To be totally fair, rich people should pay less property tax than poor people, but that's obviously not going to happen, and this situation exists in NH as well as every other state.
How would this be more fair?
I think the GP was implying, as a joke, that since poor people are involved with more crime, thus utilize the police more often, that it is unfair for the rich to pay for that just by having more expensive housing.
Of course, the rich have more to lose from crimes, so would want more protection I would imagine.
But I read the GP as making a joke, not actually believing that is true (Either thing, that the rich don't use police as much as the poor, OR that the poor cause more crime to the poor)
Maybe not "lol" funny, but makes the extreme example go down better for the point he's making
I don't use anti-virus software, except for the occasional one-off malware scan. I don't get viruses because I don't do stupid shit.
You seem to mistakenly assume one has to do 'stupid shit' to catch a computer virus.
Normal safe everyday actions can and do get people infected all the time. Actions such as just installing windows while your PC is directly connected to the internet. Yes a known bad action now, but not to most people.
Browsing safe websites can also do it, especially so in Internet Explorer where the browser will happily execute code the web server gives it and not bother even informing you of the fact it just did so.
Even without IE, one of the bigger news making worms a few years back targeted banking and online store web servers. On successfully infecting them, it modified the pages being served to visitors/customers that give infected files.
Tons of exploits require no user interaction, as long as the conditions are right. And these aren't 'perfect lab' conditions, but real world ones that DO come up occasionally (some frequently)
But, even with all that said, there is the mistaken assumption that an anti-virus program will keep you safe too. Sadly, most can only find things they are aware of. This leaves a window of opportunity where not a single AV program will catch a virus. Depending on the product, knowing about a new virus can take hours to months.
There really is no simple cure, other than expecting and paying for well designed software. As such software will cost a lot more than the current offerings do, and with the staggering amount of ignorance about, I can't see such a product making it in the market too well:/
P.S., you are spot on about Norton. Might as well run no AV, as being infected with 20 viruses still has a better chance of leaving your computer operational and running faster than non-infected and with Norton running...
For the default key at the top usually named (Default) Either delete the path to helpctr.exe so the value is blank (Value not set), or download the dummy.exe from the actual directions below and point it to that.
ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) cameras are widespread in the UK and they definitely get my vote.
Sounds like there is already a country setup exactly how you desire your country to be setup.
That means there is no reason at all to continue trying to change our country to match your desires, while pushing your personal desires on millions of people who DON'T want them.
How do you explain when it doesn't happen after the fact? For example there are times when I have a second or two advance warning. I know exactly what someone is going to say, and then they say it. I never know more than a few words, but I know exactly what those few words will be.
That is the interesting thing when the brain and mind come into play.
How would one be able to actually tell the difference between:
A) You have a 'prediction' first, then that happens in reality next, and finally you think 'i predicted that!'
and
B) First you hear what the other person said. Next your brain/mind do some form of trickery so you THINK that you predicted what they said prior.
Note the time line of events between A and B are almost perfectly reversed, yet both will have the same identical effect on the observer in the end.
Taking things to a totally nonsensical example, if I read a book to you and you enjoyed it first, then second I modified your memories so you now have the memory of reading that book long ago. How could you tell?
Until we learn more about the physical structure of the brain, and possibly (probably) the functions of the mind, we really can't tell.
Now, I'm not at all saying this is actually what happened to you with Deja Vu! Just posing the question of how one can know either way when the device (brain) we are using to measure, is the very device being modified constantly in real time during the measurement.
Battery life is a function of two basic things. 1- Power draw (And yes, pushing out more transmitter power will draw more power from the battery) 2- Battery amp hours
#2 is the info missing. Or at least I don't feel like looking it up for the default stock batteries;}
A phone that draws twice as much power, but yet contains a battery with four times the amp hour rating, will still last twice as long than the comparison.
Research In Motion's BlackBerry Bold 9700 scores the highest among popular smartphones for exposing users to the highest legal levels of cell phone radiation
That is awesome. Now you know what cell will have the strongest possible signal!
Of course the unspoken assumption being made is that this cell phone radiation, aka radio waves, are somehow a bad thing or undesirable.
But if it is ever discovered that ten years ago you called a Republican an "asshole", you're clearly beyond the pale and not fit to work in government.
I'd be interested in seeing how that one goes.
[Republican] Mr Lessig, it seems you called all republicans assholes in this post here *hands paper printout of url to a fourm post, excluding the actual post of course*
[Lessig] Well, you voted to put a mentally damaged child to death. That does make you an asshole.
