The least the producers of the Big Bang Theory could have done is to pay some decent fees to the museum and written an episode to place inside the museum. Those cheapskates just had one scene outside in the bus stop and a stuffed toy from the museum.
It is possible (however unlikely it may be), that they tried to film on location and they would not grant them access for some reason other than financial reasons. I am sure there are all sorts of restrictions and limitations on what they allow, and perhaps that was the issue instead of money? Who knows.
Given how easily it would be to get away with the theft of anonymous cryptocurrency, I am surprised there aren't far more 'hacks' where exchanges rob all they can from their customers then close up shop. I know it has happened in China on much smaller scales, and I'm sure it will happen many more times, the question is who can you possibly trust with something that can be so easily disappeared.
Thank you for sharing my retirement strategy with all of Slashdot you unselfish bastard. Now my plan will never work.
It's like how the fund the schools here with property tax. They don't do that to be fair. They do it so the rich don't have to pay for the poor's educations.
I'm confused by this statement. In theory a rich person has a nicer house than a poor person. So the rich person pays higher property tax than the poor person. If the rich person is paying a higher tax, then aren't they helping to subsidize the education of the less fortunate? Now if the rich person lives a frugal lifestyle and lives in the same standard of housing as a poor person, then your argument makes some sense. Now since property tax is often assessed at a county level, this may mean that rich people live in their own county and the poor live in another county. Then it may make sense as well. But on its face, your argument seems backwards.
I'm pretty sure it's my mother. Ages ago, I had supper with Linus Torvalds and although he's not that tall, he's at least 20cm taller than my mother.:)
My guess is you have no clue about how US taxation works. Here is a hint, if you are a US citizen and live abroad only the first $90k of your income is tax-exempt, and then only if you spend more than 330 days outside the country in any given 365 day period. So yeah, at least in terms of income that simply doesn't work.
I understand how the US tax system works. However, you can become a citizen of another country and not have to pay US income tax. Do you really think that its hard to get a visa to visit the US when you can afford a G7?
See, people are too stupid to realize a bus with 60 people that gets defunded means there are now 60 more cars crammed onto the same failed underfunded highway infrastructure.
A 5 percent reduction in transit funding results in a 30 percent increase in traffic congestion and a 25-50 percent increase in commute times.
Penny-wise.
Pound-foolish.
That probably depends on where you're from. In my neck of the woods only the uber poor take mass transit. Those 60 people end up loosing their jobs rather than driving a car to work. That mostly has to do with the fact that the area has one of the worst transit systems I have seen in my life. They use a spoke configuration and everyone must go into downtown to get to their destination (unless they happen to be traveling to a destination that is on their line between their home and downtown).
He said return the rates to the 1950's. I don't know what the middle class rate would have been back then but I don't think it was all that dissimilar from the rates today. The top tax rate, however, was massively higher, like between 80 and 90 percent for income over (I think) $150,000. I assume this is what the GP was posting about.
Of course the "job creators" (praise be upon them) will say that this will destroy jobs since we are taking money away from them that they could be investing instead. This is true to some degree, however there is another competing effect that they seldom mention. If your marginal tax rate is 90% on income you have very little incentive to take your pay as income. Instead you are far more likely to either leave that money in the business you own allowing the business to grow, or you are likely to take your "pay" as stock in the company, giving you a strong incentive to see the company viable in the long term.
Of course the rich never tell you about this second effect because it goes against the argument of letting them take home millions of dollars in direct pay. I don't really know which of these two effects are stronger, but looking at only one whilst ignoring the other is a pretty lopsided argument. If they are so concerned about encouraging investment from the wealthy they should be advocating for an increase in the top income tax bracket and a decrease of the capital gains tax. They spend plenty of time arguing for lower capital gains but somehow forget the higher income tax, funny how that works.
-AndrewBuck
It's a lot easier for executives and ultra-rich people to leave your country, too. With internet communications and a Gulfstream 7, I could live in a tax haven in the Caribbean and fly back to the US any time I want. That's probably much more attractive to a billionaire than paying even a 50% tax on his money.
companies are starting to get smart and letting their employees work from home.
Yes. Why should I hire someone to commute from across town, when I can reduce congestion and hire someone to work from their home in Bangalore.
It's true -- if it's easy to do your job from home because you don't need regular interaction with your coworkers, it's probably also easy to offshore it.
