The information can be used to file taxes. When one gets those "your taxes have already been filed" letters from the IRS is because someone used your SSN and other information and filed taxes to get a refund and other credits.
Or for those of us who don't live paycheck to paycheck and don't prefer to give the Federal government an interest free loan, by all means you can go right ahead and pay my taxes!
It's a neat idea. Hackers breach Equifax and find wormholes to everyone's residences and steal all drivers licenses and pile them up in a warehouse on a deserted tropical island.
However, they may have stolen the Drivers License numbers.
There's a documentary called "How Beer saved the World" that explains a significant driving force behind the evolution of agriculture to mass produce beer. There ought to be a new documentary made called "How Porn saved the Internet" to tell a similar story.
1). You don't think a social engineering attack is a "real" attack;
2). You don't think that social engineering has any meaningful defense, because stupid users, right?
Wrong on both counts.
Your presumptions make you stupid. I merely suggested it is being REPORTED as something new when in fact it's OLD. Now on the other hand, if we were presented with some new means of defending ourselves against social engineering, that would be news.
Precisely and one was not provided. So why not just be clear and say "We just discovered X exists" like pretty much every other scientific discovery that's ever been made by the human race.
The only other interpretation would be that a missing object must violate the conservation of mass, which is clearly not what somebody means when they say that something is missing.
This has really nothing to do with physics. We live in MATERIAL WORLD that is independent of us. Science especially Physics is analyzing this material world that we refer to as the universe attempting to understand it. If we don't live in an objective, material world, science is pretty much POINTLESS because we can't really know anything in any of these other models of existence. If all humans were DEAD, this universe would still be here. Now you can argue that there is no way to prove such a statement but all the evidence suggests that this is the most plausible explanation. All this nonsense about subjective experience being "reality" is a bunch of bullshit. It's not particularly hard to make this case. Take my train example, place one of these subjective dream idiots in front of an oncoming train, have them reject the train's reality in their subjective experience while someone else takes a video and posts it to youtube and guess what happens? The stupid subjective experience dipshit is dead and the other observer saw it and post it where everyone else can see it. The mental gymnastics you have to go through in order to uphold the other position is ridiculous and I feel like it's more egocentrics than it is interested in pushing forward human knowledge.
Wow, congratulations on discovering social engineering! Seriously slashdot, we've had posts where people supposedly discover things that have been around for years. The other day it was vending machines, now it's social engineering.
Your point of view is irrelevant to the natural world. Just because you close your eyes and keep repeating to yourself, "There is no train speeding at me" doesn't mean you're not going to get hit by it
How about "Just been found" or "Finally been found"?
Discussing the semantics of the title is absurd, because the notion the matter was "missing" is absurd. It was always there, we were just too blind to see it.
i don't actually know what you mean by a conservative attitude toward evolution.
I know you don't understand. I didn't at one time either. If you saw the bigger picture your point of view would probably be different. I can't show it to you. You have to want to know. You have to value truth above all to find truth. The only thing I can tell you is the Japanese proverb of the cup of tea:
A Cup of Tea
Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.
Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor’s cup full, and then kept on pouring.
The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. “It is overfull. No more will go in!”
“Like this cup,” Nan-in said, “you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?”
Everyone gets a choice whether they allow all that is to permeate them or to uphold the ego. Good luck!
i've moved in a conservative direction with age and thus believe that 'if it ain't broke don't mess with it in the hopes of improving it.'
I can see where you and I have a different school of thought. All the evidence as far as I can tell points to an material world independent of us. That's the mental model I run with currently. You can call it the natural world if you like but it is independent of us. Therefore, to adopt this attitude of being conservative towards natural processes such as evolution is absurd. It's like saying I don't care for the changing weather so I'm going to have a conservative attitude towards it. That's absurd. It is working independent of you and it doesn't care about your opinion nor mine. To ignore it is to reject reality itself and I would argue that's not wise but by all means, carry on. It's your life. You make your choices and you get to live with the consequences of your actions.
our positions are probably closer than you think. my position is simply saying that there is a underlying basis for all our subjective moralities that is evolutionarily driven and determined. higher power does not necessarily factor in.
