I'm not against paying more in taxes, if that is what the best solution to the problem is.
My problem is trying to keep up with everything the government is doing. I still haven't fully read the PPACA, much less understood it in its entirety.
Free college for everyone seems like a proper direction to move in. The costs of college are rising, and the demands upon our workforce are increasing. We can either throttle the rate of change to match that of the human ability, or we can reduce the cost to the individual to keep pace with technological progress. Cars cannot be driven indefinitely without being maintained, animals cannot be pushed indefinitely without their health deteriorating. Furthermore, one cannot simply plant a few seeds and gain a crop. A field of crops has to be cared for, and looked after. There is more to creating and sustaining a workforce than simply procreating. And the deal is that those college kids become productive members of society and increase the rate of contributions to your Social Security and 401k.
Yep. First family computer was a Packard Bell, it came with the Packard Bell Navigator GUI. I remember playing Chex Quest on it. A few years later I got my own personal computer, a used IBM of some sort, running Windows 95 if I remember correctly. Some time after that I got my first Macintosh. At one point I had a PC running Linux, a PC running Windows, and a Macintosh running side by side. I think that was around the time I got a Diamond Monster 3D II branded, 3DFX Voodoo 2 graphics card.
I think that was the point he was making,... Do you know of anyway to escape the consequences of that reality?
Our population is growing. The more people you have, the more difficult it is to teach and to co-ordinate, and gain the trust thereof. How can you save the world when you have billions of people pulling against each other at all levels and classes? How do you progress when people believe business are to make money, as opposed to making a country?
"Most US newspapers are outstanding"? Are you talking about national, or local papers?
I've had the opportunity to read a number of local newspapers, and they were not very informative or useful. Any hot ticket news is already 24+ hours old and out of date by the time the paper routes are completed. Only Luddites benefit any from yesterday's news.
Local events are typically buried in the fine print and background noise of the daily routines, and eventually ignored. Any coverage is not to promote local events, but rather is either a day late or 360 days early to bother reading. On rare occasions there may be useful news about future plans in the community, or a new business in town, or such. Don't think I've read a write-up on candidates for elections in various communities since I've subscribed. Not worth the modest price on a barely modest budget.
The Hypervisor scanners are for the guest, the VM, not the hypervisor host itself. Most of those VMs are Windows. The Linux ones are a "why not" addition, and probably mostly as a response to largely Windows environments where an antivirus is key or otherwise for some compliance document which doesn't adhere to reality, and really don't provide much benefit.
Mac has a much greater argument for having an antivirus. It isn't the underlying operating system (BSD Unix), but how it is used, and how quickly the viruses reach the antivirus vendors. Most Mac users are not I.T. professionals, and many are barely even computer literate. Mac is sold as an easy to use premium product, and so appeals to those most susceptible to virus infections.
Viruses on Linux and pure BSD are extremely unlikely to even reach the platform, as long as the platform is properly maintained. One's illiterate friends and coworkers typically don't go around accessing your network with unsecured Linux desktops or laptops on which they have been carelessly accessing who knows what. Google's Android (Linux), and Apple's MacOS X (BSD) are infected because those platforms are used by, and marketed to and designed to be used by, security illiterates.
Its like installing a parachute in an automobile. I'm not saying that an automobile won't ever end up falling through the sky, but how often will that happen in real life?
Several years old, ain't old. Any computing device over $200 without a contract should last at least six years. Most smart phones are in the $600 range without contracts.
AC isn't entirely off base, though perhaps a bit crude... Chrome OS doesn't quite yet have the sizeable user base, and the history of not being able to install anything has rendered the primary exploits largely invalid on Chrome OS.
As far as Solaris, BSD, and Linux, most AV scanners for those operating systems are for Windows accessible machines like file servers or mail servers. AVG ventured into the real-time antivirus monitoring arena for a little while back in the 00's. There wasn't any money in it like on the Windows side, and the AVG implementation was not a simple APT-GET or YUM install. Any nerds who would have simplified the process didn't see a need for it on the Linux desktop. An anti-virus isn't a preventative measure, its reactionary, its remediation, which means the virus already got through.