Not always true. I could easily spend 30-40% of my time working from home, but the other 60% of the time is far more productive in the office than at home. So having local employees that spend 1 or 2 days a week working from home may be far more productive than a whole team in Bangalore.
You can't be prosecuted from inadmissable evidence, but hohoho, you're also not as good at crime as you think. The alternative to completely eliminating parallel construction and surveillance exchange is a situation where NSA analysts happen across evidence of a crime (like the above example) and then can notify no one at all. Is that really an improvement?
That is a huge improvement. The reason you're allowed to see the prosecutors evidence, and the reason you are given the right to face your accusers is to prevent the justice system from being abused. If you have no idea how they obtained evidence, you have no way of trying to discredit the evidence to begin with. The NSA could drop a tip to the DEA that you're smuggling drugs. Only if the NSA planted the drugs in your vehicle before the DEA got that tip and they used a "routine traffic stop" to suggest that they found the drugs by chance then you're screwed. At least if you KNOW that the NSA told the DEA to stop you, then perhaps you have some chance to determine whether someone at the NSA is behaving inappropriately, or may have some sort of grudge or bias that would cause them to seek to harm you through the criminal justice system.
And I don't think you know what "inadmissable" means.
It is evidence which cannot be used to prosecute you. If the only evidence of a crime is inadmissable in court, then you can't be prosecuted much less convicted. The only evidence you have to defend against is the evidence admitted in court.
Any evidence that is generated from inadmissible evidence is then, by its very nature inadmissible. It doesn't matter if they WOULD have found it anyway (there are exceptions, but its up to a judge to decide whether one should be granted, not law enforcement). If they only found it because they had been giving you illegal scrutiny already, then it's not fair. Think about it. Do you realize how many felonies you've committed today? If you've been outside you probably have already commited some. I'll give you a hint: the national average for a US citizen is Three felonies per day. So if you're so confident that this is a good idea, do you want to volunteer to be one of the people convicted of a bullshit felony because someone at the NSA has decided that you're doing something shady that they cannot prove in court?
And I know what inadmissible means - the issue here is using parallel construction to try and make inadmissible evidence admissable.
You can't be prosecuted from inadmissable evidence, but hohoho, you're also not as good at crime as you think. The alternative to completely eliminating parallel construction and surveillance exchange is a situation where NSA analysts happen across evidence of a crime (like the above example) and then can notify no one at all. Is that really an improvement?
That is a huge improvement. The reason you're allowed to see the prosecutors evidence, and the reason you are given the right to face your accusers is to prevent the justice system from being abused. If you have no idea how they obtained evidence, you have no way of trying to discredit the evidence to begin with. The NSA could drop a tip to the DEA that you're smuggling drugs. Only if the NSA planted the drugs in your vehicle before the DEA got that tip and they used a "routine traffic stop" to suggest that they found the drugs by chance then you're screwed. At least if you KNOW that the NSA told the DEA to stop you, then perhaps you have some chance to determine whether someone at the NSA is behaving inappropriately, or may have some sort of grudge or bias that would cause them to seek to harm you through the criminal justice system.
And I don't think you know what "inadmissable" means.
It is evidence which cannot be used to prosecute you. If the only evidence of a crime is inadmissable in court, then you can't be prosecuted much less convicted. The only evidence you have to defend against is the evidence admitted in court.
Any evidence that is generated from inadmissible evidence is then, by its very nature inadmissible. It doesn't matter if they WOULD have found it anyway (there are exceptions, but its up to a judge to decide whether one should be granted, not law enforcement). If they only found it because they had been giving you illegal scrutiny already, then it's not fair. Think about it. Do you realize how many felonies you've committed today? If you've been outside you probably have already commited some. I'll give you a hint: the national average for a US citizen is Three felonies per day. So if you're so confident that this is a good idea, do you want to volunteer to be one of the people convicted of a bullshit felony because someone at the NSA has decided that you're doing something shady that they cannot prove in court?
You can't be prosecuted from inadmissable evidence, but hohoho, you're also not as good at crime as you think. The alternative to completely eliminating parallel construction and surveillance exchange is a situation where NSA analysts happen across evidence of a crime (like the above example) and then can notify no one at all. Is that really an improvement?
