An excellent point. But what do you think the business will do when someone else is handing out money to buy their new product? At the very least, any incentive they have to control costs or reduce prices just went out the window. The Coke analogy isn't quite right since that price is long established by market competition, and coupons are typically backed by the manufacturer or the reseller, i.e. someone in the sales chain, as opposed to some third party whose only involvement is handing out money. In other words, the coupon is in business terms indistinguishable from a price cut. Whereas the $20k handout is simply more profit to be made from customers who would have bought it for $50k but can now 'afford' to pay $70k
Why not? Because if you hand out $20,000 to buy a car, you just increase the price of every car by $20,000. It is basic economics. We can see the same effect in housing prices, health care, and college tuition.
In the land line days you could get a dongle that did exactly that, played a recording that said 'Press 5 to proceed', and just stuck it inline with your phone. I wonder how hard it would be to get a smartphone to do the same thing?
It used to be the "handshake" on phones was: Hello (SYN) Hello (SYN/ACK) What's up? (ACK). Now, thanks to human nature it is: Leave message and call back number = SYN, Call back and leave message (SYN/ACK), return call again and person answers since number is known (ACK). I understand this isn't always possible thanks to business needs and circumstance, but most people I know will simply never answer an unknown number on their phones, instead they let the caller leave a message to determine who the number really is. Any legitimate call will leave a message (and a few non-legits) and all the others can go to hell.
A good point about the WARN act and similar statutes. I do not agree that my point was backwards, though, in fact you made my point for me. The WARN act and its sisters are a much safer situation since it is well defined. If the company lays off people in dribs and drabs, they are leaving themselves open to all sorts of wrongful dismissal and discrimination lawsuits case by case. I understand the "at will" employee, but by no means is any company free to fire anyone at anytime without cause. I've seen plenty of cases where someone was fired with a whole heck of a lot of cause and the fired person STILL sued. They must have known there was a huge pile of documentation. Anyway, that is one of the barriers to simply firing people piecemeal since you need to document everything six ways from Sunday to defend against the lawsuits. If you are making a global decision to lay off some percentage, it is a lot easier.
Not really. Look at the vicious atrocities of the Mongols. They were hardly what we would call nationalistic. Sadly, it is human nature that devalues the Other and makes it possible to rationalize anything.
If you review the details, the attackers were on one specific non-trading application owned by Nasdaq and had some access to their internal network. There is no evidence that they had any access to the exchange's systems, which are on a segregated network. In other words "the exchange" was not hacked at all.
Yes, and also after quite a few similar smaller incidents. Remember the scene from the recent Batman movie where Bane stole all of Bruce Wayne's money by forcing him to put his finger on the scanner? A crock. The financial institutions would just undo the whole transaction as soon as Bane left. This is one reason why there is surprisingly little security in certain aspects of the financial system. it isn't like Bitcoin where if someone steals your key file done is done and there is no going back. In the financial world, a whole slew of transactions can simply be reversed and often are. Why spend the money and effort on security when the potential impact is relatively low?
I would be there is no HFT in the world that is encrypting FIX traffic. Why bother? All the links are cross connects within the exchange's data center.
It makes sense the FBI would be concerned about criminals. Isn't this supposed to be their job? This is just an internal report saying 'here are some things to be concerned about' There are also some positive observations about the cars. There is no hysterical demand that the cars be forbidden, or that the FBI have full override, or anything else. Just some observations about how automated cars might affect law enforcement operations. In other words, nothing at all to see here.
This isn't stupid at all, it is something missing from a lot of security advice: a hint of reality. The amount of effort any person will put towards security, or any other goal, is finite. Therefore it is useful to put at least some thought into how that limited effort can be used for the maximum benefit. For the most part, I don't care what my gawker password is or all the other silly little logons. I use the same simple password for all of them because there is zero risk to me if they are compromised, other than someone else can now post with the screen name I picked (and don't care about) To suggest that I should lug around a password safe and log into it every time I need to use one of these zero risk logons is to suggest that I squander my limited security effort. It is far better to conserve that effort for things that are actually important.
