You're talking about this kind of thing. Essentially these kinds of studies measure the dollar spent, and adds the spending of the people who got it, etc.
Intuitively there are limits to this kind of thing, because otherwise we could tax 100% and spend it all on social security and double the GDP of the country immediately.
What the study doesn't take into consideration (the study done by the AARP, not an unbiased scientific organization) is that for each dollar spent, you are taking a dollar out of the economy when you tax it. And that dollar would have been either spent or invested, with its own multiplier effect.
So the question you have to ask is, "is the multiplier effect of money spent by the government more than money spent by the private economy?" And the answer to that is, "it depends." If anyone tells you it is always better for the government to spend it, or always better for the private sector to spend it, then you know they are spreading propaganda.
It's a complicated problem that no one understands completely.
Obviously, there are limits to this sort of thing. It can be useful, however. Unemployment benefits are a great example. Someone who loses their job doesn't have money to spend on food or mortgage or heat or electricity. Providing unemployment benefits helps in multiple ways:
1. Helps the individual and their family stay fed and lodged (I say help, because unemployment benefits are a fraction, usually less than half, of what the person was making while working)
2. If the person owns a home and can pay their mortgage, that helps home prices in the community.
3. The money is actually spent, which drives demand and, in aggregate, can stimulate the economy.
Whether the multiplier effect can be applied across the board (for all safety net spending) is an open question. Obviously, it would be better for that person to be employed. But the concept (IMHO) is valid and is backed up by quality research into this area. If there is data that shows this to be false, I'd like to see it.
What is scientific about what you did? You just googled and said look I found something that agrees with me? It is essentially argument from authority and argument from consensus.
You are correct. I did nothing scientific. The papers referred to in the links on the other hand are another story.
Not really argument from authority, as I cited specific studies whose methodologies and conclusions can be reviewed and critiqued. This paper gives a nice overview of the *actual* research being done in this area.
Whether you agree with me or not makes little difference to me. If you or anyone else has other data or analyses, I'd be happy to look at it. If my conclusions are faulty, I will change my mind and admit that my conclusions were wrong. Thanks for your comment.
Look at wealth disparity for the US (and in fact any "Western" Nation). This is freely available for all nations since 1970s which is a fair benchmark, but the data goes back further. Go ahead and look at what the great levelers "Keynesian" and "trickle down" have done. If you really claim that these two sets of policies work, I'd hate to see what you call failure. I hope you don't need me to Google that for you.
Apparently, we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about economic analyses that clearly show that government spending on the social safety net (unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc.) generates more economic activity in real terms than the money invested in those programs. And yes, stimulating demand is a Keynesian idea. The search results I posted bear out the validity of those policies.
Keynesian economic policies pushed the US economy through it's longest peacetime expansion. Ever. That's not to say it's perfect, or that any economic theory is perfect.
Here in the US, the Reagan Administration famously applied Supply Side policies, but the only trickle-down effect (as I recall. I was there.) was pissing on the poor. Bush I, Clinton and Bush II all did the same thing, exacerbating the wealth inequality here in the US enormously.
So. What is it that you're trying to say? Based on your posts, I'll make a few guesses: That we should increase wealth inequality? That we should remove the social safety net and reduce taxes on the wealthiest and that will solve all our economic problems? Or "Fuck you Jack! I got mine!"?
Please advise. Inquiring minds don't really want to know, but I'm guessing you don't have a coherent argument so here's some rope for you, bud.
What I take issue with is that you present one side of the debate, and present it as fact. When it is not fact, and the benefits don't line up with the claims. I'm sure that there is middle ground here to debate, but your side is absolutely not proven.
Please, by all means, prove me wrong. Present/cite data and analyses that support your point of view and I will consider them. It's possible that I've reached incorrect conclusions, and I'm willing to change my mind if I'm presented with evidence to that effect. Are you?
I'd also point out that the link I posted is just a list of google search results for "Social Safety net economic multipliers." If you see bias there, take it up with Google.
Also, I'd like to apologize for inadvertently poking at your settled world view. I know that can be quite disconcerting. I'd only point out that using verifiable, repeatable methods to validate/invalidate a hypothesis is fairly standard. We call it the "Scientific Method." Perhaps you should try it some time, rather than relying on arguments from authority (in this case, Milton Friedman) and dogma.
