So here are the results. As I write this, it's currently +5 Funny. Honestly, this is the intent, regardless of whether you believe me or not. So, we can say from this single sample point (obviously insufficient for true science) that the
Oddly, no troll moderations, but I assume that's because the person who chose flamebait didn't understand the difference. I am a little surprised at the Informative moderation. Do people not realize that you cannot set the default maps for apps to launch? to launch Google Maps (or anything else) an app would have to specifically configure it.
...some of them suck, I grant, but no conspiracy is necessary for that.
You must be new here.
Apparently you're not interested in trying to explain to your 6yo what freedom of speech or proportional justice means either.
That's a stupid response. Do you honestly think the origin of the goatse name is appropriate for 6 year olds? What the fuck does freedom of speech have to do with this? Or, did you seriously fucking think I really mean for him (Weev) to be punished solely on the name of the company? Can't you understand sarcasm? The fact is that Goatse Security is a really stupid name and I hope the company never gets any customers. But, no, he shouldn't do jail time for it.
If AT&T had left printouts of highly personal data in a dumpster and someone had found it right there, then I don't think you would've had a problem fingering the culprit. AT&T, right? Dumpster diving would certainly not get someone 41 months in the slammer (e.g California v Greenwood).
In other words, it was right there in the open. Hence, the blame lies squarely with AT&T for not properly securing their customers' private information.
This is a terrible analogy, and tnk1 has covered most of it. Let me further clarify that most locations for AT&T that I've been to do not maintain their dumpsters outside their curtilage. This would negate the reference to Greenwood v CA. Additionally, I know AT&T regularly uses a shredding company, so any really important stuff (especially for government contracts) goes through that. In any case, I think the better analogy is if I place my wallet on a counter and walk away from it. I say that it's still my property and you do not have the authority to go to it, open it, and take the money. You, apparently, think it's perfectly okay to take the money out of my wallet. Or, if you think taking the passwords was not "stealing" then let's say I have a password on a piece of paper in my wallet, it's okay to open up the wallet, copy it, and put it back. Let's take this one step further, though, which is closer to what happened. Let's say you're skilled enough to pick my pocket (e.g., skilled enough to spoof addresses). You pick my pocket, copy off the passwords, and then drop the wallet or somehow give it back (reverse pick pocket?). That's okay to you?
Your obvious lack of parenting skills is not his responsibility.
This is almost a non sequitur. I don't care to explain the origin of goatse to a 6yo and I have an obvious lack of parenting skills? Honestly, I would have thought the opposite! Do you really agree with the idiotic response by VortexCortex? You must like goatse, then?
Whoa, easy on the vitriol there, bub. Don't let bad design cloud your judgment of the actual case. It matters not how badly the AT&T folks implemented security (or not) on their system. The fact is Weev "stole" it (copied without permission) and then stupidly publicized it. What's more, he "shared it with various interested parties."
As far as I'm concerned, anyone calling their group Goatse Security needs to be punished anyway. I'm not interested in trying to explain to my 6yo what the fuck that means.
I agree that the meaning of this one liner is not easy to guess but there are other more fundamental things that bother me in Lobster.
I think you're agreeing to something the GP didn't say. By virtue of the subject, he's referring to the number of times you have to use the SHIFT key to type up that line, slowing your programming down. Understanding the line is a different question.
That makes no sense. Application fees occur at the time application, typically many years before rejection or approval is known. Instead, perhaps apply a large Post-processing Rejection Fee and leave the application fees somewhat untouched.
On the other hand, they could look at the provisional application process. Maybe provide a cursory review, require certain fields be filled out so that these unpatentable patents get short-circuited at the beginning. For something that gets initially "rejected" through this new process, require a significant re-application fee.
Algebraic symbols are used when you do not know what you are talking about. -- Philippe Schnoebelen