> there are a significant chance of surviving a car accident, but almost none at all of a plane one.
Also, the charts of fatalities by travel mode that I've seen have already screened out the non-fatalities. If you died in a car accident, no matter how un/likely it was, you're 100% dead.
The blog you linked seems to miss the point. (Which I think is what you're saying.)
If people try to guess URLs for what you see as (for example) steps 3-7 of a ten-step process, maybe you should see what your users are trying to tell you - that it's at least three smaller tasks that need to be usable individually.
And if there really is some reason to force them to use your workflow (perhaps you want to push ads in step 2 and not release content until your javascript sends home a message saying the ad is visible) then you need to do it right and give them an unforgeable token, or make note of an existing unforgeable token - ie what a cookie is for.
This is what the obfuscated URLs are (something unforgeable) but this fact of their nature mainly makes debugging harder - for third-party developers and for the primary developers.
This is an example of the problem of the non-experts re-inventing security. At best this matches existing common practices for user-auth, at likely worst it's worthless and you'll never know it because you can't debug it.
So yeah, I think I agree. Hashing URLs for some sense of control over how they're used misses the boat on security and wastes all the benefit of human-readable protocols, etc.
> There's nothing "juvenile" in using this to describe someone who actually fits this description, it is very common turn of phrase.
Maybe you commonly hang around juveniles.
>> It's pretty obvious you're upset because you're an authoritarian
> I'm not upset at the least - why would I be?
Why are authoritarians always upset when they think they see someone cheating? Dunno. Biological probably. I've been flamed for being a cheater because I write a minesweeper AI, presumably because the person was afraid I'd go claiming high-scores around the net. Had they never heard of deep-blue? Paranoia...
> I just point out the reasons why Auernheimer is treated like he is, and the fact is that he and his personality the main cause of it.
Yeah, because there's absolutely no real issue here except him pissing off authority figures. Customers might care their email addresses weren't private, but until this was blown out of proportion, AT&T wouldn't have.
>> You're more concerned with jailing those who disrespect your surrogate authority
> Again, this is completely false - nobody talked about any respect to any authority.
You talk about it, in every post. (Look up) You never talk about damages because you know there weren't any.
If all you had meant to do was make that stunning observation you'd have noticed the other ten posts, most calling him a douchebag too, and not bothered doing it yourself.
You're right, but why belabor the point unless it's all you care about?
>> It wasn't private info, it was email addresses. They aren't treated as private
> Maybe not by you.
Not by AT&T, that's for sure. This isn't like they tried and failed to secure the system, they didn't pay it any attention.
> But for those to whom they belonged they certainly were private and not meant to be disclosed.
No, not at all. The users only thought their email addresses were private.
However, if there was damage it'd have been going on until the problem was fixed.
If there was real potential for damage, such as a gas leak in an orphanage, you'd be happy to hear about it even if the person who discovered it was a horrible troll. Here you're willing to shoot the messenger because we all know it wasn't a big deal.
> What we were talking about is unlawful and unauthorized access to private data
No, we're talking about someone who incremented an integer in a URL.
It's only illegal because he pissed everyone off. If someone cute had done this it either wouldn't be news or AT&T would be the bad guy. No harm was done, nothing was cracked, and no "keep out" signs were bypassed - not that even intentional trespass tends to get jailtime (unless it's part of a larger crime, like scouting for things to steal).
As you always say, he's in jail because he pisses people off.
If you have a document counter, it's your job to tell the staff which documents to hand out. It's not the responsibility of the customer who walks up to make sure they're properly authorized to have a "27 stroke b", it's yours. If someone presented fake company ID that would be fraud, but no ID was requested.
> while censorship and control over the American media
You seem awful fixated on the USA. If you're trying to make Singapore sound nice, try setting your sights on a well run humanitarian country and discuss the parallels, don't talk about how the USA is bad too.
> I hate the proposal, of course. Plain and simple.
> It still doesn't make PAP a fascist dictatorship or a police state
Depends. Mention gay people, lviing in Singapore, in a positive light, on your website in defiance of the law (assuming it passes) and see what they do. That's a better test than you assuring us it's just fine.
But, at that, the basic intent is repressive and undemocratic. I think it is dictatorial for a government to restrict what their citizens can see, read, or hear because without informed consent people can't knowingly consent to being governed. That this is attempted - and not immediately responded to as attempted treason - is a sign a government already views its citizens as its property.
If you'd set your sights a bit (err, a lot) higher than the USA you might find some countries or organizations or at least ideals worthy of respect and emulation.
No, not at all. That's the dumbest thing someone has said on here in weeks. You should be ashamed.
The miniskirt analogy is to describe someone innocent and helpless!
> That force was there at the request of King Saud
Wow, who could disagree with a monarch? Especially an oil-rich one looking for foreign protectors.
> What justifies forbidding people from holding any other religious belief than the approved one?
Nobody is. This is where you can't stand to lose so you start lying and throwing in irrelevant things.
> What makes Usama bin Laden the superior authority to say who is allowed to live in Arabia?
What makes you the authority? Bush is more of a religious fanatic, and killed over two-hundred times more people than Osama.
Anyways, yes, they did attack you for things you did. You can act like a child "I'm just swinging my fist - too bad if it hits your nose" or you can realize the impacts of your actions, and that yes, people will react to them. Even if you disagree you can see learn to see it coming.
