Who did you think I was referring to when I said "those people"?
"They" all think that. At least the specific domain I was referring to.
To double down on that, "they" are so mentally retarded in their logic and ability to "think" that "they" really do exhibit the aforementioned traits. There is no discussion with "those" people.
Now, I will stipulate that the vast vast majority of "they" are religious, but that does not limit religion in scope to Christianity. However, some people with arguments like the ones I mentioned are not religious.. which gets even stranger. Not everyone religious is part of "they" either.
In any case, I was specifically limiting myself to referring to the types of people that would make the argument that masturbation is murder and sex for anything other than the purposes of procreation is murder according to the same logic. People that make those arguments comprise "they".
I make no apologies. Anybody that makes those arguments, religious or not, is just plain mentally challenged. Virtual people having human rights is right up there with me killing millions of "unborn people" in the shower.
These people making these arguments are the same kind of people that think that whacking off is literally killing millions of unborn children. It's evil.
Try explaining to them that 99.999999% of all those "unborn children" are also dying during normal procreation (man/woman -- only one woman) and they will justify it by saying it was for the purpose of life and God supports it.
They lost you when said, "math".
The only possible logical argument to be made is whether repeated exposure and participation in virtual violence leads to violent behavior in real life. That's quite debatable.
There is a big difference between the energy level of the Bluetooth radios on the keyboard and the one attached to the USB port on my monitor and a magnetic field capable of powering a monitor.
Keep in mind, the poster said monitor(s) plural.
Quite frankly, I don't see how anything would function with a field that strong. I would think it would interfere with the operation of the monitor, and the signals coming to the monitor.
Logitech has a solar keyboard right now. Will run partially off the glow from a couple of LCDs. Normal light in the room is more than enough to run the device and keep a full charge. I have seen it run off low light levels too, like a 40w table lamp.
Would rather have that than a magnetic field in my desk.
We are the 1%. It's called vendor lock-in. My users need that crap.
It's easy to say that I don't need it. Personally, I could live forever without MS and Adobe. I spend some of my day blissfully running around headless CentOS servers.
You really need to look up the definition of vendor lock-in. It literally means that I don't have a choice. If I did, I would have already made it. However, for many reasons I still need to run Windows Server 2008 and Adobe Acrobat to be able to get the work done because of other companies.
Funding Okular will not help 3rd party vendors for signature capture devices start supporting Okular for their own hardware. I need to convince them to start supporting more than Acrobat/MS Office.
Now let's say Foxit was supported and I could capture a signature from a pad. I would still have issues with other companies that deliver secure PDF documents that only work in Acrobat.
It's a two part problem involving a minimum of three companies, not including my own.
The first problem we are trying to solve is the Acrobat security problem. That does not always work reliably either and we face issues where markups on the documents need to occur and cannot, signing excluded.
We literally have to print the document out, sign it and fill in fields, and scan it back it in. That's expensive and stupid. Thankfully, that only happens with a few companies sending us secure documents and we are working with them to scale back the security since it is hurting more than helping.
There are some 3rd party signing services out there, but that adds a layer of expense that is only required because everybody can't get their crap together. It's not that much cheaper than printing it out, getting the signatures, and scanning it back in. Not every service even makes sense since some use emails going back and forth and is not suitable for point of sale or field work.
It's ugly vendor lock-in from multiple angles and since nobody sees a way out of the gridlock, and nobody is trying, except me apparently.
For the immediate future I am locked into Adobe. Hence, why I am so pissed about the security and their nonchalant attitude about a remote code execution flaw.
It's not like there are not plenty of people out there attacking corporations all the time by sending PDF documents hoping to get some sucker to open it.
If I had a nickel for every DHL executable I have rejected from our mail servers I would be rich.
You'd have to be nuts to want Reader unless you simply have no other choice.
Acrobat 10. Production environment. Multiple servers for remote desktop sessions. Have to have it. Receive secure documents all the time for markup and endorsements and Foxit can't even open it. Let's not even talk about 3rd party PDF support for electronic signatures from capture pads.
The NERVE of those fuckers to announce a zero-day exploit in the wild with an expected fix date in a quarterly update.
What the fuck are they smoking? It's the 6th of December you sadistic moronic fucktards. This is the dark side of vendor lock-in. Till that update I have to wonder about the thousands of PDF documents flowing through into the system and from emails. Believe me, there are some workers that will open anything in an email. So it is a real risk already.
Not that I don't normally, but there is a big difference between a possible threat and a known one.
