Actually no, that comment does not explain either of the two key points, a) it happens before script is executed and most importantly b) it therefore is independent of the content of the script.
> if you pay with your VISA card, not only does paypal need to collaborate with a bank, that in turn collaborates with Visa Inc., but that requires you to also have an account in a bank that also works with Visa Inc.
Very slightly different. As you know, Visa doesn't issue cards, Visa is just a brand and thousands of banks issue cards and slap the Visa logo on them. Just like lots of places create Bitcoin, lots of places create Visa cards. We can s/Visa/Bitcoin/g and it's still true:
if you pay with your Bitcoin, not only does paypal need to collaborate with a bank, that in turn collaborates with Bitcoin, but that requires you to also have an account in a that also works with Bitcoin.
It's slightly different, but not that much. We just replace the word Visa with the word Bitcoin. Both are essentially brands - Bitcoin branded coin numbers and Visa branded card numbers.
> you at least seem to agree that individuals don't have the same rights as businesses when it comes to tax laws and purchase (and depreciation) of capital assets.
The rules are _precisely_ the same, except there are certain restrictions (disadvantages) for very small businesses because of cheaters. The depreciation reduces the reportable income produced by the TV. As as individual, you're reporting zero income from the TV, and paying zero taxes on that zero income. You're wanting to pay less than zero? Well I guess that makes sense, you are a libtard, after all. You want me to pay more than 50%, so you can pay less than zero.
It's a good thing you didn't start re-routing your income through that shell business structure you created, because you're quite confused about some basic concepts and would end up getting yourself in trouble.
> Oh I had the same thought....I mean, by the time an "attacker" is modifying arbitrary environment variables in your process, well...you are already pretty compromised. If you wrote your CGI, then you are the one that compromised yourself.
The contents of the CGI script don't matter. The exploit occurs before the script runs. It happens as bash is setting up the environment in which the script will be run.
Suppose you have pwd.cgi, which prints the name of the current directory:
Notice the script uses no input at all. It is potentially vulnerable. Here's why. Suppose you did want to validate your input. You'd look at the contents of $QUERY_STRING, right? You can find what the user entered in the QUERY_STRING environment variable because bash puts it there. That's the step where the problem lies - bash can EXECUTE the contents of the query string while setting the environment variable. This occurs before the user's script even begins to run.
Notice the script uses no input at all. It is potentially vulnerable. Here's why. Suppose you did want to validate your input. You'd look at the contents of $QUERY_STRING, right? You can find what the user entered in the QUERY_STRING environment variable because bash puts it there. That's the step where the problem lies - bash can EXECUTE the contents of the query string while setting the environment variable. This occurs before the user's script even begins to run.
> So how does one write off the depreciation of assets like this TV? As an individual, I mean. I know how a business does it.
You could calculate it in precisely the same way that a business does. If you ever start working under whatever business structure you created, that business will probably lease office space from you personally. You will then personally have an income producing asset. You would then deduct the depreciation of that asset (your office) from the rent revenue to figure the income generated your house.
A TV in your living room probably does not produce revenue, so you don't calculate the income it generates, meaning there's no need to calculate the depreciation. Depreciation is an element of calculating the _income_ from an activity. Income = revenue - expenses, and deprecation is one of the expenses.
Maybe you don't understand, depreciation is an element of figuring out how much taxes the business has to pay for using that TV. You don't WANT to figure depreciation on the TV in your living room, because that would mean you were paying taxes for watching it. The depreciation would reduce the amount of taxes you pay for watching TV.
The problem is, you don't seem to understand what income and profit are, versus revenue, versus net worth.
Suppose you buy a TV on Craigslist for $400. Later, you decide you don't like it, so you sell it on Craigslist for $400. You have no income from the transaction, you have revenue, and a directly related, offsetting expense. You received the $400 only because you first spent the $400. You started out with $400, and ended up with $400. There's no increase, no net change.
Suppose you get a paycheck from Arby's for $400. You spend that $400 on a TV. You think you had no income, right, because you spent that $400? Where you're mistaken is this - through this scenario you started out with $0 and ended up with a $400 TV. That's an increase of $400, income of $400. It works the same whether it's a business, or you going to work and buying stuff on Craigslist.
