There is no constitutional right to privacy, nor to work.
If you say so.
Therefore employers, including the government, have a right to know what you post on Facebook.
This is not a valid inference from the previous statement.
The GP already made it CLEAR that the == operator is not a statement of equivalence.
The particular choice of operator for equality in a predicate cannot influence whether the predicate is being logically asserted, i.e. holds for all valuations, or is just a free-standing formula. To make it clear that it was an assertion, it should have been written with a turnstile in front:
|- RTFA == WTFV
Apparently travel is expensive as those Coulombians are always charged...
FTFA (first line):
How did a 78-ton boulder travel 17 miles above high water, 130 meters inland?
This is the start of an entirely different news article that I can complete in two words: it didn't.
500 kw/h per day is even more nonsensical. Energy over time cubed?
As a watt is a joule per second, isn't 500kW/h actually energy over time squared?
Maybe they meant kWh per day. That would almost make sense, but come on...
...just use (suitably scaled) kW!
(I only joke because there were no fatalities!)
How do you know? I cannot find an article saying all residents have been accounted for.
Launch was in February. Farnell says that EARLIEST date is June. It all stinks. I feel scammed. Its one thing to be incompetent, its another to constantly lie.
I'm curious - what happened when you asked for your money back?
Sentencing Mangham, Judge Alistair McCreath said his actions could have been "utterly disastrous" for Facebook
I wonder if the judge is aware that his assessment of Mangham's actions, as quoted, is also an accurate assessment of the security flaw that Mangham exploited, that existed before he even touched a Facebook server. I see no mention of the potential loss to Facebook had the security flaw been exploited to do real harm. There is no question that this would have made $200,000 look like a small amount.
It is my opinion that the court completely failed to see Mangham's actions in perspective. Theft of IP is a serious matter. However, the judge
acknowledged that Mangham had never intended to pass on any of the information he had gathered, nor did he intend to make any money from it
Furthermore, no actual damage was done. The sentence was all about risk. The judge said:
"The creation of that risk, the extent of that risk and the cost of putting it right mean at the end of it all I'm afraid a prison sentence is inevitable."
But if the sentence was all about risk, why did the judge not consider the enormous reduction in risk that resulted from Mangham's actions? Was the "creation of that risk" was all a small price to pay for closing what is obviously a colossal security hole - a much bigger risk?
The bewilderingly long prison sentence leaves me wondering if there is more to this than we can see. For example, we all know that social media is a key tool used by intelligence gathering agencies. What, or should I say whose, intellectual property did Mangham really see? Also, if people become concerned about the security of social media, they may stop using it. The more evil and clever Mangham is made to look, the less disturbing the Facebook security flaw appears.
Old programmers never die, they just hit account block limit.
