IOr maybe, if I have to skirt the issue, a "working girl/guy".
Dishonest politicians that will sell their services to the highest bidder despite the fact their job requires that they serve their constituents - that'll do nicely. Or scum.
There are all sorts of people who sell their services. Some have absolutely no scruples about what they sell - or to whom. Some lobbyists are scum. And some marketers. Some prostitutes are scum?
Prostitute is a term that gets it's negative connotations from the dishonest and morally bankrupted self-righteous who like to blame people who sell their sexual services for the guilt their own desires brings them. And to perpetuate the myth that when the sex part of the brain wants something that they believe is wrong, they can act on those desires and dishonestly dodge the responsibility - because it's not the fault of the person the who owns the brain. (quick cover the table legs or grandpa will hump the table, no, grandpa needs a smack on the peepee with a birch).
It's not a difference that I would rely on; but there likely are some differences: it's typically easiest to get some sort of cross-site-scripting malice to work,
In which case your passwords are toast no matter whether you typed them in by hand or they were injected by a password manager.
less easy but far too common to escape from the browser and poke around with the user's permissions,
Do you have a citation for this common occurrence?
I can't seem to find one - though I only did a quick google and a search though the last decade of email from the Full Disclosure mailing list.
Also could you expand on how such an exploit would not be able to result in key logging that also result in a typed password being captured?
more difficult again to escalate privileges above the user's context; and potentially quite tricky to get a kernel driver in without either compromising some vaguely respectable OEM or mucking with the system's certificate store.
I agree with what made sense. You lost me with the "vaguely respectable OEM" bit. Could you expand on that please. I can be a bit thick.
Mechanisms that touch the browser too closely will probably fall to a good XSS exploit, basic browser-stores-passwords arrangements should fall over with nothing more than your security level
Sound good - a bit theoretical. How does that get past a passphrase and encrypted password storage?
; actually getting a keylogger, especially a persistent one, in there should be more demanding.
I'd disagree there - if I have that much access I can download what I need - if I'm too lazy to use what's already on the system.
I think the concern is that if your computer gets taken over, the criminal can just automatically scan the password logs for all your browsers and you're toast.
I agree - that probably is the concern. I don't believe that's a legitimate concern. It definitely is a concern that it's expressed so vehemently with no supporting reasons. It may not be a troll, but it is as ugly as one.
Consider that password managers come with a capacity for a passphrase for a reason? (those passwords are not stored in plain text)
[citation required] Which computers use a password log? If some computers have a password log - how will keeping your passwords on scraps of paper protect you? i.e. are you talking of a computer where the authentication system is optical and you show the paper with you password on it? If so - what is that computer, it sounds interesting.
Consider that if someone has physical access to your computer it's game over?
Consider also that if someone has remote access to your computer they can also; elevate their privileges and negate the need for a password theoretically obtainable from a password log; they can install spyware - which will circumnavigate any password storage method (physical or electronic); that they've already breached your security - statistically those that write passwords down make other security mistakes e.g. resusing passwords or using poor passwords due to the difficulties in re-entering sufficiently complex passwords every time they need to enter them; that having just one password is often enough to start a domino effect resulting in capturing all of the important passwords e.g. if I have the password to your email account I can get many of your other passwords if you don't employ dual authentication systems and that account was used to set up an account, by requesting a password reset; that your email may contain enough personal information to be damaging in itself (I could declare your phone stolen, get the number ported, then get passwords reset the require a code that is sent to your phone; that your address book and information about senders and recipients may allow me to create other problems. (Mum, send me money - I my wallet was stolen etc)
I'm not suggesting you should never write down a password. I'm certainly not suggesting password control on it's own is the basis of BP security - backups, risk management, and OpSec are also critical components. All of which must be employed.
Broad brush approaches to security are doomed to failure. There is no single security practise e.g. writing passwords on paper in code, or using a password safe that solves all security problems. Writing all your passwords down is definitely less secure than using a password manager. If what you are trying to secure is important enough not to trust to a password manager you should entrust is to several password managers and employ OpSec to segregate the risks across several computers - or don't take the risk.
When it comes to a choice between using passwords or cryptographic keys it's far better to use cryptographic keys.
Well some sites don't want scripts interacting with the password fields. This could be a way to stop some malware from scraping user passwords from input fields.
Which badly designed and administered sites are those? Name and Shame, or just, put your money where your mouth is instead of posting multiple arseclown comments all over/. like your rectum is a source of software security wisdom.
Anyone who uses password managers and believes them to be safe and unable to be broken should not be able to use the Internet. All passwords should be maintained separately and typed in manually.
Do you have a citation for that Mr. Scraps of Bad Security on Paper? or are you just varying your normal MOO trolls.
I'm sure Bruce Scheirer would appreciate your insights into secure code. KeepPass has so many flaws.
Tthe total market value of the largest corporation, even by today's inflated stock-market values, is still far less than the revenue of the United States. Businesses have not grown large enough to co-opt government, not by a long shot.
Woah, calm down and think a little.
The total market value of the largest corporation, even by today's inflated stock-market values, is still far less than the revenue of the United States Government.
You lie, you dodge, and now you suggest I should stop, that I am "emotionally carried away", and that I need to think.
Patently and demonstrably you are an unrepentant liar. You could have claimed a typo. But you didn't. Not hard to recognise your reasons for asking others to back off - you were out on a limb and now you're shifting ground.
If you're trying to make winning argument with critical thinkers don't abuse logic.
The conclusion you're trying to rebut is that corporations can co-opt government. The premise is that corporations can do that when they reach a certain size. Note that premise could mean a plural. You'd have to demonstrate that corporations can't conspire to co-opt the government. So your stance is that their combined revenue doesn't exceed 3.5 trillion. And I'm the one who needs to stop and think?