One more thing. I didn't mean to say that no one gave a crap because of my consumer statement, I meant that no one gave a crap because it was a $50 dispute with Verizon
In the USA at least, if there is some black mark on your credit report the credit agency has to allow you to put a comment on it. In one of my cases I put "Verizon told me I could get DSL, then later told me I could not, and still expected me to pay a setup fee"
I did exactly this a couple of times and my credit wasn't ruined. I just attached the little protest note they let you attach and then no one gave a crap about my $50 argument with Verizon. I suppose my score would have been higher without that on there, but it was by no means ruined.
It is not hard to issue denial that isn't overly specific. From the summary "Apple does not track users' locations — Apple has never done so and has no plans to ever do so," is much better. But, yes, that could be picked apart also. But for me, Apple's denials are, like so many others orgs recently, far too specific to be reassuring. For instance, they could say "we do not know of any backdoors in our products that are not actively being patched" instead of "we have not *created* any backdoors" See how much of a difference that makes? They could even throw in, "If we learned of a back door we would patch it as quickly as always regardless of which government or other agency might be using it"
This only benefits exporters, not importers or entirely domestic businesses. And this second statement makes no sense either in light of the thousands of times prices have risen when governments devalued their currencies.
Who is doing this scanning and how does that eliminate anonymity? I've worked in a few cash handling businesses and never even heard of number scanning, nor have I ever seen a device to do this. I imagine the bank might scan serial numbers off of bills at some point for tracking physical currency still in circulation. Are you claiming that when a business makes a cash deposit, the bank reports all the serial numbers to the government and says "business X deposited all of these" and "we gave bills X,Y, and Z to Tom Smith when he made an ATM withdrawal"? I'd have to ask for some proof of this claim, it seems rather expensive and pointless.
Slashdot Mirror
An excellent point. But what do you think the business will do when someone else is handing out money to buy their new product? At the very least, any incentive they have to control costs or reduce prices just went out the window. The Coke analogy isn't quite right since that price is long established by market competition, and coupons are typically backed by the manufacturer or the reseller, i.e. someone in the sales chain, as opposed to some third party whose only involvement is handing out money. In other words, the coupon is in business terms indistinguishable from a price cut. Whereas the $20k handout is simply more profit to be made from customers who would have bought it for $50k but can now 'afford' to pay $70k
Why not? Because if you hand out $20,000 to buy a car, you just increase the price of every car by $20,000. It is basic economics. We can see the same effect in housing prices, health care, and college tuition.
In the land line days you could get a dongle that did exactly that, played a recording that said 'Press 5 to proceed', and just stuck it inline with your phone. I wonder how hard it would be to get a smartphone to do the same thing?
It used to be the "handshake" on phones was: Hello (SYN) Hello (SYN/ACK) What's up? (ACK). Now, thanks to human nature it is: Leave message and call back number = SYN, Call back and leave message (SYN/ACK), return call again and person answers since number is known (ACK). I understand this isn't always possible thanks to business needs and circumstance, but most people I know will simply never answer an unknown number on their phones, instead they let the caller leave a message to determine who the number really is. Any legitimate call will leave a message (and a few non-legits) and all the others can go to hell.
A good point about the WARN act and similar statutes. I do not agree that my point was backwards, though, in fact you made my point for me. The WARN act and its sisters are a much safer situation since it is well defined. If the company lays off people in dribs and drabs, they are leaving themselves open to all sorts of wrongful dismissal and discrimination lawsuits case by case. I understand the "at will" employee, but by no means is any company free to fire anyone at anytime without cause. I've seen plenty of cases where someone was fired with a whole heck of a lot of cause and the fired person STILL sued. They must have known there was a huge pile of documentation. Anyway, that is one of the barriers to simply firing people piecemeal since you need to document everything six ways from Sunday to defend against the lawsuits. If you are making a global decision to lay off some percentage, it is a lot easier.
It makes it a lot safer. "We laid off 18k and you were one of them" is more defensible from lawsuits than having to individually justify 18k layoffs.
Not really. Look at the vicious atrocities of the Mongols. They were hardly what we would call nationalistic. Sadly, it is human nature that devalues the Other and makes it possible to rationalize anything.
