I'm thinking of a word for a kind of system where, I don't know, someone makes rules for how large chunks of assets are managed, traded, stored. This word would mean that some PEOPLE, some kind of official-sounding types of PEOPLE, would "check up" on these places, these places that handle and store and manage other people's money, or assets, stuff. They would be checking up to make sure that the people who run those places, those people, wouldn't be, knowingly or unknowingly, doing things with other people's money that they shouldn't be doing. Maybe there could be a kind of system, say, where those people doing those things, are encouraged or made to do some things, to prove, that they have the money and things that they are supposed to have, and doing the things, those things that they are supposed to do, and not doing those things that they are not supposed to be doing, to those other people's money, and assets and stuff. And that they're honest, about what they say that they're doing, and that they're not doing. Who would be doing all that checking, and what would that process be, and who would be subject to it. If only there were one simple word for all of that.
Does self-policing count as your word since it's a compound word?
I jest. I can't think of one example where self-policing led to a better outcome to society.
What is going to happen to all those secure credit card transactions that are the life-blood of internet commerce, when third parties figure out how to decrypt packets en-route by infiltrating the procedures of ISP's and alter them to "achieve efficiencies"?
You would think capitalists have a lot to loose if this proposal goes forward.
No kidding. Every day brings more and more proof that the bad guys are smarter (or at least way more motivated) than the good guys.
This is a fundamental problem all the traitorous NSA behavior has created - every time something like this comes up, we're going to wonder if THEY are behind it. Problem is, that way lies madness... we can never really know.
1) It could very well be an innocent coding error. Heck, I could see myself doing this one with the slip of the fingers in BBEdit. I probably HAVE done it at some point in time.
2) It could be an intentional bug slipped in by someone on NSA's payroll.
3) Or, it could be even more nefarious. Perhaps NSA has known about this, but thought the use case was too restricting. So they kept quiet until they were able to slip a more broadly exploitable hole in the development code (or, alternatively, something the compiler can slip into your output). Then, to force everyone to update, they reveal this older bug. We all update, and BAM! They've got us.
We can't really know, anymore.
As Henry Kissinger is reputed to have said, "Even paranoiacs have enemies...."
Snow Leopard (10.6) is not vulnerable to this bug, since Apple did not switch from OpenSSL to their own SSL/TLS library back then yet. Just verified on my 10.6 box (to verify visit https://www.imperialviolet.org... )
On the other hand, iOS 6.1.5 is - and now I have a choice of using insecure iPhone or upgrading to 7.x.
Or, perhaps upgrading to iOS 6.1.6 which corrects that bug.
""Putting to one side the quality of the actual service, which most users would rate very highly, the facts show that Pandora -- when viewed objectively as a business -- is in dire straits," the report stated. "We are at a loss to know why the company's stock has performed so well, especially over the last 12 months."
Over the past year, Pandora's stock price has jumped from $11.48 to $37.95."
So, Apple has a record quarter, a sustainable business model, yet their stock goes down on news of their sales. Pandora doesn't and their stock triples.
the reason cable bills go up and no one has a choice of channels is because Disney, Discovery, Viacom and everyone else constantly raise prices and only offer their channels in one big bundle. and always add more channels.
when a channel is blacked out on their TV people always blame comcast or direct TV. they should be blaming the channel owner for wanting too much money and not giving any choice of channels.
comcast might not be a saint, but a bigger comcast will mean that any time a channel owner wants a price increase they risk losing more than half their revenue during the blackout.
And any savings would get passed onto the customer, right, because all of the competition will make Comcast price-conscious?/sarcasm
Ok, everybody. Self-classification is gross, because misexistentialist says so.
In the interest of public decency, you are now "poor" if you're unable to afford food or clothing, and everyone else is "rich". There is to be no further differentiation, so we can forget all of that "middle class" nonsense.
It you were born within the bounds of the United States of America, you are an American. Everyone else is a foreigner, regardless of immigration, heritage, or temporary circumstances.
Whenever the ambient temperature is above 32 degrees Fahrenheit, it is "warm", and for the sake of avoiding disgusting differentiation, everyone must wear their state-issued "warm" clothes. At 32 degrees Fahrenheit and below, it is "cold", and we all must wear the appropriate "cold" clothing.
Of course, not everyone will want to follow these new rules, but we have a suitable and tasteful classification for that as well. Those who conform will be considered "comrades", and those who violate these basic rules for a civil society will be deemed "unpersons" and will no longer be welcome here.
