But realistically speaking, good luck trying to synchronize all clocks between hundreds of thousands of servers (if you consider the global financial system) where servers belong to thousands of different banks, processors, countries, etc.
And finally, I wasn't referring to time stamps on pictures. I said, transaction processing and authorization didn't need these timestamps with reference to the parent post
You obviously don't know much about how things in the real world work. Perhaps you should crawl out of whatever you're living under.
Extremely difficult when the timestamps aren't in sync, or when the logger is behind and the logger is the one adding the timestamps to its messages.
The timestamps have to be in sync because ATM transactions interact with other servers at the bank and at other banks (for credit card ATM withdrawals). If the clocks on all those computers and ATM aren't in sync, it creates the possibility of withdrawing (say) $100 multiple times from an account which only contains $100.
Timestamps have nothing to do with transaction authorization. Transaction authorization is based upon your account balance, daily limits and other parameters. If your account has a balance of $100, then you can not withdraw multiple $100s. No matter what the timestamps.
Furthermore, there could be dozens of computers in the path of a single transaction belonging to different banks, payment processors and other entities. It is not possible to sync the clocks between all of them.
The timestamp on a transaction (what you see on the ATM receipt) is usually generated by the acquirer (bank or payment processor). The issuing bank (where your account resides) only uses the time stamp for reconciliation with the acquirer at a later date (remember, it has to pay the acquirer the amount you took from the acquirer's ATM). Unless the timestamp on the transaction was completely invalid, in which case the transaction would be declined.
What's really going on here is the greedy content producers want to practice price discrimination. There are no technical reasons why the same content can't be simultaneously made available worldwide. This is a means of enforcing price discrimination and disproportionately charging more for content in some regions. It really is the streaming equivalent of DVD region coding. When you have to resort to such tactics, it ought to be a sign that your business model is bad.
And Netflix isn't guilty of price discrimination? They are charging the same price as US for half the content in Canada.
Don't blame Netflix, they are just complying with the law and contractual requirements of the content owners. Netflix would happily supply everything to Canadians if they were allowed to. Making NF the culprit just makes it easier for the real issues to stay in hiding.. the content owners thank those that blame NF.
Fine. I wont blame Netflix if they charge half of what they're charging US subscribers. Subscription rate should be directly proportional to service. I'll gladly pay half the price for half the content.
I saw the first episode and while I'm not a Star Trek fan, but I've watched every episode from all the series and most of them multiple times, I couldn't watch more than about 20 minutes of this. I'm not particularly picky (e.g., I liked Voyager and even the first two seasons of TNG and all of Enterprise) but this was unbearable. And I thought my threshold for science fiction movies in general is rather high.
I'm still willing to give it a try if someone thinks otherwise.
Koran 9:29 is one of the last non-abrogated verses of the Koran and states:
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
This aya replaces pretty much everything else in Islam. It is amazing that so many Slashdotters have so many opinions on Islam without understanding some of the fundamental doctrines of Islam (which Islamists try to keep hidden from you).
The context of this scripture can be deduced from the last part, "until they give the jizyah". Jazyah is tax from non-Muslims living under Muslim rule (Muslims are supposed to give a different type of tax to the state).
So it in fact doesn't imply fight against all non-believers, only those who do not pay the "non-Muslim" tax to a Muslim government.
But, please don't let facts or logic guide you. They are just minor inconveniences.
When I didn't ask to install it. Toolbars (like this), automatic update services (that are silently added) and anything else that impacts my resources or distributes my information in a way I didn't choose is malware, IMHO.
Looking at you, Windows 10...
I'm a bit curious. Would you include Chrome in this classification? Just about every other free download from most sites has Google Chrome with the check-box already checked.
It's amusing that 25 years later, you would be crazy to set up a POS system with just a WiFi network connection.
Even if you're not worried about wireless reliability, security, and interference issues (and you should be!), it will still never process credit card transactions as fast as a Gigabit wired connection.
That is a very uninformed comment.
POS terminals don't stream high definition videos. They transmit small financial transactions that are hardly a few kilo bytes, even with the EMV chip cards of today. Until the recent past with magnetic stripe transactions, the data used to be only a few hundred bytes.
