I think your memory of Star Trek is a little shaky. The usual formula was:
1) Kirk arrives at some planet and encounters some culture supposedly more primitive than the Federation.
2) Some moral delima is presented, with little real ambiguity in terms of justice, and kinda obvious parallels to our real culture. For example hatred between people who are black on the left and white on right, vs black on the right and white on the left.
3) Kirk gives some lecture about how humanity moved passed all this.
4) A contrived action scene where some red shirted folks die. Nobody will be held responsible ultimately.
5) Kirk somehow either explains how the cultures current path will lead to their total destruction or in some cases threatens to bring it about himself.
I hope you are right. I am not sure though. As much as I would like to see "some little children helping their mommies" on TV again I don't see it heading there.
So far the effort seems to be how to go glittery and darker; or how to make the formerly wholesome like "Archie and Veronica" into some dark murder conspiracy. Heck they are supposedly bringing a 'dark' version of "Sabrina the Teenage Witch" to TV.
Now maybe this is Hollywood lagging behind in terms of responding to audience desires. Hopefully that is true, but I kind of doubt it. The name of the game seems to be how to shock them without triggering FCC fines. Look at the shows that had all the buzz this year; some of that is misleading after all things like Award shows are industry circle yerks but still.
No the problem is really simple, the problem is using the SSN both as identification and authentication. You should think of your SSN the same way you think of your name. The only difference is SSN is more uniq.
If anything the government should issue cards with private keys associated with your existing SSN. The proof of your identity would be your ability to cipher (nonce + SSN + timestamp) or something similar and the bank, SSA, IRS, etc would determine its really you by deciphering with the public key and getting the same value back out.
Except they are not really succeeding. DPRK has enough military capability that we are all afraid of what they could do before anyone can take them out. We have been for years. The have much of SE Asia hostage.
Russia has made it impossible for us to achieve our objectives in Syria recently and successful undermine our polices trying to restrain Iran not long before.
Sanctions cause the peoples to suffer but as long as the governments are able to convince them to make guns even while short on butter, these actors remain a problem. You mentioned WWI and WWII, I would argue all the post war history basically say sanctions don't work they buy a little time, occasions we get lucky and they buy decades but ultimately they fail to achieve our policy goals, every time its tried.
Yep we could go with huge conspiracy theory or we could admit that - sanctions don't work!
I am not saying they don't have deleterious effects particularly on the populations of target countries but going over the latter half of the 20th century thru the present they don't seem to result in capitulation by leaders, lead to coups by or uprisings by populations with any certainty, and don't seem to achieve objectives like anti-proliferation.
Sanctions at best buy time. As long as there is money involved someone will cheat. Somebody will buy that Iraqi oil, someone will run that network cable, someone will launder that money or help obscure the source of those conflict minerals. Chances are it will be China, Russia, or some South American state. Mostly likely it will be some actor just big enough we are not willing to impose transitive sanctions on. Example Russian Federation and Iran were cozy for decades; because we were unwilling to lock out the Russians as reprisal for continuing to trade with Iran...Iran continued to have access to international markets ultimately became a nuclear power (well maybe not technically but does anyone really believe they have A ended their program entirely or B don't already have what the need to be ready on pretty short notice to build a warhead they can put on their existing missiles even if it is short range).
Face it you just cant get the entire international community playing ball, so it will ultimately always fail. Manage to twist an arm like China's hard enough to do the right thing, someone else will step in to fill the void; no conspiracy required.
So Equifax entered into a contractual agreement to keep our credit data safe
Really, I am not away of being a direct party to a contract with Equifax anytime in recent memory. My bank might agreed to keep my personal information safe and failed in doing so by giving it to Equifax but than my beef should be with them. After all they are the ones who turned it over to a third party.
And YES, motherfucker, forcing people to take time from their lives to deal with this situation DIMINISHES OUR FREEDOM.
Who is forcing you to do anything? You don't even have to visit their website you are entirely free to proceed with your life as if everything is just fine. Which is probably what you should do moron because guess what; I can assure that information was already out there anyway just maybe a tiny bit harder to get. Really this mostly changes nothing.