Where we might diverge is that I don't think because our evolutionary instincts pushed us in the direction we've gone in up until now is compelling. There is both System 1 and System 2 thinking. System 1 is instinct and emotion (what you're talking about) and System 2 is rational and logical. System 2 is a relatively recent evolutionary trait and the thinking from that perspective is very different from the System 1 perspective. Both are evolutionary but System 2 is relatively recent and what I notice is System 2 is gaining market share in our population via natural selection. By the way, the two are not mutually exclusive. What I find is that System 1 dominated thinking usually lacks System 2 capabilities or the capability to develop them but System 2 can learn how to tap into both. However, yes, System 2 thinkers often have zero emotional intelligence but not all of us. Some of us are rational, logical empaths if you can believe that.:) We choose what wins in our thought process. There is a judge process in a way.
yes, i realize that. animals can neither be good or evil, that's entirely a human construct on the nature of existence.
It also means humans can be neither good nor evil by your logic. We are also animals. I'm not sure why you keep referring to "good" and "evil". When people use those terms they usually mean objectively "good" or "evil" which there is no basis for. You could only say something like "By human standards, Bob is good" or something to that effect which is precisely the same as humans collectively agreeing upon standards for subjective morality or relative morality. The criteria for "good" or "evil" is equally subjective to human beings. Furthermore, the concept of "good" and "evil" referred to by those words is entirely the invention of human beings.
Not that I want to go off topic here but almost all concepts of some objective morality or good and evil are associated with supernatural religious claims. As far as we can tell objectively, all of that is also the invention of the human mind.
People who hold such beliefs are nearly impossible to have a rational, objective conversation with on these topics. You are attempting to establish an objective premise for "good" and "evil" so that you can assert a higher moral ground that will make your position appear to hold more authority. The problem is all that thinking is built on a house of cards. You and I, we are on equal footing. If you fail to recognize that, you are just asserting that you are on some higher moral ground than I am. That's a very bold claim without any rational or logic basis. I suspect you won't understand as most irrational people making appeals mostly or solely to emotion always fail to grasp. I understand you but you do not understand me. I understand you to such a depth that I see the flaws in your mental models. You, however, do not see that and it's your lack of understanding why a constructive conversation cannot be had on these topics. You keep thinking "If they would just understand me, they would see the light". We already know what you see and feel and it's not compelling.
The problem with the" Free Enterprise system" is that almost all of its proponents/defenders are working hard to prevent competition. Free Enterprise has come to mean monopolistic/duopolistic abuses, often achieved by governmental license such as in telecommunications. Yes, I'm all for true Free Enterprise, I'd like to see it in the US. But unchecked, unregulated, predatory capitalism has nothing to do with real Free Enterprise.
Just because the "Free Enterprise system" isn't as free as you'd prefer doesn't mean that wasn't the intention. And like I said, it is quite flawed. Even Milton Friedman admitted that. But it's better than any other system in history in terms of results even reducing poverty. That's a fact. If you want to dispute this claim, by all means provide the evidence. If you don't like it, you build a better system. If it were THAT easy to arrive at utopia, don't you think we'd already be there? We're iterating. You are part of human progress. It is a torch that is passed from generation to generation. To think that the world was supposed to be your oyster is quite naive. We all learn this eventually.
the natural world is amoral. without humanity there is no morality.
You do realize that by making this statement, you are essentially saying that morality is a human invention and also by definition there is no objective morality. Evolutionary psychology and existentialist philosophy would agree with that. And it also follows from this that morality is all subjective and a collective morality is an agreed upon set of standards defined by all the members of the collective. Good or evil is irrelevant unless you believe there is something that can 1) be measured objectively and 2) that the measurement matters. For this reason, I prefer to look at it from a Utilitarian point of view. Moral standards are only of utility where they add positive value and even then it is people who define what positive value and positive outcomes are. There is no objective standard of that either.
The collective methane emissions of 7.6 billion people on the planet could be affecting global warming, ban farting. I know... humans in general could be causing global warming, ban humans. Actually the sad thing is, if humans were removed from the picture, global warming wouldn't be an issue because 1) humans are probably the root cause and 2) if there are no humans it would be like the Bugs Bunny Road Runner movie:
In the beginning,
all was peaceful and quiet.
Quite dark, too.
Once in a while, a star exploded... ...but usually it was just a small one... ...only a million miles or so in diameter.
Anyway, nobody complained,
which was odd... ...until you realized that
there wasn't nobody around to complain.
So for about 15 or 20 billion years... ...things went along
smoothly and pleasantly.
Until one day... ...very deep in a sixth-rate galaxy
called the Milky Way... ...circling around
a fourth-rate star called the Sun... ...on a tenth-rate planet,
a strange creature appeared.
A strange creature called man.
"The real tragedy of the poor is the poverty of their aspirations."
