Okay, I see your point. Yeah, if you think your ex is using an IoT device in your home that (s)he setup to spy on you, selling it on eBay seems like a good choice!
That may or may not be true, but it's still not the issue that is being discussed. Many devices have such poorly implemented security controls that anybody (authorized or not) can control the device trivially. The ones mentioned by the OP aren't perfect, but they have been developed with security in mind by competent people.
Huh? These devices have pretty good security controls and are not what we're talking about here at all. They give up a lot of data to their corporate overlords but not unauthorized third parties.
We've had this discussion before but it takes a lot to exploit a speculative execution bug. These are unlikely to ever be used on a mass attack but rather only in targeted activities. If you're machines are high-value targets, you should (a) have the kernel mitigations enabled even if they have a performance degradation, (b) not be browsing random sites at all. Delivering a SPECTRE attack via JS and extracting something sound like a *fun* project, but it's unlikely to yield any valuable bounty against the average user. It makes no sense to discuss this in the context of wasm.
I have no idea how this got modded up. He could have written a *concurring* opinion as has already been pointed out. But even if the post was factually correct, having the ad hominem (calling the OP an idiot) is enough that -1 is the correct moderation.
If there were no policy against the relationship and it could be discussed openly, there would be no potential for blackmail! I do think it's a generally good policy although lots of other commentators have pointed out that it's far from perfect.
In winter when it's dark that means you live in the northeast and you (hopefully) heat and cook with methane, not electricity If you live in the south, you don't heat during the winter.
There's no reason to expect oil prices to go off of a cliff and most of the comments i this thread are nothing but hyperbole. As oil demand drops, oil companies will invest less in exploration and bringing new fields online. This will keep supply/demand largely balanced. The total market capitalization of the oil companies will drop as total volume is lower. But even this won't be dramatic. They will still be making a profit on every barrel sold. And, as has already been pointed out, fossil fuel companies are all looking for alternative revenue sources. Utility companies will suffer more than fossil fuel companies.
Many internet forums *shouldn't* have anonymity and that's the point. There is room for both. Some places, like for organizing political protests, anonymity is paramount. On other forums where you want to maintain order and civility, anonymity has negative value. I should be able to pay cash and buy things anonymously. But perhaps not firearms?
My employer has a thousand open jobs and every one is real. I'm pretty sure they all pay over $100k. And there is 5k bonus for any employee who refers a hire. And we can't fill the jobs.
I'm sure they will negotiate a solution where her business gets a concession and this goes away. The good thing about corruption is that it's predictable and it's much easier to run a business in a predictable environment.
That's a bit of a naive/cynical interpretation. If certain companies did the work to follow the law and others invested their resources in getting the law repealed, rolling it back clearly benefits the latter group over the former. That's somewhat akin to penalizing the competent. This is analogous to the phase-out of incandescent bulbs. It sounds good on the surface to the libertarian screw-the-environment types. But since the rules were in place for so long, most companies spent a fortune preparing and felt that dropping the regulation would terribly harm their business. It's one thing to not pass a standard. Its quite another to roll it back as this is a disruptive (in a bad way) action to markets.
Are you sure? I imagine that there is a lot of added sugar in fast food products. Maybe not the burgers. But certainly the beverages. Maybe the buns. Definitely the 'yogurt.'
If somebody bought my mansion for cash, the first thing I would do is deposit the money in a bank. That's how the trail starts. If you're a kingpin, you have a shell company buy the house, live there, and make it very hard for anybody to figure out who the real controlling owner is.
Laundering at the casinos is relatively easy. Although not necessarily $100k at a time. Professional blackjack players often go to the bathroom and slip chips into their pockets so the casinos don't know how much they are winning. Then they later cash out some of the proceeds anonymously. Money launderers do the opposite. They'll buy in for anonymously for $1000, play for a while (win or lose, doesn't matter much), then leave. Come back the next day buy in using their player card for $1000. Leave the table, sneak chips out of their pocket and cash in using their player card. Makes it look like they won. You don't need any front business or infrastructure.
I think the real answer to this lies in the original Yahoo! design where you have curated content and then you have uncurated search results. Youtube seems to be going this way. For Youtube kids you can now select to only let your kids watch things that have been manually reviewed. Curation is valuable but it's also expensive which is why algorithms are often preferred. But there's plenty of room for improvement.
