Re: Human deviousness
A Rubber Mallet and a piece of silk will fry an SSD quite nicely if used properly.
36 posts • joined 28 May 2014
"I would have thought online Credit Card losses were covered by the issuer. "
It is. Limit of liability for false charges on most credit cards in the US is $50.
However, the merchant's agreement with the card company generally also requires them to keep card data secured, with automatic penalties for failure to do so. I've seen agreements with penalties as high as $50k per stolen card number. That'll bankrupt a small business pretty quickly.
I am rather surprised that it even got this far... He's subverted the security system already as has been shown many times... Why wouldn't he want there to be records proving once and for all that he was still in the building and not taking a long lunch?
Or proving that the boss is still coming to work, even after he's fallen out the window... Makes it take longer for a replacement to show up.
The solution is simple:
"Yes, my department agrees to store its data exclusively on University shared drives as long as the IT department agrees to fund the replacement of any data they happen to misplace exclusively from their own budget."
If they're confident enough in their backups to agree to that, then they're probably fine to use. And, if they're not, then you get paid to recreate the data. So you're good either way.
There are two "rules of thumb" I give people for backing up important data. The first is that "data does not exist unless it exists in at least three places." The second is to calculate what losing the data would cost you, and then spend a third of that on building a good backup system.
It actually won't be that big a deal if he wins. Sure, criminal charges would be out in the future, but so what? Most fines go to the government, and you have to sue in civil court to get damages anyway.
They'd still be able to sue him on the grounds that no reasonable person would think he was hired to destroy the network, and they would win, and he'd have to pay for the cost of fixing the problems he caused. He wouldn't go to jail, but so what? Sending him to jail just means that a portion of the company's taxes will be paying his room and board for a period of time. Taking his money and destroying his reputation so he can't get another job is far more cost effective.
The proper thing to do is not to increment, but simply to add a character to the end. Which single, random character you added is pretty easy to remember, and you've been practicing the rest of the password for 90 days so you won't have forgotten it, and eventually you have a 60 character monstrosity of random characters and everyone wonders how you ever remember such a thing.
On the other hand, anyone with an IQ above about 80 and a penchant for destruction can probably come up with a reasonably effective device just by wandering through the local home and garden store and looking for products with brightly coloured warning labels and reading Wikipedia articles about them. Weapons-grade explosive devices were being manufactured by the Chinese out of horse dung and charcoal while London was still an abandoned Roman fort.
If they get the design from a well-known book instead then, at least, it will be more easily recognizable and more likely that the local bomb squad can disarm it if they manage to find it.
Depends on where and when you are. The Socialist State of Washington had a complete ban on collecting rainwater until just a few years ago. Furthermore, I may not sell or even give away any of the milk my goats produce unless I have it processed in a certified facility.
Such practices were common on a national level under FDR. He packed the courts so they'd rule that growing your own food would cause you to purchase less and thus "affected" interstate commerce. He then used these rulings to justify seizing and destroying wheat, corn, and livestock produced by small farmers for their own use in an amazingly horrible scheme to kickstart the economy by making sure prices stayed nice and high.
New York city has made it illegal for private citizens to give food to homeless persons.
Basically insanity is the norm, not the exception where humans are concerned.
You're misunderstanding. The kernel is indeed modular and can load just the drivers that are actually needed. For that matter, you can build just the drivers you need if you don't want to deal with having all of them lying around and decide if you want them built-in, or just have them available as modules to be loaded as needed. Most distributions build every hardware driver that's not horribly unstable and include it as a loadable module. That way stuff works when you randomly plug in something new.
Alt-Printscreen-r will sometimes reset the input interface, as will switching via the ctrl-alt-functionkey shortcuts (or chvt command) to a tty and back again.
All-in-all, triggering that bug has gotten more rare over the years as the misbehaviours of various HIDs have been noted and exceptions patched in.
And when those specifically-written laws are broken, who investigates and assigns punishment?
Oh... Right... The same group that was breaking the laws in the first place...