Really, did I miss something is there some giant open source project that has aggregated credit reporting data on most of the public? Did you do it personally in your mothers basement. Give me break you, dip shat A/C, since we are name calling. It is their data, period full stop, that it happens to be about you does not magically change that.
people who have diminished the liberty and property rights of millions of people
Really, again how have they diminished your liberty or property rights? You mean how they made it easier and faster for your borrow money, and did not even charge you for the privilege? Or is your complaint they made it harder for you to welch on obligations and simply skip town and go on to take advantage of someone else, is that how they diminished your liberty?
They credit reporting agencies are not run by angels watching out for your interests but neither are they your enemy. Grow up looser!
luckily we live in a nation of laws where we don't just seize your property and close your business because you annoyed some people!
Equifax is victim. Yes they failed to take steps to prevent their victimization but that does not mean it was right for hackers/criminals to go in and steal their data; anymore than leaving your door unlocked entitles me to go into your house and take your stuff while you are at work today.
Yes it greatly reduces the sympathy I have for the Equifax and their management who lost jobs, saw stock prices plummet, etc. It did not have to be this way they made it easy for the thieves via their own negligence. It does not change the face that they are still the victims here.
As it stands today other than some states with disclosure laws, there really isn't a legal requirement to protect credit information. Maybe we ought to have such a law, like we have HIPPA for medical information, that places legal obligations on people/business that aggregate other forms of PII to store it securely and not be negligent about prevention of its disclosure. Right now we don't have that. I think if you ask yourself about the relative value of slapping Equifax around a bit now in terms of satisfaction you will gain, vs weakening our prohibitions on post facto law making you'd realize your proposal isn't a good idea!
As far as taking their assets into the public coffers go; they are not really that valuable a business and they don't have all that much cash on hand, real estate etc. It would not likely amount to much of anything on an individualized basis. I for one would rather we preserve our liberty and property rights, thank you very much.
The GPs point was that other satcom systems are not omni-directional but rather require you to point the antennae at the bird; which you know how to do as a function of where the satellite should be and where you are currently. If your knowledge of position is based on GPS and its spoofed by a large amount you will not be able to properly point your other communications systems.
Every officer, at the very least, should be able to navigate by sextant, compass, and longitude recordings based on speed and direction.
I am not sure that is the problem or solution. Its not like when given the order "navigate to the port of Gibraltar" ships are ending up in Portsmouth, because crews cant plot a course across the Atlantic. This is about collision with other traffic in busy places where vessels are expected to be passing close by each other. I will admit to having never been in the navy or merchant marine but I do sail and I can use a sextant. I don't see how it would help with this problem.
I am not in the habit of navigating by charts when my mooring or pier I want to visit is in sight! Which is not to say you don't want to have looked them over for depth and remain cognizant of channel markers etc.
It could also be that the number of ships in these areas is much larger than old school pilots ever had to cope with.
Its like more traffic leads to more auto accidents. Insurance companies know this, which is why your address is a major determining factor in insurance rates.
We have larger population today than we did before AIS and GPS. We have a different economic landscape thanks to globalism that means a lot more commercial traffic out there.
The problem with all those abstractions is at a basic level there is an underlying assumption each class (not exactly in the OOP sense) of thing follows certain rules. To make effective use of those abstractions you have to understand those rules really really well. Otherwise you end up with lots of code on top so to speak patching(not in the insert at some offset sense) things.
It still "looks" clean to anyone not popping open the abstraction but what it really is, is doing one thing here and than undoing it over there. Its actually creating spaghetti code. I wonder as frameworks/libraries make subtle changes etc how many errors are creeping into various code bases as a result; especially the ones that don't have complete test coverage.
The business benefit of not having a data breach is extremely hard to give a line-item on the balance sheet but the prevention costs are very apparent in the P&L.
I could not agree with that more. How much should you spend on security specific efforts well many would argue: X = risk probability * cost of a breach
I think its actually the case an organization like Equifax probably has actually not invested to much in security. All the costs they have really incurred have mostly to do with dumb mistakes after the breach. Had they literally said and done nothing at all. What if when asked about it all the did was say "yup looks like, we are trying make sure it does not happen again, no further comment." Suppose they did not offer credit monitoring or freezes. Suppose they did not setup that stupid site to see if your info was leaked that did not even work? Suppose the CxOs had not been dumb and triggered a likely SEC investigation with their stock sales. What would have happened?
I would suggest most civil suits against them would fail, nobody can show direct harm. Even someone had their identity stolen right after the breach its pretty easy to show the information need to do that could have easily come from elsewhere. Consumers have essentially no recourse against them. Customers (lenders) have little real reason to care, what laws would they have broken for government to go after them on, none that I am aware of. If any regulation results from this, it will hit their competitors equally..