Android, and especially Apple iOS, lack most of the preventative and verification measures of a desktop OS. There are simply no good ways to keep malware from infecting the device and still participate in the market at large and get the full benefits of the device.
Windows is simply the weapon of choice by the unwashed masses, the illiterates, and nobody can afford to babysit them. That combined with Windows' dominate user base unfortunately means that if there is a vulnerability there is a statistically high potential for success, which means that there if there is a zero-day vulnerability, there is a statistically high probability that an attack will breach your network and infect your machine. Which makes an anti-virus almost a necessity on Windows, as it is a constant and ongoing threat condition.
Whereas on Linux any vulnerability which breaches the primary vulnerabilities, such as email, will have already evaded detection. An antivirus won't perform any better than an expert, and you'd first have to identify the malware and submit it to your antivirus vendor. At which point you're just going to clean the malware immediately, before the AV vendor can provide definitions. If you have multiple servers you will either deploy a script to detect and remediate the virus, or simply redeploy your servers from backups, safeguarding them against the malware before putting them into production. Any serious vulnerability is going to be patched out upstream, so an antivirus won't need to detect older threats. So there is no advantage to running an antivirus on 90% of the Linux boxes. It chews up CPU cycles and IOPS, and gives a false sense of security.
Do you really think there is a market demand for "crap-free" versions at the manufacturer level, and/or the carrier level?
The EU's interests in maintaining a free market and diverse ecosystem aside, I don't think a case can be made that Google forced anything on anyone. Google Android phones are popular for many reasons, and avoiding paying more for an OS is a free-market concept, which means market competition pushed for the Google Android OS we have currently.
Interesting thing to note is that this could put RIM/Blackberry back in business. RIM could be in the position to provide the leading for-cost Android based operating system. If Nokia is still a Microsoft subsidiary then they won't even be competing. Motorola thrives on the generic free Android versions, as will most others seeking to compete against Samsung and Blackberry.
8GB is not "nothing", and buying a $900 phone to replace a year old $600 phone is not a smart financial decision.
I'd be surprised if the Android operating system has exceeded the 8GB capacity limits, though it may be close. I suspect that the 32GB SD card the GP has is largely empty and unused. Methinks there is more to the story,...
Wages and standards of living are relative. Raising the minimum wage just confuses people as to what the value of everything is, until the free market sorts itself out.
Raise minimum wage too high all at once and there won't be enough money in circulation to handle the inflation, and companies may not have enough room in the budget to remain solvent when a significant portion of their profit is wiped out overnight. The result is that the economy is likely to stall out and take time to recover.
Ideally in a free market there will be enough demand to keep the cost of labor higher than the cost of living. So the cost of labor should be held at about $16-$18 through market forces, so that those making less than $18 an hour are valued low based on productivity, not supply. In a healthy market we should be generating enough revenue to provide a decent standard of living for all citizens, not just the upper classes. Raising the minimum wage isn't supposed to be required. Coal minors working for negative income shouldn't have been a problem to begin with.
Unfortunately, it seems we are still trying to figure out what a healthy economy looks like, and what a healthy business looks like. A business that isn't profitable should not be able to create the illusion of profitability by paying a negative wage (lower than the cost of keeping an employee alive). We need a way to highlight the fact that these businesses are not truly profitable in order to better diagnose the health of our economy and make better and more effective use of things like minimum wage.
A proven competent worker, with experience, can fetch a higher wage than an inexperienced worker. Say McDonald's is a popular first job, more so than Burger King, or Arby's, or Wendy's, etc. Then consider that all of McDonald's competitors might be willing to pay higher wages to poach employees from their competitors. This can drive wages up in the local market as much as $2 an hour.
