they are unique. But -- I know it's complicated, cause it took most of
the first year of the Cisco program to get it through my head -- take
my word for it, even a packet capture would only show the MAC address
if it was on the same subnet. That's not even an expert opinion,
that's a fact.
On Mon
Yeah, probably not much, as I don't think you can even expect them to
be unique, all the routing stuff aside. :-/
Sucks.
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> true. But the MAC address won't help with this.
>
>> As for finding it, if they have it on: There are various ways one
>> mig
My questions: how did you check for a virus? Are all of the sites you
can't get to places where you would find security tools? Have you run
Hijack This?
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 6:37 PM, denstar wrote:
>
> Hrm. I'd be busting out pings and traceroutes, and then perhaps
> moving on to wireshark or
Any of you have questions about it? I am going to a preview tomorrow.
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know
on the House of Fusion mailing lists
Archive:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/
mmm offhand I think that if you are an employee you have an
obligation to promote the interest of your employer or qut if you
cannot. So I don't regard the Edwards employer as a whistleblower. I
think that what he did to his wife was reprehensible but ... well, it
rather depends on what statement
Out of curiosity, where do people think that whistle blower actions
fit into the debate?
I, personally, think that investigatory agencies (cops and whatnot)
definitely have to follow the letter of the law, acquire warrants, etc
in order to produce any useable evidence because those agencies wield
We agree there. The stuff he found would not have been usable in
court. Publishing the business letters might have been a legitimate
free speech case, but that's not what he did. There's an invason of
privacy there if you can use such a word for a politican who made her
Down's syndrome son and tee
I really do not understand the big deal. You guys are all paranoid.
Just kidding. I think this is ludicrous as well.
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:57 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> yeah, it certainly inspired me to say wtf and put it on me follow
> list. I am against this.
>
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:08
yeah, it certainly inspired me to say wtf and put it on me follow
list. I am against this.
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
>
> "I think this will get push back from a fair section of the Democratic
> caucus."
>
> Damn skippy it will. It's an election year.
>
>
>
~~
Sure, as long as the evidence is acquired legally.
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:38 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> good. I take it then that you support penalties for the attempt to
> evade the Freedom of Information Act?
>
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>>
>> I am not a conservative, bu
That guy installed a keylogger and read the woman's email three
thousnd different times! And he got probation, for crying out loud.
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> http://cbs3.com/local/Larry.Mendte.Sentencing.2.872738.html
>
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Dana wrote:
>>
>>
a lot of it is the horse. a lot of it is staying on the horse :)
there are some commands that she gives the horse through the positioning of her
hands and and the spurs. She's the one who decides which calf to go after.
She also gives the commands to stop.
Once you set the horse on a sing
don't help them co-opt the word conservative. It's a neo-con thing.
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> Making up things and attributing them to someone is a very conservative
> tactic...
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com]
> Sent: M
I think it's called a warrant, lol...that thing you are againt
requiring for wiretaps.
> So, you are saying the government or anyone else can invade your
> privacy as long as they end up finding illegal activity?
> How's that saying go? You have nothing to worry about as long as you
> don't do an
seriously, this is a real issue for me in this conversation.
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> Please show where I said that Scott...you have a bad habit of making up
> things that you say I said when I never said them.
>
> Eric
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott
good. I take it then that you support penalties for the attempt to
evade the Freedom of Information Act?
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> I am not a conservative, but I understand you have a very narrow view
> of the world and everyone must fit into strictly defined categor
true. But the MAC address won't help with this.
> As for finding it, if they have it on: There are various ways one
> might be able to do this, but a lot depends on the stuff that's
> running on the computer (automatic sign-in on instant messaging
> clients, etc.) and how much is password protec
zaph.
this is most def my first intro to "cutting" and i have a question.
how much of that is the horse, and how much is it her, directing the
horse to those little dashes and dips? im sure it takes her major
time to prepare, etc... and she looks VERY comfortable doing this, but
te first thing t
As luck would have it, someone is selling this guy's whole identity,
pretty much -- credit cards and everything -- for one low price!
If your curry guy is good enough, we could all pitch in and buy it for 'im!
I think the identity is something cool too, like a DJ.
