Slashdot Mirror

>I don't see any indication that Apple is any less likely to mine and sell user data than Google. What gives you that feeling?

Well, I agree it's rather difficult to perceive the difference, but here are a few things that may point towards this conclusion:

- Apple: makes money from selling you hardware; they don't really need your data, since they already made their money off you. Google: makes money from selling your information to ad companies; grabbing as much of your data as they can is the core of their business model.
- Apple: blocks trackers from their browser. Google: blocks other companies' ads in their browser, while expanding their tracking of you.
- Apple: doesn't track you over multiple web sites, nor does it buy credit card transaction data from banks. Google: does.
- Apple: has blocked its own ad team from using customer data collected via iTunes. Google: you got to be kidding me

https://www.judicialwatch.org/...

In response to an April 29, 2011, Wall Street Journal article, calling on President Obama to explain the NLRB lawsuit against Boeing, NLRB attorney Jayme Sophir issues a one word email response on May 2, 2011, to NLRB attorney Debra Willen, Division of Advice: âoeUgh.â

She was appointed by Obama

https://www.reuters.com/articl...

An Obama administration holdover at the National Labor Relations Board recommended last year that a case accusing President Donald Trumpâ(TM)s businesses and presidential campaign of requiring workers to sign unlawful confidentiality agreements be dismissed, according to a memo released this week.

Associate General Counsel Jayme Sophir in an advice memo dated Oct. 31, 2017 said there was no evidence that the agreements were ever enforced, and the law firm that brought the case, Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld, did not file it on behalf of any employees of the Trump Organization Inc or the campaign.

I think it's safe to assume Sophir is a left winger.

Article here

https://www.wsj.com/articles/S...

It's paywalled, but you can read it here

http://archive.is/1pp1R

South Carolina is a right-to-work state, and we're proud that within our borders workers cannot be required to join a labor union as a condition of employment. We don't need unions playing middlemen between our companies and our employees. We don't want them forcefully inserted into our promising business climate. And we will not stand for them intimidating South Carolinians.

That is apparently too much for President Obama and his union-beholden appointees at the National Labor Relations Board, who have asked the courts to intervene and force Boeing to stop production in South Carolina. The NLRB wants Boeing to produce the planes only in Washington state, where its workers must belong to the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.

Let's be clear: Boeing is a great corporate citizen in Washington and in South Carolina. The company chose to come to our state because the cost of doing business is low, our job training and work force are strong, and our ports are tremendous. The fact that we are a right-to-work state is an added bonus.

The actions by the NLRB are nothing less than a direct assault on the 22 right-to-work states across America. They are also an unprecedented attack on an iconic American company that is being told by the federal governmentâ"which seems to regard its authority as endlessâ"where and how to build airplanes.

The president has been silent since his hand-selected NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon, who has not yet been confirmed by the United States Senate as required by law, chose to engage in economic warfare on behalf of the unions last week.

While silence in this case can be assumed to mean consent, President Obama's silence is not acceptableâ"not to me, and certainly not to the millions of South Carolinians who are rightly aghast at the thought of the greatest economic development success our state has seen in decades being ripped away by federal bureaucrats who appear to be little more than union puppets.

Basically Nikki Haley criticised the Obama admin for taking Boeing to court over setting up shop in a 'right to work' state where workers don't have to join a union..

Presumably her reaction to Damore's memo was a similarly visceral 'Ugh'.

So it's not surprising she's decided that the labor rules she's so keen on defending don't appl

Here is the main one.
Here is BI
Here is CBS
Here is Market Watch.
Here is WSJ
In fact, other than Faux News, BreitBart, and Daily Stormer, they all say the same thing. That yes, Tesla had losses but not as much as forecast some time ago.

Engadget just reposted what Gizmodo wrote which reposted what WSJ and Sixth Tone wrote.

These are the real sources:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/c...
http://www.sixthtone.com/news/...

You know - the guy whose wife got almost $1 million from Hillary! cronies - while he was "investigating" Hillary!'s illegal email server.

Yes, Andrew McCabe, former Deputy Director of the FBI. A long-time and close Clinton ally, Terry McAuliffe, directed in total $760,00.00 to Jill McCabe's campaign for Virginia State Senate.