It is worth it to mention that business agility likely is best supported by recent, but stable platforms which can be adapted to the business' needs. A stable foundation, not a an earthquake of updates and revisions and breakages and downtime.
Bleeding edge or constantly updated platforms such as Windows 10 Current Branch are not likely to offer a stable base to manipulate data views in an agile manner. Its more productive to troubleshoot and experiment with applications instead of the underlying OS. In an ideal world you would only upgrade the OS when there is a quantifiable increase in agility from a more recent platform.
Note: When I think of agility in I.T., it is not the same as agility in business. Agility in I.T. is a dream, though one that keeps getting closer to reality between Docker apps, app containers, virtual environments, etc. Agility in I.T means that swiching between vendors, Apple Macintosh and Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office and Google Docs, VMWare and Nutanix, Intel/x86 and ARM, etc. are so quick, easy, and cost-effective that nobody worries about service interruptions or downtime. It means users can run any trending application to modify the data without having to involve I.T., or it is so simple that the vendor doesn't have anything to create certifications for.
Right there with you. Microsoft has gotten a lot of bad rep for being in category 3, when so many other vendors (Google, Apple, ???) are in Categories 1 & 2. It is sad to see they are caving to pressure and a desire for popularity that they are shifting to category 1.
Is category 1 really necessary for a compelling business model? Is Google Android having the education market and Apple having the iPod/iPad/iPhone market really that big a threat to Microsoft's profitability as a Category 3 service provider? I guess the insane profits that Apple generates as a category 1/2 with the iPhone is too tempting to pass up.
Microsoft does have Enterprise LTSB releases of Windows 10 for Category 3 support, so they do acknowledge a need for that level of stability in business.
Ancient:
1. Item is suffering from incompatibilities, and Google search results are either no longer applicable or have disappeared entirely.
2. Item is more than 1 year old, and isn't trendy.
3. Item costs more to operate than to replace and retrain staff. So somewhere between 4 years old, and 15 years old.
Agile enough, IF you have a large enough I.T. staffing budget to cover the number of extra team members needed to manage so many different things changing in such a short time frame.
It takes time to learn, such as getting certified, on new products and services. While somebody is studying or getting certified on the latest addition to the tech, and supporting the users calling into the call center with learning how to operate the new thingamabob, somebody else has to fill that tech's shoes and support what changed last week.
Agility is awesome when you're swimming in money and the I.T. budget for it is negligible compared to the benefits in revenue. But for a lot of companies, the cost of being agile could be double the companies profit for an entire year. Whereas the cost of a traditional model goes down over time, until incompatibilities and security issues simply make it impossible to continue to operate. So do you want to spend tens of thousands to millions a year, or spend that same amount once per decade?
To add further clarification to the others' replies. Entering the 2FA into your browser allows you access only in that browser session, it doesn't allow access from any other browser session so the hacker's session would not be allowed.
Also, you are receiving the 2FA. It is unlikely the attacker is recieving the 2FA. They would have to get your phone number and request you provide the 2FA to gain access. Which is exactly what was described in the summary of the article.
You don't get out much do you? At the very least you don't work in I.T. Computers are magic boxes that do many incomprehensible things like send random text messages. Its like magnets man, how do they work!?
Have you ever been faced with a completely incomprehensible thing, that you have been given instructions on how to operate it, but have no idea what to do when outside the standardized parameters of the day-to-day?
Have you ever been forced by progress itself to incorporate a mysterious and untrusted "blackbox" technology into your workflow simply to remain competitive and continue to bring home a salary? Or at the very least, have you ever been forced to incorporate or use tech you are not fond of?
Have you ever been in a foot race and finished behind the leader, as in not in first place? Perhaps not even in the top ten?
Do you typically score higher on Jeopardy than the contestants? Do you typically know more about medical science, bio-chemistry, and biology than your doctors? Do you typically know more about a vehicle than a highly paid mechanic? Do you have the ability to predict the weather with more accuracy than most meteorologists?
