You'd almost think that US corporations had a long history of using the US government to bully or overthrow Latin American countries in order to improve their profit margins.
Most of the breaches are not "major credit card companies". They're retailers who didn't take security seriously.
The major credit card companies have, on the other hand, been very serious about card security, and in fact created an industry organization specifically to create security standards that are required for doing business with them. Failure to meet those standards opens retailers up to getting sued into the ground.
As a general rule, people problems (opportunities for corruption in particular) cannot be solved by technological means. In this case, techniques available to avoid being caught include:
- Sending different machines to be audited than the rest of those that will be used in actual elections.
- Underfunding the agency that is supposed to be examining the audit reports so that they don't have time to spot a problem before the election occurs.
- Creating regulations that require the voting machine manufacturers to locate and pay for the auditing (which for some reason favors auditing companies that say "yeah, sure, it's fine").
- Getting your pals in the prosecutors' office to drag their feet on doing anything about it if for some reason these issues become news.
- And of course, last but not least, turning it into a political controversy if you get caught, so that anyone trying to do anything about it is engaged in a partisan witch hunt.
Law clerks may bring the case to the attention of the judges, but appellate judges definitely have final say over whether they take a case. And typically the reason they take a case is because it's an interesting and important issue at stake.
Actually, my understanding (as described in detail by NYCL) is that the purpose of these cases is not to win anything, but simply to get discovery which can determine who "John Doe" is. Then the case is dropped.
FTFS: "its control over agriculture could be unprecedented"
It already is. It holds 70-100% of the genetically modified seed market, and is the largest producer of non-GMO seed, not to mention a major player in Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH) and of course pesticides and herbicides.
That's not including the lawsuits against farmers who's plants are fertilized by Monsanto crop due to airborne pollen.
In short, the vast majority of industrial farmers in the Corn Belt rely heavily on Monsanto, and those that don't are sued by Monsanto.
Depends on your jurisdiction, I'm guessing, but at least when I served they left me, another programmer, and a chemist on the jury. They booted the lawyer for obvious reasons, and one person who thought that the defendant was guilty because they were accused.
The defense council attempted to make an emotional case (essentially insinuating that the victim was a crack whore and thus didn't deserve revenge), but it was a very clear case when all was said and done.
Or nuclear. It's proven, it's working today, and there's phenomenal amounts of energy.
When did America become so retarded?
In the late 1970's and 1980's, in part due to the environmental movement, and also thanks to Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and unwillingness on the part of electric companies to engage in proper planning for evacuation should one of their reactors have a meltdown.
In other words, the idea that nuclear power is dangerous got cemented into the minds of the baby boomers because when they were coming of age, it was dangerous.
1. Much more efficient than feed lots is eating plants.
2. The price advantage of feed lots over range-fed disappear as soon as regulations about dealing with manure and runoff are properly enforced.
3. Price and efficiency don't always go together (see point 2).
4. Traditionally, pigs were raised on table scraps, chickens on insects they picked out of the orchards, and ruminants (cows, sheep, goats) on grass that grew in areas that weren't suitable for raising crops. In other words, animals ate what people didn't. Feed lots make that no longer true.
Well, I'd expect a loyal defender of reason, facts, and tolerance like you to say that! You're probably one of those factanistas running around that want actual evidence for your positions, which is completely insensitive to those of us who decide first and then come up with evidence.
wealth(n): an abundance of valuable material possessions or resources.
Tell me again how a high-speed rail system doesn't count as a valuable material possession or resource? Because apparently building one is "wealth-destroying".
Here here. One of my favorite things about being male is that shopping for sensible yet dapper clothing is about 300 times easier than it is for women. Men's shoes don't generally hurt their feet or require crazy balancing acts, for example.
The top source of contamination in the food supply of the US at least is animals raised for meat (most notably pigs and cattle). Thanks to feed lots, you have lots of animals in one place, so very quickly you have lots of animal dung in one place. In the same place as the animals. (To be clear, my issue with feed lots is that they're inefficient and a health risk, not sympathy for animals.)
Next on the list is probably contamination within the kitchen (possibly your own, possibly the commercial kitchen). Until robots are cleaning up your kitchen for you, they won't help deal with contamination from that source either.
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses (X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks (X) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers (X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it (X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses (X) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money (X) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches (X) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves (X) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free (X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses (X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email (X) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
Slashdot Mirror
You'd almost think that US corporations had a long history of using the US government to bully or overthrow Latin American countries in order to improve their profit margins.
was Farenheit 451 on the list of "inappropriate" books?
Most of the breaches are not "major credit card companies". They're retailers who didn't take security seriously.
