This is one the reasons why a cashless society is a bad idea. Suppose the electronic systems were down for a couple of weeks.
What if water or electricity went down for weeks? The simple fact is that as these services become more important, they also become more resilient to failure. These days, outages are generally contained to hours rather than days, and that is an acceptable loss for the benefit they give (ie much greater accountability of transactions).
Yep I usually keep a hundred in my wallet and another 50 or so in the car somewhere for when I forget my wallet. I also ALWAYS have cards from 2 separate banks, especially when on holidays to avoid the sort of problem the NAB had, I have NAB cards, but also CBA and WESTPAC in australia so was unaffected (except the checkout at the supermarket took me 30 seconds longer as I had to hunt in my wallet for a second card after the NAB one was declined).
Yeah it's a bit if a no-brainer for those of us that are used to dealing with HA/DR type scenarios. Multiple card from multiple banks, plus cash, plus more cash elsewhere just in case.
While the bank can take the lion's share of blame for having flaky systems, the retailers and customers have to take some responsibility for not being prepared for such events.
The backup for an electronic system is not another electronic system, it is analog ie paper. And we already have a paper based backup system for currency exchange that works quite well.
A lot of people are talking about how America is being laughed at, whereas the reality appears far worse than that.
And this doesn't seem to be sinking in with the voters back home. Trump is now risking America being isolated as the rest of the world figures out how to move on without it, which will only result in much, much less economic growth, the thing that will sting the most.
If you thought things were bad under globalisation, wait til your potential market shrinks from 7B to 325M. There will only be pain...
Libya Model is to demand absolute, verified shutdown of nuclear development, no exceptions.
THAT is the Libyan Model any sane person would understand Bolton was talking about.
No it isn't. The Libya model was let's do a deal, you shutdown your WMD's and we'll play nicer with sanctions and won't try to kill you. This is the opposite of what is being implied when Bolton or Trump use the phrase (unsurprisingly since Trump is a fucking moron when it comes to learning the subject matter).
Bolton/Trump said if NK don't come to the table (ie the actual Libya model) then we'll apply the Libya model. It makes no sense.
While I do not really disagree with your assessment of Adams' character, he has made some very accurate predictions, from the moment that Trump declared he was running.
To be fair, he backed Trump, then switched to Hillary, then to Johnson, then back to Trump. It's the classic gambler's move where you only remember your wins (much like Trump).
Had the meeting gone as scheduled, he would have said it was brilliant and just as Trump had planned. Adams worships the ground that Trump walks upon and has convinced himself that all democrats are demon scum. Trump is incapable of doing any wrong in Adams' eyes.
And Adams revealed why in his latest book. He spent the first 3/4's of it trying to explain logically why Trump was using good 'persuasion' techniques (also know as sales tricks) to win the presidency, then near the end lets loose a tirade against Hillary for wanting to tax the richest of the rich (the over $5M bracket) an inheritance tax which like Trump goes off the script.
Adams is the classic greedy rich white guy story. I earned lots of money so I deserve to keep it all to myself and not pay tax even though he enjoys the benefits of what those taxes provide. So him and Trump are cut from the same cloth.
I find your source . . . less than convincing. The Washington Post is just shy of running Bat Boy stories. The Babylon Bee is more credible. And funnier.
Of course it is because you say so. We know the drill, fake news etc etc with absolutely zero evidence to support it.
Since you raised it, I'd be interested in what you consider your top 5 most accurate, least biased news sources so we can compare.
What does this mean? When people say 'the left' or 'the right' it usually means they have no coherent argument so resort to arm waving and vagueness to try and make their point. Because if you said "Bill Maher was even calling..." your argument would evaporate (Unless the person you were arguing against was actually Bill Maher).
I don't think it's amateur hour, I think the men inside the White House want a war with North Korea. And they're doing everything in their power to get one and fuck everyone else. So how's that hope and change comin' again ?
Every military strategist on the planet knows that war can't be won. If Kim strikes first, he wipes Seoul off the map. If we strike first, Seoul will still be wiped off the map.
