No support for chip&pin (EMV) yet, so this may have limited utility outside of the USA. They expect to start shipping in summer of 2014."
Considering that all US merchants have to be capable of using EMV[1] by October of 2015, perhaps that two year battery life is about right, because that's all the longer they will be useful. And most merchant services are pushing hard to have everyone capable of taking EMV by the middle of 2014.
Mag strip cards will be around for as long as the current ones out there last, but most new cards being issued now are EMV capable, and very soon, all of them will have to be. Without EMV support, this is, at best, a short term fad. And eventually, mag strip cards will just disappear, and merchants will have no reason to be able to take them.
[1]Technically, not required to stop taking mag strip only, but those who don't become 100% responsible for all fraud, automatically, regardless of the circumstances. As a carrot to go with the stick, those who get EMV up and going are not longer resopnsible for the sometimes pain-in-the-ass (and often expensive for small operations) requirements for PCI compliance.
The people who need them should already have them at all times.
Any other way is asking for problems. Even if the problem is simply 'i forgot the password'.
Or hey. Maybe your employer is a moron.
That was, in fact, exactly the situation Childs' boss was trying to rectifiy. Childs knew it, and refused to turn over passwords to his direct supervisor even when told, in person, by the Mayor, that his supervisor was authorized to have them. He also configured the network to not able to to reboot after a power outage that exceeded the UPS time unless he, personally, was there, and refused to make backups of the configuration.
And keep in mind, the network in question included their 911 system.
The asshole belongs in prison. He had multiple chances to avoid it, including after he was charged. He chose prison rather than allow the situation you describe to end.
Yep. He didn't even just conveniently "forget" the password after he was fired, but apparently set this all up well in advance to intentionally disrupt their business. Dumb move.
As I recall, the "business" involved included their 911 system, didn't it?
It has not been my experience that computer speakers are capable of making sounds much outside the range of human hearing, nor computer micophones capable of picking such sounds up. Maybe he buys comptuers with extremely high end sound equipment, but I'm a bit skeptical that nobody noticed the audio.
Maybe he sniffed a little too much of the magic smoke the virus let out.
Do you know why touch is ultimately bad for desktops? Because it isn't very precise. And now they want to add a system that is even less precise
That's their point, though. The less precise the UI, the less control you have over the computer. And their goal is for you to have no control over your computer whatsoever. That way, the only thing you will be able to do, all day long, is consume their ads. The only way around the ads will be paid for content (which will only reduce the ads, and convert them to paid product placement ads). Eventually, I suspect, they will try to do away with the off switch.
Speaking of false history, Copernicus didn't "prove" heliocenticity. In fact, he only agree to let his work be published on his deathbead because he couldn't prove it.
And as a side note, neither could Galileo, though his use of the telescope was an important piece of the puzzle. But proof wasn't possible until Newton came up with (perhaps invtented, though that's arguable these days, too) calculus (and the idea that planetary orbits aren't perfectly circular).
But yeah, Galileo's real problem with the church was that he was an asshole, and humiliated and pissed off people with powerful friends. He'd have been right at home on the internet, where he would have been a legendary troll.
If you have a phone, as you walk around a shopping center or store will are being tracked.
In less than 0.001% of stores, so far.
Very intrusive: Get served ads to your phone and all devices based on store browsing and the kind of stores. You have no choice to opt out.
I have already opted out. My phone doesn't receive ads. And if they text me, I'll make a scene in the middle of their store about how illegal unsolicited text ads are, in front of their other customers.
Unregulated,the future of consumer exploitation is terrifying.
Only for the weak and the stupid, who have always been terrified of their own shadow. The obnoxiousness of some retailers is why so much business has moved online, where it's far, far easier to control how much advertising you get forced down your throat (and, in fact, it's far easier to simply ignore).
The most fun I've ever had that didn't involve naked women was buying a car. All the power is in the buyer's hands, because cars are fungible. Even if you are utterly, completely committed to a particular model with particular options, there's no reason you have to buy it from a particular salesman, or dealership. They know this, and try desperately to keep you from realizing it. Once they realize you do know it, they realize their choice is not how much commission they'll make, but whether they'll make a small commission or none at all. If you play your cards right, this will happen after they've invested some time in you. In other words, if you're not a complete idiot, it's trivially easy to use their own techniques on them, because the buyer makes the decision.
