The entire thing stinks to high heaven. These guys still think of the Internet as of tubes and trucks and who the hell knows what else, but it doesn't matter. The important thing is that this series of tubes and trucks is bothering them something awful.
They can't control dissemination of information on it like they do on TV. Anybody can just start a blog or a forum and discuss policy and worse, they can share actual information, the kind that government prefers you not to pay attention to... here is something shiny for you.
They need a kill switch, and when they say that, they likely mean a kill, as in Minigun type of kill switch.
Take this new cybersecurity bill, add the Trusted Security in Cyberspace proposal, involve the DHS, factor in Gitmo and rendition, multiply by Secret Service getting an 'upgrade' (from the same Lieberman ideas by the way), you are going to have a very neat 'kill switch'.
This 'cybersecurity' nonsense is supposed to be able to expire 120 days after execution, well, just make the emergency last longer, have the president sign an order or whatever it takes. Actually 120 days is enough to push through any kind of agenda if there are no opposing voices at all, and TV opposes nothing (except for clowns, but who listens to clowns, right?
They just want to stop you from being able to get and discuss any information that may end up hurting their agenda, and they have plenty of agenda.
In case of Ben I prefer to keep to the KISS principle and use the Occam's Razor. Just a few days ago the guy said he doesn't understand why gold is rallying. Really, he doesn't, that's what he said.
Maybe he is lying, but I think he is just useless, he is the perfect case that supports Peter Principle, he is stuck within his level of incompetence.
People spend more time figuring out what kind of a vacuum cleaner they are going to buy than thinking about the bank they will put their money into.
There is no competition and the reasons are that government now plans/runs the economy. Chase will have their customers, nobody will be leaving because Chase is going to drop support for a browser. Nobody will be leaving if Chase continues gambling with deposits. Nobody will be leaving even if Chase continues trading any kinds of derivatives.
The reason for this is FDIC, the Fed insuring the deposits, which creates a set of problems:
1. The banks don't have a reason to care about earning customers' trust, they can start gambling with your deposits. 2. The people don't care and don't pay attention where their money is. 3. Competitiveness between banks is no longer that important, this is a problem, small banks start losing out to bigger ones just based on this alone. 4. Large banks do gamble with your money, as they also receive Free Money from the Fed they become bigger and bigger, until they are... "Too Big To Fail" *(a government creation, in reality they are too big to exist at that point.)
FDIC, just like Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac etc., create a moral hazard for everybody - the creditors and the debtors.
Government shouldn't be in insurance business at all, it is terrible at assessing risks, for reference see Ben Bernanke sitting the middle of a huge credit bubble he helped to create and not seeing it at all even while staring right into its face (I am talking about the housing bubble and that guys saying: we don't have a bubble in 2007!
BERNANKE: Well, I guess I don't buy your premise. It's a pretty unlikely possibility. We've never had a decline in house prices on a nationwide basis. So, what I think what is more likely is that house prices will slow, maybe stabilize, might slow consumption spending a bit. I don't think it's gonna drive the economy too far from its full employment path, though. - these are the people who will now, under new Obama's financial reform will be watching for the signs of bad things about to happen? Seriously? Really? You must be kidding me?
Banks must NOT be Federally insured, any insurance must be private and insurers must provide information on the conditions of insurance, the payments etc., so that risk can be evaluated by the banks' customers.
Many will say: but how do you expect an average person to look and understand.... well I guess that's what arithmetic is for.
People NEED competition in banks just like in anything else, otherwise soon enough all banks will be one same too big to fail, only IE is allowed mega-bank, and the problems will not be limited to just what kind of browser the banks allows you to use on their site, that will be the smallest of the problems.
Like Louis C.K said in his "Being Broke" monologue about the rich guys listening to it: "Well, yeah, you are financially irresponsible and you have to pay the price, I don't frankly... see why you are angry about it. The bank has the right to accrue a fee, clearly..."
Seriously, you rely on/. moderation to 'prove' some point?:) Maybe that's the problem you are having with men in at work - very wrong expectations?
However, I worked with many women and I always treated them the same (almost) as I treated any guy; the difference is that I am careful about joking around women though, which I am not around guys, because my sense of humor is...... could be construed as offensive to people who don't really know me.
