"If you're going to be That Way about it, I'll use stronger lasers, next time!"
Or perhaps...
"A cutting laser, Igor? I vow I'll make you pay for this, if it's the last thing I do!"
Yes, go ahead and use a laser for your ceremony. It'll make for a brief, but shining moment in the life of your bride, one she'll remember for the rest of her life.
It's a military problem right up until it becomes a legal problem. Or vice versa. If you do something and, say, it causes the neighboring government to declare war on you, you've got a military problem out of a legal one.
Or if you kill a bunch of pirates and the company that owns the "freed" boat sues you because the crew died and the ship sank, you've got a legal problem out of a military one.
The only thing you can do that doesn't have consequences it... Hmm.... I'm drawing a blank here. If you fail to consider the consequences, you're liable to repeat past mistakes.
People were told to leave about 72 hours prior to landfall, resulting in an enormous traffic jam as the city came to a standstill. Had Rita stayed on course to hit Houston, the dangers of the evacuation would have been considered worth it - but since she didn't, a lot of people started pointing fingers of blame at the officials for not having a perfectly conceived plan to evacuate over 3 million people.
So... did they just "accept the blame and move on", or did they put their backs into studying the events of the evacuation, and revise their emergency plans so as to break the jams? Perhaps even write a paper about "Practical city evacuation, or how not to turn 2,000 miles of city roadways into parking lots, a case study"?
If the politicians failed to spin the "unnecessary evacuation" into a "yeah, you were inconvenienced, but we didn't have people dying in droves, and look how much more we know now!" then they missed a golden opportunity.
The "Arab Spring" is asking dictators to step down in favor of publicly accountable democracy. So if the leader of our country is alreadypublicly accountable even if not always elected, what are we going to do? Revolt in favor of a dictator?
> Anonymous... has not brought to light anything I'm aware of....
Perhaps you've not been reading the news, then. Or perhaps you've forgotten HBGary (Wikileaks published it, but Anonymous provided it) despite it being referred to in TFA.
Or perhaps you're blinded by having read tentacle porn....
> Lol, my fault for trusting the bank vault?... the poorly drawn conclusion of trusting bank vaults. I'm sorry, but your argument ultimately slides into absurdity. Most reasonable people would expect their goods to be completely safe in a bank vault. That conclusion isn't flawed.
1) You trust your credit card data with Sony 2) You state that it is inevitable that Sony will suffer a data breach and your data will be exposed
And yet, you state "Once a company has decided to protect my personal property and fails to do so, it's that company's fault." To use your analogy again, if your bank has a history of having its vault robbed, and you decide to trust it anyway, whose fault is that? It doesn't negate their liability, but it doesn't relieve you of responsibility for having trusted foolishly.
> What are you going to do with a Verizon phone and no carrier to put it on?
Since you'd already disagreed with the change in contract and it was part of having started the contract, presumably you could do whatever you wanted with it: Turn it into a tea cosy, an element of a mosaic, a kitty butt-warmer...
It's still a computer, still has a touch screen interface. Just can't connect to the cell phone network, right? So what about simply tethering it to your laptop and downloading stuff from the laptop? To paraphrase George Carlin, "an even SMALLER place for your stuff!"
> Thievery like this isn't random, Quite right. They go where the money can be found.
> If I put valuables in a bank vault and the bank gets broken into I blame the bank, not the thief.
Hmm... By extension, you trusted the bank's security standards before putting your valuables into their vault. Why, then, is it not your fault that the valuables were stolen?
Similarly, you yourself say "it's a statistical inevitability". Again, you've put your valuables (credit card information) in the hands of another. In this case not even with trust in their security, but instead expectation that it would fall into the wrong hands.
> that Sony didn't prepare for... Since it's a statistical inevitability that they'd get hacked, why are you conflating "defensive actions" with "remediation actions"? You say "secure their shit" - but that's a defensive action, not a remediation one. What are your specific complaints about their remediation?
"Anonymous" is a label that some people have applied to themselves. Whether they are a group depends on your definition and expectations of a "group".
Typical expectations are cohesion, common goals and/or opinions, and organization. The group known as anonymous defies most or all of those expectations. Calling Anonymous a group is about as valid as calling the world population of Caucasian males a group. True for some values of "group", not for others.
Yes, Zero-day attacks exist. No, what they fell prey to did not need to be one. Servers that had been unpatched for some number of months, with the resulting window of known vulnerability available.
We can't even say "they didn't plan for this scenario". It's a known unknown. As you say: when, not if. Damage done is a variable unknown until it occurs, and must be assessed. And "run around screaming about the sky falling" is a conceivable, if ineffective, plan.
From the outside looking in, we don't really have a look at Sony's response plan, how well thought out it was or how well carried out it was. I'd say, though, that taking everything that they found compromised offline as soon as they could, and not bringing it back up until it had been patched would be a good one.
I had heard of the apache servers being out of date, with the implication that other parts of their servers were similarly out of date. I had not heard about the middleware. Could you provide a link?
> that would enable us to do all the things we want to do on the web in a way that preserves our privacy.
