Exactly, where is the fun in watching?
Its like watching someone play any video game. Maybe interesting for the first few minutes, but it qets boring pretty quickly.
Wow, way to take the actual facts and distort them massively to highlight your point. If I feel safer seeing a police presence on the street, that doesn't mean I want armed police on every street in the country 24/7, and likewise if I'm happy for them to scan publicly available information to help fight crime, that doesn't mean I'm happy for them reading all of my private email or tapping my calls. You know those people who say "if you have nothing to hide, why are you worried"? Well this kind of paranoia is the opposite end of the scale to them, and just as counter-productive. The sensible line is somewhere in the middle, and just because someone is a little more or less liberal than you, it doesn't mean they're automatically at the opposite end of the chart.
Why do people perpetuate this false analogy of being followed around? Walking around a city and posting something on an internet forum are in no way equivocal. If I walk down a street, I don't leave a ghost image so that anyone later viewing the street will know I walked down it. If I post on a forum I certainly know I'm leaving a semi-permanent message indicating I was there. For that reason I treat the two situations differently, I take a lot more care about what I say online that I would in the street because it's not unreasonable to assume what I say online will have repercussions later in my life. For the same reason, I wouldn't go to a real world public bulletin board and post a message I wouldn't be happy for my family/partner/friends/the police/my employer to see. If you're going to make an analogy to highlight what this perceived loss of privacy costs you, at least either make it a true analogy or go the whole hog and claim that a fed reading your/. post is the same as them installing a camera in your bathroom, anything else and you're just not trying.
I'm not sure what kind of country you think the UK is, but we don't send people to jail without at least some evidence and a trial - certainly not for adding random words to a post online. If he's committed no crime he'll be free, if he's broken the law he has to live with the consequences. You realise the way this works is that the combination of words flags the post up for scrutiny by a human, who can use their common sense to ignore it if it's a/. rant about privacy, or act upon it if it sounds like a plausible threat? It's a far cry from what you're suggesting - that someone will go to jail without trial for having the wrong combination of words in a post.
Well the fact that the school/legal system is so broken that bullies can continually get away with their crimes is no reason for the police to fail to act on a plausible threat to public safety. The guy doesn't get a bye just because he's been treated badly. We certainly should now be asking what brought him to that point and how we can fix it, unfortunately most people just want to find a scape goat to blame and then get on with their lives.
It's only everything he does in one specific public place. It's no different to a sports club setting up a CCTV system. That's a far cry from someone following him everywhere and recording all his actions. Don't like the lack of privacy at the sports club? Find a new club. Don't like the lack of privacy on Facebook? I think you know what to do.
Telling people you have a gun might not be a crime in itself, but it's certainly enough for the police to take him into custody while they check whether he has a gun, which might be a crime unless he's properly licensed. Arresting someone isn't the same as charging them, the police are well within their rights to detain someone on the reasonable suspicion of committing a crime while they investigate it. Additionally, if other people (at the school maybe) saw the message and had reason to believe it was true and fear for their safety, he's already committed a crime of at least assault, regardless of whether he even has a gun. Considering the recent events here in the UK, it's not unreasonable that people should be put in fear of their safety if he did threaten a gun rampage. The police had the chance to intervene earlier in the previous rampage and did nothing, given that, do you think they wanted to sit back and take a "wait and see" approach with this kid? There are many grey areas in the law, it's not as clear cut as people want to believe.
Well, technically it's about them developing a system that can scan through all the graffiti sprayed everywhere in the world and deploying that and acting on the information they receive. Only graffiti isn't so personally identifiable so the analogy still fails. Either way I don't have an issue with this, it's public data and if you don't want the authorities to read it and trail it back to you, either don't post it or obfuscate your identity in some way, but it's a little more invasive than you suggest.
Even if the two cycles were independent, the fact that one occurs every 11 years and one every 22 would surely mean they're in sync once every 22 years (if they're going to sync up in 2013 they either don't occur with that exact frequency, or the majority of us have already lived through at least one of these cycles in 1991 and just never noticed).
I'm just glad we partially anticipated this and replaced walkmans/cassettes with digital music players. That was a major blow against the Decepticon's intel gathering arm, right there. And Europe should be reasonably safe against flying Decepticons - we'll just deploy our secret volcano weapon and ground them.
Seriously, though, if your calculations suggested there would be massive solar storms towards the very end of December 2012, wouldn't you be tempted to just add a couple of weeks on and push it into 2013 just so you could keep your scientific credentials and not sound like a nutjob?