Suppose someone hands you $4000 and spend it on a vacation. You started with zero and ended up having a very nice vacation. Your bank account may be back at zero, but you in fact benefitted from that pair of transactions - you got a $4000 vacation out of the deal. That's $4000 income. It's income whether you personally conduct the transaction or a business does so, because you didn't have to give up $4000 of existing money in order to get the vacation.
>I question them because my own business does not pay any taxes, period > My revenues have been $0,
With $0 in revenue, you probably don't have a business. You may have a hobby. Be aware, this is something the IRS watches for, falsely classifying hobby expenses as business expenses. The $35 you save in taxes may not be worth committing the federal crime of tax fraud. If it legitimately is a business, in most states you should be paying business personal property tax and many other taxes.
> 100% of the taxes are paid whether I'm in the red or in the black. At least with your business, it's only 80%.
Your tax isn't based on your income? So you're jobless? No, you said you pay your half of social security and medicare. So just like a business, you pay taxes on your income. Unlike a business you don't pay franchise tax, personal property tax, etc. Individuals only pay tax when they a) have income or b) make purchases subject to sales tax. Businesses pay those same taxes, plus many, many more.
TFS says "PayPal says it chose to integrate the third-party functionality directly in the PayPal Payments Hub" Sounds to me like, from a user's point of view, PayPal will be accepting Bitcoin. When you use your Visa card with Paypal, it goes through at least two third-party banks, but you as a customer don't know or care about that. It sounds like paying with Bitcoin will be similar to paying with your Visa card. In both cases, Paypal works with third parties, but you as a PayPal customer don't have to think about how that happens behind the scenes.
> The corporation has a profit margin or they would not be taxed.
FYI, that is factually false. Approximately half of all taxes on business re unrelated to profit, or margin. A few of the taxes I, as a small business person, pay each month or quarter:
Social Security and medicare Federal Unemployment tax State unemployment tax State training tax (in some states) State workforce disability tax (in some states) --Note all of the above are for hiring people. As the president has said, if you want people do less of something, put a tax on it. Business personal property tax (Every year, I pay a tax for owning my 15 year old desk, my pens and pencils, my mouse pad...) Franchise tax Sales and use tax
Income taxes account for only 20% of tax revenue. 80% of the taxes paid are paid whether they bankrupt the business or not.
You assume that you must have the cool new app of the week. A phone from five years ago still works exactly the same as it did when updates for it stopped last year. Very few people _need_ iOS 8. A 2009 model iPhone 3GS running iOS 6 (2014) does everything most people need.
You can easily get a 3GS for $26 and use it for another two years - $13 per year.
> The more 3d printers are manufactured, the lower the cost and the more features (bang for the buck) that scaling out any product brings.
A 3D printer in a retail setting, where it's kept fairly busy, will use a few thousand dollars worth of filament and electricity every month. A retail location needs to charge the same amount again to cover labor costs (a $9.50 employee costs $20/hour with taxes, healthcare, workers comp, etc.) Then roughly the same amount again for rent of the floor space, signage, permits, roi, etc. So the store needs to sell about $10,000 in prints per month for the machine to earn it's keep.
Whether the printer cost $5000 or $3000 to purchase has very little impact on the final cost to the consumer.
> As with everything, economies of scale and increases in technology will bring the per-unit cost down
"Economies of scale" refers to the various reasons that it's cheaper to do something 10,000 times, assembly line fashion, rather than one piece at a time. In other words, the exact OPPOSITE of what's being talked about here.
It may be useful where , due to the inefficiency of handling an order for one 20 cent knob, the manufacturer doesn't sell parts directly to consumers. The knob that costs 20 cents at scale (on Alibaba) will cost $5 to print. Alibaba operates at scale, and though. 3D printing is for when you're willing to give up economy (pay more per unit) because you're NOT operating at scale.
Advancements in 3D printing technology and competition should reduce costs somewhat. However, costs have already fallen by an order of magnitude or more. It's likely that they cannot be reduced another order of magnitude. The one economy of scale available is keeping the printing machines busy to amortize their cost across many prints, but Shapeway's printers are already busy. Now we can only save shipping costs by having a local machine busy.
They could be thinking of microwave energy. Of course that means they need a 10Km rectenna on the plane, which would be problematic to put it mildly. From their web site, there's no way to tell what they're thinking, or if they're thinking.
That's a valid point, of course. Perhaps I should have been more specific and said the concept of a long- endurance vehicle being nuclear powered has been proven, but keeping the nuclear power source aloft for years is another question.
