In basic simple english: when you're a fan of a sports team, no matter what you say, no matter what you do, the team pays absolutely no attention to you - the consumer - at all. You could have box seats for the entire season, but when it comes to drafting new talent, they'll ignore your advice and get that idiot from Duke anyway.
And, turns out, that's Microsoft's business model. Ignore the consumer, what he says, what he wants. Just do random crap and call it good.
Now if the internet-powers-that-be started blocking one different site per day - e.g. block completely all access to fcc.gov on Thursday, then to gop.com on Friday, and so on - people would (maybe) start to realize what net neutrality really means.
I don't see why commercial interests should be able to spoof their CallerID even after verification. What makes them so special?
The idea was that a large company has, say, 1000 phone numbers; they want *incoming* calls to go to their main number, 123-4000. So, if Joe in customer service calls you from 123-4567, they'd like caller ID to show 123-4000 instead; so your return call goes to the switchboard instead of Joe's desk.
However: they effed it up big time by allowing the spoofing to redirect to *any* number at all, instead of restricting it to a different number owned by the same company. So any hacker with minimal equipment and knowledge can make his robocalls appear to come from a legitimate number.
It should be relatively easy to have phone exchanges compare the 'actual' and 'callerid' numbers, and reject a call if they change anything but the last 4 digits; but then the phone company doesn't care, they make significant money off spoofed calls.
Now, I'm a news junkie; so I would happily pay the $40/month to access those four networks alone. I tried Sony's offering - which only has NBC (and a crappy UI). So I was eagerly awaiting Hulu's offering.
But: they don't do what they say. Where I live, they provide live tv for.... nothing. They only have NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox "On Demand". Not live.
So, $40/mo for a handful of reruns? I don't think so.
People know Https by now, most users call it "the key icon thing" and give it exactly 0.2 seconds of thought. You think one more tiny indicator will change behavior significantly? Maybe a little, but it sure doesn't address either problem directly.
The entire point of computers is to automate things. Requiring humans to do something that is trivial to automate is just wrong.
Dear Chrome (and Firefox):
- add a setting "block all insecure http: connections"
- default the setting to on
- now both the people who don't want to be bothered in checking AND the people that don't understand security are protected
- luddites that still want http: transport can enable it
Came here to say just this. "News for Nerds, news that matters".....
- it's not really news; since the same thing is happening all over the planet and has been for many years
- it's not for nerds, it's for everyone; and besides, I'm doubtful that there are any nerds in Louisiana
- it doesn't really matter *that* much; certainly it does matter some, but hey, it's Louisiana
Now if the same thing was being reported in London or NYC or LA or SF or Tokyo..... well then yeah, it's slashdot worthy. Of course it *is* happening in all of those places; but for some unknown reason people are concerned about Louisiana.
Slashdot Mirror
When I can't find any help in Lowe's, I usually figure they're out back smoking. So now it turns out they're in India?
Can you list any corporation that hasn't fsck'ed their IT department at some point?
How is 40% of the market a "duopoly"?? That's not even a majority.
GM, Ford, and Toyota together own 46% of the US car market. Nobody calls them a "Triopoly".
A sports analogy of some sort? No comprende.
In basic simple english: when you're a fan of a sports team, no matter what you say, no matter what you do, the team pays absolutely no attention to you - the consumer - at all. You could have box seats for the entire season, but when it comes to drafting new talent, they'll ignore your advice and get that idiot from Duke anyway.
And, turns out, that's Microsoft's business model. Ignore the consumer, what he says, what he wants. Just do random crap and call it good.
The US does pay for educating people through secondary school.
Well over half of prison inmates did not successfully compete their free, government-funded education.
Yawned, because this protest is lame.
Now if the internet-powers-that-be started blocking one different site per day - e.g. block completely all access to fcc.gov on Thursday, then to gop.com on Friday, and so on - people would (maybe) start to realize what net neutrality really means.
Cable's crumbling TV business is ENTIRELY self inflicted.
Amen to that. I'm throwing a huge party the day Comcast goes bankrupt.
>> "Our members, however, I think are very aggressive in how they are trying to provide consumers that they serve with more choice..."
