Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
As a service provider, I am not sure how to handle this because, technically, it's "their server".
On the other hand 'their' server has to share a network with other servers. If they refuse to use best current security practices, their server will start interfering with other servers.
So the answer is: don't sell them unsecured VMs. If they can't take the above argument and insist, at least charge them more based on the fact that you will have to clean up the mess eventually. And if you have many such customers, invest in some monitoring solution that can detect hacked boxen.
The fact that they use the word "punishment" shows lack of understanding about what happened and is happening.
If you lie to me and get caught, and then I punch you in the nose, that's a punishment. But if you lie to me and get caught, and then after that I don't believe you whenever you tell me things, that's not punishment.
If Google and Mozilla are being "harsh" then the only ways one can honestly describe it, is that they have a "harsh opinion" or a "harsh estimate" of CNNIC's trustworthiness.
It's amusing to think that maybe some day this way of speaking will infect other areas. "That's sure a harsh calculation" or "this is a severe regex match" or "what a brutally spiteful and vindictive tree traversal."
The other possibility is of course that Microsoft was very much in bed with the Blair government, so in the good old UK tradition of "do the exact opposite of the other guys" the Cameron government is deciding to put the thumbscrews to 'em.
Don't you people have any sense of humor anymore?
I think the problem is that he does have a sense of humor. If he didn't have one, then he would be politely laughing at the stupid posts, waiting for someone smarter than him to come along and let slip a clue that explains the joke. Little would such a humorless person realize, that there is no clue to give, because there isn't much of a joke to explain.
If you want to know whose ass that is, and why they're farting, then keep reading today's posts and maybe you'll get your answers amidst the day's deepening plot and theme. For the rest of us, though, Slashdot appears to be down today.
I do not see a citation anywhere in that post. Sorry, try again.
Trust the basement-dwelling "whaaaah gubmint baaaad!" conspiracy nuts on Slashdot to bring up 'evidence' completely unrelated to the point they are struggling to make.
'Fruit of the poisonous tree' deals with how the evidence is obtained. If, after obtaining the evidence in a legal way, an officer commits a crime by then stealing out of the evidence gathered, that still makes the evidence admissible in court. Absent any cases cited to the contrary, of course.
What, you expect that Little England will stop paying the license fee en masse?
The BBC is not dependent on stars to bring in money. It is publicly funded.
when that doesn't work (because the door is in "locked" state), the terrorist just threatens the (co)pilot inside to cabin to unlock or he'll kill the pilot and/or everyone else... At which point the pilot opens the door anyway.
He might open the door if he's armed (with the intent to come out blasting), but otherwise I don't think that's very likely.
Having a "Locked" position is idiotic to the extreme.
Unfortunately, not having a "Locked" position would be the same amount of idiotic.
Giving one pilot (in the cockpit) the means to basically lock himself in with no ability for the other pilot to enter is too great a danger.
But also failing to give one pilot the means to lock out the other pilot would be too great a danger.
Both scenarios presume one pilot who intends to destroy the aircraft and one pilot who intends to save it. That's the presumption either way, and however you approach the problem it's going to come down to whether the bad guy is locked into, or locked out of, the cockpit.
It's a coin toss, not 9/11-triggered-stupidity corruption.
It is unacceptable that Iceland need to take up large part of European legislation through a business agreement without getting representatives or audience.
Those crazy Icelandic nutcases!
This question really has jack shit to do with physics. You're looking for whatever laptop best fits a bunch of preferences that nobody else will ever guess (seriously, this is going to be the most important stuff) plus with the requirement that it also be good for editing and compiling C++. The latter can be done with damn near anything. So that leaves people to only debate
Next, we shall Kirk vs Picard vs Sheridan. You might also want to Ask Slashdot which political party's candidates you should vote for.
In regards to your first point, the system would have to be based on the offender's net worth rather than their income in the US, due to all of the tricks that the rich have paid to create in the tax code.
He was talking about hiding it. When things are hidden, tax loopholes are irrelevant because tax law isn't applied to the money in question anyway. If you can hide income then you can probably also hide the accumulated assets.
And as for loopholes, was the idea really based on income, or was it just taxable net?
Speeder: "Your honor, I have dependents and pay mortgage interest, so my fine should have exemptions and a deductible applied before you calculate my fine."
Speeder: "Furthermore, a lot of my income is from gains, so I should be fined at a lower rate than people who have jobs."
Judge: "Wow. You think I'm with the IRS."
New York is another. Ultra-high-density communities may not be common in the US -- but the ones that do are exist are, well, kinda' a big deal.
But -- oh, yeah! -- we were talking about city planning as relates to lower-income folks. And the thing is, even though you and I might consider it impossible to get to work, buy groceries, &c. in much of the country without a car, there are still people doing that by necessity. My brother-in-law used to take his bicycle on the bus and sleep on a bench until his shift started, because the bus routes he needed shut down long before his shift started. When city planning is done in a way that assumes everyone is going to have a car, what you get is people left behind by the system. If you're lucky, they can manage to hold down jobs anyhow -- if you aren't, you have more folks who need safety-net features much more expensive than public transportation.