=)en
--
Our faith is faith i
>> I don't think that education cures stupid, in many cases it just
>> allows them to use bigger words.
>
>Larry - you owe me a new keyboard. I spit orange juice all over mine
>when I read that. I hate when its Monday morning and you have already
>read what will most likely be the funniest thing
I should be able to bring someone to make the curry too! :-)
On 3 May 2010 20:37, denstar wrote:
>
> What? Hot chicks are people too?!?!? ;)p
>
>
> That sounds pretty awesome. One hack to rule them all! ;)
>
> >
> > Oh, and we need someone who can make a good curry,
> > And my buddy Chab ca
>> I don't think that education cures stupid, in many cases it just
>> allows them to use bigger words.
>
>Larry - you owe me a new keyboard. I spit orange juice all over mine
>when I read that. I hate when its Monday morning and you have already
>read what will most likely be the funniest thing
Hrm. I'd be busting out pings and traceroutes, and then perhaps
moving on to wireshark or something equiv..
The pings can tell you if it's DNS or not, at least (ping an IP vs. a
host name).
:den
--
Our esteem for facts has not neutralized in us all religiousness. It
is itself almost religious
What? Hot chicks are people too?!?!? ;)p
Ok, we'll keep the good, but the rest are outties 5000.
Or I guess we could all get single sign-on implants (Paul is down for
this, I can tell).
That sounds pretty awesome. One hack to rule them all! ;)
--
One hearty laugh together will bring enem
Spoofing MAC addresses is pretty trivial. Lots of campuses charge
students per MAC addy, so there's *lots* of stuff out there on
changing 'em.
That said, there are serial numbers on Apple's stuff, and it's all
tied into their database (along with the MAC addresses of network
cards, etc., IIRC),
>"Even the author says the story isn't true and they continue on. It just
>shows that conservaloons won't let facts get in the way of anything."
>
>You talking about the Hillbuzz site? If so, It should be liberaloons. it's
>a site dedicated to Hillary. Not a conservative site.
Given some of the
I had to defrag the drive on my development machine and now I can't
get some sites. Microsoft.com is totally inaccessable and other sites
can take forever. I checked for a virus and no result. I've turned off
the avg anti-virus, turned off zone alarm, looked into what else may
be running and I can
"I think this will get push back from a fair section of the Democratic
caucus."
Damn skippy it will. It's an election year.
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know
on the House of Fus
That's a lot of fancy. You've got quite the rhinestone cowgirl there
and you should be damn proud. Fun job with the video editing too :)
Cheers and continued good luck to her.
Judah
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox
wrote:
>
> She placed 6th and got a nice ribbon.
>
> Before th
666
b|thttp://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:317279
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 2:48 PM, C. Hatton Humphrey wrote:
>
>> "So who does support this?"
>>
>> Apparently the Democratic leaders who proposed the bill and no one else.
>
> Which means that it may well pass regardless of what percentage of
> Americans think it's a bad idea.
I think this will ge
> "So who does support this?"
>
> Apparently the Democratic leaders who proposed the bill and no one else.
Which means that it may well pass regardless of what percentage of
Americans think it's a bad idea.
~|
Want to reach the
err your = you're
On May 3, 2010, at 3:11 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
>
> She placed 6th and got a nice ribbon.
>
> Before the competition, her mom asked if she was nervous, she replied,
> "Momma, when your one with your horse you don't get nervous".
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
"So who does support this?"
Apparently the Democratic leaders who proposed the bill and no one else.
"People who are trying to appear tough on illegal immigration support this."
No doubt.
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion com
"Even the author says the story isn't true and they continue on. It just
shows that conservaloons won't let facts get in the way of anything."
You talking about the Hillbuzz site? If so, It should be liberaloons. it's
a site dedicated to Hillary. Not a conservative site.
~
She placed 6th and got a nice ribbon.
Before the competition, her mom asked if she was nervous, she replied, "Momma,
when your one with your horse you don't get nervous".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4HRYlBjZJU
~|
Want
Man, i agree.
It really comes down tohow much of what makes this country great and
free, are you willing to trade for what is ultimately an illusion of more
security?
Maybe i'm just an idiot, but i much prefer a slightly more dangerous FREE
society, to a slightly safer police state.
