How does that foot in your mouth taste? It's not a virus, and not OSX specific - it's just a web page with some annoying Javascript.

You could debate either way if you were just thinking in the abstract. To know, you'd need to try it. We did. The UK banned guns, violent crime DOUBLED. Look at Detroit, Washington DC, Australia. Gun bans are always followed by a huge increase in crime. It happens every time. Even when you make small "gun free zones" (helpless victim zones) you quickly see more crime in those places.

Compare Texas. They passed their CHL law, crime dropped. So we don't have to imagine "what would happen if". We can look at "what did happen when".

You seem to be thinking seriously, and come to some wise conclusions, such as the importance of training. I supported (and the NRA supported) the training requirements in Texas.

You seem to have forgotten, though, tha the US military has never been defeated by another military. It's always been by an armed populace. We defeated the Iraqi military in something like 30 hours. Many years later we hadn't stopped the ordinary Iraqis with ordinary guns - they chasing us out of the country.

It wasn't Afghan tanks that defeated the Soviet Union, it was shopkeepers with rifles.

As someone else mentioned exact figures are hard to come by. Studies vary. What is clear is it guns are drawn but not fired in self defense daily.

It us also clear from studies in Texas after they introduced concealed carry and advertised the fact the civilians maybe armed, criminals reported they reduced criminal activity. Those studies suggest that letting criminals know "citizens may be armed" was almost as important as the licensing law itself - fear of armed "victims" matters as much as actual armed citizens.

Nukes have never been raised from their silos in self defense. Guns are drawn in self defense daily. One of the safest places in the world is a gun range, because you don't start a fight knowing that everyone is armed.

* bonus fact - 80% of the time they are presented in self defense, they are not fired.

I don't think it's "regrettably" that the classic GPL (v2) is featured over v3. Many, many GPL projects have decided v3 is a bad license, so newbies shouldn't be pushed in that direction.

    The wording of the patent clause is broader than most of those who participated in the drafting intended, in a way that could be problematic for most companies. The GNU project themselves, the creators of GPL. v3, have had to disavow the plain language of the license, claiming it doesn't say what it does.

I think most people intended that if you release code under GPL, you give up patent rights related to the code you contribute. The wording is broader than that, though. The way GPL3 is actually worded, if a company contributes to any GPL project a third party can use that project to nullify other patents from some other division of the company, arguably. The issue hasn't been tested in court, but it's enough of a risk that many companies won't touch GPLv3 code. It could cost Apple, Samsung, or Google tens of millions of dollars if that loophole allowed competitors to nullify their patents, rather than having to cross-license them.

Apple doesn't have Samsung's experience in fab, so it stands to reason they'd have a lot more screw ups, making the same mistakes Samsung already made 20-30 years ago.

Your claim is quite simply factually false. Christ never taught hate. the ancient Jewish Scriptures acknowledged that hate, that war, did exist. Christ taught that the old law had been so badly misinterpreted that it needed to be replaced by the new law, and that the all of the law is based on two things - love and love.

Weirdo fundamentalist sect <> faith

When Jesus was ask what was the greatest commandment, he said "love". Love your neighbor and love God, all the law and the prophets hang on those two, Christ said. So anyone teaching hate toward anyone is teaching the opposite of Christianity.

Certainly that happens, just as the guy selling fake "bomb detectors" claimed science, fools and charlatans sometimes claim God. Their claim is just as bogus though, as Christ clearly directed us to love those who oppose as we love ourselves, even fact even MORE than we love ourselves, love them as he loved us.

Move to the People's Republic of Kalifornia, where Dianne Feinstein will earmark billions of dollars of taxpayer money for whatever stupid crap you want, in exchange for some favors of course.
 

<quote>When node.js goes to shit and your enterprise class software worth millions or even billions of dollars is ruined, who you gonna call? Nobody, that's who.

That's why node.js isn't for enterprise use.</quote>

If Java has an issue, ONLY Oracle could address it. If they don't care to fix it, you're fucked.
Node.js, being open source, could be fixed by the current project team, or any C++ progra

Java maintenance stops when Oracle's suits decide they have something better to do.
Node.js maintenance stops when no one alive can code C++.

" Hell, just mandating a competent help desk would have fixed the TFA's issue."

I may be nitpicking, but mandating competence wouldn't have helped at all. Having competent people would have helped.
Most likely there are already several laws, rules , and procedures that mandate that they give the support contact to a competent company. That didn't make it happen. Where I work, a government agency, we have all kinds of rules mandating secure computing practices. Our systems are absolutely insecure. You can mandate faster than light travel and see what that gets you. Or maybe mandate that fast food workers are worth $18 / hour. That doesn't make them worth that, it just gets them laid off.

It would be good for everyone to have it very clear where the line is. I have my name on some CVEs, so I qualify as a "security researcher", I suppose. Also, I'm paid to protect my client's systems, so I understand the costs of criminal hacking. I see both sides and from my perspective it would be good to know that I'm protected from frivolous prosecution if I follow responsible disclosure practices, while not giving a free pass to the criminals attacking us.

We have to be careful though - DMCA was designed to be a balance between creators' need to protect their work and service provider's need to provide hosting etc without undo liability, along with _some_ protection against frivolous claims via counter claims. It works well most of the time, but the lack of penalty for bogus claims means it's also abused too often.

So by your thinking, if you leave your car unlocked, which is a dumb thing to do security-wise, it's okay for someone to steal your stereo?

Sure, a programmer or two at AT&T did something dumb.
That's orthogonal to what Weev did.

In fact, by your logic, if a 16 year old girl walks down a dark street at night (failing to have proper security), the rapist has done nothing wrong. After all, she should have had better security . Perhaps she should have, but that doesn't make it okay to victimize someone.

The penalty in this case was too high, even for a repeat offender.

I read the amicus brief with interest and it first it seemed like they had some good points. After thinking about it, I realized their arguments are kind of silly.

Their argument hinges on the idea that Weev couldn't have known that downloading the personal of hundreds of thousands of people was unauthorized. Seriously? They imply that because Weev COULD access it over the web, he thought he was supposed to. His statements afterwards make it very clear he knew it was unauthorized access and therefore illegal.

They also pretend that they missed Criminal Law 101, where they learned about criminal intent, known as mens rea. They pretend to believe that Consumer Reports testing toasters is the same thing as hacking people's professional information, over 100,000 times, then distributing that personal data. Anyone with a grain of common sense can plainly see they are completely different.