If it's not poorly defined then why can't people who are supposed to be professionals in preventing money laundering patently unable to explain it effectively?
Briefer: "Be on the lookout for money laundering!" Me: "Ok, so what should we be on the lookout for?" Briefer: "Suspicious transactions." Me: "Suspicious how?" Briefer: "Next slide!"...
OK, but what made them illegal? I don't believe the government when they bring charges like this, because someone discovered ex post facto that something broke the law. When they say "3.5 billion money laundering scheme", I want to know what the original money came from and why the transaction was supposedly illegal. And we rarely get that information.
Inherently not trusting the government and the huge power such 'money laundering' accusations seem to have - no one ever seems to ask the question I am asking, and the article sure as hell doesn't say a damned thing about where the 3.5 billion came from - make me very suspicious.
Money laundering is the most opaque concept ever. I used to be an officer at a bank (they made all of the network guys exempt bank officers) and had to go through repeated briefings on this, and no one could explain money laundering to my satisfaction. It appears to be "transactions the government doesn't like" rather than anything in particular.
Or, euthanasia. That's where this is going to ultimately go. When a totalitarian government looks at the problem, that will be the solution. Totalitarianism is the future, best prepare for it.
Why would you use a heavier-than-air craft to essentially hover?
Wouldn't an aerostat accomplish the same goal at a much lower cost, and lower risk of bodily harm should it fall from the sky? I mean, assuming you aren't retarded like the Army and let it break its tether.
To risk revealing who I work for, this software is in PPSS, which tells me that the money has indeed dried up. The dump trucks of cash are in the PDSS phase.
Are you this much of a douche normally? Friends might be hard to come by, if so.
It's my business and I know how such projects are run. I stand by the small numbers. Their letter is assuredly not representative of the actual number of clients installed.
They don't put thousands onto support for a single application. 500 max, and that's pushing it. For something like this, I would imagine the Post Production Software Support (PPSS) team to be under 100, actually. They don't need FSRs for this kind of thing, either.
OK, I know this business, and I can tell you that the contractors supporting the system are doing so with minimum personnel, so that can't be it. Maximum of 500 people involved in dev and support, and probably less. The system itself is not useful to a general purpose user. Let's assume 50,000 people ever touch it, that's probably a generous estimate. I imagine if we saw their usage data, it would be in the four figures, not six.
arf arf. But seriously, almost 600,000 copies of a piece of software when the Department of the Navy has fewer official user workstations than that...much fewer. That's Army level of personnel, not Navy.
For that matter, what do you mean "breaking compatibility with any Firefox addon"? Haven't found one yet (that I would want) that I haven't been able to run in Pale Moon. Whatever the "breakage", it must not be very significant.
I can mind my own security just fine. And a test suite offers me what feature? More security, you say? More security than just not allowing any untrusted script to run?
People who still have a lot of VHS tapes and don't have access to rocket ship internet speeds. I know a few who live in rural farm areas who get by with DSL ~5 miles from the CO and can't download anything. Nor are interested in rebuying stuff they already have on DVD.
The fact that you drank the kool-aid and think Flash is the problem is why you aren't seeing what's wrong with a browser discontinuing support for something that is still a presence on the Web.
No it isn't. Windows failure to segment "Administrator" from "General Purpose User" for most of the last 25 years is. Flash is way down on the list. And besides which, this is a shitty way to enforce security. Click through access does nothing for security whatsoever except make people feel good. The user gets used to clicking through without thinking and you have the same vulnerability anyway.
OK, you enable "accept any certificate" in about:config, right now. I'll be waiting...while Firefox denies connection to old devices, with not a thing to be done about it.
Knowing what you're talking about is a prerequisite for being snide.
Too much trying to think for me, without being able to turn the behavior off. Firefox and PKI is an absolute abortion. Now they are going to make people's lives more difficult vis a vis Flash because of some religious reason.
If the government does a mass data collection, the data will be used for purposes beyond that originally intended. Period. That is how governments work. Having spent the last 15 years of my life in the bowels of one of the largest governments in the world, I know whereof I speak.
Actually, you miss the big picture. The social programs have been raised to the maximum sustainable level - really, they couldn't be any higher without creating a positive feedback loop, eliminating more of the private sector in favor of benefits, as some argue already has happened to some extent. The warfare and the economic expedients (aka bubbles) were intended to keep incomes from going down before they absolutely had to, probably in the hope that there was going to be some kind of disruption that created jobs again. Like fracking, for instance, but on a bigger scale. But the expedients failed and here we are, and government is still hoping for a magic fix.
Squandered GDP, which is the only worthwhile measure of productivity and national effort. Taxes are meaningless with fiat currencies - every government acts as if it has an endless money printing machine.
Slashdot Mirror
If it's not poorly defined then why can't people who are supposed to be professionals in preventing money laundering patently unable to explain it effectively?
Briefer: "Be on the lookout for money laundering!" ...
Me: "Ok, so what should we be on the lookout for?"
Briefer: "Suspicious transactions."
Me: "Suspicious how?"
Briefer: "Next slide!"
OK, but what made them illegal? I don't believe the government when they bring charges like this, because someone discovered ex post facto that something broke the law. When they say "3.5 billion money laundering scheme", I want to know what the original money came from and why the transaction was supposedly illegal. And we rarely get that information.
