I'd take that bet as well... based on the history of nuclear power.
The number of people saved by our understanding of atomic energy far outnumbers the numbers killed (~200k at Nagasaki and Hiroshima directly, plus deaths from fallout there and Cheronobyl. Call it 1M to be safe). Think of how many people have benefitted from MRI's, radiation therapy, and other medical uses of nuclear power/radiation.
It's not a perfect analogy, of course, but after all, as someone else pointed out - it's a sucker's bet.
For those who don't know, Sequent was a super-computer company that developed a lot of the software techniques that make today's multi-processor machines (especially the more-than-2 processor systems) work well.
Not just a super-computer company... they also built high end Unix servers. Georgia Tech had a Sequent box running Dynix as the main campus computer system from the late 80's to early 90's. IIRC, hydra was a 16-CPU system with 386DX's. And while at the end of its life (1993 I think) it was godawful slow, it was still better than the Sun box (which later became boxes) that replaced it (GT and Sun discovered that Solaris did very poorly in a heavily task switched environment, spending up to 80% of CPU time in overhead... that's improved since, but AFAIK they never quite fixed the problem). Dynix was the first Unix OS I ever used. It was a helluva lot better than Ultrix, but that's about all I recall about it.
at first glance IBM has every right to contribute this code to Linux
Yeah, but SCO is claiming that Sequent's license didn't include transferral of license, that the various multiprocessor technologies were derivative works, and that SCO retained rights to all derivative works under that license. IBM did buy a perpetual, non-revokable, fully paid, yadda yadda yadda license for Unix, but that was prior to the purchase of Sequent. SCO is thus claiming that Sequent's license holds true here and that IBM didn't have the right to distribute the code without SCO's approval. IBM does, however, hold the patents to the technologies in question. It may become a question not only of which license applies, but also whether or not the code contributed to Linux was the same as the code that Sequent had or if it was a re-implementation of the patent that IBM holds.
Agreed on everything you said (excellent grasp of copyright law BTW), except that the GP post is still correct -- it doesn't matter.
SCO isn't suing over copyright claims, they're suing over breech of contract and disclosure of trade secrets. If they can prove that then it doesn't matter, vis a vis the IBM suit, whether or not the Linux code is changed -- IBM still broke the contract and released trade secrets. The kernel devs could release a 100% brand new, totally non-infringing kernel tomorrow and it wouldn't change the arguments in the IBM suit.
All of this would have a dramatic effect on the Red Hat suit though, and I agree that that's the more interesting and relevant suit anyway. After all, even if IBM did breech contract and release trade secrets, SCO can't stuff the toothpaste back in the tube -- those trade secrets are null and void now and there's nothing that can be done about them (except for IBM paying a ton of money).
Of course, SCO's suit against IBM is only slightly less flimsy than their nebulous copyright infringement claims...
One day maybe we'll have a debugger that works on AIX with C++ code... currently neither dbx w/ xlC nor gdb w/ g++ work. They both core quite nicely though.
There's simply no oversight process and no incentive to clean up all the data that's out there.
Certainly this could be improved, but the FCRA was a step toward that. Prior to the FCRA if your report was wrong the agency and the reporting company could say "eh, so what?". They can still say that now, of course, but now you can take them to court and win a fairly trivial case.
As for the resolution process, they make you provide proof, even if no proof was given when the incorrect entry was made
Not in my experience. The burdon of proof, once it goes to court, is largely upon them. I've had some minor stuff on my reports (lines of credit being shown as open when they were closed) and requested they be closed. I didn't have to submit anything other than my request that it be removed. And in every case it was. For something more substantive you may have to provide "proof" - a cancelled check, a bank transfer record showing payment, etc. But if it's a totally bogus charge then the first thing you do is make the creditor prove that you were billed. Most of the time they can't. And a judge will throw them out of court, with a hefty fine to boot.
Neither to life-destroying incorrect credit results matter to a bank who denied you a loan
It doesn't matter to the bank, but it does matter to the credit reporting agency and the creditor that reported it. You can take the false data to a judge, show that it's false (which is not that difficult, despite what you say), and walk away with damages, lawyers fees, and a hefty fine against the two companies involved. Really. This is not a difficult court case. It's also an absurdly rare court case because the credit agencies know this and will bend over backwards to avoid going to court nowadays. Things have changed in the past 7 years due to the FCRA... prior to that you were indeed up shit creek if there was an issue.
I'm not saying that this is the easiest process ever, nor that it couldn't be improved, but it's a far cry from not being liable for incorrect data -- which is precisely what you claimed. That's pure FUD.
Yes, I've worked in the industry -- a company I used to work for contracted out to a high risk credit card company -- and as slimy as that company was with its rates and fees and crap, they made damn sure they didn't cross the FCRA. And in working with the big three (Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union) I know they also got a kick in the pants when the FCRA came about.
It really astounds me how little even/.'ers know about the credit system in the US. It's not nearly as bad as some people think. It could be a lot better too, but the misrepresentation that goes on here is rampant.
Oh, and for reference, I don't work in the credit industry at all anymore. But I do know how it works, and I think our economy is a helluva lot better off for it than without it. Fix the problems, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
There is no penalty, at least as far as your credit score is concerned. Requesting a copy of your own credit report is not a "hit" against your credit score -- it's codified as an entirely separate event from credit checks for getting/extending lines of credit. As far as the cost -- there is none if you live in certain states (don't live in one? Go bitch at your legislature and ask them why they aren't helping their constituents), are unemployed, or recently denied credit.
It's obvious that they know credit reports are frequently (usually?) based on incorrect data and they don't want people to find out.
What bullshit. Yes, credit reports occasionally have bad data in them. If it was frequent or even common then the entire system wouldn't work. Think about it.
the government passed a law saying they aren't liable for any damages caused by their data, no matter how incorrect it was
Really? Which law was this?
The FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act) states that when a consumer notifies the credit agency of incorrect information in their credit report the agency has 30 days to remove the incorrect data or dispute it. If they fail to do this (or dispute it and they're wrong) then you can sue them for damages. Damages such that you probably won't need to work for several years afterwards unless you feel like it. Judges are people too, have had their own issues with credit agencies, and take a rather dim view toward the agencies flouting the law. The FCRA is a very powerful piece of legislation that's largely pro-consumer.
Uh, sorry, wrong. Your credit rating is based on having lines of credit and paying them off on schedule. There are also components of debt ratio (how much debt you have compared to how much credit you have -- going over 50% is bad) and income ratio (how much unsecured debt you have compared to income), along with other things. Yes, I've worked in the industry.
Your credit rating has nothing to do with paying interest. You have the entire system screwed up in your head. The system is designed to let lenders know who will NOT repay the loan -- the interest is irrelevant if you never recover the principle. Since the inception it's been sliced and diced a million ways, but that's still the underlying purpose of the system -- to recognize good and bad credit risks.
I love how the credit agencies are fear mongering so they can sell their credit alert services
It may or may not be fear mongering -- the reality is that identity theft is a real crime, it is on the rise at a much higher rate than any other "white collar" crime, and it can utterly and completely fuck your life over.
f they were really concerned about indentity theft they would allow us free acess to check our reports
Uh... you realize, of course, that the credit card companies are not the same companies that have the credit report data, right? In fact, the credit card companies have to pay for every single credit report they get (or even prospect report which has nowhere close to the same amount of data)?
Instead of making us spend $65 a year to notify us about credit changes. And BTW that $65 is for one credit agency there's two others as well. Such a scam.
Well you're right there -- it is a scam. No consumer advocate will recommend buying into one of these alert services because they don't do a good job and they're completely unnecessary. You can get your own credit report online for a reasonable fee (generally $10 ea. for the 3 major credit reporting companies), or for free (1/year) if you live in certain states. Or you can get it for free if you're unemployed, denied credit (I recommend against doing what the other replier suggests -- pre-screens do not damage your credit rating, but applying for credit does. Applying and being rejected damages it more), or feel that you've been a victem of fraud. The latter is probably a good "in" if you don't do it more than once/year.
In general watching for identity theft isn't that hard. Watching your bank and credit card statements is a good start. Most amateurs will simply charge on existing lines of credit. The smart ones will open new lines of credit, and that's harder to detect/prevent, but if you opt out of credit card offers (that 1-800-5-OPT-OUT number) and similar you'll make yourself a difficult enough target that the pros will simply find someone else to scam.
First off, NY/NJ isn't the only place to live. There are a ton of places that are quite affordable and are still East Coast. Or West Coast. Or mountainous. Or whatever floats your boat.
Rent? Forget it man... you're never going to retire with that kind of mindset. It's called a mortgage. And if you have $1M in savings then you've already bought the house -- odds are 10-20 years or more prior. You're certainly not paying $2800/mo in mortgage P&I, taxes, and insurance.
I'm not living in a magical dream world, nor am I living in anything even vaguely resembling the housing you describe. It's a shame that your horizons and experiences are so limited... but maybe you'll learn.
I usually don't bother with AC's, but Heinlein was a moron on this point.
No, if you invested in the 1940s the stocks you choose then would by and large not be the same stocks you'd choose now. Who ever said that you get one chance and you have to stick to it forever? No investment advisor worth their salt would give such idiotic advice. As far as sweeping social changes - I covered those as a risk. You have to watch for stuff like that and move your monies accordingly.
Yay... a voice of reason. No, they didn't sell any shares for a year. Look at the stock prices... would you have sold? Heck, at points you're better off getting certificates cut and using them as toilet paper.
The CFO's sales are still within the reasonable realm... around 7%, at a time when the stock increased vastly in price. First, it makes sense to rebalance your portfolio whenever something like this happens. Second, you come across a windfall like that and tell me you wouldn't sell off some small percentage for spending money. Even if you expected it to go up further.
The VP selling his entire stake is a bit more unusual though.
And, certainly, the next quarterly report from SCO will be most interesting... especially since they're supposed to comment on the insider sales.
Overall, though, SCO's claims are still worthless. I expect the insider sales will continue on, even as they claim there's nothing unusual occurring. Institutional investors won't touch the stock, since it's too small, too volatile, and has too large a downside. The shorting is never a good sign. And I suspect that virtually everyone involved in the pump and dump will get off unscathed.
Huh... guess I don't live on the East Coast then. I lived quite comfortably here on ~50k. My salary has grown since then, but if needed I could cut back to that level. Even with my wife.
Mind you, it'd take some lifestyle changes, and we might have to sell one car and buy one with lower monthly costs (loan, insurance, gas, maintainence), but it's certainly possible. Hell, there are people who raise a family of 4 on less than $50k/year, even in NYC, SF, or LA. Not at a level I'd consider "pretty darn good" at that point, but it's doable.
You realize, of course, that a combined family wage in the $60k area puts you solidly in the middle class, while $100k+ puts you in upper middle class. There are a lot of frills that people think are essential that are nowhere near that.
Interesting bits on the neurons and depression... if you happen to know of any texts geared toward the layperson on this, post them if you would.
Well, if you can save up enough money you can live off the interest indefinitely. About a million bucks is in the ballpark.
Depends... that relies on several things. First, that you can beat inflation with your returns, and by a healthy margin. In most of the industrialized world this hasn't been a big issue for the past 50 years, but it's far from a certainty. If inflation goes above 3-4% it becomes much harder to maintain the percentages (yeah, some of your investments will also rise in returns, but not all of them, and odds are not enough of them to make up the gap). Second, that the economy is stable enough to provide high returns for the majority of the time period. You can afford to lose money some years, or spend more than your gains, but it has to turn around fairly shortly (5-10 years). Otherwise the damage you do to your principle will get too large to overcome easily.