Economic analysis shows that government spending, especially on safety nets has a net positive effect (each dollar spent increases economic activity by more than a dollar) on the economy. I was looking around for a good example of such an analysis, but there are so many, I'll let you pick the one you like best.
I like the one where you take your "economic analysis" and shove it up your fucking ass. You do not have the right to rob me at gunpoint to financially support faggots, drug abusers, and losers, no matter how many government funded studies you wave in my face to try and convince me it's OK. Fuck you.
Why thank you. I think that's the nicest thing anyone's said to me all day.
It's not *my* economic analysis. Heck, I didn't even cherry pick the links. I just did a google search for "Social Safety Net Economic Multipliers" and linked to the results.
I'd also point out that your homophobic remarks are pretty puerile. I'll even wave a government (NIH) study in your face that points up your latent homosexuality.
I expect this from a shill, but not from an educated person. Governments can not be the whole of economy, it does not work that way. As the old saying goes "when something appears to be too good to be true, it probably is" comes to mind. A Government has no money of it's own. A Government's money is based entirely on the productivity of society. It is therefor impossible for a Government to "multiply" money by spending money. It is a logical contradiction at every level, often dressed up to appear "good" to someone uninformed.
In short, a Government is not and can not be a producer. A Government is a taker, and can only take from society.
This is not _my_ opinion, this opinion comes from countless economists. Read and Comprehend what Milton Friedman says about the same subject. Mr. Friedman was kind enough to also explain to the uneducated how people gamed systems with things like Keynesian principles, and why those principles are wrong (even giving examples of failures due to those policies).
Sigh. It's not me saying this, it's economists the world over. You talk about educated people. Educate yourself, sir. Look at the data and analyses. If you choose to disagree with them, then please cite references to support your point of view rather than your own personal prejudices. Thank you and have a nice day.
There were numerous reports about the 9/11 hijackers doing things like learning to fly jets and many of them were already on terrorist watch lists.
The issue wasn't a lack of information, it was apathy and incompetence. Gathering *even more* information about innocent people won't help stop anything. Having competent people who do their jobs can.
All that said, freedom isn't safe. If we want to be free, we have to understand that there are those who are unbalanced, criminal, or just downright nasty out there. We need balanced laws and competent people to address this, but spying on everyone isn't the answer. That is all.
Of course, every dollar spent on handouts is taken out of the private sector and taking money out of the private sector reduces job opportunities so the best way to keep from straining the safety net is to quite spending so damn much money on it. If govt spending is not reduced, then the country will soon be bankrupted, there will be widespread civil unrest and a police state will be instituted in order to restore order. It may be hard for some to accept, but that is exactly what Obama and his backers want. Obama isn't intent on releasing a bunch of convicted criminals from prison for nothing - every would-be dictator recruits a private army from low-level street criminals, people devoid of conscience, willing to brutalize the law-abiding and live off them like parasites.
Bzzzt! Wrong. Thanks for playing. Economic analysis shows that government spending, especially on safety nets has a net positive effect (each dollar spent increases economic activity by more than a dollar) on the economy. I was looking around for a good example of such an analysis, but there are so many, I'll let you pick the one you like best.:)
It seems to me that the only application for this sort of this is attempting to attract venture capital to create a "business" that can be sold to Facebook/Google/Yahoo/whatever to aid in their quest to give marketers even more information which they think might help them sell more stuff.
While this is unsurprising, it's also pathetic. Sigh.
Facebook has become difficult to even type in the status box, because they're trying so hard to fill in suggestions and the like that the cursor jumps around. Half the time it jumbles up characters, likely because there's a crap-ton on javascript running with every keystroke.
So everybody should, twice daily, type "Mark Zuckerberg is a douchebag" and post it;-)
What is wrong with good old fashion detective work? You get tips from people you follow them up, you listen to truly public chatter learn who the malcontents are and infiltrate their groups, etc.
All things police and spy agencies have been doing as long as they have existed and it worked without with to a large degree without global privacy shredding mass data collection. Is it likely to be as "effective" my guess is probably not as effective as mass surveillance can be but then again there is little evidence to suggest the the mass surveillance has worked so well, I mean people are still going abroad to meet with terror organizations come home and then sneak bombs on planes; they have just failed to detonate.
Its a question of finding balance: risks, costs, and rewards. The real solution is we need to start getting rational about that.
This. I'd point out that several US law enforcement and intelligence agencies had identified a number of the 9/11 hijackers as potential threats *months* before 9/11. The problem wasn't that they couldn't find these guys, it was because they couldn't find their ass with both hands and a mirror.
