because life's not completely disconnected like that?
because you don't pay someone that publicly exposed exploits without giving you a chance to fix them.

say you paid a guy to mow your lawn for $20 and wash your car for $20. he does a fine job mowing your lawn, but in the process of washing your car he breaks your windshield and slits your tires (maliciously, and offering no compensation). would you pay him for mowing your lawn?

groupon would rather bugs not be reported at all than having them posted openly on the internet before they have a chance to fix them. anyone would. this guy did them a major disservice.

maybe you aren't familiar with how bug bounties work. it's when a company pays a finder for *privately* reporting issues before they are discovered publicly. this guy did both. he reported it privately when went on to disclose it publicly. you think a company should reward someone for disclosing security vulnerabilities publicly before they have a chance to fix them?

you new to the internet? you can't expose something for a "short period of time". once it's posted, it lives on. anyone could have copied it. maybe you'd like to post your credit card card info for a "short period of time". you okay with that? it's only one "thing" after all.

that's the whole point of a bounty system: to get folks to report bugs to you *privately* before they are discovered publicly. he got what he deserves. this is nothing more than sour grapes. he wanted his bounty, and the public fame of posting to xssposed.org. well, can't have both.

^^^ this. and mr. swartz most certainly knew that also. as another post stated, he was likely to get somewhere between a few months and a few years. after which he'd be a folk hero and have his choice of employment or continued studies.

it doesn't, and note that he was never sentenced to that was he? let me tell you how it works. prosecutors throw the book, defenders ask for community service, and they meet in the middle.

also, you should learn some words >4 letters. if you actually want to sway people to your point that is. if you're just trolling, then by all means, keep up the good work.

drought map shows no drought in PNW.
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/

sorry, we're taking your water.

create a pipeline from the PNW down to southern CA. done.

of course it'd be expensive, but this is either an emergency, or it isn't. at least there aren't (as many) environmental concerns as there are for oil pipelines. if it leaks / breaks you get a ... water spill?

i suspect microsoft would love to be in their position right now, lawsuit and all.

ironically, the fact that google is being sued like this is a good for them. not directly, but if you are big and powerful and lack competitors, that's a darn good problem to have as a business.

that does not correctly paint the picture.

it's simple undercutting strategy. no matter how favorable an environment for business nation A provides, there's always a nation B that will undercut them. not because nation A is unfairly taxing business, and not because it's economically viable for nation B in the long run, but to get business to move their and then raise taxes to a point where they can break even in the long run. once businesses are entrenched, they are less likely to leave. and if you don't offer the carrot, they'll never come in the first place.

relative to other western nations, overall the US is extremely favorable to business, to the detriment of it's citizens in many cases.

they either broke a contract, or they didn't. either way, if the outcome is what you say, it's spyglass that messed up.

no way. for a gigantic fragile rocket it came in extremely hot. it was probably moving at 50+ MPH when reached 50 feet of the platform. it didn't slow down much until it was less than 10 feet away. it was also wobbling as it came in.

as much as i'd like to say that was close, it wasn't.

when you are 14, that's the pinnacle of humor.

anyway, good job trying to turn this into an issue of sexism. if you read into this that homosexuality had anything to do with it, you are the one with the problem.

nothing i said is contradicted in the article. end of story. you can read between the lines about what the author meant or really thinks. that's up to you, have fun.

^^^ you said that.

no, i'm not submitting this to a journal of science. you caught me. just my opinion based on reading the article.

the fact that you are suggesting i apologize for slander either means you are being ironic, or you are very out of touch with reality.

i stand by what i wrote. the article is a capitalist rant about how workers don't need or deserve any rights written by an out-of-touch elitist. i don't claim to know that this applies to Ellen Pao, i suspect it doesn't.