Why not? So I shouldn't be taxed if I buy a house? I mean, it's used.
I don't actually mind if your plan is "remove sales tax on used items and raise other taxes enough to make up the difference", though I guarantee that that loophole will be exploited.
also, maybe news for you, but I have had more cases to help where they have LOST access to a sim/phonenumber and cannot retrieve account because of that.
Hardly; I've done the same. I didn't say that phone numbers were a good method for account recovery, just that they are better than just about any other method. Do you have a suggestion for a better method?
I mean, if a Korean man loses his account on an American website, could he maybe email them a picture of a notarized letter from another email account? How would a company with less resources than Apple authenticate or even read such a thing? A phone number is very changeable, but it's still more stable than any other digital signature most people have.
I know that Google can use phone calls to verify a phone number and (later) to use it to demonstrate your identity. I don't know how many other companies can do that, though. Text messages are cheap and easy, so most want a cell phone (or other SMS-capable number) so they can interact with you via text messages.
I mean, what nefarious reason do *you* think they have for wanting SMS-capable numbers? How does wanting SMS-capable numbers disprove my point?
It sounds to me like you can get your second factor on your OS-X computer. If you have an OS-X computer.
Since I use macbooks but also android and chromebooks, and no iOS devices, this seems like a not-so-good design to me. But I don't understand the details of the system yet, so I'll withhold judgement for now.
Is usually a codeword for "we want to know your cellphone number so we can track who you are".
People often have a bank account and personal ID associated with their cellphone number.
I hear this a lot, and it's generally proof that the speaker is a total idiot.
Big online companies want your cellphone number so that when you forget your password, or when your account is taken by someone else, the big online company has a fighting chance of restoring the account to the correct person. If you don't use 2FA and you don't give Apple/Google/Facebook some secure-ish way to contact you, then you are SOL.
Sadly, with the various cell-stealing methods this is becoming less useful, but it's still better than almost any other recovery method for 99% of the people out there.
And yeah, I know, you're too smart, nobody will ever steal your account, blah blah blah. The support forums are full of similar geniuses who are SO MAD that incompetent Apple/Google/Facebook cannot restore their stolen account. I've worked in computer security, and I know I'm not immune. Hackers can fail 99.99% of the time, but I just need to fail once for my digital life to be miserable.
I dislike Comey. I am happy that he was fired. I am, however, unhappy that he was fired because he refused to end the investigation into Russia. Why is this so hard to understand? I don't like Ted Cruz, but I wouldn't be happy if someone shot him. I disliked Saddam Hussein, but deposing him was one of the stupidest things we could have done, (Even worse than sucking up to the Saudis while whining about our NATO allies.)
I am unhappy that a government official is trying to meddle in an investigation into their own administration. I don't know if that administration has actually done anything wrong (besides lying on security clearance checks and interfering with an ongoing investigation; both of those are now proven). But they are going through a lot of lying and interfering for SOME reason.
The security source said both bans were not the result of a single specific incident but a combination of factors.
"Combination of factors"... that's kinda the definition of vague.
But you seem to think that I said there was no risk. Please don't build strawmen. Of course you can put a bomb in a laptop. So we'll take away laptops, and someone will put a bomb in a camera. So we'll take those away, and so on, and eventually we'll all be flying naked and the terrorists will surgically implant bombs inside their bodies.
WE ARE NOT SAFE. WE CANNOT BE SAFE. EVER. A terrorist could blow me up on a plane, or (more likely) a car could splatter me against a building, or I could have a massive stroke tomorrow. A terrorist could be driving that car, but probably not; I'm betting that far more people were killed by non-terrorists in cars this year in the UK than by terrorists. Life is unsafe, and you have a 100% chance of dying.
BUT THAT IS NOT WORTH GIVING UP OUR FREEDOMS.
I'm willing to trade a little bit of freedom for effective security; that's the definition of civilization, after all. But the TSA is not effective, and a laptop ban is not effective. So, no.
You mean the one where she didn't get any money, was just one of ~10 people who approved it, and disclosed all of her discussions with the russians? Also, she hasn't praised the russians and their dictatorial leader.
I think you're proving that they are not at all the same thing.
Which makes it even more confusing why he didn't disclose it when he was legally required to do so. It's like a software engineer saying "nope, never used a computer." Not sure if he's lying, confused, or an idiot.
John Oliver's description of this as "Stupid Watergate" is very apt.