Even in Canadian protests the police have been caught sneaking in trouble-makers with rocks and black ski-masks. If they didn't create the panic they wouldn't get paid for solving it.
Considering that the Turkish government is trying to make the protestors look bad so they have justification for going overboard in their earlier treatment of them, it's more likely that plain-clothes police officers looted those stores and overturned the cars.
When something violent and destructive happens, look at who did the last such thing.
I helped a client write their own HN hiring letter.
They'd originally had corp-speak in there like "5y PHP Developer". "Must have BS in ..." and we rewrote their requirements to things developers would have to know how to use (PHP OO, SQL with X, Able to do Y in Z, etc) and a description of the challenges you'd have.
Despite having chopped out the arbitrary restrictions, we made the posting much tougher. Which is good, it was for essentially engineer #1 and they needed someone who'd let the founder be able to delegate.
Yeah, many of the posts here are much more exacting than "regular" job boards. They're written by the people doing the work rather than via an HR filter.
It's too bad they can choose to stop once they've started. Like the patent trolls new-egg is fighting.
New-egg should essentially be able to take the trolls to court and part them out for sale, down to their CEO's organs, for trying this in the first place.
> denying you access to the firmware was never their intent.
Unlikely. With a new person or company it's sporting to give them the benefit of the doubt. With Microsoft if you're still ignoring everything illegal and anti-competitive they do you're on the payroll.
Microsoft specifically modified its products to sabotage a competitor, and lied about it. Microsoft faked evidence to use in Federal court and Bill presented that evidence though it was clearly wrong to anyone who'd used windows.
Why on Earth would anyone give them the benefit of the doubt?
The BSA, which they support, wouldn't give you the benefit of the doubt.
Actually, software licenses aren't required to simply use a program - though you can certainly obtain a copy by licensing it.
Essentially, copies made that are inherently required for the expected function of the work (to the HD if required, to RAM, to screen, etc) aren't copyright violations. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117
> People accuse NATO soldiers of war crimes everyday without even realizing the legitimate war crimes we prevented every single place we went.
Had we gone into Afghanistan in the 90s when various groups of locals were asking us to we might have fought about as much, in the end, but we'd have been there at the request of the people, actually building relationships, instead of continually rebuilding a failed-by-design state for some bullshit 9/11 excuse.
Bin Laden might still have happened because he wasn't depending on Afghanistan, or he might not have, because the allies could have had a better (good) reputation in the area negating much of the terrorist fervor.
But, I (one who criticizes our soldiers for war crimes) do recognize that we often, ultimately, bring some good to the survivors - hospitals, clean water, etc, and often stop many ongoing killings and other horrible practices. But never for the reasons we say we're there and only in doing things that perpetuate the cycle of war such as setting up dictators and selling critical resources and infrastructure.
Even if in their specific case any given soldier may save more lives than they cost, our war overall and our continued ability to wage it via the complicity of our soldiers, will cost far more lives in the end.
Refusing to fight for an unjust cause, or hurt without need, is a duty of all soldiers of modern civilized militaries. Sure, it realistically means jail for those who refuse - but it means death for their victims if they don't.
Afghanistan and Iraq were clearly not justified by 9/11 or implicated by any related evidence. By fighting for the USA and allies despite these lies, without the mandate of the people, soldiers are essentially pissing on the rule of law.
We're showing - through action not words - that no matter what they do we'll just make shit up and bomb them. Why do we expect them to expect anything else?
If our governments couldn't field the army unjustly, our peacekeeping might not only be welcome but might finally work.
Maybe it says that Afghanistan's border is a pile of western-motivated political crap and the country shouldn't be.
Hell, Quebec wants out of Canada and we generally all get along fairly well. Imagine how we'd feel if all the provinces felt the same and were actively and brutally fighting. Why are we trying to hold this mess together?
We've got this manifest destiny thing like we've got to make 1946's border permanent.
You mean you can send someone to "the hole" for sending them a questionable book? And Amazon will fulfill this for order for any prepaid credit card?
Am I the only one seeing a problem?
Not that a book on covert CIA tactics is really related to his sentence, but let's pretend.
Meh. Keep sending books to weev. If this gets him in trouble, not that I'm hoping it does though I wouldn't doubt it would, anonymously send books on prison breaks to tens of thousands of prisoners and overwhelm the system and give their lawyers, and his, ways to challenge the madness.
Sitting quietly and accepting the crap just because they'll make it hurt more otherwise is still the losing option.
A couple thoughts, some more depressing than others.
You could probably get three to six months off pretty easily. If just asking wouldn't work, you could hint a relative is on their last legs and make a firmer request? A few months would probably clarify the issue in a way we can't for you.
Consider looking for a new job. Partly to judge the market, and the market's take on you, and partly to actually look for something much better. You could negotiate a six-month late start and have a vacation while you decided if the job really was for you.
Maybe you could already afford to retire - in Costa-Rica or Thailand for random example - and could buy and rent property there as a fallback nest egg in case this really was your retirement, but otherwise not costing so much as to hurt your savings assuming you'll want to try to retire here.
And lastly, what's the chance that retirement savings is going to be here when you want to retire? Are you paying attention to where it is enough to avoid the next bubble? Land would still be valuable to live on, rent, while currency-denominated assets could easily hyper-inflate. Some assets can be seized, or lost in war, others - or remotely stored ones - perhaps less.
All that said, do it! Don't make any commitments, just start by taking vacation, ask for leave when that's out, and quit when that's done if you still want to stay away.