I might have money depending on how quickly the response was, and depending on that would dictate my relationship status. I'd still have friends, they just might have less teeth and more tattoos, and I'd still have family. So it was pretty close to being a worthwhile exercise.
They can't make you into anything you aren't already. If you're a genius, they allow you to express your genius faster. If you're undisciplined and lazy, they make you unproductive on a grander scale.
That's a great story but I disagree. I'm useless at most things but happened to be born at the right time to get a foothold on this emerging tool called the internet, and with it the greatest tool I've ever known, Google Search. By harnessing the power of Google (ie finding stuff quickly and easily - I'm surprised how many people don't know how to construct efficient search request terms or quickly scan a webpage for useful info) I've become reasonable well paid and live a relatively easy life. Had Google not been a thing I'd probably working much harder for much less and getting all angry about stuff.
In any other time I'd be a failure, but the tools saved me from this.
Speak for yourself. I'm productive for about 3 hours a day. I spread this over my 8 hours shift to get paid, but ultimately 3 hours would produce the same results.
Most of the employees figured out that the company next door had an open wireless access point. Just about everyone got a wireless PDA to browse the Internet.
It's not surprise that the rise corporate internet policies coincided with the rise of mobile internet.
Every single person I work with has their own laptop tethered through their phone to watch movies/youtube/facebook/porn etc at work. The corporate PCs are clean, and the proxy logs are sparkling, but the worker behaviour is the same as it's always been. Go policy!
X and Z are so 1980's. The 90's saw the rise of e and i (lowercase of course) as technology leaders, and with the 2000's v and g had a run at the title.
I'm not sure if we have landed on the coolest letters for this decade, maybe j and k?
* 2 factor authentication
* transfer requests should originate through bank system (not emails) OR CFO should be able to add an 'approver', in this case the CEO, to sign the request.
Then the CFO or CEO gets annoyed with the pesky 2FA requests and gives it to his PA to sort out. She has great boobs but is dumb as a post, so is the perfect target for phishing attacks. "Hi it's Rob from the bank, we need to confirm that you have the right 2FA dongle of your account. Can you read the number on the screen to me please". Yes this works, I've seen it happen.
On top of that $40m is not a large amount of money to transfer in 1 go. Especially not in a manufacturing environment.
And this would've been calculated based on all the internal info the attackers gained access to. If you see ~$40M transactions happening every month or so, you simply time your request appropriately and jackpot.
Once the recipient takes the cash, it's irrevocable - they would have to agree to give you your bag back if you wanted the money. Same thing goes for these bank transfers - anyone with the authority over the company's bank accounts is a target for scams like these.
This is the same everywhere. And it's like that because how else would any banking system work effectively?
At some point you have to agree to execute a transaction, and you have to trust that the person with the money is responsible with the authority they possess. As a receiver I have to expect certainty over that transaction so I can operate efficiently.
Any other system introduces complexity, cost and inefficiencies, and doesn't necessarily solve the initial problem
A bank transfer is a contract. You as the owner of the money agree to give it to someone else. Once that is agreed and transferred, you cannot just take it back.
If you got tricked or scammed into transferring the money, the receiving banking doesn't care about your stupidity. You are effectively asking them to take money out of their customers account with no authority (only the court can do this).
Most Banking systems are run on batch jobs which run overnight domestically or maybe 2 days for international, not real time. This is the same all over the world (mostly).
You didn't get your money back, you got the credit card companies money of equivalent value and they wore it.
The thief got your money and spent it on good times.
I did a short term job on a business banking support desk about 15 years ago. Back then customers had an app to do their banking which had key mailed out separately to validate the account to the app. I had access to the app and the keys, so only need a valid username and password to impersonate a customer and execute a transaction. Being the old days when no-one knew about computers or security, people would often forget their passwords and ring up to get a new one, and the check for this was a fax of the user's signature against a record at the bank. Also having access to this the plan was simple:
1. Setup a PC with the app
2. Ring up the bank to impersonate a user. Send in a copy of a signature on file
3. Receive password, and empty the account
Bank transfers occur overnight and international takes two days. So if it was done before the afternoon cutoff, you could have the money out of the country within 36 hours. Some of our customers had hundreds of millions of dollars.
The only thing stopping me was balls not made of steel. Looking back I should've done it. Even if caught I'd be out of jail by now:)
I can understand why having multiple identities might appeal to some - you can be your own sock-puppet for example. But if you're planning such shenanigans, why not set up a half-dozen accounts at the same time? Surely that would occur to the "nerds" for whom this site was originally targetted.
Depends on the gamer and player doesn't it? I started CSGO this year and have clocked up 700 hours already. And I'm still considered a novice.
In this game player experience is measured in years, so 50 hours is barely enough to get your training wheels.
