Maybe I can understand the self-employment schedules as an upcharge, but Schedule D?! That's something the average American household should (hopefully) be needing for their investment savings. Owning a few mutual fund shares should hardly be an esoteric tax topic!
But at least there is the *possibility* of getting a patch if Google makes one. Without that, no chance! That Google would unannouncedly end-of-life (EOL) a product with the majority of its Android market share makes me so mad!!
And for those of you who worry about being called nerds because you're carrying a DuinoKit around, you can relax. It comes in a 'Secret Agent Carrying Case.' Really.
Because nothing says, "I'm not a nerd," like toting a Secret Agent Carrying Case.
Do these tests cover use cases such as encountering a flash flooded road where what used to be a road is now a river? Driving on ice? Etc.
Drivers in California can't drive with water either, even a little bit of rain. That's why when it rains in LA the traffic incident map is like a Christmas tree. Ice? Fugghedaboutit.
Because when you are in a public place you have no right to the expectation of privacy. If you are walking and talking down the sidewalk in town other people are able to hear your side of the conversation. Depending on if your state and the state the other party is in are two or one party states it is a moot point.
B.S.!! They intercept BOTH sides of a conversation, which I would absolutely reasonable expect at least the OTHER side is private. ALSO, they intercept TEXT MESSAGES, which I absolutely don't expect people around me to be reading.
By their logic they should be able to deploy nano wave scanners and see through my clothing too since, heck, I'm in public, I have no expectation of privacy!!
In the 15 minute interval following the freezing of Bitstamp trading, the price on Bitfinex dropped from $276.04 to $271.48 and has remained around there (at this moment at $271.60). Neither the volume nor price swing are remotely noteworthy amidst the trading activity over the last week.
The failure of the price to drop is interesting if you compare it to the reaction to the MtGox wallet compromise and service freeze last year. It speaks reams about the healthier state of the Bitcoin ecosystem now.
I should explain what I meant better... It may be true that Bitstamp had some security shortcomings. But it is equally plausible they were reasonably or even vigilantly security-conscious. The reality these days (as shown by the endless string of high-profile hackings that have occurred in the last year or so) is that anyone is hackable if they are a juicy enough target. JP Morgan comes to mind as an example of a large, regulated, and security-conscious financial services firm that suffered a major hack despite not being "amateurs."
The truth is that it is harder to maintain an impenetrable fortress than it is to find a small chink in the armor of such a fortress from which a hacker can create a toehold and base an attack. I defer to Bruce Schneier for corroboration on my point:
Your reaction to the massive hacking of such a prominent company [Sony] will depend on whether you're fluent in information-technology security. If you're not, you're probably wondering how in the world this could happen. If you are, you're aware that this could happen to any company....
In fact, that Bitstamp detected some anomalous activity and froze the affected wallets while the number of affected bitcoins was well below the reserves they kept in place for any such eventualilty might show they have good security monitoring in place.
What you wrote was misleading, but don't blame others for your ineffective attempt to express yourself. I previously stated I agree with some of your sentiments (a la security theater, etc.), but I defer to Bruce Schneier and his rationale, not yours, and you lose my concurrence just as your toes begin leaving the diving board at the deep end...
But not only does the TSA do nothing to make air travel safer
Overstate much?
I agree with your sentiments and some of your points, but the above is preposterous. You really think if there were no security at airports we wouldn't have more shit go down on planes?
Nor are cars or boats a substitute for flying. You can't take a car for New York weekend from California. You can a plane. If there were no planes, it's not that people would take other means of transport instead for the same travels; there would be less travels!
Regarding the last part, ahhh yes. The good old days. If only we didn't have that pesky terrorism thing to worry about. Then everything would be perfect. Don't get me wrong, I hate the TSA's b.s. security theatre carp as much as Bruce Schneier, but to just "go back to how it was before 9/11" isn't really an option.
Is it really less polluting to fly 200 people in a plane than: a) by driving, b) by bus, c) by train? I'm asking honestly; I don't know. But I think the bigger issue is that air travel opens the opportunity to travel that would otherwise not occur. You wouldn't drive from LA to NY for a weekend! Such a trip is not possible without an airplane. So you can't compare the pollution debts apples-to-apples.
So what? I need to be able to fly anywhere I want in the world for a weekend vacation. The truth is, though, as jet travel becomes more attainable economically for more and more of the world's population, there will be an unsustainable growth in the industry and in the pollutions it emits. It is a simple fact that the environment cannot support the ability for any person on earth to fly anywhere else on a whim for under $1000.
I was a high-level consultant recently for a mid-sized startup with many thousands of users (including some celebrity types) and a platform that spanned web, mobile web, web service APIs, CDNs, and mobile apps.