I am not sure this breach had to cost them much of anything. I really think almost all the price tag associated with this is missteps in the response.
Incident response, vulnerability scanning, and pen-testing are all different things.
Vuln scans as you describe are a useful service if your organization does not have the resources perform them, and consume the resulting data. Equifax sized organizations should have an internal security that are able to do that. If the hired Mandiant to do it; that indicates a defective security organization right there. A vulnerability scan is a bottom drawer service that is generally sold to small shops and shops that are aware they have seriously immature security posture.
Its not possible to make much in the way of recommendations based on a vulnerability scan. A systemic pentest will usually reveal things hey your admins are doing web surfing and e-mail reading with accounts that map to uid-0! It will let you make some intelligent recommendations to isolate compromises, limit lateral movement, and prevent large data leaks; maybe without investing half a billion dollars.
With a vulnerability scan all you get is "hey all this software is unpatched with published CVEs and POCs." Other than prioritizing mitigation there is little you can say as a security professional other than patch it or update it. You don't have the information needed to diagnose or offer intelligent advice on other issues.
So what happened here. Did Mandiant show up and do a VS when Equifax hired them to do incident response? Did Mandiant's sales team sell them wrong service? Did Equifax cheap out and buy the bottom draw offering, despite it not meeting their needs against advice? Who knows!
The reality of the InfoSec consulting industry is its extremely immature. The sales folks don't understand what they are selling, the customers don't know what they need, the practitioners bias very young, they tend to have the technical know how but not the communications experience. The also lack the industry experience to know how to get from point A to point B organizationally. They know what a well run textbook program looks like but they don't know how to manage people and which changes to try and make first.
Money is power and we've let about 20,000 people have nearly all that power because we're not comfortable with taking it away from them. This stuff is gonna keep happening until we do.
We could separate money and power though. 2 term limits for EVERY POLITICAL office. Candidates should be DRAFTED, except for an incumbent who is seeking a second term, rather than self selected group of office seekers.
I don't think there is a business case for the 'Celebrity CEO' You look at the relative performance gains some of this big name WSJ presser article guys get compared to lessor known peers at similar corporations not drawing nearly as much salary and I agree it just isnt there.
There is something to be said for strong leadership and vision. You cant always get that from some inside tracker. Sometimes you only need a caretaker to keep on keeping on if the company is doing well. Sometimes you need a strong outside leader who can make changes. I would generally agree you do not need 300X you average salary type except in the rarest of situations. There are certain industries, like entertainment and currently tech although hopefully this will change; there can be value.
Totally agree for $90M anyone can call me whatever names they'd care to. I'll laugh all the way to the bank, than a little more after, and probably a lot from the deck of my paid for mountain top estate; eating the pizza paid for with interest and dividends on the rest of the money.
Using a debit card for anything other than when you want to withdraw cash is stupid behavior. Don't do it, that is for the uneducated and poor people who can't get a credit limit high enough to get them thru a month!
You have vastly better consumer protection in terms of being able to dispute charges using a CC, rather than a debit. If you pay the entire bill every month there is no interest cost. Even most no-fee cards now offer some kind of points or cash back rewards. Often that can go as high as %2 on a no-fee card! Seriously doing any purchasing you possibly can your CC can mean a nice little payday!
Also keep in mind you are not just leaving money on the table not doing this, you are actually having your pocket picked. Retailers all pay merchant fees to the card processors and issuing banks. That is where those rewards payouts come from; they pass those fees right on back to the customers in terms of higher prices. So effectively anyone not doing CC purchases or using a CC that offers inferior rewards are subsidizing the payouts to everyone else. So your really should take advantage, if only to not be taken advantage of yourself. Yes its stupid and unfair system, and if at some point everyone catches on it would actually stop working and probably come to an end. Do you are part to make it a better world, in this case all you have to do is claim your free money.
A naturalized citizen is a person who was born to illegal immigrants.
Completely false! A naturalized is a legal immigrant who has become a citizen. Someone born here regardless of their citizenship parents is citizen and could be president.
There is also one other distinction here is relevant. The Enron guys criminality was the proximate cause of that incident. They were cooking the books. With these breach the criminals are the third party hackers. Its possible the CXOs violated some SEC rules by selling stock before disclosure but that wasn't the cause of the breach....