[Republican] see you just did it again! rawr!!
[Lessig] Yes, I did. And you voted to allow torture, so all of your past present and future arguments are invalid. QED. PS, you are still an asshole.
You've never owned an online business, have you? Banks have had this policy towards online sites for over a decade.
Three of them over the past almost twelve years, only one currently still in operation.
However the first of those was started ~12 years ago, so will grant the decade part. The second was started only 5 years ago, and I had no such issues with either business checking or merchant accounts.
The 3rd doesn't count for this, as I'm using the same business checking account for that, and don't take credit cards. But only had to file a change of doing business as with the bank to have the company name/address changed with them.
I must have just been lucky with my choice of banks, or they screwed up in my favor. (Key bank for first account, Huntington for the second/third)
I've just never heard of anyone else having to do that.
I'll also grant that most of the people I know that have started online businesses are on the tech side more than the legal side, so it's also quite possible they were just breaking the rules unknowingly and nothing resulted. Which seems more likely then.
Look, I'm just explaining how banks work. If you have an online business, you need a real world address and telephone number on your site.
That is why this is news and on this site however.
It would be the first time in history an American bank ever required such a thing, and if they plan to start that now (As in today) it is news because hundreds of thousands of legit businesses operating exactly that way can now have their bank accounts closed out for operating fully within the law.
If it really is true that it is now a new banking policy to require a business to provide contact details past those used for payment collections, then this is the first person of many who has to deal with rules being up and changed on them.
Also, you could word your statement a little less offensively (Just a suggestion, if that was your intend then never mind)
If the law was just changed today, then you can't possibly expect any of us to know that. But "Look, I'm just explaining how banks work" reads more like you expect people to know that, as of today, that is how banks work. Before today your statement was 100% false, as no bank in this country worked that way.
Personally I think it is not true, and this is one person misrepresenting what actually happened. If the laws were changed so that this really is how banks were to work now, it would be on a lot more news sites, such as CNN and wallstreet journal.
Unless you have any evidence backing up your idle speculation
I don't think either of those terms mean what you think they mean.
Speculation ** guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence
Evidence is for facts, to prove them right or wrong (Yes, incorrect facts are still facts) Evidence for speculation and opinion can't be applied BY DEFINITION!
If there was evidence, it could not possibly be a speculation, it would then be called a fact.
Dunno. I'd compare that to you renting a house. The landlord can't simply waltz in unannounced, even if he owns the house (with some caveats, of course). The same base concept should pretty much apply.
Well, I do agree that it should be that way.
However your example is only true because there are laws specifically made for renters for that sort of thing. It is legal for a hosting provider to include such a clause in their EUA still. * Or at least as of a couple years ago, but I assumed if that changed the story would have made it on a news site for nerds somewhere...;)
So, Someone at Google has to watch every video, personally identify every person involved in the video, and get their consent, and then approve it.
Hmm.. I wonder if that means when the government posts something referencing the public, without getting the consent of every person that makes up the public, the government can be brought up on these same charges?
Oh yea *faecpalm* Dunno where my mind was for a minute there.
which will actually hurt the copyright holders and others because the list contains examples of countries that really are abusing copyright in very serious fashions that actually should be dealt with.
Some how I doubt the USA is the only entry on that list. It probably isn't even ON the list. Yet that is the one that has abused copyright the most perverse.
Well piracy wouldn't exist without copyright law either!
You should give, er i mean sell that wonderful solution to the RIAA lawyers! Quick and easy way to change the law to completely stop piracy, for real this time!
If I had mod points, I'd bump you up. Your password is your password. Who knows what else a person uses that password for...trying to gain access by using it is tantamount to a phishing scheme. Get your own damn password.
Ironically, the very last sentence is exactly the solution one should use when choosing what password to set on a machine you do not own that others have full and total access to, physically, electronically, and legally.
If you use the same password on two things, a password being a shared secret, clearly both of those things now have that secret and can use it between each other.
If they have root or sudo then they can change your password behind your back... unless you have a restrictive/etc/sudoers file.
Change yes. View no.
Me giving you root access to my machine does not necessarily give you my passwords. An easily brute forced hashing for passwords would, as would you installing some software to wait and log when i next typed in a password.
But both of those are illegal, and one would assume a ligit company would not want to do that.
This same legit company however OWNS that computer, so it is not illegal for them to log in as root. (It probably would be if they claimed they never would, or permission wasn't agreed upon, but neither is the case)
I am running a mail server at home and I do not provide backdoor access to any US government agencies. I have not been "put in prison" for this yet.