FBI No. 2 did not disclose wife's ties to Clinton ally, records show

Clinton Ally Aided Campaign of FBI Official’s Wife

Bureau boss McCabe under Hatch Act investigation>

Jill McCabe's campaign appears to be have been a front for receiving a monetary bribe in exchange for obstructing or delaying the Clinton server-gate investigation past the presidential election. There is unquestionable evidence that he tried sitting on it:

Justice Department investigating McCabe’s handling of Clinton email probe

McCabe, FBI Knew About More Clinton Emails Well Before Comey's Announcement in 2016.

Washington Post: IG was investigating why McCabe appeared not to act on Weiner emails

$760,00.00 is an insane amount of money to donate for a state senate seat in Virginia, vastly disproportionate to both the value of the seat to the Democrat party and to what other candidates receive. What you need to know to understand that this was actually a monetary bribe directed to her husband is that in Virginia any money which is not spent on a campaign can be kept for personal use.

Leftover campaign money can fund almost anything in Virginia

If we include the recent revelation that McCabe's signed the FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campagin, it then appears that, all together, Hillary Clinton bribed McCabe at the least to:

- Help Hillary win the election by covering up or delaying revelation of evidence against her.

- Make false charges against Trump before the FISA court and then spy on the Trump campaign.

Clinton allies in the Obama administration gained access to secret FBI intelligence on Trump using hundreds of unmasking requests.

"can't deduct the property tax on their big mansions" Sure they can! All they need to do is transfer the house into a pass-though trust, re-structure their actual income to go through several similar trusts, funnel income through various tax-avoidance systems in various islands, and a long list of other types of systems. "Normal people" don't have the wealth required to make use of this, but the 1% does. Raising taxes on them just makes them funnel even more money out of the "normal system".

The 99% and the 1% exist in two completely different economies, two completely different monetary systems. These wealth protection schemes cross several oceans, different countries, and are not designed for us peasantry.

Republicans whine and cry when you point out that Moscow Donald has been caught red handed committing treason, and that the republican party is committing obstruction of justice to cover for Russia's attack on America.

Source? Because from what I read only the DNC and Hillary herself are working with the Russians https://www.wsj.com/articles/d...

Apparently the rumors about "DOS is not done till Lotus wont run (in DR-DOS)" has reached the ears of the government. It will start an investigation anytime soon.

The USDoJ found that Microsoft had acted in basically every anticompetitive way possible, and then John Ashcroft (GWB's AG) declared that any punishment would not be in the best interest of America. Shortly thereafter, Gates formed his Foundation and continued the work on strong IP law that he began at Microsoft, this time largely on behalf of Big Pharma — financially benefiting both the Foundation, and Gates directly. This is merely an escalation of the earlier strong-arm tactics of the Business Software Alliance.

Call me a nutter if you like, I'm used to that. But Gates is a career criminal, and the only reason he's still wealthy is that some kind of deal was struck with the Bush Administration. It's not like government doesn't like to take money from people.

* A massive Hepatitis outbreak in San Diego

That's the shit we tell rust-belt people so they don't come here.

The beach I'm going to today, I think maybe in Cayucos (there are ten beaches within ten miles of me) is perfectly clean. I mean, I've lived in California since September, and I still haven't seen litter anywhere.

Also, California now has a $6.1 billion SURPLUS. If you believe that's because of bad calculations, you might want to tell the Wall Street Journal how to use a "calculator's basic functions", because clearly you're the only one who knows how they work.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/j...

Except that online ads are reaching fewer people and there is evidence that online marketing is failing. It's why big companies are cutting digital advertising. Ads have become so pervasive on the Internet that most consumers just tune them out. Advertisers spend more and more trying to chase fewer and fewer people...

The first correction - "re-patrriety" (whatever the hell that is) should be "re-patriated".

Secondly, that re-patriation will cause Apple to pay a one-time payment of 38 BILLION dollars in taxes to the U.S. Is that enough to slate your dramatic thirst for Apple's cash?

Mortar attack on December 31 - oh really?

Russian officials have suggested the U.S. or its allies may have had a role in the drone attacks on the bases. Mr. Putin said drones captured in the course of the attacks revealed highly sophisticated technological elements that were acquired and passed to the rebels from abroad.

The Pentagon has said it played no role in the drone attacks.

A person close to Russia’s Defense Ministry said the accusations have largely served to deflect attention away from Russia’s own failure to protect its main Syrian base at Hmeimim.

The base was hit by a number of drones on New Year’s Eve, killing two service people, injuring 10 and damaging at least six planes, the person said. The attack was allegedly the first to penetrate the base’s formidable defenses including Pantsir and S-400 surface-to-air missiles.