It's just amazing for them to announce that with all the business customers they have. The unmitigated gall of those bastards.
This has nothing to do with using Chrome over Firefox. It has everything to do with the freewheeling bashing of Firefox that goes on these days.
Jesus Jumped up Christ. There is bashing of Firefox everywhere because they fucking deserve it.
It's not that much more complex. FF went from being the best solution available..... to worse than IE9. Yeah.. that's right. Microsoft started making a better product.
I hated IE6 with a passion. Still do. I used Firefox for years. Could not have been happier. Then something happened. Web sites got a lot more content and fairly more complicated with javascript. Whatever happened, Firefox started getting slower and crashing more often.
Being a developer I had every browser installed and test machines for different versions. Personally, I was amazed by how much more I started using Chrome right from the start.
One day I realized I had not loaded up FF in about a week in a lull between development projects. Used it for about an hour and got so pissed at the performance I went back to Chrome.
That's why FF sucks ass today. IE and Chrome can outperform it in real world usage. I don't hate FF, but it performs so piss poor compared to Chrome that I only use it to check how something is rendering in it.
I care about FF as much as I care about Safari and Opera.. which is to say that I don't.
For another real world story here, my buddy was using FF to help me debug an API. Literally screaming at me that the calls were slow and I must have screwed up the database side of it because it was taking so long to make the AJAX call and get the grid data back. Told him I was making the same call in less than 1/4 second. He closed FF and started it back up. Calls were working fine.
It's crap like that always happening that has stopped us from really using FF anymore as our main browser.
You need to look up the definitions for lecture and brevity. When I say it, it is just a matter of fact. No emphasis. So you are perceiving a lecture where none exists. I can only control myself, so I don't lecture. Only explain my reasons.
Just what religion do you think I belong too? I find it curious that you assume that I am religious at all. For the record, I am not religious at all. I am right because I am right. Not because of my faith, but my reasoning.
I think you have attacked me and my position out of a misunderstanding and attributed characterizations that are unwarranted.
The evidence shows us that the action is necessary and not a matter of faith, but of common sense, simple reasoning, and observation. When the situation is so dire, economics don't factor in. This goes for many situations. If a corporation is going bankrupt, you don't discuss what donuts you are ordering tomorrow, but how you are going to adapt to level off and start turning a profit again.
We disagree on our observations and the science. That is clear. Additionally, morality has nothing to do with it. Cold, hard, clinical analysis of the current situation leads us to these conclusions.
Economics is not fundamental to the problem. What is fundamental to the problem is that we believe economics is fundamental to the problem.
It is not global warming, but climate change. It is not even really about that. It is simply, and logically, realizing that we are not in balance. All that is left to argue is when we destabilize the environment to the point that life cannot adapt as quickly to changes. Not if, but when. You see it now in the coral at the Great Barrier Reef. It is all but dead and bleached. That life was not able to adapt as quickly to the changes. We probably have had warming periods in the past, but not at the same rate. Life could adapt. More importantly, there have been events in the past where life did not adapt. These are extinction events recorded in our history.
Look at frogs, bees, etc. There are so many warning signs right now that life is not adapting as well it could to the changes humans are making. Deforestation, poaching, pollution, etc.
We are life out of balance. Science and arguments about data are pointless when that simple fact is inarguable.
You believe we have so much time left and are hedging your bet that science will save us over the next few hundred years. Well, it may not and there is no guarantee. Plus we have all the technology we need, but not the will power.
I believe that your insistence of limiting our response to this simple logic with economic considerations is reckless and shortsighted. Sincerely, I hope you are right. That we have time. I don't think your views are supported though.
You seem to be coming back to freedom. The freedom to choose bottled water, or a lower mpg car, etc. Other people telling you what to do is out of line and by doing so they show themselves to be self-righteous, hypocrites, and preachers of morality. It offends you and you won't tolerate it.
Well where is the line? At what point do your actions, along with the actions of so many others, have to be curtailed because it is not in the best interests of everybody, and could ultimately jeopardize us all?
I did mention religion in my original post. In that context what I referring to was that there is the belief that the Earth is so huge and so vast and created by a limitless Higher Power that no real harm or influence could ever be done to it.
Perhaps, you have the belief that the Earth is so huge that we simply cannot affect it like the claims to the contrary.
Earth is smaller and more fragile than you think, and as far as we are concerned, getting smaller all the time.
Sorry, I made the mistake of assuming you were in the US. It seemed that Anonymous was attacking US financial institutions.