That's a beautiful and inspiring speech, but nothing that you pointed out can be distilled down to X and Y chromosomes like sex can. It's an either/or in that black and white world.
The submitter typically dashes it off in a hurry, afraid someone else will get it in first. He figures the 'editors' can fix an odd typo or whatnot before posting. He has not been here very long, or he would realize they never do. They just pick one of the two dozen nearly identical submissions at random and post it, maybe with a snide editorial comment added, but they never proofread anything.
Generalizations usually fall down. I've had submissions reorganized before, and in one case had an additional clarifying link added. Just because something's mostly true doesn't make it always true ("never").
The correct answer is: why the hell did you buy a Dell, you idiot? Buy a real laptop! The best 5 with the lowest defects are Asus, MSI, Toshiba, Samsung, Sony and they also have the highest rated support quality.
It's really easy for them to go away when a couple companies (like IBM) get cheap, the rest else declare the new cheapness to be the industry standard; and everyone gets screwed..
Yep, it's the start of the race to the bottom that once started the conclusion is almost inevitable. It's like the ripple affect from moving manufacturing out of the US. Once the first company did it the rest had to to compete...of course in typical US "head up the ass" fashion, no one looked longer term to see that the unemployed workers weren't buying new cars, new appliances, etc, thus driving the need to cut costs even further, thus accelerating the race. Hello bottom? America here calling....
Wow. Bigoted and illegal in the US. And everyone says the USA is privacy invasive. If someone did that in the USA they would be sued for violation of medical privacy law.
For everything that doesn't move, it should be wired anyway.
Strange as it may sound to you there are actually reasons to have stationary things connect to the network through a wireless adapter. One good reason would be the simple fact that some of us live in areas where lightning plays havoc on infrastructure, especially telephone lines. If you connect to the 'net through ADSL you'll start seeing the wisdom of having as few wired connections between your modem and your network. While it is more or less impossible to protect the modem from a direct strike and usually inconvenient to protect the router, all other equipment should preferably be connected wirelessly or suffer the wrath of Thor.
This is no idle talk, I have personally lost three modems, two routers, three Thinkpad T23 network adapters, one Intel SS4200 server network interface and one HP Jetdirect card to lightning strikes. The damage always came from the telephone line and was carried through the wired network to the victims. Nothing ever happened to any wireless device, ever.
After the first time I'd have the run RJ11 through an APC UPS....Actually, no, when I had DSL I ran it through the UPS before all of my wired shit got toasted...which it never did.
The problem is that such granular permissions are too complex for most users to understand. It's not such a good security model. Think about how endless permission messages on Vista lead to people blindly clicking "OK" all the time. Think about how parents were quickly trained by their kids to enter their PIN every time the iPad required it to play some game.
Permissions are a very hard problem to solve, but I think the Android way of presenting them all up front at a high level does at least make it easy and most importantly very low time/irritation cost for the user to check them. Most people seem to be cottoning on to the fact that flashlight apps don't need network or phone access. Maybe power users could have a box to tick for extended granular permissions, but of course such users can get them via an app because they already have root.
Actually, you make a good argument in favor of Apple's "walled garden" where they do the complex assessments, and the user is presented only with something as simple as "Do you want to allow LinkedIn to access your contacts?"
I do hope they resolve the problem and keep going. It would be such an embarassment to China to have it fail on it's first night out.
You can make all the jokes you want about "Cheap Chinese Crap" you want, but you know as well as I do that when it comes to stuff that isn't intended for the dollar store sale bins, China can make as good a piece of hardware as anyone else. They wouldn't have made it to the moon in the first place if their rocket had been built with toy-maker electronics instead of mil-spec.
Or if they hadn't raided the US aerospace industry with APTs.
Slashdot Mirror
...how this airliner is deflecting discussion from Russia, the Ukraine, and the Crimea.
Just sayin'....