It's not like my Comcast network is going to block AT&T traffic

Possibly not, but when ISPs and content producers are the same company then they control both content and distribution and have a perfect incentive to block or throttle content from competing providers. This is Bad(tm), not just in a consumer standpoint but an Orwellian one as well.

South Korea banning trading, China already banned the exchange of cryptocurrencies and crypto mining operations, and Japan is still considering banning ICOs. Tough row to hoe for crypto folks in Asia!

"Literal trillions of dollars as calculated by whom? You magnify the "subsidies" of fossil fuels while handwaving over alternatives."

If you're going to persistently refuse to understand the subject whilst insisting you're right regardless I'm going to stop wasting my time. As I said - a simple Google search will find you hundreds of results, so to answer your question in terms of whom, literally every journalist and scientist that's ever objectively studied the subject. As Google is apparently way too confusing for you though, I'll make it easier:

The IMF: https://www.wsj.com/articles/i...

National Academy of Sciences: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10...

Side note on the above: "The damages are caused almost equally by coal and oil, according to the study, which was ordered by Congress." - you argue oil is better than coal, it's really not, presumably when you say you like fossil fuels what you really mean is that you're an oil man if you believe what you said.

Forbes Journalist: https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...

MIT Economics Prof: http://news.mit.edu/2016/carbo...

World Nuclear Association: http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...

Union of Concerns Scientists: https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-e...

Skeptical Science: https://skepticalscience.com/p...

Cambridge University: https://www.cisl.cam.ac.uk/bus...

How long do you want me to keep going before you decide to stop being in denial? You can't pretend this is bias or partisanism - as I've said all along, there's a reason why left and right come to the same conclusions when they study this. You cannot pretend the likes of Forbes to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the US government to the IMF, and Cambridge University to the World Nuclear Association are somehow bedfellows that all sit on the exact same end of the political spectrum - they don't, that's nonsense - they all agree because it's true, and if you disagree it's because you're being irrational.

I did as you said regarding earthquakes from dams, and yes, whilst I'm willing to admit I hadn't appreciated quite how harmful some of them had been, I think you still fundamentally fail to understand the differences in scale - we're talking less than a million deaths from them across all time, and yet fossil fuels kill tens (possibly squeezing into hundreds) of millions globally not just in one off incidents, but on an ongoing basis every year. There's still not even a remotely equivalent comparison - the externalities of fossil fuels are still many orders of magnitude higher on healthcare alone - even if you reject the global warming argument, and ignore the geopolitical strife caused by fighting over fossil fuels, you're still seeing orders of magnitude more externalities (and deaths) on fossil fuels based just on the topic of healthcare and nothing more alone. When you factor in the other realities - war, climate change and so forth, it's like comparing a spec of sand to the size of the plant and saying the two are equivalent.

I've Google'd the shit out of trying to find any kind of study showing that other fuels externalities are equivalent to fossil fuels. Guess what? Nothing, whilst it's consistently poss

China ordering closing of BTC mining. Sorry to burst your bubble, perhaps some of us actually read more than pro-BTC/cryptocurrency sources. It's been going on for a while, and will be pretty complete in another 4-6 weeks.

According to the Santa Clara Superior Court's website, Damore's lead attorney is Harmeet Kaur Dhillon.

Dhillon's Wikipedia entry says she is the former vice chairman of the California Republican Party, and the National Committeewoman of the Republican National Committee for California. An article from the San Francisco Daily Journal posted on Dhillon's website says she is a former American Civil Liberties board member.

On March 9, the Wall Street Jounal reported that she was being considered to run the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Department of Justice. She apparently interviewed with both Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump, but was not offered or did not accept the job.

DuckDuckGoing her leads to lots of articles about her politics and personal life, but nothing about how many cases she has won. I bet Google will be represented by attorneys who have spent more time litigating and less time politicking.

I'm genuinely curious about this analysis. Iran had an election in 2013 where the moderate candidate won with just over 50% of the votes with the US and UK reacting relatively positively and neither denouncing the election as unfair.

This makes Iran one of the most democratic countries in the Middle East (admittedly, it's not up against stiff competition for that title). Certainly, when you compare it to our "ally" Saudi Arabia who promote terrorism in Europe, fight alongside al Qaeda in their brutal war in Yemen and has an appalling record of human rights abuses, Iran does not appear to be the greatest threat.

