"This impulse could stem from the chemical hits our brains receive with each news hit..."
Uh, news? That's a laugh. The only thing being passed around these days is bullshit, which the masses obviously love to puff, puff, pass.
"In times of perceived crisis, our brains cry out for information to help us survive."
Those of us still armed with brains and common sense are crying, because its become increasingly frustrating to find a needle of useful information in a haystack world full of bullshit.
Angry much? Have you petted your unicorn lately or collected any unobtainium?
Yes you're right. We should all be happy happy joy joy when a lack of common sense and unfathomable greed creates another.bomb that will decimate the industry.
Perhaps you should ask others if 2001 wasn't "fun" enough for you. One hardly has to pet a unicorn or invest in unobtainium to feel that pain.
> And no, they don't care [...] because there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
Well, there is. Remind myself and others that I don't *have* to shell out money for that. Sometimes there's a bit of activation energy to tunnel the barrier, but that's their trick, and *knowing* that life is always better beyond the barrier deprives them of customers.
I try to take as many as I can to the other side.
Remember the red pill metaphor?
You and your defiant opinion represent less than 1% of the customer base, which is exactly why they don't give a fuck what you think or do. You won't even be able to make a pathetic dent against those that dominate the industry.
Keep dreaming that you taking "as many as you can" to the other side is going to change a fucking thing. It won't, and my original statement stands. Consumers are lazy, and won't even expend the effort to look for a red pill, or swallow it.
a unicorn is a company that's valued at over $1 billion dollars, which is no small feat in today's market
Apparently, it now is...
"unicorn" is an appropriate adjective to describe an "imaginary mythical beautiful" thing like a company with no product or assets with any valuation at all.
Wrong.
Fucking Bullshit is the appropriate adjective, since "unicorn" has done nothing to prevent idiots from investing millions of dollars into shitware, welcoming the next.bomb nightmare.
Please, someone explain that to me. Is there anything in that I *do* want to have?
Allow me to clarify. Product features these days have nothing to do with what you want. Manufacturers only give a shit about features that make them the most money.
Your needs or wants are a distant priority to that. And no, they don't care if you don't like it, because there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
Yet another streaming service but this one's tied to your hardware
What? You mean you didn't want to replace your television every other year because they purposely stopped pushing firmware updates, breaking all functionality?
You must be some kind of communist hippie who doesn't want to support landfills overflowing with capitalistic greed...
My point is perhaps they should be. And until you can clearly define the difference between a scam and a "junk offer", perhaps we should get rid of the latter bullshit term and call it what it is.
I already said that if the company did what the summary described, it was illegal. What more do you want?
From TFS:
"Here's a quick Wells Fargo fraud scorecard: stealing thousand of cars with fraudulent repos; defrauding mortgage borrowers; blackballing whistelblowers; creating 2,000,000+ fraudulent accounts, and stealing millions with fraudulent fees and penalties."
There's certainly more than one reason Wells Fargo was called out here. Commonly referred to calling a spade a spade. What more do I want? Shutting down unethical and corrupt businesses would be a refreshing start. Either that, or get rid of laws that define ethics in business; we obviously ignore the shit out of them anyway.
It's neither legal not ethical for a company to"offer" services on an opt-out basis, but why does this rant focus on Wells Fargo (scummy though they also be)?
American Home Shield is not owned it operated by WF. It is owned by the same company that owns Terminix, Merry Maids, and some other brands. When you buy a house, the transfer is a public record in most places, and you absolutely will get a lot of junk offers from companies who have no relationship to any of the ones you used.
Wells Fargo is mentioned here because they chose to continue to do business with a company that does not operate a service legally or ethically, as you pointed out.
And let's call "junk" offers what they should be called; illegal. There's a reason scam is a legal term, and not just a word found in the urban dictionary.
"Here's a quick Wells Fargo fraud scorecard: stealing thousand of cars with fraudulent repos; defrauding mortgage borrowers; blackballing whistelblowers; creating 2,000,000+ fraudulent accounts, and stealing millions with fraudulent fees and penalties."
Lists of blatantly corrupt and illegal activities don't mean jack shit unless you do something about it.
And by do something, I mean shut them the fuck down, and throw executives in prison.
Since Greed N. Corruption took over as CEO of US Capitalism, Inc. that will never fucking happen.
