Qualman
Qualman on Hacker News
There's a lot to unpack here, but it seems that the gist of it is that things that happen in our society are because humanity is some kind of untamable animal, and that we should all just resign to letting it run wild as it does.
Do you not believe that society is only the sum of its parts? Do you not believe that the mathematics of society can be changed, the more parts of the equation object to letting their talents be used for unscrupulous goals?
I would point you towards any cultural shift in modern society, and how it began—usually, as the imbalance of classes further divides, until one class can't tolerate it any further, and uses what power they have to reset the scales. That is what is happening today, and it isn't a fluke of the short attention span of the beast of humanity. It is a conscious, concerted effort of people in this country who are tired of existing in a system devoid of morals. And to frame it as something like embracing the status quo, or becoming a puritanical society, is simply a false dichotomy.
Bug bounty appears to be a misnomer in this instance. Facebook is specifically asking for reports of security vulnerabilities in their policy:
> If you believe you have found a security vulnerability on Facebook, we encourage you to let us know right away.[1]
Which then begs the question to me: how do you differentiate an acceptable and unacceptable probing of security vulnerabilities when you can't capture the full impact of an issue without attempting to exploit it to its fullest? Because it is certainly not outlined in their policy.
And when you're asking for any whitehat to attempt to discover and disclose security vulnerabilities in your system with only the limpest of guidelines around how to do so, I don't feel that it is warranted to react such as Facebook has here.
[1]: https://www.facebook.com/whitehat
Is this not the point of a Whitehat bounty program? To entice someone to discover and disclose a bug in a trustworthy manner?
If they react this way, and can't trust people to attempt to find exploitable security holes on their system (even those that yield private keys), then what is the point at all? The only people that find them then, are not going to be as cooperative about it.
> Doesn't the author know how long it will take them to recover from this breech? How much it will cost them?
This is not the author's fault. He did nothing but disclose bugs that Facebook themselves set in place, and seemed to be very open with them about it, at that.
> By backing a fundraising campaign on Kickstarter, you as the Backer accept that offer and the contract between Backer and Project Creator is formed. Kickstarter is not a party to that agreement between the Backer and Project Creator. All dealings are solely between Users.
I'm not convinced. The section you referenced pertains to the backing rewards only. They are, and always seem to have been, very hands-off about the delivery of the project.
Touche. You'll be the first invited to my new BGCTaaS business then—Backup to Grandma's Coffee Table as a Service.
Is there something special he's done to get this much milage out of the car? It's only rated for about 300mi on a full charge, so I'm curious if it's just luck, or more?
I'd imagine that for legal/security reasons, you'd get about the same response as any other company:
"We use better than industry standard encryption on private repo data, encrypted with AES-1024 and encrypted in transit via TLS-3 etc etc..."
But, I don't know. What was that quote? "Don't put anything on the internet that you wouldn't want to see on your grandma's coffee table."
The difference is, we in The West have the right to choose what to consume, or be "brainwashed" by, and China's government chooses for them. Which would you prefer?
A thousand times this. It makes me sad that you have to worry about this :(. But if there's that strong a bias against your name, you probably don't want to end up actually being present there.
My advice, working at an enterprise SaaS company: stick to your guns, and be proud of your name! Good companies (like ours :) ) are actively seeking women for technical positions to correct the bias.
It may be absurd, but it's not at all uncommon. Sending group invites via SMS is an incredibly kludgy experience, and following the path of least resistance, is so unrealistic when you have Facebook events at your fingertips. All of your friends are already there, and you merely need to change the details, and Facebook handles all the communication.
This article and title are super misleading—the title appears to be a flat-out lie, in fact. It spends five paragraphs ranting about the issue until it finally concedes:
> "...Das and Kramer claim to only send back information to Facebook that indicates whether you self-censored, not what you typed. The Facebook rep I spoke with agreed that the company isn’t collecting the text of self-censored posts."
In any case, the fact that Facebook is, or wants to be, slopping up every ounce of data about its users is no surprise.
EDIT: Viewing the actual study[1], it appears this article is even more fluffy. This "self-censorship" feature appears to only have been in place for a small segment of users for 17 days:
> "We collected data from 3.9 million
users over 17 days and associate self-censorship behavior
with features describing users, their social graph, and the
interactions between them." [1]
Yikes, Business Insider. Come on.
[1]: http://sauvik.me/system/papers/pdfs/000/000/004/original/sel...