I'm thinkin' I'll take one of my cheap laptops kicking around, leave it running in his apartment, and let my friends and I proxy through it to peruse Murdoch's prized possessions.
Anyone know if they have systems in place to prevent such tomfoolery?
They're relying on the "quality" of their "journalism" to be the biggest deterrent.
Ditto, I wonder if there's sufficient demand for a browser plugin that works like Tortoise SVN's ability to store/recall recent text entries but for form fields, so when something catastrophic does happen you just re-populate from a "recently typed entries" context menu.
There's no reason it wouldn't work so long as they had a reliable way to tie your identity to your WiFi account - simply making you sign up to a scheme with a login on the basis of reliable ID would probably be enough (and plenty of disclaimers that "you're responsible for anything downloaded on it, so don't give out your login details" to close the "my friend must have used my account" loophole), so long as it was relatively universal, as you'd not want to have to sign up to dozens of schemes depending on where you eat or buy coffee.
Very likely - they've recently had to compete with smartphones offering free (often unlimited) mobile data, or mobile broadband which, while offering a paid experience, is at least offering a consistent paid experience that you can budget for. In that case it's better to give your flaky WiFi away free and support it with ads, or use it as a selling point for the store and charge them a small fee. Now it looks like more mobile carriers are shying away from big, cheap mobile data, we might see a return to paid WiFi as a viable alternative model (but they really need to drop their prices a lot and improve their service to compete). On a side note, I was using Google Goggles to scan a DVD in a store the other day to do a quick online comparison, and while I had a full signal, the service wouldn't connect - coincidence, I'm sure, but it made me wonder how long before shops and eateries start shielding against mobile data so you have to use their services/can't do easy online comparisons? They could mask it as protecting their own WiFi from wardrivers and the like, but it seems companies selling shielding might be a lucrative bet in the future...
The problem is (or used to be, forgive me if I'm wrong and this is different now but it's why I stopped drinking their filter coffees) they use the same beans for the plain old filter coffee as they use for the foamy coffee flavoured milk drinks. The only way they can get enough flavour into the milk drinks is by burning the coffee beans horribly, meaning you get the horrible burnt bean flavour intensified greatly in the filter where there's less milk to take the edge off, especially if you don't take sugar. I guess some people like that, but to me that doesn't reflect the real flavour of the bean (and yes, I can handle and actually do enjoy strong coffee when it's not incinerated). Now, maybe this is intentional as there's a better profit margin on the milky drinks, either way there's zero real competition in the UK outside the franchise corporate coffee shops so I'm stuck drinking cappucino.
To be fair, he didn't say it would be tasty, just that it wouldn't taste like water. I can't speak for Starbucks' tea, but there are some very nice flavoured teas (I still prefer proper black tea rather than green tea or infusions even then, as I like to add milk - but never sugar). I particularly like the spiced or cinnamon teas, very christmassy and a nice change from coffee.
Erm... since when does you flipping out at work and using work equipment to beat a client make your employer responsible anyway? Maybe if your employer had driven you to it in some way, too much pressure or putting you in situations you can't handle, they might, might have some responsibility under negligence if they should have realised the consequences, but I can't imagine that's the standard response.
Spot on, it seems like the main reason he released the details of this so quickly is that he's reported issues and exploits in the past which have gone unfixed for many months. A company with such a bad reputation for exactly this kind of thing should be going out of their way to make sure exploits are reported to them immediately and that they let the reporters know what an important job they're doing and how MS are handling the situation. Sometimes I guess the impression MS are actually happy with their reputation for lax security - it wouldn't surprise me to learn that they did a cost/benefit analysis of being seen as insecure (and losing some sales because of that) vs. spending money to be seen as secure (and gaining sales accordingly) and just came to the conclusion, "screw it, it's not worth the money".
There's a difference between shouting "Hey! Everybody! That guy's wall is broken!" and shouting "Hey! Everybody! That bastard sold us all walls with a hole in it! "
Those aren't holes in the walls, they're Windows. Okay, shoot me now:)
Flash will cling on either until IE is dead, or at least until MS gets a move on with migrating sufficient existing users to an HTML5 capable version of its browser. Until then most sites will save money by catering to the lowest common denominator, which in this case is Flash.
I just want to know what the stake through its heart will be.
Probably won't come until a sufficient percentage of web users are on browsers that support enough HTML5/CSS3 to be able to ditch it. IE, I'm looking at you.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly, where is the fun in watching? Its like watching someone play any video game. Maybe interesting for the first few minutes, but it qets boring pretty quickly.
It seems the key may be alcohol.