On Mon,
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 2:52 PM, William Bowen wrote:
>
> > So who does support this?
>
> I don't think anyone does, except maybe Casey :-)
>
> I certainly don't support this type of measure.
>
> --
> will
>
>
We will all be assimulated, resistance is futile.
~~~
People who are trying to appear tough on illegal immigration support
this. The theory is that if we have one national id card and everyone
is required to carry it that it will be easy to tell who isn't here
legally. Personally, I think this flies in the face of the 4th
amendment, but that interpre
> So who does support this?
I don't think anyone does, except maybe Casey :-)
I certainly don't support this type of measure.
--
will
"If my life weren't funny, it would just be true;
and that would just be unacceptable."
- Carrie Fisher
~~
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> That could be...but does that apply to the specific emails that were sent?
Yes.
> I don't know the particulars of Alaska's law,
That's why they asked a Judge, he knows.
> but most state laws do
> prohibit it...
We only care about Alaska
That could be...but does that apply to the specific emails that were sent?
I don't know the particulars of Alaska's law, but most state laws do
prohibit it...as does federal law for federal officials...hence all the
ruckus during the Bush administration for the shady crap they did with
private ema
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 1:50 PM, C. Hatton Humphrey wrote:
>
> > I'm all for it!
> >
> > Associate it with my NYS drivers license while their at it, then allow me
> to
> > assign my credit card number to this card online so I can swipe it at
> > checkout.
>
> You're a single sign-on type, aren't y
> I'm all for it!
>
> Associate it with my NYS drivers license while their at it, then allow me to
> assign my credit card number to this card online so I can swipe it at
> checkout.
You're a single sign-on type, aren't you?
~|
Hey, didn't I use that line on you last week:)
But you're wrong:
McKay concluded, among other things, that "not all emails relating to
state business are necessarily public records, and that the "use of
private email accounts to conduct state business does not -- in and of
itself -- violate state
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> I am thoroughly and completely against this.
>
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 6:41 AM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
> >
> > Worked for me, but just in case, here's the full one.
> >
> >
> http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/95235-democrats-spark-alarm-wi
So who does support this?
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Jerry Johnson wrote:
>
> As am I.
>
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know
on the House of Fusion mailing lists
Archive:
ht
*POP*
there goes you're entire argument
http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=11867946
McKay concluded, among other things, that "not all emails relating to
state business are necessarily public records, and that the "use of
private email accounts to conduct state business does not -- in and o
What makes it a crime is that she is supposed to only use government email
for government business and not use personal email for government business.
Maybe I should type slower for you Sam?
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 12:07 PM
To:
I wish that more people got as worked up over the 4th amendment as
they do the 2nd. I'm in favor of the right to bear arms, but it seems
like too many people just let incremental destruction of the 4th
amendment go on and on.
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Jerry Johnson wrote:
>
> As am I.
>
>
Uh...no...please read and make use of reading comprehension...I know that
may be difficult for you Sam.
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:59 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty!
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at
As am I.
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> I am thoroughly and completely against this.
>
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 6:41 AM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
> >
> > Worked for me, but just in case, here's the full one.
> >
> >
> http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/95235-democrats-spa
I am thoroughly and completely against this.
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 6:41 AM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
>
> Worked for me, but just in case, here's the full one.
>
> http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/95235-democrats-spark-alarm-with-call-for-national-id-card
>
I'm confused.
You think she's guilty because she hid in plain site public sensitive
information that is publicly available using FOIA?
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> I think this is a case that would be similar to one where an IT person or
> anyone else in charge of se
I agree with that.
But don't tell people I'm labeling you :)
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
> By your logic (or lack thereof), because I think a criminals should be
> punished and victims should not be blamed for crimes committed against
> them, I think like a conservative?
I understand why you might feel that way, I just happen to disagree
with you. I also happen to think that is quite a conservative point of
view.
In my opinion, anytime you start blaming victims for being victims, it
takes something away from the crime and criminal.
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 12:41 P
Making up things and attributing them to someone is a very conservative
tactic...
-Original Message-
From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:57 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty!
But, it was only discovered that she us
What crime was she charged with again?
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> For a non-conservative you sure think like a conservative. She bears the
> blame because, not only did she fail in her responsibility to properly
> secure her account, she also conducted government b
You said taint.