Unless it was. I really can see this entire thing being a kind of a reverse-pump-and-dump. The stocks are certain to take a big hit on the breach announce and will probably recover to previous levels, the fundamentals having not really changes and the impacted consumers not really being the customer and having little recourse. So sell high, buy back low...
Gay conversion therapy has actually worked for lots of people. The problem is its been mostly practiced by people who are unqualified to do so; so its got a bad name.
There are a huge range of conditions that cause parts of the body to more masculine or more feminine than other parts
While this may be true their frequency in the population does not come anywhere near the number of people who currently claim to be transgender. Essentially yes most of these people probably could and should be treated with a mixture of therapy and less invasive drugs like mood stabilizers, not the extreme measure of gender conversion. Which by the way has been show over and over again to do nothing to address the state of depression and other conditions these individuals have, which suggests its a not a route cause of the "discomfort" experienced by these people. This is further evinced by the number of people who 'transition' back.
Transgendered folks as much as they make you uncomfortable are here. Star Trek wants to portray them in a future where we overcome differences which is the spirit of the series.
Except that transgender folks don't exist in a practical sense! There are handfuls of intersex persons in the population that have a legitimate biological difference. No thinking person has problem with them. If an 85 pound 5ft tall woman told you she was fat you'd say she had an body image or eating disorder. Its the same thing if someone with penis tells you they are a girl, they have body image disorder. They are not a girl.
None of that will happen none. This guy will quietly disappear to his multi-million dollar estate until the general public mostly forgets his name. After which point he will decide if he wants to come out of retirement or not, if he chooses to go back to work a buddy of his will invite him to buy into a seat on a board of directors somewhere where he can start drawing a nice salary and quickly recoup his investment in the stock he had to buy.
That is how this works. Enron was only different because it literally resulting in massive job losses localized to a few communities, and the lights had to be turned off in some buildings. Finally a bunch of public pensions got hit by that one. It was impossible for the public to ignore those things some nobles had to actually be sacrificed. Wont happen this time because nobody can really even show they were specifically damaged by these breaches.
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking more Argentina, and Venezuela and some other smaller states, actually.
I think your memory of Star Trek is a little shaky. The usual formula was:
1) Kirk arrives at some planet and encounters some culture supposedly more primitive than the Federation.
2) Some moral delima is presented, with little real ambiguity in terms of justice, and kinda obvious parallels to our real culture. For example hatred between people who are black on the left and white on right, vs black on the right and white on the left.
3) Kirk gives some lecture about how humanity moved passed all this.
4) A contrived action scene where some red shirted folks die. Nobody will be held responsible ultimately.
5) Kirk somehow either explains how the cultures current path will lead to their total destruction or in some cases threatens to bring it about himself.
6) everyone sings kumbaya
I hope you are right. I am not sure though. As much as I would like to see "some little children helping their mommies" on TV again I don't see it heading there.
So far the effort seems to be how to go glittery and darker; or how to make the formerly wholesome like "Archie and Veronica" into some dark murder conspiracy. Heck they are supposedly bringing a 'dark' version of "Sabrina the Teenage Witch" to TV.
Now maybe this is Hollywood lagging behind in terms of responding to audience desires. Hopefully that is true, but I kind of doubt it. The name of the game seems to be how to shock them without triggering FCC fines. Look at the shows that had all the buzz this year; some of that is misleading after all things like Award shows are industry circle yerks but still.
No the problem is really simple, the problem is using the SSN both as identification and authentication. You should think of your SSN the same way you think of your name. The only difference is SSN is more uniq.
If anything the government should issue cards with private keys associated with your existing SSN. The proof of your identity would be your ability to cipher (nonce + SSN + timestamp) or something similar and the bank, SSA, IRS, etc would determine its really you by deciphering with the public key and getting the same value back out.
Except they are not really succeeding. DPRK has enough military capability that we are all afraid of what they could do before anyone can take them out. We have been for years. The have much of SE Asia hostage.
Russia has made it impossible for us to achieve our objectives in Syria recently and successful undermine our polices trying to restrain Iran not long before.
Sanctions cause the peoples to suffer but as long as the governments are able to convince them to make guns even while short on butter, these actors remain a problem. You mentioned WWI and WWII, I would argue all the post war history basically say sanctions don't work they buy a little time, occasions we get lucky and they buy decades but ultimately they fail to achieve our policy goals, every time its tried.
