Minors can be employed, under very specific conditions (limitations on hours, etc.) ... However, a minor cannot, for example, sign a contract with a mobile phone service provider ... dear mummy and daddy must do that for them. In fact, TechDirt points out that every single murkan Google user under the age of 18 may technically be violating the law: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090625/0241115358.shtml
If they want to join the military under 18, their parents MUST sign for them. Also, they cannot be deployed until they turn 18.
In murka, chilluns must be:
18 to vote (note, not "register to vote" -- actually vote)
18 to smoke or purchase cigarettes
18 to sign a legally binding contract (like, credit card, mobile phone, etc.)
18 to join the military (UNLESS parents sign for them at 17)
21 to drink or purchase alcohol
However, if the courts so decree, they can be prosecuted for crimes as an adult from a very young age. Make sense? Nope. Gonna change anytime soon? Nope.
(note, IANAL) Under 18s in the US are minors. Among other things, they cannot legally enter into binding contracts, or vote, or enlist in the military, etc. Until they reach their majority, their parents are liable for the actions of the little darlings, to a large extent.
In the USA, once a person is in the military, your ass LITERALLY belongs to them. If a soldier does something to harm his own person (example: a ginger tries surfing for the first time, and ends up in hospital with sun poisoning, looking like an over-inflated lobster), said soldier could be court-martialed for destruction of military property. (luckily, he got off with a warning)
So ... if it was the military's property that did the leaking ....
Tech Spec sheet Minimum System Requirements (for PC Utility Software): " Windows 7, Vista, XP SP2 or 2000 SP4" ... will these work with Linux? Or will they work but you just can't use their utility software? Why do you need the utility software anyway?
why should anything be taken as gospel? Sources, please.
I'm not a scientist. I am trying to find some documented information to support or not support some of the claims being flung about.
Texas A & M University studying the methane levels, I tend to believe the validity of their readings ("astonishingly high levels") ... although I think this would lead more to the problem of dead zones in the Gulf rather than the "earth-shattering kaboom" Marvin the Martian take on it.
I also wish there were some more recent publications on the data on methane levels -- June 22 is the most recent I could find -- and that more research were being done. If you have links to sources, please post them.
Muzzling of the media? Yes, I believe this one ... in fact, if you check the website of the newly-created "Unified Command" you will find that on July 12 they changed the rules regarding media access (http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/777343/). Guess enough people raised enough of a stink about it.
Sadly, I think that quoting the character "River" from "Serenity" is appropriate: "Things are going to get much worse".
anyone like some references? Or is it too late for facts?
Fruitcakes! Nutters! Tinfoil-Hatters! Right-Wingers! Ahh, how much easier to spew labels than to actually do some research on the subject. Is the guy a nutter? Possibly. However, he's not entirely, wrong, either ...
Not sure about the earth-shattering kaboom, although the writer probably got most of his information from this bit from DK Matai with the Huffington Post: [0]
As for the other claims, however ....
Methane?
"As much as 1 million times the normal level of methane gas has been found in some regions near the Gulf of Mexico oil spill" [1]
Not a direct quote here, but a link to a .pdf file, "Fate and Behavior of Deepwater Subsea Oil Well Blowouts in the Gulf of Mexico, for Minerals Management Service, by S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd." [2] Go read the actual source material, information the government, and BP, had well before drilling was even considered in that location.
Cracks in the ocean floor? Leaks underneath the well?
"WASHINGTON—BP PLC has concluded that its "top-kill" attempt last week to seal its broken well in the Gulf of Mexico may have failed due to a malfunctioning disk inside the well about 1,000 feet below the ocean floor." [3]
It's worth pointing out that there are no "disks" or "subsea safety structure" 1,000 feet below the sea floor ... all that is there is well bore. The conclusion is that the well pipes below the sea floor are broken and leaking.
"Obligatory government coverup" -- muzzling the press?
