Sadly, in my circumstance, online backup isn't an option. I have about 800MB to back up. Doing this online would be prohibitively expensive. Amazon Cloud Drive, for example, would cost me $1,000 per year for 1TB of backup space. My solution is to have two 1TB hard drives. The data is backed up on one and then copied to the other. One drive stays in my house but the other is moved off-site. If one drive fails (or is stolen), I can buy another new drive and copy the data to that one. I could even buy two new drives every year (and thus be more assured that my drives wouldn't fail due to old age) for less than the cost of Amazon's offerings. (Two 2TB Western Digital drives from NewEgg would cost about $250. So I'd save $750.)
This doesn't even get into the time required to back up 800MB (although, admittedly, this would be a one-time backup followed by incremental backups) nor the time needed to download the files should I need them again (much slower via the Internet than via USB) nor the possibility that the online service would close down/be shut down.
Not to mention that one of their more immediate goals (asteroid mining is their endgame, but they have more achievable goals set for the nearer term) is to have a bunch of orbiting telescopes to find and track asteroids. Yes, the intent for this will be to find asteroids that could later be mined, but I don't see why this also couldn't be used as an Asteroid Collision Early Warning system. The more telescopes looking for asteroids, the more likely we are to spot one headed for Earth early, and the more likely we are to be able to stop/minimize the damage it does.
As someone else said above, this beats the billionaires deciding to spend their money by buying a sports team.
Re:The best/worst things about the US government
on
In Nothing We Trust
·
· Score: 1
Even Worse: Companies are defined as People (very rich and powerful People) and decide what our government will be.
What they haven't announced yet is, for the automated system to work, you first step into a room where a bunch of robotic arms probe your various orifices as painfully as possible. Then, for no apparent reason, you are hit with a high dose of radiation. If you oppose this sensible security measure, clearly you support the terrorists!
YouTube would in future have to install an efficient mechanism to filter out such content uploaded by users or face a fine of up to 250,000 euros ($330,000) for each case, or up to six months imprisonment.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but how would they imprison YouTube? Would all the videos have bars in front of them? Are they going to round up all of Google Gerrmany's employees and send them to prison? Would just the head of Google's Germany office get sent to jail? How exactly do you send a company to jail?
I'm convinced that there's a secret Stupid Politician award that we don't hear about and all of these people are vying to win the prize. Who will get it this year? The folks who voted to let teachers highlight Evolution's "flaws", the UK folks who want to kiddie-proof the entire Internet, or the politician who called public opposition to CISPA "turbulence on the way down to landing"?
"This is quite a shock. He hasn't been under any stress that I know of. He's never really under any stress. He works for a computer company in California. He does something with the Internet, which is just kind of mystical to me."
People who are under stress will often suppress it and put on a happy face to everyone around. This isn't a healthy way of dealing with it, of course, and the person is likely to snap at some point.
And also, the Internet is mystical??!!! "For my next trick, I shall conjure up Google's homepage!" *awaits oohs and aaahs from the crowd*
The problem is that people are easily distracted and corporations (for all of their focus on short-term gains) are patient. They can enact a hundred mini-SOPAs to slowly move us to the point where we have a full SOPA in place while making sure the people are a) distracted and/or b) not outraged enough by the mini-SOPA to act.
It's quite the contrast between Louis CK and the usual Hollywood method of handling obscene profits.
Louis CK - 25% pays for expenses, 25% for bonuses all around, over 25% donated to charity, keeps less than 25% for himself.
Hollywood - What obscene profit? That billion dollar grossing film that set box office records *LOST* money according to these books right here. Those other ones sitting there? *waves hand* Those aren't the books you're looking for. Move along *sees waving hand isn't doing anything so grabs books, jumps into solid gold Porche and speeds away*
Well, everyone knows about the Whalers on the Moon (they carry a harpoon, etc). A little less known are the Viking Robots on Mars (they drive around in cars).
People do benefit from it. Ex-Playboy models can sell books and go around talk shows. Discredited doctors can get grants from people desperate to find an autism cure. Alternative Medicine companies can sell sugar pills... I mean, Homeopathic remedies for diseases. There is money to be made here. Probably a lot more than to be made by selling vaccines.
