Maybe for a username, but the "I forgot my username" button where they send it to your email should return a generic message after submission.
I'm not talking about "forgot my password". I'm talking about just trying to create a new account for that email address. Most sites will stop you and won't let you create a second account and will tell you that you already have an account for that email address. And most sites now use the email address as the username.
The point is that on most systems it's easy to check for an existing account during account creation so this information is already leaking. The only way for it not to leak would be to not notify someone that the account already exists during account creation.
We regularly get calls from irate customers who are unable to log in to our website and it's not at all uncommon for them to be either trying to log into one of our competitor's sites or trying to use credentials for our competitor's site on our site.
The point is that there are plenty of hints that can make it easier on your legitimate customer while not decreasing your security. It's rather trivial to validate a username or email in most systems so it doesn't add to security to inconvenience your legitimate customer by being intentionally vague.
None. Almost all utopian world views are too simplistic and most don't scale. Communal living works decently at the family level and even at the small community level but once you start approaching Dunbar's number then it begins to fail. The best systems we have come up with are some blend of multiple utopian ideals competing for the common good because you are never going to get a large group of people to all agree on a single best solution.
I'm not a liberal. I don't hate the first responders. I just don't think the seized money belongs to them. It doesn't seem like "finders keepers" should apply when the are paid by tax dollars to do the finding. There is also a significant conflict of interest when they are allowed to keep what they find. Spending drug money on drug rehab programs or some other way that directly benefits society seems fairer.
I would like to see seized assets either be applied directly to the national debt or donated to charity. I would even be ok with the local police department deciding which 501c3 to donate it to but in no ways should they be allowed to directly benefit from either seized assets or fines.
the Chinese, who got 'into Bitcoin' and ruined it for everyone (see above point)
Other systems have had similar problems. Some of it is unavoidable. Because much of this stuff is priced in USD, people in third world countries can make more money playing games like Second Life than they can working. I don't blame the Chinese, I blame the algorithm. Any time there is profit in a system, someone will find a way to arbitrage it. The question is really, what to do now. Even if you can't fix the existing bitcoin, how can you create a new system that is resistant to centralization. The concept of a person, whether it is their computer, their GPS location, or their breathing can all be faked. It's very hard to create a fair voting system that can't be gamed without a central authority. Bitcoin tried but still tied it to CPU cycles which is something that can be bought and sold.
After all, the first thing I think of when someone says IOT device is a device with no power or processing constraints that can afford to validate transactions on a network every time it needs to send data--why have miners running massive server farms when your tiny embedded devices can do all the work!
The original idea of bitcoin was for people to use idle cpu cycles and have a sort of democracy. Instead, what has happened is that people have created huge data centers that burn thru an insane amount of energy. I'm pretty sure the inventor of bitcoin never predicted the rise of dedicated mining rigs. IOT isn't a bad replacement idea but still doesn't prevent someone from creating a "mining rig" with millions of little IOT devices. What really needs to replace bitcoin is some sort of verification that can't be faked with dedicated mining rigs. IPv4 addresses maybe? mac address? IMEI number? What is needed is something that every personal computer and/or smartphone has but can't be faked with dedicated hardware in a massive datacenter.
So, Title II was required for the FCC to implement net neutrality -- otherwise the FCC wouldn't have been able to mandate net neutrality because they can only do that to common carriers under Title II.
This has little to do with Net Neutrality and a lot to do with Title II having hundreds of pages of regulations that didn't previously apply to broadband.
Maybe you're right and maybe now we'll get a real bill that directly addresses net neutrality. I'm not going to hold my breath but it would be awesome if we got a clear cut law and/or constitutional amendment that clearly spelled out net neutrality and outlawed stuff like fast lanes, zero rating, bundling, port blocking, download/upload ratios, and all the other stuff that tries to screw with the open internet. It would be ironic if by caving to the ISPs and dropping net neutrality from the FCC we got a law with even more teeth in it but again, I'm not going to hold my breath.
My ISP gives me an unlimited dumb pipe to the internet and that's it. They don't filter, throttle or cap anything. They don't even care if I run servers on the connection and they've stated that they won't be changing even with the end of net neutrality, which I believe because I've had their service since long before net neutrality laws existed and they have always been the same way.
Just because your ISP is complete shit doesn't mean they all are.
Every ISP within 100 miles of me enforces a 10/1 ratio of download to upload. This pretty much prevents most kinds of servers. If you have a good ISP, be thankful. Many people live in places where they already can't get a decent dumb pipe to the internet.