Yep we could go with huge conspiracy theory or we could admit that - sanctions don't work!
I am not saying they don't have deleterious effects particularly on the populations of target countries but going over the latter half of the 20th century thru the present they don't seem to result in capitulation by leaders, lead to coups by or uprisings by populations with any certainty, and don't seem to achieve objectives like anti-proliferation.
Sanctions at best buy time. As long as there is money involved someone will cheat. Somebody will buy that Iraqi oil, someone will run that network cable, someone will launder that money or help obscure the source of those conflict minerals. Chances are it will be China, Russia, or some South American state. Mostly likely it will be some actor just big enough we are not willing to impose transitive sanctions on. Example Russian Federation and Iran were cozy for decades; because we were unwilling to lock out the Russians as reprisal for continuing to trade with Iran...Iran continued to have access to international markets ultimately became a nuclear power (well maybe not technically but does anyone really believe they have A ended their program entirely or B don't already have what the need to be ready on pretty short notice to build a warhead they can put on their existing missiles even if it is short range).
Face it you just cant get the entire international community playing ball, so it will ultimately always fail. Manage to twist an arm like China's hard enough to do the right thing, someone else will step in to fill the void; no conspiracy required.
So Equifax entered into a contractual agreement to keep our credit data safe
Really, I am not away of being a direct party to a contract with Equifax anytime in recent memory. My bank might agreed to keep my personal information safe and failed in doing so by giving it to Equifax but than my beef should be with them. After all they are the ones who turned it over to a third party.
And YES, motherfucker, forcing people to take time from their lives to deal with this situation DIMINISHES OUR FREEDOM.
Who is forcing you to do anything? You don't even have to visit their website you are entirely free to proceed with your life as if everything is just fine. Which is probably what you should do moron because guess what; I can assure that information was already out there anyway just maybe a tiny bit harder to get. Really this mostly changes nothing.
Idiot, it's not THEIR data, it's OUR data
Really, did I miss something is there some giant open source project that has aggregated credit reporting data on most of the public? Did you do it personally in your mothers basement. Give me break you, dip shat A/C, since we are name calling. It is their data, period full stop, that it happens to be about you does not magically change that.
people who have diminished the liberty and property rights of millions of people
Really, again how have they diminished your liberty or property rights? You mean how they made it easier and faster for your borrow money, and did not even charge you for the privilege? Or is your complaint they made it harder for you to welch on obligations and simply skip town and go on to take advantage of someone else, is that how they diminished your liberty?
They credit reporting agencies are not run by angels watching out for your interests but neither are they your enemy. Grow up looser!
luckily we live in a nation of laws where we don't just seize your property and close your business because you annoyed some people!
Equifax is victim. Yes they failed to take steps to prevent their victimization but that does not mean it was right for hackers/criminals to go in and steal their data; anymore than leaving your door unlocked entitles me to go into your house and take your stuff while you are at work today.
Yes it greatly reduces the sympathy I have for the Equifax and their management who lost jobs, saw stock prices plummet, etc. It did not have to be this way they made it easy for the thieves via their own negligence. It does not change the face that they are still the victims here.
As it stands today other than some states with disclosure laws, there really isn't a legal requirement to protect credit information. Maybe we ought to have such a law, like we have HIPPA for medical information, that places legal obligations on people/business that aggregate other forms of PII to store it securely and not be negligent about prevention of its disclosure. Right now we don't have that. I think if you ask yourself about the relative value of slapping Equifax around a bit now in terms of satisfaction you will gain, vs weakening our prohibitions on post facto law making you'd realize your proposal isn't a good idea!
As far as taking their assets into the public coffers go; they are not really that valuable a business and they don't have all that much cash on hand, real estate etc. It would not likely amount to much of anything on an individualized basis. I for one would rather we preserve our liberty and property rights, thank you very much.
The GPs point was that other satcom systems are not omni-directional but rather require you to point the antennae at the bird; which you know how to do as a function of where the satellite should be and where you are currently. If your knowledge of position is based on GPS and its spoofed by a large amount you will not be able to properly point your other communications systems.
muskets! What are you gay? Real men just beat their enemies with a big rock!
Every officer, at the very least, should be able to navigate by sextant, compass, and longitude recordings based on speed and direction.