- Adam Smith
While I think that is true to some extent, it ignores the larger picture. Adam Smith tried to make this free enterprise system appear to be a noble crusade. Let's be frank, it's not. It arose out of necessity. We live and have always lived with scarcity. Resource scarcity and now in modern times, economic scarcity. The system we have today's sole purpose it to manage scarcity. It is not noble, it's just a necessity based on circumstance. Having said that, it's the best thing we've conceived to date to deal with the problem but we should be attempting to move to a system in which this is either highly mitigated or completely unnecessary. While the left and the right continue to spout quotes like this essentially demonizing each other, we are making ZERO progress towards the goal we ought to be collectively pursuing. That is the real TRAGEDY.
you only have to look at comments called out as shills or downvoted to oblivion for when they legitimately comment something that differs from the group think
It's called Confirmation Bias. Most people will mod up what confirms their beliefs and mod down what doesn't. Such is human nature. In order for people to be objective, they would have to be able to consider the idea that their beliefs might be wrong. I would call that: Optimism Bias:P
then stop with the FUD that portrays those companies as actively working against the interests of society and most people.
All companies will actively work against the interests of society and most people if it is within their own interests to do so. Microsoft & the rest of the big tech companies do so everyday by actively evading paying their fair share of taxes.
It's called the Free Enterprise system. I'm sure I'll be modded down because that's what happens when you post real facts. The fact is even though the Free Enterprise system has a lot of room for improvement, it is the best thing we've come up with so far even in terms of lowering poverty. If you are a college student and you've bothered to take some history and/or economics, you would know this to be the case. If you want to take it to the next level, you should invent a better system and prove why it would work better.
Slashdot Mirror
Research your options and choose what you feel is best for what you personally need. I would not consult Slashdot for advice.
The mining tool works by hijacking a computer's central processing unit (CPU), commonly referred to as "the brains" of a computer.
Idiocracy, here we come. I suspect we'll have to start talking in 3rd grade language when Kid Rock is president.
The information can be used to file taxes. When one gets those "your taxes have already been filed" letters from the IRS is because someone used your SSN and other information and filed taxes to get a refund and other credits.
Or for those of us who don't live paycheck to paycheck and don't prefer to give the Federal government an interest free loan, by all means you can go right ahead and pay my taxes!
It's a neat idea. Hackers breach Equifax and find wormholes to everyone's residences and steal all drivers licenses and pile them up in a warehouse on a deserted tropical island.
However, they may have stolen the Drivers License numbers.
Porn has always led the industry. Always.
There's a documentary called "How Beer saved the World" that explains a significant driving force behind the evolution of agriculture to mass produce beer. There ought to be a new documentary made called "How Porn saved the Internet" to tell a similar story.
Your snark suggests that either:
1). You don't think a social engineering attack is a "real" attack; 2). You don't think that social engineering has any meaningful defense, because stupid users, right?
Wrong on both counts.
Your presumptions make you stupid. I merely suggested it is being REPORTED as something new when in fact it's OLD. Now on the other hand, if we were presented with some new means of defending ourselves against social engineering, that would be news.
The point of reference is the human race, or if you like just physicists
The universe does not need to be observed by humans to exist. Things that exist that humans are unaware of are not "missing". Are you dense?
The word "missing" requires a point of reference.
Precisely and one was not provided. So why not just be clear and say "We just discovered X exists" like pretty much every other scientific discovery that's ever been made by the human race.
The only other interpretation would be that a missing object must violate the conservation of mass, which is clearly not what somebody means when they say that something is missing.
This has really nothing to do with physics. We live in MATERIAL WORLD that is independent of us. Science especially Physics is analyzing this material world that we refer to as the universe attempting to understand it. If we don't live in an objective, material world, science is pretty much POINTLESS because we can't really know anything in any of these other models of existence. If all humans were DEAD, this universe would still be here. Now you can argue that there is no way to prove such a statement but all the evidence suggests that this is the most plausible explanation. All this nonsense about subjective experience being "reality" is a bunch of bullshit. It's not particularly hard to make this case. Take my train example, place one of these subjective dream idiots in front of an oncoming train, have them reject the train's reality in their subjective experience while someone else takes a video and posts it to youtube and guess what happens? The stupid subjective experience dipshit is dead and the other observer saw it and post it where everyone else can see it. The mental gymnastics you have to go through in order to uphold the other position is ridiculous and I feel like it's more egocentrics than it is interested in pushing forward human knowledge.