We are still introducing people to the technological developments of the past three decades.
Unlikely. What are the odds that an Uber driver competent enough to earn millions in a reasonable time frame would be illiterate enough to hand our a 2FA? Most of the rest are not making enough for upkeep, and are trending towards negative income.
$500 rent in some areas isn't entirely unheard of. It is rare though. It is also typically in more rural areas. A single wide trailer in a trailer park on a dirt road somewhere that will put extra miles and wear and tear on an automobile.
May I direct you to the Dunning-Kruger graph for a visual reference.
Poor are more likely to spend on something like rims, because cars are typically out of their price range. Similarly they are more likely to spend on shoes than travel, because travel is out of their price range. However, get enough money and the cost of travel, and the cost of home ownership plummets. Credit Scores go up reducing the up front costs and costs over time freeing up even more resources to invest in other areas. The highest costs are centered around the lowest earners, who are looking a centuries for any kind of decent return on investments. Life's too short to wait for a return on investment at that scale. They might at best sacrifice their own "lives" to give one of their offspring a fighting chance at a middle class life.
Those in more affluent neighborhoods have other alternatives, either less expensive alternatives, or alternatives with a higher return on investment.
Also, the land value is typically less in lower income neighborhoods, which means higher profits for a business. Higher income neighborhoods typically block any liquor stores or such from tarnishing their appearance, despite also indulging in alcoholic beverages. The more affluent would traffic sneaker stores and liquor stores in less affluent neighborhoods as long as there is a low enough crime rate.
$1,000 rent
$1,500 automobile costs
$100 auto insurance
$100 health insurance.
$50 per month for phone usage.
= $2,750
Factor in a few entertainment expenses and then divide by 0.7 to get gross income. For lower income levels 0.8 may suffice.
+$60 internet
+$10 entertainment
= $2,820
/ 0.7
=$4,028.
There are a lot of variables to consider, this is really just ballpark figures.
Sure. Any ideas on how to generate enough GDP to facilitate a $200k annually UBI for all citizens of Canada? Otherwise it would be your responsibility to make up the difference between the UBI, and what you want to make, in a psuedo-capitalist UBI economy.
What we are discussing is that there is a large gap between what welfare offers, and what a job requires, which makes it difficult to return to work. Which is part of the UBI discussion in that for those who don't make a noticeably higher income by working, they may have less money to spend than if they simply did not work and just lived off the UBI. Depending on what the UBI evens out to over the long run, this may or may not lead to a welfare state. Though a welfare state may or may not be part of the discussion already, considering the UBI is most effective at treating a post-job economy.
If the UBI is insufficient to cover the expenses to sustain employment, then it may be difficult for those who have hit rock bottom to re-enter the workforce. Free stuff without having to spend expenses to get it, makes things easier. Once you start spending money to attempt to make more money, you're going to run into a few complications, such as the expenses of work clothes, commuting back and forth on a regular basis, and reduced time to spend on upkeep meaning you will have to hire somebody to handle the upkeep. We don't notice this difference now, because these things are factored into the normal everyday lives of so many, and any increase in income typically doesn't significantly influence the base expenses.
You're thinking old world logic. (I think the above should be a +1, but no higher. It does indeed contribute to the discussion, if not very insightful.)
We may achieve a level of efficiency such that it isn't required for a large portion of people to work to sustain a certain standard of living. Either this will create a severely lopsided economy, or it will require leaving behind old notions of how rewards for labor are redistributed and focus instead on the larger picture.
What happens when nobody is needed to manufacture? When nobody needs labor, who gets paid? When nobody gets paid, who can afford to buy? You might end up with a split economy, the super rich elites and their Jetson's society, and the peasants abandoned to rebuild from scratch and so are living in the medieval dark ages.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not against paying more in taxes, if that is what the best solution to the problem is.