The advantage of a Gigabit wired connection over a 10Mbps wireless network is primarily of bandwidth. The wired network might offer a little less latency, but nothing that would make a measurable difference in transaction processing speed in this target environment.
Furthermore, the POS terminals would only use the wireless network within the store to send transactions to a local server. From there on, the transactions are sent to the issuer bank over a variety of inter-connected networks and servers, generally speaking. So the local wireless network is only involved in fraction of the overall lifecycle of a financial transactions.
There's is no false dichotomy here. God, as in a "supreme, all knowing being", MUST have control and knowledge over how his/her commands will be interpreted.
The fact that we are having this discussion proves either the second point or else that God does not have control and hence is not a "supreme being".
If the "translation was wrong" and god was a supreme being, then that is what god's intent was in the first place.
If God was a supreme being and he/she meant it to be interpreted in the "best possible way" then this IS the way God meant it to be interpreted.
Just as us mortal beings, God can't have his/her cake and eat it too!
And how do you know Google hasn't exploited anything?
And should I now actively prevent any RF signals leaking out of my monitor as well? I guess it is common knowledge that these can be detected from the street. It is a simple thing to surround my house with an RF cage. If I don't do this, that means it was my choice to "stand naked in a room with open windows" and Google would be well within their rights if they choose to record my screen images, passwords, emails, etc.
Well isn't that the point? That people who have a wireless network at home have the same expectation of privacy? Just because they are not tech savvy doesn't mean that it is their intent to broadcast their internet browsing, email, chats, etc.
They absolutely do not think they are standing naked in a room with open windows. Google KNOWS that they don't know what they are doing and just goes ahead and exploits the situation.
So if Google can use directional microphones to listen in to my private conversations, I'm at fault since I didn't "sound-proof" my home. Or if Google can use thermal imaging to take pictures inside my closed doors, I'm at fault since I'm the one broadcasting all information on the IR band!
So if I'm stupid enough or ignorant enough to not lock my doors, it is my problem and not that of Google should they decide to come in and have a look-see? Or if I didn't cover my windows with blinds or drapes, it is my problem that google peeks inside and takes high resolution images? Or if my electricity and gas meters are visible from the street, it is my fault that Google should take readings of my energy consumption every hour?
Substitute Google with something else to your liking (voyeur, peeping tom, pedophile, etc.) and see if this makes any difference.
Google IS at fault. Google has to know that most people using computers and wireless routers don't have a clue what exposure they are risking. Google has to know that if the same people understood the implications and if actually presented with a choice and a means to do so, they would clamp down their network.
At the very least, Google is guilty of exploiting the ignorance of an overwhelming majority of the population.
Do you think 99% of the population even knows what encryption is? Or that wireless routers by default are configured for unencrypted communication? Or that someone on the street can easily tap into what they are doing?
Just because they don't understand how computers communicate doesn't mean they are stupid.
What you say is right but not relevant to this discussion. The parent had commented on the comment of the GP that once you have a file in MS format, your ass belongs to them.
This may be true whether it is a file in Word format, PDF or an even more proprietary format from Apple. So it is not something unique to MS.
And as to your 25 year time frame, I can still read the oldest document produced by Word on the latetst MS Office. And lastly, who's stopping you from storing files in XML format in Office?
And what from your list above, may I ask, can not be done on a laptop? And why is the laptop, which sits comfortably in your lap leaving your hands free, not more comfortable to watch movies?
So you had a crappy Macbook Pro (I am assuming since you seem to be a genuine Steve Jobs nut hugger) which fried your balls. How does that justify spending even more money on crappy products?
Yeah dude a delusional asshole said something thousands of years ago and it is still being used in the courts of law in the United Fucking States of America ("so help me fucking god").
How is that different from assholes blowing themselves up in the name of allah?
Slashdot Mirror
But realistically speaking, good luck trying to synchronize all clocks between hundreds of thousands of servers (if you consider the global financial system) where servers belong to thousands of different banks, processors, countries, etc.
And finally, I wasn't referring to time stamps on pictures. I said, transaction processing and authorization didn't need these timestamps with reference to the parent post
You obviously don't know much about how things in the real world work. Perhaps you should crawl out of whatever you're living under.