I'm thinking of a word for a kind of system where, I don't know, someone makes rules for how large chunks of assets are managed, traded, stored. This word would mean that some PEOPLE, some kind of official-sounding types of PEOPLE, would "check up" on these places, these places that handle and store and manage other people's money, or assets, stuff. They would be checking up to make sure that the people who run those places, those people, wouldn't be, knowingly or unknowingly, doing things with other people's money that they shouldn't be doing. Maybe there could be a kind of system, say, where those people doing those things, are encouraged or made to do some things, to prove, that they have the money and things that they are supposed to have, and doing the things, those things that they are supposed to do, and not doing those things that they are not supposed to be doing, to those other people's money, and assets and stuff. And that they're honest, about what they say that they're doing, and that they're not doing. Who would be doing all that checking, and what would that process be, and who would be subject to it. If only there were one simple word for all of that.
Does self-policing count as your word since it's a compound word?
I jest. I can't think of one example where self-policing led to a better outcome to society.
Or close enough.
What is going to happen to all those secure credit card transactions that are the life-blood of internet commerce, when third parties figure out how to decrypt packets en-route by infiltrating the procedures of ISP's and alter them to "achieve efficiencies"?
You would think capitalists have a lot to loose if this proposal goes forward.
No kidding. Every day brings more and more proof that the bad guys are smarter (or at least way more motivated) than the good guys.
And she looks really butch on the motorcycle with the ape hangers.
This is a fundamental problem all the traitorous NSA behavior has created - every time something like this comes up, we're going to wonder if THEY are behind it. Problem is, that way lies madness... we can never really know.
1) It could very well be an innocent coding error. Heck, I could see myself doing this one with the slip of the fingers in BBEdit. I probably HAVE done it at some point in time.
2) It could be an intentional bug slipped in by someone on NSA's payroll.
3) Or, it could be even more nefarious. Perhaps NSA has known about this, but thought the use case was too restricting. So they kept quiet until they were able to slip a more broadly exploitable hole in the development code (or, alternatively, something the compiler can slip into your output). Then, to force everyone to update, they reveal this older bug. We all update, and BAM! They've got us.
We can't really know, anymore.
As Henry Kissinger is reputed to have said, "Even paranoiacs have enemies...."
If you are able to upgrade to iOS 7, you are not able to upgrade to 6.1.6.
Ugh. I didn't realize that. That's just...short-sighted.
Snow Leopard (10.6) is not vulnerable to this bug, since Apple did not switch from OpenSSL to their own SSL/TLS library back then yet. Just verified on my 10.6 box (to verify visit https://www.imperialviolet.org... )
On the other hand, iOS 6.1.5 is - and now I have a choice of using insecure iPhone or upgrading to 7.x.
Or, perhaps upgrading to iOS 6.1.6 which corrects that bug.
""Putting to one side the quality of the actual service, which most users would rate very highly, the facts show that Pandora -- when viewed objectively as a business -- is in dire straits," the report stated. "We are at a loss to know why the company's stock has performed so well, especially over the last 12 months."
Over the past year, Pandora's stock price has jumped from $11.48 to $37.95."
So, Apple has a record quarter, a sustainable business model, yet their stock goes down on news of their sales. Pandora doesn't and their stock triples.
Go figure.
the reason cable bills go up and no one has a choice of channels is because Disney, Discovery, Viacom and everyone else constantly raise prices and only offer their channels in one big bundle. and always add more channels.
when a channel is blacked out on their TV people always blame comcast or direct TV. they should be blaming the channel owner for wanting too much money and not giving any choice of channels.
comcast might not be a saint, but a bigger comcast will mean that any time a channel owner wants a price increase they risk losing more than half their revenue during the blackout.
And any savings would get passed onto the customer, right, because all of the competition will make Comcast price-conscious? /sarcasm
Ok, everybody. Self-classification is gross, because misexistentialist says so.
In the interest of public decency, you are now "poor" if you're unable to afford food or clothing, and everyone else is "rich". There is to be no further differentiation, so we can forget all of that "middle class" nonsense.
It you were born within the bounds of the United States of America, you are an American. Everyone else is a foreigner, regardless of immigration, heritage, or temporary circumstances.
Whenever the ambient temperature is above 32 degrees Fahrenheit, it is "warm", and for the sake of avoiding disgusting differentiation, everyone must wear their state-issued "warm" clothes. At 32 degrees Fahrenheit and below, it is "cold", and we all must wear the appropriate "cold" clothing.
Of course, not everyone will want to follow these new rules, but we have a suitable and tasteful classification for that as well. Those who conform will be considered "comrades", and those who violate these basic rules for a civil society will be deemed "unpersons" and will no longer be welcome here.