The major credit card companies have, on the other hand, been very serious about card security, and in fact created an industry organization specifically to create security standards that are required for doing business with them. Failure to meet those standards opens retailers up to getting sued into the ground.
Because it's easy to confuse MSNBC and Comedy Central's news teams.
Especially with archive.org out there.
Both of these problems were technically solvable
As a general rule, people problems (opportunities for corruption in particular) cannot be solved by technological means. In this case, techniques available to avoid being caught include:
- Sending different machines to be audited than the rest of those that will be used in actual elections.
- Underfunding the agency that is supposed to be examining the audit reports so that they don't have time to spot a problem before the election occurs.
- Creating regulations that require the voting machine manufacturers to locate and pay for the auditing (which for some reason favors auditing companies that say "yeah, sure, it's fine").
- Getting your pals in the prosecutors' office to drag their feet on doing anything about it if for some reason these issues become news.
- And of course, last but not least, turning it into a political controversy if you get caught, so that anyone trying to do anything about it is engaged in a partisan witch hunt.
Wait, are you selling penis mightiers?
Law clerks may bring the case to the attention of the judges, but appellate judges definitely have final say over whether they take a case. And typically the reason they take a case is because it's an interesting and important issue at stake.
Actually, my understanding (as described in detail by NYCL) is that the purpose of these cases is not to win anything, but simply to get discovery which can determine who "John Doe" is. Then the case is dropped.
John Doe is never notified of the proceeding.
It's ok, he'll be defended by Ninja Stallman.
Not in the areas where there's room, there isn't.
FTFS: "its control over agriculture could be unprecedented"
It already is. It holds 70-100% of the genetically modified seed market, and is the largest producer of non-GMO seed, not to mention a major player in Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH) and of course pesticides and herbicides.
That's not including the lawsuits against farmers who's plants are fertilized by Monsanto crop due to airborne pollen.
In short, the vast majority of industrial farmers in the Corn Belt rely heavily on Monsanto, and those that don't are sued by Monsanto.
Who the heck is "Frued"?
Antarctica. Yes, there's room. No, it doesn't have Internet access.
Depends on your jurisdiction, I'm guessing, but at least when I served they left me, another programmer, and a chemist on the jury. They booted the lawyer for obvious reasons, and one person who thought that the defendant was guilty because they were accused.
The defense council attempted to make an emotional case (essentially insinuating that the victim was a crack whore and thus didn't deserve revenge), but it was a very clear case when all was said and done.
That's it! I'm totally moving to Canada now.
Or nuclear. It's proven, it's working today, and there's phenomenal amounts of energy.
When did America become so retarded?
In the late 1970's and 1980's, in part due to the environmental movement, and also thanks to Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and unwillingness on the part of electric companies to engage in proper planning for evacuation should one of their reactors have a meltdown.
In other words, the idea that nuclear power is dangerous got cemented into the minds of the baby boomers because when they were coming of age, it was dangerous.
1. Much more efficient than feed lots is eating plants.
2. The price advantage of feed lots over range-fed disappear as soon as regulations about dealing with manure and runoff are properly enforced.
3. Price and efficiency don't always go together (see point 2).
4. Traditionally, pigs were raised on table scraps, chickens on insects they picked out of the orchards, and ruminants (cows, sheep, goats) on grass that grew in areas that weren't suitable for raising crops. In other words, animals ate what people didn't. Feed lots make that no longer true.
Well, I'd expect a loyal defender of reason, facts, and tolerance like you to say that! You're probably one of those factanistas running around that want actual evidence for your positions, which is completely insensitive to those of us who decide first and then come up with evidence.
They already have routes in upstate NY, Vermont, and Maine. Snow in that area is something they already know how to handle.
wealth(n): an abundance of valuable material possessions or resources.
Tell me again how a high-speed rail system doesn't count as a valuable material possession or resource? Because apparently building one is "wealth-destroying".
Here here. One of my favorite things about being male is that shopping for sensible yet dapper clothing is about 300 times easier than it is for women. Men's shoes don't generally hurt their feet or require crazy balancing acts, for example.
The top source of contamination in the food supply of the US at least is animals raised for meat (most notably pigs and cattle). Thanks to feed lots, you have lots of animals in one place, so very quickly you have lots of animal dung in one place. In the same place as the animals. (To be clear, my issue with feed lots is that they're inefficient and a health risk, not sympathy for animals.)
Next on the list is probably contamination within the kitchen (possibly your own, possibly the commercial kitchen). Until robots are cleaning up your kitchen for you, they won't help deal with contamination from that source either.
Your post advocates a
(X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
(X) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(X) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(X) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(X) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
(X) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
(X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
(X) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
Just think about how much of an unethical jerk you'd have to be to piss off an organization of lawyers.