Your opponents only needs to demonstrate that you're wrong about it just being a simple comparison of total revenue. And you are wrong. Can you see why? Hint; it's a stupid argument, chosen without thought in an emotional moment (!!Onose my gov is not composed of mortals!!). And I'm the one that needs to calm down?
To co-opt a government you don't need to match it's revenue. That is a demonstrated fact.
As an analogy - If I (theoretically) wanted to control a corporation I don't need to match it's revenue - I only need to exert sufficient pressure on it's pain points. If it has a weak board I'd only need to influence a few controlling members. If it was dependant on a small number of clients or suppliers - that's a pain point.
Governments get co-opted all the time - that's a historical fact. If you can't think of any you're not looking very hard.
There's a difference between a buy-out at a price determined by all shareholders and executives, and redirecting a company by external force. The latter is exactly what MPAA has been caught planning. Would it work? Most likely - dickhead lawyers leaving incriminating documents around happens all the time, it's not a measure for determining whether the MPPA couldn't do what they planned. Do note that the MPAA doesn't have the revenue of Google - they don't need to. They can simply use the old "my enemies enemy is my friend" - as is shown in the email.
There's a pretty big difference between 'distorting' and 'co-opting,' bro.
Having conflated the total revenue with the revenue of the government you now lecture about distortion. And the MPAA still pay you? I guess even they carry baggage - your surname wouldn't be Hood would it? (who's your daddy? bro).
Today, businesses have grown large enough to co-opt government.
Wow, sense of proportion. Tthe total market value of the largest corporation, even by today's inflated stock-market values, is still far less than the revenue of the United States. Businesses have not grown large enough to co-opt government, not by a long shot.
Please don't post when you're still recovering from a serious head injury.
The revenue of the USA is not the revenue of the US government. Not even fucking close. If you don't understand that, or it's relevance - speak to your doctor.
And works best on smart watches made from Unobtainium (the bullshit element).
I could be wrong though, and I invite the creators to email me proof to my mail server, where I'll view their proof via IMAP on Icedove. I'll even ensure I view it in the Rich Text subset of HTML and forward copies in mixed format to other interest testers.
In other news Ted Turner spent his whole day smoking joints instead of just one before breakfast. Jane must of locked him out of the bedroom again.
I've only worn glasses since I was thirty. Two years ago I had to get a second pair for distance. And this year I had to get a third pair for close up.
Posts like yours are a profoundly annoying form of narcissism. You convey no useful information by referencing relative time intervals without a baseline. For all we know you could be 33 or 116.
Insightful.
You read/. anecdotes authored by pseudonyms looking for facts to base your medical opinions on? Your ironic accusation of narcissism is the least of your failings.
I live at 9,000' and apparently high altitude accelerates cataract formation.
Interesting - not something I'd considered. Is that just due to UV levels, air pressure, or some other factor?
I spend most of my time at 890 metres (2,920 ft) so altitude might not be much of a problem. UV levels are high, and I have never worn sunglasses very often. I'm reconsidering the sunglasses now.
While wearing progressives, I had no problem shooting handguns or long arms. Post surgery, handguns are tough to shoot (can see the target, can't see the sights well) and rifles with telescopic sights were no problem.
No handguns at my place. That would be illegal. From what little I've read progressive lenses may ruin my archery if they affect my ability to quickly judge distances. (I'm not certain that I do adjust for distance).
Fox shooting is usually with a Savage 1919 NRA Target rifle (tack hammer). Aperture rear sight, not a problem as I can stop and put on the distance glasses. It's mostly used at the 20 to 90m (65 - 300'). For rabbits I usually walk fast and flush (paddocks) using a recurve bow (instinctive gap). Range is now reduced to 5 to 40 metres (16 - 120') . That's more difficult these days, as I need the midrange glasses so I can clearly watching the ground at near my feet in my peripheral vision (Eastern Browns are very common on my place, and they'll sometimes try and bite if stood on). The distance glasses hurt my eyes if I'm watching the ground all the time.
See? You just brushed it away. If I made an "argument based on logic" you'd have an answer for that too. Because logic is the white man's way of imperialism. No, seriously, I've actually seen this said. Environmentalism and anti-nuclear beliefs aren't anything that can be swayed by logic or reason. There isn't anything that anyone can say that will make you stop believing that nuclear ANYTHING could possibly be good. You're religious, and I'll bet ten dollars you look down on religious people and call them idiots. I can understand why you are, though, because if you actually looked at yourself with logic your belief system would fall apart and you'd have to rethink everything, and humans HATE doing that.
Are you allergic to dictionaries? It's patently obvious you have no understanding of what logic means.
Your premises are false and your arguments invalid.
A premise like "People don't take taxis everyday" is an example of a false premise. You believe you are right, but that's something you never test with critical thinking. Hence your inability to distinguish correlation from causation. Ironically you accuse other of faith based beliefs. All your posts in this thread demonstrate is that: you have no argument (they are fact free, the only argument you present is ad hominem); pure vitriol (there's no logical argument you've made in this thread) - peppered with shouting, is the hallmark of someone who won't examine their own beliefs due to an over-investment in an emotion based judgement. Ironic.
You may be right but you've failed to demonstrate it. Perhaps if you took a few deep breathes you might be able to.
I seriously almost handed them right back in the optical place. The effect was so crazy. My brain had to get used to them, but once it did, loved 'em. I can bring things into focus at any distance. Read a book, use a computer, walk around, and drive all with the same pair. (I did get a single vision computer pair later - more of a luxury; the progressives are fine for the computer but the single vision are just a bit nicer.)