If not vaccinating meant that only your kids had the risk of contracting the disease, I'd agree with you. As a parent, you would bear the responsibility for weighing your options and choosing whether or not to vaccinate. It would still be a very good idea, just not a government mandated good idea.
However, when a parent decides not to vaccinate, they put others at risk: The elderly (too old to have gotten the vaccine), the very young (too young to get the vaccine yet), and those with medical reasons for not vaccinating (allergies, immune system disorders, etc). When an action you take could result in the injuring or death of other people, I think it's a perfect time for government to act.
Well, I'd only add one caveat to this: A reasonable person can decide not to vaccinate if there is a valid medical reason. For example, if a child has an immune system disorder or an allergy that would make getting the vaccine a health-risk. In those cases, those kids must rely on herd immunity to protect them.
Barring valid medical reasons, though, not vaccinating puts not only your child at risk, but the elderly (who didn't have the vaccines when they were young), the very young (too young to get the vaccines) and the medically exempted (allergies, etc). Yes, I know that some religions say don't vaccinate, but most major religions value life and a simple act one can take that saves many lives should be viewed (religiously-speaking) as a very good thing.
Sadly, a lot of anti-vax people will actually claim that Pertussis isn't a deadly disease. One of the big anti-vax folks in Australia once said "Nobody's ever died of Whooping Cough." (This, after a four-week old baby died of it. The anti-vax lady claimed the baby must have been something else.) If they don't claim this, then they'll claim that vaccines really don't fight diseases and all you really need to do is wash your hands more/take more vitamins/avoid "toxins"/take some homeopathic pills/etc. (The first is good advice in general but won't help you if you get Pertussis.) The more their "vaccines bad" theories get disproven, the more they move their goal posts as to why vaccines are bad (and if you don't disprove their current theory, then it's obviously true).
You're not looking at airport security in The Right Way (aka The TSA Way). There are two rules to the TSA Way Of Airport Security:
Rule #1: It doesn't matter if it's effective or not so long as people think stuff is being done. Because if people think stuff is being done, they'll feel secure and if they feel secure then the terrorists have lost.
Rule #2: If there are gaps in security, don't talk about them. Because if you talk about them, the terrorists will learn about them and exploit them to cause mayhem. But if you keep quiet, the terrorists will never learn about them and everyone will still feel secure.
Did they get the patent on mass-mailing your software to customers on floppy disks? That could net them millions of dollars. Well, Zimbabwe dollars at least.
Sadly, companies like this seem to consider basic fraud checks to be a needless expense. They just approve any credit/transfers and if they make a mistake.... oops! Well, it's only your money/credit. They'll write off any losses they incur and move on. Not every company is like this, but enough big companies are to make real problems for people like us.
It all depends on how much you want to pursue the matter and how forceful your police department is. My police department kept insisting that investigating these cases was useless because chances are the thief was in a different jurisdiction. They would not update me for awhile and, when I got insistent, they would reveal there was no progress at all. They honestly didn't seem to care much because I didn't "lose" anything of much value. (We caught it in time so immediate monetary loss was zero.) They also were completely technologically clueless. When they mentioned they had the IP address of the person who submitted the application form, I had to show them how to tracert to find info on the IP and alerted them to the fact that the ISP could tell them who was signed on then given the IP and date/time. After the credit card company's delays and the police delays got to be too much, I just dropped it and concentrated on securing my credit against future attacks.
Step 1: Report it to all 3 credit agencies (Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax) and put fraud alerts on your credit files.
Step 2: Get your free annual credit report from all 3 agencies (not just 1 agency) and go over it with a fine toothed comb. Make sure *EVERYTHING* on there is legit. Contact the agencies about any non-legit items to get them removed.
Step 3: Freeze your credit file.
About the latter, fraud alerts last for 90 days and are only a warning sign to be on the lookout for fraud. Companies can (and do) ignore them from time to time. They aren't a guarantee that your credit won't be misused again. Freezing your file, however, means that nobody can add items to your credit unless you thaw it first. Yes, it means you can't get a loan or open up a store credit card on a whim, but that's the trade-off for peace of mind knowing that the thieves could have all of your personal info and still won't be able to do anything with it credit-wise.
Of course, freezing isn't a cure-all. ID thieves could still use your identity if they are arrested for a crime and you could find yourself with a criminal record you didn't "earn." Still, it's a very handy tool to use.