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Eric Roberts <
ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> I didn't think about that...not sure why it didn't...a guess...maybe
> because
> this kid didn't have legal and reasonable access to the information and it
> was obtained via illegal mea
Please show where I said that Scott...you have a bad habit of making up
things that you say I said when I never said them.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:57 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - gu
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> As long as they are warranted and went through the proper channels to do
> so...
But they weren't
> unlike the illegal wiretaps of the Bush administration that
> circumvented the proper channels to invade the privacy of US citizens.
Ther
no
-Original Message-
From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:49 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty!
By saying the victim bears some of the blame, you are taking some of
the blame off of the perpetrator of the crime - i
But, it was only discovered that she used the account for government
business BECAUSE fo the hack.
Using your logic, the ends justify the means - a very conservative
point of view.
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> I think this is a case that would be similar to one where
I didn't think about that...not sure why it didn't...a guess...maybe because
this kid didn't have legal and reasonable access to the information and it
was obtained via illegal means...which I believe would also "taint" the
evidence anyway...
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Casey Dougall [
I think this is a case that would be similar to one where an IT person or
anyone else in charge of sensitive data used a weak password and thus caused
sensitive data to be released or hacked into. If she didn't use this
account to transmit government business, we wouldn't have been even talking
a
Man, you really are close minded.
By your logic (or lack thereof), because I think a criminals should be
punished and victims should not be blamed for crimes committed against
them, I think like a conservative?
I am curious, what do I think like if I support a woman's right to
choose to have an
It does nto matter what she was doing with the account or how it was
secured, as you admitted, her account was hacked. And that is a crime.
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> For a non-conservative you sure think like a conservative. She bears the
> blame because, not only
As long as they are warranted and went through the proper channels to do
so...unlike the illegal wiretaps of the Bush administration that
circumvented the proper channels to invade the privacy of US citizens.
There are legal methods of accessing someone's account that are set up to
allow law enfor
By saying the victim bears some of the blame, you are taking some of
the blame off of the perpetrator of the crime - in a way, making it
'less of a crime' or making the criminal 'less guilty'
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> I never said it was less of a crime...you keep
For a non-conservative you sure think like a conservative. She bears the
blame because, not only did she fail in her responsibility to properly
secure her account, she also conducted government business illegally on that
account and thus failed to keep government business properly secured.
-
I would still call it hacked as the account was accessed by means other than
normal.
-Original Message-
From: Medic [mailto:hofme...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 10:53 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty!
> if it was warranted and the government w
I never said it was less of a crime...you keep hallucinating words.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 10:46 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty!
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Eric Roberts
http://cbs3.com/local/Larry.Mendte.Sentencing.2.872738.html
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Dana wrote:
>
> see, you can't
>
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know
on the House of Fu
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Scott Stroz wrote:
> Between you andEric, it seems you guys are saying that because she did
> not use good security measures AND that the kid found info that might
> indicate illegal activity on Palin's part that it is OK that he did
> this and that Palin herself
> I though I made it quite clear
I don't think you did. However if you are saying that regardless of the lack
of wisdom on the victim's part that it's still a crime that should be
punished then we really don't have a disagreement on the crime. We seem
however to disagree on the culpability of the
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> Depends...if it was warranted and the government went through the proper
> channels to ensure that everything was legit, then I am ok with them
> looking. As far publishing online...I don't think that would be legal,
> regardless of who do
Please explain to me how stating that a victim 'bears some of the
blame' in any way fits into the liberal way of thinking? Oh, wait, I
know. The victim was a conservative.
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> You have reading problems Scott? (Another argument against homesc
> if it was warranted and the government went through the proper channels to
ensure that everything was legit
Not really a hacked account then is it?
Sam's question was:
>What if the government hacked into her or your account and published the
contents online?
I am not a conservative, but I understand you have a very narrow view
of the world and everyone must fit into strictly defined categories
and fit into rigidly structured cubby-holes, so confusion on your part
is expected.