What little I know of progressive lens comes from reading this thread and the wikipedia page. The reaction to first wearing them sounds normal, particularly given your delay in getting glasses.
I notice that in all of your descriptions of risks above, you miss the key ingredient of risk analysis which is probability. That is required in order to have perspective.
And there is not a clear economic benefit to lie about health risks. Rather, there is great political risk, particularly in the aftermath of Fukushima, to be caught in a lie that far outweighs, IMHO, any monetary benefit from selling this relatively small amount of food. In addition, there is ongoing testing and trends, so purposeful manipulation becomes hard to cover up from that standpoint as well. Not to mention the number of eyeballs that are focused on everything that is happening.
I gave examples of why I don't trust government - if you apply those risk assessment to those instances you'd arrive at the conclusion that the Australian government would never take those risks - or the British government (especially the digging up bodies to test the bones for radioactivity after Maralinga). In each case it was inevitable the involved parties would get caught - and they definitely knew that at the time. I also explained my understanding as to why they went ahead and did so anyway.
If performing risk management is part of your job - especially security, then we'll have to agree to professionally disagree. Well established human biases says people will act exactly the opposite from that (as they did in the examples I gave) - it's one of the few areas of game theory I agree with. If people can get away with it for a little while they'll generally consider that an acceptable risk - it's a biased consideration, but it also works - getting caught for something you did a long time ago attracts less anger than getting caught in the act.
BAT shares are still a good investment. So are Union Carbide, Monsato, and Hardies. Not one single banker involved in the poison mortgages has suffered for the crimes.
There is far more at stake than the sale of a paltry amount of food.
Clothes still don't make the person. A smart person will dress in rags to paint his house and a suit to settle a deal.
Clothes cause other people to think of you differently. They don't change you. If they make you think of yourself differently, you might be unsure of who it is you are, and I recommend you seek a qualified mental health professional.
Succinct. I agree. A smart person dresses for environmental protection and effect. The desired effect is likely to be just what they designed it to be (a suit to give leverage in a given situation), rags when they don't want to get good clothes damaged - or they want to deceive, or because they just don't give a fuck about what the viewer thinks (cautious about whose opinion they make themselves a prisoner of).
Clothes don't make the man. Put an idiot in a $1000 suit and you have a well dressed idiot. Clothes make an impression on the viewer - and sometimes, they affect the behaviour of the wearer.
But people are not defined solely by their core attributes, but also by their social relationships. That well-dressed idiot might be attractive enough to make their approval socially valuable to a not-so-attractive genius, who's advice and support in turn boosts their performance above average. So in this way clothes do make the man by partially determining which paths are open for the man to choose.
I sort of agree with you. In the correct sense of the word a genius excels in a number of areas. An idiot not so much.
I can't say I've met any well dressed handsome idiots that have done well, at least in the long term - though I've certainly met some who lost all the money they inherited.
I've met very smart people who've done very well (financially and socially) - like most mortal they're dumb in many areas. The few true geniuses I've met have either been unhappy and unstable, or happy - the latter group aren't what idiots call successful. With the latter type of genius - most idiots tend to say of them, unsurprisingly, stupid things like "I don't understand why they aren't rich and famous"
Those few well-adjusted geniuses I've met tended to keep a low profile.
Perhaps it's all about what defines "success", don't you think?
Actually I was hoping the joke was removed because it was The Funniest Joke in the World in the Monty Python sense, and that it had to be removed since it caused danger to life.
Regrettably that is not the case.
The value of life has gone down. The value of opinions about food trends has gone up. And you're talking about Twitter - they don't have the attention span to get them through a silly walk.
I'm 53, I've been wearing glasses since I was 13 or so and had cataract surgery May '14.
Crap - I'm older than that - I'd never even considered the possibility of cataracts until now. Presbyopia really took me by surprise - I was certain that there was something wrong with my prespriptions when I suddenly needed two pair of glasses. I'd been having to use a screen reader for most of the day for the three or four years prior.
I can't say anything about a partially detached retina, I've never had that problem, talk to an ophthalmologist.
I do (he's a mate). He said "don't get in any more fights" - other than that he gives good advice. I'll ask him about progressive lens next chance I get. I can cope with three sets of glasses most of the time. It was the suddenness of the eyesight decline more than the inconvenience, or the effect on my ability to shoot rabbits and foxes that causes a problem. Until I got the close range set I had to give up reading paper books for almost four years as it was too tiring trying to read a book at a distance and continually move forward to turn pages.
Thanks for the advice - I'll definitely bear it in mind if cataracts occur, though I've no family history of it AFAIK.
Oh - that makes me reassess my opinions. Too late I must kill my self and make more room for the stupid and those intolerant of other view. Or.. bully for them.
Quite likely because they think I am a Rightwinger, a racist and a sexist.
Anyhow, I could rant for hours. I will spare you. I am an asshole. I accept that. Now let's move on to something pertinent.;-)
Apparently I'm rude. That's what you call some who slaps the dick that's shoved in their face instead of stroking it. That and I use too many words - (coz things should be simple). And sarcastic [shrug]
Thanks for a reasonable response - I confess it's not what I expected.
AmiMoJo doesn't say the tests are bullshit - simply that they might be. You, on the other-hand say the test results are accurate.
No, I am not saying they are accurate. I am saying that the insinuation that these tests are not accurate is baseless. Its quite easy to throw out those questions in order to instill doubt, then convenient to hide behind the "might".
I didn't read it as an insinuation - just a reasonable doubt. But that may be my own bias.
The best explanation I know of for the risks associated with exposure to radioactive material is.