One would hope so, but as I learned the hard way, companies don't always check or pay attention to red flags. My identity was stolen. The thieves used my name, address, SSN, and DOB to open a credit card in my name. They got my mother's maiden name wrong. You know, that "security" question that's supposed to help prevent fraud? They got it completely wrong. (Red Flag #1) Then, they paid for rush delivery of the card and changed the address to another state entirely. (Red Flag #2) Then, they tried to get a $5,000 cash advance before the card was even activated. (Red Flag #3)
The only reason I found out about any of this was because the card company shipped the card out FIRST and THEN changed the address on their records. So the card wound up on my doorstep. Of course, once alerted to the fraud, the credit card company stonewalled me. (I was actually told "We can't tell you what the address is on the file they created under your name because if you go there and shoot them we're liable for damages.") They also stonewalled the police officers by not responding to calls. (They had a special "police call here" line which seemed to go straight to an unanswered voice mail system.)
The end result is that my ID thief got away and likely stole other people's identities and the credit card company (*cough* Capital One *cough*) is likely still approving sketchy applications.
The Universe may be 13.75 billion years old, but it doesn't look a day over 13.5 billion. I wonder if it's had work done. Maybe some cosmic surgery to reduce those time-space stretch marks.
To answer question #1: It's not just the Internet. If you are a very conservative Republican, you will likely watch FOX over MSNBC and listen to Hannity or Limbaugh on the radio. If you are a very liberal Democrat, you are likely to avoid these and watch/listen to NPR, MSNBC, etc. These stations will present news and opinion spun for their audience, thus reinforcing bias. (For example, how many "Obama is great" segments will Fox News air? How many "Obama is horrible" segments would MSNBC air?)
In fact, only listening to things that reinforce your own opinions dates back way before TV was invented. How many times in history do you think Religion A's followers thought "Hey, we should really read some of Religion B's holy works to see how they see things"? And, if one person said that, how many times in history would he have been killed for being a heathen (thus reinforcing the "only look at our ideas" position)? We might have a ways to go, but we're improving on this front, not getting worse.
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly, in my circumstance, online backup isn't an option. I have about 800MB to back up. Doing this online would be prohibitively expensive. Amazon Cloud Drive, for example, would cost me $1,000 per year for 1TB of backup space. My solution is to have two 1TB hard drives. The data is backed up on one and then copied to the other. One drive stays in my house but the other is moved off-site. If one drive fails (or is stolen), I can buy another new drive and copy the data to that one. I could even buy two new drives every year (and thus be more assured that my drives wouldn't fail due to old age) for less than the cost of Amazon's offerings. (Two 2TB Western Digital drives from NewEgg would cost about $250. So I'd save $750.)
This doesn't even get into the time required to back up 800MB (although, admittedly, this would be a one-time backup followed by incremental backups) nor the time needed to download the files should I need them again (much slower via the Internet than via USB) nor the possibility that the online service would close down/be shut down.
Not to mention that one of their more immediate goals (asteroid mining is their endgame, but they have more achievable goals set for the nearer term) is to have a bunch of orbiting telescopes to find and track asteroids. Yes, the intent for this will be to find asteroids that could later be mined, but I don't see why this also couldn't be used as an Asteroid Collision Early Warning system. The more telescopes looking for asteroids, the more likely we are to spot one headed for Earth early, and the more likely we are to be able to stop/minimize the damage it does.
As someone else said above, this beats the billionaires deciding to spend their money by buying a sports team.
Even Worse: Companies are defined as People (very rich and powerful People) and decide what our government will be.
What they haven't announced yet is, for the automated system to work, you first step into a room where a bunch of robotic arms probe your various orifices as painfully as possible. Then, for no apparent reason, you are hit with a high dose of radiation. If you oppose this sensible security measure, clearly you support the terrorists!
Perhaps I'm missing something, but how would they imprison YouTube? Would all the videos have bars in front of them? Are they going to round up all of Google Gerrmany's employees and send them to prison? Would just the head of Google's Germany office get sent to jail? How exactly do you send a company to jail?
I'm convinced that there's a secret Stupid Politician award that we don't hear about and all of these people are vying to win the prize. Who will get it this year? The folks who voted to let teachers highlight Evolution's "flaws", the UK folks who want to kiddie-proof the entire Internet, or the politician who called public opposition to CISPA "turbulence on the way down to landing"?