"CBS News reported last month that one of its news crews was threatened with arrest for trying to film a public beach where oil had washed ashore" [4]
"It has been virtually impossible to get any information about the federal mobile medical unit in the fishing town of Venice, La." [5]
"Last week's new media restrictions imposed by the Coast Guard subject journalists and photographers to as much as a 40,000-dollar fine, and from one to five years in jail as a class-D felon if they violate the 20-metre rule, that Unified Command calls a 'safety zone'." [6]
Interesting, too, that none of the comments even mentioned the news blackouts, other than the Reg's single comment about "obligatory government coverup". Folks, it may be obligatory ... doesn't mean it isn't true.
"A random drawing selecting 100 of the total entries will be held on12/12/2009 by HB Design, an independent judging organization. Of the 100 entries selected, judges will select 23 of the best haikus."
So, if you win the random drawing lottery, then you've got roughly a 1 in 4 chance of winning something. Sounds like random chance counts for a lot more than poetic skill.
Maybe Microsoft should read its own downloadable white paper [1] which clearly states: "Working from a public browser may pose a serious security risk if users fail to logout. It is essential for an SSL VPN to provide time outs that terminate the remote access session due to inactivity, and/or force re-authentication after a pre-defined time period thus minimizing the window of opportunity for hijacking or taking over an abandoned session."
Then maybe they can explain why they have implemented a business practice which violates their own "best practices" for minimizing security risks.
It's simple ... Woman looks at ad, thinks she's a big fat cow by comparison. Woman is unhappy. DING! Unhappy consumers spend lots more. Think I'm kidding? Then why do alcohol ads use all kinds of tricks, including subliminal advertising, to make people unhappy? There was one notorious print advert from Heinekin, looked inncoent, showed a bottle, a wheel of cheese, sitting on a butcher block table. Carved into the wood, faintly, on one side, were the words "be sad".
Women unhappy with the way they look? Go shopping, you'll feel better. Buy our clothes, they'll make you beautiful ... oops, you're too fat. Buy more clothes ...
Vicious circle! And Ralph Lauren chortles with evil glee all the way to the bank.
Yes, America's constitution defends the rights of free speech. However, please refer to this law:
U.S. Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 41, Section 871: Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
So I guess it's a question of whether or not it's considered to be a threat. Or whether SpaceFace communications are covered under the law, since it's in teh Interwebs.
Like the poor programmer I worked with once (not sure what worms were in his parents' brain), named the fellow "Richard" ... with a surname of "Head". Not surprisingly, he preferred Richard to Dick.
@ Wrong Law: "And the girl can always change her phone number, so the damage she has from receiving these messages isn't greater than the inconvenience of changing her number."
According to the article, the Thrasher broad "posted the 17-year-old's picture, cell phone number, email address, and employer".
So she should change her phone number ... AND her email address ... AND her place of employment ... AND her appearance?
Stalkers follow her around, show up at her workplace, know what she looks like, can easily find out where she lives ... and this is not any great inconvenience? What about when she gets fired because of all the nut jobs calling her employer? Not to mention that at age 17 the girl is still legally a minor (in the States you can't enter into a legally binding contract until the age of 18)
The Registratrix must be so proud! "OMG, Micro$oft installed something on my computer MONTHS ago!!!! I found out because The Reg told me about it!! Oh big bad nasty Micro$oft!!!"
Oh please quit your twaddling, you crybaby little whingy gits. HOW long was this on your system?
But, right on cue, an orchestra of fanboi rants at [whatever El Reg has written about today], regardless of whether knowledge of the issue extends beyond the final paragraph of the article.
I really must commend her; her control is nearly complete.
Here in the Great Midwest [Amurika] ... one of the biggest ISPs is none other than that peerless defender of personal information, AT&T. AT&T offers DSL service; they provide the modem, and an install CD. They say on their web site that THEY DO NOT SUPPORT LINUX, only WIndows and Mac. Configuring the modem can in fact be done with a Linux computer, and once it's correctly configured, any computer, with any OS, can be online ...
HOWEVER ...
To confirm the account, and create the username/password associated with it, the user CANNOT use Firefox. Not in Windows, not in Mac, not in Linux. So unless Dell's Ubuntu computers are shipped with multiple compatible web browsers (have tested workaround with Konqueror, but no others) already installed, then if this poor woman has a similar DSL setup, then, guess what? She has to have Internet Explorer to get to the Internet!