The story is fine. Some commentators have a hatred of lawyers, but that's not a problem with the story.
The profession of "lawyer", much like the profession of "politician", is greatly maligned. There's some truthful basis for this; there are a number of truly terrible lawyers and politicians. But like any group of people, there are also a number of decent hardworking lawyers and politicians who are trying to make the world a better place. Painting the whole profession with the same brush would be the same as declaring that all priests, or all scientists, were either paragons of virtue or evil power-hungry liars. It's always more complex than that, but simple minds like black-and-white with no grays or other colors.
Actually, recent research shows that "Morning After" pills tend to block conception (which often happens some days after sex) rather than preventing implantation.
This chemical could in theory do the same, though I'd wait for future studies to reproduce the "too good to be true" results.
It certainly seems worth a closer look and avoids many of the common "too good to be true" signs.
But too much crap science makes it through peer review and into good journals. I'm expecting "too good to be true" once more people study it.
So "skeptical but willing to be convinced" seems the right frame of mind for this. Birth control with fewer side effects would be a great thing for the world. (Less opposition to birth control from religious groups in the US would be even better, but I don't expect miracles.)
Except that under Obama, the FCC was all set to destroy NN until a large public outcry changed their mind. So they put ISPs under Title II instead, completely reversing course.
So I think you mean "the comments are always ignored when one party is in power. The other party does sometimes listen to public comments."
If you vote for politicians who ignore you, then this is on you. Sadly, the rest of us are also stuck.
If you have incandescent bulbs which last 15 years and LED bulbs which last 6 months, you're doing something terribly wrong. My CFLs have lasted about 8 years average; LEDs should be as long or longer. Incandescents were rarely more than 18 months, aside from specialty bulbs.
Without a justice system compelling everyone to play by the rules, there's no incentive for the violator to settle with the victim.
More to the point, without a justice system compelling everyone to play by the rules, we end up with "might makes right". This has been shown again and again to be a terrible system.
One reason we pay taxes is so that when a stronger entity tries to bully a weaker entity, the justice system will come in and resolve the situation according to rules we have agreed on. It's very imperfect, but it's still better than anything else we've tried. And in this case it seems to be working well enough.
I agree that we should usually err on the side of releasing information, but this seems a case where releasing all the documents would just exacerbate the harm done to Waymo.
Most company towns in the US were built and run by very large corporations. I'm in western PA; there were a lot of those in the area. Company towns are a capitalist problem, not a communist one.
The internet is now a utility. You can no longer apply for most jobs without internet access.
Google, however, is not a utility. You may need to use search engines, but you can easily switch to another search engine. Much like you have to eat, but you can easily switch restaurants so Taco Bell is not a utility (nor, possibly, a restaurant...)
Tell that to all the people that got Chrome shoved onto their system and made the default when they downloaded a completely unrelated program like CCleaner or Java.
Since most people who use IE or Edge switch their search engine to Google, and when Mozilla changed the default search most people changed it right back, I'm not thinking that there are hordes of people who got chrome on their computer and cannot figure out how to use Edge instead. Unless your argument is that only smart folks want to use Google and only idiots want to avoid Google?
Also, MSFT *does* pull that shit. They change the default search engine to bing, they only ship IE and Edge and change browser defaults on some updates. And they are still losing. Which means that since MSFT has no monopoly power, there will be no investigations into MSFT.
I recall the various allegations against the Clintons in the 90s (none proven except for a blow job) were on the front page for, well, much of the 90s. That's an interesting definition of "coverup".
Or do you think that Comey and Elvis used with orbital mind control lasers to delete the pizzagate evidence in 1997? I hear bigfoot hid the dozens of people Hillary killed under the whitewater development?
Either Hillary is a master criminal genius who makes Lex Luthor seem like an drooling moron, or most of the allegations are pure fiction. I'm betting on the latter.
such infractions by submariners were not uncommon and were almost always dealt with through what the military calls “nonjudicial punishment” or Captain’s Mast.
Clearly, to an educated observer, this is not fair treatment
So, as I said, "reprimanded but not convicted". I don't know why this case did end in conviction, but it's not the norm. Why do you really, really want Hillary to receive the same unfair treatment?
Slashdot Mirror
Why not? So I shouldn't be taxed if I buy a house? I mean, it's used.
I don't actually mind if your plan is "remove sales tax on used items and raise other taxes enough to make up the difference", though I guarantee that that loophole will be exploited.
also, maybe news for you, but I have had more cases to help where they have LOST access to a sim/phonenumber and cannot retrieve account because of that.
