This combination of cardholders not being penalized and large merchants having insurance is why the current rampant fraud situation and stolen credit card number market is how it is. You can make hundreds of dollars by selling credit card numbers and other information, and plenty of folks do just that. It's extra money. You didn't really think the waitress was getting by on just tips, did you?
Penalizing the cardholder doesn't help at all. How can I, as a cardholder, prevent a crooked waitress from swiping the card through a skimmer as well as doing the real transaction? Or just using a camera to record an image of the card? For that sort of scenario to be stopped, the system itself has to change first. The cards must be made difficult to copy and difficult to forge (which is a goal of the chipped cards, but doesn't seem to have been accomplished). And, to prevent out-and-out theft of the card, some second factor must be used which cannot be easily copied. A PIN simply doesn't work, as it's trivially easy to capture a PIN (since the PIN pad is under the control of the crooked employee).
The basic problem with credit card security is you give away your authentication tokens every time you use the card. No amount of penalizing the cardholder will prevent that.
After I talked to the genetic engineer (for Monsanto) in Saint Louis that told me he didn't believe in evolution
You misunderstood him. He didn't mean he didn't believe it happened. He meant he didn't believe it was a good idea. He's a Monsanto genetic engineer; he doesn't BELIEVE in God, he PLAYS God.
Chip and pin is definitely better then card swipe, or card swipe and pin.
Card swipe and PIN appears to be better. While I can easily copy a card, there's no way I can manufacture a card which will work with any PIN.
The only problem is the banks are treating the increase in security as absolute security, and refusing to handle any fraud concerning a chip and pin transaction.
This is one of the areas where the US is actually ahead of the game. For credit cards, there's $50 liability maximum for the cardholder. For ATM/debit cards, it's also $50 if you notify them within 2 days, but $500 if you notify them within 60 days, of finding out about it. They can't just say "Impossible" and have you jailed for having the temerity to claim a charge was fraudulent (as has happened in the UK).
There is a world of difference between an 'infected' Windows machine that has some annoying pop-ups showing up every 15 minutes, but is otherwise functional, and a Windows machine that won't boot because of a recently installed patch.
Yeah. The owner of the machine would rather have the former... while everyone else on the Internet would rather they had the latter, as the former is probably sending out spam and trying to infect every other machine it can find as well.
Hell, the only major software released for OS X has either been (poorly) written by Apple, or has been writen by a company that Apple bought specifically so they wouldn't be able to release a Windows version of the software.
Huh??? What are you talking about?!
I believe he's referring to Final Cut. But he seems to have forgotten some other software released by such companies as Microsoft, Adobe, and Oracle, not to mention countless other smaller ones.
No, it's the face of Steve. He's heard of this God fellow, and he plans to have a long talk with him someday about the way he's been running things, but he hasn't hired him as Apple's public face.
but this is not COMMUNICATION. This is positional data over a period of time. no different than can be collected through OTHER means which themselves do not require a warrent (collecting call records, credit/banking records, or simply following you in public does NOT require a warrant).
Poking around in my banking records or collecting call records sure as hell should require a warrant. As for following me around in public, yes, they may do that. That does not mean that any other means to the same end (finding out where I go) is also legitimate.
So, this sentence works, "The scope of RC is simply too broad and can raise genuine questions about restrictions on access to information." But this sentence doesn't, "The scope of DMCA is simply too broad and can raise genuine questions about restrictions on access to information." Weird.
The appeal to force is not a valid rhetorical device, but it works quite well in the real world. That is, Google is in the US and standing against a US law is not practical for them.
This radical regime has no compunction about killing its own citizens, and it has continuously described its intention to destroy another sovereign country. Regime change needs to happen now, or else the world will sleep through a future preventable calamity yet again.
Look, Bush and Cheney are no longer in office, will you stop with the complaints?
Wait, you weren't talking about the United States? Isn't this Slashdot?
Regardless, owning a piece of software doesn't make it legal to pirate another copy. This is a warped sense of justice. If you buy a DVD player for $100 and get one year of use out of it before it breaks, it is not "ok" to go and steal another DVD player of the same make/model. Anyone that thinks that is fair should re-evaluate their views on right/wrong. If the DVD player was cheaply made, perhaps you should have done more research before shelling out the $100.
Analogy fail. The "DVD player" didn't just break. The manufacturer broke it, then refused to fix it. Under those circumstances, and given the lack of legal recourse, stealing another DVD player from the manufacturer seems quite just.
/me waits for a DCMA takedown notice to fly from Redmond to Slashdot's headquarter:D
DMCA takedown notices apply only to copyrighted material, not cracks, despite what some of the notice-senders think. The instructions for the crack are probably illegal under DMCA 1201... but whether Slashdot or its owners could be prosecuted is an unanswered question, which pulls in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act among other things.
I find a SOCKS proxy running on the machine of the desk of the person charged with administering the block works fine; for some reason, that machine is always exempted. If that doesn't work, put a keylogger on it too.
In my opinion, the result of democracy should be that everyone can do as they please as long as their actions do not hurt "little ones".