The father's response bugged me a bit:
"This is quite a shock. He hasn't been under any stress that I know of. He's never really under any stress. He works for a computer company in California. He does something with the Internet, which is just kind of mystical to me."
People who are under stress will often suppress it and put on a happy face to everyone around. This isn't a healthy way of dealing with it, of course, and the person is likely to snap at some point.
And also, the Internet is mystical??!!! "For my next trick, I shall conjure up Google's homepage!" *awaits oohs and aaahs from the crowd*
The problem is that people are easily distracted and corporations (for all of their focus on short-term gains) are patient. They can enact a hundred mini-SOPAs to slowly move us to the point where we have a full SOPA in place while making sure the people are a) distracted and/or b) not outraged enough by the mini-SOPA to act.
It's quite the contrast between Louis CK and the usual Hollywood method of handling obscene profits.
Louis CK - 25% pays for expenses, 25% for bonuses all around, over 25% donated to charity, keeps less than 25% for himself.
Hollywood - What obscene profit? That billion dollar grossing film that set box office records *LOST* money according to these books right here. Those other ones sitting there? *waves hand* Those aren't the books you're looking for. Move along *sees waving hand isn't doing anything so grabs books, jumps into solid gold Porche and speeds away*
Well, everyone knows about the Whalers on the Moon (they carry a harpoon, etc). A little less known are the Viking Robots on Mars (they drive around in cars).
People do benefit from it. Ex-Playboy models can sell books and go around talk shows. Discredited doctors can get grants from people desperate to find an autism cure. Alternative Medicine companies can sell sugar pills... I mean, Homeopathic remedies for diseases. There is money to be made here. Probably a lot more than to be made by selling vaccines.
If not vaccinating meant that only your kids had the risk of contracting the disease, I'd agree with you. As a parent, you would bear the responsibility for weighing your options and choosing whether or not to vaccinate. It would still be a very good idea, just not a government mandated good idea.
However, when a parent decides not to vaccinate, they put others at risk: The elderly (too old to have gotten the vaccine), the very young (too young to get the vaccine yet), and those with medical reasons for not vaccinating (allergies, immune system disorders, etc). When an action you take could result in the injuring or death of other people, I think it's a perfect time for government to act.
Well, I'd only add one caveat to this: A reasonable person can decide not to vaccinate if there is a valid medical reason. For example, if a child has an immune system disorder or an allergy that would make getting the vaccine a health-risk. In those cases, those kids must rely on herd immunity to protect them.
Barring valid medical reasons, though, not vaccinating puts not only your child at risk, but the elderly (who didn't have the vaccines when they were young), the very young (too young to get the vaccines) and the medically exempted (allergies, etc). Yes, I know that some religions say don't vaccinate, but most major religions value life and a simple act one can take that saves many lives should be viewed (religiously-speaking) as a very good thing.
Sadly, a lot of anti-vax people will actually claim that Pertussis isn't a deadly disease. One of the big anti-vax folks in Australia once said "Nobody's ever died of Whooping Cough." (This, after a four-week old baby died of it. The anti-vax lady claimed the baby must have been something else.) If they don't claim this, then they'll claim that vaccines really don't fight diseases and all you really need to do is wash your hands more/take more vitamins/avoid "toxins"/take some homeopathic pills/etc. (The first is good advice in general but won't help you if you get Pertussis.) The more their "vaccines bad" theories get disproven, the more they move their goal posts as to why vaccines are bad (and if you don't disprove their current theory, then it's obviously true).
You're not looking at airport security in The Right Way (aka The TSA Way). There are two rules to the TSA Way Of Airport Security:
Rule #1: It doesn't matter if it's effective or not so long as people think stuff is being done. Because if people think stuff is being done, they'll feel secure and if they feel secure then the terrorists have lost.
Rule #2: If there are gaps in security, don't talk about them. Because if you talk about them, the terrorists will learn about them and exploit them to cause mayhem. But if you keep quiet, the terrorists will never learn about them and everyone will still feel secure.
I think the old saying "It's funny because it's true" has now been modified to be "It's frightening because it's true".