My problem is trying to keep up with everything the government is doing. I still haven't fully read the PPACA, much less understood it in its entirety.
Free college for everyone seems like a proper direction to move in. The costs of college are rising, and the demands upon our workforce are increasing. We can either throttle the rate of change to match that of the human ability, or we can reduce the cost to the individual to keep pace with technological progress. Cars cannot be driven indefinitely without being maintained, animals cannot be pushed indefinitely without their health deteriorating. Furthermore, one cannot simply plant a few seeds and gain a crop. A field of crops has to be cared for, and looked after. There is more to creating and sustaining a workforce than simply procreating. And the deal is that those college kids become productive members of society and increase the rate of contributions to your Social Security and 401k.
Yep. First family computer was a Packard Bell, it came with the Packard Bell Navigator GUI. I remember playing Chex Quest on it. A few years later I got my own personal computer, a used IBM of some sort, running Windows 95 if I remember correctly. Some time after that I got my first Macintosh. At one point I had a PC running Linux, a PC running Windows, and a Macintosh running side by side. I think that was around the time I got a Diamond Monster 3D II branded, 3DFX Voodoo 2 graphics card.
That was right before Windows 95 came out. Windows 3.1 was king of the affordable desktop. Then Windows 95 came out.
I think that was the point he was making,... Do you know of anyway to escape the consequences of that reality?
Our population is growing. The more people you have, the more difficult it is to teach and to co-ordinate, and gain the trust thereof. How can you save the world when you have billions of people pulling against each other at all levels and classes? How do you progress when people believe business are to make money, as opposed to making a country?
"Most US newspapers are outstanding"? Are you talking about national, or local papers?
I've had the opportunity to read a number of local newspapers, and they were not very informative or useful. Any hot ticket news is already 24+ hours old and out of date by the time the paper routes are completed. Only Luddites benefit any from yesterday's news.
Local events are typically buried in the fine print and background noise of the daily routines, and eventually ignored. Any coverage is not to promote local events, but rather is either a day late or 360 days early to bother reading. On rare occasions there may be useful news about future plans in the community, or a new business in town, or such. Don't think I've read a write-up on candidates for elections in various communities since I've subscribed. Not worth the modest price on a barely modest budget.
The Hypervisor scanners are for the guest, the VM, not the hypervisor host itself. Most of those VMs are Windows. The Linux ones are a "why not" addition, and probably mostly as a response to largely Windows environments where an antivirus is key or otherwise for some compliance document which doesn't adhere to reality, and really don't provide much benefit.
Mac has a much greater argument for having an antivirus. It isn't the underlying operating system (BSD Unix), but how it is used, and how quickly the viruses reach the antivirus vendors. Most Mac users are not I.T. professionals, and many are barely even computer literate. Mac is sold as an easy to use premium product, and so appeals to those most susceptible to virus infections.
Viruses on Linux and pure BSD are extremely unlikely to even reach the platform, as long as the platform is properly maintained. One's illiterate friends and coworkers typically don't go around accessing your network with unsecured Linux desktops or laptops on which they have been carelessly accessing who knows what. Google's Android (Linux), and Apple's MacOS X (BSD) are infected because those platforms are used by, and marketed to and designed to be used by, security illiterates.
Its like installing a parachute in an automobile. I'm not saying that an automobile won't ever end up falling through the sky, but how often will that happen in real life?
I specified $600 for the 8GB. I still consider my 16GB iPhone 6 to be fairly "new". I must have blinked since I acquired it.
Several years old, ain't old. Any computing device over $200 without a contract should last at least six years. Most smart phones are in the $600 range without contracts.
AC isn't entirely off base, though perhaps a bit crude... Chrome OS doesn't quite yet have the sizeable user base, and the history of not being able to install anything has rendered the primary exploits largely invalid on Chrome OS.
