Either they're in on the theft somehow, or they're a totally unethical company trying to extort people.
I would say that if they're extorting people with stolen data, regardless of how they acquired it, they're "in on the theft." They're materially benefiting from it, knowingly, intentionally, and are full accomplices even if they never met the original thief. It is the rare case where they're an accomplice, but not (known to be) a conspirator.
They could easily have stopped 100% of the attacks. But you're the only one who thinks that means they would have stopped all attacks. Your tag line is scary, I'd hate to think you have to read manuals and operate servers based on what you thought you read. I'm not trying to knock you, I'm just sharing my feelings.
All blargs are blorgs. No blargs have been observed in Fooville since the policy of Bazification was implemented. There are no longer blorgs in Fooville. T/F
No, he's saying that to claim a data set you don't have access to says one thing or another is clearly false. You clearly don't know in what way the attacks changed over time. That data exists, and the other person had access to it and was explaining it from his understanding. You, however, haven't had access and so can't make authoritative statements. However, regardless of the fact you haven't seen the data, you make wild, absolutist claims about what it contains.
Normally I'd think somebody like yourself with a high user ID most be an ignorant whippersnapper. But in your case I'm going with early onset dementia. Now get off the lawn!
Maybe English is not your first language, but I doubt that to be true.
Don't be a tool, his English is fine. Yours isn't very good, you make all sorts of contradictory statements, like the absurdity that you're "not trying to knock [him]." Perhaps you simply misunderstood his point, because of your low English comprehension level, and then presumed that he must have said it wrong.
And... you'd bet "a year of salary" that... [something different than he claimed.] I'm guessing that you don't make a salary. Maybe you're self employed and only make profit, or work hourly. I'm presuming you got both sides of that one wrong. But assuming you do make a salary, would you also be willing to wager a year's worth against what he actually said?
never has an "universal backdoor for the government" been provably found in an OS or a firmware
That's because nobody will admit to the hardware backdoors that have been found, not because none have been found. Take out the words "for the government" and it instantly stops being true.
What guarentee does anybody have these credentials are real and actually belong to ANY site?
They could just as well fabricate some large list of random credentials if their "disclosure" method doesn't actually require disclosing whose the data was.
All you would be paying for is a $120 "Thanks for the money, the credentials aren't from your site" notice.
I have a large database of real logins and passwords. They really do belong to a site. Of course, it went out of business and the user accounts were transferred to a competing service with different login system... 10 years ago. But they are real logins, from a real site.
And YOUR login could be affected! Just send me $extortion_amount1 and I'll tell you if you're in the list. And for $extortion_amount2 I'll even tell you the name of the site.
It does not matter where the perps are believed to be. They've claimed some of the companies are US companies, presumably with servers in the US. So it is a federal felony in the US, and yes, they should have reported it to law enforcement if they believe it is ongoing. Generally in the US that is not required. But...
If they're profiting off of it without reporting it, they're actually accomplices and I hope they get arrested for it. And if they committed any crimes in Russia to acquire the data, it should be at least considered by the State Department to try to trade extraditing them for something.
You're missing the point. Please re-parse, and try again. There is no difference regarding text or iconography, and what the subject of your attention is in general has nothing to do with the question of what your eyes are "on" in the phrase, "keep your eyes on the road."
Luckily frivolous is legal jargon with a clear meaning. Laymen don't falsely accuse lawsuits as being frivolous because it doesn't affect them, but because they have no idea what the term means and simply substitute the literary English word of the same spelling. And then open their mouth. Whoops!
Yeah, when I've bought OEM LCDs they were always sold by panel size, with the viewable listed on the data sheet. That was already true in the 90s when a 15" IBM (manufactured by Samsung) cost $1289 (no case)
The Story never ends, they just stop telling it after a certain amount of time. Lots of books do that. You find out part of what happened, but parts of the "story" are left open-ended and can be continued.
That is a case of the customer being confused by literary language with multiple meanings, and having chosen the incorrect interpretation. That is not false advertising unless they went out of their way to create context that implied the incorrect meaning. The Never-Ending Story did not do that at all, they did not imply that the pages of the book are some sort of magical device. Clearly the Story, as an abstract concept, is Never-Ending, not the book, or the telling of the story.
Compare to 1080i HD, which is a clear technical jargon term with a single meaning. They didn't confuse the whiney neckbeard, they outright lied to him. I hope he wins, not because he was significantly harmed, but because false advertising harms all of society, and every time they get away with it, it further entrenches a culture of false advertising that often leads to much greater harm than in this case.
One quibble is that you conflate 1080p and 1080i, where 1080p will obviously have a better picture than 720p, all else equal, but 1080i might even have a worse picture, depending. Do people say, "wow" when they see 1080p? Yes, often. 1080i often gets a, "well, I'm not sure if it is better, some stuff looks better."