As soon as you attempt to implement such a thing, you'll find a bunch of people presenting themselves as fragile "little ones" who must be protected from those big bad others. What you've posted is necessary but not sufficient for freedom; you also have to be able to say to those who would use their putative weakness as a tool of oppression to toughen up or suffer; those pictures won't REALLY hurt you, no matter what you say.
This ruling is actually not the "Great Evil" it's being portrayed as.
Of course it is. For instance, there's probably at least one Wahabbian community somewhere in the US; that means any pictures of unveiled women may be prosecuted as obscene according to the reasoning of the 11th circuit. That's pretty damned evil.
The fact that the 9th circuit (and also the 3rd, I think) have ruled otherwise means the decision is more likely to be overturned than it would be otherwise, but it's still evil.
Joel Spolsky has a method which ostensibly accommodates for consistent over- or under-estimating by any individual developer. It takes a couple release cycles to collect the necessary information, then tries to use that data to provide a likelihood that a product will ship by a given date.
Doesn't work. It turns out if you collect the necessary information properly, the product is invariably canceled as soon as you have enough information to make a schedule.
Seriously, his method fails at Step 1 -- "You have to break your schedule into very small tasks that can be measured in hours. Nothing longer than 16 hours. " I've never been on a project which had a detailed design to that level by the time a schedule was demanded.
Re:Is all the hate really necessary?
on
Verizon Blocking 4chan
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The difference between 4chan and Slashdot is that Slashdot knows the meaning of responsibility to the Internet community
Don't fall into the trap of letting your opponents define what is "responsible". Once you do, it's not long before you're screaming that anyone who posts a certain hex number starting with 09 F9 is "irresponsible" and will be the cause of the authorities shutting down the Internet.
What if your local phone company switches over to VOIP, which is just another internet data service and not "real phone", then decides to block an entire area code and your mom so happens to be in that code.
Wow, win/win --- they'll have to deal with my angry mom, and I won't have to.:-)
(uhh, if you're reading this, sorry, Mom)
It's just you. Any idiot could see the story: An American guy went to study abroad in Paris, went to a cafe, met a French girl who told him he was cute, bought her some chocolate, found out about her favorite films, and eventually moved to Paris to be the handyman to her and her husband.
"CS student continues to take class notes with pen and paper while her fellow students" "CS student... her..." I call bullshit.
You must have gone to a small school. At the University of Maryland, even in the 400-level CS classes there were enough women that was a significant (though not overwhelming) chance of there being a woman in any given class.
(It really is bizarre. The effect exists despite the fact that there's no overt discrimination, or at least none overt enough to sue over, and that while other programs in math and the sciences also have a gender imbalance, it's far less for them. And that, at least before the dot com crash, a CS undergraduate degree was seen as a path to a reasonably successful career, whereas it was known that for some of those other fields (such as physics or mathematics) an advanced degree would be required to get anywhere in the field)
I've seen cases where spammers, unable to reliably defeat the administrators of a popular forum, will simply copy the information on that forum onto another forum and then spam the hell out of it. Forums on the use of Microsoft tools seem to be particularly popular targets.
In related news, only 3% of make-up firms and 1% of flower firms were founded by men.
Top 10 cosmetics firms: 1) Maybelline -- founded by a man, who stole his sister Maybel's idea. 2) Avon -- founded by a man. 3) L'Oreal -- founded by a man. 4) Lancome -- founded by a man. 5) Clinique -- founded by a woman. 6) Revlon -- founded by a man. 7) Estee Lauder -- founded by a woman (yes, Mrs. Estee Lauder) 8) Max Factor -- founded by a man. (Max Factor himself) 9) Cover Girl -- a spin off of a large corporation (Noxell Chemical) 10) Shiseido -- Founded by a man
So, leaving Cover Girl out of it, only 22% of major cosmetics firms were founded by women. Hmm, maybe we should be investigating that industry too.
Slashdot Mirror
Penalizing the cardholder doesn't help at all. How can I, as a cardholder, prevent a crooked waitress from swiping the card through a skimmer as well as doing the real transaction? Or just using a camera to record an image of the card? For that sort of scenario to be stopped, the system itself has to change first. The cards must be made difficult to copy and difficult to forge (which is a goal of the chipped cards, but doesn't seem to have been accomplished). And, to prevent out-and-out theft of the card, some second factor must be used which cannot be easily copied. A PIN simply doesn't work, as it's trivially easy to capture a PIN (since the PIN pad is under the control of the crooked employee).
The basic problem with credit card security is you give away your authentication tokens every time you use the card. No amount of penalizing the cardholder will prevent that.
You misunderstood him. He didn't mean he didn't believe it happened. He meant he didn't believe it was a good idea. He's a Monsanto genetic engineer; he doesn't BELIEVE in God, he PLAYS God.
Card swipe and PIN appears to be better. While I can easily copy a card, there's no way I can manufacture a card which will work with any PIN.
This is one of the areas where the US is actually ahead of the game. For credit cards, there's $50 liability maximum for the cardholder. For ATM/debit cards, it's also $50 if you notify them within 2 days, but $500 if you notify them within 60 days, of finding out about it. They can't just say "Impossible" and have you jailed for having the temerity to claim a charge was fraudulent (as has happened in the UK).