Wow, congratulations on discovering social engineering! Seriously slashdot, we've had posts where people supposedly discover things that have been around for years. The other day it was vending machines, now it's social engineering.
From our point of view it was missing
Your point of view is irrelevant to the natural world. Just because you close your eyes and keep repeating to yourself, "There is no train speeding at me" doesn't mean you're not going to get hit by it
"Just been finally found"?
How about "Just been found" or "Finally been found"?
Discussing the semantics of the title is absurd, because the notion the matter was "missing" is absurd. It was always there, we were just too blind to see it.
i don't actually know what you mean by a conservative attitude toward evolution.
I know you don't understand. I didn't at one time either. If you saw the bigger picture your point of view would probably be different. I can't show it to you. You have to want to know. You have to value truth above all to find truth. The only thing I can tell you is the Japanese proverb of the cup of tea:
A Cup of Tea
Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen. Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor’s cup full, and then kept on pouring.
The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. “It is overfull. No more will go in!” “Like this cup,” Nan-in said, “you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?”
Everyone gets a choice whether they allow all that is to permeate them or to uphold the ego. Good luck!
i've moved in a conservative direction with age and thus believe that 'if it ain't broke don't mess with it in the hopes of improving it.'
I can see where you and I have a different school of thought. All the evidence as far as I can tell points to an material world independent of us. That's the mental model I run with currently. You can call it the natural world if you like but it is independent of us. Therefore, to adopt this attitude of being conservative towards natural processes such as evolution is absurd. It's like saying I don't care for the changing weather so I'm going to have a conservative attitude towards it. That's absurd. It is working independent of you and it doesn't care about your opinion nor mine. To ignore it is to reject reality itself and I would argue that's not wise but by all means, carry on. It's your life. You make your choices and you get to live with the consequences of your actions.
our positions are probably closer than you think. my position is simply saying that there is a underlying basis for all our subjective moralities that is evolutionarily driven and determined. higher power does not necessarily factor in.
Where we might diverge is that I don't think because our evolutionary instincts pushed us in the direction we've gone in up until now is compelling. There is both System 1 and System 2 thinking. System 1 is instinct and emotion (what you're talking about) and System 2 is rational and logical. System 2 is a relatively recent evolutionary trait and the thinking from that perspective is very different from the System 1 perspective. Both are evolutionary but System 2 is relatively recent and what I notice is System 2 is gaining market share in our population via natural selection. By the way, the two are not mutually exclusive. What I find is that System 1 dominated thinking usually lacks System 2 capabilities or the capability to develop them but System 2 can learn how to tap into both. However, yes, System 2 thinkers often have zero emotional intelligence but not all of us. Some of us are rational, logical empaths if you can believe that. :) We choose what wins in our thought process. There is a judge process in a way.
yes, i realize that. animals can neither be good or evil, that's entirely a human construct on the nature of existence.
It also means humans can be neither good nor evil by your logic. We are also animals. I'm not sure why you keep referring to "good" and "evil". When people use those terms they usually mean objectively "good" or "evil" which there is no basis for. You could only say something like "By human standards, Bob is good" or something to that effect which is precisely the same as humans collectively agreeing upon standards for subjective morality or relative morality. The criteria for "good" or "evil" is equally subjective to human beings. Furthermore, the concept of "good" and "evil" referred to by those words is entirely the invention of human beings.
Not that I want to go off topic here but almost all concepts of some objective morality or good and evil are associated with supernatural religious claims. As far as we can tell objectively, all of that is also the invention of the human mind.
People who hold such beliefs are nearly impossible to have a rational, objective conversation with on these topics. You are attempting to establish an objective premise for "good" and "evil" so that you can assert a higher moral ground that will make your position appear to hold more authority. The problem is all that thinking is built on a house of cards. You and I, we are on equal footing. If you fail to recognize that, you are just asserting that you are on some higher moral ground than I am. That's a very bold claim without any rational or logic basis. I suspect you won't understand as most irrational people making appeals mostly or solely to emotion always fail to grasp. I understand you but you do not understand me. I understand you to such a depth that I see the flaws in your mental models. You, however, do not see that and it's your lack of understanding why a constructive conversation cannot be had on these topics. You keep thinking "If they would just understand me, they would see the light". We already know what you see and feel and it's not compelling.