When they play the Grand Final in Australian Rules Football the game begins with the large banners with the team logos on field. The teams run through the banner. From a distance the holes aren't apparent - up close they're shredded. Radioactive material has a similar effect on the human body - it punches holes in cells. Enough radiation causes damage the results in cells losing the information necessary to develop - so they simply divide, and divide without purpose. Cancer.
So the problem is cumulative.
I live in a very radioactive environment, Austalia. That's partially natural as the result of being a very old continent/island where once large mountains have eroded over time exposing the heavier metals that precipitated from high pressure solutions pushed up by volcanic activity along the Pacific Rim of Fire - i.e. gold, silver, lead, uranium. Uranium decays to radioactive lead - a soft element that gets moved by water and wind. That wound up being washed into sand banks that became sandstone - the radon gas from houses built of sandstone adds to that cumulative level. Prospectors made use of aboriginal legends of sickness country to determine where uranium deposits were likely to be. That had the added benefit of making mining in those areas simpler as few aboriginal people resided there (but not always - encroachment by settlers changed things).
Radioactive lead and polonium accumulated in coal - coal is burnt and the heavy metal elements are concentrated downwind of the power stations(*2). With corresponding increased cancer rates. The same materials are also concentrated in the waste from iron (and lead) refining - which was then used as a cheap source of fertiliser (as is guano from areas contaminated by fallout from testing areas) - so it gets into the food chain where exposure is far more problematic. Though not as problematic (sort of) as the shorter half-life materials like lead 210 which is water soluble (more of a problem in soft water than hard).
Radioactive materials are also found in crude petroleum - which results in those elements accumulating around routes of high diesel fuel usage. Also with increased cancer rates.
Then you have the British nuclear testing which did spread radioactive material( *1) over far wider areas than what they publicly acknowledged. Even when they were eventually forced to do clean-ups - they were fairly shoddy. The material they removed was packed into 44-gallon drums and then dumped just outside of Sydney Harbour - a big fuck you from the British. There are other sources of radioactive material, a large site where radium was dumped in Adelaide, the same wind borne material the whole world copped from various international test programs and those stupid nuclear earthmoving programs in Alaska. Plutonium from explosions moves around a lot in it's radioactive lifetime.
The first point is that it's not a matter of determining whether the level of radioactivity in food is a problem in it's self - it's whether the level is enough to reach that "tipping point" of the cumulative amount required to do
After Fukushima Japan passed a new law to forbid journalist from reporting anything about it.
While sites like Enenews have been reporting how all the underground water has been polluted near Fukushima.
There are even radioactive hot spots in Tokyo.
And many Japanese are faking the origin of the food so that they could export radioactive food.
The Japanese are fucked.
No more fucked than us Australians. We chose Homebush for the site of the "Green" Olympics because it was so heavily contaminated. Then we got caught lying about the mercury clean up - several times. All so a few companies could make a few fast bucks and the government save money, and face. Mercury - one of the main problems at Homebush, is actually not difficult to clean up, and one company (FineMetals) came up with a process to make it profitable - but instead it was decided to pay (buddy deal for Thiess) to have some of it dug up and dumped elsewhere.
The dioxin problem was kept fairly hidden until after the Olympics.
Actually, you simply can't explain it. There are many possible failure modes, we could list them all, but you fail to explain what information you have to indicate this particular failure occurred or is likely to occur. To do so would require you to put for the details of actual testing process, the peripheral checks in place, etc.
AmiMoJo doesn't say the tests are bullshit - simply that they might be. You, on the other-hand say the test results are accurate. Conflating a healthy scepticism with outright rejection makes your claims that AmiMoJo is biased, biased.
She's correct - there are non-zero risks, and reasons why the results might be biased. Those are facts.
She may be wrong about it "probably being safe". That's an opinion.
If you are seriously proposing that governments don't fudge facts you need a reality check. If you were an "anti-nuclear activist" you'd still need a reality check. Those are facts.
This is the same government that recently lowered the limits from 500bq for rice to 100bq. The limits for milk is 50, and water 10. Just because bananas have higher levels doesn't make them unsafe - neither does it make lower levels safe. If you believe otherwise I've got some land to sell you at Wallatinna - great for growing vegetables, well outside the restricted zones at Woomera, Maralinga, and Emu Field. Background levels are lower than 100bq, all the caesium and strontium is long gone - it's just a light dusting of plutonium left, as long as you don't breathe the dust you'll be fine. Trust me - it barely moves in water so your food will be safe. Well maybe the odd atom. But that won't do someone with your convictions any harm - the average bq will be well below that of a banana. If that does bother you try Oodnadatta - even lower levels. And if it's the half-life that bothers you try a little pulonium or lead 210 the waste from the scrubbers at a coal powered power station in Victoria - that won't even register on a geiger counter (though it will show if you rub it on an exposure metering badge). I'll handle the stuff (and have when prospecting around an old refinery) - but I know better than to allow even a few atoms inside my body.
Would I eat the food from Fukushima? Maybe the rice. Root vegetable and fungi? Only if each item I ate had been checked - not just the pallet. And I'm not an "anti-nuclear activist". I own a farm, and I've worked for a company that cleaned up contaminated soils - so I know damn well how some things move through soil, and how different plants concentrate them - do you?.
I also know a bit about bio-remediation. Caesium is a bitch to clean up because it's so water soluble. It's concentrated by mycorrhizal fungi, particularly the ones that associate with plant roots. Raise the water table, inoculate barrel clover seed with mycorrhizia, and harvest the barrel clover and you may remove most of the caesium. Better than wasting the land. The solution to contaminated land is not "grow crops and eat them".
I'd certainly avoid any mushrooms grown from that water table - they all accumulate metals to some degree (which is why they're good for remediating metal contaminated soils).