That is a huge improvement. The reason you're allowed to see the prosecutors evidence, and the reason you are given the right to face your accusers is to prevent the justice system from being abused. If you have no idea how they obtained evidence, you have no way of trying to discredit the evidence to begin with. The NSA could drop a tip to the DEA that you're smuggling drugs. Only if the NSA planted the drugs in your vehicle before the DEA got that tip and they used a "routine traffic stop" to suggest that they found the drugs by chance then you're screwed. At least if you KNOW that the NSA told the DEA to stop you, then perhaps you have some chance to determine whether someone at the NSA is behaving inappropriately, or may have some sort of grudge or bias that would cause them to seek to harm you through the criminal justice system.
During the Holland Tulip bubble, tulips became worth enormous amounts and some, like a black tulip, were exceedingly. Reportedly, the owner of a black tulip bought what he believed was the only other black tulip in existence for a prodigious sum, and then crushed it with his foot. "HaHa! Now I have the only one!" (only in Danish).
whats.app had absolutely no intellectual property and it would take less than 1 million dollars to produce a polished work-alike. All the Facebook bought was it's customer list, nearly all of which probably already use facebook.
The tulip age has returned again. Pets.com zombies walk the earth.
Facebook did not buy the customer list. They bought the chat history of millions of people. They are going to mine those chat histories and use those to expand the dossiers they have on their users. Also WhatsApp is popular in a lot of countries and markets where Facebook adoption is somewhat low.
Chevron has a sizable industrial accident in a community. They take losses in it (insurance likely covers direct losses) and lose a contractor. I'm sure that wherever damages did occur, Chevron is on the hook and is likely paying up. The nearby residents had zero damages and weren't owed a thing. Chevron is not getting off cheap or abdicating responsibility through a pizza giveaway.
The situation is comparable to having a tall tree in your yard that falls over on your car. You don't owe your neighbor a pizza, but maybe you buy him dinner anyway just for giving him the jitters.
Not that Chevron is off the hook with this pizza, but I was actually impressed that they bought the certificates from a locally owned and operated pizza place and didn't just run out and buy 100 gift cards from Pizza Hut or something. At least they were dumping money into a local business with this ploy.
No, they're looking at your DNS cache. What you read was stupid, and you got worked up and stupid about it, and now you're continuing to be stupid when it has been shown that this is a non-issue.
Gamers are the dumbest people in the world, especially when they think they know how something technical works. There is, in fairness, a small amount of people who have deep knowledge of computers, and who also play video games, but keeping up with tech typically requires a great deal of leisure time spent in study. The more the word "gamer" describes you, the more likely you are to be a semi-literate luser.
Just to recap, your first sentence was misinformation, and the second one is simply false -- it does not follow that tracking one protocol would necessitate tracking others, and even if they were doing real-time monitoring of DNS, which they are not, watching all network traffic would be far too low a SnR to be useful for anything. Play around with wireshark sometime, you will see why. But first stop dragging down our SnR and read the rest of the comments.
How is reading my DNS cache not monitoring my network activity? THey may not have my NIC in promiscuous mode but they now know every local and remote host I have used DNS to connect to. That's none of their business. If they want to make sure I'm not running a cheat program by scanning my memory during the execution of the game, then fine. go for it. I expect that. I don't expect them to be snooping through everything I've done since my DNS cache was last flushed. That's spying, its easily circumvented via proxies and flushing my DNS cache, and there is no reason or excuse for it.
The quote is out of context, and was part of a larger list of users. On its own it does seem negative - here's my full quote:
Metro is a content consumption space. It is designed for casual users who only want to check facebook, view some photos, and maybe post a selfie to instagram. It's designed for your computer illiterate little sister, for grandpas who don't know how to use that computer dofangle thingy, and for mom who just wants to look up apple pie recipes. It's simple, clear, and does one thing (and only one thing) relatively easily.
Went and got my haircut yesterday. When the stylist found out what I do for a living, she asked me about Windows 8 and Metro. She wanted to know how to get rid of it. After 5 minutes of talking, I think that most peoples little sisters are more computer savvy than she was. If your target audience is her, you've missed the boat. I don't know anyone who likes Metro on their desktop.
Can anyone come up with a sensible reason to implement such a thing?
They don't want you to use your own camera for some legal reason but want their own security cameras to work for liability reasons? If you're giving people a tour bus ride around a secure facility, this may be desirable. That's all I've got.
I read that it was monitoring their browsing history. If they are monitoring all of my DNS activity then they are monitoring all of my network activity. Local and WAN. That's even worse.
The app is comparing DNS records with a client-side database of cheat sites, and if it finds a match sending it to Valve's servers for verification & ban-hammer. It's not sending every site you visit, unless the only sites you visit were via DNS records used by cheat developers.