There is definitely a separation between providing 'personal' email, and being a full blown telecommunications carrier. I'm not exactly sure -where- that line is, but it's way above a personal email server.
I suppose one might argue Google isn't a telecommunications carrier for email services...
Please point out the piece of legislation that requires all email service providers to guarantee backdoor access to the US government. Otherwise please stop spreading FUD.
Can't show anything that requires ALL email providers to do any such thing.
However the law covering the likes of Google is the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act
It applies not just to the 'old style' POTS phone network, but email, VoIP, and broadband as well.
This is so utterly, completely, absolutely wrong that it's "not even wrong."
Please, for God's sake, read up on the concept of random variables before you attempt to make any judgement whatsoever about anything having to do with random number generation.
What exactly does "more random" mean in the summary? I think something is either random or it isn't. Perhaps this claim should just make us "more skeptical".
True random means that each item in your possibility list has equal chances of occurring.
If your possibility list is the numbers 1-10, then each number would have exactly a 10% chance of occurring, in order to be truly random.
If instead some numbers have a 10.001% chance of being chosen, and some others have a 0.999% chance of being chosen, then while the result might appear to be just as random, it is less random than the first case.
Of course anything else that adjusts the outcome and enables further prediction also makes the results less random.
Sometimes, less random is good enough, say for a video game AI. It is worth it to spend less resources generating a less random number, when that amount of randomness is good enough. Not so much for encryption however.
Slashdot Mirror
Does this mean that clueful people with secure computers are going to be required to pay to help clueless people with insecure computers?
Just look at it as paying for a service to keep cluseless people from knocking on your virtual tcp door all day ;}
Now if only we had a real life service to keep the stupid away... 'Scuse me while I file a quick patent before someone else gets it!
To be totally fair, rich people should pay less property tax than poor people, but that's obviously not going to happen, and this situation exists in NH as well as every other state.
How would this be more fair?
I think the GP was implying, as a joke, that since poor people are involved with more crime, thus utilize the police more often, that it is unfair for the rich to pay for that just by having more expensive housing.
Of course, the rich have more to lose from crimes, so would want more protection I would imagine.
But I read the GP as making a joke, not actually believing that is true (Either thing, that the rich don't use police as much as the poor, OR that the poor cause more crime to the poor)
Maybe not "lol" funny, but makes the extreme example go down better for the point he's making
I don't use anti-virus software, except for the occasional one-off malware scan. I don't get viruses because I don't do stupid shit.
You seem to mistakenly assume one has to do 'stupid shit' to catch a computer virus.
Normal safe everyday actions can and do get people infected all the time.
Actions such as just installing windows while your PC is directly connected to the internet. Yes a known bad action now, but not to most people.
Browsing safe websites can also do it, especially so in Internet Explorer where the browser will happily execute code the web server gives it and not bother even informing you of the fact it just did so.
Even without IE, one of the bigger news making worms a few years back targeted banking and online store web servers. On successfully infecting them, it modified the pages being served to visitors/customers that give infected files.
Tons of exploits require no user interaction, as long as the conditions are right.
And these aren't 'perfect lab' conditions, but real world ones that DO come up occasionally (some frequently)
But, even with all that said, there is the mistaken assumption that an anti-virus program will keep you safe too.
Sadly, most can only find things they are aware of. This leaves a window of opportunity where not a single AV program will catch a virus. Depending on the product, knowing about a new virus can take hours to months.
There really is no simple cure, other than expecting and paying for well designed software. :/
As such software will cost a lot more than the current offerings do, and with the staggering amount of ignorance about, I can't see such a product making it in the market too well
P.S., you are spot on about Norton. Might as well run no AV, as being infected with 20 viruses still has a better chance of leaving your computer operational and running faster than non-infected and with Norton running...
More importantly, is there a way to disable F1 in Windows? I can't tell you how many times I've accidentally hit it when trying to hit Esc.
Regedit: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\App Paths\HELPCTR.EXE
For the default key at the top usually named (Default)
Either delete the path to helpctr.exe so the value is blank (Value not set), or download the dummy.exe from the actual directions below and point it to that.
http://www.hydrous.net/weblog/2007/06/23/disable-f1-in-windows-exporer
ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) cameras are widespread in the UK and they definitely get my vote.
Sounds like there is already a country setup exactly how you desire your country to be setup.
That means there is no reason at all to continue trying to change our country to match your desires, while pushing your personal desires on millions of people who DON'T want them.