I am not sure that is the problem or solution. Its not like when given the order "navigate to the port of Gibraltar" ships are ending up in Portsmouth, because crews cant plot a course across the Atlantic. This is about collision with other traffic in busy places where vessels are expected to be passing close by each other. I will admit to having never been in the navy or merchant marine but I do sail and I can use a sextant. I don't see how it would help with this problem.
I am not in the habit of navigating by charts when my mooring or pier I want to visit is in sight! Which is not to say you don't want to have looked them over for depth and remain cognizant of channel markers etc.
It could also be that the number of ships in these areas is much larger than old school pilots ever had to cope with.
Its like more traffic leads to more auto accidents. Insurance companies know this, which is why your address is a major determining factor in insurance rates.
We have larger population today than we did before AIS and GPS. We have a different economic landscape thanks to globalism that means a lot more commercial traffic out there.
The problem with all those abstractions is at a basic level there is an underlying assumption each class (not exactly in the OOP sense) of thing follows certain rules. To make effective use of those abstractions you have to understand those rules really really well. Otherwise you end up with lots of code on top so to speak patching(not in the insert at some offset sense) things.
It still "looks" clean to anyone not popping open the abstraction but what it really is, is doing one thing here and than undoing it over there. Its actually creating spaghetti code. I wonder as frameworks/libraries make subtle changes etc how many errors are creeping into various code bases as a result; especially the ones that don't have complete test coverage.
The business benefit of not having a data breach is extremely hard to give a line-item on the balance sheet but the prevention costs are very apparent in the P&L.
I could not agree with that more. How much should you spend on security specific efforts well many would argue: X = risk probability * cost of a breach
I think its actually the case an organization like Equifax probably has actually not invested to much in security. All the costs they have really incurred have mostly to do with dumb mistakes after the breach. Had they literally said and done nothing at all. What if when asked about it all the did was say "yup looks like, we are trying make sure it does not happen again, no further comment." Suppose they did not offer credit monitoring or freezes. Suppose they did not setup that stupid site to see if your info was leaked that did not even work? Suppose the CxOs had not been dumb and triggered a likely SEC investigation with their stock sales. What would have happened?
I would suggest most civil suits against them would fail, nobody can show direct harm. Even someone had their identity stolen right after the breach its pretty easy to show the information need to do that could have easily come from elsewhere. Consumers have essentially no recourse against them. Customers (lenders) have little real reason to care, what laws would they have broken for government to go after them on, none that I am aware of. If any regulation results from this, it will hit their competitors equally..
I am not sure this breach had to cost them much of anything. I really think almost all the price tag associated with this is missteps in the response.
Incident response, vulnerability scanning, and pen-testing are all different things.
Vuln scans as you describe are a useful service if your organization does not have the resources perform them, and consume the resulting data. Equifax sized organizations should have an internal security that are able to do that. If the hired Mandiant to do it; that indicates a defective security organization right there. A vulnerability scan is a bottom drawer service that is generally sold to small shops and shops that are aware they have seriously immature security posture.
Its not possible to make much in the way of recommendations based on a vulnerability scan. A systemic pentest will usually reveal things hey your admins are doing web surfing and e-mail reading with accounts that map to uid-0! It will let you make some intelligent recommendations to isolate compromises, limit lateral movement, and prevent large data leaks; maybe without investing half a billion dollars.
With a vulnerability scan all you get is "hey all this software is unpatched with published CVEs and POCs." Other than prioritizing mitigation there is little you can say as a security professional other than patch it or update it. You don't have the information needed to diagnose or offer intelligent advice on other issues.
So what happened here. Did Mandiant show up and do a VS when Equifax hired them to do incident response? Did Mandiant's sales team sell them wrong service? Did Equifax cheap out and buy the bottom draw offering, despite it not meeting their needs against advice? Who knows!
The reality of the InfoSec consulting industry is its extremely immature. The sales folks don't understand what they are selling, the customers don't know what they need, the practitioners bias very young, they tend to have the technical know how but not the communications experience. The also lack the industry experience to know how to get from point A to point B organizationally. They know what a well run textbook program looks like but they don't know how to manage people and which changes to try and make first.
Money is power and we've let about 20,000 people have nearly all that power because we're not comfortable with taking it away from them. This stuff is gonna keep happening until we do.
We could separate money and power though. 2 term limits for EVERY POLITICAL office. Candidates should be DRAFTED, except for an incumbent who is seeking a second term, rather than self selected group of office seekers.