13.2 If you want to terminate your legal agreement with Google, you may do so by (a) notifying Google at any time and (b) closing your accounts for all of the Services which you use, where Google has made this option available to you. Your notice should be sent, in writing, to Google’s address which is set out at the beginning of these Terms.
So, unless you sent off a first-class letter to MountainView, CA, informing Google that you are terminating your agreement, then you're still in violation of the EULA, and still buggered.
(from a Yank) I haven't quite decided which would be more disillusioning, to know that we once had actual rights and lost them, or to know that we never had them to begin with.
Register
24 posts • joined Wednesday 20th June 2007 19:57 GMT
Wait ... What?
The current USA government is now against laws that might infringe on people's civil liberties? Bad is double-plus good?
you must, for you're shiny and dangly ...
After all, you said it yourself: "not normally a pendant but..." Now a pedant might pick a nit or two here.
feasts on bones?
Perhaps referring to Alice and her "Bucket List"?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jun/09/alices-bucket-list-blog-internet
schizo is right, but ...
Minors can be employed, under very specific conditions (limitations on hours, etc.) ... However, a minor cannot, for example, sign a contract with a mobile phone service provider ... dear mummy and daddy must do that for them. In fact, TechDirt points out that every single murkan Google user under the age of 18 may technically be violating the law: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090625/0241115358.shtml
If they want to join the military under 18, their parents MUST sign for them. Also, they cannot be deployed until they turn 18.
In murka, chilluns must be:
18 to vote (note, not "register to vote" -- actually vote)
18 to smoke or purchase cigarettes
18 to sign a legally binding contract (like, credit card, mobile phone, etc.)
18 to join the military (UNLESS parents sign for them at 17)
21 to drink or purchase alcohol
However, if the courts so decree, they can be prosecuted for crimes as an adult from a very young age. Make sense? Nope. Gonna change anytime soon? Nope.
the kid was a minor
(note, IANAL) Under 18s in the US are minors. Among other things, they cannot legally enter into binding contracts, or vote, or enlist in the military, etc. Until they reach their majority, their parents are liable for the actions of the little darlings, to a large extent.
logically, the military is at fault here
In the USA, once a person is in the military, your ass LITERALLY belongs to them. If a soldier does something to harm his own person (example: a ginger tries surfing for the first time, and ends up in hospital with sun poisoning, looking like an over-inflated lobster), said soldier could be court-martialed for destruction of military property. (luckily, he got off with a warning)
So ... if it was the military's property that did the leaking ....
could we please get some clarification on "UNIX vulnerable"?
From the link (contagio), it crashes / opens a decoy file ... downloads files, connects to academyhouse.us ... Here's a list of the files:
golf clinic.pdf (in \Application Data)
iso88591 (same location as original)
wincrng.exe + winhelp32.exe (downloaded from academyhouse.us)
igfxver.exe (%tmp%)
Could someone (maybe editor? journalist?) please find out some more information? How are UNIX (and presumably Linux) systems vulnerable?
question for Tony Smith
Tech Spec sheet Minimum System Requirements (for PC Utility Software): " Windows 7, Vista, XP SP2 or 2000 SP4" ... will these work with Linux? Or will they work but you just can't use their utility software? Why do you need the utility software anyway?
why should anything be taken as gospel? Sources, please.
I'm not a scientist. I am trying to find some documented information to support or not support some of the claims being flung about.
Texas A & M University studying the methane levels, I tend to believe the validity of their readings ("astonishingly high levels") ... although I think this would lead more to the problem of dead zones in the Gulf rather than the "earth-shattering kaboom" Marvin the Martian take on it.
I also wish there were some more recent publications on the data on methane levels -- June 22 is the most recent I could find -- and that more research were being done. If you have links to sources, please post them.
Muzzling of the media? Yes, I believe this one ... in fact, if you check the website of the newly-created "Unified Command" you will find that on July 12 they changed the rules regarding media access (http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/777343/). Guess enough people raised enough of a stink about it.
Sadly, I think that quoting the character "River" from "Serenity" is appropriate: "Things are going to get much worse".
anyone like some references? Or is it too late for facts?