In general it's advised to live off 5% or less of the principle. The stock market has a long term (over ~90 years) return of 11%, so use that as a basis. That doesn't include inflation though, or localized downturns, so cut that in half to counteract them. A $1M principle will give you a yearly income of about $50k -- which is a pretty darn good living wage, even for a couple (at least currently). How much you actually need to live off of, however, depends on factors like how much debt you have (including mortgage and other long term debts), how many kids you have, and how you want your lifestyle to be (at $50k/yr for two people you're not going to be dining out a ton or driving new cars very much). It would, however, let you live without working and doing pretty much whatever hobby you wanted... within reason.
He was monkeying around on his RH8 box, was having network issues and setup the box as DMZ on the firewall. Later he rebooted to Win2k (on the same system, setup for the same IP). His entire network got hit with Slammer because of this. It took him the better part of a week to fix all of his boxes afterwards.
As others have said, a firewall is only part of the solution. Shutting down non-essential services/daemons, keeping up to date on patches, and in general knowing what the hell you're doing are other parts of the solution.
On my machine the CPU fan drowns out the noise of any PSU
I'm sorry... maybe you should look into quieter CPU fans in the future? Personally, the Zalman flower fans look very attractive to me... not in a visual sense, but an auditory one.
They make no difference to performance
They certainly do. Inadequate power supplies can cause system lockups and shorten lifespan of components due to improper voltage regulation... sure, that card can run with the 3.3V line at 3.6V, but you think that's not going to have some effects down the line?
Put enough components in a system and you'll find out fast how much PSUs matter. Stick in 4 or 5 HDs and your system may not even power up -- even with a 400W PSU. Why? Because that "400W" PSU only has a 10A 12V line, which is utterly inadequate to spin up more than one drive along with a modern P4 or Athlon. Realistically it shouldn't even be used then, because you're well over 80% draw -- at which point voltage irregularities and noise concerns become a bigger problem. That system lockup? Yeah... it was caused by your CPU going wacky. Which was caused by the power supply introducing so much noise that the motherboard voltage regulators couldn't filter it out and fed the CPU bad power.
You're talking about another $30 to get a decent PSU... it's not going to break the bank.
Re:Tee Eye Vee Ooooooh
on
Buying a New TV?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
That's rather what I thought you were referring to. And it's easy to fix and easy to avoid... although I do wish TiVo would fix their suggestion engine to avoid it from occurring in the first place.
Essentially, three thumbs up or down is bad. Never, ever do it. Thumbs control more than just the show - they also relate to the actors, director, genre, and anything else TiVo can associate with the particular episode that you thumbed up/down.
Give one thumbs up to shows you like (hitting Record on a show or setting up a Season Pass will do this automatically -- a Wishlist, however, will not). Give one thumbs down to any show you never want TiVo to record as a suggestion -- and only do this if it's been recorded as a suggestion already.
You can give two thumbs up to a show you really, really like if it's in a genre you like, and you like the actors, etc in general. I'd avoid ever doing two thumbs down though.
As previously stated, three thumbs up or down is just bad.
Following that, you'll get really good suggestions -- both for shows you've given thumbs up to and for stuff that you haven't but is related to stuff you like. And your TiVo won't go psychotic, as you say.
If you've had TiVo for awhile and it's gone insane, you can reset all thumbs up/down in the service menu. Then go to your Season Pass list and give everything one thumbs up. Your suggestions will improve greatly.
I agree that this is rather inane, but when TiVo tweaked the suggestion algorithm in the 2.x days this is what became of it. They really need to tweak it again to allow for differentiation in degrees of liking/disliking, which is what you'd think the thumb levels give you (but they don't really).
Yeah, we use Discover for everything. A few places don't accept it still and we use AmEx Blue there (which is insanely stupid on the part of the merchant -- AmEx has far higher fees than Discover does, and Discover is no longer associated with Sears).
Keep meaning to look into the Citibank 1% back MC/Visa, but I'm rather sour on Citibank at the moment.
There are plenty of laws governing these issues - and your main issue when using cash is making sure you get (and hold onto) your receipts!
Sure there are laws. But do you want to waste your time trying to get your cash back, or would you rather tell your bank/credit card company/whoever that the service/merchandise/whatever wasn't provided, have them refund you your money quickly and easily, and then let them go about squeezing blood from the stone?
Personally, I know which one I'd choose. I'll take the one that gets me my money back with a minimum of effort and time on my part, thank you very much.
It stated right in the policy that these issues were strictly between the purchaser and the merchant!
A good reason to not use American Express frankly. Because the traditional AmEx isn't a credit card. I don't recall the terminology for it, but basically AmEx doesn't give you a credit limit, percentage rate, etc. because you MUST pay the money back at the end of the cycle. The newer AmEx cards (like AmEx Blue) are traditional credit cards, but the older ones are not. As such they're not governed by the same rules that Mastercard, Visa, Discover, etc. are and don't have to offer the protections that credit cards do. Just because it's plastic doesn't mean it's a credit card. Remember that when you pull out the debit card too.
Oh, and what's the issue with the debit cards (no, you didn't ask this, but I suspect some people are)? Simple -- they're directly tied to your bank account. If a fraudulent charge is made on your card it can wipe out your entire bank account. Sure, they now have the same protections that credit cards have (as long as the Visa or MC logo is on them -- if they don't have the logo, refuse to accept one of these cards from your bank!), but there's a twist. The bank is allowed up to 30 days to investigate your dispute. If they wiped out your entire checking account, can you go 30 days without that money? What about if you had checks outstanding? Guess who's liable when those checks bounce? Not the bank. Some banks are starting to rectify this, but you're still better off using a real credit card -- as long as you pay off the balance in full every month.