Power for long-range airplanes is a tricky thing. More endurance requires more fuel, but that additional fuel is more weight, which increases fuel consumption. Many options would be counterproductive, weighing more than can be kept aloft by the energy they provide or store. I suspect that only nuclear fuel and a hot-air envelope can provide enough energy to keep themselves aloft for years.
My employer wants me to go to a conference in Vegas, DevLearn. Since it's something they want, they are paying. I wanted to ho to a local conference on information security. Since it's something I wanted, I was willing to pay. My employer paid anyway because the bureaucracy says they should pay for one conference per year or whatever, but I have no problem paying for something I want to do for my own benefit.
If my employer wants me to fo it for their benefit, it's reasonable for them to pay for it.
I also decided to go back to school. I wanted to do that for myself, so I'm paying for it. My employer also gets some benefit, so they are paying part of it. Having an educated workforce paying more taxes helps the whole country, so the federal government is paying a small part via Pell grants. But mostly, it's something I want to do, for my own reasons, so I pay for it.
On their web site, I see a lot about what they wish they could do, and very little about how they'd manage to do it. They say their HA series is designed to stay aloft for up to five years at "all latitudes". "All latitudes precludes the use of solar power since it's dark for six months at a time at far north and far south latitudes, and most of their pictures clearly show no solar panels. So are they hoping for a magic battery that will last five years but not weigh hundreds of pounds, or are they planning on nuclear power? Submarines that stay out for years use nuclear power, so that is a proven option.
Another option that's known to be somewhat workable at some latitudes is a hot air balloon, where the black balloon continually absorbs heat from the sun to keep the craft aloft. Their pictures show model planes, though, not balloons.
Do these guys have any idea how to solve the most fundamental physics problems in the way, or do they just have a wish and nothing else? Their web site doesn't seem to indicate they've thought about how to do it, just how to get people to hand over cash, with no actual plan published.
For those who don't quite understand that "worthy of Monty Python " implies something ridiculous, so improbable as to be almost beyond imagination, let mw get serious for a moment.
They will not collide because the only time they will be "near" each other they'll be at very different altitudes from the Martian surface. One will be 10,000 meters above the surface while the other is 33,000 feet above. Veteran scientists who worked on the Mars climate orbiter have confirmed this is plenty of separation between the two.
Not EVERYTHING the government does us a total failure, of course. They do tend to fail in comic ways, and often spectacularly. Mars climate orbiter, anyone? Robin Williams did a great bit about that.
Do you REALLY want to argue the position that governments aren't prone to ridiculous screwups? You can point to a couple of projects that ended up working. On the other side are thousands of projects and trillions of dollars that all ended in utter fail. The entire Bush II administration- mostly fail. His successor- again mostly fail, as evidenced by his approval ratings in the 30%s.
Also, you might want to check out Monty Python sometime. The feared killer rabbit is a favorite. Encountering a killer rabbit, and being forced to defend yourself with the Holy Hand Grenade, is approximately as likely as said collision. Hence the Monty Python reference. Yet governments do indeed fight "holy wars", presumably with holy hand grenades, because nothing is too ridiculous for a government.
The point went right over your head, didn't it. The odds of that happening are astronomical, literally. Yet, it wouldn't be all that surprising if a government agency still managed to screw it up, against all odds - to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
For somw reason, it wouldn't surprise me if these two craft collided, despite being the only two approaching the entire planet. It just seems that any time a government spends a lot of money to do anything, it normally ends with a fail worthy of Monty Python .
Oilcan completely see how a security agent can open the lock by merely passing their forearm near the card reader as they approach the door. Wear the security card on the forearm, hip, or other appropriate place and even a relatively inexpensive reader such as many office buildings use will allow instant access by authorized personnel, while keeping unauthorized people out.
Absolutely there's no such thing as perfect security. I say that as a security professional. My wife, a childcare professional, will tell you that locking the front door is a good idea, if the house is a target. They spend a billion and half dollars every year on the secret service, who doesn't bother to lock the door. That's how government does things.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually no, that comment does not explain either of the two key points, a) it happens before script is executed and most importantly b) it therefore is independent of the content of the script.
Nice try though, apk.
> if you pay with your VISA card, not only does paypal need to collaborate with a bank, that in turn collaborates with Visa Inc., but that requires you to also have an account in a bank that also works with Visa Inc.