To my knowledge, there is no way to read a news article on either google or facebook. They link to the actual site where the news article exists. If anything, the news site should be paying google and facebook for giving the newspaper free advertisement. If they demand that google and facebook not link to them then they will just lose the free advertisement that google provides. There is nothing that prevents the newspapers from getting together and creating a better portal than news.google.com but that's all google does. The fact that google has a defacto monopoly and many people only read the summaries and not the actual article might be a problem but not really google's problem. The only two remedies that are likely to happen is either google delists your site or google stops displaying summaries of your article which is basically the same as delisting it.
$2m at least. Then I'll pay my mortgage off and send my kid to private school because I'm no longer paying a house off. kthx.
Do you realize that if bitcoin reaches $2M/coin that the amount of electricity consumed by mining would be more than double the total amount of electricity currently used in the USA?
Tulips are not durable, not scarce, not programmable, not fungible, not verifiable, not divisible, and hard to transfer. But tell me more about your analogy...
The idea that bitcoin is scarce is the biggest lie there is. Every other item you list is something that all cryptocurrencies share. There are over 100 cyptocurrencies and that number is rapidly growing. A person could easily create their own cryptocurrency. All it takes is a handful of other people to also agree to settle debts with your new cryptocurrency and you've got a new currency. The only thing that makes bitcoin slightly unique is the first mover advantage so it has higher acceptance but there are several other cryptocurrencies gaining fast.
you have a lot of work to do to demonstrate there will be enough positions and earning potential there to keep the whole economy going once all other jobs are gone.
At one point over 80% of the workers in the USA were farmers. Someone from 100 years ago could easily have made the same claim. What are we going to do with all these displaced farmers? Actually, someone did make a similar claim and predicted a 12 hour work week and that would be one solution but we haven't had any problem keeping people busy. The vast majority of middle class jobs today didn't even exist 100 years ago and most of them have better pay and better working conditions than farming. The average standard of living of even the people on government assistance is higher than it was 100 years ago. 100 years ago, entire families lived in 1 bedroom houses with no plumbing, no electricity, and very few luxuries. Yes, eventually, we might run into a problem of not enough work to keep everyone busy, but it's probably at least a generation or two away. I think the more immediate problem is probably how to prevent a small segment of the population from disproportionately benefiting from the automation. If there is a factory that produces all the goods a person needs to survive with minimal human labor involved then whoever owns that factory can consume all the wealth from everyone else who needs those goods to survive.
What planet are you on? WAKE UP. The future is now.
Show me a robot that can come into an unknown house, wash the dishes, and put them away in the cupboard. There is no robot in existence at any price that can do this. Heck, there is no robot that can clean a motel room where every room is exactly the same. Yes, there are advances in AI but the amount of technology required for a robot maid is probably at least an order of magnitude greater than that required for a self driving car and they have already spent billions on self driving cars.
We are on probably the 7th wave. There are probably still at least another 7 waves left before we hit the singularity. Automation/AI is nowhere close to being able to properly prepare a meal or even clean up after it. Jobs like maid, plumber, electrician, cook, or any job where you have to come in and access the situation are still a long way from being automated.
The job is "preparing the food" and it increased. The food presumably still came from the grocery store or something similar. Basically, call ahead ordering allows someone to pay someone else to prepare their meal for them. Something that otherwise because of cost or time constraints they would have otherwise done themselves. It's not a zero sum game. For the last hundred years, service jobs have been steadily increasing. If the price is right, many people would gladly hire other people to do jobs they don't want to do like prepare meals.
I'm sorry, but that's the manufacturing industry, which operates on a different basis than the service industry. It certainly doesn't hold true for the restaurant industry, because there is only so much people can eat (Americans being evidence to the contrary). You can't sell people five dinners a day, even if you can ramp up production to make it affordable.
Yes, you can only eat so much at a given meal but it still holds for the restaurant industry. In the not so distant past, eating at a restaurant was a treat. Now, many people eat out multiple times a week but even today very few people consume the majority of their meals at restaurants. Some of this is time constraints and some of this is price. Call ahead ordering can reduce both.
It doesn't work that way. It can't go to zero as unemployment includes people who voluntarily quit their job to move, look for a new job, etc. Unemployment is currently lower than what economists once predicted was the lowest it could possibly go. One reason it might be so low is because employed people are lining up their new job before quitting their old job. Also, unemployment doesn't include the underemployed or the people not looking for work. i.e. The people who have given up searching.
For something like q-tip or band-aid then it's obvious that even though the trademark name has become generic, that it isn't just descriptive. Things like comic-con, App Store, windows, friend list, etc.. that are mostly just descriptive should not be trademarks.