Could it be because "the Obama administration has offered to sell $115bn worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia over its eight years in office, more than any previous US administration"? (Note that Trump is no better).

If Iran pumped billions into the US and UK economy, they might not be quite so high on our shit list.

$32 Billion to own ARM? Not a bad deal at all.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/s...

They are only claiming that automation of order-taking (using kiosks, apps, or webpages) creates more jobs than it eliminates. Although that claim may be questionable, there is no reason that it "isn't possible".

I'm speaking of a larger picture. If everyone who is in a similar business employs the same automation, the most likely result will be more or less null, unless every business that does this suddenly has customers who drastically increase their purchases.

There are clear historical examples of automation increasing employment. Jevon's Paradox was first observed when better steam engines led to higher demand for coal, which lead to higher employment of coal miners.

I think we have to look at the intent of the automation. In your case of the steam engines, were the improved engines put in place to eliminate payroll? I would think that the efforts were performed in order to move larger and heaver payloads further and cheaper, as opposed to eliminating jobs.

While payroll reduction is the stated purpose of restaurant automation. https://www.wsj.com/articles/w... although WSJ claims it is the guvmint and it's onerous regulations.Elimintion f payroll is the whole point of present day automation efforts.

So the final point is, unless consumers go on a permanent buying spree and all these eateries show so much more traffic that they a have to hire more employees, the story means nothing.

Although I invite a discussion of how there will be an increase in business that necessitates hiring more people that is caused by all these businesses switching to automation, not just a few.

In 2014 the top 20% paid 84% of income tax. So it hadn't changed much by then.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/t...

"We have reserve pilots to help cover flying in December, and we are paying pilots who pick up certain open trips 150 percent of their hourly rate â" as much as we are allowed to pay them per the contract," he told the network

Hold on a second, the union contract specifies a maximum bonus to the hourly rate that the company can offer? How in the world could that clause benefit either the workers or the company?

It clearly sucks for the company, because now they've fucked up and should be responsible for paying out however much bonus they need to pay the pilots to entice them to pick up the extra flights.

It clearly sucks for the workers, because they forego the higher bonus that the company might have paid them. Many of them might have been perfectly willing to reschedule what the computer gave them at 200% or 250% pay.

Maximum suck would be if the rigidity of the contract prevented them from offering enough, forcing them to cancel flights. That would cost the airlines far more than offering mea-culpa bonus to the pilots and would completely ruin the travel plans of customers.

Interestingly enough, only 20% of the cost of your flight is salaries. Of that, pilots are probably 5-7% or so (there are many more ground and gate crew per flight than pilots). So even if they had to pay 300% bonuses to get enough pilots to voluntarily do those shifts, that would only be a 10% increase in net costs, bringing their margins for those particular flights from 2.5% to -7.5% (or, making $6 a passenger to losing $10 apiece or so). No matter how you slice it, it's much cheaper for the airline to offer pilot bonuses to compensate for their mistake.

In a post to its website, the union warned its members that because "management unilaterally created their solution in violation of the contract, neither APA nor the contract can guarantee the promised payment of the premium being offered."

First off, management asked pilots to volunteer to do those flights in exchange for money. That seems reasonable enough (except of course for the cap on the percentage). Second, I can't imagine that management would promise a premium and then not pay it. That would be an open-and-shut violation of labor law.

If they really wanted to help, the APA would be organizing the pilots to see how much they would have to be paid to give up the vacation they were promised and then present that to the airline in a package-deal format. Something like "I have 1500 pilots willing to take shifts fro 150% bonus, 2500 for 250% bonus, ..."

The Wall Street Journal made it official this morning that bitcoin is a bubble by publishing a story that grandma wants in on the action. Never mind that grandma thinks bitcoin is a bit of a large coin. This is where prudent investors run away as everyone else runs towards disaster.

First off, it's "President Trump"

The WSJ has previously, if not necessarily consistently, referred to Mr. Trump's Predecessors on the second instance as Mr. Obama, Mr. Bush, and Mr. Clinton, with possibly their own predecessors as well, so what's your problem?

Do you want us to call him his Majesty instead? Would that soothe your bruised ego?

First off, it's "President Trump"

The WSJ has previously, if not necessarily consistently, referred to Mr. Trump's Predecessors on the second instance as Mr. Obama, Mr. Bush, and Mr. Clinton, with possibly their own predecessors as well, so what's your problem?