And if you dig through the records of such incidents, you can find a lot of public outrage, usually coupled with, at best, a slap-on-the-wrist type punishment for the perpetrators, and the law goes right on being abused as soon as the incident has faded from the public eye. The bureaucratic entity in charge maybe has some of its pieces swapped out for other pieces with different names, but that perform exactly the same functions (if public outrage is high enough), and business continues as usual. Wash, rinse, repeat, until everyone knows that the law does not apply to the enforcers of it.
You need look no further than the fact that this particular incident appears to have been part of attempted reprisal against a whistle-blower. The message is clear, "Tell anyone about illegal or immoral actions taken by the police, and there will be retribution, even if we have to do morally and/or legally questionable things to get it." It would not surprise me at all to find that this story was leaked on purpose so that anyone thinking of talking to a journalist would know that the authorities would do everything in their power to identify them. And the probable, forthcoming lack of punishment for those involved will reinforce that.
No, my friend, the only way to prevent laws granting this kind of power from being abused is to not write them in the first place, because the population is too gutless and has too short a memory to actually do anything about it if the abuse clauses in the law are ignored.
There were a few prior to the advent of USB that used a parallel port. But the drives themselves were still more expensive than the average user usually wanted to spend. They usually stuck to floppy disks.
For the more adventurous souls, the hardware to let you back up to audio cassette was relatively cheap and/or easy to build. You can reliably get about 2MB on a 90 minute tape that way. Which was about the same as the highest capacity floppy drives, but audio tapes were much, much cheaper.
This was *exactly* what happened with the IBM PC. You'll note that those "cheap knockoffs" are what made home computers a thing. Without the open BIOS API that let more than one manufacturer make hardware, we'd still have a computer market where you had to choose what manufacturer to buy from based on the program you wanted to run because they wouldn't be nearly as broadly compatible as they now are.
Without copyright the terms under which a contract developer's code could be copied and used by his employer would be set by the terms of the employment contract, just like they are now.
You'll notice that the recipes for Coke and Pepsi are not copyrighted, but they are still protected by a vast array of NDAs. True, once you code "escapes" to people who haven't signed such agreements there's no bringing it back in without a lot of work, but the idea that software developers wouldn't get paid without copyright laws is ridiculous. You welch on an agreement to pay me for solving your intellectual problem, you're still liable whether the outcome is protected by IP laws or not. Do it too often and nobody will accept your contracts in the first place.
So, to cut through all the fog here, what's being suggested by lots of people seems to be, "Because there exist parents who are too lazy to monitor their children and teach them good viewing habits, skepticism, and independent thought we should forcibly remove anything deemed 'too commercial' from the list of what's available to watch."
Given the results of putting unelected bureaucrats in charge of determining whats "appropriate" to teach children in schools here in the US, and the absolute train-wreck our education system has become because of it, you'll forgive me if the thought of giving them more control over what people watch doesn't seem all that appealing.
"Zero entertainment budget" does not necessarily translate into "zero clothing budget", "zero food budget", or various other categories. Poor people actually need *more* information about what's available in order to choose what to spend their limited resources on.
Sounds a lot like what sales tax is turning into here in the US. Only here you also have to contend with differing tax rates for different services. As an example, the tax code which applies just to a small computer repair shop is in excess of ten pages in my area, and contains gems like a different tax rate for removing software from a computer than for installing software on a computer...
Ah, but in traditional harassment law, the penalties are applied to the harassor, not to the owner of the communication medium through which the harassing communication passes. This law is the equivalent of imposing a fine on the telephone company for not being able to prevent obscene voicemails from getting through.
As for how someone could use it for censorship: It's easy. Say you have a Facebook page I don't like. This law doesn't apply to it, but I file a complaint anyway. First several with Facebook (which will ignore them because I'm just being an ass) followed by one with the AU government that Facebook is ignoring it. Facebook then has to dig out its lawyers and audit logs and pay associated costs for an investigation (which finds nothing.) Technically they could sue me, but it's pretty easy to do all this from a false, untraceable identity.
So, I've just cost Facebook a few thousand dollars defending itself from a spurious allegation regarding your page.
Now I do it all again. And again. And again. With modern technology I can have a steady stream of complaints rolling in, possibly even from valid identities depending on how much I want to pay for it.
