What part of PRIVATE EMAIL accounts do you not get?

As an AC posted here previously:

Here's another source:

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/10/consumer-activist-kate-hanni-a.html

Mr. Gaughan proceeded to show me on his computer monitor what appeared to be hacked and stolen email communications within the last six (6) months or more between Kate Hanni and me, me and Gary Stoller of USA Today, me and Susan Stellin, a freelance reporter, and Kate Hanni and a number of people concerning the Passenger Bill of Rights, excessive surface delays, and other private communications. It was clear that they had email transactions from both of my private email accounts: Hotmail (eckmaster12@msn.com) and Yahoo (eckmaster@mmi-gov.com). It was also clear that these emails were from Kate Hanni's private and personal email account (katcrew4@aol.com), as well as from Gary Stoller's (gstoller@usatoday.com) private USA Today account, and Susan Stellin's (stellin@earthlink.net) private and personal email account. There were no emails communications from Metron Aviation's email system only communications from information that I gave her as fuel for getting the Passenger Bill of Rights passed in Congress. He said that Delta Airlines sent this information to them.

Clear enough?

Not that weak really...

From the article:

Private email account correspondence in the hands of a Delta manager with no legal access to the account is not weak evidence. To be corroborated of course like all other claims, but it's not a weak claim if it can be proven. There have been more "hacking" cases like this lately that blur the term to mean "unauthorized" access more than gaining computer access by advanced technological means.

To change the forwarding on an internal company server, sure, fine. But to do it on outside accounts that you do not own, not so fine.

Yes you are.

You are allowed to totally reload any software onto that hardware that you legally own/create/patch to make work.
You are not allowed to use that altered or custom software to gain free access to their programming database for schedule information since that's part of the subscription you signed up for to use the box as it was. That's not to say that you couldn't make some software that gets the onformation from another source and uses the hardware to do the DVR functions using alternate drivers and all.

You purchased the box and subscribe to the service. If you don't want the service you can cancel. Unless you got a deal for signing up for a number of years you're done with them and keep the hardware. You can now do with it as you please. Smash it with a hammer, sell it on ebay, or load a flavor of linux and have a dedicated dvr box with full control of the hardware you own. Minus the warranty of course. But really? What are electronics warranties worth these days anyway? Hack it!

Warning, The page you are about to view contains P0rN and a small malware virus, would you like to continue?

Options:
Yes give me the Virus
No Block the P0rN.

From the Source of all knowledge (ok, Wikipedia)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_charger#Prolonging_battery_life

... Warranty void if left out in the sun for prolonged exposure.

So where did all the news come from before the big media payrolls had a staff of reporters tasked to go gather news?

It came from the same place that the reports out of third world firewalled countries are coming from now. Those reports from behind blackouts are coming from the people. They are taking into their own hands the responsibility of reporting on the events that are changing their lives. This isn't a community car wash fluff piece to add filler at 11:15 or to even out a 2b page in the paper so the ads look better.

This is real journalism.

The integrity that the big names in US reporter history didn't choose their job for a paycheck, they did it for the story. The revelations. The scoop.
The grammar and spelling in these front line reports of government blackout of information isn't checked now because the system to do that isn't built into the process. Twitter doesn't care how you spell "bloodbath and genocide" and most people reading it can get the point. Even if it's gone through some translations on the way. The real reporting is just a matter of caring enough about something to write it down. To dig into the facts and see that there is a story, and go for it. Flush out all the angles and talk to sources close to the event or field of interest. The big names started on the fluff stories and then went for it. They dug for the scoop and used their witts and guts to get the good leads. Those people are still out there and would love a chance to go all out. To really get to the meat of some of the stories that the major news organizations would never have on Page 1. Because it hurts their coddled readers view of the world. The one that the news outlet pushes in little sussinct bites claiming completeness. The real journalists were contraversial not because the story matched the party line, but because it was real news.

They will probably have heir own News Application.

They will pay for submissions and have peer review filtering and cross checking with all the force of their processing and database power. To deliver to the public a trustworthy and inherently balanced perspective of the world.

There will most likely be writers and editors with their own biases and the readers will love it. But they will not be the only ones with stories on the front page. There will be discussions tagged at the bottom of each story ala Google groups. There will be hyperlinks galore to all sorts of factual references discussed in the article. And the people will be better served by a conglomeration of assimilated news sources that from the selective biased manipulative fearmongering "we decide what news is" outlets that we have now. NBC and FOX will have no say in an event. The people could see both sides of the story if Google pursues this. Since both stories could be on the front page side by side.

Like they should be.

Fair and balanced reporting. For real. Both sides shown without malice, for you to read and decide. Since the corporation involved with giving this news to you has no stake in the perspective. Just the delivering of the news. To give you the option to read what articles and pursue what links you may. You will be better informed than if you subscribed to only one source for your consumption.

But yes. Total pipe dream. But you asked.

What would happen? Something that could be good.

Who pays Google?

The adwords they could sell along the sides of this hypothetical news service could pay for the bandwidth, a set of editorial fact checking groups (one for each bias on most major issues) And they would have money left over for other projects to move data from the chaotic maelstrom of information coming into the internet and present it to us in an indexable, sortable, parseable, searchable form we can manage. After all that's what news is, just another form of data being posted onto the web.

Do you really trust the media outlets you have now to do a better job than Google at this? It's what Google does.

Pretty unbiased reporting about what's out there. Just the original source data could be formatted and indexed a bit better. Google could take a summer and have some real good code to help with that. :) And then we could get to the real news.

The next Mac vs PC add is going to be John Hodgeman having an awesome party with the cards and posters and little tote bags.

