Well, knowing that amount of information about the children extends well to the parents.
The organization response does appear to be tone-deaf. I wouldn't care if they had perfect security. I care about what they're going to do with the information.
But the bug probably is heartbleed. They're just not disclosing that they were affected.
What do you mean by "they were affected"? Only _servers_ were affected by the "heartbleed" bug. Apple was lucky enough that its major services (App Store, iTunes, iCloud) didn't use OpenSSL.
For example take Richard Reid aka the "shoe bomber". Only a completely incompetent idiot tries to light a fuse in full view of everyone, rather than take the simple expediency of locking yourself in the toilet!!!
To underline how stupid and incompetent they are the "underwear bomber" made exactly the same critical mistake.
The underwear bomber apparently spent 20 minutes in the bathroom preparing the device. I don't know why he didn't just try to light it in the bathroom. Anyways, it doesn't matter, since in both cases the devices were faulty anyways. If they had been in working order, they would have succeeded because they had sufficient time before the passengers reacted.
It's insinuated that Julie is being deceitful by hiding the fact that the engineer is an ex-boyfriend. If it is, in fact, true that it was an ex-boyfriend, it's equally reasonable that Julie excluded that part of the story from her public side of the tale in order to protect his identity and not publicly call him out. Keep in mind Julie didn't even mention the founder or his wife by name.
You're bending over backwards here. If it is true it was an ex-boyfriend, that completely changes the dynamic of the story and it was deceptive of her to leave it out. She didn't name the founder, but offered plenty of details. It's beyond belief that she was merely trying to protect the engineer's identity by omitting such a salient detail (again, if it is true).
Given the "meritocracy" rug crap, her mention of the hula hoop incident, and her feminist "Passion Projects" activism at the company, I'm not inclined to give her any benefit of the doubt and think she's more interested in feminist issues than being a productive worker.
Some of her patches were reverted by a co-worker? How traumatic for her.
Tell you what, if I reverted changes that my co-workers did, I would have a hell of a lot of explaining to do.
Largely because better trained staff will demand more pay, or will go somewhere else to get it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
That's the documentary I watched, and the specific part that shows he remained silent at the pinnacle moment. It's a shame that he did so much to prevent the disaster up until that point, but didn't yell out one last time and override his managers.
Meh, not to worry, as soon as those dopey cops realise they were spying on themselves more than anyone else and excuses about it not being turned on wont work, they'll drop the idea, especially as most of their criminal activities do take place in public spaces.
The first question that needs to be asked is was it a corporate back door or a government back door. A lot of governments always seem to be rather conveniently forgetful when it comes to how profitable insider trading is and how corporate fiscal espionage readily facilitates it. This allowing profits in the billions and if you don't think that it is one of the biggest drivers of government contracted to private corporations espionage than you are truly gullible and foolish, seriously billions of dollars of profits are up for grabs based upon private access to fiscal data for publicly traded companies, prior to that information being available to the public, especially upon a global scale.
And this is exactly the reason people are pissed off about him saying that. The idea that because someone has a manual labor job must because they are stupid and useless is terrible assumption to make.
Here in the UK, there was a newspaper about some physicist complete with a PhD who decided that he wanted to make more money, and retrained as a plumber... Actually doubling his income in the process.
I can imagine all the side and twisting forces wreaking havoc with your wrists and arms.
The instructions tell you not to hold on to the axe handle when it hits the target. Not only because it's bad for the wrist, but the harder you hold on to it, the more you prevent the rotating of the axe head which we are told makes it work so well.
I consider a vote for a Greenie or a Libbie a vote for "none of the above". When it comes to a state's Governor, he can screw that state up all by himself. Illinois was in good shape under Thompson and Edgar and went to hell under Ryan and Blago. A vote for someone who thinks government is always the problem and never the solution is a vote for a failed government.
The difference is that those EULAs are license agreements for software (including the pre-installed software that comes on your new hardware) and there is precedent for it being legal to put those clauses in software EULAs.
You are confusing two things. "It is legal to put those clauses into EULAs" means "you can't go to jail for putting these clauses into EULAs". That doesn't mean that such a clause has any legal merit whatsoever. What _is_ legal and enforcable in EULAs are terms that allow you or disallow you making copies of software. Because that's what EULAs are about; they give you rights to copy software and can of course limit what rights they give you. A clause that prevents customers from going to court - good luck trying to enforce that.
Far more logically. Let's ask the question, what if you could grow guns on trees, surely they would not try to regulate plants, er, yeah right. So regulating weapons, how about a little question and answers time from the South Australian Police Force http://www.police.sa.gov.au/sa.... They seem to have no problem regulating all sorts of weapons, even ones that do grow on trees.
Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker
