Fortunately, they didn't know about this light, or else we'd have Hannuka cermenonies lasting one century each!
Re:Why convicted felons are interested in Thiefold
on
More E-Voting SNAFUs
·
· Score: 1
It said these felons work as managers at Thiefold, not as top-managers. So, they probably do not care about the ultimate fate of the company. Lost sales affect them only as much as this makes the number of potential targets slightly smaller, i.e. not a big inconvenience. And if things turn really sour, it's time for a last big heist, followed by a long vacation to some sunny destination not yet controlled by the US... (preferably one which doesn't have any petrol...)
Re:Why convicted felons are interested in Thiefold
on
More E-Voting SNAFUs
·
· Score: 1
It would be discovered pretty quickly that something is amiss... But not necessarily what is amiss. If our thiefs are smart enough, they make sure to only steal relatively small amounts at each ATM. Too small to warrant a full blown investigation in the matter. If the bank figures out that it is cheaper to just eat the loss than it is to find out what is goin on, they will eat the loss. They are a business after all! Why else do you think we are still using the same insecure credit cards after all these years of fraud?
Why convicted felons are interested in Thiefold
on
More E-Voting SNAFUs
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
IMHO, they are far more interested in the cash machine (ATM) business of Thiefold than in their voting machines.
Planting cash machine weaknesses (or more likely: profiting from accidental weakness which they get to know about) allows them to obtain quicker and more anonymous rewards than tampering with elections would.
An obviously fake high-stakes election might lead to a thorough investigation, which might not only land the politician that profitted from it in hot water, but also his minions at Thiefold.
However, nobody would make as much fuss about cash machines that occasionnally spit out too much if the right cheat-code is punched.
Many companies and organizations now use MS Office and Outlook/Exchange to handle all of their paperwork.
One more reason not to leave any sensitive information on the system for a prolonged time. Numerous Outlook/Office viruses are in the habit of takeing a random file present on the hard disk, attach themselves to the file, and sent it to random recipients. With a little bit of "luck" that's the file with all your personal info.
I'm just wondering if the employee has grounds to sue if identity theft happens due to such Outlook or Office virus.
the creditor must call the listed phone number and my father must answer the phone. They identify themselves and what creditor they're representing. Then they ask the security question and my father gives the correct answer. Now business can proceed as usual.
Which means that the creditor would need to know the right answer, in order to know whether your father gave the correct answer. So, what's to stop a would-be identity thief to pass himself off as a potential creditor, and run with the info?
You know, as root you don't need to change permissions in order to read/write his files.
He was root on an NFS client, browsing files on the server. In that situation, root (on the client) is mapped to nobody on the server, i.e. not very useful.
In order to read the data, he need to change his identity to the file's owner first.
Either you're a troll, or you're a pretty stupid sysadmin for not knowing this.
Or, maybe he had only the root password of a couple of NFS clients, but not the server?
for not destroying his home
If he was not the sysadmin of the server, it was none of his responsibility to do this kind of cleanup when the guy left.
My only annoyance is some neighbours, who don't like receiving junk mail, leave it on top of the cabinet, leaving the garbage for everyone else to see.
It's a hint for the facility manager to put a recycle bin near that bank of mailboxes. But unfortunately, the manager doesn't seem to get that hint...
(At university, the dorm had also such a bank of mailboxes... And there was a garbage can suitably placed nearby)
So, to use your analogy, we're blaming window manufacturers who sell broken windows, who knows that a certain percentage of their windows have broken locks when they leave the factory, and who fail to correct the situation.
They may know theyd'd eventually get caught, but probably not just yet... They can always get a bit more, *then* retire very soon, just after the next $million or so.
Reminds me of the stock market in 1999 / 2000. "Sure, I know that there is a bubble. But it is highly improbably that it will burst right now..."
a lot of pollution comes from Third World countries that have no pollution laws, or don't enforce the ones they have
Don't kid yourself. The US is responsible for a very large chunk of the greenhouse gas output of the world. It is something like 40%. That is despite the fact that the US has around 5% of the world's population.
Ok, then just replace "Third World country" by "country whose leader has not been democratically elected", and it again fits...
And another contradiction: If you are using your PC for more than 30 hours a month, you are a geek (30 hours is about the break-even point where broadband becomes cheaper than dialup, here in Europe where dialup is metered, and broadband isn't). Sorry, most non-geeks might use their PC 1 or 2 hours on a weekend, but prefer to spend the rest of their time at other occupations.
Ok, so only geeks would use this. But which self-respecting geek would tolerate these forced ad-breaks. Either the geek is smart enough to disable it, or if he isn't, his tinfoil hat is paranoid enough to buy a PC rather than use this offer.
This is obviously fake. If it were real, it would have been written in bright red letters, which are impossible to fake, because Slash normally strips out font tags.
Interesting read... I especially liked the sentence "Rest assured that they will ridicule Condorcet voting as too complicated, but they will only be insulting the intelligence of the American public.", as if that was even possible!
Which is exactly the reason third parties aren't succesful - people are convinced they can't be successful.
No, it's a problem with the US system of election. In the US system, a third party can only be successful if people are convinced that it can be successful. The reason is because there is only one round of (presidential) election: the first to have a relative majority wins. Which means that people are afraid of squandering their votes by voting for the lesser known parties: they prefer to vote Dem, rather than Green, even if deep down in their heart they would prefer Green.
In a two-turn system (such as in France), such an issue doesn't exist. To win in on turn you need an absolute majority (i.e. more than 50% of the votes; 49% against an opponent who has 48% is not enough). If no one has an absolute majority, the two top-ranking candidates face each other in a second turn, which determines the winner.
With such a system, the following might have happened in the US on the last election:
First round: Nader gather a great bunch of votes, maybe overtaking Al Gore. Bush gets the number he really got.
Second round: Nader vs Bush. Nader would obviously collect votes that would have gone to Al Gore otherwise (i.e. "lesser evil" reasoning in reverse, by traditional Dem voters)
No war in Iraq
Or, if Gore had more votes than Nader:
Second round: Nader is no longer running, so Gore collects all hist votes. Together with these, Gore would have overtaken Bush
No war in Iraq
===> in any case, a two-turn system allows people to vote honestly in the first round, without any fears of "wasted votes" because not enough fellow citizens think likewise.
but I told them all the bad things I had EVER done
That's the problem. Questions such as "did you ever steal candy when you were a kid" are so-called control questions, which are intended as a calibration tool for the polygraph. The idea is that everybody hoes done these, but nobody admits, so everybody will lie. Now they know what the subject's biological parameters are when he lies. This is important to have, as each person reacts differently.
Now, if you answer every control question truthfully (whether by admitting that you did indeed steal candy, or if you are one of those rare guys that really never did such a thing...) they have trouble properly calibrating the polygraph. So they might pick up just some general excitedness/exam-stress as a sign of lying, and if they find the same signs of excitedness in the real questions ("Do you work for al Qaeda"), they naturally assume that you are lying on that one as well...
Conclusion: to successfully pass a polygraph, you have to lie to some of the questions, or else they won't know the difference...
Slashdot Mirror
Fortunately, they didn't know about this light, or else we'd have Hannuka cermenonies lasting one century each!
It said these felons work as managers at Thiefold, not as top-managers. So, they probably do not care about the ultimate fate of the company. Lost sales affect them only as much as this makes the number of potential targets slightly smaller, i.e. not a big inconvenience. And if things turn really sour, it's time for a last big heist, followed by a long vacation to some sunny destination not yet controlled by the US... (preferably one which doesn't have any petrol...)
Planting cash machine weaknesses (or more likely: profiting from accidental weakness which they get to know about) allows them to obtain quicker and more anonymous rewards than tampering with elections would.
An obviously fake high-stakes election might lead to a thorough investigation, which might not only land the politician that profitted from it in hot water, but also his minions at Thiefold.
However, nobody would make as much fuss about cash machines that occasionnally spit out too much if the right cheat-code is punched.
One more reason not to leave any sensitive information on the system for a prolonged time. Numerous Outlook/Office viruses are in the habit of takeing a random file present on the hard disk, attach themselves to the file, and sent it to random recipients. With a little bit of "luck" that's the file with all your personal info.
I'm just wondering if the employee has grounds to sue if identity theft happens due to such Outlook or Office virus.
Which means that the creditor would need to know the right answer, in order to know whether your father gave the correct answer. So, what's to stop a would-be identity thief to pass himself off as a potential creditor, and run with the info?
He was root on an NFS client, browsing files on the server. In that situation, root (on the client) is mapped to nobody on the server, i.e. not very useful.
In order to read the data, he need to change his identity to the file's owner first.
Either you're a troll, or you're a pretty stupid sysadmin for not knowing this.
Or, maybe he had only the root password of a couple of NFS clients, but not the server?
for not destroying his home
If he was not the sysadmin of the server, it was none of his responsibility to do this kind of cleanup when the guy left.
It's a hint for the facility manager to put a recycle bin near that bank of mailboxes. But unfortunately, the manager doesn't seem to get that hint...
(At university, the dorm had also such a bank of mailboxes... And there was a garbage can suitably placed nearby)
So, we are speaking about Microsoft here, then?
Reminds me of the stock market in 1999 / 2000. "Sure, I know that there is a bubble. But it is highly improbably that it will burst right now..."
Don't kid yourself. The US is responsible for a very large chunk of the greenhouse gas output of the world. It is something like 40%. That is despite the fact that the US has around 5% of the world's population.
Ok, then just replace "Third World country" by "country whose leader has not been democratically elected", and it again fits...
Ok, so only geeks would use this. But which self-respecting geek would tolerate these forced ad-breaks. Either the geek is smart enough to disable it, or if he isn't, his tinfoil hat is paranoid enough to buy a PC rather than use this offer.
Makes sense. All those that used to use Windows and .asp have been hax0red into oblivion!
And they taste better. And, because they are so small, they fit better into the bike's saddlebags too!
I don't need to. When I hear a bang, I know I just broke the sound barrier!
No fifth biggest state. You forgot Canada and Iraq...
Even <p class="warning"> is removed
This is obviously fake. If it were real, it would have been written in bright red letters, which are impossible to fake, because Slash normally strips out font tags.
(Sorry, couldn't resist)
No, it's a problem with the US system of election. In the US system, a third party can only be successful if people are convinced that it can be successful. The reason is because there is only one round of (presidential) election: the first to have a relative majority wins. Which means that people are afraid of squandering their votes by voting for the lesser known parties: they prefer to vote Dem, rather than Green, even if deep down in their heart they would prefer Green.
In a two-turn system (such as in France), such an issue doesn't exist. To win in on turn you need an absolute majority (i.e. more than 50% of the votes; 49% against an opponent who has 48% is not enough). If no one has an absolute majority, the two top-ranking candidates face each other in a second turn, which determines the winner.
With such a system, the following might have happened in the US on the last election:
- First round: Nader gather a great bunch of votes, maybe overtaking Al Gore. Bush gets the number he really got.
- Second round: Nader vs Bush. Nader would obviously collect votes that would have gone to Al Gore otherwise (i.e. "lesser evil" reasoning in reverse, by traditional Dem voters)
- No war in Iraq
Or, if Gore had more votes than Nader:- Second round: Nader is no longer running, so Gore collects all hist votes. Together with these, Gore would have overtaken Bush
- No war in Iraq
===> in any case, a two-turn system allows people to vote honestly in the first round, without any fears of "wasted votes" because not enough fellow citizens think likewise.That's the problem. Questions such as "did you ever steal candy when you were a kid" are so-called control questions, which are intended as a calibration tool for the polygraph. The idea is that everybody hoes done these, but nobody admits, so everybody will lie. Now they know what the subject's biological parameters are when he lies. This is important to have, as each person reacts differently.
Now, if you answer every control question truthfully (whether by admitting that you did indeed steal candy, or if you are one of those rare guys that really never did such a thing...) they have trouble properly calibrating the polygraph. So they might pick up just some general excitedness/exam-stress as a sign of lying, and if they find the same signs of excitedness in the real questions ("Do you work for al Qaeda"), they naturally assume that you are lying on that one as well...
Conclusion: to successfully pass a polygraph, you have to lie to some of the questions, or else they won't know the difference...
Indeed, that should be Central.
Wow groovy! And I assumed only the Church of Scientology could do that!
Sth new to learn every day!