As a side note, I'm typing this on my iphone and apple refuses to let me type App Store in lowercase but has no issues letting me type the rest of the trademarks in lowercase.
no, the size of the money supply is too massive compared to any billionaire dollar holdings. There are *countries* that could affect the dollar with their holdings, but no individuals
Not only can it be done. It has been done. I forget who it was (possibly Edison) that used to tank small countries currencies for fun and profit.
If a security researcher found a bug and refused to disclose it without being paid, I would probably not consider this extortion even if they downloaded all the records. I also wouldn't consider it extortion if they threatened to disclose the bug or even sell the bug. Where it crosses the line is if they threaten to sell or give away those records if they don't get paid.
Like it or not, this is what anchors it to a real-world value.
Yes, I realize that. But it's a horrible anchor. It means that any efficiency gains are negated, any drop in the price of electricity is negated. If the price of electricity dropped 1000% and the efficiency of processors rose by 1000%, it would mean that the amount of electricity used by bitcoin would have to increase by 1,000,000% to keep up. Using "the amount of electricity consumed" as an anchor is probably the worst anchor in the history of currencies. It's not much different than having your anchor as "the number of trees destroyed" or "the number of animals killed". Surely we can come up with a better anchor system. Almost anything would be better like "the number of dollars/hours donated to charity" or "number of rockets launched into space". At least if it was "the number of proteins folded", there would be real work being done that might benefit humanity. Gold is equally horrible as "tons of rocks processed" and also wastes valuable resources but there are plenty of ways to anchor to the real world that doesn't involve destruction of the earth.
No. When you steam it, people in the home city may watch your stream rather than pay money to attend the game. You're taking money directly away from the team you're trying to watch.
But again, this is why piracy exists. You are trying to dictate how people buy your product. Just sell the product and let the people decide. People go to the game because they enjoy the experience. People stay home and watch the game because they enjoy that experience. There is some overlap of people who might stay home because it is cheaper but, again, that should be their choice. Some people enjoy going to the game, some people enjoy watching it at home, and some people enjoy a mix. I live in a college town where everyone can go to the local game and everyone can watch every game on TV for free. Most games are still sold out. The blackout that the NFL does is stupid. Plenty of people will still want to go to the games even if they can watch it for free at home and the only thing the blackout does is piss off their most important fans which are the local ones nearby.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe for a username, but the "I forgot my username" button where they send it to your email should return a generic message after submission.
I'm not talking about "forgot my password". I'm talking about just trying to create a new account for that email address. Most sites will stop you and won't let you create a second account and will tell you that you already have an account for that email address. And most sites now use the email address as the username.
The point is that on most systems it's easy to check for an existing account during account creation so this information is already leaking. The only way for it not to leak would be to not notify someone that the account already exists during account creation.
We regularly get calls from irate customers who are unable to log in to our website and it's not at all uncommon for them to be either trying to log into one of our competitor's sites or trying to use credentials for our competitor's site on our site.
The point is that there are plenty of hints that can make it easier on your legitimate customer while not decreasing your security. It's rather trivial to validate a username or email in most systems so it doesn't add to security to inconvenience your legitimate customer by being intentionally vague.
What Utopian world view works then?
None. Almost all utopian world views are too simplistic and most don't scale. Communal living works decently at the family level and even at the small community level but once you start approaching Dunbar's number then it begins to fail. The best systems we have come up with are some blend of multiple utopian ideals competing for the common good because you are never going to get a large group of people to all agree on a single best solution.
I'm not a liberal. I don't hate the first responders. I just don't think the seized money belongs to them. It doesn't seem like "finders keepers" should apply when the are paid by tax dollars to do the finding. There is also a significant conflict of interest when they are allowed to keep what they find. Spending drug money on drug rehab programs or some other way that directly benefits society seems fairer.
I would like to see seized assets either be applied directly to the national debt or donated to charity. I would even be ok with the local police department deciding which 501c3 to donate it to but in no ways should they be allowed to directly benefit from either seized assets or fines.
Other systems have had similar problems. Some of it is unavoidable. Because much of this stuff is priced in USD, people in third world countries can make more money playing games like Second Life than they can working. I don't blame the Chinese, I blame the algorithm. Any time there is profit in a system, someone will find a way to arbitrage it. The question is really, what to do now. Even if you can't fix the existing bitcoin, how can you create a new system that is resistant to centralization. The concept of a person, whether it is their computer, their GPS location, or their breathing can all be faked. It's very hard to create a fair voting system that can't be gamed without a central authority. Bitcoin tried but still tied it to CPU cycles which is something that can be bought and sold.