The problem with the" Free Enterprise system" is that almost all of its proponents/defenders are working hard to prevent competition. Free Enterprise has come to mean monopolistic/duopolistic abuses, often achieved by governmental license such as in telecommunications. Yes, I'm all for true Free Enterprise, I'd like to see it in the US. But unchecked, unregulated, predatory capitalism has nothing to do with real Free Enterprise.
Just because the "Free Enterprise system" isn't as free as you'd prefer doesn't mean that wasn't the intention. And like I said, it is quite flawed. Even Milton Friedman admitted that. But it's better than any other system in history in terms of results even reducing poverty. That's a fact. If you want to dispute this claim, by all means provide the evidence. If you don't like it, you build a better system. If it were THAT easy to arrive at utopia, don't you think we'd already be there? We're iterating. You are part of human progress. It is a torch that is passed from generation to generation. To think that the world was supposed to be your oyster is quite naive. We all learn this eventually.
the natural world is amoral. without humanity there is no morality.
You do realize that by making this statement, you are essentially saying that morality is a human invention and also by definition there is no objective morality. Evolutionary psychology and existentialist philosophy would agree with that. And it also follows from this that morality is all subjective and a collective morality is an agreed upon set of standards defined by all the members of the collective. Good or evil is irrelevant unless you believe there is something that can 1) be measured objectively and 2) that the measurement matters. For this reason, I prefer to look at it from a Utilitarian point of view. Moral standards are only of utility where they add positive value and even then it is people who define what positive value and positive outcomes are. There is no objective standard of that either.
The collective methane emissions of 7.6 billion people on the planet could be affecting global warming, ban farting. I know... humans in general could be causing global warming, ban humans. Actually the sad thing is, if humans were removed from the picture, global warming wouldn't be an issue because 1) humans are probably the root cause and 2) if there are no humans it would be like the Bugs Bunny Road Runner movie:
In the beginning,
...but usually it was just a small one...
...only a million miles or so in diameter.
...until you realized that
...things went along
...very deep in a sixth-rate galaxy
...circling around
...on a tenth-rate planet,
all was peaceful and quiet.
Quite dark, too.
Once in a while, a star exploded...
Anyway, nobody complained,
which was odd...
there wasn't nobody around to complain.
So for about 15 or 20 billion years...
smoothly and pleasantly.
Until one day...
called the Milky Way...
a fourth-rate star called the Sun...
a strange creature appeared.
A strange creature called man.
"The real tragedy of the poor is the poverty of their aspirations." - Adam Smith
While I think that is true to some extent, it ignores the larger picture. Adam Smith tried to make this free enterprise system appear to be a noble crusade. Let's be frank, it's not. It arose out of necessity. We live and have always lived with scarcity. Resource scarcity and now in modern times, economic scarcity. The system we have today's sole purpose it to manage scarcity. It is not noble, it's just a necessity based on circumstance. Having said that, it's the best thing we've conceived to date to deal with the problem but we should be attempting to move to a system in which this is either highly mitigated or completely unnecessary. While the left and the right continue to spout quotes like this essentially demonizing each other, we are making ZERO progress towards the goal we ought to be collectively pursuing. That is the real TRAGEDY.
you only have to look at comments called out as shills or downvoted to oblivion for when they legitimately comment something that differs from the group think
It's called Confirmation Bias. Most people will mod up what confirms their beliefs and mod down what doesn't. Such is human nature. In order for people to be objective, they would have to be able to consider the idea that their beliefs might be wrong. I would call that: Optimism Bias :P
then stop with the FUD that portrays those companies as actively working against the interests of society and most people.
All companies will actively work against the interests of society and most people if it is within their own interests to do so. Microsoft & the rest of the big tech companies do so everyday by actively evading paying their fair share of taxes.
It's called the Free Enterprise system. I'm sure I'll be modded down because that's what happens when you post real facts. The fact is even though the Free Enterprise system has a lot of room for improvement, it is the best thing we've come up with so far even in terms of lowering poverty. If you are a college student and you've bothered to take some history and/or economics, you would know this to be the case. If you want to take it to the next level, you should invent a better system and prove why it would work better.
It's all about money, not progress, at least in America. Therefore, the question is absurd.
This sounds an awful lot like "corporate speak." It sounds like an HR buzzword. "Oh, we're just concentrating jobs ...."
With all new, concentrated e-Commerce power! It couldn't possibly be related to this.
And still one of the top news for nerds sites out there, even if some other crap sneaks in at times. Happy birthday!
I read Slashdot for... the "articles"...
Happy Birthday Slashdot
In Soviet Russia... Happy Birthday wishes you!