I don't think anybody will be "exposed" but I certainly know a lot of people who can write Java code with the best of them but can't communicate in human languages with anybody. Doing their MSND homework probably would have been of great benefit to them more so than learning yet another programming language.
I imagine that this is happening way more than one would guess based on the OPs observations. Asking for a solution on stack overflow is cheating for the lazy. There are plenty of platforms out there where you could hire somebody as a consultant to do a project and they might not even realize that they're doing homework and facilitating cheating.
I doubt that the stated purpose is how this will actually be used. But the problem is real because you often have people making tight connections and the airline has to decide whether to wait or not. It happens very often that inbound flights are late putting connections at risk. How often? Often enough that most airlines have a poor procedure for it where they try to unload those passengers first. But it fails every time because other passengers don't cooperate. The gate agent at the connection has to decide whether or not to close the door and they have no situational awareness. If they can see that the affected passengers are moving quickly toward their next flight, they can make an operational decision to wait. If somebody is sitting at the snack counter, they can just go. No more paging and intercoms and other things that don't work well.
It's been pointed out other places that, if they have checked baggage, grabbing the passenger probably makes the most sense. But I suspect this is for the purpose of enforcing the penalty you describe. You hear a lot of people get to the gate late and tell a sob story like they were unreasonably delayed at security. I know that at Toronto Pearson they scan your boarding pass at each stage of the process. It looks like a security measure but I'm pretty sure its for the exact purpose of refuting passenger claims that they were delayed due to no fault of their own. "Sir, you entered the security queue 32 minutes before your flight You got through in 14 minutes. Your itinerary is cancelled with no refund."
Yes they will do this. But the OPs point is that they will never knowingly send luggage *ahead* of the passenger. If a passenger fails to show for a flight segment, they match the passenger to the baggage and unload it before takeoff. This is one of the few security measures that makes sense.
Right. I don't know whether Muslims do this or not, though. The OP asserted that they do and was modded unreasonably as a Troll. But apparently whoever down-modded the OP down-modded me for pointing it out.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, I see your point. Yeah, if you think your ex is using an IoT device in your home that (s)he setup to spy on you, selling it on eBay seems like a good choice!
That may or may not be true, but it's still not the issue that is being discussed. Many devices have such poorly implemented security controls that anybody (authorized or not) can control the device trivially. The ones mentioned by the OP aren't perfect, but they have been developed with security in mind by competent people.
I stand corrected.
Huh? These devices have pretty good security controls and are not what we're talking about here at all. They give up a lot of data to their corporate overlords but not unauthorized third parties.
We've had this discussion before but it takes a lot to exploit a speculative execution bug. These are unlikely to ever be used on a mass attack but rather only in targeted activities. If you're machines are high-value targets, you should (a) have the kernel mitigations enabled even if they have a performance degradation, (b) not be browsing random sites at all. Delivering a SPECTRE attack via JS and extracting something sound like a *fun* project, but it's unlikely to yield any valuable bounty against the average user. It makes no sense to discuss this in the context of wasm.
I have no idea how this got modded up. He could have written a *concurring* opinion as has already been pointed out. But even if the post was factually correct, having the ad hominem (calling the OP an idiot) is enough that -1 is the correct moderation.
If there were no policy against the relationship and it could be discussed openly, there would be no potential for blackmail! I do think it's a generally good policy although lots of other commentators have pointed out that it's far from perfect.
They're not from a technological perspective. But the volume of internet commerce is orders of magnitude larger then catalog/phone orders!
In winter when it's dark that means you live in the northeast and you (hopefully) heat and cook with methane, not electricity If you live in the south, you don't heat during the winter.
There's no reason to expect oil prices to go off of a cliff and most of the comments i this thread are nothing but hyperbole. As oil demand drops, oil companies will invest less in exploration and bringing new fields online. This will keep supply/demand largely balanced. The total market capitalization of the oil companies will drop as total volume is lower. But even this won't be dramatic. They will still be making a profit on every barrel sold. And, as has already been pointed out, fossil fuel companies are all looking for alternative revenue sources. Utility companies will suffer more than fossil fuel companies.
For things that are not safety critical, yes. For things that have health and safety consequences, no.