Ensuring competency makes sense, trampling on the Bill of Rights does not.
You're very articulate; now, do you have a specific example of a sentence or paragraph that is evidence of the claims you're making?
I'm not your English tutor. I'm not really interested in getting involved with you or your crappy prose. However, I am an honest and charitable guy so I gave you some constructive criticism. I already made specific comments about what I saw in your current post. If you can't extrapolate from there, I take back what I said about you not being an idiot.
I'll bite. FTFA:
Gergely sent an email to security@google.com on December 28, 2012 (which he later showed to me), describing the vulnerability in detail. After describing the simple trick, his email stated: "I don't know if this qualifies as a bug bounty bug, but I think it's certainly not in your interest to let these queries through. Using this method one can bypass all your numerical query filters, filters for SSN, TFN, credit cards, maybe DoS prevention and others I can not think of at the moment."
Gergely sent them a follow-up email on August 23, 2013. In both cases he said he received no response except for an auto-reply.
There's really no reason for the last two sentences to be in a separate paragraph, and this is something that is common in the way you write. From The Elements of Style:
"In general, remember that paragraphing calls for a good eye as well as a logical mind. Enormous blocks of print look formidable to readers, who are often reluctant to tackle them. Therefore, breaking long paragraphs in two, even if it is not necessary to do so for sense, meaning, or logical development, is often a visual help. But remember, too, that firing off many short paragraphs in quick succession can be distracting. Paragraph breaks used only for show read like the writing of commerce or of display advertising. Moderation and a sense of order should be the main considerations in paragraphing." (emphasis mine)
Thanks for picking that up NormalVisual. You're absolutely correct. I was just going to ignore Mr. Haselton's ridiculous question about paragraphs because it's not really the paragraphing that annoys me.
What really annoys me is the verbosity and lack of semantic content in his prose. I suggested "The Elements of Style" because he clearly isn't going to go away and thought he might learn something about writing clearly and concisely.
Mr. Haselton's posts (IMHO) appear to be written for a general audience, are poorly organized, and are often of dubious (IMHO) intellectual value. Several important aspects to writing engagingly are to know your audience, organize your thoughts coherently, be concise and to have the ideas flow logically. This post fails in all of those respects.
The end result is that the post is dull, hard to read and doesn't draw a picture of the concepts being expressed. Mr. Haselton clearly isn't an idiot, but he appears to be a poor writer of English prose.
If you're going to continue to "gift" us with your thoughts Mr. Haselton, I implore you to at least make an attempt to improve your writing. Should you do so, your posts will likely be much better received and will elicit more on-topic discussion.
As a relevant aside, I don't claim to be a great (or even good) writer. Nonetheless, feel free to critique my writing if you like.
The Elements of Style. Your ponderous prose is an affront to literacy. Every time I see that you've posted something I wonder if you've finally realized that quantity does not equal quality. You may get paid by the word elsewhere, but not here.
I might even bother to read what you write if you would just, for the sake of all that is good in this world, be concise. ARRRGGGHHH!
It's not always built out to the edges of the cities. I live in a city and FIOS was built to the suburbs around me. If you live on the edge of the city, near the suburbs, you might be able to get FIOS. If not, you are stuck with Time Warner Cable or Verizon DSL. And Verizon is more and more trying to disown DSL users so that's not really an option. Since going without Internet isn't an option either, I'm forced to take what Time Warner Cable offers me at the price they demand and they know it so there's no reason for them to improve service, speed up the network, or drop their prices.
Exactly. I live right in one of the largest US cities (given that you talk about Verizon *and* Time Warner, I suspect we're in the same place) and FIOS isn't even being planned for my neighborhood. I have DSL (from Megapath, nee Covad, nee Speakeasy) and live about 350-400 meters from the CO and get a pathetic 3Mb/sec down and 768kb/sec up. I refuse to go with Time Warner as they are about as close to pure evil as you can get. Verizon's DSL offering is even more pathetic and their customer service is legendarily horrendous. However, in the suburban areas around here, it's common to get 30-70Mb/sec down and 5-10Mb/sec up with FIOS for (assuming you bundle TV and phone) a hefty (IIRC, ~$200/month) fee.
None of these providers care about providing quality service as they have a captive audience. What makes it worse is that consolidation among the smaller DSL ISPs is creating new monsters who cut services like DNS hosting and shell access while shipping customer service to India. Sigh.