Fruitcakes! Nutters! Tinfoil-Hatters! Right-Wingers! Ahh, how much easier to spew labels than to actually do some research on the subject. Is the guy a nutter? Possibly. However, he's not entirely, wrong, either ...
Not sure about the earth-shattering kaboom, although the writer probably got most of his information from this bit from DK Matai with the Huffington Post: [0]
As for the other claims, however ....
Methane?
"As much as 1 million times the normal level of methane gas has been found in some regions near the Gulf of Mexico oil spill" [1]
Not a direct quote here, but a link to a .pdf file, "Fate and Behavior of Deepwater Subsea Oil Well Blowouts in the Gulf of Mexico, for Minerals Management Service, by S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd." [2] Go read the actual source material, information the government, and BP, had well before drilling was even considered in that location.
Cracks in the ocean floor? Leaks underneath the well?
"WASHINGTON—BP PLC has concluded that its "top-kill" attempt last week to seal its broken well in the Gulf of Mexico may have failed due to a malfunctioning disk inside the well about 1,000 feet below the ocean floor." [3]
It's worth pointing out that there are no "disks" or "subsea safety structure" 1,000 feet below the sea floor ... all that is there is well bore. The conclusion is that the well pipes below the sea floor are broken and leaking.
"Obligatory government coverup" -- muzzling the press?
"CBS News reported last month that one of its news crews was threatened with arrest for trying to film a public beach where oil had washed ashore" [4]
"It has been virtually impossible to get any information about the federal mobile medical unit in the fishing town of Venice, La." [5]
"Last week's new media restrictions imposed by the Coast Guard subject journalists and photographers to as much as a 40,000-dollar fine, and from one to five years in jail as a class-D felon if they violate the 20-metre rule, that Unified Command calls a 'safety zone'." [6]
[0] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dk-matai/gulf-of-mexico-danger-of_b_619095.html
[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65L6IA20100622
[2] http://www.mms.gov/tarprojects/287/287AA.pdf
[3] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704875604575280133577164268.html
[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/us/10access.html?_r=2
[5] http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/06/access-hard-to-come-by-in-reporting-on-health-in-the-gulf.html#commentsform
[6] http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52082
Interesting, too, that none of the comments even mentioned the news blackouts, other than the Reg's single comment about "obligatory government coverup". Folks, it may be obligatory ... doesn't mean it isn't true.
dell.co.uk sells a netbook with Linux
Here's the link:
http://www1.euro.dell.com/content/products/category.aspx/notebooks?c=uk&cs=ukdhs1&l=en&s=dhs#subcats=&navla=&a=65235~0~399477
Mind, for about 6-8 months they were not selling any Linux computers ... but evidently you *can* now get a netbook with Ubuntu on it ...
read ALL the fine print in the rules
"A random drawing selecting 100 of the total entries will be held on12/12/2009 by HB Design, an independent judging organization. Of the 100 entries selected, judges will select 23 of the best haikus."
So, if you win the random drawing lottery, then you've got roughly a 1 in 4 chance of winning something. Sounds like random chance counts for a lot more than poetic skill.
Clever Marketing
Capturing information
Cloaked as a contest.
advice from Microsoft
Maybe Microsoft should read its own downloadable white paper [1] which clearly states: "Working from a public browser may pose a serious security risk if users fail to logout. It is essential for an SSL VPN to provide time outs that terminate the remote access session due to inactivity, and/or force re-authentication after a pre-defined time period thus minimizing the window of opportunity for hijacking or taking over an abandoned session."
Then maybe they can explain why they have implemented a business practice which violates their own "best practices" for minimizing security risks.
[1] http://download.microsoft.com/download/F/0/2/F0229C11-B47E-4002-A444-60207C6E11F5/SSL%20VPN%20for%20SharePoint-WP-200702.doc
I know why they fixate on anorexics ...
