Your name is public information. Your SSN is intended not to be, but given the number of people/places that require it, it's out there, associated with your name.
The association between you and your Blizzard account (and what that account is, which characters are yours, etc) is not public information by default. Blizzard was intending to make it become so. You might do better to have researched the debate first.
> It isn't the wild west any more, and Blizzard is reflecting that.
Not everyone has surrendered all their privacy to Facebook yet. There are still a few of us wildcats out there...
The first states that the accused ran their tool June 5 to June 9th, and released on July 10th. The second states that AT&T fixed the hole on June 8 and told affected users about the breach on June 9th.
I see reports that this information was on Gawker on the 9th, not the 10th.
I see reports from June 14 that AT&T sent messages claiming to have learned of the fault June 7th. This seems likely to have been because Auernheimer and Co. tipped them off through a third party, and waited for AT&T to close the hole. This also explains the claim "we never heard from (these people)", as well as the hole being closed before the news went public.
The system is already compromised. Mission-critical, or "someone could die"-critical, it makes no difference. Once compromised, you have no guarantee that it will remain stable, or prevent that death. There's a reason that some systems (medical, avionics, etc) require government approval for use, and incredible scrutiny for approval, and often have limited-or-no network access.
White-walling a facebook account: deactivate the account upon exiting facebook. "This action will clean the account of all postings and only allow posting on your wall when you activate the account once again." from here
That TM had to be installed by hand vs Norton being pushed out over the network is a corporate selling point for Norton. (Similarly, Norton's utility in correcting the problems on your network.) However, we need a bigger test suite to compare their effectiveness.
I can't, just on your anecdote, usefully judge TM's AV utility on a single system. Failure to clear one worm does not mean that TM is complete crap (as AV software). Failure to clear many things it is designed to detect, in the face of success against the same by competitors is. Show me such a study comparing detection/correction abilities and utility, and I'd be happy to throw in with you.
Sony asked for an ex parte decision on the part of the court, and got one. That is, they asked for the restraining order without giving Geohot a chance to respond, claiming irrepairable harm. This is often done in cases where secrets (ie "trade secrets") are involved, or when the target of the injunction could damage the assets while the court mulls the issue over.
In the internet age, secrets are the first against the wall. Even so, the defense "money cures all harm" doesn't correct "continued damages". Aye, "the damage has already been done", but it's still *being* done, by their lights.
I don't agree that their asking for an injunction will help Sony, but absent that they don't have a lot of recourse other than smiling sheepishly and saying, "we lose".
> The leak was performed by a single man. A private in the Army who is currently being tried in a military court for leaking the documents where he will likely be found guilty...
He may have committed the act. He may not have committed the act. The court could find him guilty. Or innocent.
These two statements are independent of each other, though one hopes the evidence before the court is accurate and compelling.
The government needs to hang someone for the leak, and they have a suspect. The temptation to hang the one they have versus find another culprit is strong.
Stating authoritatively that he did so either presumes you have direct information the court would be interested in, or that you are presuming the accused guilty in absence of the facts.
> Under all circumstances, you can NOT relicense ANY copyrighted software that you do not yourself own. Ever.
Wrong. You can do so IFF the holder(s) of the copyright gives you explicit permission to do so. Such permission is assumed if you are the holder of the copyright, but not otherwise. Even so, this does not change the *copyright* status. Licenses are not copyrights.
"Implicit permission" to do so is, as you point out, copyright violation enforceable at the copyright holder's whim.
A company should not be forced to support hundreds of workers it doesn't need
Why not? If a company is going to profit from operating within a society, why shouldn't it be expected to support that society?
You apparently believe that absent "unnecessary workers", the company will generate more profit. That is, "if we force X more workers on the company, it'll soak up those profits and put them in our pocket".
The reality is that the company can react in three ways to increased efficiency of its workers: a) retain the benefits as profit b) decrease the costs of the product (or service) c) increase the wages of the employees
The option generally taken is B, due to competition. If The Other Company reduces the price of their nearly equivalent product, This Company will suffer reduced demand (= reduced profit) if they don't match it.
Alternately, if the way to compete is through out innovating The Other Company, This Company needs to offer better incentives to its employees to attract and retain them. Higher wages, in other words.
So, what happens when you force a company to hire more workers than it needs? Wages go down. If they can't go down (unions, regulation), price of the company's product goes up. Profit margin shrinks, but not as much.
I'm not pro-union. I'm not anti-union. I'm just saying that it ain't a free ride. There are consequences to your choices, and you may not like all of them. And that's "why not".
The minimum cost of prosecuting (or perhaps, defending) a civil action may well determine a payout denial threshold. If it costs too much to prosecute, why pay the sucker? Claim it was a malfunction, get the gaming board to agree.