In that person X wants to track you while preserving his privacy, and you want to "not be tracked" while preserving YOUR privacy, I see a conflict inherent in your statement that can only be resolved by
a) defining a "them" as different from "us" b) limiting "all the things we want to do" or c) redefining "privacy"
Note that (a) fails immediately: if you can distinguish "us" from "them", privacy has not been preserved.
I imagine that in the event that their physical security failed, they would have much more immediate problems to worry about than the contents of their hard disks. Like assault rifles.
Not I didn't say that those statistics are inaccurate. They are often highly accurate. But it is that "highly" that you need to watch carefully, because it often mean "narrow" as well.
My honesty in "cashier error in your favor" most often is a result of empathy. The money I get is worth less than the cashier's troubles from the till not balancing.
But I deal with the same cashiers on a regular basis, so does that count as reputation? Character?
Am I rationalizing my my honesty? Or is my honesty driving a "character and reputation" rationalization instead?
I looked over the Supermileage site, and looked at a number of the supermileage sites of the individual competitors.
The link you provide (of the contest) has a picture of one-man "uglycarts". The various competitor sites I looked at showed fiberglass, streamline-bodied one-man vehicles.
I'm having a bit of trouble reconciling the uglycart image with the streamlined carts. I suspect they are built for different competitions; perhaps ones where speed is not a criteria (and thus, streamlining is not a critical factor).
And a very great deal more trouble finding any competitor in the Supermileage contest that would be considered "street legal". And "street legal" is a major selling point for major car manufacturers.
I appreciate the ingenuity and effort that goes into building extraordinary vehicles. But they remain curiosities if they may only operate in specialized environments.
The patent application is dated 1997. If your work predates that, and you can still find it, you might want to talk to Google. Prior art, if the product was used and the code available.
I was under the impression that an authentic rube goldberg device had to involve at least one live animal in the process. (from the rube goldberg cartoons)
Slashdot Mirror
"If you're going to be That Way about it, I'll use stronger lasers, next time!"
Or perhaps...
"A cutting laser, Igor? I vow I'll make you pay for this, if it's the last thing I do!"
Yes, go ahead and use a laser for your ceremony. It'll make for a brief, but shining moment in the life of your bride, one she'll remember for the rest of her life.
So someone else is a beginner, and I am an Ender?
It's a military problem right up until it becomes a legal problem. Or vice versa. If you do something and, say, it causes the neighboring government to declare war on you, you've got a military problem out of a legal one.
Or if you kill a bunch of pirates and the company that owns the "freed" boat sues you because the crew died and the ship sank, you've got a legal problem out of a military one.
The only thing you can do that doesn't have consequences it ... Hmm.... I'm drawing a blank here. If you fail to consider the consequences, you're liable to repeat past mistakes.
Not necessarily rep grinding, but gold grinding. Ask:
"Is it more profitable than piracy?"
People were told to leave about 72 hours prior to landfall, resulting in an enormous traffic jam as the city came to a standstill. Had Rita stayed on course to hit Houston, the dangers of the evacuation would have been considered worth it - but since she didn't, a lot of people started pointing fingers of blame at the officials for not having a perfectly conceived plan to evacuate over 3 million people.
So... did they just "accept the blame and move on", or did they put their backs into studying the events of the evacuation, and revise their emergency plans so as to break the jams? Perhaps even write a paper about "Practical city evacuation, or how not to turn 2,000 miles of city roadways into parking lots, a case study"?
If the politicians failed to spin the "unnecessary evacuation" into a "yeah, you were inconvenienced, but we didn't have people dying in droves, and look how much more we know now!" then they missed a golden opportunity.
Good to know that I'm still an outlier, then. ... didn't think I'd be unimaginably so, though.
> Find a crap library with many leaks. ... are they advertised?
Or do I need to start with the "a"s and work my way down? That's a helluva way to go looking for bugs.
The "Arab Spring" is asking dictators to step down in favor of publicly accountable democracy. So if the leader of our country is already publicly accountable even if not always elected, what are we going to do? Revolt in favor of a dictator?
> Anonymous ... has not brought to light anything I'm aware of ....
Perhaps you've not been reading the news, then. Or perhaps you've forgotten HBGary (Wikileaks published it, but Anonymous provided it) despite it being referred to in TFA.
Or perhaps you're blinded by having read tentacle porn....
> Lol, my fault for trusting the bank vault? ... the poorly drawn conclusion of trusting bank vaults. I'm sorry, but your argument ultimately slides into absurdity. Most reasonable people would expect their goods to be completely safe in a bank vault. That conclusion isn't flawed.
1) You trust your credit card data with Sony
2) You state that it is inevitable that Sony will suffer a data breach and your data will be exposed
And yet, you state "Once a company has decided to protect my personal property and fails to do so, it's that company's fault." To use your analogy again, if your bank has a history of having its vault robbed, and you decide to trust it anyway, whose fault is that? It doesn't negate their liability, but it doesn't relieve you of responsibility for having trusted foolishly.
> What are you going to do with a Verizon phone and no carrier to put it on?