How do you explain when it doesn't happen after the fact? For example there are times when I have a second or two advance warning. I know exactly what someone is going to say, and then they say it. I never know more than a few words, but I know exactly what those few words will be.
That is the interesting thing when the brain and mind come into play.
How would one be able to actually tell the difference between:
A) You have a 'prediction' first, then that happens in reality next, and finally you think 'i predicted that!'
and
B) First you hear what the other person said. Next your brain/mind do some form of trickery so you THINK that you predicted what they said prior.
Note the time line of events between A and B are almost perfectly reversed, yet both will have the same identical effect on the observer in the end.
Taking things to a totally nonsensical example, if I read a book to you and you enjoyed it first, then second I modified your memories so you now have the memory of reading that book long ago.
How could you tell?
Until we learn more about the physical structure of the brain, and possibly (probably) the functions of the mind, we really can't tell.
Now, I'm not at all saying this is actually what happened to you with Deja Vu!
Just posing the question of how one can know either way when the device (brain) we are using to measure, is the very device being modified constantly in real time during the measurement.
But what does this mean for battery life?
Not enough information to tell.
Battery life is a function of two basic things.
1- Power draw (And yes, pushing out more transmitter power will draw more power from the battery)
2- Battery amp hours
#2 is the info missing. Or at least I don't feel like looking it up for the default stock batteries ;}
A phone that draws twice as much power, but yet contains a battery with four times the amp hour rating, will still last twice as long than the comparison.
Research In Motion's BlackBerry Bold 9700 scores the highest among popular smartphones for exposing users to the highest legal levels of cell phone radiation
That is awesome. Now you know what cell will have the strongest possible signal!
Of course the unspoken assumption being made is that this cell phone radiation, aka radio waves, are somehow a bad thing or undesirable.
But if it is ever discovered that ten years ago you called a Republican an "asshole", you're clearly beyond the pale and not fit to work in government.
I'd be interested in seeing how that one goes.
[Republican] Mr Lessig, it seems you called all republicans assholes in this post here *hands paper printout of url to a fourm post, excluding the actual post of course*
[Lessig] Well, you voted to put a mentally damaged child to death. That does make you an asshole.
[Republican] see you just did it again! rawr!!
[Lessig] Yes, I did. And you voted to allow torture, so all of your past present and future arguments are invalid. QED. PS, you are still an asshole.
You've never owned an online business, have you? Banks have had this policy towards online sites for over a decade.
Three of them over the past almost twelve years, only one currently still in operation.
However the first of those was started ~12 years ago, so will grant the decade part.
The second was started only 5 years ago, and I had no such issues with either business checking or merchant accounts.
The 3rd doesn't count for this, as I'm using the same business checking account for that, and don't take credit cards.
But only had to file a change of doing business as with the bank to have the company name/address changed with them.
I must have just been lucky with my choice of banks, or they screwed up in my favor. (Key bank for first account, Huntington for the second/third)
I've just never heard of anyone else having to do that.
I'll also grant that most of the people I know that have started online businesses are on the tech side more than the legal side, so it's also quite possible they were just breaking the rules unknowingly and nothing resulted. Which seems more likely then.
Look, I'm just explaining how banks work. If you have an online business, you need a real world address and telephone number on your site.
That is why this is news and on this site however.
It would be the first time in history an American bank ever required such a thing, and if they plan to start that now (As in today) it is news because hundreds of thousands of legit businesses operating exactly that way can now have their bank accounts closed out for operating fully within the law.
If it really is true that it is now a new banking policy to require a business to provide contact details past those used for payment collections, then this is the first person of many who has to deal with rules being up and changed on them.
Also, you could word your statement a little less offensively (Just a suggestion, if that was your intend then never mind)
If the law was just changed today, then you can't possibly expect any of us to know that.
But "Look, I'm just explaining how banks work" reads more like you expect people to know that, as of today, that is how banks work. Before today your statement was 100% false, as no bank in this country worked that way.
Personally I think it is not true, and this is one person misrepresenting what actually happened.
If the laws were changed so that this really is how banks were to work now, it would be on a lot more news sites, such as CNN and wallstreet journal.
Unless you have any evidence backing up your idle speculation
I don't think either of those terms mean what you think they mean.
Speculation ** guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence
Evidence is for facts, to prove them right or wrong (Yes, incorrect facts are still facts)
Evidence for speculation and opinion can't be applied BY DEFINITION!
If there was evidence, it could not possibly be a speculation, it would then be called a fact.