Probably you want to sandbox your webserver, put it into a VM, run it as some user other than root obviously, have a HW or OpenBSD/PF based firewall sit in front of it and redirect requests to your VMs network, make sure no other services are running that can be accessed from the outside excluding the VM, probably add SSL to it (we just had a discussion on self signed certificates a little while ago here and what kind of POS it is to work with browsers in that case). I mean, it's a game, nobody is going to point and laugh at you if it has some web security issues, but you are not exactly explaining your architecture here either, you probably would be better off sandboxing it into a VM like that.
and I think that all patents and copyrights must be abolished and forever forbidden as a concept.
Of-course my idea is not going to win legislatively, but it IS winning practically speaking, pay attention to the most of the world which does exactly that.
Every few months we are hearing this: women are not going to IT, there are fewer women than men in IT, women are moving out of IT etc.etc.etc., and this probably applies to engineering just as well, though I am not sure.
OK, can we have all the women drop out of IT already so that we can switch the stories to something more positive, like: "Another Woman Joined an IT Shop This Month!"
It's just depressing to hear the same thing over and over, obviously we have overabundance of wiener in this profession and it's not going to change, that's how things are, this is a lonely profession, often self-absorbed, requires sacrifice of many things in life for sure, like being a totally normal sociable person. In TFA it says that women are getting 'special treatment' - getting tasks that are impossible to solve, that often their roles are diminished to that of a secretary during a meeting, whatever.
Seriously, I haven't seen this kind of treatment of women in any of the shops I worked in, but I am not one so maybe it was happening and I just didn't notice it, beats me. It says that a women with 10 to 20 years of experience is getting a salary that is about 11% smaller of a comparable male worker, again, who knows, we don't normally share our salary data among each other, right?
Maybe it is time for women to start their own women oriented IT shops and just go that way.
This works for politicians and for very rich people, I doubt this will work for a run of the mill Joe Schmo. They will make it illegal for you not to provide the passwords and make the punishment severe, something like 5-8 years in prison for not providing it whatever your excuse is.
The FBI failed to break the encryption code of hard drives seized by federal police at the apartment of banker Daniel Dantas, in Rio de Janeiro, during Operation Satyagraha. The operation began in July 2008. According to a report published on Friday (25) by the newspaper Folha de S. Paulo, after a year of unsuccessful attempts, the U.S. federal police returned the equipment to Brazil in April.
According to the report, the fed only requested help from USA in early 2009, after experts from the National Institute of Criminology (INC) failed to decode the passwords on the hard drives. The government has no legal instrument to compel the manufacturer of the American encryption system or Dantas to give the access codes.
Isn't that interesting, they can't get 'access codes' from the manufacturer. Why should there even be any access codes, is this just an assumption that there are codes like that for those encryption providers or is this a fact?
I thought this was not just a sound idea but a law.
Great stuff though, but expect some new laws by government that make it illegal not to provide your password/keys to the government upon a court order and if you don't provide it, expect an assumption of guilt and some extra punishment. I am not saying it's right, just saying that's probably going to be one of the outcomes of this.
Of-course the problem is that they got the drives physically (not that I am necessarily on the side of a allegedly corrupt banker, but I am not automatically assuming he is guilty of anything either.) Here is a good application for the 'cloud' (yikes) - keep your encrypted data so that nobody can even know it exists in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
The entire thing stinks to high heaven. These guys still think of the Internet as of tubes and trucks and who the hell knows what else, but it doesn't matter. The important thing is that this series of tubes and trucks is bothering them something awful.
They can't control dissemination of information on it like they do on TV. Anybody can just start a blog or a forum and discuss policy and worse, they can share actual information, the kind that government prefers you not to pay attention to... here is something shiny for you.
They need a kill switch, and when they say that, they likely mean a kill, as in Minigun type of kill switch.
Take this new cybersecurity bill, add the Trusted Security in Cyberspace proposal, involve the DHS, factor in Gitmo and rendition, multiply by Secret Service getting an 'upgrade' (from the same Lieberman ideas by the way), you are going to have a very neat 'kill switch'.