As far as Solaris, BSD, and Linux, most AV scanners for those operating systems are for Windows accessible machines like file servers or mail servers. AVG ventured into the real-time antivirus monitoring arena for a little while back in the 00's. There wasn't any money in it like on the Windows side, and the AVG implementation was not a simple APT-GET or YUM install. Any nerds who would have simplified the process didn't see a need for it on the Linux desktop. An anti-virus isn't a preventative measure, its reactionary, its remediation, which means the virus already got through.
Android, and especially Apple iOS, lack most of the preventative and verification measures of a desktop OS. There are simply no good ways to keep malware from infecting the device and still participate in the market at large and get the full benefits of the device.
Windows is simply the weapon of choice by the unwashed masses, the illiterates, and nobody can afford to babysit them. That combined with Windows' dominate user base unfortunately means that if there is a vulnerability there is a statistically high potential for success, which means that there if there is a zero-day vulnerability, there is a statistically high probability that an attack will breach your network and infect your machine. Which makes an anti-virus almost a necessity on Windows, as it is a constant and ongoing threat condition.
Whereas on Linux any vulnerability which breaches the primary vulnerabilities, such as email, will have already evaded detection. An antivirus won't perform any better than an expert, and you'd first have to identify the malware and submit it to your antivirus vendor. At which point you're just going to clean the malware immediately, before the AV vendor can provide definitions. If you have multiple servers you will either deploy a script to detect and remediate the virus, or simply redeploy your servers from backups, safeguarding them against the malware before putting them into production. Any serious vulnerability is going to be patched out upstream, so an antivirus won't need to detect older threats. So there is no advantage to running an antivirus on 90% of the Linux boxes. It chews up CPU cycles and IOPS, and gives a false sense of security.
Do you really think there is a market demand for "crap-free" versions at the manufacturer level, and/or the carrier level?
The EU's interests in maintaining a free market and diverse ecosystem aside, I don't think a case can be made that Google forced anything on anyone. Google Android phones are popular for many reasons, and avoiding paying more for an OS is a free-market concept, which means market competition pushed for the Google Android OS we have currently.
Interesting thing to note is that this could put RIM/Blackberry back in business. RIM could be in the position to provide the leading for-cost Android based operating system. If Nokia is still a Microsoft subsidiary then they won't even be competing. Motorola thrives on the generic free Android versions, as will most others seeking to compete against Samsung and Blackberry.
8GB is not "nothing", and buying a $900 phone to replace a year old $600 phone is not a smart financial decision.
I'd be surprised if the Android operating system has exceeded the 8GB capacity limits, though it may be close. I suspect that the 32GB SD card the GP has is largely empty and unused. Methinks there is more to the story,...
Wages and standards of living are relative. Raising the minimum wage just confuses people as to what the value of everything is, until the free market sorts itself out.
Raise minimum wage too high all at once and there won't be enough money in circulation to handle the inflation, and companies may not have enough room in the budget to remain solvent when a significant portion of their profit is wiped out overnight. The result is that the economy is likely to stall out and take time to recover.
Ideally in a free market there will be enough demand to keep the cost of labor higher than the cost of living. So the cost of labor should be held at about $16-$18 through market forces, so that those making less than $18 an hour are valued low based on productivity, not supply. In a healthy market we should be generating enough revenue to provide a decent standard of living for all citizens, not just the upper classes. Raising the minimum wage isn't supposed to be required. Coal minors working for negative income shouldn't have been a problem to begin with.
Unfortunately, it seems we are still trying to figure out what a healthy economy looks like, and what a healthy business looks like. A business that isn't profitable should not be able to create the illusion of profitability by paying a negative wage (lower than the cost of keeping an employee alive). We need a way to highlight the fact that these businesses are not truly profitable in order to better diagnose the health of our economy and make better and more effective use of things like minimum wage.
A proven competent worker, with experience, can fetch a higher wage than an inexperienced worker. Say McDonald's is a popular first job, more so than Burger King, or Arby's, or Wendy's, etc. Then consider that all of McDonald's competitors might be willing to pay higher wages to poach employees from their competitors. This can drive wages up in the local market as much as $2 an hour.