They aren't. They're more expensive in fact -- they usually have a per transaction fee on top of the exact same percentage that the credit card takes. At the very least they're the exact same cost as credit cards with less consumer protection.
Cash gives you absolutely no protection against bad merchants or merchandise, while credit cards give you several protections and guarantees. Very few companies give cash discounts (and you cannot charge extra for using credit -- if you do, you'll lose your merchant account). Not to mention that credit cards are a helluva lot more convienent than cash for most transactions.
If you can't manage your finances, go ahead and use debit cards or cash. We can, and do, and getting 30-60 days of free float is nice, plus the various additional protections credit cards provide. In fact, I find it humorous that your advice is in direct opposition to the advice given by consumer advocates. Sorry, I'm not a retailer. I see no reason to offer them extra money. If they don't feel that credit cards are worth the costs, then they can decline to accept them. Of course, I may decline to use their services at that point -- and probably will if I need to pay more than $20 for whatever I'm buying.
The issue, however, is that the Opt-out agreements are often too inobvious, they expire too quickly (1 year), and the ramifications for not opting out are far broader than people realize.
That we have to opt-out of "partner sharing agreements" is absurd. The rule should be opt-in, but that's not how it was written, and it sucks. Or if it's opt-out, the term should be for life -- not for a freaking year.
And no, I'm not one of those privacy nuts. I've actually worked in the system. I've coded for it. And I'm pretty comfy with how it works at a high level (feel free to read some of my past comments on this thread and similar threads). But the pendulum has swung too far in favor of the companies, and too far away from the consumers. No, I don't expect it to change anytime soon, but it doesn't mean I'm happy about it.
Actually, it doesn't remove you from the database. At least not in any database I've ever seen or worked on.
What it does do is ensure that they won't send you marketing offers and that they won't sell your information to others for the same purpose. The latter is the important bit.
If you actually want them to remove your data from the system, then you better be prepared to cease doing business with them and any of their subsidiaries/partners. Which in the case of Axciom is a rather large portion of the US.
I could debunk your concept in detail, but I'm lazy and will simply refer you to another post of mine. There's actually a couple other posts of mine under it that more closely hone to your wish of eliminating the credit rating system, and why it would be a Bad Thing.
BTW, debt load is a choice. My wife and I pay interest only on our mortgage, cars, and her student loan. We use credit cards for nearly everything, but they're paid in full each and every month.
Without more details on the case I can't say whether or not Axciom should be held liable... it depends on just how far out of bounds the employee went when retrieving the data. If it was done entirely with authorized access, and they can show they're doing a good job on logging, controlling access, etc. then there's really very little that they could've done against a malicious employee. This is true in any industry, not just this one.
This is, unfortunately, the real world. Lax security such as this is the norm. "Need-to-know" is a term which doesn't seem to exist in the security policies of these companies.
Really? So you've worked at one of these companies then?
Oh. You haven't.
So you have friends or family that do?
Oh. You don't.
So you're just wildly postulating on shit you don't know anything about?
Of course. This is/. afterall.
Well, hate to say it, but I have worked at one of these companies, and I have family in a similar line of business as well. The concept of "need to know" is very much alive and well, and most of the companies do make some attempts to ensure it as well. Yes, I had full, unfettered access to the data in the data warehouse (I had absolutely no access to the production customer data, including things like purchases, payments, etc.). I was also a developer that wrote the code to store, massage, and manipulate the data. Hell, I wrote the code to remove "identifying information" from the files so they could be run through a pre-screen process. As contractors, we could see the full data, but the credit card company could not -- at least not during pre-screen. It's the law.
And I was one of the few people who did have unfettered access. The majority of the credit card company's employees certainly did not.
Which part of "legitimate access" did you not understand? The guy had the right to be viewing the data, to do manipulations on it, etc. Of course he didn't trip any wires -- he shouldn't have. Maybe the hacks on the external server should've triggered some warnings, but the information available is slim and it's entirely possible that he simply broke the passwords wide open and was able to enter the proper password every time.
They're lucky they were able to find out who it was!
Uh... no they weren't. It's called logs. Again... legitimate access. That kind of thing is logged. As would be the access to whatever he got -- which is exactly why they know what was stolen.
Good job on making violent arm thrashing motions and fooling the moderators into thinking you knew what the hell you were talking about though. Shame that it doesn't work on anyone with a clue.
Check out AVS Forums
on
Buying a New TV?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
First off, if you want a good site for general home theater stuff, check out AVS Forums. You may end up wanting to spend more than your budget though:)
That said, I'd highly recommend you get a widescreen HDTV-compatible set. If you want to keep your TV around for as long (or longer) as your last set, you'll regret not getting HDTV. No, the switchover isn't going to happen in 2006. But it will happen, and you can receive HDTV in most areas now. Even without HD reception you'll get better DVD viewing, a huge computer monitor (if you want), and can get better visual quality out of most consoles.
Your choices are going to be rather limited at $1000, and I can't recommend any specific ones (I just bought a new TV set... but for considerably more than $1k... the Samsung HLN467W - 46" DLP widescreen), but there are some available. Do check out the menus. Check to see if it has discrete codes available, otherwise you'll want to kill yourself if you get a programmable remote (or, more likely, your SO will want to kill you because they can't operate the damn system). Check what inputs it has -- at this price point about the most you can hope for is one or two component inputs on the high end. You almost certainly won't get a VGA or DVI input.
If you don't go HD, then don't bother buying a TV bigger than about 32" -- which will be far, far below your budget. Big screen non-HD is just a waste of money.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd take that bet as well... based on the history of nuclear power.