How ironic that if any US citizen did this, it would be labeled terrorism. The fact that nothing is ever done only clarifies just how unethical and corrupt the Banking Industrial Complex has become.
Both Thousand Oaks Optical and Baader are really well-known in the astro community. They both have been making solar filters for a long time and I doubt they would jeopardize customers safety and their brand recognition like this.
It's sad when organizations whose good reputation likely exceeds that of Amazons' existence have been impacted in this way.
The only thing that's worse is damn near every vendor is now too small to do a damn thing about it. Even if they could afford a sizeable class action suit against Amazon, it would not be settled for years while thousands of unjustified 1-star reviews pile up.
Just another reason we should despise monopolies of any kind.
If your password policies fail to account for reality, then they're the problem. Thus, password policies are the problem, because clearly they don't account for reality.
The reality is privacy and security is often compromised because of shitty passwords. This fact is broadcast almost every single day when we hear of everything from stolen celebrity pictures to theft of IP.
The average user takes the time and effort to lock doors and set alarms to prevent their house or car from being broken into, but then uses the same shitty password across all banks and social media, and ignores all advice to the contrary.
I'd say the problem is stupidly obvious, and was summarized in my original statement.
Tell me oh massive brained one, how many passwords do you hold in your head? And how many will you still know in a year's time when you haven't used some of them for a while? Also, how many do you think you'll be able to hold in your head when you're 60? 70?
I only know one insanely long passphrase. The rest of my passwords are unknown to me. Yes, that's correct, I don't know them. They are randomly generated and I max out the system limit every time I generate one. I use a password manager. Before they came along, I regularly managed a dozen different systems, so I got used to remembering several usernames and passwords.
Passwords are a terrible solution for security, and a solution that we've never as a species had to deal with before. Remembering something that has absolutely no margin for error is hard for squishy brained organisms to do.
OK, let's just stop with the species bullshit as if comparing our challenges to caveman ancestors is relevant. The concept of a password is decades old. If you're too stupid to protect and value a password, then perhaps you shouldn't be using the computer requiring one.
Password managers are a solution but not exactly a widely spread well-known one, and they have their own issues.
Also, in your better-than-thou rant you haven't taking into account that worldwide security measures have to *work with stupid people too*. Someone who isn't too clever deserves decent security too, not just you and your Mensa brethren.
Password managers are a solution. If users are too ignorant to understand the value of them, it only reinforces my original statement. Yes, we do have to deal with a lot of passwords these days. We also have multi-factor authentication solutions available. Unfortunately, that would require extra effort, and users are also lazy, and still consistently undervalue the benefits of decent password security. They prefer to learn the hard way.
There are two teachers in life. Wisdom is usually gained through education. Experience is usually gained through doing it the fucking hard way. 25 years of IT experience has shown me the latter prevails when it comes to users and security, and hasn't changed in decades.
What pompous horseshit. Most passwords are discovered by leaks or hacks into hosting companies, not by watching over a user's shoulder or listening in on transmissions.
Most password databases that are hacked are full of weak passwords that are easily cracked. Those passwords are weak because users are too fucking stupid to remember strong passwords. Systems have to be purposely weakened because of stupid users.
You can rant about stupid users all you want, they are the users you have. If you have rules that are not reasonably executable by the average user, then your rule is stupid.
Cars have seat belts, and yet there are drivers that fail to use them. If drivers are too fucking stupid to protect themselves and understand the value of a seat belt, then they get what they deserve.
Computers have passwords, and yet there are users who fail to protect them. If users are too fucking stupid to protect themselves and understand the value of protecting their identity online, then they get what they deserve.
And there isn't a single country on the planet (nor consortium of countries) that could POSSIBLY have "An astronaut wandering the moon next year" -- probably not even in 5 years, even with a MASSIVE multinational effort.
This mentality simply blows me away. It really does. Imagine if we sat around and talked like this about ANY other technology that's fifty years old. It's like claiming it would take a MASSIVE multi-organizational effort to re-produce a 1969 Plymouth. Or build a black and white television.
If cost is the argument against re-creating 50-year old missions, the government pisses away funding for half a dozen moon missions every year on stupid shit like marijuana prohibition. Seems it's all about priorities.