Tests around Chernobyl demonstrated transfer factors of 0060 to 019 for Caesium-137 with cucumbers, radish, tomatoes, and parsley. The soil is quite safe to walk on - the food is not safe to eat.
tl;dr Chernobyl was different, and levels were higher - but the same factor apply - concentration of caesium varies according to the movement of water in the soil and is concentrated by fungi and plants. You're free to put what you want in your mouth.
Slashdot Mirror
IOr maybe, if I have to skirt the issue, a "working girl/guy".
Dishonest politicians that will sell their services to the highest bidder despite the fact their job requires that they serve their constituents - that'll do nicely. Or scum.
There are all sorts of people who sell their services. Some have absolutely no scruples about what they sell - or to whom. Some lobbyists are scum. And some marketers. Some prostitutes are scum?
Prostitute is a term that gets it's negative connotations from the dishonest and morally bankrupted self-righteous who like to blame people who sell their sexual services for the guilt their own desires brings them. And to perpetuate the myth that when the sex part of the brain wants something that they believe is wrong, they can act on those desires and dishonestly dodge the responsibility - because it's not the fault of the person the who owns the brain. (quick cover the table legs or grandpa will hump the table, no, grandpa needs a smack on the peepee with a birch).
It's not a difference that I would rely on; but there likely are some differences: it's typically easiest to get some sort of cross-site-scripting malice to work,
In which case your passwords are toast no matter whether you typed them in by hand or they were injected by a password manager.
less easy but far too common to escape from the browser and poke around with the user's permissions,
Do you have a citation for this common occurrence?
I can't seem to find one - though I only did a quick google and a search though the last decade of email from the Full Disclosure mailing list.
Also could you expand on how such an exploit would not be able to result in key logging that also result in a typed password being captured?
more difficult again to escalate privileges above the user's context; and potentially quite tricky to get a kernel driver in without either compromising some vaguely respectable OEM or mucking with the system's certificate store.
I agree with what made sense. You lost me with the "vaguely respectable OEM" bit. Could you expand on that please. I can be a bit thick.
Mechanisms that touch the browser too closely will probably fall to a good XSS exploit, basic browser-stores-passwords arrangements should fall over with nothing more than your security level
Sound good - a bit theoretical. How does that get past a passphrase and encrypted password storage?
; actually getting a keylogger, especially a persistent one, in there should be more demanding.
I'd disagree there - if I have that much access I can download what I need - if I'm too lazy to use what's already on the system.
This is only if you allow passwords to be saved in your browser...
Which browsers does not allow passphrase protection of the password manager?
I think the concern is that if your computer gets taken over, the criminal can just automatically scan the password logs for all your browsers and you're toast.
I agree - that probably is the concern. I don't believe that's a legitimate concern. It definitely is a concern that it's expressed so vehemently with no supporting reasons. It may not be a troll, but it is as ugly as one.
I'm not suggesting you should never write down a password.
I'm certainly not suggesting password control on it's own is the basis of BP security - backups, risk management, and OpSec are also critical components. All of which must be employed.
Broad brush approaches to security are doomed to failure. There is no single security practise e.g. writing passwords on paper in code, or using a password safe that solves all security problems. Writing all your passwords down is definitely less secure than using a password manager. If what you are trying to secure is important enough not to trust to a password manager you should entrust is to several password managers and employ OpSec to segregate the risks across several computers - or don't take the risk.
When it comes to a choice between using passwords or cryptographic keys it's far better to use cryptographic keys.
Well some sites don't want scripts interacting with the password fields. This could be a way to stop some malware from scraping user passwords from input fields.
Which badly designed and administered sites are those? Name and Shame, or just, put your money where your mouth is instead of posting multiple arseclown comments all over /. like your rectum is a source of software security wisdom.
Anyone who uses password managers and believes them to be safe and unable to be broken should not be able to use the Internet. All passwords should be maintained separately and typed in manually.
Do you have a citation for that Mr. Scraps of Bad Security on Paper? or are you just varying your normal MOO trolls.
I'm sure Bruce Scheirer would appreciate your insights into secure code. KeepPass has so many flaws.
One work-around - that doesn't work with OpenERP, is a little javascript I use as a bookmarklet.
Tthe total market value of the largest corporation, even by today's inflated stock-market values, is still far less than the revenue of the United States. Businesses have not grown large enough to co-opt government, not by a long shot.
Woah, calm down and think a little. The total market value of the largest corporation, even by today's inflated stock-market values, is still far less than the revenue of the United States Government.
You lie, you dodge, and now you suggest I should stop, that I am "emotionally carried away", and that I need to think.
Patently and demonstrably you are an unrepentant liar. You could have claimed a typo. But you didn't. Not hard to recognise your reasons for asking others to back off - you were out on a limb and now you're shifting ground.
If you're trying to make winning argument with critical thinkers don't abuse logic.
The conclusion you're trying to rebut is that corporations can co-opt government. The premise is that corporations can do that when they reach a certain size. Note that premise could mean a plural.
You'd have to demonstrate that corporations can't conspire to co-opt the government. So your stance is that their combined revenue doesn't exceed 3.5 trillion. And I'm the one who needs to stop and think?
Your opponents only needs to demonstrate that you're wrong about it just being a simple comparison of total revenue. And you are wrong. Can you see why? Hint; it's a stupid argument, chosen without thought in an emotional moment (!!Onose my gov is not composed of mortals!!). And I'm the one that needs to calm down?
To co-opt a government you don't need to match it's revenue. That is a demonstrated fact.
As an analogy - If I (theoretically) wanted to control a corporation I don't need to match it's revenue - I only need to exert sufficient pressure on it's pain points. If it has a weak board I'd only need to influence a few controlling members. If it was dependant on a small number of clients or suppliers - that's a pain point.