I interfaced directly with the CEO, who was quite tech savvy. But every time we would get JSON, AJAX, or cross domain type problems, as I would be directing troubleshooting to fix things, he would go into the code and turn off SSL to fix them, and then say to me to get back to other work. I kept explaining to him that this was not the solution, that we needed to solve the actual issue(s) so we could run in SSL mode. He would say, "We can't risk having problems because of SSL. The site has to work."
I tried patiently explaining how the greatest risks were if we collected users' passwords without SSL and someone snooped and hacked or exposed our users, some of whom were quite prominent figures.
***He was convinced that you just couldn't run a platform such as ours with SSL and have it work.***
Finally, I drafted a short letter outlining the risks and potential financial and civil liabilities to the company of negligently not running SSL, and I asked him to sign and acknowledge that I had advised him of these things but that he was forbidding me to enable SSL. I politely explained that I was concerned about my professional reputation and liability as the company's technology advisor.
This made him cave, I devoted a short bit of time to fixing the underlying issues, and SSL worked perfectly from then on. He never had the guts to acknowledge that he had been wrong that SSL couldn't work.
I am reminded of many years ago, Sprint (my cell carrier) emailed me my new password when I changed it online. I called them to ask them to review this practice and not email me my new password. The helpful rep explained to me, "Don't worry. We only send it to your email, and your email is secure." I responded, "Um, no. It's my email, and I'm telling you it's not secure. There is no reason for you to email me my password." They just kept repeating, "Don't worry. Your email is secure." I called again and got similar results. I was horrified that this company which maintains my social security number had such idiotic security awareness. I suppose by now someone has probably fixed this practice; it was many years ago.
"A study commissioned by the Interactive Advertising Bureau with researchers from Harvard Business School underscores the point: at least half of the Internet’s economic value is based on the collection of individual user data, and nearly all commercial content on the Internet relies on advertising to some extent. Digital advertising grew to a $42.8 billion business last year, a sum that already exceeds spending on broadcast television advertising."
One way or another, you pay for your free Internet services.
I see freedom of speech as bigger than one government.
And I disagree that no serious threats were made when there were death threats made against "innocent" employees whose personal information was compromised in the hack.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe I can understand the self-employment schedules as an upcharge, but Schedule D?!
That's something the average American household should (hopefully) be needing for their investment savings.
Owning a few mutual fund shares should hardly be an esoteric tax topic!
Plus, ya know, ahhh Bitcoin. (Just kidding)
But at least there is the *possibility* of getting a patch if Google makes one. Without that, no chance!
That Google would unannouncedly end-of-life (EOL) a product with the majority of its Android market share makes me so mad!!
And for those of you who worry about being called nerds because you're carrying a DuinoKit around, you can relax. It comes in a 'Secret Agent Carrying Case.' Really.
Because nothing says, "I'm not a nerd," like toting a Secret Agent Carrying Case.
Do these tests cover use cases such as encountering a flash flooded road where what used to be a road is now a river? Driving on ice? Etc.
Drivers in California can't drive with water either, even a little bit of rain. That's why when it rains in LA the traffic incident map is like a Christmas tree. Ice? Fugghedaboutit.
Because when you are in a public place you have no right to the expectation of privacy. If you are walking and talking down the sidewalk in town other people are able to hear your side of the conversation. Depending on if your state and the state the other party is in are two or one party states it is a moot point.
B.S.!! They intercept BOTH sides of a conversation, which I would absolutely reasonable expect at least the OTHER side is private. ALSO, they intercept TEXT MESSAGES, which I absolutely don't expect people around me to be reading.
By their logic they should be able to deploy nano wave scanners and see through my clothing too since, heck, I'm in public, I have no expectation of privacy!!
could be!
+1 =)
In the 15 minute interval following the freezing of Bitstamp trading, the price on Bitfinex dropped from $276.04 to $271.48 and has remained around there (at this moment at $271.60).
Neither the volume nor price swing are remotely noteworthy amidst the trading activity over the last week.
The failure of the price to drop is interesting if you compare it to the reaction to the MtGox wallet compromise and service freeze last year. It speaks reams about the healthier state of the Bitcoin ecosystem now.
I should explain what I meant better...
It may be true that Bitstamp had some security shortcomings. But it is equally plausible they were reasonably or even vigilantly security-conscious.
The reality these days (as shown by the endless string of high-profile hackings that have occurred in the last year or so) is that anyone is hackable if they are a juicy enough target. JP Morgan comes to mind as an example of a large, regulated, and security-conscious financial services firm that suffered a major hack despite not being "amateurs."
The truth is that it is harder to maintain an impenetrable fortress than it is to find a small chink in the armor of such a fortress from which a hacker can create a toehold and base an attack. I defer to Bruce Schneier for corroboration on my point:
Your reaction to the massive hacking of such a prominent company [Sony] will depend on whether you're fluent in information-technology security. If you're not, you're probably wondering how in the world this could happen. If you are, you're aware that this could happen to any company....