That's a beautiful and inspiring speech, but nothing that you pointed out can be distilled down to X and Y chromosomes like sex can. It's an either/or in that black and white world.
The submitter typically dashes it off in a hurry, afraid someone else will get it in first. He figures the 'editors' can fix an odd typo or whatnot before posting. He has not been here very long, or he would realize they never do. They just pick one of the two dozen nearly identical submissions at random and post it, maybe with a snide editorial comment added, but they never proofread anything.
Generalizations usually fall down. I've had submissions reorganized before, and in one case had an additional clarifying link added. Just because something's mostly true doesn't make it always true ("never").
You can't make a trend from one data point, nor are all routes created equally.
I do believed that Verizon would do something sleazy like this, but this certainly isn't proof of that.
The correct answer is: why the hell did you buy a Dell, you idiot? Buy a real laptop! The best 5 with the lowest defects are Asus, MSI, Toshiba, Samsung, Sony and they also have the highest rated support quality.
Apple. Best quality and best support.
It's really easy for them to go away when a couple companies (like IBM) get cheap, the rest else declare the new cheapness to be the industry standard; and everyone gets screwed. .
Yep, it's the start of the race to the bottom that once started the conclusion is almost inevitable. It's like the ripple affect from moving manufacturing out of the US. Once the first company did it the rest had to to compete...of course in typical US "head up the ass" fashion, no one looked longer term to see that the unemployed workers weren't buying new cars, new appliances, etc, thus driving the need to cut costs even further, thus accelerating the race. Hello bottom? America here calling....
...as long as the citizens can keep on recording on theirs. Fair's fair.
Wow. Bigoted and illegal in the US. And everyone says the USA is privacy invasive. If someone did that in the USA they would be sued for violation of medical privacy law.
What part of opt-in didn't you understand?
Costco hot dog and soda at the snack bar. Been $1.50 for nigh on 20 years.
Strange as it may sound to you there are actually reasons to have stationary things connect to the network through a wireless adapter. One good reason would be the simple fact that some of us live in areas where lightning plays havoc on infrastructure, especially telephone lines. If you connect to the 'net through ADSL you'll start seeing the wisdom of having as few wired connections between your modem and your network. While it is more or less impossible to protect the modem from a direct strike and usually inconvenient to protect the router, all other equipment should preferably be connected wirelessly or suffer the wrath of Thor.
This is no idle talk, I have personally lost three modems, two routers, three Thinkpad T23 network adapters, one Intel SS4200 server network interface and one HP Jetdirect card to lightning strikes. The damage always came from the telephone line and was carried through the wired network to the victims. Nothing ever happened to any wireless device, ever.
After the first time I'd have the run RJ11 through an APC UPS....Actually, no, when I had DSL I ran it through the UPS before all of my wired shit got toasted...which it never did.
The problem is that such granular permissions are too complex for most users to understand. It's not such a good security model. Think about how endless permission messages on Vista lead to people blindly clicking "OK" all the time. Think about how parents were quickly trained by their kids to enter their PIN every time the iPad required it to play some game.
Permissions are a very hard problem to solve, but I think the Android way of presenting them all up front at a high level does at least make it easy and most importantly very low time/irritation cost for the user to check them. Most people seem to be cottoning on to the fact that flashlight apps don't need network or phone access. Maybe power users could have a box to tick for extended granular permissions, but of course such users can get them via an app because they already have root.
Actually, you make a good argument in favor of Apple's "walled garden" where they do the complex assessments, and the user is presented only with something as simple as "Do you want to allow LinkedIn to access your contacts?"
I do hope they resolve the problem and keep going. It would be such an embarassment to China to have it fail on it's first night out.
You can make all the jokes you want about "Cheap Chinese Crap" you want, but you know as well as I do that when it comes to stuff that isn't intended for the dollar store sale bins, China can make as good a piece of hardware as anyone else. They wouldn't have made it to the moon in the first place if their rocket had been built with toy-maker electronics instead of mil-spec.
Or if they hadn't raided the US aerospace industry with APTs.
I'm curious what made in USA piece of electronics you're using to write that comment ...
How about a Lenovo on its 3rd motherboard?
Maybe we should just use "hear here", just to cover all of our bases.
Their, there, now.
More Made in China crap.
Buying an andriod phone doesn't really mean supporting google.
Yeah, it does. You then get fully monetized by the Google ad collective even mores than non-Android users. TAANSTAFL.