It is worth it to mention that business agility likely is best supported by recent, but stable platforms which can be adapted to the business' needs. A stable foundation, not a an earthquake of updates and revisions and breakages and downtime.
Bleeding edge or constantly updated platforms such as Windows 10 Current Branch are not likely to offer a stable base to manipulate data views in an agile manner. Its more productive to troubleshoot and experiment with applications instead of the underlying OS. In an ideal world you would only upgrade the OS when there is a quantifiable increase in agility from a more recent platform.
Note: When I think of agility in I.T., it is not the same as agility in business. Agility in I.T. is a dream, though one that keeps getting closer to reality between Docker apps, app containers, virtual environments, etc. Agility in I.T means that swiching between vendors, Apple Macintosh and Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office and Google Docs, VMWare and Nutanix, Intel/x86 and ARM, etc. are so quick, easy, and cost-effective that nobody worries about service interruptions or downtime. It means users can run any trending application to modify the data without having to involve I.T., or it is so simple that the vendor doesn't have anything to create certifications for.
Right there with you. Microsoft has gotten a lot of bad rep for being in category 3, when so many other vendors (Google, Apple, ???) are in Categories 1 & 2. It is sad to see they are caving to pressure and a desire for popularity that they are shifting to category 1.
Is category 1 really necessary for a compelling business model? Is Google Android having the education market and Apple having the iPod/iPad/iPhone market really that big a threat to Microsoft's profitability as a Category 3 service provider? I guess the insane profits that Apple generates as a category 1/2 with the iPhone is too tempting to pass up.
Microsoft does have Enterprise LTSB releases of Windows 10 for Category 3 support, so they do acknowledge a need for that level of stability in business.
Ancient:
1. Item is suffering from incompatibilities, and Google search results are either no longer applicable or have disappeared entirely.
2. Item is more than 1 year old, and isn't trendy.
3. Item costs more to operate than to replace and retrain staff. So somewhere between 4 years old, and 15 years old.
Agile enough, IF you have a large enough I.T. staffing budget to cover the number of extra team members needed to manage so many different things changing in such a short time frame.
It takes time to learn, such as getting certified, on new products and services. While somebody is studying or getting certified on the latest addition to the tech, and supporting the users calling into the call center with learning how to operate the new thingamabob, somebody else has to fill that tech's shoes and support what changed last week.
Agility is awesome when you're swimming in money and the I.T. budget for it is negligible compared to the benefits in revenue. But for a lot of companies, the cost of being agile could be double the companies profit for an entire year. Whereas the cost of a traditional model goes down over time, until incompatibilities and security issues simply make it impossible to continue to operate. So do you want to spend tens of thousands to millions a year, or spend that same amount once per decade?
To add further clarification to the others' replies. Entering the 2FA into your browser allows you access only in that browser session, it doesn't allow access from any other browser session so the hacker's session would not be allowed.
Also, you are receiving the 2FA. It is unlikely the attacker is recieving the 2FA. They would have to get your phone number and request you provide the 2FA to gain access. Which is exactly what was described in the summary of the article.
You don't get out much do you? At the very least you don't work in I.T. Computers are magic boxes that do many incomprehensible things like send random text messages. Its like magnets man, how do they work!?
Have you ever been faced with a completely incomprehensible thing, that you have been given instructions on how to operate it, but have no idea what to do when outside the standardized parameters of the day-to-day?
Have you ever been forced by progress itself to incorporate a mysterious and untrusted "blackbox" technology into your workflow simply to remain competitive and continue to bring home a salary? Or at the very least, have you ever been forced to incorporate or use tech you are not fond of?
Have you ever been in a foot race and finished behind the leader, as in not in first place? Perhaps not even in the top ten?