Very slightly different. As you know, Visa doesn't issue cards, Visa is just a brand and thousands of banks issue cards and slap the Visa logo on them.
Just like lots of places create Bitcoin, lots of places create Visa cards. We can s/Visa/Bitcoin/g and it's still true:
if you pay with your Bitcoin, not only does paypal need to collaborate with a bank, that in turn collaborates with Bitcoin, but that requires you to also have an account in a that also works with Bitcoin.
It's slightly different, but not that much. We just replace the word Visa with the word Bitcoin. Both are essentially brands - Bitcoin branded coin numbers and Visa branded card numbers.
> you at least seem to agree that individuals don't have the same rights as businesses when it comes to tax laws and purchase (and depreciation) of capital assets.
The rules are _precisely_ the same, except there are certain restrictions (disadvantages) for very small businesses because of cheaters. The depreciation reduces the reportable income produced by the TV. As as individual, you're reporting zero income from the TV, and paying zero taxes on that zero income. You're wanting to pay less than zero? Well I guess that makes sense, you are a libtard, after all. You want me to pay more than 50%, so you can pay less than zero.
It's a good thing you didn't start re-routing your income through that shell business structure you created, because you're quite confused about some basic concepts and would end up getting yourself in trouble.
> Oh I had the same thought....I mean, by the time an "attacker" is modifying arbitrary environment variables in your process, well...you are already pretty compromised. If you wrote your CGI, then you are the one that compromised yourself.
The contents of the CGI script don't matter. The exploit occurs before the script runs. It happens as bash is setting up the environment in which the script will be run.
Suppose you have pwd.cgi, which prints the name of the current directory:
#!/bin/sh
echo -e "Content-type: text/plain\n\n"
pwd
Notice the script uses no input at all. It is potentially vulnerable. Here's why. Suppose you did want to validate your input. You'd look at the contents of $QUERY_STRING, right? You can find what the user entered in the QUERY_STRING environment variable because bash puts it there. That's the step where the problem lies - bash can EXECUTE the contents of the query string while setting the environment variable. This occurs before the user's script even begins to run.
Many, many sites have one line scripts like this laying around:
#!/bin/sh
echo -e "Content-type: text/plain\n\n"
df -h
Or similarly, a script that just runs pwd or uptime.
> Someone correct me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't this exploit depend on programs not validating input?
Suppose you have pwd.cgi, which prints the name of the current directory:
#!/bin/sh
echo -e "Content-type: text/plain\n\n"
pwd
Notice the script uses no input at all. It is potentially vulnerable. Here's why. Suppose you did want to validate your input. You'd look at the contents of $QUERY_STRING, right? You can find what the user entered in the QUERY_STRING environment variable because bash puts it there. That's the step where the problem lies - bash can EXECUTE the contents of the query string while setting the environment variable. This occurs before the user's script even begins to run.
> So how does one write off the depreciation of assets like this TV? As an individual, I mean. I know how a business does it.
You could calculate it in precisely the same way that a business does. If you ever start working under whatever business structure you created, that business will probably lease office space from you personally. You will then personally have an income producing asset. You would then deduct the depreciation of that asset (your office) from the rent revenue to figure the income generated your house.
A TV in your living room probably does not produce revenue, so you don't calculate the income it generates, meaning there's no need to calculate the depreciation. Depreciation is an element of calculating the _income_ from an activity. Income = revenue - expenses, and deprecation is one of the expenses.
Maybe you don't understand, depreciation is an element of figuring out how much taxes the business has to pay for using that TV. You don't WANT to figure depreciation on the TV in your living room, because that would mean you were paying taxes for watching it. The depreciation would reduce the amount of taxes you pay for watching TV.
The problem is, you don't seem to understand what income and profit are, versus revenue, versus net worth.
Suppose you buy a TV on Craigslist for $400. Later, you decide you don't like it, so you sell it on Craigslist for $400. You have no income from the transaction, you have revenue, and a directly related, offsetting expense. You received the $400 only because you first spent the $400. You started out with $400, and ended up with $400. There's no increase, no net change.
Suppose you get a paycheck from Arby's for $400. You spend that $400 on a TV. You think you had no income, right, because you spent that $400? Where you're mistaken is this - through this scenario you started out with $0 and ended up with a $400 TV. That's an increase of $400, income of $400. It works the same whether it's a business, or you going to work and buying stuff on Craigslist.