Facebook's reaction to these tactics in the past has been pretty consistent. Your page will be removed. They don't care about free speech. They won't continue to pay thousands of dollars a month in legal bills to stand up for you just on principle. Your page will be gone without my ever having to reveal who I am. And I can continue to use these tactics against you wherever you attempt to host your content next as long as they have some presence in Australia.
Plus there's the fact that the goal here isn't endgame censorship. The goal is to get the people to regard the government telling them what they can and can't post or read on the Internet as normal by starting with something that most people don't have a problem with. They'll come around for another nibble of your free speech next year.
Anybody using or accepting code from them needs to be careful. If the license is not purchased, there's no legal contract, and they can revoke it at any time. I forsee a tactic of "spread out, write code for lots of open source projects, and once it's thoroughly in use tell them they have thirty days to pay us for it or stop using it."
The average tactic of the stereotypical patent troll is not to find a patent that you are clearly infringing and sue you for it. It's to find a patent that you arguably *might* be infringing, and then threaten to sue you and intentionally drag the case out as long as possible in court, thereby costing you millions in legal fees and lost work time if you don't agree to pay them a few hundred thousand to go away. Most of the time they don't even win their cases, but they've still cost you years worth of sitting in court. They can bankrupt your company without having a valid claim, and sometimes without even actually identifying what you're actually doing that violates the patent.
"Piracy-based emulation" would be an emulator which uses a pirated copy of the original console's internal ROM. Such emulators do exist.
However, it is the position of most console manufacturers that *any* emulation without an official license is piracy, even if it uses a "clean room rewrite" of their ROM. This assertion doesn't stand up in court as it's exactly what all the IBM-PC clone makers did back in the 80s and 90s; but it doesn't have to if Apple is willing to simply ban all such emulators from their devices.
The moral? Buy an Open Phoenux and run whatever you darn well please.
From the information presented in this article, I would say that whether or not the law applies depends on how the app works. If it harvests Twitter data and sends it off to the Samaritans for processing, and then displays the result, then yes, the law as phrased would apply to them. And, since the law does not require you to give them anything other than your name, a single person who demands they stop processing data, and withholds their Twitter handle can force them to shut down the entire service.
If, on the other hand, all processing is performed locally on the smartphone in question, then your notice needs to be directed to those of your twitter followers who use the app. The Samaritans would no more be liable for their software being misused by people who do not comply with legal notifications than would the manufacturer of the time clock in the example you gave if some employer chose to misuse it.
And then it also gets to their position about it not being reasonable for you to expect privacy when posting things to third-party sites on the Internet. Which is yet another can of worms to deal with.
Don't know about elsewhere, but in the USA it went wrong with the DMCA, which made what the fellow with the oscilloscope at the top of the article did an automatic felony, even if no such terms were included in the sales contract. (It's very rarely prosecuted though, just used to extort money/behaviour from people) And I'm not talking about him posting the instructions, I'm talking about using the workarounds, on a piece of hardware he theoretically owns.
Meanwhile, certain large interests *cough Disney cough* have managed to get the copyright term pushed out to over 120 years. And even once those copyrights expire, under the DMCA it will *still* be illegal to bypass the copy protection to make any copies...
And so software and hardware lockouts are protected with the force of law. It will be coming to a PC near you next. Micro$oft is already requiring some platforms to be locked down so that they will not run any other OS without buying permission.
In a constitutional republic (like a lot of countries are) it already is. Doesn't help much though as the government simply builds a big enough military/police force that they can then vote away the prohibition on voting themselves more power and break the heads of the first few people who complain. The other 80% of the population are sheep who don't pay attention and are too afraid to stand up for themselves.
My tlhInganHol is rather rusty, but, for the uninitiated, the Du' also makes the statement plural. Without it, it may only be referring to one. So it's kind of necessary both for specifying what type of orb and how many.
You can also use -Daj to specify that the orbs in question are still owned by the dog, as opposed to say, "dog orbs" as an appetizer or something...
targh moQDu'Daj is about the best translation I can think of (given that a targh is about as close to a dog as the Klingons have) but I rather doubt that it would be used as a compliment...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019