It's a reaction to the suits. Whether or not it's a reasonable reaction, doesn't really matter. Who cares about that. The point is that the producers pursued unpopular actions and the word of mouth that had been built was destroyed. Oops.
Seems more like something that would be used by investigators, employers, jealous partners, and their like. As TFA says, "The downside for the malware creators is that they would need a lot of time on their hands to go through hours of Skype audio files to find anything of monetary interest." The idea is so obvious that this is likely why we haven't seen this before.
The dorm room search stemmed from an investigation into who sent an email to a Boston College mailing list alleging that another student was gay. Police say they know who sent the email and that the sender committed the crimes of "obtaining computer services by fraud or misrepresentation" and obtaining "unauthorized access to a computer system." However, nothing presented by the investigating officer to obtain the warrant, including the allegation that the student sent the email to the mailing list, could constitute the cited criminal offenses.
First of all, I think outing someone is an abhorrent thing to do. It can psychologically destroy someone, and I'm all for punishing the outer. However, this is one of two things (provided Boston College doesn't handle this internally): a) libel or b) a civil suit for emotional damage. So what I'm missing is, how does one jump from a posting to a public mailing list to unauthorized access and computer fraud? And why would Boston College pursue legal recourse first instead of sanctioning him as a student?
Instead of using a plethora of different URL shortening services, any of which might disappear at some point in the future, Twitter should implement its own URL shortening service (using, say, the domain http://tw.it/ or similar) and thereby shorten any URL's that Twitter users post. Assuming the Twitter team can manage this (given their track record with things like message queues, however...) then there would be no possibility of linkrot.
Unless you're using shortened URL's somewhere besides Twitter, of course. But why on Earth would you do that?
HADOPI, the office which is charged with overseeing the three-strikes system, stands for "haute autorité pour la diffusion des oeuvres et la protection des droits sur Internet" which more or less means "high authority for the distribution of [creative] works and the protection of internet rights".
I know that some level of doublespeak is to be expected of politics, but calling a government office whose express purpose is to limit what people can do on the internet the office for protection of internet rights? Damn. Maybe I'm just naïve though.
Linux is the lock on the door, not anti-virus. Running a PC with Vista on it is a bit like having a door without a lock, and a big sign proclaiming the same.
Slashdot Mirror
Does anyone have a link to the download? I absentmindedly installed the new version today, figuring it would have 64bit support. Oops.
It's a reaction to the suits. Whether or not it's a reasonable reaction, doesn't really matter. Who cares about that. The point is that the producers pursued unpopular actions and the word of mouth that had been built was destroyed. Oops.
Man, I wish I had a share ratio of 100:1...
Seems more like something that would be used by investigators, employers, jealous partners, and their like. As TFA says, "The downside for the malware creators is that they would need a lot of time on their hands to go through hours of Skype audio files to find anything of monetary interest." The idea is so obvious that this is likely why we haven't seen this before.
That one cries out for the 'imagine a Beowolf Cluster of those' meme.
I think in this case it would be more of a Grendel cluster.
He might be burned for linuxcraft if they find the dead badger he installed VüDü Linux on.
Jost wondering how the guy would prove the other student really IS gay.
Call current and/or former partners as witnesses?
So.. campus cops can do whatever the hell they want then. Why is there even a story posted here?
Because it wasn't just campus cops involved, it was the Massachusetts State Police who participated in the search.
The dorm room search stemmed from an investigation into who sent an email to a Boston College mailing list alleging that another student was gay. Police say they know who sent the email and that the sender committed the crimes of "obtaining computer services by fraud or misrepresentation" and obtaining "unauthorized access to a computer system." However, nothing presented by the investigating officer to obtain the warrant, including the allegation that the student sent the email to the mailing list, could constitute the cited criminal offenses.
First of all, I think outing someone is an abhorrent thing to do. It can psychologically destroy someone, and I'm all for punishing the outer. However, this is one of two things (provided Boston College doesn't handle this internally): a) libel or b) a civil suit for emotional damage. So what I'm missing is, how does one jump from a posting to a public mailing list to unauthorized access and computer fraud? And why would Boston College pursue legal recourse first instead of sanctioning him as a student?
Instead of using a plethora of different URL shortening services, any of which might disappear at some point in the future, Twitter should implement its own URL shortening service (using, say, the domain http://tw.it/ or similar) and thereby shorten any URL's that Twitter users post. Assuming the Twitter team can manage this (given their track record with things like message queues, however...) then there would be no possibility of linkrot.
Unless you're using shortened URL's somewhere besides Twitter, of course. But why on Earth would you do that?
This is why rel="cute" should be introduced. Then we will be able to avoid the so-called "cute linkrot" which, despite its name, will be ugly.
No, it's closer to "protection of rights on the Internet" - the copyrights.
Fair enough. I was a bit cavalier with my translation.
HADOPI, the office which is charged with overseeing the three-strikes system, stands for "haute autorité pour la diffusion des oeuvres et la protection des droits sur Internet" which more or less means "high authority for the distribution of [creative] works and the protection of internet rights".
I know that some level of doublespeak is to be expected of politics, but calling a government office whose express purpose is to limit what people can do on the internet the office for protection of internet rights? Damn. Maybe I'm just naïve though.
Linux is the lock on the door, not anti-virus. Running a PC with Vista on it is a bit like having a door without a lock, and a big sign proclaiming the same.