The timestamps have to be in sync because ATM transactions interact with other servers at the bank and at other banks (for credit card ATM withdrawals). If the clocks on all those computers and ATM aren't in sync, it creates the possibility of withdrawing (say) $100 multiple times from an account which only contains $100.
Timestamps have nothing to do with transaction authorization. Transaction authorization is based upon your account balance, daily limits and other parameters. If your account has a balance of $100, then you can not withdraw multiple $100s. No matter what the timestamps.
Furthermore, there could be dozens of computers in the path of a single transaction belonging to different banks, payment processors and other entities. It is not possible to sync the clocks between all of them.
The timestamp on a transaction (what you see on the ATM receipt) is usually generated by the acquirer (bank or payment processor). The issuing bank (where your account resides) only uses the time stamp for reconciliation with the acquirer at a later date (remember, it has to pay the acquirer the amount you took from the acquirer's ATM). Unless the timestamp on the transaction was completely invalid, in which case the transaction would be declined.
And Netflix isn't guilty of the same? Charging the same price as US for half the content in Canada?
What's really going on here is the greedy content producers want to practice price discrimination. There are no technical reasons why the same content can't be simultaneously made available worldwide. This is a means of enforcing price discrimination and disproportionately charging more for content in some regions. It really is the streaming equivalent of DVD region coding. When you have to resort to such tactics, it ought to be a sign that your business model is bad.
And Netflix isn't guilty of price discrimination? They are charging the same price as US for half the content in Canada.
Don't blame Netflix, they are just complying with the law and contractual requirements of the content owners. Netflix would happily supply everything to Canadians if they were allowed to. Making NF the culprit just makes it easier for the real issues to stay in hiding.. the content owners thank those that blame NF.
Fine. I wont blame Netflix if they charge half of what they're charging US subscribers. Subscription rate should be directly proportional to service. I'll gladly pay half the price for half the content.
I saw the first episode and while I'm not a Star Trek fan, but I've watched every episode from all the series and most of them multiple times, I couldn't watch more than about 20 minutes of this. I'm not particularly picky (e.g., I liked Voyager and even the first two seasons of TNG and all of Enterprise) but this was unbearable. And I thought my threshold for science fiction movies in general is rather high. I'm still willing to give it a try if someone thinks otherwise.
The same can be said for the Mafia fighting people who don't pay protection money. I'm astonished that you think this is a defense of Islam.
I'm astonished that you think I'm defending Islam. Being the nerd that I am, only pointing at the inaccuracy of the parent's post.
Koran 9:29 is one of the last non-abrogated verses of the Koran and states:
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
This aya replaces pretty much everything else in Islam. It is amazing that so many Slashdotters have so many opinions on Islam without understanding some of the fundamental doctrines of Islam (which Islamists try to keep hidden from you).
The context of this scripture can be deduced from the last part, "until they give the jizyah". Jazyah is tax from non-Muslims living under Muslim rule (Muslims are supposed to give a different type of tax to the state). So it in fact doesn't imply fight against all non-believers, only those who do not pay the "non-Muslim" tax to a Muslim government. But, please don't let facts or logic guide you. They are just minor inconveniences.
>> When Does Software Start Becoming Malware?
When I didn't ask to install it. Toolbars (like this), automatic update services (that are silently added) and anything else that impacts my resources or distributes my information in a way I didn't choose is malware, IMHO.
Looking at you, Windows 10...
I'm a bit curious. Would you include Chrome in this classification? Just about every other free download from most sites has Google Chrome with the check-box already checked.
It's amusing that 25 years later, you would be crazy to set up a POS system with just a WiFi network connection.
Even if you're not worried about wireless reliability, security, and interference issues (and you should be!), it will still never process credit card transactions as fast as a Gigabit wired connection.
That is a very uninformed comment.
POS terminals don't stream high definition videos. They transmit small financial transactions that are hardly a few kilo bytes, even with the EMV chip cards of today. Until the recent past with magnetic stripe transactions, the data used to be only a few hundred bytes.
The advantage of a Gigabit wired connection over a 10Mbps wireless network is primarily of bandwidth. The wired network might offer a little less latency, but nothing that would make a measurable difference in transaction processing speed in this target environment.