Hardly; I've done the same. I didn't say that phone numbers were a good method for account recovery, just that they are better than just about any other method. Do you have a suggestion for a better method?
I mean, if a Korean man loses his account on an American website, could he maybe email them a picture of a notarized letter from another email account? How would a company with less resources than Apple authenticate or even read such a thing? A phone number is very changeable, but it's still more stable than any other digital signature most people have.
I know that Google can use phone calls to verify a phone number and (later) to use it to demonstrate your identity. I don't know how many other companies can do that, though. Text messages are cheap and easy, so most want a cell phone (or other SMS-capable number) so they can interact with you via text messages.
I mean, what nefarious reason do *you* think they have for wanting SMS-capable numbers? How does wanting SMS-capable numbers disprove my point?
It sounds to me like you can get your second factor on your OS-X computer. If you have an OS-X computer.
Since I use macbooks but also android and chromebooks, and no iOS devices, this seems like a not-so-good design to me. But I don't understand the details of the system yet, so I'll withhold judgement for now.
Is usually a codeword for "we want to know your cellphone number so we can track who you are".
People often have a bank account and personal ID associated with their cellphone number.
I hear this a lot, and it's generally proof that the speaker is a total idiot.
Big online companies want your cellphone number so that when you forget your password, or when your account is taken by someone else, the big online company has a fighting chance of restoring the account to the correct person. If you don't use 2FA and you don't give Apple/Google/Facebook some secure-ish way to contact you, then you are SOL.
Sadly, with the various cell-stealing methods this is becoming less useful, but it's still better than almost any other recovery method for 99% of the people out there.
And yeah, I know, you're too smart, nobody will ever steal your account, blah blah blah. The support forums are full of similar geniuses who are SO MAD that incompetent Apple/Google/Facebook cannot restore their stolen account. I've worked in computer security, and I know I'm not immune. Hackers can fail 99.99% of the time, but I just need to fail once for my digital life to be miserable.
I dislike Comey. I am happy that he was fired. I am, however, unhappy that he was fired because he refused to end the investigation into Russia. Why is this so hard to understand? I don't like Ted Cruz, but I wouldn't be happy if someone shot him. I disliked Saddam Hussein, but deposing him was one of the stupidest things we could have done, (Even worse than sucking up to the Saudis while whining about our NATO allies.)
I am unhappy that a government official is trying to meddle in an investigation into their own administration. I don't know if that administration has actually done anything wrong (besides lying on security clearance checks and interfering with an ongoing investigation; both of those are now proven). But they are going through a lot of lying and interfering for SOME reason.
"Stupid Watergate".
Not so vague:
"Combination of factors"... that's kinda the definition of vague.
But you seem to think that I said there was no risk. Please don't build strawmen. Of course you can put a bomb in a laptop. So we'll take away laptops, and someone will put a bomb in a camera. So we'll take those away, and so on, and eventually we'll all be flying naked and the terrorists will surgically implant bombs inside their bodies.
WE ARE NOT SAFE. WE CANNOT BE SAFE. EVER. A terrorist could blow me up on a plane, or (more likely) a car could splatter me against a building, or I could have a massive stroke tomorrow. A terrorist could be driving that car, but probably not; I'm betting that far more people were killed by non-terrorists in cars this year in the UK than by terrorists. Life is unsafe, and you have a 100% chance of dying.
BUT THAT IS NOT WORTH GIVING UP OUR FREEDOMS.
I'm willing to trade a little bit of freedom for effective security; that's the definition of civilization, after all. But the TSA is not effective, and a laptop ban is not effective. So, no.
When the going gets tough, the tough create vague terrorist threats. Does locking up our laptops make us great again?
You mean the one where she didn't get any money, was just one of ~10 people who approved it, and disclosed all of her discussions with the russians? Also, she hasn't praised the russians and their dictatorial leader.
I think you're proving that they are not at all the same thing.
Which makes it even more confusing why he didn't disclose it when he was legally required to do so. It's like a software engineer saying "nope, never used a computer." Not sure if he's lying, confused, or an idiot.
John Oliver's description of this as "Stupid Watergate" is very apt.
The story is fine. Some commentators have a hatred of lawyers, but that's not a problem with the story.