Didn't we just have a (absolutely stupid) story about how password complexity rules are bad?
Which is it?
(Hint: Password complexity rules are a good way to prevent the dumbest of passwords from being used.)
To clarify, the author of complex password policies that have lasted 15+ years had regret for one reason; the rules were too complex for users. In other words, he underestimated just how stupid and ignorant the masses are.
Force complex passwords? Users write them down. Every time. And "hide" them in the same stupid place.
Don't force complex passwords? Users create shitty passwords, and the Top 10 Shitty Passwords in 2017 are the same Top 10 Shitty Passwords used in 1987.
Force password changes? Users change from Password1 to Password2. You'll be able to guess their password 5 years from now.
Don't force password changes? Users never change them. Ever. Even if they are a victim of hacking or identity theft, they insist on keeping the same shitty password they used in high school. If you forced them to change it, they would have to write it down.
Sorry, but it doesn't matter what NIST or any other standard recommends; All the password rules in the world won't prevent the masses from building a better idiot.
TL; DR - The problem isn't password policies; it's stupid users.
I'm not sure why you think our legal system will not be able to adjust in time. It would be a trivial thing for a defense attorney to discredit such a video. He could easily just make his own video of the defendant strolling along the bottom of the Marianas Trench or bro-hugging Donald Trump in the oval office. The lawyers will take care of the problem, when it becomes one. Because that's what they do.
You are delusional. The average citizen today cannot afford to defend themselves against the most trivial accusations.
And you want to assume the average citizen could afford a lawyer to spend countless hours manipulating video and creating an effective defense against those who are armed with the technical resources and budget to frame victims?
Expensive lawyers take care of the problem. The rest lose. THAT is our legal system today, and tomorrow.
Surely they meant "billions", right? I can't imagine how it's possible that there's 2000 cameras per each person already, including babies and third-world countries.
Uh, would 44 billion cameras make you feel better?
How about 44 million cameras?
Would 4.4 million allow you to sleep at night?
How about 440,000?
Gee, somehow I don't feel any fucking better about privacy or security...can't imagine why...
44 trillions camera over 5 years is 25 millions a day. I do believe that our dear Governments want to see each one of us piss, but that would still require quite an efficiency that I highly doubt public agencies are capable of.
The efficiency doesn't fucking matter when the data exists. Real-time analysis becomes irrelevant.
At any time, they can target you and extract the historical data they need. THAT is the real issue when it comes to government overreach.
It's already been proven that software today can manipulate audio and create words you've never said based on samples.
Next-gen video manipulation will be able to put you at the scene of any crime, and we all know how valuable video evidence is in a courtroom today.
Our legal system needs to adjust for this abuse of technology. It will not be able to in time, which will make video evidence the next weapon against innocent victims. Watch and see.
HBO is good. Disney better not force ESPN on people to get this.
and they own star wars and are going to fuck over Indy in indiana Jones 5.
In our efforts to go green, we've taken the concept of recycling a bit too far. A movie only succeeds today if it's fractured into two dozen 5-minute action sequences, stitched across a predictable story with a cast of familiar characters, all in order to guarantee an ability to regurgitate another one next year. Perhaps the death of the attention span is more to blame when catering to the simple masses.
I loved Indiana Jones. I have zero interest in seeing yet another Indy movie. Sadly, Stallone will probably be boxing soon, and Ahnold already confirmed he'll be back to killing it with robotic one-liners. The A-list of actors today reads like an AARP convention, which tends to say a lot about the value of the next generation.
You know, the reason people started cutting cords was due to the fucking cost being forced upon us. $100 split across half a dozen streaming services is just as financially painful as a $100 cable bill. I hope Disney finds a loss with this bullshit move.
Toy Story 4 and Frozen 2? Way to "innovate" with yet another channel full of fucking sequels. Gee, can't wait for Star Wars, Episode 27. How original.
Slashdot Mirror
"This impulse could stem from the chemical hits our brains receive with each news hit..."
Uh, news? That's a laugh. The only thing being passed around these days is bullshit, which the masses obviously love to puff, puff, pass.
"In times of perceived crisis, our brains cry out for information to help us survive."
Those of us still armed with brains and common sense are crying, because its become increasingly frustrating to find a needle of useful information in a haystack world full of bullshit.