Do you typically score higher on Jeopardy than the contestants? Do you typically know more about medical science, bio-chemistry, and biology than your doctors? Do you typically know more about a vehicle than a highly paid mechanic? Do you have the ability to predict the weather with more accuracy than most meteorologists?
We are still introducing people to the technological developments of the past three decades.
Unlikely. What are the odds that an Uber driver competent enough to earn millions in a reasonable time frame would be illiterate enough to hand our a 2FA? Most of the rest are not making enough for upkeep, and are trending towards negative income.
$500 rent in some areas isn't entirely unheard of. It is rare though. It is also typically in more rural areas. A single wide trailer in a trailer park on a dirt road somewhere that will put extra miles and wear and tear on an automobile.
May I direct you to the Dunning-Kruger graph for a visual reference.
Poor are more likely to spend on something like rims, because cars are typically out of their price range. Similarly they are more likely to spend on shoes than travel, because travel is out of their price range. However, get enough money and the cost of travel, and the cost of home ownership plummets. Credit Scores go up reducing the up front costs and costs over time freeing up even more resources to invest in other areas. The highest costs are centered around the lowest earners, who are looking a centuries for any kind of decent return on investments. Life's too short to wait for a return on investment at that scale. They might at best sacrifice their own "lives" to give one of their offspring a fighting chance at a middle class life.
Those in more affluent neighborhoods have other alternatives, either less expensive alternatives, or alternatives with a higher return on investment.
Also, the land value is typically less in lower income neighborhoods, which means higher profits for a business. Higher income neighborhoods typically block any liquor stores or such from tarnishing their appearance, despite also indulging in alcoholic beverages. The more affluent would traffic sneaker stores and liquor stores in less affluent neighborhoods as long as there is a low enough crime rate.
$1,000 rent $1,500 automobile costs $100 auto insurance $100 health insurance. $50 per month for phone usage. = $2,750 Factor in a few entertainment expenses and then divide by 0.7 to get gross income. For lower income levels 0.8 may suffice. +$60 internet +$10 entertainment = $2,820 / 0.7 =$4,028. There are a lot of variables to consider, this is really just ballpark figures.
Sure. Any ideas on how to generate enough GDP to facilitate a $200k annually UBI for all citizens of Canada? Otherwise it would be your responsibility to make up the difference between the UBI, and what you want to make, in a psuedo-capitalist UBI economy.
What we are discussing is that there is a large gap between what welfare offers, and what a job requires, which makes it difficult to return to work. Which is part of the UBI discussion in that for those who don't make a noticeably higher income by working, they may have less money to spend than if they simply did not work and just lived off the UBI. Depending on what the UBI evens out to over the long run, this may or may not lead to a welfare state. Though a welfare state may or may not be part of the discussion already, considering the UBI is most effective at treating a post-job economy.
If the UBI is insufficient to cover the expenses to sustain employment, then it may be difficult for those who have hit rock bottom to re-enter the workforce. Free stuff without having to spend expenses to get it, makes things easier. Once you start spending money to attempt to make more money, you're going to run into a few complications, such as the expenses of work clothes, commuting back and forth on a regular basis, and reduced time to spend on upkeep meaning you will have to hire somebody to handle the upkeep. We don't notice this difference now, because these things are factored into the normal everyday lives of so many, and any increase in income typically doesn't significantly influence the base expenses.
You're thinking old world logic. (I think the above should be a +1, but no higher. It does indeed contribute to the discussion, if not very insightful.)
We may achieve a level of efficiency such that it isn't required for a large portion of people to work to sustain a certain standard of living. Either this will create a severely lopsided economy, or it will require leaving behind old notions of how rewards for labor are redistributed and focus instead on the larger picture.
What happens when nobody is needed to manufacture? When nobody needs labor, who gets paid? When nobody gets paid, who can afford to buy? You might end up with a split economy, the super rich elites and their Jetson's society, and the peasants abandoned to rebuild from scratch and so are living in the medieval dark ages.