This applies pretty much everywhere else in life where goods are services are fungible. The person who makes the decision is the preson who makes the decision. Many sellers want something from you, and it's up to you which gets your money.
But you have to a) not be a drooling idiot, and b) not be a pussy, and c) not be a drooling idiot. It also helps if you're not a drooling idiot.
And, BTW, as for the effect of all those drooling idiot pussies on me, I say bring 'em on. The more idiots that buy the wrong car for too much money because the sales drone coerced them in to it, the more complacent the drone will be, and the more easily I can screw him out of his eye teeth. I say this from experience.
I've never found the need for an ad blocker. I don't see them anyway, even when they flashing on the screen. They just get tuned out. I do keep the speakers turned off, though, except when I want the computer to make noise.
The article says "Firms will increasingly be able to trigger irrationality or vulnerability in consumers"
This is not a problem with the firms. This is a problem with the consumers. And these techniques are not new. They've been in use for centuries, by people commonly called "scam artists." And yeah, it's bad for the gullible, but civilization hasn't ended from it, and won't.
And when 'not just the right good, but a customized pitch, delivered late at night, when the company knows you, particularly, have a tendency to make impulse purchases." is the problem, the solution is to go to bed early instead of surfing the internet.
Most people can figure that out on their own.
I predict Mr. Calo will be having a book come out soon, and it will be advertised on the basis of "buy this book or dingos will each your children," and talked about on the 60 minutes, in an episde that will be advertised on the basis of "watch our program or you will die."
Giving notice isn't really about your employer's interests, it's about yours. Even if it will have no impact on your future work life, you know whether or not you were fair to your employer. If that doesn't bother you, given that very few companies give references anyway, do whatever the hell you want.
From an ethical standpoint, compare you deciding to leave to the company deciding to let you go. Is your decision the equivalent of them laying you off? Just a business decision that it's time to make? Most companies will give you at least some notice (even if they're not required to) or at least severance pay. It's only polite to give them notice.
On the other hand, if the company has done something equivalent to a firing offense, where you'd be shown the door and goodbye, then I wouldn't think you owe them much more than telling them you quit, and sign whatever paperwork you have to in order to get whatever payout they owe you.
But again, it's nothing to do with them. It's about what kind of person you choose to be. Someone who would leave an employer in a bind by leaving without notice, under the circumstances, or someone who gives them fair notice because they've given you a decent job. Only you can answer that.
even among scientists in the field, is that personal survival and evolution have something to do with each other. They don't. Evolution is about the propgation of the genetic line, and in the long run, when personal survival conflicts with it, evolution steamrollers it every time.
The selfish individual may increase his personal chances of survival to a ripe old age, but his selfishness may well reduce his chances of passing his genetic line on to another generation.
If the plane takes off anyway after finding a hijacker/bomber trying to get on, the first time, it won't after that until every single passenger has been stripped searched.
Profiling inevitably produces more false (usually an order of magnitude more) positives than real positives, and generally produces as many false negatives as false positivves. In other words, you're a lot more likely to spend your time searching someone for no reason than catch an actual bad guy, and as likely to let a real bad guy through as not.
And that assumes the profiling is done in an objective, unbiased manner. When human decisions are made as to who gets profiled, there will be bias, whether the humans doing it realize it or not. This, at least, eliminates that.
I'll bet, though, without reading TFA, that there is no thought whatsoever of this replacing any current profile based screening, only being used in addition to everything done now.
He's referring to the fact that most defendants jump at the chance to plead guilty in exchange for a reduced sentence. It isn't that 90% of defendents aren't allowed a trial, but rather, they choose not to have one, knowing they'll be found guilty (because they are), and that they'll spend more time in prison that way.
It's the sort of thing you hear from someone who took the plea bargain, but still insists they were innocent.
However, I have also noticed that while the theater's pre-movie warnings used to be friendly, gentle reminders, they've changed to pretty stern warnings making clear that phone usage will not be tolerated and that offenders will be kicked out, not receive a refund, and potentially be asked never to return. So there has obviously been enough trouble to warrant the sterner warnings.