Wow, way to take the actual facts and distort them massively to highlight your point. If I feel safer seeing a police presence on the street, that doesn't mean I want armed police on every street in the country 24/7, and likewise if I'm happy for them to scan publicly available information to help fight crime, that doesn't mean I'm happy for them reading all of my private email or tapping my calls. You know those people who say "if you have nothing to hide, why are you worried"? Well this kind of paranoia is the opposite end of the scale to them, and just as counter-productive. The sensible line is somewhere in the middle, and just because someone is a little more or less liberal than you, it doesn't mean they're automatically at the opposite end of the chart.
Why do people perpetuate this false analogy of being followed around? Walking around a city and posting something on an internet forum are in no way equivocal. If I walk down a street, I don't leave a ghost image so that anyone later viewing the street will know I walked down it. If I post on a forum I certainly know I'm leaving a semi-permanent message indicating I was there. For that reason I treat the two situations differently, I take a lot more care about what I say online that I would in the street because it's not unreasonable to assume what I say online will have repercussions later in my life. For the same reason, I wouldn't go to a real world public bulletin board and post a message I wouldn't be happy for my family/partner/friends/the police/my employer to see. If you're going to make an analogy to highlight what this perceived loss of privacy costs you, at least either make it a true analogy or go the whole hog and claim that a fed reading your /. post is the same as them installing a camera in your bathroom, anything else and you're just not trying.
I'm not sure what kind of country you think the UK is, but we don't send people to jail without at least some evidence and a trial - certainly not for adding random words to a post online. If he's committed no crime he'll be free, if he's broken the law he has to live with the consequences. You realise the way this works is that the combination of words flags the post up for scrutiny by a human, who can use their common sense to ignore it if it's a /. rant about privacy, or act upon it if it sounds like a plausible threat? It's a far cry from what you're suggesting - that someone will go to jail without trial for having the wrong combination of words in a post.
Well the fact that the school/legal system is so broken that bullies can continually get away with their crimes is no reason for the police to fail to act on a plausible threat to public safety. The guy doesn't get a bye just because he's been treated badly. We certainly should now be asking what brought him to that point and how we can fix it, unfortunately most people just want to find a scape goat to blame and then get on with their lives.
It's only everything he does in one specific public place. It's no different to a sports club setting up a CCTV system. That's a far cry from someone following him everywhere and recording all his actions. Don't like the lack of privacy at the sports club? Find a new club. Don't like the lack of privacy on Facebook? I think you know what to do.
Telling people you have a gun might not be a crime in itself, but it's certainly enough for the police to take him into custody while they check whether he has a gun, which might be a crime unless he's properly licensed. Arresting someone isn't the same as charging them, the police are well within their rights to detain someone on the reasonable suspicion of committing a crime while they investigate it. Additionally, if other people (at the school maybe) saw the message and had reason to believe it was true and fear for their safety, he's already committed a crime of at least assault, regardless of whether he even has a gun. Considering the recent events here in the UK, it's not unreasonable that people should be put in fear of their safety if he did threaten a gun rampage. The police had the chance to intervene earlier in the previous rampage and did nothing, given that, do you think they wanted to sit back and take a "wait and see" approach with this kid? There are many grey areas in the law, it's not as clear cut as people want to believe.
Well, technically it's about them developing a system that can scan through all the graffiti sprayed everywhere in the world and deploying that and acting on the information they receive. Only graffiti isn't so personally identifiable so the analogy still fails. Either way I don't have an issue with this, it's public data and if you don't want the authorities to read it and trail it back to you, either don't post it or obfuscate your identity in some way, but it's a little more invasive than you suggest.
One's fear for iPod is nothing compared to, possibly, milions of people whose lives depend on piece of electronic.
Wait, I'm confused, aren't those the same thing?
Even if the two cycles were independent, the fact that one occurs every 11 years and one every 22 would surely mean they're in sync once every 22 years (if they're going to sync up in 2013 they either don't occur with that exact frequency, or the majority of us have already lived through at least one of these cycles in 1991 and just never noticed).
I'm just glad we partially anticipated this and replaced walkmans/cassettes with digital music players. That was a major blow against the Decepticon's intel gathering arm, right there. And Europe should be reasonably safe against flying Decepticons - we'll just deploy our secret volcano weapon and ground them.
Seriously, though, if your calculations suggested there would be massive solar storms towards the very end of December 2012, wouldn't you be tempted to just add a couple of weeks on and push it into 2013 just so you could keep your scientific credentials and not sound like a nutjob?