Since you'd already disagreed with the change in contract and it was part of having started the contract, presumably you could do whatever you wanted with it: Turn it into a tea cosy, an element of a mosaic, a kitty butt-warmer...
It's still a computer, still has a touch screen interface. Just can't connect to the cell phone network, right? So what about simply tethering it to your laptop and downloading stuff from the laptop? To paraphrase George Carlin, "an even SMALLER place for your stuff!"
> It is entirely Sony's responsibility.
Fixed that for you.
> Thievery like this isn't random,
Quite right. They go where the money can be found.
> If I put valuables in a bank vault and the bank gets broken into I blame the bank, not the thief.
Hmm... By extension, you trusted the bank's security standards before putting your valuables into their vault. Why, then, is it not your fault that the valuables were stolen?
Similarly, you yourself say "it's a statistical inevitability". Again, you've put your valuables (credit card information) in the hands of another. In this case not even with trust in their security, but instead expectation that it would fall into the wrong hands.
> that Sony didn't prepare for...
Since it's a statistical inevitability that they'd get hacked, why are you conflating "defensive actions" with "remediation actions"? You say "secure their shit" - but that's a defensive action, not a remediation one. What are your specific complaints about their remediation?
"Anonymous" is a label that some people have applied to themselves. Whether they are a group depends on your definition and expectations of a "group".
Typical expectations are cohesion, common goals and/or opinions, and organization. The group known as anonymous defies most or all of those expectations. Calling Anonymous a group is about as valid as calling the world population of Caucasian males a group. True for some values of "group", not for others.
> but at least be original and don't ...
We live in the internet age. You present a high bar.
When I can google the term "Faux news" and the second link is the news network being lampooned, I don't find it so far off the mark.
Be irritated by the wordplay all you like. But see how apropos the rest of us find it, first.
And Pizza Hut stock takes off!
Yes and no.
Yes, Zero-day attacks exist.
No, what they fell prey to did not need to be one. Servers that had been unpatched for some number of months, with the resulting window of known vulnerability available.
We can't even say "they didn't plan for this scenario". It's a known unknown. As you say: when, not if. Damage done is a variable unknown until it occurs, and must be assessed. And "run around screaming about the sky falling" is a conceivable, if ineffective, plan.
From the outside looking in, we don't really have a look at Sony's response plan, how well thought out it was or how well carried out it was. I'd say, though, that taking everything that they found compromised offline as soon as they could, and not bringing it back up until it had been patched would be a good one.
I had heard of the apache servers being out of date, with the implication that other parts of their servers were similarly out of date. I had not heard about the middleware. Could you provide a link?
> that would enable us to do all the things we want to do on the web in a way that preserves our privacy.
In that person X wants to track you while preserving his privacy, and you want to "not be tracked" while preserving YOUR privacy, I see a conflict inherent in your statement that can only be resolved by
a) defining a "them" as different from "us"
b) limiting "all the things we want to do"
or c) redefining "privacy"
Note that (a) fails immediately: if you can distinguish "us" from "them", privacy has not been preserved.
NOT implementing (b) has negative social results.
That doesn't leave a lot left, to be honest.
I imagine that in the event that their physical security failed, they would have much more immediate problems to worry about than the contents of their hard disks. Like assault rifles.
100% of statistics lie. You provide a statistic.
Not I didn't say that those statistics are inaccurate. They are often highly accurate. But it is that "highly" that you need to watch carefully, because it often mean "narrow" as well.
It also doesn't say anything about trust funds.
As for pulled out of one's ass? The source of the chart in the document is Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center Microsimulation Model.
Which is to say, they pulled the numbers out of a mathematician's ass.
My honesty in "cashier error in your favor" most often is a result of empathy. The money I get is worth less than the cashier's troubles from the till not balancing.
But I deal with the same cashiers on a regular basis, so does that count as reputation? Character?
Am I rationalizing my my honesty? Or is my honesty driving a "character and reputation" rationalization instead?
I looked over the Supermileage site, and looked at a number of the supermileage sites of the individual competitors.
The link you provide (of the contest) has a picture of one-man "uglycarts". The various competitor sites I looked at showed fiberglass, streamline-bodied one-man vehicles.
I'm having a bit of trouble reconciling the uglycart image with the streamlined carts. I suspect they are built for different competitions; perhaps ones where speed is not a criteria (and thus, streamlining is not a critical factor).
And a very great deal more trouble finding any competitor in the Supermileage contest that would be considered "street legal". And "street legal" is a major selling point for major car manufacturers.
I appreciate the ingenuity and effort that goes into building extraordinary vehicles. But they remain curiosities if they may only operate in specialized environments.
That only works if you fill the mouth with salt and sew the lips shut.
Or is that zombies? Well, we can always try it and find out.
The patent application is dated 1997. If your work predates that, and you can still find it, you might want to talk to Google. Prior art, if the product was used and the code available.
I was under the impression that an authentic rube goldberg device had to involve at least one live animal in the process. (from the rube goldberg cartoons)
No such requirement seems evident in the contest.