Governments get co-opted all the time - that's a historical fact. If you can't think of any you're not looking very hard.
There's a difference between a buy-out at a price determined by all shareholders and executives, and redirecting a company by external force. The latter is exactly what MPAA has been caught planning.
Would it work? Most likely - dickhead lawyers leaving incriminating documents around happens all the time, it's not a measure for determining whether the MPPA couldn't do what they planned. Do note that the MPAA doesn't have the revenue of Google - they don't need to. They can simply use the old "my enemies enemy is my friend" - as is shown in the email.
There's a pretty big difference between 'distorting' and 'co-opting,' bro.
Having conflated the total revenue with the revenue of the government you now lecture about distortion. And the MPAA still pay you? I guess even they carry baggage - your surname wouldn't be Hood would it? (who's your daddy? bro).
Today, businesses have grown large enough to co-opt government.
Wow, sense of proportion. Tthe total market value of the largest corporation, even by today's inflated stock-market values, is still far less than the revenue of the United States. Businesses have not grown large enough to co-opt government, not by a long shot.
Please don't post when you're still recovering from a serious head injury.
The revenue of the USA is not the revenue of the US government. Not even fucking close. If you don't understand that, or it's relevance - speak to your doctor.
And works best on smart watches made from Unobtainium (the bullshit element).
I could be wrong though, and I invite the creators to email me proof to my mail server, where I'll view their proof via IMAP on Icedove. I'll even ensure I view it in the Rich Text subset of HTML and forward copies in mixed format to other interest testers.
In other news Ted Turner spent his whole day smoking joints instead of just one before breakfast. Jane must of locked him out of the bedroom again.
If what you have to say does not fit on a bumper sticker than it doesn't count.
Maybe that should be on a bumper sticker?
In small print, on the rear bumper, of a solid heavy truck with a high, protruding tow bar - at mid-radiator height.
In smaller print below it "tail gating is dangerous"
Just a thought.
Dear coward
I've only worn glasses since I was thirty. Two years ago I had to get a second pair for distance. And this year I had to get a third pair for close up.
Posts like yours are a profoundly annoying form of narcissism. You convey no useful information by referencing relative time intervals without a baseline. For all we know you could be 33 or 116.
Insightful.
You read /. anecdotes authored by pseudonyms looking for facts to base your medical opinions on? Your ironic accusation of narcissism is the least of your failings.
I live at 9,000' and apparently high altitude accelerates cataract formation.
Interesting - not something I'd considered. Is that just due to UV levels, air pressure, or some other factor?
I spend most of my time at 890 metres (2,920 ft) so altitude might not be much of a problem. UV levels are high, and I have never worn sunglasses very often. I'm reconsidering the sunglasses now.
While wearing progressives, I had no problem shooting handguns or long arms. Post surgery, handguns are tough to shoot (can see the target, can't see the sights well) and rifles with telescopic sights were no problem.
No handguns at my place. That would be illegal.
From what little I've read progressive lenses may ruin my archery if they affect my ability to quickly judge distances. (I'm not certain that I do adjust for distance).
Fox shooting is usually with a Savage 1919 NRA Target rifle (tack hammer). Aperture rear sight, not a problem as I can stop and put on the distance glasses. It's mostly used at the 20 to 90m (65 - 300'). For rabbits I usually walk fast and flush (paddocks) using a recurve bow (instinctive gap). Range is now reduced to 5 to 40 metres (16 - 120') . That's more difficult these days, as I need the midrange glasses so I can clearly watching the ground at near my feet in my peripheral vision (Eastern Browns are very common on my place, and they'll sometimes try and bite if stood on). The distance glasses hurt my eyes if I'm watching the ground all the time.
See? You just brushed it away. If I made an "argument based on logic" you'd have an answer for that too. Because logic is the white man's way of imperialism. No, seriously, I've actually seen this said. Environmentalism and anti-nuclear beliefs aren't anything that can be swayed by logic or reason. There isn't anything that anyone can say that will make you stop believing that nuclear ANYTHING could possibly be good. You're religious, and I'll bet ten dollars you look down on religious people and call them idiots. I can understand why you are, though, because if you actually looked at yourself with logic your belief system would fall apart and you'd have to rethink everything, and humans HATE doing that.
Are you allergic to dictionaries? It's patently obvious you have no understanding of what logic means.
Your premises are false and your arguments invalid.
A premise like "People don't take taxis everyday" is an example of a false premise. You believe you are right, but that's something you never test with critical thinking. Hence your inability to distinguish correlation from causation. Ironically you accuse other of faith based beliefs. All your posts in this thread demonstrate is that: you have no argument (they are fact free, the only argument you present is ad hominem); pure vitriol (there's no logical argument you've made in this thread) - peppered with shouting, is the hallmark of someone who won't examine their own beliefs due to an over-investment in an emotion based judgement. Ironic.
You may be right but you've failed to demonstrate it. Perhaps if you took a few deep breathes you might be able to.
I seriously almost handed them right back in the optical place. The effect was so crazy. My brain had to get used to them, but once it did, loved 'em. I can bring things into focus at any distance. Read a book, use a computer, walk around, and drive all with the same pair. (I did get a single vision computer pair later - more of a luxury; the progressives are fine for the computer but the single vision are just a bit nicer.)
What little I know of progressive lens comes from reading this thread and the wikipedia page. The reaction to first wearing them sounds normal, particularly given your delay in getting glasses.
Thanks for the information.