English assumes that jargon words are different than literary words, so it is not a gap between marketing-speak and English, but between literary English and technical English. HD is not "Partial HD" but it is partial HD, where "partial" is a literary word and HD is a jargon word. This is true because in Full HD the "full" is jargon, but jargon alligned with the literary meaning. So partial becomes true once full is there as a reference. Even though HD was full HD before there was Full HD. But then it was no longer the maximum amount of HD you could get. Note however that partial HD is fully and totally HD, it is just not Full HD.
This message brought to you be the letter S, as in the word "measure."
What *is* usually legal is one with a lock-out so that it can only do vehicle info and navigation while driving. Simply not using the other features doesn't help; it has to have a physical lockout in most states, or be mounted so that the screen is not visible to the driver.
Even if the focal distance is the same, you're still taking your eyes off the road by moving your focus to a non-road object. There is more to vision that just where the lens is focused.
Having your eyes "on" the road doesn't mean "in the direction of the road," it means actually having the focal point of your vision on the road. Moving your focus to words on a screen floating in your vision is exactly taking your eyes off the road.
Crowd sourced or not, it is illegal in most states and subject to being seized, in addition to the driver being cited. Simply turning it on is often illegal, even if you only use the navigation functions, because these kind of devices require being locked out when in motion, except for backup and instrubment video. Many states it is illegal just to drive with it installed, even if never turned on.
They did test it, identified a problem early, and then the engineer responsible suppressed the results to avoid having the mistake next to his name.
There were already engineering standards regarding heavy keychains, and related testing procedures. That is why they fired 15 people, instead of calling it a learning opportunity. The only opportunity for learning is learning not to be dishonest. That is also why there is a criminal probe.
The only reason the public found out and the recall happened was because of a wrongful death lawsuit where the lawyer learned about it through discovery. This is one of those cases where the lawyers were actually more honest (or more risk-averse) than the engineers!
That was my point, indeed. Such an angry person should probably be embarrassed to admit they do aikido in the same forum where they're YELLING AT OTHER USERS.
You completely botched the concept. Doing something to learn is not duplicating effort because if it was done before, it was a different person learning. Somebody else's effort can't be transferred in some sort of Vulcan Mind Meld. Each person does their own learning, and learning projects are not going to be useful end projects anyways.
And no, most projects on github are NOT in need of "patches." There is a glut of people who want to be contributors. There is not a shortage. There is perhaps a shortage of quality contributions, but having people still in the initial learning stages submit pull requests is not useful to anybody, it is just pollution. You don't even do what you recommend, it is obvious from your language; nobody accepts patches, or reviews them, on github projects. You submit pull requests.
Learn first. Repeat what others have done in the past. Implement a bunch of known wheels in the various known ways. Keep doing. Keep doing. This is how you learn. Then when you finally have a pull request to send, it is for a feature that was actually needed, and not "me too" vanity code.
Re:I'm bitching about SQL Server Management Studio
on
Getting Back To Coding
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, I have a client using SQL Server and it is a royal pain. Luckily, most of the time I can accomplish my task by using an ORM+REPL from a modern langauge, like Ruby. Then I can just open as many REPLs as I need, or create multiple connections in one.
Re:The problem mirrors that of big word processors
on
Getting Back To Coding
·
· Score: 2
People using vim or emacs would have automated tools that build documentation listing the function prototypes, and would spend the 2 seconds to open up said document when working on a project, and will just keep it open. Generally people using these tools make use of virtual desktops and have all of these tools open and available all the time.
Just because you don't know about a workflow doesn't automatically mean it is in the dark ages;) it might just mean you're in the dark ages and don't even know what the workflow options in popular use are.
Why do options you don't use "grind [your] gears" just by existing? Don't you feel like a total sociopath admitting that? Why would a new software project need your approval just to exist, or meet your expectation of a highly specialized use case? Almost everybody using an "editor" is using vim or emacs, and none of the "editors" force users of a file created in it to use the same editor.
Also, you said the "only" thing that "grinds [your] gears" is one thing, and then you listed a second thing, as a "second thing." If even your English isn't self-consistent, no wonder you need an editor, and no wonder everything would be totally borked if you attempted sed! lolol
Sorry Petey, but the coward was very clear. He doesn't like IDEs for GUI editors normally, but the only place (android) where he thinks it would be useful, the options suck.
It wasn't actually a hard one to understand.
And he has a point, because XML is designed to be human readable in the loosest sense, but it is not designed to be actually written by humans. And CLI tools are very awkward on android, because most android devices don't have a physical keyboard. If you're knowledgeable enough to be commenting on this story, you should know all that already.
Slashdot Mirror
Either they're in on the theft somehow, or they're a totally unethical company trying to extort people.