As Arthur Anderson found out, it's not just destroying evidence currently being sought that is illegal, but destroying evidence you (should) have reason to believe will be sought.
The Wikipedia page notes that the Arthur Anderson conviction was overturned (supreme court) on flaws in the jury instructions. It also notes that there are over 100 outstanding civil suits against the company, and that it is pretty much "still dead".
The jury was deliberating on two charges, found the defendant guilty of one, acquitted of the other.
What I find interesting is that the judge ruled it a mistrial, but only the guilty charge is being retried because of the acquittal. Retrying the acquittal might invoke double jeopardy... or might require the judge prove the acquittal illegitimate.
Which begs the question of how one jury ruling can be illegitimate and the other legitimate, eh?
True what you say. But I think you missed a stitch somewhere...
While it may be true that a nuclear weapon would be more safely detonated by a controlled explosion, you won't find an 8 inch toy holding a nuclear explosive. Atomic hand grenades are also on the Hollywood Technical Fail list.
As for "explosive setting off explosive", I feel fairly confident that a high explosive would reasonably be expected to set off another high explosive.
However, I am not sure about whether high explosives would set off low explosives. Will the shockwave of the high explosive (what defines a high explosive, after all) cause the low explosive (very rapid burning explosive) to ignite, or would it merely disperse it?
Slashdot Mirror
>sure, but if lying to get laid is a crime, you might as well lock up every male on the planet..
Naw. Plenty of people here on Slashdot in no such danger. Besides, breaking the locks on so many basements...
Interesting you should say that NTLM got shoehorned into Firefox. The Wikipedia page says "Microsoft no longer recommends using NTLM in applications".
So... I guess you're having to work with legacy apps that do use NTLM?
Or did Microsoft simply raise the bar once Firefox got that capability?
Your name is public information. Your SSN is intended not to be, but given the number of people/places that require it, it's out there, associated with your name.
The association between you and your Blizzard account (and what that account is, which characters are yours, etc) is not public information by default. Blizzard was intending to make it become so. You might do better to have researched the debate first.
> It isn't the wild west any more, and Blizzard is reflecting that.
Not everyone has surrendered all their privacy to Facebook yet. There are still a few of us wildcats out there...
Two articles this and one refered to by the first state "facts" that are in opposition.
The first states that the accused ran their tool June 5 to June 9th, and released on July 10th.
The second states that AT&T fixed the hole on June 8 and told affected users about the breach on June 9th.
I see reports that this information was on Gawker on the 9th, not the 10th.
I see reports from June 14 that AT&T sent messages claiming to have learned of the fault June 7th. This seems likely to have been because Auernheimer and Co. tipped them off through a third party, and waited for AT&T to close the hole. This also explains the claim "we never heard from (these people)", as well as the hole being closed before the news went public.
> you risk disabling a critical system.
The system is already compromised. Mission-critical, or "someone could die"-critical, it makes no difference. Once compromised, you have no guarantee that it will remain stable, or prevent that death. There's a reason that some systems (medical, avionics, etc) require government approval for use, and incredible scrutiny for approval, and often have limited-or-no network access.
White-walling a facebook account: deactivate the account upon exiting facebook. "This action will clean the account of all postings and only allow posting on your wall when you activate the account once again." from here
That TM had to be installed by hand vs Norton being pushed out over the network is a corporate selling point for Norton. (Similarly, Norton's utility in correcting the problems on your network.) However, we need a bigger test suite to compare their effectiveness.
I can't, just on your anecdote, usefully judge TM's AV utility on a single system. Failure to clear one worm does not mean that TM is complete crap (as AV software). Failure to clear many things it is designed to detect, in the face of success against the same by competitors is. Show me such a study comparing detection/correction abilities and utility, and I'd be happy to throw in with you.
> The USBOP is obviously making an example out of this guy, and I can totally understand why.
In what way is "making an example" out of someone consistent with the concept of fair and equitable justice?
The word 'warrant' does not appear in the article. We have no confirmation either way.
Sony asked for an ex parte decision on the part of the court, and got one. That is, they asked for the restraining order without giving Geohot a chance to respond, claiming irrepairable harm. This is often done in cases where secrets (ie "trade secrets") are involved, or when the target of the injunction could damage the assets while the court mulls the issue over.
In the internet age, secrets are the first against the wall. Even so, the defense "money cures all harm" doesn't correct "continued damages". Aye, "the damage has already been done", but it's still *being* done, by their lights.
I don't agree that their asking for an injunction will help Sony, but absent that they don't have a lot of recourse other than smiling sheepishly and saying, "we lose".