Your banking laws and agreements suck. I guess we have better consumer protection at the card level and just let them screw us over at the higher levels... like home financing.
In any case, this will not affect you. They are going after corporate level credit cards and explicitly ruled out debit cards.
We both could stop breathing too and releasing CO2 into the air, but maybe we don't need get that extreme huh?
It's easier to just put out hyperbole like that and claim the other person is a hypocrite I guesssss.....
All those stupid hippies that like breathe and stuff and have the audacity to not live like the Amish while promulgating their views about saving the planet.
You have shamed me sir and won the Internets today.
You should be checking more often of course, but I think federal law went into place that allows you to change the policy with the bank so that they cannot bring your account negative. Basically, you can remove their discretion to approve charges that you can't cover. That makes overdraft fees impossible.
I know it is state law in my state because I did opt for the new policy. Overdraft fees are now impossible on my banking account, and that is without a savings account or an attached line of credit.
Furthermore, I had not read the article (first time -- I swear), but Anonymous says they are specifically excluding debit cards. That means the worst that could happen is that the credit card charge gets denied.
Also, for your own information, banks are required to return any fees charged to you that were a result of fraudulent activity. This usually occurs in the form of a provisional credit if it is abundantly clear it is fraud or you are in good standing. If it is a dispute and is ultimately resolved in your favor they will also refund any overdraft charges.
That is from personal experience with Wells Fargo. It happened for a large amount and they refused to issue the provisional credit, but a little over 30 days later it was determined to be fraud and everything was returned to me. I promptly switched banks, but the point is I got my money back by law. Unfortunately, the law also gives them that much time to determine if it is fraud.
Look up your state laws and read your banking agreement. This is true for most banks that I know of, and I am comfortable that this applies to your bank too so they remain competitive.
I really would not seriously worry about this affecting you personally.
I don't lecture. When asked I explain that I don't purchase it because it is bad for the environment for several reasons, including but not limited to, the use and manufacture of plastics and the energy expended for transport.
Simple, to the point, and nothing further needs to be explained. I don't need or want to drone on about the environment. You have either figured it out, or you have not figured out.
In short, you can bring a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.
It's more important for me to be forward thinking than be a good host. That's like saying the guest wanted shit flavored ice cream for desert and the mark of a good host would be providing it. There are logical limits. I don't visit Indian friends and expect hamburgers for dinner.
You have proven my point far greater than I have with your comments. Thank You.
Economics are *not* a factor. We are at a tipping point right now that *will* radically alter the planet in a way that could take geological time scales to heal up, or even change it so radically that life as we know it cannot be supported.
That is not hyperbole. The science and common sense tell us that immediate action is required along with a strong paradigm shift to mitigate the damage and start living within or means. In other words, engage in a harmonious relationship with the planet.
Anything else ultimately means we sacrifice our future as sentient beings in return for short term pleasures and convenience.
Considering we already do that all time in the form of over eating, over indulging, and over spending, our death is all but assured at this point.
Which is why talking is pointless! LOL.
People like you bring up the economics like it is a choice or something. Tragically funny. The poor schmuck that dies in a fire, not trying to save a poodle, but his beer.
You knock yourself out. Meanwhile I will accept doom with the quite grace and dignity I clearly have.
That's incorrect. In the cases of fraudulent charges the merchant is not made victim to a charge back fee. Those fees only apply to disputes regarding valid transactions such as wrong items, items not received, damage, etc.
Which is why I said the normal penalties you receive for charge back percentages would not even apply.
In short, the merchant account is not at risk at all for fraud. Not on online transactions where they are using a reputable gateway. When face to face verification or signatures are not possible, it is entirely the responsibility of the financial institution to authorize those charges based on the supplied data.
What I am really curious about is if Anonymous has the data to pass additional security layers like Verified by Visa.
Well.. they are not stealing from the middle class. That's an assumption. Credit data is going to be used which can possibly cover all the demographics.
Stealing is not going to occur anyways. Anybody with a debit card is highly likely to be protected from unauthorized charges with no damage being done to them, other than the inconvenience of filing a claim. Most banks will issue a provisional credit, especially if they notice it is a large pattern of fraud.
A huge number of charge backs are going to occur, which would create a operational cost burden to the financial institutions. If it is a large scale pattern of fraud too, the charities will not be affected by the charge backs with respect to account suspensions, reputation, etc. Giving the money back will happen obviously. Which, if I recall correctly, most money from merchant accounts is held for a period of time. So those charities will not actually see any of that money in all likelihood.