Yeah. The owner of the machine would rather have the former... while everyone else on the Internet would rather they had the latter, as the former is probably sending out spam and trying to infect every other machine it can find as well.
I believe he's referring to Final Cut. But he seems to have forgotten some other software released by such companies as Microsoft, Adobe, and Oracle, not to mention countless other smaller ones.
No, it's the face of Steve. He's heard of this God fellow, and he plans to have a long talk with him someday about the way he's been running things, but he hasn't hired him as Apple's public face.
Poking around in my banking records or collecting call records sure as hell should require a warrant. As for following me around in public, yes, they may do that. That does not mean that any other means to the same end (finding out where I go) is also legitimate.
Oracle, SAP, and Microsoft would beg to disagree.
The appeal to force is not a valid rhetorical device, but it works quite well in the real world. That is, Google is in the US and standing against a US law is not practical for them.
Look, Bush and Cheney are no longer in office, will you stop with the complaints?
Wait, you weren't talking about the United States? Isn't this Slashdot?
Analogy fail. The "DVD player" didn't just break. The manufacturer broke it, then refused to fix it. Under those circumstances, and given the lack of legal recourse, stealing another DVD player from the manufacturer seems quite just.
DMCA takedown notices apply only to copyrighted material, not cracks, despite what some of the notice-senders think. The instructions for the crack are probably illegal under DMCA 1201... but whether Slashdot or its owners could be prosecuted is an unanswered question, which pulls in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act among other things.
I find a SOCKS proxy running on the machine of the desk of the person charged with administering the block works fine; for some reason, that machine is always exempted. If that doesn't work, put a keylogger on it too.
As soon as you attempt to implement such a thing, you'll find a bunch of people presenting themselves as fragile "little ones" who must be protected from those big bad others. What you've posted is necessary but not sufficient for freedom; you also have to be able to say to those who would use their putative weakness as a tool of oppression to toughen up or suffer; those pictures won't REALLY hurt you, no matter what you say.
Of course it is. For instance, there's probably at least one Wahabbian community somewhere in the US; that means any pictures of unveiled women may be prosecuted as obscene according to the reasoning of the 11th circuit. That's pretty damned evil.
The fact that the 9th circuit (and also the 3rd, I think) have ruled otherwise means the decision is more likely to be overturned than it would be otherwise, but it's still evil.
Doesn't work. It turns out if you collect the necessary information properly, the product is invariably canceled as soon as you have enough information to make a schedule.
Seriously, his method fails at Step 1 -- "You have to break your schedule into very small tasks that can be measured in hours. Nothing longer than 16 hours. " I've never been on a project which had a detailed design to that level by the time a schedule was demanded.
Don't fall into the trap of letting your opponents define what is "responsible". Once you do, it's not long before you're screaming that anyone who posts a certain hex number starting with 09 F9 is "irresponsible" and will be the cause of the authorities shutting down the Internet.
Wow, win/win --- they'll have to deal with my angry mom, and I won't have to. :-)
(uhh, if you're reading this, sorry, Mom)
It's just you. Any idiot could see the story: An American guy went to study abroad in Paris, went to a cafe, met a French girl who told him he was cute, bought her some chocolate, found out about her favorite films, and eventually moved to Paris to be the handyman to her and her husband.
You must have gone to a small school. At the University of Maryland, even in the 400-level CS classes there were enough women that was a significant (though not overwhelming) chance of there being a woman in any given class.
(It really is bizarre. The effect exists despite the fact that there's no overt discrimination, or at least none overt enough to sue over, and that while other programs in math and the sciences also have a gender imbalance, it's far less for them. And that, at least before the dot com crash, a CS undergraduate degree was seen as a path to a reasonably successful career, whereas it was known that for some of those other fields (such as physics or mathematics) an advanced degree would be required to get anywhere in the field)
I've seen cases where spammers, unable to reliably defeat the administrators of a popular forum, will simply copy the information on that forum onto another forum and then spam the hell out of it. Forums on the use of Microsoft tools seem to be particularly popular targets.
Because it's the only game in town.
Top 10 cosmetics firms:
1) Maybelline -- founded by a man, who stole his sister Maybel's idea.
2) Avon -- founded by a man.
3) L'Oreal -- founded by a man.
4) Lancome -- founded by a man.
5) Clinique -- founded by a woman.
6) Revlon -- founded by a man.
7) Estee Lauder -- founded by a woman (yes, Mrs. Estee Lauder)
8) Max Factor -- founded by a man. (Max Factor himself)
9) Cover Girl -- a spin off of a large corporation (Noxell Chemical)
10) Shiseido -- Founded by a man
So, leaving Cover Girl out of it, only 22% of major cosmetics firms were founded by women. Hmm, maybe we should be investigating that industry too.
Nowadays a man in primary education or child care is often seen as tantamount to a pedophile, so apparently "we" approve of the lack.
Stereotypical interaction between proto-slashdotter and female of similar age in junior high and/or high school
PS: "Hi."
FSA: "Eww, get away from me, you little creep."
Understand now?