I have no doubt that you'd feel emotionally violated, upset, etc.
But as someone who shared an apartment with a woman who had been sexually abused by one person and then raped by another in whom she confided, I will never forget the sound of her screaming bloody murder in the next room upon waking from a nightmare of those experiences (luckily only a handful of times over several months). Do you frequently have nightmares where your ex-wife tortures and murders your family and friends in front of you?
Having experienced neither myself, I can only base my opinion on the effects each had on close friends. And I can say without any hesitation that I'd take cheating over rape every time.
We offered food to someone who said they NEEDED money for food. They rejected the kindness with cursing.
We've all read that anecdote before. I once offered a friend a bite of my sandwich because it was really good, but he said he didn't like turkey. I learned my lesson, and now I never offer to let my friends taste my food. Problem solved!
Or maybe we should find what works for a range of situations and apply the solution that fits best in that moment? Instead of handing out bags of cash, perhaps start with an interview with a social worker trained for this, and directly pay their rent/mortgage/car/bills. Work with local grocery stores to buy groceries. It ain't rocket science.
Giving a place to stay for the homeless, yes, that is much safer.
The point is to help people avoid becoming homeless in the first place--and save money to boot.
The fine print: I am absolutely not claiming that setting up a Bitcoin insurance scheme like the FDIC would be tenable or easy. But for all your snark and slam on the OP's reading comprehension ability, you certainly haven't been paying much attention.
Except I pay no bank fees. None. In fact, the bank offers me goodies like a free safety deposit box to hopefully prevent me from moving my money to another bank.
You definitely pay for the FDIC. As usual, peace of mind doesn't come for free. Without FDIC fees, your bank would pass out more freebies to attract customers. They make so much money on the interest they earn using the money you park there that they don't need to pass those fees directly on to you. You just don't see them.
Nothing to stop somebody starting a Bitcoin insurance, so your money will be as safe as in a bank.
Saying that "your money will be as safe as in a bank" is absolutely untrue, and the fact that we're discussing this in a thread titled "Bitcoin Exchange Bitfinex Says It Was Hacked, Roughly $60M Stolen" makes me think you have serious issues with reading comprehension.
You do know how FDIC works, right? If money gets stolen from a bank, that money is lost. Gone. Same as with the Bitcoin exchange hacks. The difference is that the FDIC reimburses the bank for the loss. Exactly as it would work with a Bitcoin insurance company. Your money would be just as safe as in a bank because it would be replaced if stolen in both cases.
The problem is that you can rob a dozen Bitcoin exchanges in a day without leaving your house. You just can't rob that many brick-and-mortar banks and get away with it. The FBI will see to that, believe me.
When the FDIC came along, it brought with it a whole slew of security requirements and regulations for banks. The same thing would be done for Bitcoin exchanges. Just as bank robberies declined and became less effective over the years, so too would Bitcoin exchange hacks—at least those covered by the FBIC. Foreign exchanges would have to make due themselves. Again, I'm not saying it would be easy, just doable.
Also, you're never going to net $60 million dollars by robbing banks...
I understand your concern, but SwiftKey does not send individual keystrokes over the wire, and prediction is handled on the device. It does send any new words you type so that it can predict the same words on all your devices. It goes way beyond T9 prediction and considers the context from preceding words. When I'm replying with a canned response, I can often type the first word and then simply hit the spacebar to insert each successive word.
SwiftKey builds your personal vocabulary by combining the dictionaries you choose at setup with the words you type in context. You can also have it (optionally) learn from existing emails, IMs, Facebook posts, etc. If you don't want the cloud features, turn them off. If you don't want it to scan your existing messages, click "Skip" when asked.
This is definitely a bug and a problem, but the feature itself is entirely optional and clearly presented. SwiftKey is definitely one of my favorite apps, and it has a crap ton of themes.
A rational person also wants to be able to consume said content easily. The content producers are doing their damnedest to make it as difficult as possible. Why can't I type in a movie name and watch it on my Tivo? Oh sure, it searches Netflix and Amazon and Xfinity and Hulu and . . . but then when you choose your provider (you can't always see the cost so it's hard to choose) you still have to search again in the actual app to watch it.
But then you can't download it to pause/rewind quickly, or you have to watch commercials, or you only have 24 hours to watch it, or you can't watch it in Bumfuckistan, or . . . WTF! I am happy to pay for content. I would be happier if the content providers got their shit together instead of fighting content sharing and wringing their hands over Bitcoin.
Under the terms of the agreement, Warner Bros. is banned from failing to disclose similar deals in the future, and cannot pretend that sponsored videos and articles are actually the work of independent producers.
It seems the punishment for breaking the law is that WB must now . . . obey the law?
Just don't use your real name anywhere on the internet.