I notice that in all of your descriptions of risks above, you miss the key ingredient of risk analysis which is probability. That is required in order to have perspective. And there is not a clear economic benefit to lie about health risks. Rather, there is great political risk, particularly in the aftermath of Fukushima, to be caught in a lie that far outweighs, IMHO, any monetary benefit from selling this relatively small amount of food. In addition, there is ongoing testing and trends, so purposeful manipulation becomes hard to cover up from that standpoint as well. Not to mention the number of eyeballs that are focused on everything that is happening.
I gave examples of why I don't trust government - if you apply those risk assessment to those instances you'd arrive at the conclusion that the Australian government would never take those risks - or the British government (especially the digging up bodies to test the bones for radioactivity after Maralinga). In each case it was inevitable the involved parties would get caught - and they definitely knew that at the time. I also explained my understanding as to why they went ahead and did so anyway.
If performing risk management is part of your job - especially security, then we'll have to agree to professionally disagree. Well established human biases says people will act exactly the opposite from that (as they did in the examples I gave) - it's one of the few areas of game theory I agree with. If people can get away with it for a little while they'll generally consider that an acceptable risk - it's a biased consideration, but it also works - getting caught for something you did a long time ago attracts less anger than getting caught in the act.
BAT shares are still a good investment. So are Union Carbide, Monsato, and Hardies. Not one single banker involved in the poison mortgages has suffered for the crimes.
There is far more at stake than the sale of a paltry amount of food.
Clothes still don't make the person. A smart person will dress in rags to paint his house and a suit to settle a deal.
Clothes cause other people to think of you differently. They don't change you. If they make you think of yourself differently, you might be unsure of who it is you are, and I recommend you seek a qualified mental health professional.
Succinct. I agree. A smart person dresses for environmental protection and effect. The desired effect is likely to be just what they designed it to be (a suit to give leverage in a given situation), rags when they don't want to get good clothes damaged - or they want to deceive, or because they just don't give a fuck about what the viewer thinks (cautious about whose opinion they make themselves a prisoner of).
But people are not defined solely by their core attributes, but also by their social relationships. That well-dressed idiot might be attractive enough to make their approval socially valuable to a not-so-attractive genius, who's advice and support in turn boosts their performance above average. So in this way clothes do make the man by partially determining which paths are open for the man to choose.
I sort of agree with you. In the correct sense of the word a genius excels in a number of areas. An idiot not so much.
I can't say I've met any well dressed handsome idiots that have done well, at least in the long term - though I've certainly met some who lost all the money they inherited.
I've met very smart people who've done very well (financially and socially) - like most mortal they're dumb in many areas. The few true geniuses I've met have either been unhappy and unstable, or happy - the latter group aren't what idiots call successful. With the latter type of genius - most idiots tend to say of them, unsurprisingly, stupid things like "I don't understand why they aren't rich and famous"
Those few well-adjusted geniuses I've met tended to keep a low profile.
Perhaps it's all about what defines "success", don't you think?
Actually I was hoping the joke was removed because it was The Funniest Joke in the World in the Monty Python sense, and that it had to be removed since it caused danger to life. Regrettably that is not the case.
The value of life has gone down. The value of opinions about food trends has gone up. And you're talking about Twitter - they don't have the attention span to get them through a silly walk.
I'm 53, I've been wearing glasses since I was 13 or so and had cataract surgery May '14.
Crap - I'm older than that - I'd never even considered the possibility of cataracts until now. Presbyopia really took me by surprise - I was certain that there was something wrong with my prespriptions when I suddenly needed two pair of glasses. I'd been having to use a screen reader for most of the day for the three or four years prior.
I can't say anything about a partially detached retina, I've never had that problem, talk to an ophthalmologist.
I do (he's a mate). He said "don't get in any more fights" - other than that he gives good advice. I'll ask him about progressive lens next chance I get. I can cope with three sets of glasses most of the time. It was the suddenness of the eyesight decline more than the inconvenience, or the effect on my ability to shoot rabbits and foxes that causes a problem. Until I got the close range set I had to give up reading paper books for almost four years as it was too tiring trying to read a book at a distance and continually move forward to turn pages.
Thanks for the advice - I'll definitely bear it in mind if cataracts occur, though I've no family history of it AFAIK.
The best part is that we have been modded down.
Oh - that makes me reassess my opinions. Too late I must kill my self and make more room for the stupid and those intolerant of other view. Or.. bully for them.
Quite likely because they think I am a Rightwinger, a racist and a sexist.
Anyhow, I could rant for hours. I will spare you. I am an asshole. I accept that. Now let's move on to something pertinent. ;-)
Apparently I'm rude. That's what you call some who slaps the dick that's shoved in their face instead of stroking it.
That and I use too many words - (coz things should be simple). And sarcastic [shrug]
Thanks for a reasonable response - I confess it's not what I expected.
AmiMoJo doesn't say the tests are bullshit - simply that they might be. You, on the other-hand say the test results are accurate.
No, I am not saying they are accurate. I am saying that the insinuation that these tests are not accurate is baseless. Its quite easy to throw out those questions in order to instill doubt, then convenient to hide behind the "might".
I didn't read it as an insinuation - just a reasonable doubt. But that may be my own bias.
The best explanation I know of for the risks associated with exposure to radioactive material is.
When they play the Grand Final in Australian Rules Football the game begins with the large banners with the team logos on field. The teams run through the banner. From a distance the holes aren't apparent - up close they're shredded. Radioactive material has a similar effect on the human body - it punches holes in cells. Enough radiation causes damage the results in cells losing the information necessary to develop - so they simply divide, and divide without purpose. Cancer.
So the problem is cumulative.