Kim holds has the upper hand and he and China (and most of us) know it. War is not an option unless murdering millions of people is acceptable purely to maintain your so-called tough man image.
Compared to the US saying that we were going to use "the Libya model"?
I kept hearing this but I'm not sure the people using really understood what this meant. The Libya model was one where the country's leader voluntarily dismantles his nuclear capability (which then resulted in his overthrow and death). To use 'the Libya model' as a threat makes no sense because you can't threaten someone to then do something voluntarily.
Just another day when Trump demonstrates how little he understands of the subject matter.
This can't be right. They are saying that Uber's self-driving car rig is neither designed to stop for nor alert the driver about pedestrians obstructing the path of the vehicle. It's just designed to... log them?!
What part about this is considered "self-driving" then, exactly?
And people going to jail for this will be exactly zero.
"to try and serve you content that it thinks you'll want to see". Stop trying to guess what you think we want and let us figure it out for ourselves. Seriously, you are fucking jerks and I hope you all die in a fire.
You aren't making the world better, you are creating a generation of useless fucking robots that can't think for themselves that will ultimately cause great harm.
It seems to me that the common factor is that they work at a US Embassy. Presumably, these are stocked with a variety of high tech equipment both to enable and prevent spying. Is it possible that there is some undesirable interaction of this equipment? The alternative, that someone is targetting US officials in disparate parts of the world with a bizarre ultrasonic non-lethal weapon seems somewhat less likely in the absence of any evidence for either scenario.
Yeah the latter doesn't seem like a realistic scenario, because if you did have some secret new cool weapon why would you risk exposing it by testing it like this. You'd test it on poor people somewhere in the middle of nowhere, then unleash it on a high value target when appropriate. I suspect that there's something else going on here that we're not being told
And it's WAY more important than people whining on the Internet. If the constitution doesn't apply when it comes to non-citizens, then ANYONE can be black-bagged in the dead of night, locked in a cell without a lawyer or phone call as long as the cops make the claim that they're "suspected non-citizens". They can search through whatever they want and they can employ cruel and unusual punishment.
I get what you are saying and agree, but things like gitmo would imply that this is already happening...
Cute, but the 1st amendment applies solely to the US government*. It RESTRICTS what the government is allowed to do. It states that the US government cannot restrict other's free speech.
I think you missed the point. Does it mean they can't restrict other American citizen's free speech or they can't restrict anyone's?
Why this is important is that on the Internet, not everyone is American (crazy I know)
Of course he did. A quick youtube to get help recall some info, in the first few minutes there are plenty of verifiable claims, here's a couple:
1. The networks all called Florida for Gore. The first call for Bush came from Fox where the lead guy running the numbers at Fox was Bush's cousin.
2. Florida 's governor was his brother
3. Bush's head of campaign was also in charge of vote counting and was responsible for hiring a firm to 'clean' the voter rolls of mostly black voters
4. Moore then highlights some independent reports that clam gore would've won in a recount
5. The decision was taken to the Supreme court, some of whom were appointed by Bush's father and/or his associates
I don't have time to watch the whole thing again, but there are claims in there, and there are questions which viewers are asked verify for themselves. This is exactly how information should be presented in this format. Remember Moore isn't a journalist, he's a film maker.
But also remember that this was a painfully false equivalency put forth by partisan Democrats to excuse Hillary's violations of the law
I'm not Democrat, nor American so I don't care for the silly politics. The simple fact is that the clown shouted loudly from the roof tops about security while being stupidly insecure himself. Now it appears he's still acting with the same ignorance so has learned nothing. This is an IT forum, we should all be able to agree that this is pretty lame and not acceptable behaviour for any world leader.
I agree, and best of all we already have that internet now. The trick is not to rely on algorithms to make suggestions, but to do research yourself and make your own choices.
The problem is that it gets harder and harder everyday. I quit social media, run ad blockers, script blockers etc try to stick to reputable sources, but even they are getting polluted. How many sites now include news that has what someone on twitter thought? Youtube which I use for instructional and informative videos still throws tonnes of like suggestions at me they drown out the variety. I'm down to about 3 or 4 regular sites as the noise is just too strong.
So you think it's impossible for a machine learning algorithm to learn that novelty is something you like.
Not impossible, but not happening right now.
It's probably similar with the "threat to democracy" filtering. You probably didn't get all that many new and different ideas from traditional media.
Traditional media had standards that doesn't exist on the Internet. The threat is already here, More than half the population are getting their news form Social Media. The current leader of the free world is a product of the this Echo Chamber effect and the peace we enjoy is currently under threat because of it.
The biggest flaw with the Internet is the Echo Chamber effect and Google and Facebooks algorithm's are just feeding that beast.
I want an Internet where I'm exposed to new and different ideas, not wrap me up in a comfort blanket of things I already know.
The echo chamber effect is the biggest threat to democracy and Google/Facebook are leading the charge.
I agree. So what we know of Trump being completely useless at most things, I'm speculating that he has a store bought iPhone and is using it for Twitter. It's quite possible that this phone has already been compromised but he's too stupid to realise the risk involved. Remember he's the same guy that while shouting about Hillary's email security was running his own extremely insecure server
Maybe but moderations here at least mean almost exactly nothing.
They mean more than nothing. They might not mean as much as a spot on Hannity, but they all count.
We know that for most people opinions are formed quite randomly. If you hear something 3 or four times from 3 or 4 different 'sources' you tend to accept it (there is a science to this that I don't have time to look up right now).
If I was a foreign power that wanted to disrupt, then the easiest is attack method is to infiltrate the top 100/500/1000 media outlets (which now includes websites such as this) and apply a little lean on every conversation. Over time, perceptions will be altered and influence will be achieved.
Slashdot Mirror
This is one the reasons why a cashless society is a bad idea. Suppose the electronic systems were down for a couple of weeks.
What if water or electricity went down for weeks? The simple fact is that as these services become more important, they also become more resilient to failure. These days, outages are generally contained to hours rather than days, and that is an acceptable loss for the benefit they give (ie much greater accountability of transactions).
Yep I usually keep a hundred in my wallet and another 50 or so in the car somewhere for when I forget my wallet. I also ALWAYS have cards from 2 separate banks, especially when on holidays to avoid the sort of problem the NAB had, I have NAB cards, but also CBA and WESTPAC in australia so was unaffected (except the checkout at the supermarket took me 30 seconds longer as I had to hunt in my wallet for a second card after the NAB one was declined).
Yeah it's a bit if a no-brainer for those of us that are used to dealing with HA/DR type scenarios. Multiple card from multiple banks, plus cash, plus more cash elsewhere just in case.
While the bank can take the lion's share of blame for having flaky systems, the retailers and customers have to take some responsibility for not being prepared for such events.
One step closer to crypto currency acceptance
The backup for an electronic system is not another electronic system, it is analog ie paper. And we already have a paper based backup system for currency exchange that works quite well.
WaPo is utter garbage,
Of course it is, because you say so. Have you noticed the pattern yet?
A lot of people are talking about how America is being laughed at, whereas the reality appears far worse than that.
And this doesn't seem to be sinking in with the voters back home. Trump is now risking America being isolated as the rest of the world figures out how to move on without it, which will only result in much, much less economic growth, the thing that will sting the most.
If you thought things were bad under globalisation, wait til your potential market shrinks from 7B to 325M. There will only be pain...
Libya Model is to demand absolute, verified shutdown of nuclear development, no exceptions.
THAT is the Libyan Model any sane person would understand Bolton was talking about.
No it isn't. The Libya model was let's do a deal, you shutdown your WMD's and we'll play nicer with sanctions and won't try to kill you. This is the opposite of what is being implied when Bolton or Trump use the phrase (unsurprisingly since Trump is a fucking moron when it comes to learning the subject matter).
Bolton/Trump said if NK don't come to the table (ie the actual Libya model) then we'll apply the Libya model. It makes no sense.