I don't think there is a business case for the 'Celebrity CEO' You look at the relative performance gains some of this big name WSJ presser article guys get compared to lessor known peers at similar corporations not drawing nearly as much salary and I agree it just isnt there.
There is something to be said for strong leadership and vision. You cant always get that from some inside tracker. Sometimes you only need a caretaker to keep on keeping on if the company is doing well. Sometimes you need a strong outside leader who can make changes. I would generally agree you do not need 300X you average salary type except in the rarest of situations. There are certain industries, like entertainment and currently tech although hopefully this will change; there can be value.
Totally agree for $90M anyone can call me whatever names they'd care to. I'll laugh all the way to the bank, than a little more after, and probably a lot from the deck of my paid for mountain top estate; eating the pizza paid for with interest and dividends on the rest of the money.
Using a debit card for anything other than when you want to withdraw cash is stupid behavior. Don't do it, that is for the uneducated and poor people who can't get a credit limit high enough to get them thru a month!
You have vastly better consumer protection in terms of being able to dispute charges using a CC, rather than a debit. If you pay the entire bill every month there is no interest cost. Even most no-fee cards now offer some kind of points or cash back rewards. Often that can go as high as %2 on a no-fee card! Seriously doing any purchasing you possibly can your CC can mean a nice little payday!
Also keep in mind you are not just leaving money on the table not doing this, you are actually having your pocket picked. Retailers all pay merchant fees to the card processors and issuing banks. That is where those rewards payouts come from; they pass those fees right on back to the customers in terms of higher prices. So effectively anyone not doing CC purchases or using a CC that offers inferior rewards are subsidizing the payouts to everyone else. So your really should take advantage, if only to not be taken advantage of yourself. Yes its stupid and unfair system, and if at some point everyone catches on it would actually stop working and probably come to an end. Do you are part to make it a better world, in this case all you have to do is claim your free money.
A naturalized citizen is a person who was born to illegal immigrants.
Completely false! A naturalized is a legal immigrant who has become a citizen. Someone born here regardless of their citizenship parents is citizen and could be president.
There is also one other distinction here is relevant. The Enron guys criminality was the proximate cause of that incident. They were cooking the books. With these breach the criminals are the third party hackers. Its possible the CXOs violated some SEC rules by selling stock before disclosure but that wasn't the cause of the breach....
Unless it was. I really can see this entire thing being a kind of a reverse-pump-and-dump. The stocks are certain to take a big hit on the breach announce and will probably recover to previous levels, the fundamentals having not really changes and the impacted consumers not really being the customer and having little recourse. So sell high, buy back low...
Gay conversion therapy has actually worked for lots of people. The problem is its been mostly practiced by people who are unqualified to do so; so its got a bad name.
There are a huge range of conditions that cause parts of the body to more masculine or more feminine than other parts
While this may be true their frequency in the population does not come anywhere near the number of people who currently claim to be transgender. Essentially yes most of these people probably could and should be treated with a mixture of therapy and less invasive drugs like mood stabilizers, not the extreme measure of gender conversion. Which by the way has been show over and over again to do nothing to address the state of depression and other conditions these individuals have, which suggests its a not a route cause of the "discomfort" experienced by these people. This is further evinced by the number of people who 'transition' back.
Transgendered folks as much as they make you uncomfortable are here. Star Trek wants to portray them in a future where we overcome differences which is the spirit of the series.
Except that transgender folks don't exist in a practical sense! There are handfuls of intersex persons in the population that have a legitimate biological difference. No thinking person has problem with them. If an 85 pound 5ft tall woman told you she was fat you'd say she had an body image or eating disorder. Its the same thing if someone with penis tells you they are a girl, they have body image disorder. They are not a girl.
None of that will happen none. This guy will quietly disappear to his multi-million dollar estate until the general public mostly forgets his name. After which point he will decide if he wants to come out of retirement or not, if he chooses to go back to work a buddy of his will invite him to buy into a seat on a board of directors somewhere where he can start drawing a nice salary and quickly recoup his investment in the stock he had to buy.
That is how this works. Enron was only different because it literally resulting in massive job losses localized to a few communities, and the lights had to be turned off in some buildings. Finally a bunch of public pensions got hit by that one. It was impossible for the public to ignore those things some nobles had to actually be sacrificed. Wont happen this time because nobody can really even show they were specifically damaged by these breaches.