After all, the first thing I think of when someone says IOT device is a device with no power or processing constraints that can afford to validate transactions on a network every time it needs to send data--why have miners running massive server farms when your tiny embedded devices can do all the work!
The original idea of bitcoin was for people to use idle cpu cycles and have a sort of democracy. Instead, what has happened is that people have created huge data centers that burn thru an insane amount of energy. I'm pretty sure the inventor of bitcoin never predicted the rise of dedicated mining rigs. IOT isn't a bad replacement idea but still doesn't prevent someone from creating a "mining rig" with millions of little IOT devices. What really needs to replace bitcoin is some sort of verification that can't be faked with dedicated mining rigs. IPv4 addresses maybe? mac address? IMEI number? What is needed is something that every personal computer and/or smartphone has but can't be faked with dedicated hardware in a massive datacenter.
So, Title II was required for the FCC to implement net neutrality -- otherwise the FCC wouldn't have been able to mandate net neutrality because they can only do that to common carriers under Title II.
This has little to do with Net Neutrality and a lot to do with Title II having hundreds of pages of regulations that didn't previously apply to broadband.
Maybe you're right and maybe now we'll get a real bill that directly addresses net neutrality. I'm not going to hold my breath but it would be awesome if we got a clear cut law and/or constitutional amendment that clearly spelled out net neutrality and outlawed stuff like fast lanes, zero rating, bundling, port blocking, download/upload ratios, and all the other stuff that tries to screw with the open internet. It would be ironic if by caving to the ISPs and dropping net neutrality from the FCC we got a law with even more teeth in it but again, I'm not going to hold my breath.
My ISP gives me an unlimited dumb pipe to the internet and that's it. They don't filter, throttle or cap anything. They don't even care if I run servers on the connection and they've stated that they won't be changing even with the end of net neutrality, which I believe because I've had their service since long before net neutrality laws existed and they have always been the same way.
Just because your ISP is complete shit doesn't mean they all are.
Every ISP within 100 miles of me enforces a 10/1 ratio of download to upload. This pretty much prevents most kinds of servers. If you have a good ISP, be thankful. Many people live in places where they already can't get a decent dumb pipe to the internet.
To my knowledge, there is no way to read a news article on either google or facebook. They link to the actual site where the news article exists. If anything, the news site should be paying google and facebook for giving the newspaper free advertisement. If they demand that google and facebook not link to them then they will just lose the free advertisement that google provides. There is nothing that prevents the newspapers from getting together and creating a better portal than news.google.com but that's all google does. The fact that google has a defacto monopoly and many people only read the summaries and not the actual article might be a problem but not really google's problem. The only two remedies that are likely to happen is either google delists your site or google stops displaying summaries of your article which is basically the same as delisting it.
$2m at least. Then I'll pay my mortgage off and send my kid to private school because I'm no longer paying a house off. kthx.
Do you realize that if bitcoin reaches $2M/coin that the amount of electricity consumed by mining would be more than double the total amount of electricity currently used in the USA?
From Twitter:
Tulips are not durable, not scarce, not programmable, not fungible, not verifiable, not divisible, and hard to transfer. But tell me more about your analogy...
The idea that bitcoin is scarce is the biggest lie there is. Every other item you list is something that all cryptocurrencies share. There are over 100 cyptocurrencies and that number is rapidly growing. A person could easily create their own cryptocurrency. All it takes is a handful of other people to also agree to settle debts with your new cryptocurrency and you've got a new currency. The only thing that makes bitcoin slightly unique is the first mover advantage so it has higher acceptance but there are several other cryptocurrencies gaining fast.
you have a lot of work to do to demonstrate there will be enough positions and earning potential there to keep the whole economy going once all other jobs are gone.
At one point over 80% of the workers in the USA were farmers. Someone from 100 years ago could easily have made the same claim. What are we going to do with all these displaced farmers? Actually, someone did make a similar claim and predicted a 12 hour work week and that would be one solution but we haven't had any problem keeping people busy. The vast majority of middle class jobs today didn't even exist 100 years ago and most of them have better pay and better working conditions than farming. The average standard of living of even the people on government assistance is higher than it was 100 years ago. 100 years ago, entire families lived in 1 bedroom houses with no plumbing, no electricity, and very few luxuries. Yes, eventually, we might run into a problem of not enough work to keep everyone busy, but it's probably at least a generation or two away. I think the more immediate problem is probably how to prevent a small segment of the population from disproportionately benefiting from the automation. If there is a factory that produces all the goods a person needs to survive with minimal human labor involved then whoever owns that factory can consume all the wealth from everyone else who needs those goods to survive.