This 'cybersecurity' nonsense is supposed to be able to expire 120 days after execution, well, just make the emergency last longer, have the president sign an order or whatever it takes. Actually 120 days is enough to push through any kind of agenda if there are no opposing voices at all, and TV opposes nothing (except for clowns, but who listens to clowns, right?
They just want to stop you from being able to get and discuss any information that may end up hurting their agenda, and they have plenty of agenda.
Dammit, it's not satisfying enough, I demand satisfaction!
In case of Ben I prefer to keep to the KISS principle and use the Occam's Razor. Just a few days ago the guy said he doesn't understand why gold is rallying. Really, he doesn't, that's what he said.
Maybe he is lying, but I think he is just useless, he is the perfect case that supports Peter Principle, he is stuck within his level of incompetence.
write log files to a dedicated partition maybe?
People spend more time figuring out what kind of a vacuum cleaner they are going to buy than thinking about the bank they will put their money into.
There is no competition and the reasons are that government now plans/runs the economy. Chase will have their customers, nobody will be leaving because Chase is going to drop support for a browser. Nobody will be leaving if Chase continues gambling with deposits. Nobody will be leaving even if Chase continues trading any kinds of derivatives.
The reason for this is FDIC, the Fed insuring the deposits, which creates a set of problems:
1. The banks don't have a reason to care about earning customers' trust, they can start gambling with your deposits.
2. The people don't care and don't pay attention where their money is.
3. Competitiveness between banks is no longer that important, this is a problem, small banks start losing out to bigger ones just based on this alone.
4. Large banks do gamble with your money, as they also receive Free Money from the Fed they become bigger and bigger, until they are... "Too Big To Fail" *(a government creation, in reality they are too big to exist at that point.)
FDIC, just like Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac etc., create a moral hazard for everybody - the creditors and the debtors.
Government shouldn't be in insurance business at all, it is terrible at assessing risks, for reference see Ben Bernanke sitting the middle of a huge credit bubble he helped to create and not seeing it at all even while staring right into its face (I am talking about the housing bubble and that guys saying: we don't have a bubble in 2007!
INTERVIEWER: Tell me, what is the worst-case scenario? We have so many economists coming on our air saying 'Oh, this is a bubble, and it's going to burst, and this is going to be a real issue for the economy.' Some say it could even cause a recession at some point. What is the worst-case scenario if in fact we were to see prices come down substantially across the country?
BERNANKE: Well, I guess I don't buy your premise. It's a pretty unlikely possibility. We've never had a decline in house prices on a nationwide basis. So, what I think what is more likely is that house prices will slow, maybe stabilize, might slow consumption spending a bit. I don't think it's gonna drive the economy too far from its full employment path, though. - these are the people who will now, under new Obama's financial reform will be watching for the signs of bad things about to happen? Seriously? Really? You must be kidding me?
Banks must NOT be Federally insured, any insurance must be private and insurers must provide information on the conditions of insurance, the payments etc., so that risk can be evaluated by the banks' customers.
Many will say: but how do you expect an average person to look and understand.... well I guess that's what arithmetic is for.
People NEED competition in banks just like in anything else, otherwise soon enough all banks will be one same too big to fail, only IE is allowed mega-bank, and the problems will not be limited to just what kind of browser the banks allows you to use on their site, that will be the smallest of the problems.
sorry, forgot the link
Like Louis C.K said in his "Being Broke" monologue about the rich guys listening to it: "Well, yeah, you are financially irresponsible and you have to pay the price, I don't frankly... see why you are angry about it. The bank has the right to accrue a fee, clearly..."
Seriously, you rely on /. moderation to 'prove' some point? :) Maybe that's the problem you are having with men in at work - very wrong expectations?
However, I worked with many women and I always treated them the same (almost) as I treated any guy; the difference is that I am careful about joking around women though, which I am not around guys, because my sense of humor is ...... could be construed as offensive to people who don't really know me.
Dammit, that's not the point! She is a woman, I am a man, who is supposed to do the work? Enough said!
Useless you say? When the server gets rooted and will have to be reinstalled from scratch it won't seem as useless.
