No, in practice you can not enter in multiple TAN codes for no reason.
The whole point of TAN codes is that it provides a good measure of protection against a having compromised system.
It's your own responsibility to be suitably paranoid about secrets assigned to you, and this guy didn't. If the pizza guy asks for your social security number, don't. Even if the man missed the notice on the login page, he's still negligent.
Yes! Absolutely! Why does everyone feel so entitled to be unaware of their own finances and security to the point of blaming the BANK for a scam?
Obviously the scammer broke the law. But if you can't catch the scammer, it doesn't give you the right to go find the next convenient party and blame it on them.
In this case, the scammer made a site that looked like the banks, but if the site looked like paypal's or the state lottery, and demanded your bank information, do you blame it on paypal/lottery? Obviously not, because they had nothing to do with the scam. Same with the bank.
Welcome to the real world, where if you're unaware of a mistake, it's still your mistake (for giving out 10 TAN codes and ignoring the phishing warning). Catch the crook if you can, but don't blame the service provider for not making their service idiot-proof, especially if you have other banking options anyway.
I'm not being given any more of a choice to sin (eat popcorn) or not (eat . . . less popcorn?) if the FDA doesn't have the theater print nutrition facts on the popcorn bag. There's nothing inherently good or bad about nutrition facts. Unless you believe that they should be removed from ALL food products, your argument is completely invalid.
Fair and unfair compared to what? There is a fallacy there in thinking that taxes are supposed to be a percentage of your income simply because that's how we've always done it. The truth is that taxation is no more than a way for the government to have an income to run the government and have public project an a military or whatnot.
It's not unfair because they're not trying to penalize you for having additional purchasing power. And it's not unfair if they tax all income equally (they don't, but that's a separate issue from whether you should have a 'synthetic income' in times of deflation).
There are also lots of useful short voice message built into the game, like the 'e' button to call medic. Valve just did a great job making people's instincts and scores match up with being a good team player.
On the most basic level, prisons employ guards. Prison guards are in the prison guard union. The union wants its people paid more and to have more jobs, so they lobby for things that result in more prisons or more guards per prison, like longer terms or harsher sentencing. This union is the most powerful union in California, followed by the teacher's union.
I am not making this up.
Also, even if you don't use prisoners as laborers, you still have gov't funds going into building and maintaining the facilities, as well as wherever you send people after prison, and ways to catch and convict people.
There may be factors that make you more likely to be a criminal, but there's no "criminal gene." These are still human beings, and generally people just want life not to suck. They're not thinking, "oh, whatever I do MUST be immoral, so when I have an education, I will just be a a BETTER criminal." The thing about having an education is that suddenly a lot of legal and upstanding ways to make money open up, and they tend to be more attractive than crime and the risk of prison.
In that case, I could have used a mechanical switch to represent 0 and 1 and told you that heat was dissapated. There needs to be a little more to draw a parallel between a random experiment and computer memory.
I think the commonly accepted solution is that you can't charge for something, claim it does something, and not have the ability to back it up with some sort of proof or license, and other forms of accountability, such as the ability to be sued for malpractice.
It's not like the M.D. system has made it illegal for moms and dads to give their children cold medication. There shouldn't be any legal tangle here.
If you pay for all-you-can-eat soup and they make you start waiting 30 minutes between each bowl after your 3rd bowl, you'd still feel cheated, wouldn't you? That is some thing that really should be a PART OF the advertising, and not some fine print.
Plenty of people would pay more for (and make use of) throttling to start at 5 GB instead of 3 GB or 1 GB, so it should definitely be clear that this is happening.
You can pick apart individual sentences and words, but since you're taking them out of the context of the posts, you're misrepresenting what people are actually saying, so that doesn't mean you're addressing anything anyone is talking about.
In case it's still not clear: He is talking about housing. Nobody is talking about levitating freeways. Whether or not the majority of deaths in an earthquake happen because of crushing doesn't matter if your statistic also shows that the majority of deaths are completely unaffected by modifications to HOUSES.
What I'M saying is that, yes, the people crushed on the highways in OAKLAND, not SF, didn't die of fire. However, his point was that protecting your HOME from collapsing and killing you during an earthquake is a marketing ploy, so bringing up highways is completely irrelevant as far as whether or not earthquake-proofing a house is a waste of money. I obviously realize that levitating the house is so it doesn't collapse.
1. Even if you needed individual seismographs on each house, there's no reason it needs to be exposed or even outdoors. 2. The point is that the house WON'T be shaking. How would you shake a floating house without touching it? 3. Based on how wind tunnels work, it's probably a better idea to just store the compressed air somewhere than to try to suddenly generate that much power. I can't imagine it would be cost effective to have that powerful a pump sitting around that it could work without an air reservoir.
As fantastical as a home levitation system may seem, Air Danshin claims that the technology is not only effective, but also 1/3 cheaper than many other earthquake-proofing systems out there – and it requires little maintenance.
And this seems like it would be more independent of the type of building you have, allowing you to have, say, brick buildings that are still earthquake safe. Or jenga building.s
That has nothing to do with structures. You're correcting something he didn't say, and that honestly doesn't have much to do with whether or not one should bother levitating the house.