The number of people saved by our understanding of atomic energy far outnumbers the numbers killed (~200k at Nagasaki and Hiroshima directly, plus deaths from fallout there and Cheronobyl. Call it 1M to be safe). Think of how many people have benefitted from MRI's, radiation therapy, and other medical uses of nuclear power/radiation.
It's not a perfect analogy, of course, but after all, as someone else pointed out - it's a sucker's bet.
For those who don't know, Sequent was a super-computer company that developed a lot of the software techniques that make today's multi-processor machines (especially the more-than-2 processor systems) work well.
Not just a super-computer company... they also built high end Unix servers. Georgia Tech had a Sequent box running Dynix as the main campus computer system from the late 80's to early 90's. IIRC, hydra was a 16-CPU system with 386DX's. And while at the end of its life (1993 I think) it was godawful slow, it was still better than the Sun box (which later became boxes) that replaced it (GT and Sun discovered that Solaris did very poorly in a heavily task switched environment, spending up to 80% of CPU time in overhead... that's improved since, but AFAIK they never quite fixed the problem). Dynix was the first Unix OS I ever used. It was a helluva lot better than Ultrix, but that's about all I recall about it.
at first glance IBM has every right to contribute this code to Linux
Yeah, but SCO is claiming that Sequent's license didn't include transferral of license, that the various multiprocessor technologies were derivative works, and that SCO retained rights to all derivative works under that license. IBM did buy a perpetual, non-revokable, fully paid, yadda yadda yadda license for Unix, but that was prior to the purchase of Sequent. SCO is thus claiming that Sequent's license holds true here and that IBM didn't have the right to distribute the code without SCO's approval. IBM does, however, hold the patents to the technologies in question. It may become a question not only of which license applies, but also whether or not the code contributed to Linux was the same as the code that Sequent had or if it was a re-implementation of the patent that IBM holds.
Agreed on everything you said (excellent grasp of copyright law BTW), except that the GP post is still correct -- it doesn't matter.
SCO isn't suing over copyright claims, they're suing over breech of contract and disclosure of trade secrets. If they can prove that then it doesn't matter, vis a vis the IBM suit, whether or not the Linux code is changed -- IBM still broke the contract and released trade secrets. The kernel devs could release a 100% brand new, totally non-infringing kernel tomorrow and it wouldn't change the arguments in the IBM suit.
All of this would have a dramatic effect on the Red Hat suit though, and I agree that that's the more interesting and relevant suit anyway. After all, even if IBM did breech contract and release trade secrets, SCO can't stuff the toothpaste back in the tube -- those trade secrets are null and void now and there's nothing that can be done about them (except for IBM paying a ton of money).
Of course, SCO's suit against IBM is only slightly less flimsy than their nebulous copyright infringement claims...
That's "Got here!\n" :)
One day maybe we'll have a debugger that works on AIX with C++ code... currently neither dbx w/ xlC nor gdb w/ g++ work. They both core quite nicely though.
There's simply no oversight process and no incentive to clean up all the data that's out there.
/.'ers know about the credit system in the US. It's not nearly as bad as some people think. It could be a lot better too, but the misrepresentation that goes on here is rampant.
Certainly this could be improved, but the FCRA was a step toward that. Prior to the FCRA if your report was wrong the agency and the reporting company could say "eh, so what?". They can still say that now, of course, but now you can take them to court and win a fairly trivial case.
As for the resolution process, they make you provide proof, even if no proof was given when the incorrect entry was made
Not in my experience. The burdon of proof, once it goes to court, is largely upon them. I've had some minor stuff on my reports (lines of credit being shown as open when they were closed) and requested they be closed. I didn't have to submit anything other than my request that it be removed. And in every case it was. For something more substantive you may have to provide "proof" - a cancelled check, a bank transfer record showing payment, etc. But if it's a totally bogus charge then the first thing you do is make the creditor prove that you were billed. Most of the time they can't. And a judge will throw them out of court, with a hefty fine to boot.
Neither to life-destroying incorrect credit results matter to a bank who denied you a loan
It doesn't matter to the bank, but it does matter to the credit reporting agency and the creditor that reported it. You can take the false data to a judge, show that it's false (which is not that difficult, despite what you say), and walk away with damages, lawyers fees, and a hefty fine against the two companies involved. Really. This is not a difficult court case. It's also an absurdly rare court case because the credit agencies know this and will bend over backwards to avoid going to court nowadays. Things have changed in the past 7 years due to the FCRA... prior to that you were indeed up shit creek if there was an issue.
I'm not saying that this is the easiest process ever, nor that it couldn't be improved, but it's a far cry from not being liable for incorrect data -- which is precisely what you claimed. That's pure FUD.
Yes, I've worked in the industry -- a company I used to work for contracted out to a high risk credit card company -- and as slimy as that company was with its rates and fees and crap, they made damn sure they didn't cross the FCRA. And in working with the big three (Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union) I know they also got a kick in the pants when the FCRA came about.
It really astounds me how little even
Oh, and for reference, I don't work in the credit industry at all anymore. But I do know how it works, and I think our economy is a helluva lot better off for it than without it. Fix the problems, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
why would there be a penalty for checking it?
There is no penalty, at least as far as your credit score is concerned. Requesting a copy of your own credit report is not a "hit" against your credit score -- it's codified as an entirely separate event from credit checks for getting/extending lines of credit. As far as the cost -- there is none if you live in certain states (don't live in one? Go bitch at your legislature and ask them why they aren't helping their constituents), are unemployed, or recently denied credit.
It's obvious that they know credit reports are frequently (usually?) based on incorrect data and they don't want people to find out.
What bullshit. Yes, credit reports occasionally have bad data in them. If it was frequent or even common then the entire system wouldn't work. Think about it.
the government passed a law saying they aren't liable for any damages caused by their data, no matter how incorrect it was
Really? Which law was this?
The FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act) states that when a consumer notifies the credit agency of incorrect information in their credit report the agency has 30 days to remove the incorrect data or dispute it. If they fail to do this (or dispute it and they're wrong) then you can sue them for damages. Damages such that you probably won't need to work for several years afterwards unless you feel like it. Judges are people too, have had their own issues with credit agencies, and take a rather dim view toward the agencies flouting the law. The FCRA is a very powerful piece of legislation that's largely pro-consumer.
Uh, sorry, wrong. Your credit rating is based on having lines of credit and paying them off on schedule. There are also components of debt ratio (how much debt you have compared to how much credit you have -- going over 50% is bad) and income ratio (how much unsecured debt you have compared to income), along with other things. Yes, I've worked in the industry.
Your credit rating has nothing to do with paying interest. You have the entire system screwed up in your head. The system is designed to let lenders know who will NOT repay the loan -- the interest is irrelevant if you never recover the principle. Since the inception it's been sliced and diced a million ways, but that's still the underlying purpose of the system -- to recognize good and bad credit risks.
I love how the credit agencies are fear mongering so they can sell their credit alert services
It may or may not be fear mongering -- the reality is that identity theft is a real crime, it is on the rise at a much higher rate than any other "white collar" crime, and it can utterly and completely fuck your life over.
f they were really concerned about indentity theft they would allow us free acess to check our reports
Uh... you realize, of course, that the credit card companies are not the same companies that have the credit report data, right? In fact, the credit card companies have to pay for every single credit report they get (or even prospect report which has nowhere close to the same amount of data)?
Instead of making us spend $65 a year to notify us about credit changes. And BTW that $65 is for one credit agency there's two others as well. Such a scam.
Well you're right there -- it is a scam. No consumer advocate will recommend buying into one of these alert services because they don't do a good job and they're completely unnecessary. You can get your own credit report online for a reasonable fee (generally $10 ea. for the 3 major credit reporting companies), or for free (1/year) if you live in certain states. Or you can get it for free if you're unemployed, denied credit (I recommend against doing what the other replier suggests -- pre-screens do not damage your credit rating, but applying for credit does. Applying and being rejected damages it more), or feel that you've been a victem of fraud. The latter is probably a good "in" if you don't do it more than once/year.
In general watching for identity theft isn't that hard. Watching your bank and credit card statements is a good start. Most amateurs will simply charge on existing lines of credit. The smart ones will open new lines of credit, and that's harder to detect/prevent, but if you opt out of credit card offers (that 1-800-5-OPT-OUT number) and similar you'll make yourself a difficult enough target that the pros will simply find someone else to scam.
My lord. What amazingly bad logic.
First off, NY/NJ isn't the only place to live. There are a ton of places that are quite affordable and are still East Coast. Or West Coast. Or mountainous. Or whatever floats your boat.
Rent? Forget it man... you're never going to retire with that kind of mindset. It's called a mortgage. And if you have $1M in savings then you've already bought the house -- odds are 10-20 years or more prior. You're certainly not paying $2800/mo in mortgage P&I, taxes, and insurance.
I'm not living in a magical dream world, nor am I living in anything even vaguely resembling the housing you describe. It's a shame that your horizons and experiences are so limited... but maybe you'll learn.
I usually don't bother with AC's, but Heinlein was a moron on this point.
No, if you invested in the 1940s the stocks you choose then would by and large not be the same stocks you'd choose now. Who ever said that you get one chance and you have to stick to it forever? No investment advisor worth their salt would give such idiotic advice. As far as sweeping social changes - I covered those as a risk. You have to watch for stuff like that and move your monies accordingly.
Yay... a voice of reason. No, they didn't sell any shares for a year. Look at the stock prices... would you have sold? Heck, at points you're better off getting certificates cut and using them as toilet paper.
The CFO's sales are still within the reasonable realm... around 7%, at a time when the stock increased vastly in price. First, it makes sense to rebalance your portfolio whenever something like this happens. Second, you come across a windfall like that and tell me you wouldn't sell off some small percentage for spending money. Even if you expected it to go up further.
The VP selling his entire stake is a bit more unusual though.
And, certainly, the next quarterly report from SCO will be most interesting... especially since they're supposed to comment on the insider sales.
Overall, though, SCO's claims are still worthless. I expect the insider sales will continue on, even as they claim there's nothing unusual occurring. Institutional investors won't touch the stock, since it's too small, too volatile, and has too large a downside. The shorting is never a good sign. And I suspect that virtually everyone involved in the pump and dump will get off unscathed.
Huh... guess I don't live on the East Coast then. I lived quite comfortably here on ~50k. My salary has grown since then, but if needed I could cut back to that level. Even with my wife.
Mind you, it'd take some lifestyle changes, and we might have to sell one car and buy one with lower monthly costs (loan, insurance, gas, maintainence), but it's certainly possible. Hell, there are people who raise a family of 4 on less than $50k/year, even in NYC, SF, or LA. Not at a level I'd consider "pretty darn good" at that point, but it's doable.
You realize, of course, that a combined family wage in the $60k area puts you solidly in the middle class, while $100k+ puts you in upper middle class. There are a lot of frills that people think are essential that are nowhere near that.
Interesting bits on the neurons and depression... if you happen to know of any texts geared toward the layperson on this, post them if you would.
Well, if you can save up enough money you can live off the interest indefinitely. About a million bucks is in the ballpark.