Amazon has an established reputation as a low-priced retailer, and stakes its reputation on that. Twitter seems to intend this as more of an ease-of-purchase kind of feature. My expectation is that there is little to no incentive for Twitter to be pricing these products competitively.
It's a really clever idea, but something about "JPG Internet: Get your FREE JPG" made me think it was a joke at first.
Hmm, indeed. I would still argue that this is an issue of the individual, since they are ultimately the entity responsible for deciding what is a valid point of reference, regardless of if the source is more or less justifiable.
It's a fair point, but the issue is agnostic to the subject matter. Rather, the root problem is that a person or people is/are inclined to look to a fictional comedy as a point of reference on social issues. I think it is unfair to the film.
This is an awful lot of analysis on the social implications of a movie created by the guy who crafted Beavis and Butthead. If you are cultivating your outlook of the future from Idiocracy, then you probably care not about the real prospects of the future anyway. The author is taking this much too seriously.
Is there any proof of this actually being packaged up and sent to EA? It seems to me that this is probably like Blizzard's Warden process, which actively scans for hacks while the client is open. I'll save my outrage until there is proof that they are phoning home with these file scans.
Claiming a medical company's life-saving device will kill your family on national news will almost without a doubt land you on the receiving end of a libel lawsuit, warranted or not. Not having to use lawyers would be nice, but it's not happening in this paradigm. This is a naïve response.
Going way back on Reddit, I remember MrGrim modestly posting that he had created an image host just for Reddit, imgur.com. It's pretty wild to see him and imgur have come this far.
EDIT: Here it is--5 years ago. Great job MrGrim. http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/7zlyd/my_gift_to...
EDIT2: Nevermind, I was beaten. :)
This is foolish logic.
AirBnB vouched for the trustworthiness of this "David" fellow through their "Verified" badge. This is also their duty and responsibility as the facilitator between renters and rentees. And the process is the same on eBay--if your deal somehow turns out be less than legitimate, eBay will step in and attempt to resolve the situation, as the facilitator between buyer and seller. It is not that it is eBay or AirBnB's "fault", but they do have a reputation to uphold by being a responsive and trustworthy deal facilitator.
Also, craigslist is a listing of classified, and does not facilitate or participate in deals in any way. It is a flawed comparison.
I recommend reading the article before commenting. It is clearly a joke app--the sample text leaves no doubt about that.
If you were Valve, what would you do? Without the servers, the game is completely useless, and they probably recognized that fact. Being that this is the first time in 9+ years that they have done this, and only in this particular circumstance where--beyond their control--a game is rendered disabled, I believe there is not much reason to fear them removing your games at random.
I wouldn't be too worried about this. Batman: Arkham Asylum and Arkham City both utilized GFWL, and Rocksteady (the developer) simply released a patch that removed the GFWL software. They play just as great as ever.
EDIT: Just kidding. I did not read your comment close enough, clearly. Here's to hoping that Rockstar is as stand-up as Rocksteady, at least.
These are irrelevant questions, as the article specifically states that he is in support of regulation:
"...Tom Wheeler, appeared open in 2011 to letting wireless giant AT&T Inc. acquire T-Mobile USA...But he had a price. In exchange for a $39 billion merger, AT&T would have had to agree to a slew of new regulations, according to an idea Mr. Wheeler laid out at the time on his personal blog."
If you dig into said personal blog, you can find the following article [1], where Mr. Wheeler summarizes his reasoning:
"Now we have the perverse situation where a government win means less regulation while a victory for the corporate interest opens the door to more."
It is clear through his explanation that his approval was meant only as leverage for harsher regulations on the duopoly of wireless TelCos. That is a pretty solid indicator of where his allegiance lies. Likewise, if you meander around his blog, you'll see lots of musings in favor of Net Neutrality.
[1]: http://www.mobilemusings.net/2011/09/awaiting-final-aria.htm...
Does being a former lobbyist make him inherently evil, though? I'm no fan of lobbying from any aspect, but it's shallow to judge his priorities off of this one piece of his career -- especially with the article highlighting his history in favor of the government regulating telecom.
I think the idea is that, if I like what he has to say, I'll just do it. He doesn't have to ask, and doing so _inside_ the post shifts the whole thing from inspirational anecdote, to well-written justification of why you should follow his Twitter.
Thank you for taking issue with this. I use Virgin, and I never even considered how insecure this is. I'm going to hound them about it.