Suppose someone hands you $4000 and spend it on a vacation. You started with zero and ended up having a very nice vacation. Your bank account may be back at zero, but you in fact benefitted from that pair of transactions - you got a $4000 vacation out of the deal. That's $4000 income. It's income whether you personally conduct the transaction or a business does so, because you didn't have to give up $4000 of existing money in order to get the vacation.
>I question them because my own business does not pay any taxes, period
> My revenues have been $0,
With $0 in revenue, you probably don't have a business. You may have a hobby. Be aware, this is something the IRS watches for, falsely classifying hobby expenses as business expenses. The $35 you save in taxes may not be worth committing the federal crime of tax fraud. If it legitimately is a business, in most states you should be paying business personal property tax and many other taxes.
> 100% of the taxes are paid whether I'm in the red or in the black. At least with your business, it's only 80%.
Your tax isn't based on your income? So you're jobless? No, you said you pay your half of social security and medicare. So just like a business, you pay taxes on your income. Unlike a business you don't pay franchise tax, personal property tax, etc. Individuals only pay tax when they a) have income or b) make purchases subject to sales tax. Businesses pay those same taxes, plus many, many more.
TFS says "PayPal says it chose to integrate the third-party functionality directly in the PayPal Payments Hub"
Sounds to me like, from a user's point of view, PayPal will be accepting Bitcoin. When you use your Visa card with Paypal, it goes through at least two third-party banks, but you as a customer don't know or care about that. It sounds like paying with Bitcoin will be similar to paying with your Visa card. In both cases, Paypal works with third parties, but you as a PayPal customer don't have to think about how that happens behind the scenes.
> The corporation has a profit margin or they would not be taxed.
FYI, that is factually false. Approximately half of all taxes on business re unrelated to profit, or margin. A few of the taxes I, as a small business person, pay each month or quarter:
Social Security and medicare ...)
Federal Unemployment tax
State unemployment tax
State training tax (in some states)
State workforce disability tax (in some states)
--Note all of the above are for hiring people. As the president has said, if you want people do less of something, put a tax on it.
Business personal property tax (Every year, I pay a tax for owning my 15 year old desk, my pens and pencils, my mouse pad
Franchise tax
Sales and use tax
Income taxes account for only 20% of tax revenue. 80% of the taxes paid are paid whether they bankrupt the business or not.
You assume that you must have the cool new app of the week. A phone from five years ago still works exactly the same as it did when updates for it stopped last year. Very few people _need_ iOS 8. A 2009 model iPhone 3GS running iOS 6 (2014) does everything most people need.
You can easily get a 3GS for $26 and use it for another two years - $13 per year.
> The more 3d printers are manufactured, the lower the cost and the more features (bang for the buck) that scaling out any product brings.
A 3D printer in a retail setting, where it's kept fairly busy, will use a few thousand dollars worth of filament and electricity every month. A retail location needs to charge the same amount again to cover labor costs (a $9.50 employee costs $20/hour with taxes, healthcare, workers comp, etc.) Then roughly the same amount again for rent of the floor space, signage, permits, roi, etc. So the store needs to sell about $10,000 in prints per month for the machine to earn it's keep.
Whether the printer cost $5000 or $3000 to purchase has very little impact on the final cost to the consumer.
> As with everything, economies of scale and increases in technology will bring the per-unit cost down
"Economies of scale" refers to the various reasons that it's cheaper to do something 10,000 times, assembly line fashion, rather than one piece at a time. In other words, the exact OPPOSITE of what's being talked about here.
It may be useful where , due to the inefficiency of handling an order for one 20 cent knob, the manufacturer doesn't sell parts directly to consumers. The knob that costs 20 cents at scale (on Alibaba) will cost $5 to print. Alibaba operates at scale, and though. 3D printing is for when you're willing to give up economy (pay more per unit) because you're NOT operating at scale.
Advancements in 3D printing technology and competition should reduce costs somewhat. However, costs have already fallen by an order of magnitude or more. It's likely that they cannot be reduced another order of magnitude. The one economy of scale available is keeping the printing machines busy to amortize their cost across many prints, but Shapeway's printers are already busy. Now we can only save shipping costs by having a local machine busy.