Furthermore, I am willing to bet that Anonymous will not try large donations on any debit cards. From looking at the bin numbers you should be able to tell the difference and act accordingly. So any middle class person might lose 10-50$. Not likely to push them over the edge. Credit cards will probably be hit for larger amounts, but that is going to be even more protected by fraud prevention and have a much quicker resolution time to the consumer.
The people that will be hit hardest by this are the banks.
Don't get me wrong. Pushing all this inconvenience on regular people is asinine.
That being said, FUCK THE BANKS. Those are the same people that killed the economy with their bullshit, got bailed out from government, failed to live up to their own obligations with the money (namely home loan modifications), and recklessly and ruthlessly sold financial instruments multiple times so home owners had one or more banks after them for foreclosure, used Deeds of Trust to bypass due process, and generally have been ass raping the American Public to the tune of a trillion plus dollars.
Ohhhhh, and not to mention are engaged in a conspiracy to accelerate foreclosures and not work with homeowners because they can make more money with wealthy investors (themselves and their friends) by picking up the properties cheap with government assistance. Do they pay HOA fees or property taxes? Of course not. Fuck that shit. Not only do they refuse to work with people, they fuck over their local communities by failing to pay these fees which local government needs for police, fire, etc.
They are a blight on humanity, and in that regard, I fully support Anonymous sentiment regarding the fact these people need to pay and suffer in some way. I applaud the ends here, but not the means.
My heart bleeds for them in their protected gated communities and luxury yachts. Poor little fucking bankers.
1) The majority of people are split across party lines and anti-science. 2) Religious nutbags are everywhere that have the sole justification that climate science is wrong because scientists calculated the age of the Earth incorrectly, and that Man could not possibly affect God's creation. 3) The absolutely ludicrous position is put forward constantly that business and economic considerations must be factored in. That's like arguing on a sinking ship about the value of the cargo.
Irrational and illogical behavior coupled with outright greed and shortsightedness makes it impossible to affect change through legislation. I honestly could not give a fuck about any further research. It does not take a rocket scientist (or a climatologist) to figure out that we have an affect on our environment through our actions with 7 billion people on the planet.
There is one person that I control. Myself. To that end, I do what I can to minimize my own footprint on this planet, and that is all I can do.
Talking is bullshit because nobody is capable of listening, and anyone that does actually listen, is marginalized and has practically no effect. You nailed that. Social will is non-existent. Basically, no one is willing to suffer to get things back to where they need to be. That goes for a lot more than the environment.
I can explain, politely, why it is such a bad idea to buy bottled water, etc. but friends and family still do it anyways because of convenience. I actually got asked why I did not have bottled water from a guest like I was a bad host. I pointed to the glasses and the RO system and this person was indignant because that seemed like more work than getting a bottle from the refrigerator.
Technology and science is not our problem. We are the problem because of how we act globally as a group.
First off, the patent was filed nearly 10 years ago. I don't know what Slashdot was like then, but certainly know it has made changes in the last couple of years.
Secondly, this could be a good thing. Bringing high profile attention to a patent that covers prior art that has been in use for years could really bring it home how retarded and one sided the new corporate friendly patent laws are.
The thing about reality is that it does not go away, even if you don't believe in it.
I disagree. Wile E Coyote could defy gravity by denying its existence at will. Why he chose to sometimes believe in it, to his peril, and why the Road Runner never did believe is an ongoing philosophical debate with great controversy.
Your statement also reminds me of the question, "If a tree falls in a forest and kills a mime, does anybody care?". Does reality effectively cease to be if you are not aware of it, or if you become aware of it, do you even care?
Another question to ponder, one of the great mysteries too, is if Bugs Bunny really believed it was duck season, was it in fact duck season? That will bake your noodle too.
I misread the summary. I thought 520 was a bit fast, hence how ridiculous the track must be to construct. Then again, I have not really kept up with how far the technology has developed.
Slashdot Mirror
Well that depends....
Who did you think I was referring to when I said "those people"?
"They" all think that. At least the specific domain I was referring to.
To double down on that, "they" are so mentally retarded in their logic and ability to "think" that "they" really do exhibit the aforementioned traits. There is no discussion with "those" people.
Now, I will stipulate that the vast vast majority of "they" are religious, but that does not limit religion in scope to Christianity. However, some people with arguments like the ones I mentioned are not religious.. which gets even stranger. Not everyone religious is part of "they" either.
In any case, I was specifically limiting myself to referring to the types of people that would make the argument that masturbation is murder and sex for anything other than the purposes of procreation is murder according to the same logic. People that make those arguments comprise "they".