I would say that if they're extorting people with stolen data, regardless of how they acquired it, they're "in on the theft." They're materially benefiting from it, knowingly, intentionally, and are full accomplices even if they never met the original thief. It is the rare case where they're an accomplice, but not (known to be) a conspirator.
They could easily have stopped 100% of the attacks. But you're the only one who thinks that means they would have stopped all attacks. Your tag line is scary, I'd hate to think you have to read manuals and operate servers based on what you thought you read. I'm not trying to knock you, I'm just sharing my feelings.
All blargs are blorgs. No blargs have been observed in Fooville since the policy of Bazification was implemented. There are no longer blorgs in Fooville. T/F
No, he's saying that to claim a data set you don't have access to says one thing or another is clearly false. You clearly don't know in what way the attacks changed over time. That data exists, and the other person had access to it and was explaining it from his understanding. You, however, haven't had access and so can't make authoritative statements. However, regardless of the fact you haven't seen the data, you make wild, absolutist claims about what it contains.
Normally I'd think somebody like yourself with a high user ID most be an ignorant whippersnapper. But in your case I'm going with early onset dementia. Now get off the lawn!
Maybe English is not your first language, but I doubt that to be true.
Don't be a tool, his English is fine. Yours isn't very good, you make all sorts of contradictory statements, like the absurdity that you're "not trying to knock [him]." Perhaps you simply misunderstood his point, because of your low English comprehension level, and then presumed that he must have said it wrong.
And... you'd bet "a year of salary" that... [something different than he claimed.] I'm guessing that you don't make a salary. Maybe you're self employed and only make profit, or work hourly. I'm presuming you got both sides of that one wrong. But assuming you do make a salary, would you also be willing to wager a year's worth against what he actually said?
never has an "universal backdoor for the government" been provably found in an OS or a firmware
That's because nobody will admit to the hardware backdoors that have been found, not because none have been found. Take out the words "for the government" and it instantly stops being true.
What guarentee does anybody have these credentials are real and actually belong to ANY site?
They could just as well fabricate some large list of random credentials if their "disclosure" method doesn't actually require disclosing whose the data was.
All you would be paying for is a $120 "Thanks for the money, the credentials aren't from your site" notice.
I have a large database of real logins and passwords. They really do belong to a site. Of course, it went out of business and the user accounts were transferred to a competing service with different login system... 10 years ago. But they are real logins, from a real site.
And YOUR login could be affected! Just send me $extortion_amount1 and I'll tell you if you're in the list. And for $extortion_amount2 I'll even tell you the name of the site.
Thanks ray, but you answered the wrong question, and with a data dump.
It does not matter where the perps are believed to be. They've claimed some of the companies are US companies, presumably with servers in the US. So it is a federal felony in the US, and yes, they should have reported it to law enforcement if they believe it is ongoing. Generally in the US that is not required. But...
If they're profiting off of it without reporting it, they're actually accomplices and I hope they get arrested for it. And if they committed any crimes in Russia to acquire the data, it should be at least considered by the State Department to try to trade extraditing them for something.
You're missing the point. Please re-parse, and try again. There is no difference regarding text or iconography, and what the subject of your attention is in general has nothing to do with the question of what your eyes are "on" in the phrase, "keep your eyes on the road."
Luckily frivolous is legal jargon with a clear meaning. Laymen don't falsely accuse lawsuits as being frivolous because it doesn't affect them, but because they have no idea what the term means and simply substitute the literary English word of the same spelling. And then open their mouth. Whoops!
Yeah, when I've bought OEM LCDs they were always sold by panel size, with the viewable listed on the data sheet. That was already true in the 90s when a 15" IBM (manufactured by Samsung) cost $1289 (no case)
The Story never ends, they just stop telling it after a certain amount of time. Lots of books do that. You find out part of what happened, but parts of the "story" are left open-ended and can be continued.
That is a case of the customer being confused by literary language with multiple meanings, and having chosen the incorrect interpretation. That is not false advertising unless they went out of their way to create context that implied the incorrect meaning. The Never-Ending Story did not do that at all, they did not imply that the pages of the book are some sort of magical device. Clearly the Story, as an abstract concept, is Never-Ending, not the book, or the telling of the story.
Compare to 1080i HD, which is a clear technical jargon term with a single meaning. They didn't confuse the whiney neckbeard, they outright lied to him. I hope he wins, not because he was significantly harmed, but because false advertising harms all of society, and every time they get away with it, it further entrenches a culture of false advertising that often leads to much greater harm than in this case.
Anymore? Kiddo, quit trying to think and read for us and get back to mowing the lawn and finding my meds.