I've never used iTunes. I just use folders and store everything by/Artist/Album. It's easy enough to right click the folder and select "play in VLC".
I do the same. I'm old so I actually own CDs and started ripping them all back in the '90s. I used CDex for that and it works really nicely. I use WinAmp to play my music and it works quite nicely as well.
I tried using iTunes on some of my relatives' devices and it sucks really badly. I would say that just about anything would be better than iTunes.
Both the author and the cited "expert" make a number of assertions which aren't supported by any facts or even coherent logical arguments. This is a screed designed to provoke controversy (with the likely goal of driving page views) without any scientific or even common-sense basis. Sigh.
that link is not remotely relevant to this situation! especially then this identity theft website IS ON TOR AND HAS NO REAL WHOIS!
Granted, generally the Safe Harbor provision applies to copyrighted materials, but it seems to me that the same should apply to personal information as well. Then again, IANAL so I could be wrong. As to the status of WHOIS entries for a domain, why would that be relevant in any case? It's not even illegal to give false information for WHOIS although doing so would likely violate the registrar's TOS.
If they cache them, and it is viewable, they DO have a responsibility.
Actually, the US Safe Harbor regs say that's not true. Why don't you do a little research before exposing your ignorance to the world? The link I posted took me less than five seconds to find. Sheesh!
From the link:
Subsection (b), service provider caching, exempts service providers’ making local copies of Web pages so that the pages don’t have to be fetched repeatedly over the Internet. Instead the cached copy is sent to their users. Service providers must honor any cache control requests provided by the communications protocol being used so that pages are not cached longer than desired by their creators, must not prevent the returning of information to the page creator about page usage, must honor password or other access controls, and must remove allegedly-infringing material if the material has been removed from its originating site. [Emphasis added]
As a newish developer who knows only the minimum I need to about TCP/IP protocol, I was surprised that this, and a number of common things (apparently games, streaming video) use UDP at all. I thought it was basically just used for ping.
Out of curiosity can anyone point out good books for learning more about how to implement applications that use TCP/IP including udp in ways other than the common ssh/http/ftp connections.
ICMP is used for ping, friend. I recommend the Comer books. Also, I'd also recommend that you read the IP, UDP and TCP specs.
I have spent the last six months trying to get google to de-index an identity theft website that is also full of stolen credit card numbers, and google ignores me pointedly.
Google seems to have no problem at all with a TOR/P2P 'darkweb' silk road type website with no real WHOIS publishing the social security numbers, DOB and contact information of thousands of American citizens plus a horde of other illegal material. Google search is publishing this material live, AND caching it.
I have exchanged over 400 emails with google support on this topic, and they _refuse_ to to anything to stop publishing this criminal activity and blatant identity theft.
For a while, they WERE de-indexing this site, and now they utterly ignore me, we are talking 6 weeks of my ticket being open now with no attention.
here is the google search to get to this foul, illegal black hat hacker/identity theft website:
I am including the SSN's in this post because GOOGLE NEEDS TO PAY SOME ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!
google has inhumanly, cruelly and illegally IGNORED hundreds of emails about this issue!
google is monstrous, evil and vile to deal with!
google aids and abets SERIOUS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY!
and google doesn't give a damn who is harmed by it!
Actually, Google has no responsibility for this. If you see illegal activities, contact law enforcement or go vigilante. Going vigilante is really the only scenario which might get some results, but contacting law enforcement will allow you to convince yourself that you're doing something without actually doing something, FTW!
If the po-po could take five minutes and stop spying on *everyone* they could use google searches to identify such breaches. They could contact the website owners about the CC leaks, which would actually be a public service. They could also partner with the CC companies to see if any of these cards were used in fraud. Any large scale use of exposed CC numbers could then be investigated with the support of the website owners and CC companies, potentially resulting in the apprehension of fraudsters.
Unfortunately, law enforcement is too busy spying on those who speak out against the status quo to do anything so breathtakingly rational. Sigh.
If you want to be sure that you find your number on Google, do the following thing:
1) Write a message here with your first 8 digits here on slashdot.
2) Send me in a private message your last 8 digits. And the 3 digits number at the back of your card.
3) Wait 2-3 weeks
After that, you can try to Google your number with success!;o)
Public service at its best! Thank you for supporting our civil society, Bob!