I believe you are comparing a case in Canadian court to US law. It doesn't work that way.
> The leak was performed by a single man. A private in the Army who is currently being tried in a military court for leaking the documents where he will likely be found guilty...
He may have committed the act. He may not have committed the act.
The court could find him guilty. Or innocent.
These two statements are independent of each other, though one hopes the evidence before the court is accurate and compelling.
The government needs to hang someone for the leak, and they have a suspect. The temptation to hang the one they have versus find another culprit is strong.
Stating authoritatively that he did so either presumes you have direct information the court would be interested in, or that you are presuming the accused guilty in absence of the facts.
Ah, but YOUR version of world peace is not freely distributable!
Culture meat? Why develop a growth and development system when you've already got a self-contained growth and development system built-in?
During processing, you remove the control and support systems, which are fully biodegradable, by the way.
It's all in the way you look at it.
> Under all circumstances, you can NOT relicense ANY copyrighted software that you do not yourself own. Ever.
Wrong. You can do so IFF the holder(s) of the copyright gives you explicit permission to do so. Such permission is assumed if you are the holder of the copyright, but not otherwise. Even so, this does not change the *copyright* status. Licenses are not copyrights.
"Implicit permission" to do so is, as you point out, copyright violation enforceable at the copyright holder's whim.
A company should not be forced to support hundreds of workers it doesn't need
Why not? If a company is going to profit from operating within a society, why shouldn't it be expected to support that society?
You apparently believe that absent "unnecessary workers", the company will generate more profit. That is, "if we force X more workers on the company, it'll soak up those profits and put them in our pocket".
The reality is that the company can react in three ways to increased efficiency of its workers:
a) retain the benefits as profit
b) decrease the costs of the product (or service)
c) increase the wages of the employees
The option generally taken is B, due to competition. If The Other Company reduces the price of their nearly equivalent product, This Company will suffer reduced demand (= reduced profit) if they don't match it.
Alternately, if the way to compete is through out innovating The Other Company, This Company needs to offer better incentives to its employees to attract and retain them. Higher wages, in other words.
So, what happens when you force a company to hire more workers than it needs? Wages go down. If they can't go down (unions, regulation), price of the company's product goes up. Profit margin shrinks, but not as much.
I'm not pro-union. I'm not anti-union. I'm just saying that it ain't a free ride. There are consequences to your choices, and you may not like all of them. And that's "why not".
A touchscreen is not that different from a membrane keyboard, as far as typing on it goes. Try speed-typing on a Timex Sinclair 1000 some time...
The minimum cost of prosecuting (or perhaps, defending) a civil action may well determine a payout denial threshold. If it costs too much to prosecute, why pay the sucker? Claim it was a malfunction, get the gaming board to agree.
As Arthur Anderson found out, it's not just destroying evidence currently being sought that is illegal, but destroying evidence you (should) have reason to believe will be sought.
The Wikipedia page notes that the Arthur Anderson conviction was overturned (supreme court) on flaws in the jury instructions. It also notes that there are over 100 outstanding civil suits against the company, and that it is pretty much "still dead".
Art Garfunkle? Is that you?
If not, I've got a copyright lawyer here who'd like to talk to you about your password...
The jury was deliberating on two charges, found the defendant guilty of one, acquitted of the other.
What I find interesting is that the judge ruled it a mistrial, but only the guilty charge is being retried because of the acquittal. Retrying the acquittal might invoke double jeopardy ... or might require the judge prove the acquittal illegitimate.
Which begs the question of how one jury ruling can be illegitimate and the other legitimate, eh?
This ruling should be used as a club against the MPAA/RIAA information gathering suits.
True what you say. But I think you missed a stitch somewhere...
While it may be true that a nuclear weapon would be more safely detonated by a controlled explosion, you won't find an 8 inch toy holding a nuclear explosive. Atomic hand grenades are also on the Hollywood Technical Fail list.
As for "explosive setting off explosive", I feel fairly confident that a high explosive would reasonably be expected to set off another high explosive.
However, I am not sure about whether high explosives would set off low explosives. Will the shockwave of the high explosive (what defines a high explosive, after all) cause the low explosive (very rapid burning explosive) to ignite, or would it merely disperse it?
To be clear, that's 50 years after the author's death. And it was pointed out that some of the authors were not, in fact, dead yet.
I'm sorry, the crime you have described has already been labeled as printcrime.
Your efforts are appreciated, however. Please feel free to submit further ideas in the future.
Sincerely,
Olivia Newthreads
director, Novel Crimes exploitation division
Futurecrime, inc. (Bringing you tomorrow's crimes today!)