Depends... that relies on several things. First, that you can beat inflation with your returns, and by a healthy margin. In most of the industrialized world this hasn't been a big issue for the past 50 years, but it's far from a certainty. If inflation goes above 3-4% it becomes much harder to maintain the percentages (yeah, some of your investments will also rise in returns, but not all of them, and odds are not enough of them to make up the gap). Second, that the economy is stable enough to provide high returns for the majority of the time period. You can afford to lose money some years, or spend more than your gains, but it has to turn around fairly shortly (5-10 years). Otherwise the damage you do to your principle will get too large to overcome easily.
In general it's advised to live off 5% or less of the principle. The stock market has a long term (over ~90 years) return of 11%, so use that as a basis. That doesn't include inflation though, or localized downturns, so cut that in half to counteract them. A $1M principle will give you a yearly income of about $50k -- which is a pretty darn good living wage, even for a couple (at least currently). How much you actually need to live off of, however, depends on factors like how much debt you have (including mortgage and other long term debts), how many kids you have, and how you want your lifestyle to be (at $50k/yr for two people you're not going to be dining out a ton or driving new cars very much). It would, however, let you live without working and doing pretty much whatever hobby you wanted... within reason.
The problem with immortality is that it takes forever to prove.
One of my coworkers thought that as well.
He was monkeying around on his RH8 box, was having network issues and setup the box as DMZ on the firewall. Later he rebooted to Win2k (on the same system, setup for the same IP). His entire network got hit with Slammer because of this. It took him the better part of a week to fix all of his boxes afterwards.
As others have said, a firewall is only part of the solution. Shutting down non-essential services/daemons, keeping up to date on patches, and in general knowing what the hell you're doing are other parts of the solution.
On my machine the CPU fan drowns out the noise of any PSU
I'm sorry... maybe you should look into quieter CPU fans in the future? Personally, the Zalman flower fans look very attractive to me... not in a visual sense, but an auditory one.
They make no difference to performance
They certainly do. Inadequate power supplies can cause system lockups and shorten lifespan of components due to improper voltage regulation... sure, that card can run with the 3.3V line at 3.6V, but you think that's not going to have some effects down the line?
Put enough components in a system and you'll find out fast how much PSUs matter. Stick in 4 or 5 HDs and your system may not even power up -- even with a 400W PSU. Why? Because that "400W" PSU only has a 10A 12V line, which is utterly inadequate to spin up more than one drive along with a modern P4 or Athlon. Realistically it shouldn't even be used then, because you're well over 80% draw -- at which point voltage irregularities and noise concerns become a bigger problem. That system lockup? Yeah... it was caused by your CPU going wacky. Which was caused by the power supply introducing so much noise that the motherboard voltage regulators couldn't filter it out and fed the CPU bad power.
You're talking about another $30 to get a decent PSU... it's not going to break the bank.
That's rather what I thought you were referring to. And it's easy to fix and easy to avoid... although I do wish TiVo would fix their suggestion engine to avoid it from occurring in the first place.
Essentially, three thumbs up or down is bad. Never, ever do it. Thumbs control more than just the show - they also relate to the actors, director, genre, and anything else TiVo can associate with the particular episode that you thumbed up/down.
Give one thumbs up to shows you like (hitting Record on a show or setting up a Season Pass will do this automatically -- a Wishlist, however, will not). Give one thumbs down to any show you never want TiVo to record as a suggestion -- and only do this if it's been recorded as a suggestion already.
You can give two thumbs up to a show you really, really like if it's in a genre you like, and you like the actors, etc in general. I'd avoid ever doing two thumbs down though.
As previously stated, three thumbs up or down is just bad.
Following that, you'll get really good suggestions -- both for shows you've given thumbs up to and for stuff that you haven't but is related to stuff you like. And your TiVo won't go psychotic, as you say.
If you've had TiVo for awhile and it's gone insane, you can reset all thumbs up/down in the service menu. Then go to your Season Pass list and give everything one thumbs up. Your suggestions will improve greatly.
I agree that this is rather inane, but when TiVo tweaked the suggestion algorithm in the 2.x days this is what became of it. They really need to tweak it again to allow for differentiation in degrees of liking/disliking, which is what you'd think the thumb levels give you (but they don't really).
Yeah, we use Discover for everything. A few places don't accept it still and we use AmEx Blue there (which is insanely stupid on the part of the merchant -- AmEx has far higher fees than Discover does, and Discover is no longer associated with Sears).
Keep meaning to look into the Citibank 1% back MC/Visa, but I'm rather sour on Citibank at the moment.
There are plenty of laws governing these issues - and your main issue when using cash is making sure you get (and hold onto) your receipts!
Sure there are laws. But do you want to waste your time trying to get your cash back, or would you rather tell your bank/credit card company/whoever that the service/merchandise/whatever wasn't provided, have them refund you your money quickly and easily, and then let them go about squeezing blood from the stone?
Personally, I know which one I'd choose. I'll take the one that gets me my money back with a minimum of effort and time on my part, thank you very much.
It stated right in the policy that these issues were strictly between the purchaser and the merchant!
A good reason to not use American Express frankly. Because the traditional AmEx isn't a credit card. I don't recall the terminology for it, but basically AmEx doesn't give you a credit limit, percentage rate, etc. because you MUST pay the money back at the end of the cycle. The newer AmEx cards (like AmEx Blue) are traditional credit cards, but the older ones are not. As such they're not governed by the same rules that Mastercard, Visa, Discover, etc. are and don't have to offer the protections that credit cards do. Just because it's plastic doesn't mean it's a credit card. Remember that when you pull out the debit card too.
Oh, and what's the issue with the debit cards (no, you didn't ask this, but I suspect some people are)? Simple -- they're directly tied to your bank account. If a fraudulent charge is made on your card it can wipe out your entire bank account. Sure, they now have the same protections that credit cards have (as long as the Visa or MC logo is on them -- if they don't have the logo, refuse to accept one of these cards from your bank!), but there's a twist. The bank is allowed up to 30 days to investigate your dispute. If they wiped out your entire checking account, can you go 30 days without that money? What about if you had checks outstanding? Guess who's liable when those checks bounce? Not the bank. Some banks are starting to rectify this, but you're still better off using a real credit card -- as long as you pay off the balance in full every month.
