Why don't you take the conditional to be a form of emphasis as I intended it ("even if he was stupid and careless" in the sense of "it doesn't matter that he was stupid and careless")?
If you did that, maybe you'd realize this isn't "much ado about nothing" as whether he changed his password is totally irrelevant to those questions and besides the point.
What are you all on about? He said he disabled administrative access from outside. No matter the password, there's intrusion going on here, so there is something to talk about.
If a password was all there is to protect your router from outside, all hell would break loose for simple brute forcing. You also can't expect Aunt Irma to change her password first thing when she gets net access.
Finally, even disregarding all that, even if he was stupid and careless, they can't just access the router if he didn't explicitly give them the right in a contract somewhere. I get you're all supercomputerexperts, but maybe we could talk about what he's asking?
Why is there an open forced access port/back door?
Is that ok without telling the owner?
What security is in place that entities besides Verizon can't access it?
You know, this isn't D&D. You can't just say you make an excellent point, you have to actually make one.
Oh, wait. Were you just being redundant?
In any case: "Useless reply."
Commercially Canonical is proving that "Linux on the Desktop" is a failure.
It can't prove any such thing, as it isn't trying to be, yet. All it proves is that if you put enough marketing behind Linux and give your product away for free (to increase its adoption instead of your account balance), adoption does increase and your account balance doesn't.
Here's a picture of a pony:
http://babybird.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/pony.jpg
What are you trying to do here? There still is no outright refusal to fix this.
Instead it says:
We will continue to investigate the vulnerability and, upon completion of that investigation, we will take appropriate action to protect our customers.
Basic knowledge for whom?
Slashdot readers, for example.
Insecure by design: Damn Vulnerable Linux
Damn Vulnerable Linux is "The most vulnerable and exploitable operating system ever" according to its Web site. It's designed for security training; it includes training material and exercises (as well as a whole bunch of flaws to exploit). As Mayank Sharma notes: "Damn Vulnerable Linux (DVL) is everything a good Linux distribution isn't. Its developers have spent hours stuffing it with broken, ill-configured, outdated, and exploitable software that makes it vulnerable to attacks."
(Unusual, Obscure, and Useful Linux Distros, 2010-07-01)
I missed foobar2000 until I installed mpd, mpc and ncmpcpp. I missed ACDSee until I installed feh and imagemagick. I missed utorrent until I installed rtorrent (it goes up to 'r', that's two better).
A few keybindings and custom scripts using libnotify-bin and zenity later, I am much more happy with this setup.
"May not limit the right of a user to enter or use any class of instruments, devices or appliances on the network, provided they [...] do not [...] harm [...] service quality."
That isn't a catch, it totally invalidates the entire thing. That is precisely the justification being used. Viz: "We can't allow you to use BitTorrent or other high data volume services because they harm service quality for other users."
This isn't a net neutrality law but a net neutrality except for services that don't deserve neutrality law.
Have you even read the article?! It just has a high piracy rate. No stopping, no failing, no bankrupting, at all. Not even using DRM in the future.
... people who pirate our game aren’t people who would have purchased it had they not been able to get it without paying.
in our case, we might have even converted more than 1 in a 1000 pirates into legit purchases. either way, ricochet shipped with DRM, world of goo shipped without it, and there seems to be no difference in the outcomes.
Arithmetic is being able to count up to twenty without taking off your shoes. -- Mickey Mouse