There must be a reason people thought that right? I mean, there must have been plenty of people who thought, "the crew didn't die because they travelled faster than sound; they died because their plane fell apart."
Nothing you say is exclusive of anything he/she's saying.
He's comparing Windows to other OSes. You're comparing Windows to programs that run on Windows. He is saying people write exploits that run on Windows (which is true). You are saying people write exploits that target flaws in Flash. . . that run on Windows (which is also true).
Chrome is not the next big attack vector because it still has a tiny tiny part of the market compared to IE, and it's definitely a smaller surface area to attack than Flash, so why bother? There are indications that Chrome is the second least secure of the major browsers, after Safari.
Microsoft makes Windows. While Windows does have vulnerabilities, MS can't possibly control what you put onto Windows, which is also a big source of vulnerabilities.
Java and Flash are both big sources of vulnerabilities, and once you get to any computer more complicated than a pocket calculator, you can't stop your users from just going out there and willingly downloading trojans .
A more apt analogy would be that Microsoft makes cars, but they have to make sure nobody ever get their tires stolen, drives drunk, or puts in a GPS that leads them down the wrong route.
So is Microsoft still responsible for existing Win 95 machines that can't be patched?
Computer security isn't that mature yet. When cars started out, they really WEREN'T that safe, and it would've been unenforceable to force car makers to make cars all that safe.
I'll agree that unsafe computers these days are a much more widespread and possibly more harmful issue now thanks to the internet, but you shouldn't assume you can fix it just by choosing someone to take responsibility and punishing them if they don't/can't. That would be like punishing teachers if they can't clean keep the inner city neighborhood they work in free from adolescent gangs.
That seems completely unlikely. That would require their software to be signed. The whole point of trusted computing (well, at least one of the points) is that random rogue players can't release "trusted" software.
This would be a good system if we could GET to that point where we're not taking down 30% of machines because they're infected by malware, but given our current situation, I think the biggest problem is not how we maintain a safer internet, but how we can clean up all those dirty machines in the first place.
You need a decent amount of technical expertise to secure machines and keep them secure. Unlike cars, the default configuration of computers is bad, there is no cheap way to maintain their security except to do it yourself, and it's hard to tell the difference between an unsafe computer and a safe one quickly.
In addition, most people can't even tell what behaviors break their computers.
Slashdot Mirror
No, in practice you can not enter in multiple TAN codes for no reason.
The whole point of TAN codes is that it provides a good measure of protection against a having compromised system.
It's your own responsibility to be suitably paranoid about secrets assigned to you, and this guy didn't. If the pizza guy asks for your social security number, don't. Even if the man missed the notice on the login page, he's still negligent.
Yes! Absolutely! Why does everyone feel so entitled to be unaware of their own finances and security to the point of blaming the BANK for a scam?
Obviously the scammer broke the law. But if you can't catch the scammer, it doesn't give you the right to go find the next convenient party and blame it on them.
In this case, the scammer made a site that looked like the banks, but if the site looked like paypal's or the state lottery, and demanded your bank information, do you blame it on paypal/lottery? Obviously not, because they had nothing to do with the scam. Same with the bank.
Welcome to the real world, where if you're unaware of a mistake, it's still your mistake (for giving out 10 TAN codes and ignoring the phishing warning). Catch the crook if you can, but don't blame the service provider for not making their service idiot-proof, especially if you have other banking options anyway.
Just don't use a freaking searchlight to read and a small lamp should be just fine.
I'm not being given any more of a choice to sin (eat popcorn) or not (eat . . . less popcorn?) if the FDA doesn't have the theater print nutrition facts on the popcorn bag. There's nothing inherently good or bad about nutrition facts. Unless you believe that they should be removed from ALL food products, your argument is completely invalid.
Why would he/she mean that? Is it that hard to believe that managers end up acting overly bossy rather than arrogant?
Fair and unfair compared to what? There is a fallacy there in thinking that taxes are supposed to be a percentage of your income simply because that's how we've always done it. The truth is that taxation is no more than a way for the government to have an income to run the government and have public project an a military or whatnot.
It's not unfair because they're not trying to penalize you for having additional purchasing power. And it's not unfair if they tax all income equally (they don't, but that's a separate issue from whether you should have a 'synthetic income' in times of deflation).
So do you take a breath after "ever" or something when you say that?
There are also lots of useful short voice message built into the game, like the 'e' button to call medic. Valve just did a great job making people's instincts and scores match up with being a good team player.
On the most basic level, prisons employ guards. Prison guards are in the prison guard union. The union wants its people paid more and to have more jobs, so they lobby for things that result in more prisons or more guards per prison, like longer terms or harsher sentencing. This union is the most powerful union in California, followed by the teacher's union.
I am not making this up.
Also, even if you don't use prisoners as laborers, you still have gov't funds going into building and maintaining the facilities, as well as wherever you send people after prison, and ways to catch and convict people.