While I do not really disagree with your assessment of Adams' character, he has made some very accurate predictions, from the moment that Trump declared he was running.
To be fair, he backed Trump, then switched to Hillary, then to Johnson, then back to Trump. It's the classic gambler's move where you only remember your wins (much like Trump).
Had the meeting gone as scheduled, he would have said it was brilliant and just as Trump had planned. Adams worships the ground that Trump walks upon and has convinced himself that all democrats are demon scum. Trump is incapable of doing any wrong in Adams' eyes.
And Adams revealed why in his latest book. He spent the first 3/4's of it trying to explain logically why Trump was using good 'persuasion' techniques (also know as sales tricks) to win the presidency, then near the end lets loose a tirade against Hillary for wanting to tax the richest of the rich (the over $5M bracket) an inheritance tax which like Trump goes off the script. Adams is the classic greedy rich white guy story. I earned lots of money so I deserve to keep it all to myself and not pay tax even though he enjoys the benefits of what those taxes provide. So him and Trump are cut from the same cloth.
I find your source . . . less than convincing. The Washington Post is just shy of running Bat Boy stories. The Babylon Bee is more credible. And funnier.
Of course it is because you say so. We know the drill, fake news etc etc with absolutely zero evidence to support it.
Since you raised it, I'd be interested in what you consider your top 5 most accurate, least biased news sources so we can compare.
The Left was even calling...
What does this mean? When people say 'the left' or 'the right' it usually means they have no coherent argument so resort to arm waving and vagueness to try and make their point. Because if you said "Bill Maher was even calling..." your argument would evaporate (Unless the person you were arguing against was actually Bill Maher).
>
Fun to see these types of negotiating dynamics playing out on the world stage.
Because negotiating like this has never happened before ever. You Trump fanboys are so cute....
I don't think it's amateur hour, I think the men inside the White House want a war with North Korea. And they're doing everything in their power to get one and fuck everyone else. So how's that hope and change comin' again ?
Every military strategist on the planet knows that war can't be won. If Kim strikes first, he wipes Seoul off the map. If we strike first, Seoul will still be wiped off the map.
Kim holds has the upper hand and he and China (and most of us) know it. War is not an option unless murdering millions of people is acceptable purely to maintain your so-called tough man image.
The comments were pretty harsh.
Compared to the US saying that we were going to use "the Libya model"?
I kept hearing this but I'm not sure the people using really understood what this meant. The Libya model was one where the country's leader voluntarily dismantles his nuclear capability (which then resulted in his overthrow and death). To use 'the Libya model' as a threat makes no sense because you can't threaten someone to then do something voluntarily.
Just another day when Trump demonstrates how little he understands of the subject matter.
This can't be right. They are saying that Uber's self-driving car rig is neither designed to stop for nor alert the driver about pedestrians obstructing the path of the vehicle. It's just designed to... log them?!
What part about this is considered "self-driving" then, exactly?
And people going to jail for this will be exactly zero.
"to try and serve you content that it thinks you'll want to see". Stop trying to guess what you think we want and let us figure it out for ourselves. Seriously, you are fucking jerks and I hope you all die in a fire.
You aren't making the world better, you are creating a generation of useless fucking robots that can't think for themselves that will ultimately cause great harm.
It seems to me that the common factor is that they work at a US Embassy. Presumably, these are stocked with a variety of high tech equipment both to enable and prevent spying. Is it possible that there is some undesirable interaction of this equipment? The alternative, that someone is targetting US officials in disparate parts of the world with a bizarre ultrasonic non-lethal weapon seems somewhat less likely in the absence of any evidence for either scenario.
Yeah the latter doesn't seem like a realistic scenario, because if you did have some secret new cool weapon why would you risk exposing it by testing it like this. You'd test it on poor people somewhere in the middle of nowhere, then unleash it on a high value target when appropriate. I suspect that there's something else going on here that we're not being told
And it's WAY more important than people whining on the Internet. If the constitution doesn't apply when it comes to non-citizens, then ANYONE can be black-bagged in the dead of night, locked in a cell without a lawyer or phone call as long as the cops make the claim that they're "suspected non-citizens". They can search through whatever they want and they can employ cruel and unusual punishment.