It pays to be a social media whore today, so it doesn't surprise me that pimping lies like this is somehow worthwhile.
Why fucking bother getting an education when we value narcissism and bullshit this much.
Angry much? Have you petted your unicorn lately or collected any unobtainium?
Yes you're right. We should all be happy happy joy joy when a lack of common sense and unfathomable greed creates another .bomb that will decimate the industry.
Perhaps you should ask others if 2001 wasn't "fun" enough for you. One hardly has to pet a unicorn or invest in unobtainium to feel that pain.
I'm surprised you even found your way back online to report the fact that your internet reference books from a quarter century ago had dead links.
Get with the times doesn't even begin to describe the problem of failing to understand that not everything is timeless in this world.
> And no, they don't care [...] because there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
Well, there is. Remind myself and others that I don't *have* to shell out money for that. Sometimes there's a bit of activation energy to tunnel the barrier, but that's their trick, and *knowing* that life is always better beyond the barrier deprives them of customers.
I try to take as many as I can to the other side.
Remember the red pill metaphor?
You and your defiant opinion represent less than 1% of the customer base, which is exactly why they don't give a fuck what you think or do. You won't even be able to make a pathetic dent against those that dominate the industry.
Keep dreaming that you taking "as many as you can" to the other side is going to change a fucking thing. It won't, and my original statement stands. Consumers are lazy, and won't even expend the effort to look for a red pill, or swallow it.
a unicorn is a company that's valued at over $1 billion dollars, which is no small feat in today's market
Apparently, it now is...
"unicorn" is an appropriate adjective to describe an "imaginary mythical beautiful" thing like a company with no product or assets with any valuation at all.
Wrong.
Fucking Bullshit is the appropriate adjective, since "unicorn" has done nothing to prevent idiots from investing millions of dollars into shitware, welcoming the next .bomb nightmare.
Fucking pathetic that history teaches no one.
Please, someone explain that to me. Is there anything in that I *do* want to have?
Allow me to clarify. Product features these days have nothing to do with what you want. Manufacturers only give a shit about features that make them the most money.
Your needs or wants are a distant priority to that. And no, they don't care if you don't like it, because there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
Yet another streaming service but this one's tied to your hardware
What? You mean you didn't want to replace your television every other year because they purposely stopped pushing firmware updates, breaking all functionality?
You must be some kind of communist hippie who doesn't want to support landfills overflowing with capitalistic greed...
Not all junk offers are illegal.
My point is perhaps they should be. And until you can clearly define the difference between a scam and a "junk offer", perhaps we should get rid of the latter bullshit term and call it what it is.
I already said that if the company did what the summary described, it was illegal. What more do you want?
From TFS:
"Here's a quick Wells Fargo fraud scorecard: stealing thousand of cars with fraudulent repos; defrauding mortgage borrowers; blackballing whistelblowers; creating 2,000,000+ fraudulent accounts, and stealing millions with fraudulent fees and penalties."
There's certainly more than one reason Wells Fargo was called out here. Commonly referred to calling a spade a spade. What more do I want? Shutting down unethical and corrupt businesses would be a refreshing start. Either that, or get rid of laws that define ethics in business; we obviously ignore the shit out of them anyway.
It's neither legal not ethical for a company to"offer" services on an opt-out basis, but why does this rant focus on Wells Fargo (scummy though they also be)?
American Home Shield is not owned it operated by WF. It is owned by the same company that owns Terminix, Merry Maids, and some other brands. When you buy a house, the transfer is a public record in most places, and you absolutely will get a lot of junk offers from companies who have no relationship to any of the ones you used.
Wells Fargo is mentioned here because they chose to continue to do business with a company that does not operate a service legally or ethically, as you pointed out.
And let's call "junk" offers what they should be called; illegal. There's a reason scam is a legal term, and not just a word found in the urban dictionary.
"Here's a quick Wells Fargo fraud scorecard: stealing thousand of cars with fraudulent repos; defrauding mortgage borrowers; blackballing whistelblowers; creating 2,000,000+ fraudulent accounts, and stealing millions with fraudulent fees and penalties."
Lists of blatantly corrupt and illegal activities don't mean jack shit unless you do something about it.
And by do something, I mean shut them the fuck down, and throw executives in prison.
