So it's stirred up the desire for even more violence. That ought to solve the problem then. It always has in the past.
Real problems are those that can only be solved with violence. ISIS is one such problem. The US leadership's plan of asking them nicely to stop, unfriending them on facebook, and starting hashtag campaigns seems unlikely to resolve the issue. OTOH, the King of Jordan seems to have the right idea, vowing to personally fly a bomber and quoting Clint Eastwood.
ISIS is bad news. It's everything decency stands against. It's killing on a whim, it's sexual slavery and forced sexual servitude, it's executing gays by throwing them off buildings, it's buring prisoners to death for fun. The US is already at fault by letting this continue for so long, and I'm more embarrassed by our inaction every week.
My car has no homeless people sleeping in it, and doesn't smell faintly of piss. This makes it entirely superior to mass transit. If you want more telecommuting, first re-invent the Manager - good luck with that. Delivery is getting better, though!
If your account is hacked by someone who broke PIN security,
Why would you call that the "account" being hacked? That's the "debit card" being hacked, and most banks limit that to a few hundred dollars a day. You're not talking about the internet here right? (The part where password strength would be relevant)
Yeah, so you can't move money fast
You can't add a new account fast. Moving money is the usual ACH delay (which depends on transfer size).
your kind of rules prevent me from sending money to myself
I'm not sure what you mean? I transfer money between accounts I own all the time. (After the delay involved in configuring the accounts). And these are my bank's rules, I just happen to lie them.
I have to add a relative to my account and have them walk into the bank to send a transfer.
Not sure what you mean, again. I send money to relatives more often than I'd like, either by sending a check or by a bank-specific system that requires per-transfer authorization and confirmation. I don't entirely trust the latter, so my "convenience account" is with a bank that offers that, and real money is kept at a bank that doesn't. I think all the big national banks have each their own such system, that doesn't link accounts in any permanent way.
My primary bank is online-only anyhow. The only real inconvenience I've ever had with that is they don't do cashiers checks.
If Google is hacked, Google takes the hit and looks bad. If your bank gets hacked, you take the hit, the merchant takes the hit, the bank walks away clean.
In what scenario? Maybe if 3rd-party debit card readers get hacked?
If your banks ATM gets hacked, that's on the bank. If your account gets hacked via online access, or plain-old in-person fraud, most banks these days will take the hit, or most of it.
I don't much care if access to my account gets hacked - sure there's privacy issues, so I care a little. I care if money gets stolen as a result. Money laundering prevention is a much easier job for security, and last I heard it was the choke point in online theft. The bad guys already have more compromised accounts that they can find any use for, because actually getting money out of that is pretty limited. Crackdowns on "money muleing" and other techniques works much better than password security and doesn't annoy the customers.
I order to transfer money out of my primary bank to another account, the account must be in my name (easy enough for an attacker), and my email gets spammed for 3 days with warnings before any money movement is allowed. Nothing is bulletproof, but that's pretty good, and once it's set up there's no inconvenience at all.
Security geeks never seem to get this - if password strength matters you're doing it wrong.
Fortunately, you can turn that off if you don't use a given email address for financial (e.g. important) stuff.
My primary bank is similar - use a weak password if you want to, that's on you, but real two-factor auth is free (none just this phone BS - we've already seen malware that bypasses that). I also use Chase, who doesn't do anything impressive, so I only use that account for small amounts.
Yeah, sorry, when it comes to NSA subversion of crypto products and standards, not only were they right, they weren't nearly paranoid enough. The smart people have been trickling away slowly for 5 years or so now, as/. has been changing its focus to clickbait.
ISPs aren't a utility nor a natural monopoly. The last mile is a natural monopoly utility. Any plan that doesn't break off the "last mile" into a separate regulated utility company divorced from any content ownership or backhaul won't fix anything important. Further, it's obvious that it won't fix anything important, so I wonder at the real motive.
The FCC could easily regulate all US companies/orgs in this regard, which would accomplish a lot (not so much for, say, porn blocking, but for suppressing political speech it would work well, since all politics is local). Just doing the same trick that other nations do with screwing with DNS for the Pirate Bay? I could totally see that, given some time for the bad guys to work.
Wow, this guy just ducks every question. My trust in Tor goes down after reading this.
I can't tell whether he's stonewalling, or TOR is successful enough to have a PR Tool answer these questions (without understanding them). I'd think that if TOR were subverted they'd be less obvious, but then again he could be playing the Manchurian Candidate (was he typing in Morse Code?).
Dammit, why did all the tinefoil hatters have to be right?
Tor's integration with systemd, if any, would be very very tiny
Systemd would of course integrate to make sure your (alread undreadable binary) log files were now firmly encrypted and, like any good onion router, not decryptable by you but only by nodes at least 2 hops away.
I just wish I shared your optimism. But the FCC is firmly in the content-regulation business for other media, and the people orchestrated **PA will have a new place to apply their skills at bribery and blackmail.
The FCC isn't regulating the content of the Internet
No, that's step 2. There's always a step 1 with emotional appeal to create the regulatory power, so that that power can then be used for steps 2-N without further involvement from anyone elected.