The profession of "lawyer", much like the profession of "politician", is greatly maligned. There's some truthful basis for this; there are a number of truly terrible lawyers and politicians. But like any group of people, there are also a number of decent hardworking lawyers and politicians who are trying to make the world a better place. Painting the whole profession with the same brush would be the same as declaring that all priests, or all scientists, were either paragons of virtue or evil power-hungry liars. It's always more complex than that, but simple minds like black-and-white with no grays or other colors.
Agreed. The only people who think that liberals like Comey are conservatives.
Actually, recent research shows that "Morning After" pills tend to block conception (which often happens some days after sex) rather than preventing implantation.
This chemical could in theory do the same, though I'd wait for future studies to reproduce the "too good to be true" results.
It certainly seems worth a closer look and avoids many of the common "too good to be true" signs.
But too much crap science makes it through peer review and into good journals. I'm expecting "too good to be true" once more people study it.
So "skeptical but willing to be convinced" seems the right frame of mind for this. Birth control with fewer side effects would be a great thing for the world. (Less opposition to birth control from religious groups in the US would be even better, but I don't expect miracles.)
Irritates the crap out of me that Google is probably building this "balloon" in MY hangar at Moffitt.
Yeah, it was better back when NASA ran the hangar and used magic owl-dodging aircraft.
I'm pretty sure that when someone leases your hangar for decades, it's a bit disingenuous to call it YOUR hangar.
NO! That just makes it far more dangerous!
Except that under Obama, the FCC was all set to destroy NN until a large public outcry changed their mind. So they put ISPs under Title II instead, completely reversing course.
So I think you mean "the comments are always ignored when one party is in power. The other party does sometimes listen to public comments."
If you vote for politicians who ignore you, then this is on you. Sadly, the rest of us are also stuck.
XKCD 630
If you have incandescent bulbs which last 15 years and LED bulbs which last 6 months, you're doing something terribly wrong. My CFLs have lasted about 8 years average; LEDs should be as long or longer. Incandescents were rarely more than 18 months, aside from specialty bulbs.
Without a justice system compelling everyone to play by the rules, there's no incentive for the violator to settle with the victim.
More to the point, without a justice system compelling everyone to play by the rules, we end up with "might makes right". This has been shown again and again to be a terrible system.
One reason we pay taxes is so that when a stronger entity tries to bully a weaker entity, the justice system will come in and resolve the situation according to rules we have agreed on. It's very imperfect, but it's still better than anything else we've tried. And in this case it seems to be working well enough.
I agree that we should usually err on the side of releasing information, but this seems a case where releasing all the documents would just exacerbate the harm done to Waymo.
Most company towns in the US were built and run by very large corporations. I'm in western PA; there were a lot of those in the area. Company towns are a capitalist problem, not a communist one.
The internet is now a utility. You can no longer apply for most jobs without internet access.
Google, however, is not a utility. You may need to use search engines, but you can easily switch to another search engine. Much like you have to eat, but you can easily switch restaurants so Taco Bell is not a utility (nor, possibly, a restaurant...)
Tell that to all the people that got Chrome shoved onto their system and made the default when they downloaded a completely unrelated program like CCleaner or Java.
Since most people who use IE or Edge switch their search engine to Google, and when Mozilla changed the default search most people changed it right back, I'm not thinking that there are hordes of people who got chrome on their computer and cannot figure out how to use Edge instead. Unless your argument is that only smart folks want to use Google and only idiots want to avoid Google?
Also, MSFT *does* pull that shit. They change the default search engine to bing, they only ship IE and Edge and change browser defaults on some updates. And they are still losing. Which means that since MSFT has no monopoly power, there will be no investigations into MSFT.
I recall the various allegations against the Clintons in the 90s (none proven except for a blow job) were on the front page for, well, much of the 90s. That's an interesting definition of "coverup".
Or do you think that Comey and Elvis used with orbital mind control lasers to delete the pizzagate evidence in 1997? I hear bigfoot hid the dozens of people Hillary killed under the whitewater development?
Either Hillary is a master criminal genius who makes Lex Luthor seem like an drooling moron, or most of the allegations are pure fiction. I'm betting on the latter.
I assume you mean this case? That article says:
such infractions by submariners were not uncommon and were almost always dealt with through what the military calls “nonjudicial punishment” or Captain’s Mast.
Clearly, to an educated observer, this is not fair treatment
So, as I said, "reprimanded but not convicted". I don't know why this case did end in conviction, but it's not the norm. Why do you really, really want Hillary to receive the same unfair treatment?