Dunno. I'd compare that to you renting a house. The landlord can't simply waltz in unannounced, even if he owns the house (with some caveats, of course). The same base concept should pretty much apply.
Well, I do agree that it should be that way.
However your example is only true because there are laws specifically made for renters for that sort of thing. ;)
It is legal for a hosting provider to include such a clause in their EUA still.
* Or at least as of a couple years ago, but I assumed if that changed the story would have made it on a news site for nerds somewhere...
So, Someone at Google has to watch every video, personally identify every person involved in the video, and get their consent, and then approve it.
Hmm.. I wonder if that means when the government posts something referencing the public, without getting the consent of every person that makes up the public, the government can be brought up on these same charges?
Oh yea *faecpalm* Dunno where my mind was for a minute there.
which will actually hurt the copyright holders and others because the list contains examples of countries that really are abusing copyright in very serious fashions that actually should be dealt with.
Some how I doubt the USA is the only entry on that list. It probably isn't even ON the list. Yet that is the one that has abused copyright the most perverse.
Well piracy wouldn't exist without copyright law either!
You should give, er i mean sell that wonderful solution to the RIAA lawyers!
Quick and easy way to change the law to completely stop piracy, for real this time!
What if your bug has brain damage?
(Sorry, it will make sense following the two prior replies)
If I had mod points, I'd bump you up. Your password is your password. Who knows what else a person uses that password for...trying to gain access by using it is tantamount to a phishing scheme. Get your own damn password.
Ironically, the very last sentence is exactly the solution one should use when choosing what password to set on a machine you do not own that others have full and total access to, physically, electronically, and legally.
If you use the same password on two things, a password being a shared secret, clearly both of those things now have that secret and can use it between each other.
Solution? Get your own damn password! :D
If they have root or sudo then they can change your password behind your back... unless you have a restrictive /etc/sudoers file.
Change yes. View no.
Me giving you root access to my machine does not necessarily give you my passwords.
An easily brute forced hashing for passwords would, as would you installing some software to wait and log when i next typed in a password.
But both of those are illegal, and one would assume a ligit company would not want to do that.
This same legit company however OWNS that computer, so it is not illegal for them to log in as root.
(It probably would be if they claimed they never would, or permission wasn't agreed upon, but neither is the case)
I am running a mail server at home and I do not provide backdoor access to any US government agencies. I have not been "put in prison" for this yet.
There is definitely a separation between providing 'personal' email, and being a full blown telecommunications carrier.
I'm not exactly sure -where- that line is, but it's way above a personal email server.
I suppose one might argue Google isn't a telecommunications carrier for email services...
Please point out the piece of legislation that requires all email service providers to guarantee backdoor access to the US government. Otherwise please stop spreading FUD.
Can't show anything that requires ALL email providers to do any such thing.
However the law covering the likes of Google is the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act
It applies not just to the 'old style' POTS phone network, but email, VoIP, and broadband as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act
I realize that's just a wiki link, but it will have all of the standard believable links at the bottom.
This is so utterly, completely, absolutely wrong that it's "not even wrong."
Please, for God's sake, read up on the concept of random variables before you attempt to make any judgement whatsoever about anything having to do with random number generation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-random
Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain why the internet is wrong, and what your knowledge is that is so much more different?
Of course I would never so much as think of refuting such a solid and well founded argument as "You're so wrong! But never mind how..."
Nothing you say refutes my statement that everyone doing business in those countries are required by law to have such backdoors.
Lol, that's because you didn't make that statement until just now.
Riiiight... Because I clearly meant all those OTHER ways one ends up in prison without breaking any laws
*rolls eyes* the trolls sure are out in force today
What exactly does "more random" mean in the summary? I think something is either random or it isn't. Perhaps this claim should just make us "more skeptical".
True random means that each item in your possibility list has equal chances of occurring.
If your possibility list is the numbers 1-10, then each number would have exactly a 10% chance of occurring, in order to be truly random.
If instead some numbers have a 10.001% chance of being chosen, and some others have a 0.999% chance of being chosen, then while the result might appear to be just as random, it is less random than the first case.
Of course anything else that adjusts the outcome and enables further prediction also makes the results less random.
Sometimes, less random is good enough, say for a video game AI. It is worth it to spend less resources generating a less random number, when that amount of randomness is good enough.
Not so much for encryption however.
Nothing you say refutes my statement that everyone doing business in those countries are required by law to have such backdoors.
Nothing I said implies good or bad either, only current legal state.
I don't see how doing what is required to not be put in prison, is "inadvertently aiding" anything.
I want my ad impressions back :P