Do you want us to call him his Majesty instead? Would that soothe your bruised ego?

First off, it's "President Trump"

The WSJ has previously, if not necessarily consistently, referred to Mr. Trump's Predecessors on the second instance as Mr. Obama, Mr. Bush, and Mr. Clinton, with possibly their own predecessors as well, so what's your problem?

Do you want us to call him his Majesty instead? Would that soothe your bruised ego?

Yes, the one that didn't happen so bad that Tea Party groups ended up with a $3.5M settlement.

As Donald Trump says, Settlements don't equal guilt.

Of course, Donald Trump's the one who settled it, so....

Keep on being a dumb fuck though, it's clearly working for you.

You're the one who's expecting us to forget the facts.

Sorry, but Donald Trump's got no credibility when it comes to pandering to the Tea Party.

AC consider the mil can get in. GCHQ, NSA can get in via the next gen DROPOUT JEEP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
US law enforcement has its "Americans’ Cellphones Targeted in Secret U.S. Spy Program" (Nov. 13, 2014)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a...
So that covers tracking and the removal of privacy.

The only question left for US law enforcement at a federal, state, city level is what to tell the public about its budgets for collect it all systems.
Keep it out of court and no lawyer, human rights group will never really know who/how/why/when.
Interesting people will buy into and totally trust the next generation of US big brand phone thinking network/physical police access is always one gen behind.
PRISM showed what US brands really do before a product is released. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The public talking points will always try to suggest the just released most advanced cell phone is 100% encrypted but the contractors/mil/security services can collect it all.
How to hide the role of the security services but still allow logs, live mic voice, location, files to be used in court?
The UK considered that issue when the security services had the ability to decode junk consumer grade computer encryption for police.
No lawyer or member of the media, court worker, police was ever going to see the direct role of the security services in real time decryption, global cell phone tracking.
Such information for the UK courts was hidden behind "police" sounding support under names like National Criminal Intelligence Service, Government Telecommunications Advisory Centre, Govemmemt Technical Assistance Centre, National Technical Assistance Centre.
Experts from the security services could then enter the court system under the cover of a police support role.
Lawyers, member of the media, court worker, police, cults, criminals, faith groups could never really work out if the UK police had a few average informants, a super grass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... Could a UK registered cell phone been used as a live mic globally on a UK police budget?
The UK always tried to keep its collection well hidden and secure within the GCHQ, 5 eyes, Royal Ulster Constabulary Special Branch and UK mil (mil to cover global collection, special forces to act on results).

The USA is stuck with its lawyers, cults, faith groups, media, human rights groups, ex and former police, telco and court workers all knowing too much about police collection just from courts, police budgets. States, cities with their versions of FOIA to see paperwork on police budgets.
The more the US courts talk about cell phone collection (network and physical), the more interesting people reconsider trusting their big brand updated cell phones.
Some US police budgets depend on short term good news stories, so collection methods become part of court work.
Police need to collect it all but still show push the talking point that the US brand of cell phone to "too advanced" to understand.
That a new fully encrypted US big brand cell phone is still a very wise investment for any criminal, cult, faith group. A US cell phone can exist in both as secure and decrypted depending on the police talking points.
To totally trust that cell phone is the nation wide talking point needed. Until some low cost DROPOUT JEEP got used by a city, state.

It plans to launch tiered subscription offerings for its digital news business (Editor's note: the link could be paywalled . . .

https://www.wsj.com/articles/t...

The public disagrees with you, which is reflected in their ratings. CNN's ratings have been in a downward spiral for quite some time now.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/S...
http://www.dailywire.com/news/...
http://press.foxnews.com/2017/...

There are some companies and farmers that are already doing something very similar: https://www.wsj.com/articles/chip-makers-are-adding-brains-alongside-cameras-eyes-1507114801. Registration required, sorry!

I think that this is fascinating. Like you said, there's definitely a possibility for increased weed "resistance" without the potential for side effects from the herbicide.

Will

LOL I'm guessing the same amount as they paid the Wall Street Journal and the the Washington Post.

You can find the source for the topic of this post at the folowing site: https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-...

The updates are broken down into 3 sections, with section “b” being the most relevant to this e-mail.
https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-...
https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-...
https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-...

