchangeably, but in fact the two terms are not synonymous. The Internet and the Web are two separate but related things.
The Internet is a massive network of networks, a networking infrastructure. It connects millions of computers together globally, forming a network in which any computer can communicate with any other computer as long as they are both connected to the Internet. Information that travels over the Internet does so via a variety of languages known as protocols.
The World Wide Web, or simply Web, is a way of accessing information over the medium of the Internet. It is an information-sharing model that is built on top of the Internet. The Web uses the HTTP protocol, only one of the languages spoken over the Internet, to transmit data. Web services, which use HTTP to allow applications to communicate in order to exchange business logic, use the the Web to share information. The Web also utilizes browsers, such as Internet Explorer or Firefox, to access Web documents called Web pages that are linked to each other via hyperlinks. Web documents also contain graphics, sounds, text and video.
The Web is just one of the ways that information can be disseminated over the Internet. The Internet, not the Web, is also used for e-mail, which relies on SMTP, Usenet news groups, instant messaging and FTP. So the Web is just a portion of the Internet, albeit a large portion, but the two terms are not synonymous and should not be confused.
Besides, everybody knows that Al Gore invented the internet...
"BTW, the consumers really don't seem to care that the financial industry has been doing this with their ATM, Debit, Credit, and gift cards for a while now."
I was going to say the same. I know someone who is freaky about personal information issues, then I come to find out he has a couple "rewards" cards from various retailers. When I tried to explain to him that all those cards do is collect information about his habits for retailers, he laughed and called me "paranoid". Yet he searches through his logs religiously to get rid of any "tracking cookies". Hilarious stuff.
It doesn't matter. How many software agreements have you clicked the "I agree" on without reading the entire thing (or any of it at all)? Having a privacy policy that is easy to find on a site is as clearly stated as you are going to get. If people don't care if their information is tracked and how it is used (and that is about 95% of the internet which is why fighting tracking is an uphill battle) it doesn't matter how clearly it is stated. It is just like when they made the warnings on cigarettes bigger. I'm pretty sure that the problem isn't most people don't know cigarettes are harmful to your health, and if only the lettering were bigger they would somehow obtain this knowledge. The fact is that smokers do know cigarettes are bad for you, but don't care and smoke anyways.