I don't care what it is sending or not sending to Valve. It's still an unnecessary invasion of privacy. In fact, its so easy to circumvent that I have a hard time believing that he is even being honest about why they are looking at the DNS records to begin with. How hard is it to clear my history, browse in Incognito mode, or do all of my cheating on a separate machine or in a VM? Trivial. And in fact, it may incorrectly flag me as a potential cheater anyway. I have looked up exploit information for games. I did not look in order to cheat at the game, but because I kept running into people who were not being busted for cheating and I wanted to know how they were exploiting the game. I was looking for a better way to tell when someone was cheating, not to actually cheat myself. The fact that so many companies are doing anything they can to get your GPS, browsing history, and other metrics from everyone's phones and personal computers is something that needs to be addressed. It's just not reasonable to expect the end user to know what is going on with their private data. It's too easy for an application to steal that info without the user having any idea.
I weekly travel between countries due to my current consultancy work. In my limited experience, the border guards really aren't there waiting for you in arrivals for European or common-wealth countries.
I've been stopped at the border and hassled by a dim border gard. He was clearly trying to catch me in a lie and asked a question about somewhere I was living. He didn't like my (correct) answer and insisted I must be wrong, repeatedly.
I've never had personal details questioned by UK border control.
What the hell are you supposed to say to an obnoxious border guard who won't accept the legal, legitimate truth as an answer?
I wouldn't know, I have yet to encounter it.
Can't tell you how it is from a EU resident perspective, but I definitely get asked about where I am coming from, going to, and sometimes where I am staying when going to the EU from the US and returning to the US from the EU. The US people don't always ask many questions, but sometimes they ask me more as a citizen than the EU guards ask. I probably was hassled the least coming from a certain South American country shortly after 9/11, which is surprising.
The border staff are a national embarrassment, and are wildly, wildly incompetent.
I think they'd happily wave through a man going by the name of "Osama Bin Laden" (OK, he's dead who do we use now for the purpose hyperbole?) carrying a radioactive suitcase and declaring "Allah Akbar" and then hassle some poor American on a work visa for an hour or three.
Actually in my limited experience, the border guards seem to give Americans a really hard time if they've got work visas.
I've been stopped at the border and hassled by a dim border gard. He was clearly trying to catch me in a lie and asked a question about somewhere I was living. He didn't like my (correct) answer and insisted I must be wrong, repeatedly. What the hell are you supposed to say to an obnoxious border guard who won't accept the legal, legitimate truth as an answer?
Gah. The last time I went through LHR was with my aging parents. My mom is diabetic and brought a nutritional supplement with her (Glucerna) to help keep her blood sugar stable on a long flight. We had a layover in LHR and were switching planes. The LHR security people were such dicks to her. They said that there was "no medicinal value" to her dietary supplement and held her at security for over 30 minutes. I was so pissed. And the previous time I went through LHR a baggage handler stole my USED gillete fusion razor blades out of my checked bag. I despise flying through LHR almost as much as I despise TSA in the USA.
Remember when Apple was the company that came out with revolutionary new products and the rest of the industry followed them?
Apparently, now it's Google.
(Oh, and who would trust Steve Jobs' company to make their medical devices? Yes I am speaking both to his general approach to ethics, and the circumstances of his death.)
Hmmm... I thought Creative made the first portable MP3 player. And I know that Apple didn't invent the PC.
I think that;s probably more of a national conspiracy (in the US) than a global conspiracy...
I can't speak for places outside the US because I haven't been there, but I'd bet dollars to pesos that Big Pharma has it's claws in a few more governments than just the US'.
I highly doubt that the pen has anything to do with big pharma. They probably are very inexpensive for the surgical center. But they have so many people skip out on bills and insurance companies try and screw doctors over. My doctor wanted me to try a medical device for some pain I was having. He put it through to the insurance where my copay was going to be $500. The doctor sold it to me for his cost - $90. The reason for the discrepancy? He has to charge the insurance big time $$ just to recoup his $90. He doesn't even try and make a profit on storing the medical device. He does plenty of other things that are far more lucrative for him. It's just a huge hassle and drain on him to deal with the insurance.
do well enough in school that one of those Ivy League schools offers you an all expenses paid trip to the good life.
Ivy League schools offer neither academic nor athletic scholarships.
Correct. But they do offer need based aid. If you're poor, and can't afford it, and you're an amazing scholar, they will make sure you can afford to go.