Extract from section 63b:

When processing requests to establish and change memorized secrets, verifiers SHALL compare the prospective secrets against a list that contains values known to be commonly-used, expected, or compromised. For example, the list MAY include (but is not limited to):

Passwords obtained from previous breach corpuses.
Dictionary words.
Repetitive or sequential characters (e.g. ‘aaaaaa’, ‘1234abcd’).

Context specific words, such as the name of the service, the username, and derivatives thereof.

If the chosen secret is found in the list, the CSP or verifier SHALL advise the subscriber that they need to select a different secret, SHALL provide the reason for rejection, and SHALL require the subscriber to choose a different value.

*Verifiers SHALL implement a throttling mechanism that effectively limits the number of failed authentication attempts an attacker can make on the subscriber’s account as described in Section 5.2.2.*
*Verifiers SHOULD NOT impose other composition rules (e.g., mixtures of different character types) on memorized secrets.*
*Verifiers SHOULD NOT require memorized secrets to be changed arbitrarily (e.g., periodically) and SHOULD only require a change if the subscriber requests a change or there is evidence of compromise of the authenticator.*

Forcing password changes just to change the passwords also contributes to this security “fallacy”, that in fact does more to weaken our security than anything else.
When both of these are combined, we should find that the rules are in several ways, much like the TSA at airports, good security theater that causes no end of grief for travelers, yet does almost nothing to make people safer or more secure.

As a follow up, I saw an article in the Wall Street Journal regarding this topic.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/t...
That may be pay-walled, so another variant from Gizmodo.
http://gizmodo.com/the-guy-who...
Interesting to find out that the “supposed” strong password rules were developed by a bureaucrat with very little knowledge about computer security.

Finally, a previous paper I composed as an attempt to point out the fallacy of those laughably weak "strong password rules" several years ago.

You know, every time I see people asking for the ability to enforce "strong" password rules like the above, I have to laugh.
Those kinds of rules actually reduce the safety and "strength" of the passwords.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if those "recommendations" came directly from the NSA with the express purpose of making brute-force cracking of the passwords so much easier for them.

Let's do a little math here.

Start with a typical 8 character password requirement - with 95 printable characters in the ascii character set, we subtract 1 for the "space" character, leaving us with 94 character "options" for each of the 8 spaces.

So now, we do the math, 94 characters for each of the 8 positions gives us just a little over 6 quadrillion possibilities.

Now, we start to add in the "rules".
1 uppercase

NIST recently published its four-volume SP800-63b Digital Identity Guidelines . Among other things, it makes three important suggestions when it comes to passwords:

1. Stop it with the annoying password complexity rules. They make passwords harder to remember. They increase errors because artificially complex passwords are harder to type in. And they don't help that much. It's better to allow people to use pass phrases.
2. Stop it with password expiration. That was an old idea for an old way we used computers. Today, don't make people change their passwords unless there's indication of compromise.
3. Let people use password managers. This is how we deal with all the passwords we need.

These password rules were failed attempts to fix the user. Better we fix the security systems.

Title of the parent comment: "The heady days of the dot com bust..."

Back then there was a lot of talk that Microsoft would be the first trillion dollar company. Apple is more likely to get that title in the near future. Or maybe not.

If, as in the years before 2008, stock brokers can convince a huge number of people that the stock market will continue to rise rapidly, the brokers can sell what they have for a huge profit, and there will be another crash, as in 2008.

A stock bubble is when your grandmother gives you stock tips. According to a recent WSJ article, ordinary investors are sitting on the side lines after being burned by two stock busts in a decade.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-oh-why-cant-we-have-a-decent-stock-bubble-1508174136

Their entire budget is certainly big - problem is most of it is earmarked for many ongoing projects and there is little left for discretionary use.

Moreover, now they have to fly to the moon first before they can send people to Mars: https://www.wsj.com/articles/a...

whitewash history much?

it's not a myth. and iit was far more than "just a fragment". the tax penalty "punishment" came from them too.
really, the only things dems did was tack on minimum coverage, and a public optopn (that later got dropped).

you folks can try to whitewash the history all you want.
but no one is falling for it.

http://americablog.com/2013/10...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/h...
https://healthcarereform.proco...

and of course, the original document, in full, for your reading pleasure: http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws....

Republican
Obama/Clinton

Funny. The Wall Street Journal had a recent article that Obama is/was "too conservative" for the Democrats. I've always thought Obama and Clinton were moderate conservatives.