I am all about personal responsibility. Like standing up for the fact
that
Depends...if it was warranted and the government went through the proper
channels to ensure that everything was legit, then I am ok with them
looking. As far publishing online...I don't think that would be legal,
regardless of who does it...unless it was after the case to prove guilt
(like an off
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> It is well known that if you leave your account poorly
> secured it will get hacked or at least greatly increase your chances of
> getting hacked. That is the reasonable expectation.
I will agree that for us, being in the IT field, this w
I think Scott has reading difficulties...
-Original Message-
From: Dana [mailto:dana.tier...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 10:28 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty!
no. Please re-read the thread and count the instances where I
explicitly said I d
You have reading problems Scott? (Another argument against homeschooling I
guess)... I though I made it quite clear, as did Dana, that we never said
it was ok. Yes she does bear some of the blame as she was negligent in
making sure her account was secured...which is her responsibility. If
some
Um...no...next missed leap of logic.
-Original Message-
From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 10:20 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty!
Actually, by blaming the victim, you do, in a way, say its OK to
commit the crime.
It's called negligence. And here I thought you were a conservative and all
about personal responsibility...
-Original Message-
From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 10:19 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty!
So, there yo
That's not even a slope Dana...it's a sheer cliff...
-Original Message-
From: Dana [mailto:dana.tier...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 10:18 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty!
there are several slipperey slope fallacies there...
On Mon, May 3, 2
You are comparing apples and oranges...sorry. That is a severe lack of
logic in that argument. The mailbox analogy was WAY batter than this one.
There is no reasonable expectation of security if you leave your accounts
with weak passwords. It is well known that if you leave your account poorly
There you go...have him teach email security to the elderly and republican
;-)
-Original Message-
From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 10:10 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty!
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Zaphod Be
Yes they should...just as this kid is getting charged. Hacking is wrong as
there are legal means to snoop if a crime is suspected, but again, if you
leave the door wide open, you better make sure you are doing anything that
you want to keep hidden.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mai
Yeah...pre-coffee typing...unless of course you have moved to the left,
making you part of the fascist left as opposed to the rest of us lefties ;-)
There have been a lot of people complaining. Heck, I have written several
letters to the WH about it. It's not what a free country does...that is
How about which secret question should she have used to qualify as a
real victim?
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> Between you andEric, it seems you guys are saying that because she did
> not use good security measures AND that the kid found info that might
> indicate ille
What if the government hacked into her or your account and published
the contents online?
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Sam wrote:
> What if it was a 20 year old kid that tapped your phone and put the
> recordings on youtube?
>
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Dana wrote:
>>
>> I don't su
no. Please re-read the thread and count the instances where I
explicitly said I did not.
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> Between you andEric, it seems you guys are saying that because she did
> not use good security measures AND that the kid found info that might
> indicat
Between you andEric, it seems you guys are saying that because she did
not use good security measures AND that the kid found info that might
indicate illegal activity on Palin's part that it is OK that he did
this and that Palin herself bears some blame for being hacked.
Does that sound right?
O
Actually, by blaming the victim, you do, in a way, say its OK to
commit the crime.
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> Did I ever state it was ok? Is Scott sharing with you?
>
> Eric
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Medic [mailto:hofme...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, Ma
So, there you go. You do indeed support blaming the victim. And here I
thought you were a liberal.
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> I do think there should be a penalty assessed when you get hacked and it is
> because you have a weak password. Imagine how many IT headach
there are several slipperey slope fallacies there...
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> You will need to forgive me for misinterpretting this:
>
> 'But again, if you don't secure thing and you leave it wide open,
> don't be surprised when someone
> comes it. Not leaving it s
You will need to forgive me for misinterpretting this:
'But again, if you don't secure thing and you leave it wide open,
don't be surprised when someone
comes it. Not leaving it secured is akin to putting a neon sign over
it and saying come on in...especially if you are a public figure.'
As you
see, you can't
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Dana wrote:
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:06 AM, Sam wrote:
>>
>> Find me someone who got caught.
>>
>> What about the Climate gate emails? Should they be charged if caught?
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Dana wrote:
>>>
>>> can you find o
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:06 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> Find me someone who got caught.
>
> What about the Climate gate emails? Should they be charged if caught?
>
>
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Dana wrote:
>>
>> can you find one single prosecution of anyone for this?
>
>
1 - 100 of 179 matches
Mail list logo