Slashdot Mirror
You're talking about this kind of thing. Essentially these kinds of studies measure the dollar spent, and adds the spending of the people who got it, etc. Intuitively there are limits to this kind of thing, because otherwise we could tax 100% and spend it all on social security and double the GDP of the country immediately. What the study doesn't take into consideration (the study done by the AARP, not an unbiased scientific organization) is that for each dollar spent, you are taking a dollar out of the economy when you tax it. And that dollar would have been either spent or invested, with its own multiplier effect. So the question you have to ask is, "is the multiplier effect of money spent by the government more than money spent by the private economy?" And the answer to that is, "it depends." If anyone tells you it is always better for the government to spend it, or always better for the private sector to spend it, then you know they are spreading propaganda. It's a complicated problem that no one understands completely.
Obviously, there are limits to this sort of thing. It can be useful, however. Unemployment benefits are a great example. Someone who loses their job doesn't have money to spend on food or mortgage or heat or electricity. Providing unemployment benefits helps in multiple ways:
1. Helps the individual and their family stay fed and lodged (I say help, because unemployment benefits are a fraction, usually less than half, of what the person was making while working)
2. If the person owns a home and can pay their mortgage, that helps home prices in the community.
3. The money is actually spent, which drives demand and, in aggregate, can stimulate the economy.
Whether the multiplier effect can be applied across the board (for all safety net spending) is an open question. Obviously, it would be better for that person to be employed. But the concept (IMHO) is valid and is backed up by quality research into this area. If there is data that shows this to be false, I'd like to see it.
What is scientific about what you did? You just googled and said look I found something that agrees with me? It is essentially argument from authority and argument from consensus.
You are correct. I did nothing scientific. The papers referred to in the links on the other hand are another story.
Not really argument from authority, as I cited specific studies whose methodologies and conclusions can be reviewed and critiqued. This paper gives a nice overview of the *actual* research being done in this area.
Whether you agree with me or not makes little difference to me. If you or anyone else has other data or analyses, I'd be happy to look at it. If my conclusions are faulty, I will change my mind and admit that my conclusions were wrong. Thanks for your comment.
Look at wealth disparity for the US (and in fact any "Western" Nation). This is freely available for all nations since 1970s which is a fair benchmark, but the data goes back further. Go ahead and look at what the great levelers "Keynesian" and "trickle down" have done. If you really claim that these two sets of policies work, I'd hate to see what you call failure. I hope you don't need me to Google that for you.
Apparently, we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about economic analyses that clearly show that government spending on the social safety net (unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc.) generates more economic activity in real terms than the money invested in those programs. And yes, stimulating demand is a Keynesian idea. The search results I posted bear out the validity of those policies.
I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Keynesian ideas and "trickle down" or Supply Side ideas are, for the most part, diametrically opposed.
Keynesian economic policies pushed the US economy through it's longest peacetime expansion. Ever. That's not to say it's perfect, or that any economic theory is perfect.
Here in the US, the Reagan Administration famously applied Supply Side policies, but the only trickle-down effect (as I recall. I was there.) was pissing on the poor. Bush I, Clinton and Bush II all did the same thing, exacerbating the wealth inequality here in the US enormously.
So. What is it that you're trying to say? Based on your posts, I'll make a few guesses: That we should increase wealth inequality? That we should remove the social safety net and reduce taxes on the wealthiest and that will solve all our economic problems? Or "Fuck you Jack! I got mine!"?
Please advise. Inquiring minds don't really want to know, but I'm guessing you don't have a coherent argument so here's some rope for you, bud.
What I take issue with is that you present one side of the debate, and present it as fact. When it is not fact, and the benefits don't line up with the claims. I'm sure that there is middle ground here to debate, but your side is absolutely not proven.
Please, by all means, prove me wrong. Present/cite data and analyses that support your point of view and I will consider them. It's possible that I've reached incorrect conclusions, and I'm willing to change my mind if I'm presented with evidence to that effect. Are you?
I'd also point out that the link I posted is just a list of google search results for "Social Safety net economic multipliers." If you see bias there, take it up with Google.
Also, I'd like to apologize for inadvertently poking at your settled world view. I know that can be quite disconcerting. I'd only point out that using verifiable, repeatable methods to validate/invalidate a hypothesis is fairly standard. We call it the "Scientific Method." Perhaps you should try it some time, rather than relying on arguments from authority (in this case, Milton Friedman) and dogma.