Since Greed N. Corruption took over as CEO of US Capitalism, Inc. that will never fucking happen.
How ironic that if any US citizen did this, it would be labeled terrorism. The fact that nothing is ever done only clarifies just how unethical and corrupt the Banking Industrial Complex has become.
Both Thousand Oaks Optical and Baader are really well-known in the astro community. They both have been making solar filters for a long time and I doubt they would jeopardize customers safety and their brand recognition like this.
It's sad when organizations whose good reputation likely exceeds that of Amazons' existence have been impacted in this way.
The only thing that's worse is damn near every vendor is now too small to do a damn thing about it. Even if they could afford a sizeable class action suit against Amazon, it would not be settled for years while thousands of unjustified 1-star reviews pile up.
Just another reason we should despise monopolies of any kind.
If your password policies fail to account for reality, then they're the problem. Thus, password policies are the problem, because clearly they don't account for reality.
The reality is privacy and security is often compromised because of shitty passwords. This fact is broadcast almost every single day when we hear of everything from stolen celebrity pictures to theft of IP.
The average user takes the time and effort to lock doors and set alarms to prevent their house or car from being broken into, but then uses the same shitty password across all banks and social media, and ignores all advice to the contrary.
I'd say the problem is stupidly obvious, and was summarized in my original statement.
Tell me oh massive brained one, how many passwords do you hold in your head? And how many will you still know in a year's time when you haven't used some of them for a while? Also, how many do you think you'll be able to hold in your head when you're 60? 70?
I only know one insanely long passphrase. The rest of my passwords are unknown to me. Yes, that's correct, I don't know them. They are randomly generated and I max out the system limit every time I generate one. I use a password manager. Before they came along, I regularly managed a dozen different systems, so I got used to remembering several usernames and passwords.
Passwords are a terrible solution for security, and a solution that we've never as a species had to deal with before. Remembering something that has absolutely no margin for error is hard for squishy brained organisms to do.
OK, let's just stop with the species bullshit as if comparing our challenges to caveman ancestors is relevant. The concept of a password is decades old. If you're too stupid to protect and value a password, then perhaps you shouldn't be using the computer requiring one.
Password managers are a solution but not exactly a widely spread well-known one, and they have their own issues.
Also, in your better-than-thou rant you haven't taking into account that worldwide security measures have to *work with stupid people too*. Someone who isn't too clever deserves decent security too, not just you and your Mensa brethren.
Password managers are a solution. If users are too ignorant to understand the value of them, it only reinforces my original statement. Yes, we do have to deal with a lot of passwords these days. We also have multi-factor authentication solutions available. Unfortunately, that would require extra effort, and users are also lazy, and still consistently undervalue the benefits of decent password security. They prefer to learn the hard way.
There are two teachers in life. Wisdom is usually gained through education. Experience is usually gained through doing it the fucking hard way. 25 years of IT experience has shown me the latter prevails when it comes to users and security, and hasn't changed in decades.
What pompous horseshit. Most passwords are discovered by leaks or hacks into hosting companies, not by watching over a user's shoulder or listening in on transmissions.
Most password databases that are hacked are full of weak passwords that are easily cracked. Those passwords are weak because users are too fucking stupid to remember strong passwords. Systems have to be purposely weakened because of stupid users.
I stand by my original statement.
You can rant about stupid users all you want, they are the users you have. If you have rules that are not reasonably executable by the average user, then your rule is stupid.
Cars have seat belts, and yet there are drivers that fail to use them. If drivers are too fucking stupid to protect themselves and understand the value of a seat belt, then they get what they deserve.
Computers have passwords, and yet there are users who fail to protect them. If users are too fucking stupid to protect themselves and understand the value of protecting their identity online, then they get what they deserve.
And there isn't a single country on the planet (nor consortium of countries) that could POSSIBLY have "An astronaut wandering the moon next year" -- probably not even in 5 years, even with a MASSIVE multinational effort.
This mentality simply blows me away. It really does. Imagine if we sat around and talked like this about ANY other technology that's fifty years old. It's like claiming it would take a MASSIVE multi-organizational effort to re-produce a 1969 Plymouth. Or build a black and white television.