I gotta wonder if it's that there's more complaints, or if theater managers just see more stuff on the internet about it being a problem (like here), and think it's a problem. I don't recall it ever being an issue, from people talking before cell phones came around to the early days when cell phones were new, to now. On the other hand, I live in the big city, and there are probably 50 theaters (not screen, theaters) within close enough driving distance that I'd be willing to go there for a better experience, so maybe competition has something to do with it.
I've never seen it either, in 50+ years of life in three states. The theater I normally go to has a warning at the beginning that they will throw you out. Given that I have never seen anyone with a phone screen on there, I can only presume they mean it.
This is a trivial problem to deal with - for the theater management. They will quickly get a reputation of not tolerating that kind of idiocy, and as they do, for every texting asshole they lose as a customer, they'll pick up two or three who will drive the extra distance to get to a theater that enforces their rules. If it's a problem in the first place.
So is some dickhead is bothering your movie experience, complain to the manager. Immediately. Demand they either enforce their rules (and they have them) or give you your money back. And if they don't, make it clear they've lost a customer, and anybody else who you can tell about it.
If it's a problem in the first place. I've never seen it.
Why would the presence of a camera make any difference whatsoever? Seriously, dude, what are you going to be willing to say to a cop without a camera present that you don't want anyone else to hear?
Slashdot Mirror
If they're calling every 10-15 minutes, it's a scam by definition. It's illegal for debt collectors to all that often.
No support for chip&pin (EMV) yet, so this may have limited utility outside of the USA. They expect to start shipping in summer of 2014."
Considering that all US merchants have to be capable of using EMV[1] by October of 2015, perhaps that two year battery life is about right, because that's all the longer they will be useful. And most merchant services are pushing hard to have everyone capable of taking EMV by the middle of 2014.
Mag strip cards will be around for as long as the current ones out there last, but most new cards being issued now are EMV capable, and very soon, all of them will have to be. Without EMV support, this is, at best, a short term fad. And eventually, mag strip cards will just disappear, and merchants will have no reason to be able to take them.
[1]Technically, not required to stop taking mag strip only, but those who don't become 100% responsible for all fraud, automatically, regardless of the circumstances. As a carrot to go with the stick, those who get EMV up and going are not longer resopnsible for the sometimes pain-in-the-ass (and often expensive for small operations) requirements for PCI compliance.
Other than the delayed maintenance to the power systems and two city departmens that couldn't be connected to the network because of the delay.
You have a funny definition of "perfectly."
Childs belongs in prison.
The people who need them should already have them at all times.
Any other way is asking for problems. Even if the problem is simply 'i forgot the password'.
Or hey. Maybe your employer is a moron.
That was, in fact, exactly the situation Childs' boss was trying to rectifiy. Childs knew it, and refused to turn over passwords to his direct supervisor even when told, in person, by the Mayor, that his supervisor was authorized to have them. He also configured the network to not able to to reboot after a power outage that exceeded the UPS time unless he, personally, was there, and refused to make backups of the configuration.
And keep in mind, the network in question included their 911 system.
The asshole belongs in prison. He had multiple chances to avoid it, including after he was charged. He chose prison rather than allow the situation you describe to end.
Yep. He didn't even just conveniently "forget" the password after he was fired, but apparently set this all up well in advance to intentionally disrupt their business. Dumb move.
As I recall, the "business" involved included their 911 system, didn't it?
It has not been my experience that computer speakers are capable of making sounds much outside the range of human hearing, nor computer micophones capable of picking such sounds up. Maybe he buys comptuers with extremely high end sound equipment, but I'm a bit skeptical that nobody noticed the audio.
Maybe he sniffed a little too much of the magic smoke the virus let out.
A shaved head is a hell of a lot of work to keep up. Plus, it makes people think you had head lice.
Do you know why touch is ultimately bad for desktops? Because it isn't very precise. And now they want to add a system that is even less precise
That's their point, though. The less precise the UI, the less control you have over the computer. And their goal is for you to have no control over your computer whatsoever. That way, the only thing you will be able to do, all day long, is consume their ads. The only way around the ads will be paid for content (which will only reduce the ads, and convert them to paid product placement ads). Eventually, I suspect, they will try to do away with the off switch.