Economic analysis shows that government spending, especially on safety nets has a net positive effect (each dollar spent increases economic activity by more than a dollar) on the economy. I was looking around for a good example of such an analysis, but there are so many, I'll let you pick the one you like best.
I like the one where you take your "economic analysis" and shove it up your fucking ass. You do not have the right to rob me at gunpoint to financially support faggots, drug abusers, and losers, no matter how many government funded studies you wave in my face to try and convince me it's OK. Fuck you.
Why thank you. I think that's the nicest thing anyone's said to me all day.
It's not *my* economic analysis. Heck, I didn't even cherry pick the links. I just did a google search for "Social Safety Net Economic Multipliers" and linked to the results.
I'd also point out that your homophobic remarks are pretty puerile. I'll even wave a government (NIH) study in your face that points up your latent homosexuality.
I expect this from a shill, but not from an educated person. Governments can not be the whole of economy, it does not work that way. As the old saying goes "when something appears to be too good to be true, it probably is" comes to mind. A Government has no money of it's own. A Government's money is based entirely on the productivity of society. It is therefor impossible for a Government to "multiply" money by spending money. It is a logical contradiction at every level, often dressed up to appear "good" to someone uninformed.
In short, a Government is not and can not be a producer. A Government is a taker, and can only take from society.
This is not _my_ opinion, this opinion comes from countless economists. Read and Comprehend what Milton Friedman says about the same subject. Mr. Friedman was kind enough to also explain to the uneducated how people gamed systems with things like Keynesian principles, and why those principles are wrong (even giving examples of failures due to those policies).
Sigh. It's not me saying this, it's economists the world over. You talk about educated people. Educate yourself, sir. Look at the data and analyses. If you choose to disagree with them, then please cite references to support your point of view rather than your own personal prejudices. Thank you and have a nice day.
There were numerous reports about the 9/11 hijackers doing things like learning to fly jets and many of them were already on terrorist watch lists.
The issue wasn't a lack of information, it was apathy and incompetence. Gathering *even more* information about innocent people won't help stop anything. Having competent people who do their jobs can.
All that said, freedom isn't safe. If we want to be free, we have to understand that there are those who are unbalanced, criminal, or just downright nasty out there. We need balanced laws and competent people to address this, but spying on everyone isn't the answer. That is all.
Of course, every dollar spent on handouts is taken out of the private sector and taking money out of the private sector reduces job opportunities so the best way to keep from straining the safety net is to quite spending so damn much money on it. If govt spending is not reduced, then the country will soon be bankrupted, there will be widespread civil unrest and a police state will be instituted in order to restore order. It may be hard for some to accept, but that is exactly what Obama and his backers want. Obama isn't intent on releasing a bunch of convicted criminals from prison for nothing - every would-be dictator recruits a private army from low-level street criminals, people devoid of conscience, willing to brutalize the law-abiding and live off them like parasites.
Bzzzt! Wrong. Thanks for playing. Economic analysis shows that government spending, especially on safety nets has a net positive effect (each dollar spent increases economic activity by more than a dollar) on the economy. I was looking around for a good example of such an analysis, but there are so many, I'll let you pick the one you like best. :)
It seems to me that the only application for this sort of this is attempting to attract venture capital to create a "business" that can be sold to Facebook/Google/Yahoo/whatever to aid in their quest to give marketers even more information which they think might help them sell more stuff.
While this is unsurprising, it's also pathetic. Sigh.
Facebook has become difficult to even type in the status box, because they're trying so hard to fill in suggestions and the like that the cursor jumps around. Half the time it jumbles up characters, likely because there's a crap-ton on javascript running with every keystroke.
So everybody should, twice daily, type "Mark Zuckerberg is a douchebag" and post it ;-)
There. FTFY.
Outside the box, how about inside the box!
What is wrong with good old fashion detective work? You get tips from people you follow them up, you listen to truly public chatter learn who the malcontents are and infiltrate their groups, etc.
All things police and spy agencies have been doing as long as they have existed and it worked without with to a large degree without global privacy shredding mass data collection. Is it likely to be as "effective" my guess is probably not as effective as mass surveillance can be but then again there is little evidence to suggest the the mass surveillance has worked so well, I mean people are still going abroad to meet with terror organizations come home and then sneak bombs on planes; they have just failed to detonate.
Its a question of finding balance: risks, costs, and rewards. The real solution is we need to start getting rational about that.