I live in a very radioactive environment, Austalia. That's partially natural as the result of being a very old continent/island where once large mountains have eroded over time exposing the heavier metals that precipitated from high pressure solutions pushed up by volcanic activity along the Pacific Rim of Fire - i.e. gold, silver, lead, uranium. Uranium decays to radioactive lead - a soft element that gets moved by water and wind. That wound up being washed into sand banks that became sandstone - the radon gas from houses built of sandstone adds to that cumulative level.
Prospectors made use of aboriginal legends of sickness country to determine where uranium deposits were likely to be. That had the added benefit of making mining in those areas simpler as few aboriginal people resided there (but not always - encroachment by settlers changed things).
Radioactive lead and polonium accumulated in coal - coal is burnt and the heavy metal elements are concentrated downwind of the power stations(*2). With corresponding increased cancer rates. The same materials are also concentrated in the waste from iron (and lead) refining - which was then used as a cheap source of fertiliser (as is guano from areas contaminated by fallout from testing areas) - so it gets into the food chain where exposure is far more problematic. Though not as problematic (sort of) as the shorter half-life materials like lead 210 which is water soluble (more of a problem in soft water than hard).
Radioactive materials are also found in crude petroleum - which results in those elements accumulating around routes of high diesel fuel usage. Also with increased cancer rates.
Then you have the British nuclear testing which did spread radioactive material(
*1) over far wider areas than what they publicly acknowledged. Even when they were eventually forced to do clean-ups - they were fairly shoddy. The material they removed was packed into 44-gallon drums and then dumped just outside of Sydney Harbour - a big fuck you from the British. There are other sources of radioactive material, a large site where radium was dumped in Adelaide, the same wind borne material the whole world copped from various international test programs and those stupid nuclear earthmoving programs in Alaska. Plutonium from explosions moves around a lot in it's radioactive lifetime.
The first point is that it's not a matter of determining whether the level of radioactivity in food is a problem in it's self - it's whether the level is enough to reach that "tipping point" of the cumulative amount required to do
LOL fucking noob.
After Fukushima Japan passed a new law to forbid journalist from reporting anything about it.
While sites like Enenews have been reporting how all the underground water has been polluted near Fukushima.
There are even radioactive hot spots in Tokyo.
And many Japanese are faking the origin of the food so that they could export radioactive food.
The Japanese are fucked.
No more fucked than us Australians. We chose Homebush for the site of the "Green" Olympics because it was so heavily contaminated. Then we got caught lying about the mercury clean up - several times. All so a few companies could make a few fast bucks and the government save money, and face. Mercury - one of the main problems at Homebush, is actually not difficult to clean up, and one company (FineMetals) came up with a process to make it profitable - but instead it was decided to pay (buddy deal for Thiess) to have some of it dug up and dumped elsewhere.
The dioxin problem was kept fairly hidden until after the Olympics.
Actually, you simply can't explain it. There are many possible failure modes, we could list them all, but you fail to explain what information you have to indicate this particular failure occurred or is likely to occur. To do so would require you to put for the details of actual testing process, the peripheral checks in place, etc.
AmiMoJo doesn't say the tests are bullshit - simply that they might be. You, on the other-hand say the test results are accurate. Conflating a healthy scepticism with outright rejection makes your claims that AmiMoJo is biased, biased.
She's correct - there are non-zero risks, and reasons why the results might be biased. Those are facts.
She may be wrong about it "probably being safe". That's an opinion.
If you are seriously proposing that governments don't fudge facts you need a reality check. If you were an "anti-nuclear activist" you'd still need a reality check. Those are facts.
This is the same government that recently lowered the limits from 500bq for rice to 100bq. The limits for milk is 50, and water 10. Just because bananas have higher levels doesn't make them unsafe - neither does it make lower levels safe. If you believe otherwise I've got some land to sell you at Wallatinna - great for growing vegetables, well outside the restricted zones at Woomera, Maralinga, and Emu Field. Background levels are lower than 100bq, all the caesium and strontium is long gone - it's just a light dusting of plutonium left, as long as you don't breathe the dust you'll be fine. Trust me - it barely moves in water so your food will be safe. Well maybe the odd atom. But that won't do someone with your convictions any harm - the average bq will be well below that of a banana. If that does bother you try Oodnadatta - even lower levels. And if it's the half-life that bothers you try a little pulonium or lead 210 the waste from the scrubbers at a coal powered power station in Victoria - that won't even register on a geiger counter (though it will show if you rub it on an exposure metering badge). I'll handle the stuff (and have when prospecting around an old refinery) - but I know better than to allow even a few atoms inside my body.
Would I eat the food from Fukushima? Maybe the rice. Root vegetable and fungi? Only if each item I ate had been checked - not just the pallet. And I'm not an "anti-nuclear activist". I own a farm, and I've worked for a company that cleaned up contaminated soils - so I know damn well how some things move through soil, and how different plants concentrate them - do you?.
I also know a bit about bio-remediation. Caesium is a bitch to clean up because it's so water soluble. It's concentrated by mycorrhizal fungi, particularly the ones that associate with plant roots. Raise the water table, inoculate barrel clover seed with mycorrhizia, and harvest the barrel clover and you may remove most of the caesium. Better than wasting the land. The solution to contaminated land is not "grow crops and eat them".
I'd certainly avoid any mushrooms grown from that water table - they all accumulate metals to some degree (which is why they're good for remediating metal contaminated soils).
Tests around Chernobyl demonstrated transfer factors of 0060 to 019 for Caesium-137 with cucumbers, radish, tomatoes, and parsley. The soil is quite safe to walk on - the food is not safe to eat.
tl;dr Chernobyl was different, and levels were higher - but the same factor apply - concentration of caesium varies according to the movement of water in the soil and is concentrated by fungi and plants. You're free to put what you want in your mouth.