Call me cynical, but we've seen this pattern so often with other country's mandated-at-the-ISP internet filers "for the children", followed after a while by "oops, how did all the political sites opposing the party in power end up in the porn filter, total mystery really". Over and over, country by country.
Before Snowden, I too used to laugh at the tinfoil hat brigade when it came to the internet. But that was the Before Time.
The FBI would likely explain that the secret judge had already secretly signed a secret warrant in the secret court, sorry we can't show you but pinky swear it exists. That's the sort of rule of law we have these days, sadly.
New college hires compete on a worldwide market regardless of immigration policy. Fresh out of college there's nothing to distinguish you from a world full of people claiming they can code, and junior dev work can mostly be done anywhere. It's only after 4-5 years when you move out of that mass of people, and might have something to offer that's hard to outsource.
Remember, outsourcing is cheaper than any sort of immigration.
Y2K really did cause the dot-bubble, via Greenspan. The Fed should have begun raising interest rates in 98 or so when it was clear the overall economy (tech especially) was overheated. But Greenspan was afraid that that would mean companies wouldn't be able to finance needed Y2K work, and so delayed action until early 2000. Of course, the bubble happened, and so the crash in 2000 was nasty.
This guy's my hero - misuse of "comprised" is a pet peeve of mine.
Despite sounding vaguely similar to "composed", it's not a synonym. Comprised is a near-synonym for included, but implies totality. "The band comprised a guitarist, a bassist, and a drummer" means that was the entirety of the band. Since so few people actually understand this, I tend to avoid the word.
You have either banks creating money with loans, or you have the sovereign authority running fiscal deficits. The former method requires more money to be created to pay interest, the latter does not.
You do realize that all that (existing system) monetary creation by the Fed is in the form of debt, with interest, right? The current federal debt is about $150,000 per taxpayer. Your good for your part, right? I've seen continued debt creation, inevitably handed to our grandkids, described as "child abuse", and I agree.
You are free to propose a new economic order, but it is cruel and irresponsible to suggest a currency issuing sovereign can or should run budget surpluses or have a "balanced budget". This, again, shows a total lack of understanding of how banking works, and has ever worked.
And the gods of the copybook headings said "a man must work for his keep". - Kipling
Slashdot Mirror
So it's stirred up the desire for even more violence. That ought to solve the problem then. It always has in the past.
Real problems are those that can only be solved with violence. ISIS is one such problem. The US leadership's plan of asking them nicely to stop, unfriending them on facebook, and starting hashtag campaigns seems unlikely to resolve the issue. OTOH, the King of Jordan seems to have the right idea, vowing to personally fly a bomber and quoting Clint Eastwood.
ISIS is bad news. It's everything decency stands against. It's killing on a whim, it's sexual slavery and forced sexual servitude, it's executing gays by throwing them off buildings, it's buring prisoners to death for fun. The US is already at fault by letting this continue for so long, and I'm more embarrassed by our inaction every week.
My car has no homeless people sleeping in it, and doesn't smell faintly of piss. This makes it entirely superior to mass transit. If you want more telecommuting, first re-invent the Manager - good luck with that. Delivery is getting better, though!
If your account is hacked by someone who broke PIN security,
Why would you call that the "account" being hacked? That's the "debit card" being hacked, and most banks limit that to a few hundred dollars a day. You're not talking about the internet here right? (The part where password strength would be relevant)
Yeah, so you can't move money fast
You can't add a new account fast. Moving money is the usual ACH delay (which depends on transfer size).
your kind of rules prevent me from sending money to myself
I'm not sure what you mean? I transfer money between accounts I own all the time. (After the delay involved in configuring the accounts). And these are my bank's rules, I just happen to lie them.
I have to add a relative to my account and have them walk into the bank to send a transfer.
Not sure what you mean, again. I send money to relatives more often than I'd like, either by sending a check or by a bank-specific system that requires per-transfer authorization and confirmation. I don't entirely trust the latter, so my "convenience account" is with a bank that offers that, and real money is kept at a bank that doesn't. I think all the big national banks have each their own such system, that doesn't link accounts in any permanent way.
My primary bank is online-only anyhow. The only real inconvenience I've ever had with that is they don't do cashiers checks.
If Google is hacked, Google takes the hit and looks bad.
If your bank gets hacked, you take the hit, the merchant takes the hit, the bank walks away clean.
In what scenario? Maybe if 3rd-party debit card readers get hacked?
If your banks ATM gets hacked, that's on the bank. If your account gets hacked via online access, or plain-old in-person fraud, most banks these days will take the hit, or most of it.
I don't much care if access to my account gets hacked - sure there's privacy issues, so I care a little. I care if money gets stolen as a result. Money laundering prevention is a much easier job for security, and last I heard it was the choke point in online theft. The bad guys already have more compromised accounts that they can find any use for, because actually getting money out of that is pretty limited. Crackdowns on "money muleing" and other techniques works much better than password security and doesn't annoy the customers.
I order to transfer money out of my primary bank to another account, the account must be in my name (easy enough for an attacker), and my email gets spammed for 3 days with warnings before any money movement is allowed. Nothing is bulletproof, but that's pretty good, and once it's set up there's no inconvenience at all.