This. I'd point out that several US law enforcement and intelligence agencies had identified a number of the 9/11 hijackers as potential threats *months* before 9/11. The problem wasn't that they couldn't find these guys, it was because they couldn't find their ass with both hands and a mirror.
Ensuring competency makes sense, trampling on the Bill of Rights does not.
You're very articulate; now, do you have a specific example of a sentence or paragraph that is evidence of the claims you're making?
I'm not your English tutor. I'm not really interested in getting involved with you or your crappy prose. However, I am an honest and charitable guy so I gave you some constructive criticism. I already made specific comments about what I saw in your current post. If you can't extrapolate from there, I take back what I said about you not being an idiot.
Do you have an example of what you're referring to?
Yes. All of your posts.
I'll bite. FTFA: Gergely sent an email to security@google.com on December 28, 2012 (which he later showed to me), describing the vulnerability in detail. After describing the simple trick, his email stated: "I don't know if this qualifies as a bug bounty bug, but I think it's certainly not in your interest to let these queries through. Using this method one can bypass all your numerical query filters, filters for SSN, TFN, credit cards, maybe DoS prevention and others I can not think of at the moment." Gergely sent them a follow-up email on August 23, 2013. In both cases he said he received no response except for an auto-reply. There's really no reason for the last two sentences to be in a separate paragraph, and this is something that is common in the way you write. From The Elements of Style: "In general, remember that paragraphing calls for a good eye as well as a logical mind. Enormous blocks of print look formidable to readers, who are often reluctant to tackle them. Therefore, breaking long paragraphs in two, even if it is not necessary to do so for sense, meaning, or logical development, is often a visual help. But remember, too, that firing off many short paragraphs in quick succession can be distracting. Paragraph breaks used only for show read like the writing of commerce or of display advertising. Moderation and a sense of order should be the main considerations in paragraphing." (emphasis mine)
Thanks for picking that up NormalVisual. You're absolutely correct. I was just going to ignore Mr. Haselton's ridiculous question about paragraphs because it's not really the paragraphing that annoys me.
What really annoys me is the verbosity and lack of semantic content in his prose. I suggested "The Elements of Style" because he clearly isn't going to go away and thought he might learn something about writing clearly and concisely.
Mr. Haselton's posts (IMHO) appear to be written for a general audience, are poorly organized, and are often of dubious (IMHO) intellectual value. Several important aspects to writing engagingly are to know your audience, organize your thoughts coherently, be concise and to have the ideas flow logically. This post fails in all of those respects.
The end result is that the post is dull, hard to read and doesn't draw a picture of the concepts being expressed. Mr. Haselton clearly isn't an idiot, but he appears to be a poor writer of English prose.
If you're going to continue to "gift" us with your thoughts Mr. Haselton, I implore you to at least make an attempt to improve your writing. Should you do so, your posts will likely be much better received and will elicit more on-topic discussion.
As a relevant aside, I don't claim to be a great (or even good) writer. Nonetheless, feel free to critique my writing if you like.
The Elements of Style. Your ponderous prose is an affront to literacy. Every time I see that you've posted something I wonder if you've finally realized that quantity does not equal quality. You may get paid by the word elsewhere, but not here.
I might even bother to read what you write if you would just, for the sake of all that is good in this world, be concise. ARRRGGGHHH!
It's not always built out to the edges of the cities. I live in a city and FIOS was built to the suburbs around me. If you live on the edge of the city, near the suburbs, you might be able to get FIOS. If not, you are stuck with Time Warner Cable or Verizon DSL. And Verizon is more and more trying to disown DSL users so that's not really an option. Since going without Internet isn't an option either, I'm forced to take what Time Warner Cable offers me at the price they demand and they know it so there's no reason for them to improve service, speed up the network, or drop their prices.
Exactly. I live right in one of the largest US cities (given that you talk about Verizon *and* Time Warner, I suspect we're in the same place) and FIOS isn't even being planned for my neighborhood. I have DSL (from Megapath, nee Covad, nee Speakeasy) and live about 350-400 meters from the CO and get a pathetic 3Mb/sec down and 768kb/sec up. I refuse to go with Time Warner as they are about as close to pure evil as you can get. Verizon's DSL offering is even more pathetic and their customer service is legendarily horrendous. However, in the suburban areas around here, it's common to get 30-70Mb/sec down and 5-10Mb/sec up with FIOS for (assuming you bundle TV and phone) a hefty (IIRC, ~$200/month) fee.