If you review the details, the attackers were on one specific non-trading application owned by Nasdaq and had some access to their internal network. There is no evidence that they had any access to the exchange's systems, which are on a segregated network. In other words "the exchange" was not hacked at all.
Yes, and also after quite a few similar smaller incidents. Remember the scene from the recent Batman movie where Bane stole all of Bruce Wayne's money by forcing him to put his finger on the scanner? A crock. The financial institutions would just undo the whole transaction as soon as Bane left. This is one reason why there is surprisingly little security in certain aspects of the financial system. it isn't like Bitcoin where if someone steals your key file done is done and there is no going back. In the financial world, a whole slew of transactions can simply be reversed and often are. Why spend the money and effort on security when the potential impact is relatively low?
I would be there is no HFT in the world that is encrypting FIX traffic. Why bother? All the links are cross connects within the exchange's data center.
They should start a Burning Man style festival there.
The summary says "giant". So there you have it.
You are right, these cars are a looming economic disaster and need to be outlawed immediately. For the children!
It makes sense the FBI would be concerned about criminals. Isn't this supposed to be their job? This is just an internal report saying 'here are some things to be concerned about' There are also some positive observations about the cars. There is no hysterical demand that the cars be forbidden, or that the FBI have full override, or anything else. Just some observations about how automated cars might affect law enforcement operations. In other words, nothing at all to see here.
This isn't stupid at all, it is something missing from a lot of security advice: a hint of reality. The amount of effort any person will put towards security, or any other goal, is finite. Therefore it is useful to put at least some thought into how that limited effort can be used for the maximum benefit. For the most part, I don't care what my gawker password is or all the other silly little logons. I use the same simple password for all of them because there is zero risk to me if they are compromised, other than someone else can now post with the screen name I picked (and don't care about) To suggest that I should lug around a password safe and log into it every time I need to use one of these zero risk logons is to suggest that I squander my limited security effort. It is far better to conserve that effort for things that are actually important.
One more thing. I didn't mean to say that no one gave a crap because of my consumer statement, I meant that no one gave a crap because it was a $50 dispute with Verizon
Just a quick link for more details here
In the USA at least, if there is some black mark on your credit report the credit agency has to allow you to put a comment on it. In one of my cases I put "Verizon told me I could get DSL, then later told me I could not, and still expected me to pay a setup fee"
I did exactly this a couple of times and my credit wasn't ruined. I just attached the little protest note they let you attach and then no one gave a crap about my $50 argument with Verizon. I suppose my score would have been higher without that on there, but it was by no means ruined.
It is not hard to issue denial that isn't overly specific. From the summary "Apple does not track users' locations — Apple has never done so and has no plans to ever do so," is much better. But, yes, that could be picked apart also. But for me, Apple's denials are, like so many others orgs recently, far too specific to be reassuring. For instance, they could say "we do not know of any backdoors in our products that are not actively being patched" instead of "we have not *created* any backdoors" See how much of a difference that makes? They could even throw in, "If we learned of a back door we would patch it as quickly as always regardless of which government or other agency might be using it"
Doubtless Apple's statement is true. Of course, accepting SQL queries over a TCP socket isn't 'allowed access to our servers' is it?
This only benefits exporters, not importers or entirely domestic businesses. And this second statement makes no sense either in light of the thousands of times prices have risen when governments devalued their currencies.
Who is doing this scanning and how does that eliminate anonymity? I've worked in a few cash handling businesses and never even heard of number scanning, nor have I ever seen a device to do this. I imagine the bank might scan serial numbers off of bills at some point for tracking physical currency still in circulation. Are you claiming that when a business makes a cash deposit, the bank reports all the serial numbers to the government and says "business X deposited all of these" and "we gave bills X,Y, and Z to Tom Smith when he made an ATM withdrawal"? I'd have to ask for some proof of this claim, it seems rather expensive and pointless.
"only a couple of percent" is the whole profit margin for a lot of businesses, especially small ones.
I don't doubt it. In the USA there are some areas that have tons of used book stores around. Other areas, none at all. Sadly, I live in the latter.