I make no apologies. Anybody that makes those arguments, religious or not, is just plain mentally challenged. Virtual people having human rights is right up there with me killing millions of "unborn people" in the shower.
and I really should spend a few more seconds thinking about what I'm responding to
That's not what Slashdot is about........
These people making these arguments are the same kind of people that think that whacking off is literally killing millions of unborn children. It's evil.
Try explaining to them that 99.999999% of all those "unborn children" are also dying during normal procreation (man/woman -- only one woman) and they will justify it by saying it was for the purpose of life and God supports it.
They lost you when said, "math".
The only possible logical argument to be made is whether repeated exposure and participation in virtual violence leads to violent behavior in real life. That's quite debatable.
The only thing I remember about PETA is their amazing ability to get hot celebrities like Eva Mendes to pose nude for them.
Other than that I just generally know that they are nuts.
There is a big difference between the energy level of the Bluetooth radios on the keyboard and the one attached to the USB port on my monitor and a magnetic field capable of powering a monitor.
Keep in mind, the poster said monitor(s) plural.
Quite frankly, I don't see how anything would function with a field that strong. I would think it would interfere with the operation of the monitor, and the signals coming to the monitor.
Logitech has a solar keyboard right now. Will run partially off the glow from a couple of LCDs. Normal light in the room is more than enough to run the device and keep a full charge. I have seen it run off low light levels too, like a 40w table lamp.
Would rather have that than a magnetic field in my desk.
does not look good to have hidden a previous accident
You say hide like the dog horked up on the carpet and you moved the couch.
This event "touched" a few more lives and physical objects than that.
With respect, you are not listening.
We are the 1%. It's called vendor lock-in. My users need that crap.
It's easy to say that I don't need it. Personally, I could live forever without MS and Adobe. I spend some of my day blissfully running around headless CentOS servers.
You really need to look up the definition of vendor lock-in. It literally means that I don't have a choice. If I did, I would have already made it. However, for many reasons I still need to run Windows Server 2008 and Adobe Acrobat to be able to get the work done because of other companies.
It sucks.
It's not that simple.
Funding Okular will not help 3rd party vendors for signature capture devices start supporting Okular for their own hardware. I need to convince them to start supporting more than Acrobat/MS Office.
Now let's say Foxit was supported and I could capture a signature from a pad. I would still have issues with other companies that deliver secure PDF documents that only work in Acrobat.
It's a two part problem involving a minimum of three companies, not including my own.
The first problem we are trying to solve is the Acrobat security problem. That does not always work reliably either and we face issues where markups on the documents need to occur and cannot, signing excluded.
We literally have to print the document out, sign it and fill in fields, and scan it back it in. That's expensive and stupid. Thankfully, that only happens with a few companies sending us secure documents and we are working with them to scale back the security since it is hurting more than helping.
There are some 3rd party signing services out there, but that adds a layer of expense that is only required because everybody can't get their crap together. It's not that much cheaper than printing it out, getting the signatures, and scanning it back in. Not every service even makes sense since some use emails going back and forth and is not suitable for point of sale or field work.
It's ugly vendor lock-in from multiple angles and since nobody sees a way out of the gridlock, and nobody is trying, except me apparently.
For the immediate future I am locked into Adobe. Hence, why I am so pissed about the security and their nonchalant attitude about a remote code execution flaw.
It's not like there are not plenty of people out there attacking corporations all the time by sending PDF documents hoping to get some sucker to open it.
If I had a nickel for every DHL executable I have rejected from our mail servers I would be rich.
You'd have to be nuts to want Reader unless you simply have no other choice.
Acrobat 10. Production environment. Multiple servers for remote desktop sessions. Have to have it. Receive secure documents all the time for markup and endorsements and Foxit can't even open it. Let's not even talk about 3rd party PDF support for electronic signatures from capture pads.
The NERVE of those fuckers to announce a zero-day exploit in the wild with an expected fix date in a quarterly update.
What the fuck are they smoking? It's the 6th of December you sadistic moronic fucktards. This is the dark side of vendor lock-in. Till that update I have to wonder about the thousands of PDF documents flowing through into the system and from emails. Believe me, there are some workers that will open anything in an email. So it is a real risk already.
Not that I don't normally, but there is a big difference between a possible threat and a known one.
It's just amazing for them to announce that with all the business customers they have. The unmitigated gall of those bastards.
This has nothing to do with using Chrome over Firefox. It has everything to do with the freewheeling bashing of Firefox that goes on these days.