Guess you've never heard that the average person inadvertently commits three arguable felonies everyday. The game is rigged boys. With private jails profiting off of every "guest" admitted, the profit seeking impetus is to pass more and more laws to put more and more people in jail.

Just failing to mow your lawn can land you in jail today. And once they've got you in jail, you can't mow your lawn to fix the problem, minimum wage laws no longer apply to your labor, and the jailers can nickel and dime you to death as they do with these high prices for phone calls.

Be happy you're lucky enough to be on the outside right now.

Oh, but wait! He apologized! Free pass because:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/o...
https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... (doesn't have full text or anything, but wsj's paywalls are mildly annoying)

Sure, people may have more choices today that they didn't have decades ago. But companies are willing to do less to keep people around than they did decades ago.

I've heard/commented before around the 'net - is it any coincidence that with the death of the pension, that any type of employee loyalty died along with it?

At least one theory about this is floating around, and they blame institutional shareholders for the death of the pension...
https://blogs.wsj.com/atwork/2...

There must be no millennials in your town then: https://www.wsj.com/articles/m...

Or the OTA antennas have moved indoors. It is shocking to me how many people I know who rely on OTA for some portion of their video consumption, none of who use an outdoor antenna.

Last month I dropped a OTA tuner, antenna and Raspberry Pi in another timezone just so I could watch out of state football games without paying for a service... and I am not a millennial.

Another possibility is to treat them the way American justice treats offenders who commit civil offense 'crimes' like copyright infringement when copying a DVD.

Each copy can result in fines up to $250,000 because you copied a DVD instead of buying a movie ticket. The Movie company lost their percentage of a theater ticket sale (say about $10.00), so they need to fine you appropriately. Their math says you should pay $250,000 for each $10.00 they lost. Corporations, the Courts, American politicians all agree this is fair and just.

So we should apply the same standards to equifax. For every $10.00 lost by a member of the public in credit card fraud, higher interest rates because of ruined credit, additional legal fees, lost work and so on, equifax should be fined $250,000.

Clean and simple. What's sauce for the goose, and so on...

Start racking up the fines, and equifax might actually start paying attention to security.

As it is, equifax has very little liability and they are hoping their lobbying efforts will eliminate any liability that does exist.

We'll be lucky if they are ever held accountable. A few executives may be fined for insider trading, but they'll probably send Martha Stewart to jail before they send anyone who is really responsible.

Frankly they have alot of friends in Washington (both parties) that they pay alot of money to - to buy off.

This is so true.

Equifax Lobbied for Easier Regulation Before Data Breach

Sept. 11, 2017

Equifax Inc. was lobbying lawmakers and federal agencies to ease up on regulation of credit-reporting companies in the months before its massive data breach.

Equifax spent at least $500,000 on lobbying Congress and federal regulators in the first half of 2017, according to its congressional lobbying-disclosure reports. Among the issues on which it lobbied was limiting the legal liability of credit-reporting companies.

The amount Equifax spent in the first half of this year appears to be in line with previous spending. In 2016 and 2015, the company’s reports show it spent $1.1 million and $1.02 million, respectively, on lobbying activities. While the company had broadly similar lobbying issues in those years, the liability matter was new in 2017.

Equifax’s political-action committee made contributions to 13 members of the Financial Services Committee during the 2016 election cycle, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. Among the recipients was Committee Chairman Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R., Texas), who received $1,000. Last Friday, he called for his committee’s hearing into the breach.

Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R., Mo.), chairman of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit subcommittee that directly handles matters relating to the reporting companies, received $2,000. Also receiving $2,000 was Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R., Ga.), sponsor of the bill that would place a $500,000 cap on the statutory damages consumers could win in a lawsuit against the credit-reporting companies, as well as eliminate punitive damages against them entirely.

The Equifax PAC also gave two additional $1,000 donations to Rep. Luetkemeyer this year, in April and June, according to Federal Election Commission records. The April donation was eight days before Rep. Loudermilk’s bill was introduced.

At last week’s hearing into the liability limits bill and other regulatory overhaul measures, Chi Chi Wu, a staff attorney for the National Consumer Law Center, said the proposed legislation “drastically decreases the consequences for credit bureaus” when they violate the law.

Equifax has also lobbied on changes to rules governing companies that promise to “repair” consumers’ credit. A separate bill pending before the Financial Services Committee would allow credit-reporting companies to offer credit-education and identity-protection services without being subject to rules governing credit-repair companies.

