I'm left with the question of "who the hell finds pleasure from having a dog pee on them during intercourse?" But I think I don't want to know the answer.
I'm pretty sure that a fair number of cancer patients would part with their organs in a second if it meant another thirty to forty years. Living without sex and peeing awkwardly may sound awful, but a slow death isn't so great either.
... that in spite of my interest in cryptology, most of my "knowledge" regarding the NSA stems from Dan Brown. Whose Hollywood-style description of how computers work was pretty painful.
Indeed - most technology exhibits that contain strong magnets have warnings about pacemakers. And a strong electromagnet could be hidden anywhere (didn't this site discuss them in door frames to avoid seizing of harddrive data, in fact?). The wireless networking may seem scary, but unless the range of the receiver is much greater than it needs to be, this doesn't sound like it would make pacemakers much more fragile than they already are.
I guess it's psychological. We humans don't like being reminded of how easily we can be killed, both by accident and by malice - especially when it involves software, which we associate with bugs and BSODs....
Wait, aren't most of the world's missile systems software-guided? Nuclear war: Cancel, Allow?
This is widely known. Reportedly, not only is the deletion button ineffective in actually removing the data from administrative access, but Google uses a custom file system that makes assured wiping kind of tricky thanks to the copious indexing and redundancy.
Yes. As in most email applications, the "read" flag is completely customizable (mark as unread after reading), and in Gmail, so is the behavior on downloading emails via POP (delete, archive, mark read, do nothing).
What goes a lot further for suggesting "incompetence" over malice is that he left his own password in the code.
Hm... it's that old question of seeing someone breaking into the store, and following him inside to stop him. I do hope that the law won't punish this guy for doing the right thing, but this is a faint hope.
Fortunately, he can probably be prosecuted only if the software maker sues him. Considering the image loss the software maker already incurred, they may not want to do this. But common sense is hard to assume in an entity that got caught doing this.
How often do people need to be told this? Giving your password to someone else is a security breach! Even if the application is local, you cannot trust it unless you can see the source to check what connections it makes!
Asking people for their password to various internet services (most often Google, sometimes other social networking sites) in order to "import" address books, calendar data, blogs and other things has become a common occurrence in social web applications. This is a disturbing trend - it's like giving house keys to the garbage guys to save you the trouble of taking out the trash yourself.
It is phishing dressed up as a trustworthy transaction. People rail against MySpace, Facebook and co. all the time for being less than careful with the private data their users provide - but dozens of sites ask you to grant them authorization to impersonate you elsewhere for your convenience, and I've never seen an uproar.
Google and other sites should watch out for such risks and nip them in the bud by blocking the robotic logins from these servers, as well as educating their users about security.
You have demonstrated ignorance of the distinction between an Internet Service Provider and a web hosting service. You are advised to look these up on Wikipedia.
Slashdot took the path of least resistance by backing down, and I don't blame them for it. Slashdot's job is to aggregate, summarize and discuss technology news, and they didn't have the resources to stand up against a powerful censorship organization.
Wikileaks, on the other hand, has made it its business to do exactly that. This is their test of fire.
There's some irony in that. DRM seems to make these ebooks obsolete before they even become properly mainstream - after all, the main advantage of switching from paper to digital is the fact that the content is in an easily accessible form for quoting, searching, even editing...
Banners are identifiable as advertising. Google Ads can be related to the article in question without influencing the article.
Wikipedia's external links are carefully policed and moderated to ensure that they are of the highest quality. If companies can pay bribes to overthrow this, Wikipedia is not merely defacing itself with ads, it is actually destroying its value as a source of trustworthy information. If it comes to it, I can live with a Google Ad. Sneaky advertising inside article content is extremely unacceptable. The next step is accepting money from corporations to keep their entries positive.
I regularly donate to the Wikimedia Foundation. Like many others I will stop doing so if Wikipedia sells advertising, and on top of that the advertisements will not be displayed on most people's browsers, including mine. I know it is extremely tempting, but until it becomes a choice between closing and selling, please do not sell.
you can use them in low light situations, but they aren't as durable and they require batteries
I thought an ebook was simply a txt or pdf file, and an example for an "ebook reader" is less or Acrobat? What format do the files for these hardware gadgets have, and can they be read on a normal PC without buying expensive electronic toys and supplying them with batteries?
takes a look at the '2007 Best American Science and Nature Writing' and doesn't like what he finds in an article called Bad Science Journalism and the Myth of the Oppressed Underdog.
He didn't like what he found in the article, or he wrote this article to express his dislike for what he found? TFA and some common sense make it the latter, of course, but that sentence could be clearer.
Slashdot Mirror
They can put a mouse on Alpha Centauri, but they can't [...]
Let's see how many millions of search warrants they can process...
(I'm SO NOT volunteering though.)
Which should completely eliminate the tired old "not enough space to explain it here" excuse. :P
I'm left with the question of "who the hell finds pleasure from having a dog pee on them during intercourse?" But I think I don't want to know the answer.