Slashdot Mirror
The least the producers of the Big Bang Theory could have done is to pay some decent fees to the museum and written an episode to place inside the museum. Those cheapskates just had one scene outside in the bus stop and a stuffed toy from the museum.
It is possible (however unlikely it may be), that they tried to film on location and they would not grant them access for some reason other than financial reasons. I am sure there are all sorts of restrictions and limitations on what they allow, and perhaps that was the issue instead of money? Who knows.
Given how easily it would be to get away with the theft of anonymous cryptocurrency, I am surprised there aren't far more 'hacks' where exchanges rob all they can from their customers then close up shop. I know it has happened in China on much smaller scales, and I'm sure it will happen many more times, the question is who can you possibly trust with something that can be so easily disappeared.
Thank you for sharing my retirement strategy with all of Slashdot you unselfish bastard. Now my plan will never work.
It's like how the fund the schools here with property tax. They don't do that to be fair. They do it so the rich don't have to pay for the poor's educations.
I'm confused by this statement. In theory a rich person has a nicer house than a poor person. So the rich person pays higher property tax than the poor person. If the rich person is paying a higher tax, then aren't they helping to subsidize the education of the less fortunate? Now if the rich person lives a frugal lifestyle and lives in the same standard of housing as a poor person, then your argument makes some sense. Now since property tax is often assessed at a county level, this may mean that rich people live in their own county and the poor live in another county. Then it may make sense as well. But on its face, your argument seems backwards.
I'm pretty sure it's my mother. Ages ago, I had supper with Linus Torvalds and although he's not that tall, he's at least 20cm taller than my mother. :)
He lost the 20cm due to osteoporosis. ;)
My guess is you have no clue about how US taxation works. Here is a hint, if you are a US citizen and live abroad only the first $90k of your income is tax-exempt, and then only if you spend more than 330 days outside the country in any given 365 day period. So yeah, at least in terms of income that simply doesn't work.
I understand how the US tax system works. However, you can become a citizen of another country and not have to pay US income tax. Do you really think that its hard to get a visa to visit the US when you can afford a G7?
See, people are too stupid to realize a bus with 60 people that gets defunded means there are now 60 more cars crammed onto the same failed underfunded highway infrastructure.
A 5 percent reduction in transit funding results in a 30 percent increase in traffic congestion and a 25-50 percent increase in commute times.
Penny-wise.
Pound-foolish.
That probably depends on where you're from. In my neck of the woods only the uber poor take mass transit. Those 60 people end up loosing their jobs rather than driving a car to work. That mostly has to do with the fact that the area has one of the worst transit systems I have seen in my life. They use a spoke configuration and everyone must go into downtown to get to their destination (unless they happen to be traveling to a destination that is on their line between their home and downtown).
He said return the rates to the 1950's. I don't know what the middle class rate would have been back then but I don't think it was all that dissimilar from the rates today. The top tax rate, however, was massively higher, like between 80 and 90 percent for income over (I think) $150,000. I assume this is what the GP was posting about.
Of course the "job creators" (praise be upon them) will say that this will destroy jobs since we are taking money away from them that they could be investing instead. This is true to some degree, however there is another competing effect that they seldom mention. If your marginal tax rate is 90% on income you have very little incentive to take your pay as income. Instead you are far more likely to either leave that money in the business you own allowing the business to grow, or you are likely to take your "pay" as stock in the company, giving you a strong incentive to see the company viable in the long term.
Of course the rich never tell you about this second effect because it goes against the argument of letting them take home millions of dollars in direct pay. I don't really know which of these two effects are stronger, but looking at only one whilst ignoring the other is a pretty lopsided argument. If they are so concerned about encouraging investment from the wealthy they should be advocating for an increase in the top income tax bracket and a decrease of the capital gains tax. They spend plenty of time arguing for lower capital gains but somehow forget the higher income tax, funny how that works.
-AndrewBuck
It's a lot easier for executives and ultra-rich people to leave your country, too. With internet communications and a Gulfstream 7, I could live in a tax haven in the Caribbean and fly back to the US any time I want. That's probably much more attractive to a billionaire than paying even a 50% tax on his money.
companies are starting to get smart and letting their employees work from home.
Yes. Why should I hire someone to commute from across town, when I can reduce congestion and hire someone to work from their home in Bangalore.
It's true -- if it's easy to do your job from home because you don't need regular interaction with your coworkers, it's probably also easy to offshore it.