It's simple ... Woman looks at ad, thinks she's a big fat cow by comparison. Woman is unhappy. DING! Unhappy consumers spend lots more. Think I'm kidding? Then why do alcohol ads use all kinds of tricks, including subliminal advertising, to make people unhappy? There was one notorious print advert from Heinekin, looked inncoent, showed a bottle, a wheel of cheese, sitting on a butcher block table. Carved into the wood, faintly, on one side, were the words "be sad".
Women unhappy with the way they look? Go shopping, you'll feel better. Buy our clothes, they'll make you beautiful ... oops, you're too fat. Buy more clothes ...
Vicious circle! And Ralph Lauren chortles with evil glee all the way to the bank.
free speech yes, but ...
Yes, America's constitution defends the rights of free speech. However, please refer to this law:
U.S. Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 41, Section 871: Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
So I guess it's a question of whether or not it's considered to be a threat. Or whether SpaceFace communications are covered under the law, since it's in teh Interwebs.
Poor Richard
Like the poor programmer I worked with once (not sure what worms were in his parents' brain), named the fellow "Richard" ... with a surname of "Head". Not surprisingly, he preferred Richard to Dick.
You missed the point, Wrong Law
@ Wrong Law: "And the girl can always change her phone number, so the damage she has from receiving these messages isn't greater than the inconvenience of changing her number."
According to the article, the Thrasher broad "posted the 17-year-old's picture, cell phone number, email address, and employer".
So she should change her phone number ... AND her email address ... AND her place of employment ... AND her appearance?
Stalkers follow her around, show up at her workplace, know what she looks like, can easily find out where she lives ... and this is not any great inconvenience? What about when she gets fired because of all the nut jobs calling her employer? Not to mention that at age 17 the girl is still legally a minor (in the States you can't enter into a legally binding contract until the age of 18)
WTF??!!!!!!
You, Sir, are a complete tw*t.
UMB Bank
Typical American acronym:
U = United
M = Missouri
B = Bank
So their full name is "United Missouri Bank Bank"
Only in America .............
my, what a well-trained bunch of fanbois!
The Registratrix must be so proud! "OMG, Micro$oft installed something on my computer MONTHS ago!!!! I found out because The Reg told me about it!! Oh big bad nasty Micro$oft!!!"
Oh please quit your twaddling, you crybaby little whingy gits. HOW long was this on your system?
But, right on cue, an orchestra of fanboi rants at [whatever El Reg has written about today], regardless of whether knowledge of the issue extends beyond the final paragraph of the article.
I really must commend her; her control is nearly complete.
Internet access requires Windows? Ask AT&T
Here in the Great Midwest [Amurika] ... one of the biggest ISPs is none other than that peerless defender of personal information, AT&T. AT&T offers DSL service; they provide the modem, and an install CD. They say on their web site that THEY DO NOT SUPPORT LINUX, only WIndows and Mac. Configuring the modem can in fact be done with a Linux computer, and once it's correctly configured, any computer, with any OS, can be online ...
HOWEVER ...
To confirm the account, and create the username/password associated with it, the user CANNOT use Firefox. Not in Windows, not in Mac, not in Linux. So unless Dell's Ubuntu computers are shipped with multiple compatible web browsers (have tested workaround with Konqueror, but no others) already installed, then if this poor woman has a similar DSL setup, then, guess what? She has to have Internet Explorer to get to the Internet!
Cruelest Name
I used to work with a programmer, poor fellow ... first name Richard, last name Head. He never used the nickname "Dick". Understandable.
hope you haven't uninstalled Chrome yet ...
Because the EULA still contains this:
13.2 If you want to terminate your legal agreement with Google, you may do so by (a) notifying Google at any time and (b) closing your accounts for all of the Services which you use, where Google has made this option available to you. Your notice should be sent, in writing, to Google’s address which is set out at the beginning of these Terms.
So, unless you sent off a first-class letter to MountainView, CA, informing Google that you are terminating your agreement, then you're still in violation of the EULA, and still buggered.
We the sheeple ...
(from a Yank) I haven't quite decided which would be more disillusioning, to know that we once had actual rights and lost them, or to know that we never had them to begin with.
google doesn't have a lock on key adword adverts
Have to admit ... the, erm, impact of the Sun advertisement, showing a padlock SLAMMING shut ... got my attention!