One quibble is that you conflate 1080p and 1080i, where 1080p will obviously have a better picture than 720p, all else equal, but 1080i might even have a worse picture, depending. Do people say, "wow" when they see 1080p? Yes, often. 1080i often gets a, "well, I'm not sure if it is better, some stuff looks better."
English assumes that jargon words are different than literary words, so it is not a gap between marketing-speak and English, but between literary English and technical English. HD is not "Partial HD" but it is partial HD, where "partial" is a literary word and HD is a jargon word. This is true because in Full HD the "full" is jargon, but jargon alligned with the literary meaning. So partial becomes true once full is there as a reference. Even though HD was full HD before there was Full HD. But then it was no longer the maximum amount of HD you could get. Note however that partial HD is fully and totally HD, it is just not Full HD.
This message brought to you be the letter S, as in the word "measure."
Illegal for the intended use in most states, and illegal even to install in many.
http://www.ce.org/Consumer-Inf...
What *is* usually legal is one with a lock-out so that it can only do vehicle info and navigation while driving. Simply not using the other features doesn't help; it has to have a physical lockout in most states, or be mounted so that the screen is not visible to the driver.
Even if the focal distance is the same, you're still taking your eyes off the road by moving your focus to a non-road object. There is more to vision that just where the lens is focused.
Having your eyes "on" the road doesn't mean "in the direction of the road," it means actually having the focal point of your vision on the road. Moving your focus to words on a screen floating in your vision is exactly taking your eyes off the road .
Crowd sourced or not, it is illegal in most states and subject to being seized, in addition to the driver being cited. Simply turning it on is often illegal, even if you only use the navigation functions, because these kind of devices require being locked out when in motion, except for backup and instrubment video. Many states it is illegal just to drive with it installed, even if never turned on.
http://www.ce.org/Consumer-Inf...
They did test it, identified a problem early, and then the engineer responsible suppressed the results to avoid having the mistake next to his name.
There were already engineering standards regarding heavy keychains, and related testing procedures. That is why they fired 15 people, instead of calling it a learning opportunity. The only opportunity for learning is learning not to be dishonest. That is also why there is a criminal probe.
The only reason the public found out and the recall happened was because of a wrongful death lawsuit where the lawyer learned about it through discovery. This is one of those cases where the lawyers were actually more honest (or more risk-averse) than the engineers!
That was my point, indeed. Such an angry person should probably be embarrassed to admit they do aikido in the same forum where they're YELLING AT OTHER USERS.
You completely botched the concept. Doing something to learn is not duplicating effort because if it was done before, it was a different person learning. Somebody else's effort can't be transferred in some sort of Vulcan Mind Meld. Each person does their own learning, and learning projects are not going to be useful end projects anyways.
And no, most projects on github are NOT in need of "patches." There is a glut of people who want to be contributors. There is not a shortage. There is perhaps a shortage of quality contributions, but having people still in the initial learning stages submit pull requests is not useful to anybody, it is just pollution. You don't even do what you recommend, it is obvious from your language; nobody accepts patches, or reviews them, on github projects. You submit pull requests.
Learn first. Repeat what others have done in the past. Implement a bunch of known wheels in the various known ways. Keep doing. Keep doing. This is how you learn. Then when you finally have a pull request to send, it is for a feature that was actually needed, and not "me too" vanity code.
Yeah, I have a client using SQL Server and it is a royal pain. Luckily, most of the time I can accomplish my task by using an ORM+REPL from a modern langauge, like Ruby. Then I can just open as many REPLs as I need, or create multiple connections in one.
People using vim or emacs would have automated tools that build documentation listing the function prototypes, and would spend the 2 seconds to open up said document when working on a project, and will just keep it open. Generally people using these tools make use of virtual desktops and have all of these tools open and available all the time.
Just because you don't know about a workflow doesn't automatically mean it is in the dark ages ;) it might just mean you're in the dark ages and don't even know what the workflow options in popular use are.
Why do options you don't use "grind [your] gears" just by existing? Don't you feel like a total sociopath admitting that? Why would a new software project need your approval just to exist, or meet your expectation of a highly specialized use case? Almost everybody using an "editor" is using vim or emacs, and none of the "editors" force users of a file created in it to use the same editor.
Also, you said the "only" thing that "grinds [your] gears" is one thing, and then you listed a second thing, as a "second thing." If even your English isn't self-consistent, no wonder you need an editor, and no wonder everything would be totally borked if you attempted sed! lolol
Sorry Petey, but the coward was very clear. He doesn't like IDEs for GUI editors normally, but the only place (android) where he thinks it would be useful, the options suck.
It wasn't actually a hard one to understand.
And he has a point, because XML is designed to be human readable in the loosest sense, but it is not designed to be actually written by humans. And CLI tools are very awkward on android, because most android devices don't have a physical keyboard. If you're knowledgeable enough to be commenting on this story, you should know all that already.