Many internet forums *shouldn't* have anonymity and that's the point. There is room for both. Some places, like for organizing political protests, anonymity is paramount. On other forums where you want to maintain order and civility, anonymity has negative value. I should be able to pay cash and buy things anonymously. But perhaps not firearms?
My employer has a thousand open jobs and every one is real. I'm pretty sure they all pay over $100k. And there is 5k bonus for any employee who refers a hire. And we can't fill the jobs.
I'm sure they will negotiate a solution where her business gets a concession and this goes away. The good thing about corruption is that it's predictable and it's much easier to run a business in a predictable environment.
That's a bit of a naive/cynical interpretation. If certain companies did the work to follow the law and others invested their resources in getting the law repealed, rolling it back clearly benefits the latter group over the former. That's somewhat akin to penalizing the competent. This is analogous to the phase-out of incandescent bulbs. It sounds good on the surface to the libertarian screw-the-environment types. But since the rules were in place for so long, most companies spent a fortune preparing and felt that dropping the regulation would terribly harm their business. It's one thing to not pass a standard. Its quite another to roll it back as this is a disruptive (in a bad way) action to markets.
Are you sure? I imagine that there is a lot of added sugar in fast food products. Maybe not the burgers. But certainly the beverages. Maybe the buns. Definitely the 'yogurt.'
If somebody bought my mansion for cash, the first thing I would do is deposit the money in a bank. That's how the trail starts. If you're a kingpin, you have a shell company buy the house, live there, and make it very hard for anybody to figure out who the real controlling owner is.
Laundering at the casinos is relatively easy. Although not necessarily $100k at a time. Professional blackjack players often go to the bathroom and slip chips into their pockets so the casinos don't know how much they are winning. Then they later cash out some of the proceeds anonymously. Money launderers do the opposite. They'll buy in for anonymously for $1000, play for a while (win or lose, doesn't matter much), then leave. Come back the next day buy in using their player card for $1000. Leave the table, sneak chips out of their pocket and cash in using their player card. Makes it look like they won. You don't need any front business or infrastructure.
I think the real answer to this lies in the original Yahoo! design where you have curated content and then you have uncurated search results. Youtube seems to be going this way. For Youtube kids you can now select to only let your kids watch things that have been manually reviewed. Curation is valuable but it's also expensive which is why algorithms are often preferred. But there's plenty of room for improvement.
I don't think anybody will be "exposed" but I certainly know a lot of people who can write Java code with the best of them but can't communicate in human languages with anybody. Doing their MSND homework probably would have been of great benefit to them more so than learning yet another programming language.
I imagine that this is happening way more than one would guess based on the OPs observations. Asking for a solution on stack overflow is cheating for the lazy. There are plenty of platforms out there where you could hire somebody as a consultant to do a project and they might not even realize that they're doing homework and facilitating cheating.
I doubt that the stated purpose is how this will actually be used. But the problem is real because you often have people making tight connections and the airline has to decide whether to wait or not. It happens very often that inbound flights are late putting connections at risk. How often? Often enough that most airlines have a poor procedure for it where they try to unload those passengers first. But it fails every time because other passengers don't cooperate. The gate agent at the connection has to decide whether or not to close the door and they have no situational awareness. If they can see that the affected passengers are moving quickly toward their next flight, they can make an operational decision to wait. If somebody is sitting at the snack counter, they can just go. No more paging and intercoms and other things that don't work well.
It's been pointed out other places that, if they have checked baggage, grabbing the passenger probably makes the most sense. But I suspect this is for the purpose of enforcing the penalty you describe. You hear a lot of people get to the gate late and tell a sob story like they were unreasonably delayed at security. I know that at Toronto Pearson they scan your boarding pass at each stage of the process. It looks like a security measure but I'm pretty sure its for the exact purpose of refuting passenger claims that they were delayed due to no fault of their own. "Sir, you entered the security queue 32 minutes before your flight You got through in 14 minutes. Your itinerary is cancelled with no refund."
Yes they will do this. But the OPs point is that they will never knowingly send luggage *ahead* of the passenger. If a passenger fails to show for a flight segment, they match the passenger to the baggage and unload it before takeoff. This is one of the few security measures that makes sense.
Right. I don't know whether Muslims do this or not, though. The OP asserted that they do and was modded unreasonably as a Troll. But apparently whoever down-modded the OP down-modded me for pointing it out.