Not always true. I could easily spend 30-40% of my time working from home, but the other 60% of the time is far more productive in the office than at home. So having local employees that spend 1 or 2 days a week working from home may be far more productive than a whole team in Bangalore.
You can't be prosecuted from inadmissable evidence, but hohoho, you're also not as good at crime as you think. The alternative to completely eliminating parallel construction and surveillance exchange is a situation where NSA analysts happen across evidence of a crime (like the above example) and then can notify no one at all. Is that really an improvement?
That is a huge improvement. The reason you're allowed to see the prosecutors evidence, and the reason you are given the right to face your accusers is to prevent the justice system from being abused. If you have no idea how they obtained evidence, you have no way of trying to discredit the evidence to begin with. The NSA could drop a tip to the DEA that you're smuggling drugs. Only if the NSA planted the drugs in your vehicle before the DEA got that tip and they used a "routine traffic stop" to suggest that they found the drugs by chance then you're screwed. At least if you KNOW that the NSA told the DEA to stop you, then perhaps you have some chance to determine whether someone at the NSA is behaving inappropriately, or may have some sort of grudge or bias that would cause them to seek to harm you through the criminal justice system.
And I don't think you know what "inadmissable" means.
It is evidence which cannot be used to prosecute you. If the only evidence of a crime is inadmissable in court, then you can't be prosecuted much less convicted. The only evidence you have to defend against is the evidence admitted in court.
Any evidence that is generated from inadmissible evidence is then, by its very nature inadmissible. It doesn't matter if they WOULD have found it anyway (there are exceptions, but its up to a judge to decide whether one should be granted, not law enforcement). If they only found it because they had been giving you illegal scrutiny already, then it's not fair. Think about it. Do you realize how many felonies you've committed today? If you've been outside you probably have already commited some. I'll give you a hint: the national average for a US citizen is Three felonies per day. So if you're so confident that this is a good idea, do you want to volunteer to be one of the people convicted of a bullshit felony because someone at the NSA has decided that you're doing something shady that they cannot prove in court?
And I know what inadmissible means - the issue here is using parallel construction to try and make inadmissible evidence admissable.
You can't be prosecuted from inadmissable evidence, but hohoho, you're also not as good at crime as you think. The alternative to completely eliminating parallel construction and surveillance exchange is a situation where NSA analysts happen across evidence of a crime (like the above example) and then can notify no one at all. Is that really an improvement?
That is a huge improvement. The reason you're allowed to see the prosecutors evidence, and the reason you are given the right to face your accusers is to prevent the justice system from being abused. If you have no idea how they obtained evidence, you have no way of trying to discredit the evidence to begin with. The NSA could drop a tip to the DEA that you're smuggling drugs. Only if the NSA planted the drugs in your vehicle before the DEA got that tip and they used a "routine traffic stop" to suggest that they found the drugs by chance then you're screwed. At least if you KNOW that the NSA told the DEA to stop you, then perhaps you have some chance to determine whether someone at the NSA is behaving inappropriately, or may have some sort of grudge or bias that would cause them to seek to harm you through the criminal justice system.
And I don't think you know what "inadmissable" means.
It is evidence which cannot be used to prosecute you. If the only evidence of a crime is inadmissable in court, then you can't be prosecuted much less convicted. The only evidence you have to defend against is the evidence admitted in court.
Any evidence that is generated from inadmissible evidence is then, by its very nature inadmissible. It doesn't matter if they WOULD have found it anyway (there are exceptions, but its up to a judge to decide whether one should be granted, not law enforcement). If they only found it because they had been giving you illegal scrutiny already, then it's not fair. Think about it. Do you realize how many felonies you've committed today? If you've been outside you probably have already commited some. I'll give you a hint: the national average for a US citizen is Three felonies per day. So if you're so confident that this is a good idea, do you want to volunteer to be one of the people convicted of a bullshit felony because someone at the NSA has decided that you're doing something shady that they cannot prove in court?
You can't be prosecuted from inadmissable evidence, but hohoho, you're also not as good at crime as you think. The alternative to completely eliminating parallel construction and surveillance exchange is a situation where NSA analysts happen across evidence of a crime (like the above example) and then can notify no one at all. Is that really an improvement?