I wish I were exaggerating for effect.
One of the one's that sucked, that is.
Speaking of false history, Copernicus didn't "prove" heliocenticity. In fact, he only agree to let his work be published on his deathbead because he couldn't prove it.
And as a side note, neither could Galileo, though his use of the telescope was an important piece of the puzzle. But proof wasn't possible until Newton came up with (perhaps invtented, though that's arguable these days, too) calculus (and the idea that planetary orbits aren't perfectly circular).
But yeah, Galileo's real problem with the church was that he was an asshole, and humiliated and pissed off people with powerful friends. He'd have been right at home on the internet, where he would have been a legendary troll.
If you have a phone, as you walk around a shopping center or store will are being tracked.
In less than 0.001% of stores, so far.
Very intrusive: Get served ads to your phone and all devices based on store browsing and the kind of stores. You have no choice to opt out.
I have already opted out. My phone doesn't receive ads. And if they text me, I'll make a scene in the middle of their store about how illegal unsolicited text ads are, in front of their other customers.
Unregulated ,the future of consumer exploitation is terrifying.
Only for the weak and the stupid, who have always been terrified of their own shadow. The obnoxiousness of some retailers is why so much business has moved online, where it's far, far easier to control how much advertising you get forced down your throat (and, in fact, it's far easier to simply ignore).
The most fun I've ever had that didn't involve naked women was buying a car. All the power is in the buyer's hands, because cars are fungible. Even if you are utterly, completely committed to a particular model with particular options, there's no reason you have to buy it from a particular salesman, or dealership. They know this, and try desperately to keep you from realizing it. Once they realize you do know it, they realize their choice is not how much commission they'll make, but whether they'll make a small commission or none at all. If you play your cards right, this will happen after they've invested some time in you. In other words, if you're not a complete idiot, it's trivially easy to use their own techniques on them, because the buyer makes the decision.
This applies pretty much everywhere else in life where goods are services are fungible. The person who makes the decision is the preson who makes the decision. Many sellers want something from you, and it's up to you which gets your money.
But you have to a) not be a drooling idiot, and b) not be a pussy, and c) not be a drooling idiot. It also helps if you're not a drooling idiot.
And, BTW, as for the effect of all those drooling idiot pussies on me, I say bring 'em on. The more idiots that buy the wrong car for too much money because the sales drone coerced them in to it, the more complacent the drone will be, and the more easily I can screw him out of his eye teeth. I say this from experience.
I've never found the need for an ad blocker. I don't see them anyway, even when they flashing on the screen. They just get tuned out. I do keep the speakers turned off, though, except when I want the computer to make noise.
The article says "Firms will increasingly be able to trigger irrationality or vulnerability in consumers"
This is not a problem with the firms. This is a problem with the consumers. And these techniques are not new. They've been in use for centuries, by people commonly called "scam artists." And yeah, it's bad for the gullible, but civilization hasn't ended from it, and won't.
And when 'not just the right good, but a customized pitch, delivered late at night, when the company knows you, particularly, have a tendency to make impulse purchases." is the problem, the solution is to go to bed early instead of surfing the internet.
Most people can figure that out on their own.
I predict Mr. Calo will be having a book come out soon, and it will be advertised on the basis of "buy this book or dingos will each your children," and talked about on the 60 minutes, in an episde that will be advertised on the basis of "watch our program or you will die."
In other words, it's Tuesday. Yawn.
Giving notice isn't really about your employer's interests, it's about yours. Even if it will have no impact on your future work life, you know whether or not you were fair to your employer. If that doesn't bother you, given that very few companies give references anyway, do whatever the hell you want.
From an ethical standpoint, compare you deciding to leave to the company deciding to let you go. Is your decision the equivalent of them laying you off? Just a business decision that it's time to make? Most companies will give you at least some notice (even if they're not required to) or at least severance pay. It's only polite to give them notice.