You mean like when you sign up for internet service using your physical address? Yes, I'm sure that's going to stop the state government—which probably runs the ISP—from learning who you are. Even if you limit posting your critiques to libraries or other public places, they can use the browsing history to narrow down where to watch for you.
Exactly this. I bought a simple $800 Dell XPS for coding away from home (extended contract living in a hotel) but started missing gaming after a while. I bought a 980 and stuck it in, and it plays AAA titles at max settings no problem.
While that may not be the main point, that the law forbids companies from selling the data to others is meaningless due to hackers. I'm sure they'll use the latest security technology to protect the information, just as they with our passwords and credit cards.
My daughter, for instance, has all but left Facebook for other social platforms. She still technically has an account, but mostly ignores it.
She still has an account, but is the app still installed on her phone? If so, then I bet she's still being tracked and could be shown as a suggested friend to others.
And when the FBI orders them to provide secret access to this chip running in all devices using it worldwide, they'll obviously break national security laws to inform the public, right? Oh, but of course, since it's the FBI, it'll still be secure from all (other) bad actors!
[I]t normally refers to relying on the method being secret to make discovery of a vulnerability more difficult.
No, the term security by obscurity means that the method MUST be a secret, because that secret is the only thing providing security.
I'd argue that you're actually agreeing here. MUST versus relying. It's the GOP's claim that the password, private key, PIN, gesture, one time pad, etc. determines the system's obscurity—not the method itself—that you're both disagreeing with, and rightfully so.
"Security through obscurity" has a very specific meaning that the GOP is trying to invalidate by claiming that every method that requires a secret is obscure. They are trying to equate a system that uses a 2048-bit public/private key pair with one that uses a single digit "password" because they both contain a secret, and are thus equal in strength. Utter nonsense.
This is going to happen regardless with automation and AI as we've already seen. Perhaps it's finally time to consider alternatives such as Universal Basic Income.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually did LOL! Thanks, I really needed that.
Your altitudism is not welcome here.
I have no doubt that you'd feel emotionally violated, upset, etc.
But as someone who shared an apartment with a woman who had been sexually abused by one person and then raped by another in whom she confided, I will never forget the sound of her screaming bloody murder in the next room upon waking from a nightmare of those experiences (luckily only a handful of times over several months). Do you frequently have nightmares where your ex-wife tortures and murders your family and friends in front of you?
Having experienced neither myself, I can only base my opinion on the effects each had on close friends. And I can say without any hesitation that I'd take cheating over rape every time.
BMG will get the undeserved $25, but the remaining $24,999,975 goes to the lawyers—the real victims here.
Adultery is bad. Really bad.
Totally agree. What reasonable person wouldn't?
Worse-than-rape bad.
Uh, wow. Are you seriously claiming that breaking a social contract is worse than physical, sexual violation?
SMH. We are well and truly fucked.
We offered food to someone who said they NEEDED money for food. They rejected the kindness with cursing.
We've all read that anecdote before. I once offered a friend a bite of my sandwich because it was really good, but he said he didn't like turkey. I learned my lesson, and now I never offer to let my friends taste my food. Problem solved!
Or maybe we should find what works for a range of situations and apply the solution that fits best in that moment? Instead of handing out bags of cash, perhaps start with an interview with a social worker trained for this, and directly pay their rent/mortgage/car/bills. Work with local grocery stores to buy groceries. It ain't rocket science.
Giving a place to stay for the homeless, yes, that is much safer.
The point is to help people avoid becoming homeless in the first place--and save money to boot.
The fine print: I am absolutely not claiming that setting up a Bitcoin insurance scheme like the FDIC would be tenable or easy. But for all your snark and slam on the OP's reading comprehension ability, you certainly haven't been paying much attention.
Except I pay no bank fees. None. In fact, the bank offers me goodies like a free safety deposit box to hopefully prevent me from moving my money to another bank.
You definitely pay for the FDIC. As usual, peace of mind doesn't come for free. Without FDIC fees, your bank would pass out more freebies to attract customers. They make so much money on the interest they earn using the money you park there that they don't need to pass those fees directly on to you. You just don't see them.
Nothing to stop somebody starting a Bitcoin insurance, so your money will be as safe as in a bank.
Saying that "your money will be as safe as in a bank" is absolutely untrue, and the fact that we're discussing this in a thread titled "Bitcoin Exchange Bitfinex Says It Was Hacked, Roughly $60M Stolen" makes me think you have serious issues with reading comprehension.
You do know how FDIC works, right? If money gets stolen from a bank, that money is lost. Gone. Same as with the Bitcoin exchange hacks. The difference is that the FDIC reimburses the bank for the loss. Exactly as it would work with a Bitcoin insurance company. Your money would be just as safe as in a bank because it would be replaced if stolen in both cases.
The problem is that you can rob a dozen Bitcoin exchanges in a day without leaving your house. You just can't rob that many brick-and-mortar banks and get away with it. The FBI will see to that, believe me.