I'm pretty sure that a fair number of cancer patients would part with their organs in a second if it meant another thirty to forty years. Living without sex and peeing awkwardly may sound awful, but a slow death isn't so great either.
The journals have prestige value. Getting your name into Nature or Lancet is a holy grail for most scientists.
Starting your own is about as cool as starting a new Nobel Prize foundation - just not the same.
... that in spite of my interest in cryptology, most of my "knowledge" regarding the NSA stems from Dan Brown. Whose Hollywood-style description of how computers work was pretty painful.
Lawyers with frickin' lasers attached to their heads?
That would be very scary.
Indeed - most technology exhibits that contain strong magnets have warnings about pacemakers. And a strong electromagnet could be hidden anywhere (didn't this site discuss them in door frames to avoid seizing of harddrive data, in fact?). The wireless networking may seem scary, but unless the range of the receiver is much greater than it needs to be, this doesn't sound like it would make pacemakers much more fragile than they already are.
...
I guess it's psychological. We humans don't like being reminded of how easily we can be killed, both by accident and by malice - especially when it involves software, which we associate with bugs and BSODs.
Wait, aren't most of the world's missile systems software-guided? Nuclear war: Cancel, Allow?
No you're not. "Anthem" popped into my mind immediately! =)
It's okay, I went through both of your inboxes and cleared out the spam. Glad to have been of assistance! =P
This is widely known. Reportedly, not only is the deletion button ineffective in actually removing the data from administrative access, but Google uses a custom file system that makes assured wiping kind of tricky thanks to the copious indexing and redundancy.
Yes. As in most email applications, the "read" flag is completely customizable (mark as unread after reading), and in Gmail, so is the behavior on downloading emails via POP (delete, archive, mark read, do nothing).
What goes a lot further for suggesting "incompetence" over malice is that he left his own password in the code.
Hm... it's that old question of seeing someone breaking into the store, and following him inside to stop him. I do hope that the law won't punish this guy for doing the right thing, but this is a faint hope.
Fortunately, he can probably be prosecuted only if the software maker sues him. Considering the image loss the software maker already incurred, they may not want to do this. But common sense is hard to assume in an entity that got caught doing this.
Surely not intentionally! Though he might have backed up the data accidentally, for debug purposes...
How often do people need to be told this? Giving your password to someone else is a security breach! Even if the application is local, you cannot trust it unless you can see the source to check what connections it makes!
Asking people for their password to various internet services (most often Google, sometimes other social networking sites) in order to "import" address books, calendar data, blogs and other things has become a common occurrence in social web applications. This is a disturbing trend - it's like giving house keys to the garbage guys to save you the trouble of taking out the trash yourself.
It is phishing dressed up as a trustworthy transaction. People rail against MySpace, Facebook and co. all the time for being less than careful with the private data their users provide - but dozens of sites ask you to grant them authorization to impersonate you elsewhere for your convenience, and I've never seen an uproar.
Google and other sites should watch out for such risks and nip them in the bud by blocking the robotic logins from these servers, as well as educating their users about security.
You have demonstrated ignorance of the distinction between an Internet Service Provider and a web hosting service. You are advised to look these up on Wikipedia.
Slashdot took the path of least resistance by backing down, and I don't blame them for it. Slashdot's job is to aggregate, summarize and discuss technology news, and they didn't have the resources to stand up against a powerful censorship organization.
Wikileaks, on the other hand, has made it its business to do exactly that. This is their test of fire.
There's some irony in that. DRM seems to make these ebooks obsolete before they even become properly mainstream - after all, the main advantage of switching from paper to digital is the fact that the content is in an easily accessible form for quoting, searching, even editing...
That is even worse.
Banners are identifiable as advertising. Google Ads can be related to the article in question without influencing the article.
Wikipedia's external links are carefully policed and moderated to ensure that they are of the highest quality. If companies can pay bribes to overthrow this, Wikipedia is not merely defacing itself with ads, it is actually destroying its value as a source of trustworthy information. If it comes to it, I can live with a Google Ad. Sneaky advertising inside article content is extremely unacceptable. The next step is accepting money from corporations to keep their entries positive.
I regularly donate to the Wikimedia Foundation. Like many others I will stop doing so if Wikipedia sells advertising, and on top of that the advertisements will not be displayed on most people's browsers, including mine. I know it is extremely tempting, but until it becomes a choice between closing and selling, please do not sell.
I thought an ebook was simply a txt or pdf file, and an example for an "ebook reader" is less or Acrobat? What format do the files for these hardware gadgets have, and can they be read on a normal PC without buying expensive electronic toys and supplying them with batteries?
And most banknotes have traces of cocaine on them. Is this a real medical issue or only something to scare the homeopaths with?
He didn't like what he found in the article, or he wrote this article to express his dislike for what he found? TFA and some common sense make it the latter, of course, but that sentence could be clearer.
Have these people learned nothing from past mistakes?