I get what you are saying and agree, but things like gitmo would imply that this is already happening...
Cute, but the 1st amendment applies solely to the US government*. It RESTRICTS what the government is allowed to do. It states that the US government cannot restrict other's free speech.
I think you missed the point. Does it mean they can't restrict other American citizen's free speech or they can't restrict anyone's?
Why this is important is that on the Internet, not everyone is American (crazy I know)
Moore never makes any claims.
Of course he did. A quick youtube to get help recall some info, in the first few minutes there are plenty of verifiable claims, here's a couple:
1. The networks all called Florida for Gore. The first call for Bush came from Fox where the lead guy running the numbers at Fox was Bush's cousin.
2. Florida 's governor was his brother
3. Bush's head of campaign was also in charge of vote counting and was responsible for hiring a firm to 'clean' the voter rolls of mostly black voters
4. Moore then highlights some independent reports that clam gore would've won in a recount
5. The decision was taken to the Supreme court, some of whom were appointed by Bush's father and/or his associates
I don't have time to watch the whole thing again, but there are claims in there, and there are questions which viewers are asked verify for themselves. This is exactly how information should be presented in this format. Remember Moore isn't a journalist, he's a film maker.
But also remember that this was a painfully false equivalency put forth by partisan Democrats to excuse Hillary's violations of the law
I'm not Democrat, nor American so I don't care for the silly politics. The simple fact is that the clown shouted loudly from the roof tops about security while being stupidly insecure himself. Now it appears he's still acting with the same ignorance so has learned nothing. This is an IT forum, we should all be able to agree that this is pretty lame and not acceptable behaviour for any world leader.
I agree, and best of all we already have that internet now. The trick is not to rely on algorithms to make suggestions, but to do research yourself and make your own choices.
The problem is that it gets harder and harder everyday. I quit social media, run ad blockers, script blockers etc try to stick to reputable sources, but even they are getting polluted. How many sites now include news that has what someone on twitter thought? Youtube which I use for instructional and informative videos still throws tonnes of like suggestions at me they drown out the variety. I'm down to about 3 or 4 regular sites as the noise is just too strong.
So you think it's impossible for a machine learning algorithm to learn that novelty is something you like.
Not impossible, but not happening right now.
It's probably similar with the "threat to democracy" filtering. You probably didn't get all that many new and different ideas from traditional media.
Traditional media had standards that doesn't exist on the Internet. The threat is already here, More than half the population are getting their news form Social Media. The current leader of the free world is a product of the this Echo Chamber effect and the peace we enjoy is currently under threat because of it.
The biggest flaw with the Internet is the Echo Chamber effect and Google and Facebooks algorithm's are just feeding that beast.
I want an Internet where I'm exposed to new and different ideas, not wrap me up in a comfort blanket of things I already know.
The echo chamber effect is the biggest threat to democracy and Google/Facebook are leading the charge.
we'd just have to speculate.
I agree. So what we know of Trump being completely useless at most things, I'm speculating that he has a store bought iPhone and is using it for Twitter. It's quite possible that this phone has already been compromised but he's too stupid to realise the risk involved. Remember he's the same guy that while shouting about Hillary's email security was running his own extremely insecure server
Maybe but moderations here at least mean almost exactly nothing.
They mean more than nothing. They might not mean as much as a spot on Hannity, but they all count.
We know that for most people opinions are formed quite randomly. If you hear something 3 or four times from 3 or 4 different 'sources' you tend to accept it (there is a science to this that I don't have time to look up right now).
If I was a foreign power that wanted to disrupt, then the easiest is attack method is to infiltrate the top 100/500/1000 media outlets (which now includes websites such as this) and apply a little lean on every conversation. Over time, perceptions will be altered and influence will be achieved.