None of these providers care about providing quality service as they have a captive audience. What makes it worse is that consolidation among the smaller DSL ISPs is creating new monsters who cut services like DNS hosting and shell access while shipping customer service to India. Sigh.
I've never used iTunes. I just use folders and store everything by /Artist/Album. It's easy enough to right click the folder and select "play in VLC".
I do the same. I'm old so I actually own CDs and started ripping them all back in the '90s. I used CDex for that and it works really nicely. I use WinAmp to play my music and it works quite nicely as well.
I tried using iTunes on some of my relatives' devices and it sucks really badly. I would say that just about anything would be better than iTunes.
Both the author and the cited "expert" make a number of assertions which aren't supported by any facts or even coherent logical arguments. This is a screed designed to provoke controversy (with the likely goal of driving page views) without any scientific or even common-sense basis. Sigh.
that link is not remotely relevant to this situation! especially then this identity theft website IS ON TOR AND HAS NO REAL WHOIS!
Granted, generally the Safe Harbor provision applies to copyrighted materials, but it seems to me that the same should apply to personal information as well. Then again, IANAL so I could be wrong. As to the status of WHOIS entries for a domain, why would that be relevant in any case? It's not even illegal to give false information for WHOIS although doing so would likely violate the registrar's TOS.
If they cache them, and it is viewable, they DO have a responsibility.
Actually, the US Safe Harbor regs say that's not true. Why don't you do a little research before exposing your ignorance to the world? The link I posted took me less than five seconds to find. Sheesh!
From the link:
As a newish developer who knows only the minimum I need to about TCP/IP protocol, I was surprised that this, and a number of common things (apparently games, streaming video) use UDP at all. I thought it was basically just used for ping.
Out of curiosity can anyone point out good books for learning more about how to implement applications that use TCP/IP including udp in ways other than the common ssh/http/ftp connections.
ICMP is used for ping, friend. I recommend the Comer books. Also, I'd also recommend that you read the IP, UDP and TCP specs.
I have spent the last six months trying to get google to de-index an identity theft website that is also full of stolen credit card numbers, and google ignores me pointedly.
Google seems to have no problem at all with a TOR/P2P 'darkweb' silk road type website with no real WHOIS publishing the social security numbers, DOB and contact information of thousands of American citizens plus a horde of other illegal material. Google search is publishing this material live, AND caching it.
I have exchanged over 400 emails with google support on this topic, and they _refuse_ to to anything to stop publishing this criminal activity and blatant identity theft.
For a while, they WERE de-indexing this site, and now they utterly ignore me, we are talking 6 weeks of my ticket being open now with no attention.
here is the google search to get to this foul, illegal black hat hacker/identity theft website:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22doxbin+social+security+number%22&oq=%22doxbin+social+security+number%22&aqs=chrome..69i57.7974j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
and here is the page itself reached from that search:
https://npieqpvpjhrmdchg.onion.to/doxviewer.php?dox=1194_Americans_SSNs
also
https://doxbinumfxfyytnh.onion.lu/doxviewer.php
and here is a sample of what is on that website:
(excised)
I am including the SSN's in this post because GOOGLE NEEDS TO PAY SOME ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!
google has inhumanly, cruelly and illegally IGNORED hundreds of emails about this issue!
google is monstrous, evil and vile to deal with!
google aids and abets SERIOUS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY!
and google doesn't give a damn who is harmed by it!
Actually, Google has no responsibility for this. If you see illegal activities, contact law enforcement or go vigilante. Going vigilante is really the only scenario which might get some results, but contacting law enforcement will allow you to convince yourself that you're doing something without actually doing something, FTW!
If the po-po could take five minutes and stop spying on *everyone* they could use google searches to identify such breaches. They could contact the website owners about the CC leaks, which would actually be a public service. They could also partner with the CC companies to see if any of these cards were used in fraud. Any large scale use of exposed CC numbers could then be investigated with the support of the website owners and CC companies, potentially resulting in the apprehension of fraudsters.
Unfortunately, law enforcement is too busy spying on those who speak out against the status quo to do anything so breathtakingly rational. Sigh.
If you want to be sure that you find your number on Google, do the following thing: 1) Write a message here with your first 8 digits here on slashdot. 2) Send me in a private message your last 8 digits. And the 3 digits number at the back of your card. 3) Wait 2-3 weeks After that, you can try to Google your number with success! ;o)
Public service at its best! Thank you for supporting our civil society, Bob!