In fact, that Bitstamp detected some anomalous activity and froze the affected wallets while the number of affected bitcoins was well below the reserves they kept in place for any such eventualilty might show they have good security monitoring in place.
Interestingly, this event has not "moved the needle" on the other exchanges trading Bitcoin.
Amateurs... like JP Morgan?
Everyone is hackable.
What you wrote was misleading, but don't blame others for your ineffective attempt to express yourself.
I previously stated I agree with some of your sentiments (a la security theater, etc.), but I defer to Bruce Schneier and his rationale, not yours, and you lose my concurrence just as your toes begin leaving the diving board at the deep end...
But not only does the TSA do nothing to make air travel safer
Overstate much?
I agree with your sentiments and some of your points, but the above is preposterous. You really think if there were no security at airports we wouldn't have more shit go down on planes?
Nor are cars or boats a substitute for flying.
You can't take a car for New York weekend from California. You can a plane.
If there were no planes, it's not that people would take other means of transport instead for the same travels; there would be less travels!
Regarding the last part, ahhh yes. The good old days. If only we didn't have that pesky terrorism thing to worry about. Then everything would be perfect.
Don't get me wrong, I hate the TSA's b.s. security theatre carp as much as Bruce Schneier, but to just "go back to how it was before 9/11" isn't really an option.
Is it really less polluting to fly 200 people in a plane than: a) by driving, b) by bus, c) by train? I'm asking honestly; I don't know.
But I think the bigger issue is that air travel opens the opportunity to travel that would otherwise not occur. You wouldn't drive from LA to NY for a weekend! Such a trip is not possible without an airplane. So you can't compare the pollution debts apples-to-apples.
So what? I need to be able to fly anywhere I want in the world for a weekend vacation.
The truth is, though, as jet travel becomes more attainable economically for more and more of the world's population, there will be an unsustainable growth in the industry and in the pollutions it emits. It is a simple fact that the environment cannot support the ability for any person on earth to fly anywhere else on a whim for under $1000.
now north koreans will know what stankdick is.
True! Might be stored encrypted (not plaintext), but in any case, it should be stored in a salted and irreversibly hashed form.
I was a high-level consultant recently for a mid-sized startup with many thousands of users (including some celebrity types) and a platform that spanned web, mobile web, web service APIs, CDNs, and mobile apps.
I interfaced directly with the CEO, who was quite tech savvy. But every time we would get JSON, AJAX, or cross domain type problems, as I would be directing troubleshooting to fix things, he would go into the code and turn off SSL to fix them, and then say to me to get back to other work. I kept explaining to him that this was not the solution, that we needed to solve the actual issue(s) so we could run in SSL mode. He would say, "We can't risk having problems because of SSL. The site has to work."
I tried patiently explaining how the greatest risks were if we collected users' passwords without SSL and someone snooped and hacked or exposed our users, some of whom were quite prominent figures.
***He was convinced that you just couldn't run a platform such as ours with SSL and have it work.***
Finally, I drafted a short letter outlining the risks and potential financial and civil liabilities to the company of negligently not running SSL, and I asked him to sign and acknowledge that I had advised him of these things but that he was forbidding me to enable SSL. I politely explained that I was concerned about my professional reputation and liability as the company's technology advisor.
This made him cave, I devoted a short bit of time to fixing the underlying issues, and SSL worked perfectly from then on. He never had the guts to acknowledge that he had been wrong that SSL couldn't work.
I am reminded of many years ago, Sprint (my cell carrier) emailed me my new password when I changed it online.
I called them to ask them to review this practice and not email me my new password. The helpful rep explained to me, "Don't worry. We only send it to your email, and your email is secure."
I responded, "Um, no. It's my email, and I'm telling you it's not secure. There is no reason for you to email me my password."
They just kept repeating, "Don't worry. Your email is secure."
I called again and got similar results. I was horrified that this company which maintains my social security number had such idiotic security awareness.
I suppose by now someone has probably fixed this practice; it was many years ago.
"A study commissioned by the Interactive Advertising Bureau with researchers from Harvard Business School underscores the point: at least half of the Internet’s economic value is based on the collection of individual user data, and nearly all commercial content on the Internet relies on advertising to some extent. Digital advertising grew to a $42.8 billion business last year, a sum that already exceeds spending on broadcast television advertising."
One way or another, you pay for your free Internet services.
Ha ha. Prior art.
I agree though. Monkeys are very reckless with their words. That's why I decided not to get one as a pet.
Seriosly, who writes these things for them?!
I see freedom of speech as bigger than one government. And I disagree that no serious threats were made when there were death threats made against "innocent" employees whose personal information was compromised in the hack.