If I were a child today who had access to Facebook (noting its age limits), I would have two accounts as would all of my friends.
The "parents" account would contain all the "Hi Jodie, are you okay to stay over at my place Friday night?" and "Justin Bieber is such a wonderful singer" posts.
The "other" account would contain the "Jodie, don't forget to bring your dad's stash of weed when you come over Friday" and "I would let Justin Bieber me".
So of course my parents will say "my child wouldn't post something like that, the account must have been hacked".
Oh, and as someone in his forties who still has nightmares about his school years - bullying is NOT okay. You don't just "get over it", and anyone who thinks it is okay has clearly never faced bullying from the victim's perspective.
Since playing the game, I have been wanting to watch an episode of The Walking Dead (which as far as I am aware has not been released in Australia. I wandered across to www.amctv.com, to be presented by "The video you are trying to watch cannot be viewed from your current country or location".
Oh boy - bobbies behaving badly. The more of these I read, the less likely I feel compelled to step in and help a police officer "in trouble".
Our law enforcement agencies need to reconnect to their communities - which doesn't mean firing one hundred and thirty seven bullets! And receiving a slap on the wrist. I wonder if they arrested all civilians in sight to try and hush the whole thing up? Certainly if it had been a civilian doing the shooting they would at the least be facing serious jail time.
Of course, if an officer had been slightly injured the police actions would clearly have been fully justified. (/s)
One wonders what Ms Feinstein is going to be doing after she leaves government. She clearly has some friends at the NSA, and almost certainly other friends in the "security" industry who will happily pay a bazillion for her lobbying efforts to date.
There is a very easy solution to government-compromised certificates. The certificate authority sends an email once a month (more or less time depending on the importance of the certificate holder - so Google (which I understand complicates things by issuing its own certificates) may be once a week). That email asks the certificate holder's chief executive to:
"Confirm that your certificate remains secure, and to your knowledge your private key has not been provided to or accessed by any third party".
A separate annual email would ask the chief executive to:
"Confirm that all certificates issued to you, including those that have now expired, remain secure, and confirm that to your knowledge no private key issued to you has been provided to or accessed by any third party".
These questions would exclude any certificates that are known to have been leaked, but there would need to be an extra question about what arrangements have been made to protect any data that is insecure because of lost certificates.
The way these questions are phrased, chief executives could indicate by refusing to answer them that they have been forced to hand over private keys. They don't need to disclose anything that is prevented by super-secret "we cut off your balls" court orders.
This is a silly article, arguing a silly point. When someone disappears, then there are certain things that have to happen legally.
It generally takes seven years for a person to be declared dead, after which their will comes into force. Their spouse becomes a widow/widower, and may be entitled to certain government payments as well as being able to marry again. All sorts of other legal niceties have to be sorted out.
If/when that person reappears, one immediate question is "where have you been, and why?" Regardless of that, though, the stuff that has been done cannot be undone. The spouse who remarries is not suddenly a bigamist, the person can't just take back all their old possessions...
This is all sensible, because you cannot leave a person's life (or death) in limbo, affecting all around them. And you cannot, when they suddenly reappear, undo all that has been done on the assumption that they were dead. In this case, they guy turns up and says "I'm back". The court cannot just say "oh yeah - okay, here's your life back. We kept it in a cupboard while you were gone".
The guy actually made a conscious decision to abandon his life (including his debts) - he cannot expect to just pick things up when he returns.
One thing is very clear from all of this, and I am saying this as a fan of big government. Business must not be in a position of relying upon government largesse. The NSA is clearly blackmailing companies. In the case of telecoms, "if you do this for us, you'll get that spectrum you want to buy". In the case of other companies, presumably applying a range of various arm-twisting using all the resources a government can apply.
This is not right. Government decisions are supposed to be open and transparent - this is anything but. Government decisions are supposed to be based upon the facts at hand and upon what is best for the citizens - the NSA has seemingly inserted itself into decision-making processes and corrupted them. Large-scale corruption like this warrants a large-scale judicial review, and heads should be rolling. Instead, it appears that judges and politicians are too frightened to act, while the third arm of government is just totally involved in the problem and so cannot.
The London School of Economics is "prestigious"? It certainly wasn't that back in the 80s, when James Hacker was Prime Minister and a graduate of the LSE. Certainly Sir Humphrey and Bernard Woolley were happy to ridicule his qualifications.
When I read this story I figured Kotaku must have stuffed up in quoting "UGC that effects the simulation for multiplay games and features". Fortunately they had a link to the original, which confirms that EA doesn't know the difference between affect and effect.
So why does this article read like it's blaming the victim? Surely the confusion over government websites is the fault of the Republicans, who have failed to pass a budget bill because they want to grandstand a bit.