What, you think debit cards are cheaper?
They aren't. They're more expensive in fact -- they usually have a per transaction fee on top of the exact same percentage that the credit card takes. At the very least they're the exact same cost as credit cards with less consumer protection.
Cash gives you absolutely no protection against bad merchants or merchandise, while credit cards give you several protections and guarantees. Very few companies give cash discounts (and you cannot charge extra for using credit -- if you do, you'll lose your merchant account). Not to mention that credit cards are a helluva lot more convienent than cash for most transactions.
If you can't manage your finances, go ahead and use debit cards or cash. We can, and do, and getting 30-60 days of free float is nice, plus the various additional protections credit cards provide. In fact, I find it humorous that your advice is in direct opposition to the advice given by consumer advocates. Sorry, I'm not a retailer. I see no reason to offer them extra money. If they don't feel that credit cards are worth the costs, then they can decline to accept them. Of course, I may decline to use their services at that point -- and probably will if I need to pay more than $20 for whatever I'm buying.
The issue, however, is that the Opt-out agreements are often too inobvious, they expire too quickly (1 year), and the ramifications for not opting out are far broader than people realize.
That we have to opt-out of "partner sharing agreements" is absurd. The rule should be opt-in, but that's not how it was written, and it sucks. Or if it's opt-out, the term should be for life -- not for a freaking year.
And no, I'm not one of those privacy nuts. I've actually worked in the system. I've coded for it. And I'm pretty comfy with how it works at a high level (feel free to read some of my past comments on this thread and similar threads). But the pendulum has swung too far in favor of the companies, and too far away from the consumers. No, I don't expect it to change anytime soon, but it doesn't mean I'm happy about it.
Actually, it doesn't remove you from the database. At least not in any database I've ever seen or worked on.
What it does do is ensure that they won't send you marketing offers and that they won't sell your information to others for the same purpose. The latter is the important bit.
If you actually want them to remove your data from the system, then you better be prepared to cease doing business with them and any of their subsidiaries/partners. Which in the case of Axciom is a rather large portion of the US.
I could debunk your concept in detail, but I'm lazy and will simply refer you to another post of mine. There's actually a couple other posts of mine under it that more closely hone to your wish of eliminating the credit rating system, and why it would be a Bad Thing.
BTW, debt load is a choice. My wife and I pay interest only on our mortgage, cars, and her student loan. We use credit cards for nearly everything, but they're paid in full each and every month.
Without more details on the case I can't say whether or not Axciom should be held liable... it depends on just how far out of bounds the employee went when retrieving the data. If it was done entirely with authorized access, and they can show they're doing a good job on logging, controlling access, etc. then there's really very little that they could've done against a malicious employee. This is true in any industry, not just this one.
This is, unfortunately, the real world. Lax security such as this is the norm. "Need-to-know" is a term which doesn't seem to exist in the security policies of these companies.
/. afterall.
Really? So you've worked at one of these companies then?
Oh. You haven't.
So you have friends or family that do?
Oh. You don't.
So you're just wildly postulating on shit you don't know anything about?
Of course. This is
Well, hate to say it, but I have worked at one of these companies, and I have family in a similar line of business as well. The concept of "need to know" is very much alive and well, and most of the companies do make some attempts to ensure it as well. Yes, I had full, unfettered access to the data in the data warehouse (I had absolutely no access to the production customer data, including things like purchases, payments, etc.). I was also a developer that wrote the code to store, massage, and manipulate the data. Hell, I wrote the code to remove "identifying information" from the files so they could be run through a pre-screen process. As contractors, we could see the full data, but the credit card company could not -- at least not during pre-screen. It's the law.
And I was one of the few people who did have unfettered access. The majority of the credit card company's employees certainly did not.
Which part of "legitimate access" did you not understand? The guy had the right to be viewing the data, to do manipulations on it, etc. Of course he didn't trip any wires -- he shouldn't have. Maybe the hacks on the external server should've triggered some warnings, but the information available is slim and it's entirely possible that he simply broke the passwords wide open and was able to enter the proper password every time.
They're lucky they were able to find out who it was!
Uh... no they weren't. It's called logs. Again... legitimate access. That kind of thing is logged. As would be the access to whatever he got -- which is exactly why they know what was stolen.
Good job on making violent arm thrashing motions and fooling the moderators into thinking you knew what the hell you were talking about though. Shame that it doesn't work on anyone with a clue.
First off, if you want a good site for general home theater stuff, check out AVS Forums. You may end up wanting to spend more than your budget though :)
That said, I'd highly recommend you get a widescreen HDTV-compatible set. If you want to keep your TV around for as long (or longer) as your last set, you'll regret not getting HDTV. No, the switchover isn't going to happen in 2006. But it will happen, and you can receive HDTV in most areas now. Even without HD reception you'll get better DVD viewing, a huge computer monitor (if you want), and can get better visual quality out of most consoles.
Your choices are going to be rather limited at $1000, and I can't recommend any specific ones (I just bought a new TV set... but for considerably more than $1k... the Samsung HLN467W - 46" DLP widescreen), but there are some available. Do check out the menus. Check to see if it has discrete codes available, otherwise you'll want to kill yourself if you get a programmable remote (or, more likely, your SO will want to kill you because they can't operate the damn system). Check what inputs it has -- at this price point about the most you can hope for is one or two component inputs on the high end. You almost certainly won't get a VGA or DVI input.
If you don't go HD, then don't bother buying a TV bigger than about 32" -- which will be far, far below your budget. Big screen non-HD is just a waste of money.