Jesus Jumped up Christ. There is bashing of Firefox everywhere because they fucking deserve it.
It's not that much more complex. FF went from being the best solution available..... to worse than IE9. Yeah.. that's right. Microsoft started making a better product.
I hated IE6 with a passion. Still do. I used Firefox for years. Could not have been happier. Then something happened. Web sites got a lot more content and fairly more complicated with javascript. Whatever happened, Firefox started getting slower and crashing more often.
Being a developer I had every browser installed and test machines for different versions. Personally, I was amazed by how much more I started using Chrome right from the start.
One day I realized I had not loaded up FF in about a week in a lull between development projects. Used it for about an hour and got so pissed at the performance I went back to Chrome.
That's why FF sucks ass today. IE and Chrome can outperform it in real world usage. I don't hate FF, but it performs so piss poor compared to Chrome that I only use it to check how something is rendering in it.
I care about FF as much as I care about Safari and Opera.. which is to say that I don't.
For another real world story here, my buddy was using FF to help me debug an API. Literally screaming at me that the calls were slow and I must have screwed up the database side of it because it was taking so long to make the AJAX call and get the grid data back. Told him I was making the same call in less than 1/4 second. He closed FF and started it back up. Calls were working fine.
It's crap like that always happening that has stopped us from really using FF anymore as our main browser.
It. Just. Plain. Sucks.
You need to look up the definitions for lecture and brevity. When I say it, it is just a matter of fact. No emphasis. So you are perceiving a lecture where none exists. I can only control myself, so I don't lecture. Only explain my reasons.
Just what religion do you think I belong too? I find it curious that you assume that I am religious at all. For the record, I am not religious at all. I am right because I am right. Not because of my faith, but my reasoning.
I think you have attacked me and my position out of a misunderstanding and attributed characterizations that are unwarranted.
The evidence shows us that the action is necessary and not a matter of faith, but of common sense, simple reasoning, and observation. When the situation is so dire, economics don't factor in. This goes for many situations. If a corporation is going bankrupt, you don't discuss what donuts you are ordering tomorrow, but how you are going to adapt to level off and start turning a profit again.
We disagree on our observations and the science. That is clear. Additionally, morality has nothing to do with it. Cold, hard, clinical analysis of the current situation leads us to these conclusions.
Economics is not fundamental to the problem. What is fundamental to the problem is that we believe economics is fundamental to the problem.
It is not global warming, but climate change. It is not even really about that. It is simply, and logically, realizing that we are not in balance. All that is left to argue is when we destabilize the environment to the point that life cannot adapt as quickly to changes. Not if, but when. You see it now in the coral at the Great Barrier Reef. It is all but dead and bleached. That life was not able to adapt as quickly to the changes. We probably have had warming periods in the past, but not at the same rate. Life could adapt. More importantly, there have been events in the past where life did not adapt. These are extinction events recorded in our history.
Look at frogs, bees, etc. There are so many warning signs right now that life is not adapting as well it could to the changes humans are making. Deforestation, poaching, pollution, etc.
We are life out of balance. Science and arguments about data are pointless when that simple fact is inarguable.
You believe we have so much time left and are hedging your bet that science will save us over the next few hundred years. Well, it may not and there is no guarantee. Plus we have all the technology we need, but not the will power.
I believe that your insistence of limiting our response to this simple logic with economic considerations is reckless and shortsighted. Sincerely, I hope you are right. That we have time. I don't think your views are supported though.
You seem to be coming back to freedom. The freedom to choose bottled water, or a lower mpg car, etc. Other people telling you what to do is out of line and by doing so they show themselves to be self-righteous, hypocrites, and preachers of morality. It offends you and you won't tolerate it.
Well where is the line? At what point do your actions, along with the actions of so many others, have to be curtailed because it is not in the best interests of everybody, and could ultimately jeopardize us all?
I did mention religion in my original post. In that context what I referring to was that there is the belief that the Earth is so huge and so vast and created by a limitless Higher Power that no real harm or influence could ever be done to it.
Perhaps, you have the belief that the Earth is so huge that we simply cannot affect it like the claims to the contrary.
Earth is smaller and more fragile than you think, and as far as we are concerned, getting smaller all the time.
Sorry, I made the mistake of assuming you were in the US. It seemed that Anonymous was attacking US financial institutions.
Your banking laws and agreements suck. I guess we have better consumer protection at the card level and just let them screw us over at the higher levels... like home financing.
In any case, this will not affect you. They are going after corporate level credit cards and explicitly ruled out debit cards.