On the other hand, if the company has done something equivalent to a firing offense, where you'd be shown the door and goodbye, then I wouldn't think you owe them much more than telling them you quit, and sign whatever paperwork you have to in order to get whatever payout they owe you.
But again, it's nothing to do with them. It's about what kind of person you choose to be. Someone who would leave an employer in a bind by leaving without notice, under the circumstances, or someone who gives them fair notice because they've given you a decent job. Only you can answer that.
even among scientists in the field, is that personal survival and evolution have something to do with each other. They don't. Evolution is about the propgation of the genetic line, and in the long run, when personal survival conflicts with it, evolution steamrollers it every time.
The selfish individual may increase his personal chances of survival to a ripe old age, but his selfishness may well reduce his chances of passing his genetic line on to another generation.
This is nothing new. There is never anything new in Hollywood. It's the same pattern:
Somebody makes a huge hit that breaks the current formula.
Studios analyze the new formual, and decree that all movies will be made to that formula from now on.
After a few years of the same movie with global search & replace on character names, audience gets tired of new formula.
Big name producer/director/studio exec catamite is allowed to make occasional new movie that breaks the official formual.
One of them gets lucky, and produces a movie that doesn't suck, or is even pretty good.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Been that way for a hundred years, and will never change.
If the plane takes off anyway after finding a hijacker/bomber trying to get on, the first time, it won't after that until every single passenger has been stripped searched.
Duh.
The oldest suicide bomber I can find was a 64 year old woman. And an youngest person arrested for trying to be one is 11.
Not quite your 4 to 80 range, but close enough that you look pretty silly and uninformed.
Profiling inevitably produces more false (usually an order of magnitude more) positives than real positives, and generally produces as many false negatives as false positivves. In other words, you're a lot more likely to spend your time searching someone for no reason than catch an actual bad guy, and as likely to let a real bad guy through as not.
And that assumes the profiling is done in an objective, unbiased manner. When human decisions are made as to who gets profiled, there will be bias, whether the humans doing it realize it or not. This, at least, eliminates that.
I'll bet, though, without reading TFA, that there is no thought whatsoever of this replacing any current profile based screening, only being used in addition to everything done now.
He's referring to the fact that most defendants jump at the chance to plead guilty in exchange for a reduced sentence. It isn't that 90% of defendents aren't allowed a trial, but rather, they choose not to have one, knowing they'll be found guilty (because they are), and that they'll spend more time in prison that way.
It's the sort of thing you hear from someone who took the plea bargain, but still insists they were innocent.
And if you've ever gone back, then you have agreed that their management decisions are prefectly acceptable.
However, I have also noticed that while the theater's pre-movie warnings used to be friendly, gentle reminders, they've changed to pretty stern warnings making clear that phone usage will not be tolerated and that offenders will be kicked out, not receive a refund, and potentially be asked never to return. So there has obviously been enough trouble to warrant the sterner warnings.
I gotta wonder if it's that there's more complaints, or if theater managers just see more stuff on the internet about it being a problem (like here), and think it's a problem. I don't recall it ever being an issue, from people talking before cell phones came around to the early days when cell phones were new, to now. On the other hand, I live in the big city, and there are probably 50 theaters (not screen, theaters) within close enough driving distance that I'd be willing to go there for a better experience, so maybe competition has something to do with it.
I've never seen it either, in 50+ years of life in three states. The theater I normally go to has a warning at the beginning that they will throw you out. Given that I have never seen anyone with a phone screen on there, I can only presume they mean it.
This is a trivial problem to deal with - for the theater management. They will quickly get a reputation of not tolerating that kind of idiocy, and as they do, for every texting asshole they lose as a customer, they'll pick up two or three who will drive the extra distance to get to a theater that enforces their rules. If it's a problem in the first place.
So is some dickhead is bothering your movie experience, complain to the manager. Immediately. Demand they either enforce their rules (and they have them) or give you your money back. And if they don't, make it clear they've lost a customer, and anybody else who you can tell about it.
If it's a problem in the first place. I've never seen it.
Why would the presence of a camera make any difference whatsoever? Seriously, dude, what are you going to be willing to say to a cop without a camera present that you don't want anyone else to hear?