Furthermore, the POS terminals would only use the wireless network within the store to send transactions to a local server. From there on, the transactions are sent to the issuer bank over a variety of inter-connected networks and servers, generally speaking. So the local wireless network is only involved in fraction of the overall lifecycle of a financial transactions.
How stupid CAN you be? They are vulnerabilities BECAUSE they can be exploited against you.
Actually I don't have any definition of GOD. I was using the generally accepted definition.
There is no actual evidence for a God and hence there is no need for me to believe in any divinity.
There's is no false dichotomy here. God, as in a "supreme, all knowing being", MUST have control and knowledge over how his/her commands will be interpreted.
The fact that we are having this discussion proves either the second point or else that God does not have control and hence is not a "supreme being".
If the "translation was wrong" and god was a supreme being, then that is what god's intent was in the first place.
If God was a supreme being and he/she meant it to be interpreted in the "best possible way" then this IS the way God meant it to be interpreted.
Just as us mortal beings, God can't have his/her cake and eat it too!
I'm sure that a contraption could be made to prevent any squirting of blood being witnessed. Would that be satisfactory to you?
That's fine, but my point is that what you say is a matter of interpretation
Which means that either:
"God" has no control over how his commandments will be interpreted, or
"God" meant for it to be interpreted in the worst possible way
And how do you know Google hasn't exploited anything?
And should I now actively prevent any RF signals leaking out of my monitor as well? I guess it is common knowledge that these can be detected from the street. It is a simple thing to surround my house with an RF cage. If I don't do this, that means it was my choice to "stand naked in a room with open windows" and Google would be well within their rights if they choose to record my screen images, passwords, emails, etc.
Well isn't that the point? That people who have a wireless network at home have the same expectation of privacy? Just because they are not tech savvy doesn't mean that it is their intent to broadcast their internet browsing, email, chats, etc.
They absolutely do not think they are standing naked in a room with open windows. Google KNOWS that they don't know what they are doing and just goes ahead and exploits the situation.
So if Google can use directional microphones to listen in to my private conversations, I'm at fault since I didn't "sound-proof" my home. Or if Google can use thermal imaging to take pictures inside my closed doors, I'm at fault since I'm the one broadcasting all information on the IR band!
You really believe that?
So if I'm stupid enough or ignorant enough to not lock my doors, it is my problem and not that of Google should they decide to come in and have a look-see? Or if I didn't cover my windows with blinds or drapes, it is my problem that google peeks inside and takes high resolution images? Or if my electricity and gas meters are visible from the street, it is my fault that Google should take readings of my energy consumption every hour?
Substitute Google with something else to your liking (voyeur, peeping tom, pedophile, etc.) and see if this makes any difference.
Google IS at fault. Google has to know that most people using computers and wireless routers don't have a clue what exposure they are risking. Google has to know that if the same people understood the implications and if actually presented with a choice and a means to do so, they would clamp down their network.
At the very least, Google is guilty of exploiting the ignorance of an overwhelming majority of the population.
Do you think 99% of the population even knows what encryption is? Or that wireless routers by default are configured for unencrypted communication? Or that someone on the street can easily tap into what they are doing?
Just because they don't understand how computers communicate doesn't mean they are stupid.
Sailing might be ok from a recreational point of view, but unless we get warp drive, space exploration is a dead end. Speaking figuratively, that is.
Best we concentrate our energies in that direction.
What you say is right but not relevant to this discussion. The parent had commented on the comment of the GP that once you have a file in MS format, your ass belongs to them.
This may be true whether it is a file in Word format, PDF or an even more proprietary format from Apple. So it is not something unique to MS.
And as to your 25 year time frame, I can still read the oldest document produced by Word on the latetst MS Office. And lastly, who's stopping you from storing files in XML format in Office?
And what from your list above, may I ask, can not be done on a laptop? And why is the laptop, which sits comfortably in your lap leaving your hands free, not more comfortable to watch movies?
So you had a crappy Macbook Pro (I am assuming since you seem to be a genuine Steve Jobs nut hugger) which fried your balls. How does that justify spending even more money on crappy products?
Yeah dude a delusional asshole said something thousands of years ago and it is still being used in the courts of law in the United Fucking States of America ("so help me fucking god").
How is that different from assholes blowing themselves up in the name of allah?