Ummm... okay.
We both could stop breathing too and releasing CO2 into the air, but maybe we don't need get that extreme huh?
It's easier to just put out hyperbole like that and claim the other person is a hypocrite I guesssss.....
All those stupid hippies that like breathe and stuff and have the audacity to not live like the Amish while promulgating their views about saving the planet.
You have shamed me sir and won the Internets today.
You're wrong.
You should be checking more often of course, but I think federal law went into place that allows you to change the policy with the bank so that they cannot bring your account negative. Basically, you can remove their discretion to approve charges that you can't cover. That makes overdraft fees impossible.
I know it is state law in my state because I did opt for the new policy. Overdraft fees are now impossible on my banking account, and that is without a savings account or an attached line of credit.
Furthermore, I had not read the article (first time -- I swear), but Anonymous says they are specifically excluding debit cards. That means the worst that could happen is that the credit card charge gets denied.
Also, for your own information, banks are required to return any fees charged to you that were a result of fraudulent activity. This usually occurs in the form of a provisional credit if it is abundantly clear it is fraud or you are in good standing. If it is a dispute and is ultimately resolved in your favor they will also refund any overdraft charges.
That is from personal experience with Wells Fargo. It happened for a large amount and they refused to issue the provisional credit, but a little over 30 days later it was determined to be fraud and everything was returned to me. I promptly switched banks, but the point is I got my money back by law. Unfortunately, the law also gives them that much time to determine if it is fraud.
Look up your state laws and read your banking agreement. This is true for most banks that I know of, and I am comfortable that this applies to your bank too so they remain competitive.
I really would not seriously worry about this affecting you personally.
It is not an apology. It is not half assed. I *did* explain away the inconvenience.
I am not an apologist for Anonymous.
What I said was:
1) It won't be as bad as people think to the "middle class"
2) Charities won't prosper for this
3) Anonymous is wrong for doing it
4) Bankers suck.
Was that easier for you to understand?
I don't lecture. When asked I explain that I don't purchase it because it is bad for the environment for several reasons, including but not limited to, the use and manufacture of plastics and the energy expended for transport.
Simple, to the point, and nothing further needs to be explained. I don't need or want to drone on about the environment. You have either figured it out, or you have not figured out.
In short, you can bring a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.
It's more important for me to be forward thinking than be a good host. That's like saying the guest wanted shit flavored ice cream for desert and the mark of a good host would be providing it. There are logical limits. I don't visit Indian friends and expect hamburgers for dinner.
You have proven my point far greater than I have with your comments. Thank You.
Economics are *not* a factor. We are at a tipping point right now that *will* radically alter the planet in a way that could take geological time scales to heal up, or even change it so radically that life as we know it cannot be supported.
That is not hyperbole. The science and common sense tell us that immediate action is required along with a strong paradigm shift to mitigate the damage and start living within or means. In other words, engage in a harmonious relationship with the planet.
Anything else ultimately means we sacrifice our future as sentient beings in return for short term pleasures and convenience.
Considering we already do that all time in the form of over eating, over indulging, and over spending, our death is all but assured at this point.
Which is why talking is pointless! LOL.
People like you bring up the economics like it is a choice or something. Tragically funny. The poor schmuck that dies in a fire, not trying to save a poodle, but his beer.
You knock yourself out. Meanwhile I will accept doom with the quite grace and dignity I clearly have.
That's incorrect. In the cases of fraudulent charges the merchant is not made victim to a charge back fee. Those fees only apply to disputes regarding valid transactions such as wrong items, items not received, damage, etc.
Which is why I said the normal penalties you receive for charge back percentages would not even apply.
In short, the merchant account is not at risk at all for fraud. Not on online transactions where they are using a reputable gateway. When face to face verification or signatures are not possible, it is entirely the responsibility of the financial institution to authorize those charges based on the supplied data.
What I am really curious about is if Anonymous has the data to pass additional security layers like Verified by Visa.
Well.. they are not stealing from the middle class. That's an assumption. Credit data is going to be used which can possibly cover all the demographics.
Stealing is not going to occur anyways. Anybody with a debit card is highly likely to be protected from unauthorized charges with no damage being done to them, other than the inconvenience of filing a claim. Most banks will issue a provisional credit, especially if they notice it is a large pattern of fraud.
A huge number of charge backs are going to occur, which would create a operational cost burden to the financial institutions. If it is a large scale pattern of fraud too, the charities will not be affected by the charge backs with respect to account suspensions, reputation, etc. Giving the money back will happen obviously. Which, if I recall correctly, most money from merchant accounts is held for a period of time. So those charities will not actually see any of that money in all likelihood.