That is a huge improvement. The reason you're allowed to see the prosecutors evidence, and the reason you are given the right to face your accusers is to prevent the justice system from being abused. If you have no idea how they obtained evidence, you have no way of trying to discredit the evidence to begin with. The NSA could drop a tip to the DEA that you're smuggling drugs. Only if the NSA planted the drugs in your vehicle before the DEA got that tip and they used a "routine traffic stop" to suggest that they found the drugs by chance then you're screwed. At least if you KNOW that the NSA told the DEA to stop you, then perhaps you have some chance to determine whether someone at the NSA is behaving inappropriately, or may have some sort of grudge or bias that would cause them to seek to harm you through the criminal justice system.
During the Holland Tulip bubble, tulips became worth enormous amounts and some, like a black tulip, were exceedingly. Reportedly, the owner of a black tulip bought what he believed was the only other black tulip in existence for a prodigious sum, and then crushed it with his foot. "HaHa! Now I have the only one!" (only in Danish).
whats.app had absolutely no intellectual property and it would take less than 1 million dollars to produce a polished work-alike. All the Facebook bought was it's customer list, nearly all of which probably already use facebook.
The tulip age has returned again. Pets.com zombies walk the earth.
Facebook did not buy the customer list. They bought the chat history of millions of people. They are going to mine those chat histories and use those to expand the dossiers they have on their users. Also WhatsApp is popular in a lot of countries and markets where Facebook adoption is somewhat low.
Chevron has a sizable industrial accident in a community. They take losses in it (insurance likely covers direct losses) and lose a contractor. I'm sure that wherever damages did occur, Chevron is on the hook and is likely paying up. The nearby residents had zero damages and weren't owed a thing. Chevron is not getting off cheap or abdicating responsibility through a pizza giveaway.
The situation is comparable to having a tall tree in your yard that falls over on your car. You don't owe your neighbor a pizza, but maybe you buy him dinner anyway just for giving him the jitters.
Not that Chevron is off the hook with this pizza, but I was actually impressed that they bought the certificates from a locally owned and operated pizza place and didn't just run out and buy 100 gift cards from Pizza Hut or something. At least they were dumping money into a local business with this ploy.
D: D: D: OH NOES THE SKYNET IS FALLING!
No, they're looking at your DNS cache. What you read was stupid, and you got worked up and stupid about it, and now you're continuing to be stupid when it has been shown that this is a non-issue.
Gamers are the dumbest people in the world, especially when they think they know how something technical works. There is, in fairness, a small amount of people who have deep knowledge of computers, and who also play video games, but keeping up with tech typically requires a great deal of leisure time spent in study. The more the word "gamer" describes you, the more likely you are to be a semi-literate luser.
Just to recap, your first sentence was misinformation, and the second one is simply false -- it does not follow that tracking one protocol would necessitate tracking others, and even if they were doing real-time monitoring of DNS, which they are not, watching all network traffic would be far too low a SnR to be useful for anything. Play around with wireshark sometime, you will see why. But first stop dragging down our SnR and read the rest of the comments.
How is reading my DNS cache not monitoring my network activity? THey may not have my NIC in promiscuous mode but they now know every local and remote host I have used DNS to connect to. That's none of their business. If they want to make sure I'm not running a cheat program by scanning my memory during the execution of the game, then fine. go for it. I expect that. I don't expect them to be snooping through everything I've done since my DNS cache was last flushed. That's spying, its easily circumvented via proxies and flushing my DNS cache, and there is no reason or excuse for it.
The quote is out of context, and was part of a larger list of users. On its own it does seem negative - here's my full quote: Metro is a content consumption space. It is designed for casual users who only want to check facebook, view some photos, and maybe post a selfie to instagram. It's designed for your computer illiterate little sister, for grandpas who don't know how to use that computer dofangle thingy, and for mom who just wants to look up apple pie recipes. It's simple, clear, and does one thing (and only one thing) relatively easily.
Went and got my haircut yesterday. When the stylist found out what I do for a living, she asked me about Windows 8 and Metro. She wanted to know how to get rid of it. After 5 minutes of talking, I think that most peoples little sisters are more computer savvy than she was. If your target audience is her, you've missed the boat. I don't know anyone who likes Metro on their desktop.
Can anyone come up with a sensible reason to implement such a thing?
They don't want you to use your own camera for some legal reason but want their own security cameras to work for liability reasons? If you're giving people a tour bus ride around a secure facility, this may be desirable. That's all I've got.
So in other words they are monitoring all of my network activity. That's even worse. But I thought the article said browsing history.
I read that it was monitoring their browsing history. If they are monitoring all of my DNS activity then they are monitoring all of my network activity. Local and WAN. That's even worse.