The "Gender pay gap" is not because two equally skilled and experienced people are getting paid different amounts based purely on their genitals, the pay gap is the result of men and women being different, and because they're different they choose different types of work and working hours which affect their income (ie stockbroking vs nursing). Therefore the averages are different, ie on paper there it appears to be a gap when there isn't
The ironic part is that the feminists are too angry to figure this out, thus contributing further to the problem.
Note: If anyone cares, I've worked on payroll systems, with access to real numbers. Some men get paid more than other men for the same job, and some women get paid more than other women. And sometimes women get paid more then men, and other times men get paid more than women. And in even more cases they all get paid about the same. Most of the time it's down to the individual and their ability to negotiate (and most likely not cry like a bitch when they don't get the job/promotion/pay rise).
As it is now you have to use what everybody uses to stay in touch with your friends, so now I have to give the datasuckers at Facebook all the information I so desparately don't want them to have because Whatsapp is a handy tool that everyone uses.
Only because you chose to follow instead of lead. I'm not on FB or Whatsapp and lost contact with some casual acquaintances as a side effect, but the message I'm reinforcing is that not everyone uses it, we have choices.
Change doesn't happen by itself, and it doesn't happen by merely following and complaining. If you want change, you have to participate in the process.
Where is the value in such data when it comes to targeting ads?
These privacy discussions are funny because a lot of people seem to focus on the "oh noes, they wanna see me dick pics!"
I have no idea, but I would assume Google, Facebook, MS etc don't care about your penis, the real interest is who is connected to who, how often, what types of relationships you have with others etc. This can be obtained simply by gathering contacts and message size/frequency. This is enough to build a good pattern of marketability that can be converted to ad revenue. There may be more to it, and maybe Mark Zuckerberg won't be happy until he has a photo of everyone's penis on his office wall, but I suspect it's a little less sinister than that.
I have the same problem. I think it has something to do with 'out of sight, out of mind'.
But why is this a problem? You value privacy because you grew up in an environment that considers it valuable. What if I grew up in an environment that doesn't?
For most of human civilisation privacy wasn't a thing, then for a brief time it was, and now it's not again. That might be a shock for those in the transition phase, but from my kids generation onward it's normal. Welcome to old age.
But for the vast majority of cases, they will work for the long-haul across the US. (If you've ever driven across the US at night, you know that the highways are a never-ending chain of tractor trailers in the right-hand lane.) They don't need down time, they don't get tired, they don't get distracted, they can work 24/7. They can learn from each others' mistakes. They don't need salary or benefits.
What I don't get is we've already had this solution for years, automated trains do exactly the same thing right now. If we're not using them, why are automated trucks somehow different?
I like it because it reminds me that technical and scientific progress cannot be stopped by morons just saying "it'll never happen".
I've been active in these debates for a while and I've never seen any reasonable argument that says it will "never" happen. Only that the 'optimistic' predictions of robot cars for all by 2018, 2020, 2025 or whatever are naive.
We know automation works, and those of us who work in it everyday know it's capability. We also know it's limitations, and for an uncontrolled environment such as a public road there is much more than a couple of years worth effort before this is commonplace.
But dream the dream if it makes you feel better. We'll all have flying cars by 1990...
Also, the system has a weakness in it, in that it will incorporate the results that it helped create. Also, there will be competing programs, all influencing each other. We've had (we're continuing to have) broker prediction programs that suffer from the same. The result is never pretty.
I wouldn't say never, a lot of those HFT brokers are extremely rich.
The successful ones catered for their own generated results and the competition, while the failures didn't. It's evolution, so the better systems will always succeed.
A solution doesn't have to cover all use cases to become mainstream. I think robot cars are mostly hype, and 'mainstream' is decades away, not months or years. However once you reach a tipping point the change will be rapid.
Buses and trains or broadband don't go everywhere either, but all that happened with their invention was that people moved to the places that were covered by their services. The same will happen here. Some streets/locations will be considered robot car friendly, the convenience will draw people to those locations and Real Estate values will go up. This creates a market demand and the rest takes care of itself.
So yeah, are robot cars 5 year away? No. Will they be mainstream in 10 years? No. But will technology develop within the next 20-30 to make them viable in a lot of urban centres, I think yes. They won't even need to rely on maps, because it's not so hard to embed an RFID like device into the roads or street signs to handle navigation quirks.
I'd like to know how Noah got the Kangaroos from Australia to the Middle East, then delivered them back again afterwards. This is a greater miracle than building a big boat.
And don't get me started on fresh and salt water fish...
Slashdot Mirror
I might have money depending on how quickly the response was, and depending on that would dictate my relationship status. I'd still have friends, they just might have less teeth and more tattoos, and I'd still have family. So it was pretty close to being a worthwhile exercise.