Furthermore, I am willing to bet that Anonymous will not try large donations on any debit cards. From looking at the bin numbers you should be able to tell the difference and act accordingly. So any middle class person might lose 10-50$. Not likely to push them over the edge. Credit cards will probably be hit for larger amounts, but that is going to be even more protected by fraud prevention and have a much quicker resolution time to the consumer.
The people that will be hit hardest by this are the banks.
Don't get me wrong. Pushing all this inconvenience on regular people is asinine.
That being said, FUCK THE BANKS. Those are the same people that killed the economy with their bullshit, got bailed out from government, failed to live up to their own obligations with the money (namely home loan modifications), and recklessly and ruthlessly sold financial instruments multiple times so home owners had one or more banks after them for foreclosure, used Deeds of Trust to bypass due process, and generally have been ass raping the American Public to the tune of a trillion plus dollars.
Ohhhhh, and not to mention are engaged in a conspiracy to accelerate foreclosures and not work with homeowners because they can make more money with wealthy investors (themselves and their friends) by picking up the properties cheap with government assistance. Do they pay HOA fees or property taxes? Of course not. Fuck that shit. Not only do they refuse to work with people, they fuck over their local communities by failing to pay these fees which local government needs for police, fire, etc.
They are a blight on humanity, and in that regard, I fully support Anonymous sentiment regarding the fact these people need to pay and suffer in some way. I applaud the ends here, but not the means.
My heart bleeds for them in their protected gated communities and luxury yachts. Poor little fucking bankers.
There really isn't any point.
1) The majority of people are split across party lines and anti-science.
2) Religious nutbags are everywhere that have the sole justification that climate science is wrong because scientists calculated the age of the Earth incorrectly, and that Man could not possibly affect God's creation.
3) The absolutely ludicrous position is put forward constantly that business and economic considerations must be factored in. That's like arguing on a sinking ship about the value of the cargo.
Irrational and illogical behavior coupled with outright greed and shortsightedness makes it impossible to affect change through legislation. I honestly could not give a fuck about any further research. It does not take a rocket scientist (or a climatologist) to figure out that we have an affect on our environment through our actions with 7 billion people on the planet.
There is one person that I control. Myself. To that end, I do what I can to minimize my own footprint on this planet, and that is all I can do.
Talking is bullshit because nobody is capable of listening, and anyone that does actually listen, is marginalized and has practically no effect. You nailed that. Social will is non-existent. Basically, no one is willing to suffer to get things back to where they need to be. That goes for a lot more than the environment.
I can explain, politely, why it is such a bad idea to buy bottled water, etc. but friends and family still do it anyways because of convenience. I actually got asked why I did not have bottled water from a guest like I was a bad host. I pointed to the glasses and the RO system and this person was indignant because that seemed like more work than getting a bottle from the refrigerator.
Technology and science is not our problem. We are the problem because of how we act globally as a group.
First off, the patent was filed nearly 10 years ago. I don't know what Slashdot was like then, but certainly know it has made changes in the last couple of years.
Secondly, this could be a good thing. Bringing high profile attention to a patent that covers prior art that has been in use for years could really bring it home how retarded and one sided the new corporate friendly patent laws are.
Someone doesn't remember their GI Joe math. Knowing is 50% of the battle.
Just in case anybody was wondering, the other 50% is the Kung Fu Grip(tm).
The thing about reality is that it does not go away, even if you don't believe in it.
I disagree. Wile E Coyote could defy gravity by denying its existence at will. Why he chose to sometimes believe in it, to his peril, and why the Road Runner never did believe is an ongoing philosophical debate with great controversy.
Your statement also reminds me of the question, "If a tree falls in a forest and kills a mime, does anybody care?". Does reality effectively cease to be if you are not aware of it, or if you become aware of it, do you even care?
Another question to ponder, one of the great mysteries too, is if Bugs Bunny really believed it was duck season, was it in fact duck season? That will bake your noodle too.
I misread the summary. I thought 520 was a bit fast, hence how ridiculous the track must be to construct. Then again, I have not really kept up with how far the technology has developed.
Uh huh.
Then explain why the last time I was through an airport I saw these creepy posters encouraging citizens to watch other citizens and report on them.
A few months later there are articles about the TSA starting an inspection point trial on the east coast starting at a truck weigh station.
The "T" stands for Transportation and they are branching out to all forms.