Yes, it really is difficult to use. I check it about once a month when I post there for an organization. Though occasionally getting updates on something, like during the Egyptian uprising, can be useful. In any case, if one wants something like the hateful tweets mentioned in the story, one has to specifically seek them out, there is absolutely no "public" harm. The ire shown towards Twitter in this case is just plain weird from my perspective. To me it just looks like some kind of aggressive masochism, or similar mixture of contradictory psychology.
Where else are we going to get shoe leather? Or do some people want to turn the whole world into plastic - green style, I call that.
I do understand the distaste for commercial feed-lot meat though. I get local free range beef from my neighbour and it's disease free, clean, and waaayyy better tasting than what you get in the cities.
I'm with you - good for Twitter. However, I do use Twitter a little bit. One thing that is noteworthy here is that one has to request the "tweets" one gets - by "following". In other words, I wouldn't get any messages from the offending parties in this case because I haven't requested them. I'm not entirely sure why someone would, and perhaps Twitter corporation is wondering the same.
I wonder if Wally has any idea of how content management systems work or even what CSS is, and that he himself downloads the CSS when he accesses the site. Wally, do you even write any html yourself, or are you just pretending to know something about the "crime" involved here?
I would like you to know that the damage done by the person who defaced the page(s) in question is undone in seconds. And yes, it would be prudent to check logs to make sure of what exactly happened, but that is what a sysadmin is paid for and can do in a couple of minutes. The reference to damage over $5,000 is just bogus. The actual damage is under $10 worth of a highly paid employee's time. The whole thing is completely childish and if the offended web publisher wants to get paid for revamping their security, then they are being dishonest. That the government legal workers are taking this to such heights, or even seriously, just makes me embarrassed for them. They should be more mature and know better.
In the case of Keys, it's evident that he did in fact send passwords of his colleagues . . .
I guess I missed that in the article. So, did Keys actually have to "hack" to get that? If not, then I'd be curious as to why the colleague gave out his password. If the colleague gave it out willingly, then that would complicate, if not weaken, the case. Something seems fishy here.
I'm approaching 70 and I don't have a problem with computers, though I suppose I'm a bit of a Luddite for preferring the command line when possible, and never having used Windows or Mac. I think the perspective on age depends on who you hang out with. None of the younger people around me know anything about computers beyond applications and most of the old farts I hang with on the net are retired computer professionals. My obviously skewed perspective is because of my current environment. I have a feeling that some of the rudeness shown towards us old folks is from people who, like me, don't get out much, but just have a different social environment. Is ignorance really about age? I don't think so.