17 posts • joined 13 Mar 2012
Re: How odd
"Not a free speech case, the cathedral these self advertising douches desecrated was built from public donations from the Russian people as a memorial to the end of the reign of the mass murderer Stalin. (Assuming you are an American) how would you like it if a bunch of assorted scumbags did the same kind of thing in your park of remembrance for the Sept 11 attacks, I think you'd want them locked up too."
Except that Putin is working hard to become the new Stalin. Journalists who criticize him too long and too loudly end up dead. People who start successful businesses and later refuse to sell them to apparatchiks find themselves imprisoned on trumped up charges by the corrupt police, indicted and convicted by the corrupt courts, paid off by the hacks in the privileged elite / organized crime / security apparatus with which Putin, like every other dictator, surrounds himself. This is all so sad because Putin started out by reigning in the oligarchs who had connived to take possession of all state assets when they were privatized, leaving the citizens with zilch. He is popular and has been and in the future could be elected in fair elections. But power has corrupted him, and now he's in the death spiral of having to wield ever more absolute power in order to stay in power, which results in increasing injustice and opposition.
Since Putin is intent on becoming the new Stalin, I'd say that expressing opposition in him in a cathedral you mention is dedicated to celebrating the end of Stalinism is exactly the right place.
Yes, the members of Pussy Riot should have expected and should get some punishment, like a month of community service or something. Two years in a hard labor camp? Get real. It was a kangaroo court, the purpose of which is one more obvious attempt to intimidate anyone who would dare voice criticism of Putin.
Re: So who gets the money?
The article implied that only U.S. residents are included in the class action suit. Anyone wanting a share of any future compensation would have to somehow indicate their wish to be included. As a customer of a stock-trading site, I've occasionally received mass mailings from law firms, usually mandated by the court prior to paying out any damages, stating that if I owned stock X between dates Y and Z, then I could qualify for compensation and contact them to be included in the suit. Presumably the same process would be followed here, except that Linked-In members would receive an e-mail. But what could be the damages? Linked-In didn't have the worst security I've ever seen. I mean some companies have had databases accessed where the passwords were in plain text, not even hashed, and lost credit card numbers as well as other personal data. Illegal access to my Linked-In account, which was temporarily frozen until I changed my password, would only cause me minor inconvenience, as compared to access to my credit card information, which could result in me having to dispute fraudulent charges, a bigger inconvenience. However, if I followed even worse security practices than Linked-In, used the same user name and password for on-line banking, and suffered a theft of funds which the bank refused to reimburse, then whose fault is that? The crooks may have got my Linked-In password due to poor security on their part, but it is not the fault of Linked-In if I in turn practice even worse security by using the same password everywhere. I don't think a judge or jury would hold them accountable for subsequent losses I would suffer. So the damages would be limited to what I would suffer directly from access or loss thereof to my Linked-In account. Which is what? The cost of lost time due to having to change my password? My Linked-In account is free, so I cannot even claim loss of anything I'm paying for.
No one was injured. Inconvenienced, yes. I don't use the same password anywhere else that I did on Linked-In, but I still felt it advisable to make a survey of all my accounts and update any passwords which were even remotely similar. So there went a half day of my life. I don't understand how a company with the resources commensurate with hundreds of millions of users cannot even adequately protect things like the user database. Of course the lawsuit is just an opportunistic attempt by the equivalent of ambulance chasing lawyers to milk an already victimized company for some money.
Speaking of going tits-up... I used to care.
Uh no, I think you're confusing Quakers with Mormons.
It's putting in place our defense against "Iron Sky". Need I say more?
The Chinese government is happy for the Internet to be open when it is Chinese hackers breaking into the sites of foreign companies and governments, and it is happy to allow its researchers access to all the free technical knowledge provided by western companies and educational institutions, but they shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways. If western websites used by Chinese companies and universities started rejecting all requests from any Chinese IP addresses, I'm sure the Chinese government would be outraged. But as much as I'd like to see them get a taste of their own medicine, it is probably better to just let the Chinese people poke holes in the Great Firewall.
I guess Mayor Roque went rogue.
Now if they can just get the stuffed animals out without dropping them. Perhaps they won't slip out of the claw in zero-g, but I'll believe it when I see it. Those grabbers are always rigged.
Get Google+ Out of My Face!
To answer the actual question on disentanglement: just go back to the old uncluttered search page, that's it.
I have an Android phone, so I have the requisite Gmail account needed to activate it the phone, but other than that, I only use Google for search, which is where they make their money. I'll keep using Google for search if they quit trying to shove Google+ down my throat. But lately the home page has irritated me enough by hiding the preferences and trying to force me to log in, that I've started at least trying to use Bing.
I don't trust Google to protect my privacy. I don't mean protect it from the public, I mean protect it from them, from any number of governments, and from anyone willing to pay money for my information. They already know what I search for. I don't want them also knowing the contents of my emails and who my friends are. So I use a paid subscription to Hotmail, with which I'm very satisfied. I have a occasionally used Facebook account with a friends list consisting only of my actual friends, and not including anyone from work. I have a Linked-In account for professional contacts, and to Linked-In's disappointment, I refuse to give them my entire life's history. I keep my work and private lives separate.
Re: You have got to admire these guys!
I'm sure that both NASA and the Space X people know what they're doing. The Dragon will first match the orbital velocity of the Freedom Space Station miles away from it, in an orbit above or below it, and possibly laterally offset as well, and then very slowly maneuver closer with small jets.
In the WC...
I bet he didn't lift the seat either.
Where Did He Go?
What was the priest doing during those 20 minutes that he was not in the room? Did he go to make a call to a higher up, or perhaps to IT support, to find out how to handle the problem?
When it comes to posting the private pics of beautiful actresses, I like to keep abreast of the situation. Thanks El Reg!
One of the more strained bacronyms I've seen.
"...we would like to assure everyone that steps have been taken to ensure that the same mistake will not happen again."
The perpetrator gets an hour on the tower of power?
Or perhaps some major CBT:
Cc replaced by Bcc Today
- 'Kim Kardashian snaps naked selfies with a BLACKBERRY'. *Twitterati gasps*
- Pics Facebook's Oculus unveils 360-degree VR head tracking 'Crescent Bay' prototype
- Analysis Apple's warrant canary riddle: Cock-up, conspiracy, or anti-Google point-scoring
- Crawling from the Wreckage THE DEATH OF ECONOMICS: Aircraft design vs flat-lining financial models
- Bargain basement iPhone shoppers BEWARE! eBay exposes users to phishing vuln