They could be thinking of microwave energy. Of course that means they need a 10Km rectenna on the plane, which would be problematic to put it mildly. From their web site, there's no way to tell what they're thinking, or if they're thinking.
That's a valid point, of course. Perhaps I should have been more specific and said the concept of a long- endurance vehicle being nuclear powered has been proven, but keeping the nuclear power source aloft for years is another question.
Power for long-range airplanes is a tricky thing. More endurance requires more fuel, but that additional fuel is more weight, which increases fuel consumption. Many options would be counterproductive, weighing more than can be kept aloft by the energy they provide or store. I suspect that only nuclear fuel and a hot-air envelope can provide enough energy to keep themselves aloft for years.
My employer wants me to go to a conference in Vegas, DevLearn. Since it's something they want, they are paying.
I wanted to ho to a local conference on information security. Since it's something I wanted, I was willing to pay. My employer paid anyway because the bureaucracy says they should pay for one conference per year or whatever, but I have no problem paying for something I want to do for my own benefit.
If my employer wants me to fo it for their benefit, it's reasonable for them to pay for it.
I also decided to go back to school. I wanted to do that for myself, so I'm paying for it. My employer also gets some benefit, so they are paying part of it. Having an educated workforce paying more taxes helps the whole country, so the federal government is paying a small part via Pell grants. But mostly, it's something I want to do, for my own reasons, so I pay for it.
On their web site, I see a lot about what they wish they could do, and very little about how they'd manage to do it.
They say their HA series is designed to stay aloft for up to five years at "all latitudes". "All latitudes precludes the use of solar power since it's dark for six months at a time at far north and far south latitudes, and most of their pictures clearly show no solar panels. So are they hoping for a magic battery that will last five years but not weigh hundreds of pounds, or are they planning on nuclear power? Submarines that stay out for years use nuclear power, so that is a proven option.
Another option that's known to be somewhat workable at some latitudes is a hot air balloon, where the black balloon continually absorbs heat from the sun to keep the craft aloft. Their pictures show model planes, though, not balloons.
Do these guys have any idea how to solve the most fundamental physics problems in the way, or do they just have a wish and nothing else? Their web site doesn't seem to indicate they've thought about how to do it, just how to get people to hand over cash, with no actual plan published.
For those who don't quite understand that "worthy of Monty Python " implies something ridiculous, so improbable as to be almost beyond imagination, let mw get serious for a moment.
They will not collide because the only time they will be "near" each other they'll be at very different altitudes from the Martian surface. One will be 10,000 meters above the surface while the other is 33,000 feet above. Veteran scientists who worked on the Mars climate orbiter have confirmed this is plenty of separation between the two.
Not EVERYTHING the government does us a total failure, of course.
They do tend to fail in comic ways, and often spectacularly. Mars climate orbiter, anyone? Robin Williams did a great bit about that.
Do you REALLY want to argue the position that governments aren't prone to ridiculous screwups? You can point to a couple of projects that ended up working. On the other side are thousands of projects and trillions of dollars that all ended in utter fail. The entire Bush II administration- mostly fail. His successor- again mostly fail, as evidenced by his approval ratings in the 30%s.
Also, you might want to check out Monty Python sometime.
The feared killer rabbit is a favorite. Encountering a killer rabbit, and being forced to defend yourself with the Holy Hand Grenade, is approximately as likely as said collision. Hence the Monty Python reference. Yet governments do indeed fight "holy wars", presumably with holy hand grenades, because nothing is too ridiculous for a government.
The point went right over your head, didn't it. The odds of that happening are astronomical, literally. Yet, it wouldn't be all that surprising if a government agency still managed to screw it up, against all odds - to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
For somw reason, it wouldn't surprise me if these two craft collided, despite being the only two approaching the entire planet. It just seems that any time a government spends a lot of money to do anything, it normally ends with a fail worthy of Monty Python .
Oilcan completely see how a security agent can open the lock by merely passing their forearm near the card reader as they approach the door. Wear the security card on the forearm, hip, or other appropriate place and even a relatively inexpensive reader such as many office buildings use will allow instant access by authorized personnel, while keeping unauthorized people out.
Absolutely there's no such thing as perfect security. I say that as a security professional. My wife, a childcare professional, will tell you that locking the front door is a good idea, if the house is a target. They spend a billion and half dollars every year on the secret service, who doesn't bother to lock the door. That's how government does things.