Good luck unplugging The Internet considering that it is wireless and sits atop Big Ben! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbyYGrswtg
Did they get the patent on mass-mailing your software to customers on floppy disks? That could net them millions of dollars. Well, Zimbabwe dollars at least.
Thanks for adding that link.
Sadly, companies like this seem to consider basic fraud checks to be a needless expense. They just approve any credit/transfers and if they make a mistake.... oops! Well, it's only your money/credit. They'll write off any losses they incur and move on. Not every company is like this, but enough big companies are to make real problems for people like us.
It all depends on how much you want to pursue the matter and how forceful your police department is. My police department kept insisting that investigating these cases was useless because chances are the thief was in a different jurisdiction. They would not update me for awhile and, when I got insistent, they would reveal there was no progress at all. They honestly didn't seem to care much because I didn't "lose" anything of much value. (We caught it in time so immediate monetary loss was zero.) They also were completely technologically clueless. When they mentioned they had the IP address of the person who submitted the application form, I had to show them how to tracert to find info on the IP and alerted them to the fact that the ISP could tell them who was signed on then given the IP and date/time. After the credit card company's delays and the police delays got to be too much, I just dropped it and concentrated on securing my credit against future attacks.
My advice for anyone who's identity was stolen:
Step 1: Report it to all 3 credit agencies (Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax) and put fraud alerts on your credit files.
Step 2: Get your free annual credit report from all 3 agencies (not just 1 agency) and go over it with a fine toothed comb. Make sure *EVERYTHING* on there is legit. Contact the agencies about any non-legit items to get them removed.
Step 3: Freeze your credit file.
About the latter, fraud alerts last for 90 days and are only a warning sign to be on the lookout for fraud. Companies can (and do) ignore them from time to time. They aren't a guarantee that your credit won't be misused again. Freezing your file, however, means that nobody can add items to your credit unless you thaw it first. Yes, it means you can't get a loan or open up a store credit card on a whim, but that's the trade-off for peace of mind knowing that the thieves could have all of your personal info and still won't be able to do anything with it credit-wise.
Of course, freezing isn't a cure-all. ID thieves could still use your identity if they are arrested for a crime and you could find yourself with a criminal record you didn't "earn." Still, it's a very handy tool to use.
One would hope so, but as I learned the hard way, companies don't always check or pay attention to red flags. My identity was stolen. The thieves used my name, address, SSN, and DOB to open a credit card in my name. They got my mother's maiden name wrong. You know, that "security" question that's supposed to help prevent fraud? They got it completely wrong. (Red Flag #1) Then, they paid for rush delivery of the card and changed the address to another state entirely. (Red Flag #2) Then, they tried to get a $5,000 cash advance before the card was even activated. (Red Flag #3)
The only reason I found out about any of this was because the card company shipped the card out FIRST and THEN changed the address on their records. So the card wound up on my doorstep. Of course, once alerted to the fraud, the credit card company stonewalled me. (I was actually told "We can't tell you what the address is on the file they created under your name because if you go there and shoot them we're liable for damages.") They also stonewalled the police officers by not responding to calls. (They had a special "police call here" line which seemed to go straight to an unanswered voice mail system.)
The end result is that my ID thief got away and likely stole other people's identities and the credit card company (*cough* Capital One *cough*) is likely still approving sketchy applications.
The Universe may be 13.75 billion years old, but it doesn't look a day over 13.5 billion. I wonder if it's had work done. Maybe some cosmic surgery to reduce those time-space stretch marks.
To answer question #1: It's not just the Internet. If you are a very conservative Republican, you will likely watch FOX over MSNBC and listen to Hannity or Limbaugh on the radio. If you are a very liberal Democrat, you are likely to avoid these and watch/listen to NPR, MSNBC, etc. These stations will present news and opinion spun for their audience, thus reinforcing bias. (For example, how many "Obama is great" segments will Fox News air? How many "Obama is horrible" segments would MSNBC air?)
In fact, only listening to things that reinforce your own opinions dates back way before TV was invented. How many times in history do you think Religion A's followers thought "Hey, we should really read some of Religion B's holy works to see how they see things"? And, if one person said that, how many times in history would he have been killed for being a heathen (thus reinforcing the "only look at our ideas" position)? We might have a ways to go, but we're improving on this front, not getting worse.