And is this story were about her resenting having a guardian appointed to manager he money, I'd be sympathetic (though I'd have to agree). But it's not. It's about a woman who sent over a quarter of a million dollars to a stranger, and claims not to be stupid.
And if that happens, I'll deserve the same scorn. Unless the woman is senile (and thus, her caregivers should be prosecuted for allowing this to happen), she is stupid, as the other guy said.
There's a big difference between telling the difference when you know the difference, and when neither you nor the tester do. Hence, the "double blind" part. Audiophiles are famous for hearing a difference only when they know it's there. That's why there are $11,000 speaking cables, and wooden amp knobs for hundreds of bucks, and Ethernet cables with directional arrows on them.
Because audiophiles are gullible.
I'll bet a steak dinner that he couldn't tell the difference between any of the streaming services and a CD, or any other commercially produced medium, in double blind test. Most sound engineers can't tell the difference between $11,000 speaker cables and wire coat hanger.
The reason most music sounds like shit is because the sound engineers compress the hell out of it, and balance it to make it sound louder. The streaming services can only stream what they're given.
It's the low-information voters.
My thought exactly. When people vote how the one eyed monster in the living room tells them to, the problem isn't money in politics, it's disengaged, uninformed, and frankly stupid voters who do what the TV says. Reduce the amount of money, and you simply change who controls the instructions. Reduce it enough, and control passes to the TV networks.
Who would want to live in a TV show? Given the economics of television, it'd be a reality show. Government by Duck Dynasty.
Really? I didn't see anything about gay marriage causing dinosaur extinction (and how bad it was that Jesus couldn't ride dinos any more).
There comes a time when a problem ceases to be a technical issue, and becomes an HR one.
Sing it, brother. I got paid to surf porn web sites one time, because I was told to completely document the misdeeds of an employee who had access to an unrestricted computer. Most of them were obviously porn, and needed no further investigation, but some I had to go to the home page to be sure. In the end, I had 45 pages of proxy logs, in small print (for one week). I'd had a conversation with that employee less than 2 weeks earlier about how if you did someone on my network, I have a log of it.
(And he liked to print it out - in black & white. They still call the bottom drawer of the file cabinet "the porn drawer.")
Such stations should be limited to a white list only, with everything else blocked. And by rights, be on a separate network, but it has to be on the same network as the server behind the POS stations to work at all, and that's an intruder is after anyway. There's only so much you can do.
The real lesson is there are no easy answers, and every situation has to be handled on its own merits.
The question is "Why block at all?" not "Should we block at all?" In other words, "What is the specific goal of blocking?" If it's to prevent malware, it requires a different approach than if it's to prevent watching porn. If it's to protect sensitive information, it requires a very different approach, and may well involve blocking in both directions.
So, no, it isn't that idiots as "why block at all" so much as only idiots don't distinguish between "why" and "should we".
Obscene has a specific (if very fuzzy) legal definition. Essentially, until it's been ruled obscene by a court, it isn't. This is a canard, by a pissed off judge. (Fortunately, the rest of his reasoning is pretty solid.)
I suspect the legal theory goes like this:
By calling our fine, outstanding product "shitware," you have defamed us.
Or, possibly, "You encourage others to engage is practices that harm our business, which somehow constitutes some kind of fraud or conspiracy or something."
Mind you, I agree these people should be publicly whipped for being assholes, but it isn't at all difficult to come up with an internally consistent legal theory to support their claim.
Fortunately, the court saw fit to spank them for being retards.
The thing is, you can't find a brute force attack without testing it. And this one is so basic that it's mind boggling that even a clueless web designer let it slip though. This is one that can't be reasonably reported without testing it.
Mind you, I'm as in favor ore Bennett Hassleton being sodomized by a mutant goat on Viagra as anybody, but United's position is, frankly, kinda silly.
The screen with the checkboxes does not even appear.
I use Internet Explorer, primarily so that I can say so on Slashdot and piss off the outrage monkeys.
I am not, in fact, a lawyer, but I do know how to use Google (unlike so many here). For instance, I can, without any adult help, open up my web browser, and type in http://www.google.com/ and go to a convenient search engine. In the search box for that search engine, I can type in "eula struck down as unconscionable" and click on the button labeled "Search." And get results such as
this, which talks about Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc., in which Linden's TOS (specifically, the arbitration clause) is struck down as unconscionable not once, not twice, but at least three or four different times and ways ("procedural unconscionability" and "substantive unconscionability" in two different ways, and then again on the latter after Linden amended it).
Wired also covers Gatton v. T-Mobile, again on an arbitration clause, and ruled unconscionable both procedurally and substantively. Also unconscionable for prohibiting class action lawsuits, because "that form of litigation is often the only means of stopping and punishing corporate wrongdoing." It also discusses Douglas v. U.S. District Court, which is about changing the terms of a contact after it has been signed, and which was ruled unconscionable. Gatton is often cited as recognizing that all click-wrap license have an element of unconscionability that must be considered by the court.
Note that these are the first three results on the search, and the fourth is on McKee v. AT&T again.
Also note that these are all different courts, state and federal, all over the country.
Unconscionability is an affirmative defense - the defendant has to demonstrate why the contract is unconscionable, but it does, in fact, happen, and more importantly, it took me, literally, less than ten seconds to find example (and five of that was waiting for the browser to open.)
To quote the third link, you may now feed my cats for a week.