The app is comparing DNS records with a client-side database of cheat sites, and if it finds a match sending it to Valve's servers for verification & ban-hammer. It's not sending every site you visit, unless the only sites you visit were via DNS records used by cheat developers.
I don't care what it is sending or not sending to Valve. It's still an unnecessary invasion of privacy. In fact, its so easy to circumvent that I have a hard time believing that he is even being honest about why they are looking at the DNS records to begin with. How hard is it to clear my history, browse in Incognito mode, or do all of my cheating on a separate machine or in a VM? Trivial. And in fact, it may incorrectly flag me as a potential cheater anyway. I have looked up exploit information for games. I did not look in order to cheat at the game, but because I kept running into people who were not being busted for cheating and I wanted to know how they were exploiting the game. I was looking for a better way to tell when someone was cheating, not to actually cheat myself. The fact that so many companies are doing anything they can to get your GPS, browsing history, and other metrics from everyone's phones and personal computers is something that needs to be addressed. It's just not reasonable to expect the end user to know what is going on with their private data. It's too easy for an application to steal that info without the user having any idea.
I'm British.
I weekly travel between countries due to my current consultancy work. In my limited experience, the border guards really aren't there waiting for you in arrivals for European or common-wealth countries.
I've never had personal details questioned by UK border control.
I wouldn't know, I have yet to encounter it.
Can't tell you how it is from a EU resident perspective, but I definitely get asked about where I am coming from, going to, and sometimes where I am staying when going to the EU from the US and returning to the US from the EU. The US people don't always ask many questions, but sometimes they ask me more as a citizen than the EU guards ask. I probably was hassled the least coming from a certain South American country shortly after 9/11, which is surprising.
I'm British.
The border staff are a national embarrassment, and are wildly, wildly incompetent.
I think they'd happily wave through a man going by the name of "Osama Bin Laden" (OK, he's dead who do we use now for the purpose hyperbole?) carrying a radioactive suitcase and declaring "Allah Akbar" and then hassle some poor American on a work visa for an hour or three.
Actually in my limited experience, the border guards seem to give Americans a really hard time if they've got work visas.
I've been stopped at the border and hassled by a dim border gard. He was clearly trying to catch me in a lie and asked a question about somewhere I was living. He didn't like my (correct) answer and insisted I must be wrong, repeatedly. What the hell are you supposed to say to an obnoxious border guard who won't accept the legal, legitimate truth as an answer?
Gah. The last time I went through LHR was with my aging parents. My mom is diabetic and brought a nutritional supplement with her (Glucerna) to help keep her blood sugar stable on a long flight. We had a layover in LHR and were switching planes. The LHR security people were such dicks to her. They said that there was "no medicinal value" to her dietary supplement and held her at security for over 30 minutes. I was so pissed. And the previous time I went through LHR a baggage handler stole my USED gillete fusion razor blades out of my checked bag. I despise flying through LHR almost as much as I despise TSA in the USA.
Remember when Apple was the company that came out with revolutionary new products and the rest of the industry followed them?
Apparently, now it's Google.
(Oh, and who would trust Steve Jobs' company to make their medical devices? Yes I am speaking both to his general approach to ethics, and the circumstances of his death.)
Hmmm... I thought Creative made the first portable MP3 player. And I know that Apple didn't invent the PC.
I think that;s probably more of a national conspiracy (in the US) than a global conspiracy...
I can't speak for places outside the US because I haven't been there, but I'd bet dollars to pesos that Big Pharma has it's claws in a few more governments than just the US'.
I highly doubt that the pen has anything to do with big pharma. They probably are very inexpensive for the surgical center. But they have so many people skip out on bills and insurance companies try and screw doctors over. My doctor wanted me to try a medical device for some pain I was having. He put it through to the insurance where my copay was going to be $500. The doctor sold it to me for his cost - $90. The reason for the discrepancy? He has to charge the insurance big time $$ just to recoup his $90. He doesn't even try and make a profit on storing the medical device. He does plenty of other things that are far more lucrative for him. It's just a huge hassle and drain on him to deal with the insurance.
These insensitive clods think I live under a rock! That's not true! I live under my mother's living room. And I had no idea this was being filmed.
Ivy League schools offer neither academic nor athletic scholarships.
Correct. But they do offer need based aid. If you're poor, and can't afford it, and you're an amazing scholar, they will make sure you can afford to go.