It's about the available profit in the mobile market. And yes, you're both correct that it's not 95%, it's 93% in Feb 2015, 92% in July 2015, 91% in Feb 2016, 94% in Nov 2016.

I apologize for the rounding error.

I was going to submit the WSJ/Fox News article under my alias when the Variety story popped up, which has more insight on what HBO is doing.

When the hackers came forward late last month, an HBO technology-department employee sent them a letter offering $250,000 to participate in the company's "bug bounty" program, in which technology professionals are compensated for finding vulnerabilities, according to a person familiar with the matter.

HBO was buying time with that response and isn't in negotiations with the hackers, the person said. The hacker has demanded a ransom of around $6 million.

The network has also been working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other law-enforcement agencies and cybersecurity firms to address the matter, people familiar with the matter say.

WSJ (paywalled): https://www.wsj.com/articles/hbos-hack-hollywood-is-under-siege-1502443802
Fox News: http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/08/11/hbos-hack-hollywood-is-under-siege.html

This is actually very common.

Yes it is, but he asked for a citation, not a repetition of the assertion.

Here is a citation: Employees Only Think They Control Thermostat.

No, it isn't. You are flat out lying.

Here is an earlier article from the EFF that was carried on Slashdot titled More Than 40 ISPs Across the Country Tell Chairman Pai to NOT Repeal Network Neutrality

Here's one showing who is really supporting the repeal of net neutrality -- with the bulk of all lobbying money ($572 million) being spent by just four companies: AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA).

The simple truth is the big telecom companies want to have the benefits of common carrier legal protection, without the limitations. They ALREADY have the rights, and abilities, to provide quality of service based on type of traffic. There is NOTHING stopping them from prioritizing VoIP traffic over e-mail because of the real-time nature of the service.

That is what they try and claim they can't do, but that isn't what they really want.

What they want is the ability to shape traffic based on DESTINATION. That is, Comcast will prioritize *THEIR* VoIP traffic but not competitors, like Vonage, unless they pay a premium for it.

That immediately sets up a protection-like racket where major ISPs can force non-ISP content providers to pay extra or their traffic gets degraded.

They've already tried to do this with Netflix and Vonage, to name a couple.

Net neutrality requires that any QoS or throttling that is done for bandwidth management be done UNIFORMLY, and not selectively.

What the hell, more links just because it is so easy:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21376597/ns/technology_and_science-internet/t/comcast-blocks-some-internet-traffic/

https://www.wired.com/2014/05/google-fiber-netflix/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-improve-its-streaming-1393175346

https://www.theverge.com/2014/4/28/5662580/netflix-signs-traffic-deal-with-verizon

How about Comcast astroturfing the FCC with bot-generated comments attacking net neutrality?

Comcast injecting packets to slow or disable traffic? Sure!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Comcast#Net_neutrality

Hey, how about Municipal Broadband? Guess who opposes it tooth-and-nail even in areas they have no presence in? That's right, the Big ISPs.

Net Neutrality is by far and away in the best interests of both consumers and small ISPs.

Ok, first of all I'm not sure Tom Cook plans to put programmers in Apple Park into open offices. The Wall Street Journal article starts out mentioning "soundproof offices". Can any current Apple employees tell us definitely what Cook's plan is?

But if that is Cook's plan, then this is what he should do:

1) Remember that work spaces should be designed to get work done, not to look cool.

2) Remember that different jobs have different requirements. I'm sure Tim Cook spends lots of time on the phone and in meetings, getting ideas, spreading ideas, and managing things. But when it's been decided what software should be written, the sw engineers need peace and quiet to write it.

Also I've read that Ive's group works in an area with loud piped in music. If that works for Ive and his team, fine. But it doesn't work with most sw engineers.

(Same with most other employees, besides sw engineers.)

3) If he hasn't done so, get honest feedback from the people who will work at Apple Park.

4) Move the people into Apple Park a few at a time. For each group, if the employees in that group have been there for a month, and they still don't like open offices, then change their open office into individual offices.

5) If only a tenth of the sw engineers have moved to Apple Park, and if they have been there for a month, and if most of them hate the open offices, then it's back to the drawing board for the building's architects. They'll have to re-design the interior of Apple Park before they move the rest of the sw engineers in.

I don't know where they'll get the extra space for real offices. Maybe a combination of sacrificing some conference rooms (putting offices there instead), and moving fewer people into Apple Park.