Inherently not trusting the government and the huge power such 'money laundering' accusations seem to have - no one ever seems to ask the question I am asking, and the article sure as hell doesn't say a damned thing about where the 3.5 billion came from - make me very suspicious.
Money laundering is the most opaque concept ever. I used to be an officer at a bank (they made all of the network guys exempt bank officers) and had to go through repeated briefings on this, and no one could explain money laundering to my satisfaction. It appears to be "transactions the government doesn't like" rather than anything in particular.
Or, euthanasia. That's where this is going to ultimately go. When a totalitarian government looks at the problem, that will be the solution. Totalitarianism is the future, best prepare for it.
Why would you use a heavier-than-air craft to essentially hover?
Wouldn't an aerostat accomplish the same goal at a much lower cost, and lower risk of bodily harm should it fall from the sky? I mean, assuming you aren't retarded like the Army and let it break its tether.
To risk revealing who I work for, this software is in PPSS, which tells me that the money has indeed dried up. The dump trucks of cash are in the PDSS phase.
Are you this much of a douche normally? Friends might be hard to come by, if so.
It's my business and I know how such projects are run. I stand by the small numbers. Their letter is assuredly not representative of the actual number of clients installed.
They don't put thousands onto support for a single application. 500 max, and that's pushing it. For something like this, I would imagine the Post Production Software Support (PPSS) team to be under 100, actually. They don't need FSRs for this kind of thing, either.
OK, I know this business, and I can tell you that the contractors supporting the system are doing so with minimum personnel, so that can't be it. Maximum of 500 people involved in dev and support, and probably less. The system itself is not useful to a general purpose user. Let's assume 50,000 people ever touch it, that's probably a generous estimate. I imagine if we saw their usage data, it would be in the four figures, not six.
arf arf. But seriously, almost 600,000 copies of a piece of software when the Department of the Navy has fewer official user workstations than that...much fewer. That's Army level of personnel, not Navy.
Then, there's some data online about the system in question. Seems like it's a system to support infrastructure for Navy bases and such. Seems like Northrop Grumman is involved, as well as some smaller contractors. Like this one, Synergy Software Design, with the terrible web site. Also appears that Synergy is the sole vendor and technical support provider for Bitmanagement Software GmbH in the US.
The conclusion I come to is that Synergy fucked over Bitmanagement somehow, and the Navy is being held in.
For that matter, what do you mean "breaking compatibility with any Firefox addon"? Haven't found one yet (that I would want) that I haven't been able to run in Pale Moon. Whatever the "breakage", it must not be very significant.
I can mind my own security just fine. And a test suite offers me what feature? More security, you say? More security than just not allowing any untrusted script to run?
People who still have a lot of VHS tapes and don't have access to rocket ship internet speeds. I know a few who live in rural farm areas who get by with DSL ~5 miles from the CO and can't download anything. Nor are interested in rebuying stuff they already have on DVD.
The fact that you drank the kool-aid and think Flash is the problem is why you aren't seeing what's wrong with a browser discontinuing support for something that is still a presence on the Web.
No it isn't. Windows failure to segment "Administrator" from "General Purpose User" for most of the last 25 years is. Flash is way down on the list. And besides which, this is a shitty way to enforce security. Click through access does nothing for security whatsoever except make people feel good. The user gets used to clicking through without thinking and you have the same vulnerability anyway.
The EOL date for technology is controlled by the users, not the manufacturer.
Pale Moon with Noscript. When they decide to start thinking for me, i'll look for another browser...
OK, you enable "accept any certificate" in about:config, right now. I'll be waiting...while Firefox denies connection to old devices, with not a thing to be done about it.
Knowing what you're talking about is a prerequisite for being snide.
I don't use Chrome either.
Too much trying to think for me, without being able to turn the behavior off. Firefox and PKI is an absolute abortion. Now they are going to make people's lives more difficult vis a vis Flash because of some religious reason.
Way to grow that market share!!
If the government does a mass data collection, the data will be used for purposes beyond that originally intended. Period. That is how governments work. Having spent the last 15 years of my life in the bowels of one of the largest governments in the world, I know whereof I speak.
Better? Nope.
Lots of inflation of consumer prices...
13.5% increase in incomes vs. 15+% increase in consumer prices over 10 years
But hey, what about unemployment?
Still over 10%...
Why is the US' rate under 6%?
But yeah, Europe is doing great. Really. The acid truth of the numbers and the failure of the blue state model is antithetical to you, but true.
I'm not an "OS dilettante dabbler", harking back to the BSD trolls of the past.
Neither was I. I am 47.
Actually, you miss the big picture. The social programs have been raised to the maximum sustainable level - really, they couldn't be any higher without creating a positive feedback loop, eliminating more of the private sector in favor of benefits, as some argue already has happened to some extent. The warfare and the economic expedients (aka bubbles) were intended to keep incomes from going down before they absolutely had to, probably in the hope that there was going to be some kind of disruption that created jobs again. Like fracking, for instance, but on a bigger scale. But the expedients failed and here we are, and government is still hoping for a magic fix.
Squandered GDP, which is the only worthwhile measure of productivity and national effort. Taxes are meaningless with fiat currencies - every government acts as if it has an endless money printing machine.