Probably you want to sandbox your webserver, put it into a VM, run it as some user other than root obviously, have a HW or OpenBSD/PF based firewall sit in front of it and redirect requests to your VMs network, make sure no other services are running that can be accessed from the outside excluding the VM, probably add SSL to it (we just had a discussion on self signed certificates a little while ago here and what kind of POS it is to work with browsers in that case). I mean, it's a game, nobody is going to point and laugh at you if it has some web security issues, but you are not exactly explaining your architecture here either, you probably would be better off sandboxing it into a VM like that.
That's nothing. Have you seen the hardware requirements for this:
turn Girlfriend X.0 into Wife OS X 10.0.
?!
If I had a real ROOT account to you I wouldn't be thinking about eating :)
Oh, dad, don't worry, I already know where pron comes from. But how do they get it INTO the Internet?
True, I can't understand a single word in the subject of the story actually, except for 'of'.
How strange, I thought you have them Barbequed in Lettuce Cups with Vietnamese Coriander Dipping Sauce.
and I think that all patents and copyrights must be abolished and forever forbidden as a concept.
Of-course my idea is not going to win legislatively, but it IS winning practically speaking, pay attention to the most of the world which does exactly that.
What are women?
Hold on, hold on, I am writing this down, this is good shit, you have all the steps.
Now, how do you 'Have kids' exactly?
I am going to maintain the necessary level of stereotype here right now: sudo make me a sandwich.
(don't hurt me, I couldn't resist it, I am an IT guy.)
Every few months we are hearing this: women are not going to IT, there are fewer women than men in IT, women are moving out of IT etc.etc.etc., and this probably applies to engineering just as well, though I am not sure.
OK, can we have all the women drop out of IT already so that we can switch the stories to something more positive, like: "Another Woman Joined an IT Shop This Month!"
It's just depressing to hear the same thing over and over, obviously we have overabundance of wiener in this profession and it's not going to change, that's how things are, this is a lonely profession, often self-absorbed, requires sacrifice of many things in life for sure, like being a totally normal sociable person. In TFA it says that women are getting 'special treatment' - getting tasks that are impossible to solve, that often their roles are diminished to that of a secretary during a meeting, whatever.
Seriously, I haven't seen this kind of treatment of women in any of the shops I worked in, but I am not one so maybe it was happening and I just didn't notice it, beats me. It says that a women with 10 to 20 years of experience is getting a salary that is about 11% smaller of a comparable male worker, again, who knows, we don't normally share our salary data among each other, right?
Maybe it is time for women to start their own women oriented IT shops and just go that way.
Seriously, when did a little or a big violation of the Constitution ever stop a government with an agenda?
This works for politicians and for very rich people, I doubt this will work for a run of the mill Joe Schmo. They will make it illegal for you not to provide the passwords and make the punishment severe, something like 5-8 years in prison for not providing it whatever your excuse is.
The FBI failed to break the encryption code of hard drives seized by federal police at the apartment of banker Daniel Dantas, in Rio de Janeiro, during Operation Satyagraha. The operation began in July 2008. According to a report published on Friday (25) by the newspaper Folha de S. Paulo, after a year of unsuccessful attempts, the U.S. federal police returned the equipment to Brazil in April.
According to the report, the fed only requested help from USA in early 2009, after experts from the National Institute of Criminology (INC) failed to decode the passwords on the hard drives. The government has no legal instrument to compel the manufacturer of the American encryption system or Dantas to give the access codes.
Isn't that interesting, they can't get 'access codes' from the manufacturer. Why should there even be any access codes, is this just an assumption that there are codes like that for those encryption providers or is this a fact?
I thought this was not just a sound idea but a law.
Great stuff though, but expect some new laws by government that make it illegal not to provide your password/keys to the government upon a court order and if you don't provide it, expect an assumption of guilt and some extra punishment. I am not saying it's right, just saying that's probably going to be one of the outcomes of this.
Of-course the problem is that they got the drives physically (not that I am necessarily on the side of a allegedly corrupt banker, but I am not automatically assuming he is guilty of anything either.) Here is a good application for the 'cloud' (yikes) - keep your encrypted data so that nobody can even know it exists in the first place.