Your members are, indeed, very agressive. But not in a good way.
Fu.cki.ng stu.pid na.me.
This law would force the telex companies to implement tech to find out where calls were coming from.
They already have this information; that's how their billing works. The destination exchange needs to know who to charge for the call.
number1 = get_number_from_callerid();
number2 = get_number_from_ani();
if (number1 != number2) { // this call is spoofed
bill(number2, $100);
drop_call();
}
I don't see why commercial interests should be able to spoof their CallerID even after verification. What makes them so special?
The idea was that a large company has, say, 1000 phone numbers; they want *incoming* calls to go to their main number, 123-4000. So, if Joe in customer service calls you from 123-4567, they'd like caller ID to show 123-4000 instead; so your return call goes to the switchboard instead of Joe's desk.
However: they effed it up big time by allowing the spoofing to redirect to *any* number at all, instead of restricting it to a different number owned by the same company. So any hacker with minimal equipment and knowledge can make his robocalls appear to come from a legitimate number.
It should be relatively easy to have phone exchanges compare the 'actual' and 'callerid' numbers, and reject a call if they change anything but the last 4 digits; but then the phone company doesn't care, they make significant money off spoofed calls.
At least their food wasn't infected
Who knows? Maybe people who ate there and charged it came away the victims of *two* different meanings of the word "virus".
So does this mean that Facebook is going to start paying their interns this summer?
Hulu *says* they provide NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox.
Now, I'm a news junkie; so I would happily pay the $40/month to access those four networks alone. I tried Sony's offering - which only has NBC (and a crappy UI). So I was eagerly awaiting Hulu's offering.
But: they don't do what they say. Where I live, they provide live tv for.... nothing. They only have NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox "On Demand". Not live.
So, $40/mo for a handful of reruns? I don't think so.
Problem with today's Windows phones: they don't look or work like Apple or Android, so nobody wants them.
Nardella's solution: promise new phones that won't look like Apple or Android products.
Pardon me, I'm off to short some Microsoft stock.
Mildly interested if I could replace the OS with something that works, not M$ crap.
Comparable laptop cost: $499
Upcharge for Microsoft logo: $500
Why exactly would you want to pay money to have a Microsoft logo on your linux box?
Does giving my sexbot a human "face" constitute misuse??
It's akin to asking the telephone company to protect you from scams. Nice in theory, but impossible to do in practice.
People know Https by now, most users call it "the key icon thing" and give it exactly 0.2 seconds of thought. You think one more tiny indicator will change behavior significantly? Maybe a little, but it sure doesn't address either problem directly.
The entire point of computers is to automate things. Requiring humans to do something that is trivial to automate is just wrong.
Dear Chrome (and Firefox):
- add a setting "block all insecure http: connections"
- default the setting to on
- now both the people who don't want to be bothered in checking AND the people that don't understand security are protected
- luddites that still want http: transport can enable it
Came here to say just this. "News for Nerds, news that matters".....
- it's not really news; since the same thing is happening all over the planet and has been for many years
- it's not for nerds, it's for everyone; and besides, I'm doubtful that there are any nerds in Louisiana
- it doesn't really matter *that* much; certainly it does matter some, but hey, it's Louisiana
Now if the same thing was being reported in London or NYC or LA or SF or Tokyo..... well then yeah, it's slashdot worthy. Of course it *is* happening in all of those places; but for some unknown reason people are concerned about Louisiana.
The Galaxy Note 7 had this...... the fire usually got so hot, it would melt the glass. No scratches left after that.
Yeah, sure, there were a few downsides, but there usually are with prototypes.
Don't ever assume that all hacks are coming from the outside.
That means someone would have to be dumb enough to
1) Have the mgmt of the switch be publicly available
2) Have Telnet enabled.
3) Purchase from a vendor that does not understand security well enough to disable telnet.
10 million users in only 10 years. At that astounding rate they'll be significant by the year 2500 or so.
In the meantime a google search of "disable pocket" gets 925,000 results.
Yes, but even a Microsoft engineer should be able to remove that for a US release.
They must have been sorely disappointed; after all that effort of hacking the cameras, they had so few people to watch on them.