What planet are you on? WAKE UP. The future is now.
Show me a robot that can come into an unknown house, wash the dishes, and put them away in the cupboard. There is no robot in existence at any price that can do this. Heck, there is no robot that can clean a motel room where every room is exactly the same. Yes, there are advances in AI but the amount of technology required for a robot maid is probably at least an order of magnitude greater than that required for a self driving car and they have already spent billions on self driving cars.
We are on probably the 7th wave.
There are probably still at least another 7 waves left before we hit the singularity.
Automation/AI is nowhere close to being able to properly prepare a meal or even clean up after it. Jobs like maid, plumber, electrician, cook, or any job where you have to come in and access the situation are still a long way from being automated.
The job is "preparing the food" and it increased. The food presumably still came from the grocery store or something similar. Basically, call ahead ordering allows someone to pay someone else to prepare their meal for them. Something that otherwise because of cost or time constraints they would have otherwise done themselves. It's not a zero sum game. For the last hundred years, service jobs have been steadily increasing. If the price is right, many people would gladly hire other people to do jobs they don't want to do like prepare meals.
I'm sorry, but that's the manufacturing industry, which operates on a different basis than the service industry. It certainly doesn't hold true for the restaurant industry, because there is only so much people can eat (Americans being evidence to the contrary). You can't sell people five dinners a day, even if you can ramp up production to make it affordable.
Yes, you can only eat so much at a given meal but it still holds for the restaurant industry. In the not so distant past, eating at a restaurant was a treat. Now, many people eat out multiple times a week but even today very few people consume the majority of their meals at restaurants. Some of this is time constraints and some of this is price. Call ahead ordering can reduce both.
It doesn't work that way. It can't go to zero as unemployment includes people who voluntarily quit their job to move, look for a new job, etc. Unemployment is currently lower than what economists once predicted was the lowest it could possibly go. One reason it might be so low is because employed people are lining up their new job before quitting their old job. Also, unemployment doesn't include the underemployed or the people not looking for work. i.e. The people who have given up searching.
For something like q-tip or band-aid then it's obvious that even though the trademark name has become generic, that it isn't just descriptive. Things like comic-con, App Store, windows, friend list, etc.. that are mostly just descriptive should not be trademarks.
As a side note, I'm typing this on my iphone and apple refuses to let me type App Store in lowercase but has no issues letting me type the rest of the trademarks in lowercase.
no, the size of the money supply is too massive compared to any billionaire dollar holdings. There are *countries* that could affect the dollar with their holdings, but no individuals
Not only can it be done. It has been done. I forget who it was (possibly Edison) that used to tank small countries currencies for fun and profit.
If a security researcher found a bug and refused to disclose it without being paid, I would probably not consider this extortion even if they downloaded all the records.
I also wouldn't consider it extortion if they threatened to disclose the bug or even sell the bug.
Where it crosses the line is if they threaten to sell or give away those records if they don't get paid.
Like it or not, this is what anchors it to a real-world value.
Yes, I realize that. But it's a horrible anchor. It means that any efficiency gains are negated, any drop in the price of electricity is negated. If the price of electricity dropped 1000% and the efficiency of processors rose by 1000%, it would mean that the amount of electricity used by bitcoin would have to increase by 1,000,000% to keep up. Using "the amount of electricity consumed" as an anchor is probably the worst anchor in the history of currencies. It's not much different than having your anchor as "the number of trees destroyed" or "the number of animals killed". Surely we can come up with a better anchor system. Almost anything would be better like "the number of dollars/hours donated to charity" or "number of rockets launched into space". At least if it was "the number of proteins folded", there would be real work being done that might benefit humanity. Gold is equally horrible as "tons of rocks processed" and also wastes valuable resources but there are plenty of ways to anchor to the real world that doesn't involve destruction of the earth.
No. When you steam it, people in the home city may watch your stream rather than pay money to attend the game. You're taking money directly away from the team you're trying to watch.
But again, this is why piracy exists. You are trying to dictate how people buy your product. Just sell the product and let the people decide. People go to the game because they enjoy the experience. People stay home and watch the game because they enjoy that experience. There is some overlap of people who might stay home because it is cheaper but, again, that should be their choice. Some people enjoy going to the game, some people enjoy watching it at home, and some people enjoy a mix. I live in a college town where everyone can go to the local game and everyone can watch every game on TV for free. Most games are still sold out. The blackout that the NFL does is stupid. Plenty of people will still want to go to the games even if they can watch it for free at home and the only thing the blackout does is piss off their most important fans which are the local ones nearby.