Wait till every other kickstarter project is a home-made anti-robot bee which, oh dear, through a programming bug happens to develop an emergent behaviour which makes it looks as though they've been designed to be robot-bee search-and-destroy bots.
This sounds more like:
* Yes, we can definitely fix your problem
* Ahem, what *is* your problem?
* Ecosystem on brink of catostrophic failure
* Yes, we can definitely fix your problem. We'll be redefining the estimated total difficulty (and budget) at sporadic intervals but oh man can we fix your problem
Without any direct way to investigate and identify the source of the private accounts that generate this "fake news," there's literally nothing the FBI can do to stop a propaganda operation that can occur on such a massive scale.
It must be worrying when your own propaganda machine is being neutralised. The horror.
Yes, most lenders appear to believe in the ability of these credit agencies to securely store and correctly interpret your data to predict future creditworthiness.
Equifax et al should pivot to focusing on their core strength which is persuading others of their ability to do the impossible - that is pure gold squared (10% to me for suggesting it: P )
We also are focused on consumer protection and have developed a comprehensive portfolio of services to support all U.S. consumers, regardless of whether they were impacted by this incident.
Translation
We have failed to protect consumers but prefer to keep taking in cash, despite this clear demonstration that [y]our data is not guaranteed to be free from tampering and therefore any derived data is worthless.
...organisations need to avoid making their (our) data a gigantic attractive target. If it were split up so attackers had to work hard for each small batch, this would be less attractive.
It is about including all relevant information, even if not everyone can make use of it. Should an article referencing a highly technical scientific paper, not also have a link to that paper, even if it is freely available, just because only a subset of readers will be able to understand it?
I have no figures on the proportion of users having access to particular pay-walled sites. Might one reasonably assume that for each it would be less than 50% ? If so, I would consider the pay-walled article a poor choice for the primary source, absenting a much higher vitamin content compared to the alternatives.
If there are no artificial barriers to access a particular source, the reader has the opportunity to research around the topic enough to understand any information presented, using those parts of the internet which haven't had pay-walls erected around them - so of course, natural variations in readers shouldn't be normalized.
Information wants to be free. When opaque clouds obscure connections in information-space, everyone suffers; it's not reasonable to pay in the hope that the information you require is present behind the wall, unless refunds are granted and compensation for wasted time offered.
Follow-up question, what is the value to the readers of an information-sharing site in posting links to sites which restrict the viewing of 'their' information to the small subset who'll pay?
Are we soon to have news in Latin to further refine the readership?
It's just the American way. The free market in operation. It would be anti-American to punish a Intel for this, just read the other comments to see that's true.
Slashdot Mirror
Parasites want to live though :/
Maybe the host should be killed?
And pirates make money by not paying for music.
Arrrrrrrrrrr.
Nope.
Wait till every other kickstarter project is a home-made anti-robot bee which, oh dear, through a programming bug happens to develop an emergent behaviour which makes it looks as though they've been designed to be robot-bee search-and-destroy bots.
This sounds more like:
* Yes, we can definitely fix your problem
* Ahem, what *is* your problem?
* Ecosystem on brink of catostrophic failure
* Yes, we can definitely fix your problem. We'll be redefining the estimated total difficulty (and budget) at sporadic intervals but oh man can we fix your problem
Kickstarter projects have a hope of delivering as promised.
Bees are killing themselves rather than come into contact with Monsanto's product?
Though it may change the perception of it.
It must be worrying when your own propaganda machine is being neutralised. The horror.
Yes, most lenders appear to believe in the ability of these credit agencies to securely store and correctly interpret your data to predict future creditworthiness.
Equifax et al should pivot to focusing on their core strength which is persuading others of their ability to do the impossible - that is pure gold squared (10% to me for suggesting it: P )
Translation
...organisations need to avoid making their (our) data a gigantic attractive target. If it were split up so attackers had to work hard for each small batch, this would be less attractive.
Uhh.. A man's got to know his limitations.
Meh. Facts shmacts.
I have no figures on the proportion of users having access to particular pay-walled sites. Might one reasonably assume that for each it would be less than 50% ? If so, I would consider the pay-walled article a poor choice for the primary source, absenting a much higher vitamin content compared to the alternatives.
If there are no artificial barriers to access a particular source, the reader has the opportunity to research around the topic enough to understand any information presented, using those parts of the internet which haven't had pay-walls erected around them - so of course, natural variations in readers shouldn't be normalized.
Information wants to be free. When opaque clouds obscure connections in information-space, everyone suffers; it's not reasonable to pay in the hope that the information you require is present behind the wall, unless refunds are granted and compensation for wasted time offered.
No problem, as philosopher Dirty Harry said, A man's gotta know his limitations.
When you find there's bad publicity, shell out.
This probably happened to others.
Ok. Thanks for the heads-up :D
Follow-up question, what is the value to the readers of an information-sharing site in posting links to sites which restrict the viewing of 'their' information to the small subset who'll pay?
Are we soon to have news in Latin to further refine the readership?
I misread your post as 'blah blah, I encourage you to censor me to -1, blah blah.'
It's just the American way. The free market in operation. It would be anti-American to punish a Intel for this, just read the other comments to see that's true.
I notice a trend of the summary stating ' the source may be pay-walled, here's an alternate source'. Why not simply skip the pay-walled source?
Mmm. Food for thought..
... the only life form without a pro subscription may soon break.
And yet this continual trend of reading the future.
What proportion of the US are professional medical test subjects, blood donors, non-robot porn stars etc?