When the FDIC came along, it brought with it a whole slew of security requirements and regulations for banks. The same thing would be done for Bitcoin exchanges. Just as bank robberies declined and became less effective over the years, so too would Bitcoin exchange hacks—at least those covered by the FBIC. Foreign exchanges would have to make due themselves. Again, I'm not saying it would be easy, just doable.
Also, you're never going to net $60 million dollars by robbing banks...
Really?
Check out this hot male/female coupling action.
I understand your concern, but SwiftKey does not send individual keystrokes over the wire, and prediction is handled on the device. It does send any new words you type so that it can predict the same words on all your devices. It goes way beyond T9 prediction and considers the context from preceding words. When I'm replying with a canned response, I can often type the first word and then simply hit the spacebar to insert each successive word.
SwiftKey builds your personal vocabulary by combining the dictionaries you choose at setup with the words you type in context. You can also have it (optionally) learn from existing emails, IMs, Facebook posts, etc. If you don't want the cloud features, turn them off. If you don't want it to scan your existing messages, click "Skip" when asked.
This is definitely a bug and a problem, but the feature itself is entirely optional and clearly presented. SwiftKey is definitely one of my favorite apps, and it has a crap ton of themes.
A rational person also wants to be able to consume said content easily. The content producers are doing their damnedest to make it as difficult as possible. Why can't I type in a movie name and watch it on my Tivo? Oh sure, it searches Netflix and Amazon and Xfinity and Hulu and . . . but then when you choose your provider (you can't always see the cost so it's hard to choose) you still have to search again in the actual app to watch it.
But then you can't download it to pause/rewind quickly, or you have to watch commercials, or you only have 24 hours to watch it, or you can't watch it in Bumfuckistan, or . . . WTF! I am happy to pay for content. I would be happier if the content providers got their shit together instead of fighting content sharing and wringing their hands over Bitcoin.
It took a large data loss for me to understand that I should backup my data.
Yes, but did you then actually start backing up your data? :)
Am I missing something here?
Under the terms of the agreement, Warner Bros. is banned from failing to disclose similar deals in the future, and cannot pretend that sponsored videos and articles are actually the work of independent producers.
It seems the punishment for breaking the law is that WB must now . . . obey the law?
Just don't use your real name anywhere on the internet.
You mean like when you sign up for internet service using your physical address? Yes, I'm sure that's going to stop the state government—which probably runs the ISP—from learning who you are. Even if you limit posting your critiques to libraries or other public places, they can use the browsing history to narrow down where to watch for you.
Exactly this. I bought a simple $800 Dell XPS for coding away from home (extended contract living in a hotel) but started missing gaming after a while. I bought a 980 and stuck it in, and it plays AAA titles at max settings no problem.
While that may not be the main point, that the law forbids companies from selling the data to others is meaningless due to hackers. I'm sure they'll use the latest security technology to protect the information, just as they with our passwords and credit cards.
My daughter, for instance, has all but left Facebook for other social platforms. She still technically has an account, but mostly ignores it.
She still has an account, but is the app still installed on her phone? If so, then I bet she's still being tracked and could be shown as a suggested friend to others.
More people are killed in the US by knives, as in being stabbed by a knife-wielding criminal.
How many of those cases were considered mass knifings where four or more people selected indiscriminately, not including the perpetrator, were killed?
Who is authorized to certify the Certification Authorities, and what would it take to finally have Comodo's cert revoked?
And when the FBI orders them to provide secret access to this chip running in all devices using it worldwide, they'll obviously break national security laws to inform the public, right? Oh, but of course, since it's the FBI, it'll still be secure from all (other) bad actors!
[I]t normally refers to relying on the method being secret to make discovery of a vulnerability more difficult.
No, the term security by obscurity means that the method MUST be a secret, because that secret is the only thing providing security.
I'd argue that you're actually agreeing here. MUST versus relying. It's the GOP's claim that the password, private key, PIN, gesture, one time pad, etc. determines the system's obscurity—not the method itself—that you're both disagreeing with, and rightfully so.
"Security through obscurity" has a very specific meaning that the GOP is trying to invalidate by claiming that every method that requires a secret is obscure. They are trying to equate a system that uses a 2048-bit public/private key pair with one that uses a single digit "password" because they both contain a secret, and are thus equal in strength. Utter nonsense.
Economics captures and accounts for those costs as externalities. It's the politicians that allow businesses to force others to bear them.
This is going to happen regardless with automation and AI as we've already seen. Perhaps it's finally time to consider alternatives such as Universal Basic Income.
Why the shock and mock outrage?
I see this is your first day on the internet. Here, have a cookie.
No doubt Obama personally aligns each mirror every morning after checking the sunrise time on Google.
Only from checked baggage. You are still free to pack people in your carry-on luggage or carry them on your person.