They can't make you into anything you aren't already. If you're a genius, they allow you to express your genius faster. If you're undisciplined and lazy, they make you unproductive on a grander scale.
That's a great story but I disagree. I'm useless at most things but happened to be born at the right time to get a foothold on this emerging tool called the internet, and with it the greatest tool I've ever known, Google Search. By harnessing the power of Google (ie finding stuff quickly and easily - I'm surprised how many people don't know how to construct efficient search request terms or quickly scan a webpage for useful info) I've become reasonable well paid and live a relatively easy life. Had Google not been a thing I'd probably working much harder for much less and getting all angry about stuff.
In any other time I'd be a failure, but the tools saved me from this.
Speak for yourself. I'm productive for about 3 hours a day. I spread this over my 8 hours shift to get paid, but ultimately 3 hours would produce the same results.
Most of the employees figured out that the company next door had an open wireless access point. Just about everyone got a wireless PDA to browse the Internet.
It's not surprise that the rise corporate internet policies coincided with the rise of mobile internet.
Every single person I work with has their own laptop tethered through their phone to watch movies/youtube/facebook/porn etc at work. The corporate PCs are clean, and the proxy logs are sparkling, but the worker behaviour is the same as it's always been. Go policy!
X and Z are so 1980's. The 90's saw the rise of e and i (lowercase of course) as technology leaders, and with the 2000's v and g had a run at the title.
I'm not sure if we have landed on the coolest letters for this decade, maybe j and k?
* 2 factor authentication * transfer requests should originate through bank system (not emails) OR CFO should be able to add an 'approver', in this case the CEO, to sign the request.
Then the CFO or CEO gets annoyed with the pesky 2FA requests and gives it to his PA to sort out. She has great boobs but is dumb as a post, so is the perfect target for phishing attacks. "Hi it's Rob from the bank, we need to confirm that you have the right 2FA dongle of your account. Can you read the number on the screen to me please". Yes this works, I've seen it happen.
On top of that $40m is not a large amount of money to transfer in 1 go. Especially not in a manufacturing environment.
And this would've been calculated based on all the internal info the attackers gained access to. If you see ~$40M transactions happening every month or so, you simply time your request appropriately and jackpot.
Once the recipient takes the cash, it's irrevocable - they would have to agree to give you your bag back if you wanted the money. Same thing goes for these bank transfers - anyone with the authority over the company's bank accounts is a target for scams like these.
This is the same everywhere. And it's like that because how else would any banking system work effectively?
At some point you have to agree to execute a transaction, and you have to trust that the person with the money is responsible with the authority they possess. As a receiver I have to expect certainty over that transaction so I can operate efficiently. Any other system introduces complexity, cost and inefficiencies, and doesn't necessarily solve the initial problem
A bank transfer is a contract. You as the owner of the money agree to give it to someone else. Once that is agreed and transferred, you cannot just take it back.
If you got tricked or scammed into transferring the money, the receiving banking doesn't care about your stupidity. You are effectively asking them to take money out of their customers account with no authority (only the court can do this).
Most Banking systems are run on batch jobs which run overnight domestically or maybe 2 days for international, not real time. This is the same all over the world (mostly).
You didn't get your money back, you got the credit card companies money of equivalent value and they wore it.
The thief got your money and spent it on good times.
I did a short term job on a business banking support desk about 15 years ago. Back then customers had an app to do their banking which had key mailed out separately to validate the account to the app. I had access to the app and the keys, so only need a valid username and password to impersonate a customer and execute a transaction. Being the old days when no-one knew about computers or security, people would often forget their passwords and ring up to get a new one, and the check for this was a fax of the user's signature against a record at the bank. Also having access to this the plan was simple: :)
1. Setup a PC with the app
2. Ring up the bank to impersonate a user. Send in a copy of a signature on file
3. Receive password, and empty the account
Bank transfers occur overnight and international takes two days. So if it was done before the afternoon cutoff, you could have the money out of the country within 36 hours. Some of our customers had hundreds of millions of dollars.
The only thing stopping me was balls not made of steel. Looking back I should've done it. Even if caught I'd be out of jail by now
I can understand why having multiple identities might appeal to some - you can be your own sock-puppet for example. But if you're planning such shenanigans, why not set up a half-dozen accounts at the same time? Surely that would occur to the "nerds" for whom this site was originally targetted.
Because sock puppeting isn't the goal.
Big deal. Your 6-digit id would seem to indicate that there are those older than you here on /.
You know that your userid is not tied to your age right? And not all people stick to one account for their whole lives.
50 hours of gameplay is a long time.
Depends on the gamer and player doesn't it? I started CSGO this year and have clocked up 700 hours already. And I'm still considered a novice.
In this game player experience is measured in years, so 50 hours is barely enough to get your training wheels.