I'm thinkin' I'll take one of my cheap laptops kicking around, leave it running in his apartment, and let my friends and I proxy through it to peruse Murdoch's prized possessions.
Anyone know if they have systems in place to prevent such tomfoolery?
They're relying on the "quality" of their "journalism" to be the biggest deterrent.
Ditto, I wonder if there's sufficient demand for a browser plugin that works like Tortoise SVN's ability to store/recall recent text entries but for form fields, so when something catastrophic does happen you just re-populate from a "recently typed entries" context menu.
There's no reason it wouldn't work so long as they had a reliable way to tie your identity to your WiFi account - simply making you sign up to a scheme with a login on the basis of reliable ID would probably be enough (and plenty of disclaimers that "you're responsible for anything downloaded on it, so don't give out your login details" to close the "my friend must have used my account" loophole), so long as it was relatively universal, as you'd not want to have to sign up to dozens of schemes depending on where you eat or buy coffee.
Very likely - they've recently had to compete with smartphones offering free (often unlimited) mobile data, or mobile broadband which, while offering a paid experience, is at least offering a consistent paid experience that you can budget for. In that case it's better to give your flaky WiFi away free and support it with ads, or use it as a selling point for the store and charge them a small fee. Now it looks like more mobile carriers are shying away from big, cheap mobile data, we might see a return to paid WiFi as a viable alternative model (but they really need to drop their prices a lot and improve their service to compete). On a side note, I was using Google Goggles to scan a DVD in a store the other day to do a quick online comparison, and while I had a full signal, the service wouldn't connect - coincidence, I'm sure, but it made me wonder how long before shops and eateries start shielding against mobile data so you have to use their services/can't do easy online comparisons? They could mask it as protecting their own WiFi from wardrivers and the like, but it seems companies selling shielding might be a lucrative bet in the future...
The problem is (or used to be, forgive me if I'm wrong and this is different now but it's why I stopped drinking their filter coffees) they use the same beans for the plain old filter coffee as they use for the foamy coffee flavoured milk drinks. The only way they can get enough flavour into the milk drinks is by burning the coffee beans horribly, meaning you get the horrible burnt bean flavour intensified greatly in the filter where there's less milk to take the edge off, especially if you don't take sugar. I guess some people like that, but to me that doesn't reflect the real flavour of the bean (and yes, I can handle and actually do enjoy strong coffee when it's not incinerated). Now, maybe this is intentional as there's a better profit margin on the milky drinks, either way there's zero real competition in the UK outside the franchise corporate coffee shops so I'm stuck drinking cappucino.
To be fair, he didn't say it would be tasty, just that it wouldn't taste like water. I can't speak for Starbucks' tea, but there are some very nice flavoured teas (I still prefer proper black tea rather than green tea or infusions even then, as I like to add milk - but never sugar). I particularly like the spiced or cinnamon teas, very christmassy and a nice change from coffee.
I think he meant sentient life. The two don't always go together, as our species is apt to demonstrate.
Erm... since when does you flipping out at work and using work equipment to beat a client make your employer responsible anyway? Maybe if your employer had driven you to it in some way, too much pressure or putting you in situations you can't handle, they might, might have some responsibility under negligence if they should have realised the consequences, but I can't imagine that's the standard response.
Spot on, it seems like the main reason he released the details of this so quickly is that he's reported issues and exploits in the past which have gone unfixed for many months. A company with such a bad reputation for exactly this kind of thing should be going out of their way to make sure exploits are reported to them immediately and that they let the reporters know what an important job they're doing and how MS are handling the situation. Sometimes I guess the impression MS are actually happy with their reputation for lax security - it wouldn't surprise me to learn that they did a cost/benefit analysis of being seen as insecure (and losing some sales because of that) vs. spending money to be seen as secure (and gaining sales accordingly) and just came to the conclusion, "screw it, it's not worth the money".
There's a difference between shouting "Hey! Everybody! That guy's wall is broken!" and shouting "Hey! Everybody! That bastard sold us all walls with a hole in it! "
Those aren't holes in the walls, they're Windows. Okay, shoot me now :)
Flash will cling on either until IE is dead, or at least until MS gets a move on with migrating sufficient existing users to an HTML5 capable version of its browser. Until then most sites will save money by catering to the lowest common denominator, which in this case is Flash.
I just want to know what the stake through its heart will be.
Probably won't come until a sufficient percentage of web users are on browsers that support enough HTML5/CSS3 to be able to ditch it. IE, I'm looking at you.
Then malicious users will be able to launch DoS attacks with nothing more than a sheet of paper and access to a photocopier.