There may be factors that make you more likely to be a criminal, but there's no "criminal gene." These are still human beings, and generally people just want life not to suck. They're not thinking, "oh, whatever I do MUST be immoral, so when I have an education, I will just be a a BETTER criminal." The thing about having an education is that suddenly a lot of legal and upstanding ways to make money open up, and they tend to be more attractive than crime and the risk of prison.
In that case, I could have used a mechanical switch to represent 0 and 1 and told you that heat was dissapated. There needs to be a little more to draw a parallel between a random experiment and computer memory.
Recognizing and acknowledging drawbacks is country-evolutionary?
Citation please. I see nothing anywhere that says that is true of magnetic fields, and this is the first time I've ever heard of it.
I think the commonly accepted solution is that you can't charge for something, claim it does something, and not have the ability to back it up with some sort of proof or license, and other forms of accountability, such as the ability to be sued for malpractice.
It's not like the M.D. system has made it illegal for moms and dads to give their children cold medication. There shouldn't be any legal tangle here.
If you pay for all-you-can-eat soup and they make you start waiting 30 minutes between each bowl after your 3rd bowl, you'd still feel cheated, wouldn't you? That is some thing that really should be a PART OF the advertising, and not some fine print.
Plenty of people would pay more for (and make use of) throttling to start at 5 GB instead of 3 GB or 1 GB, so it should definitely be clear that this is happening.
You can pick apart individual sentences and words, but since you're taking them out of the context of the posts, you're misrepresenting what people are actually saying, so that doesn't mean you're addressing anything anyone is talking about.
In case it's still not clear: He is talking about housing. Nobody is talking about levitating freeways. Whether or not the majority of deaths in an earthquake happen because of crushing doesn't matter if your statistic also shows that the majority of deaths are completely unaffected by modifications to HOUSES.
What I'M saying is that, yes, the people crushed on the highways in OAKLAND, not SF, didn't die of fire. However, his point was that protecting your HOME from collapsing and killing you during an earthquake is a marketing ploy, so bringing up highways is completely irrelevant as far as whether or not earthquake-proofing a house is a waste of money. I obviously realize that levitating the house is so it doesn't collapse.
1. Even if you needed individual seismographs on each house, there's no reason it needs to be exposed or even outdoors.
2. The point is that the house WON'T be shaking. How would you shake a floating house without touching it?
3. Based on how wind tunnels work, it's probably a better idea to just store the compressed air somewhere than to try to suddenly generate that much power. I can't imagine it would be cost effective to have that powerful a pump sitting around that it could work without an air reservoir.
From TFA:
As fantastical as a home levitation system may seem, Air Danshin claims that the technology is not only effective, but also 1/3 cheaper than many other earthquake-proofing systems out there – and it requires little maintenance.
And this seems like it would be more independent of the type of building you have, allowing you to have, say, brick buildings that are still earthquake safe. Or jenga building.s
That has nothing to do with structures. You're correcting something he didn't say, and that honestly doesn't have much to do with whether or not one should bother levitating the house.
There must be a reason people thought that right? I mean, there must have been plenty of people who thought, "the crew didn't die because they travelled faster than sound; they died because their plane fell apart."
Nothing you say is exclusive of anything he/she's saying.
He's comparing Windows to other OSes. You're comparing Windows to programs that run on Windows. He is saying people write exploits that run on Windows (which is true). You are saying people write exploits that target flaws in Flash. . . that run on Windows (which is also true).
Chrome is not the next big attack vector because it still has a tiny tiny part of the market compared to IE, and it's definitely a smaller surface area to attack than Flash, so why bother? There are indications that Chrome is the second least secure of the major browsers, after Safari.
I dislike your analogy.
Microsoft makes Windows. While Windows does have vulnerabilities, MS can't possibly control what you put onto Windows, which is also a big source of vulnerabilities.
Java and Flash are both big sources of vulnerabilities, and once you get to any computer more complicated than a pocket calculator, you can't stop your users from just going out there and willingly downloading trojans .
A more apt analogy would be that Microsoft makes cars, but they have to make sure nobody ever get their tires stolen, drives drunk, or puts in a GPS that leads them down the wrong route.
So is Microsoft still responsible for existing Win 95 machines that can't be patched?
Computer security isn't that mature yet. When cars started out, they really WEREN'T that safe, and it would've been unenforceable to force car makers to make cars all that safe.
I'll agree that unsafe computers these days are a much more widespread and possibly more harmful issue now thanks to the internet, but you shouldn't assume you can fix it just by choosing someone to take responsibility and punishing them if they don't/can't. That would be like punishing teachers if they can't clean keep the inner city neighborhood they work in free from adolescent gangs.
That seems completely unlikely. That would require their software to be signed. The whole point of trusted computing (well, at least one of the points) is that random rogue players can't release "trusted" software.
This would be a good system if we could GET to that point where we're not taking down 30% of machines because they're infected by malware, but given our current situation, I think the biggest problem is not how we maintain a safer internet, but how we can clean up all those dirty machines in the first place.
You need a decent amount of technical expertise to secure machines and keep them secure. Unlike cars, the default configuration of computers is bad, there is no cheap way to maintain their security except to do it yourself, and it's hard to tell the difference between an unsafe computer and a safe one quickly.
In addition, most people can't even tell what behaviors break their computers.