If my TV still doesn't work properly after watching it for 50 hours, I am legally entitled a repair, replacement or refund. What is different here?
The "Gender pay gap" is not because two equally skilled and experienced people are getting paid different amounts based purely on their genitals, the pay gap is the result of men and women being different, and because they're different they choose different types of work and working hours which affect their income (ie stockbroking vs nursing). Therefore the averages are different, ie on paper there it appears to be a gap when there isn't
The ironic part is that the feminists are too angry to figure this out, thus contributing further to the problem.
Note: If anyone cares, I've worked on payroll systems, with access to real numbers. Some men get paid more than other men for the same job, and some women get paid more than other women. And sometimes women get paid more then men, and other times men get paid more than women. And in even more cases they all get paid about the same. Most of the time it's down to the individual and their ability to negotiate (and most likely not cry like a bitch when they don't get the job/promotion/pay rise).
As it is now you have to use what everybody uses to stay in touch with your friends, so now I have to give the datasuckers at Facebook all the information I so desparately don't want them to have because Whatsapp is a handy tool that everyone uses.
Only because you chose to follow instead of lead. I'm not on FB or Whatsapp and lost contact with some casual acquaintances as a side effect, but the message I'm reinforcing is that not everyone uses it, we have choices.
Change doesn't happen by itself, and it doesn't happen by merely following and complaining. If you want change, you have to participate in the process.
Where is the value in such data when it comes to targeting ads?
These privacy discussions are funny because a lot of people seem to focus on the "oh noes, they wanna see me dick pics!"
I have no idea, but I would assume Google, Facebook, MS etc don't care about your penis, the real interest is who is connected to who, how often, what types of relationships you have with others etc. This can be obtained simply by gathering contacts and message size/frequency. This is enough to build a good pattern of marketability that can be converted to ad revenue. There may be more to it, and maybe Mark Zuckerberg won't be happy until he has a photo of everyone's penis on his office wall, but I suspect it's a little less sinister than that.
I have the same problem. I think it has something to do with 'out of sight, out of mind'.
But why is this a problem? You value privacy because you grew up in an environment that considers it valuable. What if I grew up in an environment that doesn't?
For most of human civilisation privacy wasn't a thing, then for a brief time it was, and now it's not again. That might be a shock for those in the transition phase, but from my kids generation onward it's normal. Welcome to old age.
But for the vast majority of cases, they will work for the long-haul across the US. (If you've ever driven across the US at night, you know that the highways are a never-ending chain of tractor trailers in the right-hand lane.) They don't need down time, they don't get tired, they don't get distracted, they can work 24/7. They can learn from each others' mistakes. They don't need salary or benefits.
What I don't get is we've already had this solution for years, automated trains do exactly the same thing right now. If we're not using them, why are automated trucks somehow different?
>
I like it because it reminds me that technical and scientific progress cannot be stopped by morons just saying "it'll never happen".
I've been active in these debates for a while and I've never seen any reasonable argument that says it will "never" happen. Only that the 'optimistic' predictions of robot cars for all by 2018, 2020, 2025 or whatever are naive.
We know automation works, and those of us who work in it everyday know it's capability. We also know it's limitations, and for an uncontrolled environment such as a public road there is much more than a couple of years worth effort before this is commonplace.
But dream the dream if it makes you feel better. We'll all have flying cars by 1990...
Also, the system has a weakness in it, in that it will incorporate the results that it helped create. Also, there will be competing programs, all influencing each other. We've had (we're continuing to have) broker prediction programs that suffer from the same. The result is never pretty.
I wouldn't say never, a lot of those HFT brokers are extremely rich.
The successful ones catered for their own generated results and the competition, while the failures didn't. It's evolution, so the better systems will always succeed.
A solution doesn't have to cover all use cases to become mainstream. I think robot cars are mostly hype, and 'mainstream' is decades away, not months or years. However once you reach a tipping point the change will be rapid.
Buses and trains or broadband don't go everywhere either, but all that happened with their invention was that people moved to the places that were covered by their services. The same will happen here. Some streets/locations will be considered robot car friendly, the convenience will draw people to those locations and Real Estate values will go up. This creates a market demand and the rest takes care of itself.
So yeah, are robot cars 5 year away? No. Will they be mainstream in 10 years? No. But will technology develop within the next 20-30 to make them viable in a lot of urban centres, I think yes. They won't even need to rely on maps, because it's not so hard to embed an RFID like device into the roads or street signs to handle navigation quirks.
I'd like to know how Noah got the Kangaroos from Australia to the Middle East, then delivered them back again afterwards. This is a greater miracle than building a big boat.
And don't get me started on fresh and salt water fish...
The fact the whole state is a river flood plain and only stupid people build homes in a river flood plain?
Like only stupid people choose to grow up in poor neighbourhoods? Why don't they just live in rich suburbs like us?