If cost is the argument against re-creating 50-year old missions, the government pisses away funding for half a dozen moon missions every year on stupid shit like marijuana prohibition. Seems it's all about priorities.
Didn't we just have a (absolutely stupid) story about how password complexity rules are bad? Which is it?
(Hint: Password complexity rules are a good way to prevent the dumbest of passwords from being used.)
To clarify, the author of complex password policies that have lasted 15+ years had regret for one reason; the rules were too complex for users. In other words, he underestimated just how stupid and ignorant the masses are.
Force complex passwords? Users write them down. Every time. And "hide" them in the same stupid place.
Don't force complex passwords? Users create shitty passwords, and the Top 10 Shitty Passwords in 2017 are the same Top 10 Shitty Passwords used in 1987.
Force password changes? Users change from Password1 to Password2. You'll be able to guess their password 5 years from now.
Don't force password changes? Users never change them. Ever. Even if they are a victim of hacking or identity theft, they insist on keeping the same shitty password they used in high school. If you forced them to change it, they would have to write it down.
Sorry, but it doesn't matter what NIST or any other standard recommends; All the password rules in the world won't prevent the masses from building a better idiot.
TL; DR - The problem isn't password policies; it's stupid users.
i hope each of us could enjoy photography and if you count 3 mobile devices with 2 cameras each... 42 billion is ok by me.
Photography is not why 44 billion cameras exist. Neither is the reason popular apps are asking to control them at all times.
I'm not sure why you think our legal system will not be able to adjust in time. It would be a trivial thing for a defense attorney to discredit such a video. He could easily just make his own video of the defendant strolling along the bottom of the Marianas Trench or bro-hugging Donald Trump in the oval office. The lawyers will take care of the problem, when it becomes one. Because that's what they do.
You are delusional. The average citizen today cannot afford to defend themselves against the most trivial accusations.
And you want to assume the average citizen could afford a lawyer to spend countless hours manipulating video and creating an effective defense against those who are armed with the technical resources and budget to frame victims?
Expensive lawyers take care of the problem. The rest lose. THAT is our legal system today, and tomorrow.
Surely they meant "billions", right? I can't imagine how it's possible that there's 2000 cameras per each person already, including babies and third-world countries.
Uh, would 44 billion cameras make you feel better?
How about 44 million cameras?
Would 4.4 million allow you to sleep at night?
How about 440,000?
Gee, somehow I don't feel any fucking better about privacy or security...can't imagine why...
44 trillions camera over 5 years is 25 millions a day. I do believe that our dear Governments want to see each one of us piss, but that would still require quite an efficiency that I highly doubt public agencies are capable of.
The efficiency doesn't fucking matter when the data exists. Real-time analysis becomes irrelevant.
At any time, they can target you and extract the historical data they need. THAT is the real issue when it comes to government overreach.
It's already been proven that software today can manipulate audio and create words you've never said based on samples.
Next-gen video manipulation will be able to put you at the scene of any crime, and we all know how valuable video evidence is in a courtroom today.
Our legal system needs to adjust for this abuse of technology. It will not be able to in time, which will make video evidence the next weapon against innocent victims. Watch and see.
HBO is good. Disney better not force ESPN on people to get this.
and they own star wars and are going to fuck over Indy in indiana Jones 5.
In our efforts to go green, we've taken the concept of recycling a bit too far. A movie only succeeds today if it's fractured into two dozen 5-minute action sequences, stitched across a predictable story with a cast of familiar characters, all in order to guarantee an ability to regurgitate another one next year. Perhaps the death of the attention span is more to blame when catering to the simple masses.
I loved Indiana Jones. I have zero interest in seeing yet another Indy movie. Sadly, Stallone will probably be boxing soon, and Ahnold already confirmed he'll be back to killing it with robotic one-liners. The A-list of actors today reads like an AARP convention, which tends to say a lot about the value of the next generation.
Netflix. HBO. Amazon. Hulu. And now, Disney.
You know, the reason people started cutting cords was due to the fucking cost being forced upon us. $100 split across half a dozen streaming services is just as financially painful as a $100 cable bill. I hope Disney finds a loss with this bullshit move.
Toy Story 4 and Frozen 2? Way to "innovate" with yet another channel full of fucking sequels. Gee, can't wait for Star Wars, Episode 27. How original.