Security geeks never seem to get this - if password strength matters you're doing it wrong.
Fortunately, you can turn that off if you don't use a given email address for financial (e.g. important) stuff.
My primary bank is similar - use a weak password if you want to, that's on you, but real two-factor auth is free (none just this phone BS - we've already seen malware that bypasses that). I also use Chase, who doesn't do anything impressive, so I only use that account for small amounts.
Yeah, sorry, when it comes to NSA subversion of crypto products and standards, not only were they right, they weren't nearly paranoid enough. The smart people have been trickling away slowly for 5 years or so now, as /. has been changing its focus to clickbait.
ISPs aren't a utility nor a natural monopoly. The last mile is a natural monopoly utility. Any plan that doesn't break off the "last mile" into a separate regulated utility company divorced from any content ownership or backhaul won't fix anything important. Further, it's obvious that it won't fix anything important, so I wonder at the real motive.
The FCC could easily regulate all US companies/orgs in this regard, which would accomplish a lot (not so much for, say, porn blocking, but for suppressing political speech it would work well, since all politics is local). Just doing the same trick that other nations do with screwing with DNS for the Pirate Bay? I could totally see that, given some time for the bad guys to work.
Wow, this guy just ducks every question. My trust in Tor goes down after reading this.
I can't tell whether he's stonewalling, or TOR is successful enough to have a PR Tool answer these questions (without understanding them). I'd think that if TOR were subverted they'd be less obvious, but then again he could be playing the Manchurian Candidate (was he typing in Morse Code?).
Dammit, why did all the tinefoil hatters have to be right?
Tor's integration with systemd, if any, would be very very tiny
Systemd would of course integrate to make sure your (alread undreadable binary) log files were now firmly encrypted and, like any good onion router, not decryptable by you but only by nodes at least 2 hops away.
I don't even know if I'm joking.
I just wish I shared your optimism. But the FCC is firmly in the content-regulation business for other media, and the people orchestrated **PA will have a new place to apply their skills at bribery and blackmail.
The FCC isn't regulating the content of the Internet
No, that's step 2. There's always a step 1 with emotional appeal to create the regulatory power, so that that power can then be used for steps 2-N without further involvement from anyone elected.
Call me cynical, but we've seen this pattern so often with other country's mandated-at-the-ISP internet filers "for the children", followed after a while by "oops, how did all the political sites opposing the party in power end up in the porn filter, total mystery really". Over and over, country by country.
Before Snowden, I too used to laugh at the tinfoil hat brigade when it came to the internet. But that was the Before Time.
/thread
It really seems that's what's going on.
Same situation at Slashdot. When derp reaches a critical mass, all the smart, sane people bail.
So you're saying we've passed Peak Derp? You may be on to something.
The FBI would likely explain that the secret judge had already secretly signed a secret warrant in the secret court, sorry we can't show you but pinky swear it exists. That's the sort of rule of law we have these days, sadly.
Lamarck called; he wants his discredited theory back.
The FBI has more guns than you do.
New college hires compete on a worldwide market regardless of immigration policy. Fresh out of college there's nothing to distinguish you from a world full of people claiming they can code, and junior dev work can mostly be done anywhere. It's only after 4-5 years when you move out of that mass of people, and might have something to offer that's hard to outsource.
Remember, outsourcing is cheaper than any sort of immigration.
Y2K really did cause the dot-bubble, via Greenspan. The Fed should have begun raising interest rates in 98 or so when it was clear the overall economy (tech especially) was overheated. But Greenspan was afraid that that would mean companies wouldn't be able to finance needed Y2K work, and so delayed action until early 2000. Of course, the bubble happened, and so the crash in 2000 was nasty.
Fuck that, it's wrong. Fucking descriptivists can die in a fire.
Legalese is different from English (is different from standardese).
That's just what "comprised" means. It inverts the composition relationship of "composed" (if it were UML, the arrow would point the other way).
No, it's sort of the inverse of composed:
* My team comprises X, Y, and Z
* My team that is composed of X, Y, and Z (or, awkwardly, X, Y, and Z compose my team).
If it were UML, the arrow would go the other way.
This guy's my hero - misuse of "comprised" is a pet peeve of mine.
Despite sounding vaguely similar to "composed", it's not a synonym. Comprised is a near-synonym for included, but implies totality. "The band comprised a guitarist, a bassist, and a drummer" means that was the entirety of the band. Since so few people actually understand this, I tend to avoid the word.
You have either banks creating money with loans, or you have the sovereign authority running fiscal deficits. The former method requires more money to be created to pay interest, the latter does not.
You do realize that all that (existing system) monetary creation by the Fed is in the form of debt, with interest, right? The current federal debt is about $150,000 per taxpayer. Your good for your part, right? I've seen continued debt creation, inevitably handed to our grandkids, described as "child abuse", and I agree.
You are free to propose a new economic order, but it is cruel and irresponsible to suggest a currency issuing sovereign can or should run budget surpluses or have a "balanced budget". This, again, shows a total lack of understanding of how banking works, and has ever worked.
And the gods of the copybook headings said "a man must work for his keep". - Kipling