All by himself.

Then the Mac (Justin Long) comes in and asks "What are you doing PC?"

PC replies "STFU! These are MY toys for MY party and they ROCK and you aren't invited!
He then cries quietly in the corner.

This is all well and good until you happen upon a website, network, or system that hasn't thought to allow all special characters in the password field. This is the other side of password theory that admins don't get. If you want really secure passwords, don't limit what they can be made of. Some don't allow or keep uppercase, some don't allow non alphanumeric characters. So your password must be slightly different than you would make by default and therefore remember on the first try after a while not using it.

This is sometimes in the software they use and not even a setting. There have been many examples but I think that one of the best was a website that had a hyphen in the name but did not allow hyphens in the url of an account "website" field when setting it up. They didn't think that anybody would have it, but they themselves did.

No standards are so good that they are not to be followed by those with them in place.

From the article:

Just went and read it. Good short story! Thanks.

So again, if you lose cell phone signal and therefore the mapping/directions that are being delivered to your cellphone you are lost until you get it back. If you lose GPS signal you still have the built in map that most GPS devices use to actually look around at street signs and landmarks to find your way by following the map.

So it doesn't matter which is more or less likely to be blocked by trees, you still have a map with a gps device, and you lose it with almost all cell phoe solutions. Even a smartphone with google maps relies on the data connection for maps instead of having a built in one. If it tries to refresh and loses the cached view you're lost.

Like I said before...
If you lose the cellphone signal you cannot get directions from your phone.

You cannot get 411 instructions without a cell phone signal, so in that scenario how would you get the 411 instructions?
Also, how would you get lead off a cliff? If it loses a signal it doesn't tell you what to do.

The mapping error dangers are the same with both.
You are much more likely to have a gps lock on 3 of the 27 GPS satellites orbiting the earth if you can see the sky, than you are to be near enough a tower when you would need a map to find your way. In a city where buildings would block or scatter the towers signals the sky is still visible if you're on a road. Skyscrapers are bad for both but only with real GPS can you have a map to look at if you lose the signal.

Do you think that the interviewers think it is? Do you think that if you read a persons resume that it would be a fair assessment of their past work history and experience?

Or would you accept that everybody that submits a resume is obviously biased and reporting on themselves is not a full and complete history. Since they have to include references and contact info for their previous jobs it seems that they are by default not trusted to be a complete and balanced source by themselves. So your example stands as it's own opposition. People do not tell about themselves when trying to impress someone to get a job and everybody knows it and expects no less than embellishment. Hence they ask for outside verification as well.

If you are trying to sell a car or a home there are third parties that are expected to inspect these objects to ensure your statements are true, it's not expected that you are an expert in all the areas that are important in these cases. You are also judged on your trustworthiness in these cases. It's not the same as if the person was to filter the results of a termite inspection and only report the good parts, or if they altered the carfax report on the car. That's why there are these third party services, because people are not expected to be unbiased in their account of their own worth or the products they are trying to sell.

Companies are a different matter.

There are quite a few laws in place that people trust are being obeyed. It is illegal to advertise falsely that your product cures a disease or treats an illness.
It is illegal to advertise a product of some value and then once the customer is ready to purchase it, switch to selling them an inferior product. (as a practice)
There are many other laws about advertising because the business world needs trust to operate. And while it doesn't create the level playing field it means to, it does put into the minds of the populous that they can trust to some extent the claims of retailers. There is a big difference that may not be in the front of their minds though. That there is a big difference between an acknowledged advertisement on TV and a retailers own Website.

To advertise on TV or even place banners through Google adds, the retailer must meet certain criteria. Small print, disclaimers, relevant details that go with their claims of a certain product. That's why we all see things like, "results not typical" "your results may vary" and "see retailer for details". These things don't help sales but they are required when advertising a claim. If they claim something without so much as an asterisk and it is not true, they could be in trouble. But here's the problem. If they have a Website that promotes their product and only has the most glowing reviews but does not claim that the reviews are representative or inclusive or even unpaid. It's not a claim that's false. They don't have to say that the reviews are anything, they could be just marketing people typing the company agenda. And we assume they are real reviews since they allow us to submit them as well. There are no laws in this area. they can delete your review and unless they use your name and change the words, it's within the law. It's a problem with what we expect in one area not applying to another. Like copyright and patents, most people don't know where one stops and the other begins. And I think that's the fault of the ones who are in change of the laws. We should learn them, but we should also not be expected to have law degrees to do so. Like anything that effects us all so much, there should be a brief attached that explains as succinctly as possible the meat of the laws in these areas and it should be taught on such a widespread basis that everyone could spot a company trying to fool them in this manner. But that's only hopeful thinking I know.

And to the GP:

Unless it says that these are all reviews, it's your assumption. And that's not illegal for them, just irresponsible of you.
Do you believe what you see in an infomercial to be the actual results of a fair representation of users?
Or do you notice the small print of "dramatization", "up to" or "actors" that are required of these claims in the advertisements by law.
Without a claim that these are all the reviews submitted, they don't need to tell you that they aren't.

So while I see no obviously illegal act, I see a loss of credibility. And that's the open market at work. If I find out who this company is, I will simply not buy their product based on what they, or their reviews, say.

Ok, so you're saying to trust the 411 cell phone call directions when you don't have cell phone reception to enable the mapping portion for GPS on your cell phone?

What part of that makes sense?

No cell phone reception means no calls. No reception does not mean the built in mapping data in unavailable and could still walk you through the turns if not track your location automatically. As I remember most streets are marked with these little signs at the intersections to tell you where you are.

This is why security guards need to be used with security cameras at all times.

So they can watch eachother.