You're making the mistake of thinking this is the same system. It's not. It's far more secure than your Android NFC, and even more so than credit and debit cards.
Perhaps you should watch or read before you comment. You make the mistake of thinking that there's only one way to do an NFC payment system. Apple's payment system is indeed new, and does away with all the known security holes of your Android phone.
Apple's system isn't simply an NFC chip as used in payment cards in Europe. It gets a one off payment code from VISA or Mastercard or whoever for each transaction, using the device ID and TouchID. Unlike your device, a hacker can't just sniff this protocol and misuse it.
It's not skepticism, it's denialism. Skeptics stop making an argument when it's shown how they are wrong. Deniers keep on repeating it.
But keep focusing on the Sarah Palins of the world if that suits you. They are easier targets. Selection bias at work.
She never entered my head let along made it into my post. I'm talking about the AGW deniers that post here. The mainstay argument is saying that there hasn't been any warming in (NOW-1998) years, regardless of how many times it's pointed out that cherry picking an outlier and drawing a straight line to the current year does not a trend make, nad no matter how many times El Nino is explained it never sinks in. That's not skepticism, that's denial, ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.
It just seems like people build these things, when they have no real concept or experience with building a piece of technology which is expected to run for decades without problem.
Sadly it'll be a while before they can be expected to run for decades. The last one ran for 76 days. And in these early experimental days it's vital to be collecting data, and to adjust parameters based on experience, so it's either radio or cable attachment. If I were the patient I know which I'd prefer.
As to other forms of radio, you just want something off the shelf. At this stage you don't want to be inventing something custom. That's not where to spend development time and expense.
I certainly wouldn't expect the doctors and engineers to stop improving at the time they inserted the heart. I can certainly imagine that they can improve their responses to changes in the body over the months and years to follow.
But what the fuck anyway? Why is this discussion even taking this path. Here's a fucking breakthrough that could be life saving for millions of people in the future. And we're quibbling about wifi security?!
Testing multi-thousand dollar battery pack is a given. As is the factory's need of stored energy. The speculation that these two will go together is well worth making.
I know that everything "green" upsets you, and hurts your world view. But try not to be so grumpy.
I've already answered about 2 dozen responses on this topic. I'll just say here, that with the cop example you've gone further than even other people on your side will support. Reductio ad absurdum.
2) Society has already decided that you're wrong - society has already decided that there is nothing wrong in apportioning blame to the victims in certain circumstances.
And that blind assertion is just as wrong. Ignorant people may be on your side. That doesn't constitute society.
No one is victim blaming - if a girl gets blackout-drunk at a private party with people she doesn't know very well then she isn't guilty of being raped, she's guilty of being stupid.
You blamed the victim right there. You THINK the distinction you make makes it OK, but it doesn't. Even if she were stupid, IQ is not morality. You aren't a better person for being clever and a worse person for being stupid. There is no guilt on the victim here. You are just wrong.
Tell me, in your opinion would she still be guilty of stupidity if she went to a party and wasn't raped? What penalty should she pay for this guilt of stupidity where no one was hurt and everyone had a great time?
You do realize, that not everything in quotation marks has to be a quote, regardless of your attempted "assault on my credibility?" (See what I did there?)
I see what you did there was wrong. There are other uses of quote marks, for example in code, or to indicated invented speech in works of fiction. But in prose, you are claiming someone said something. And in both cases you've done it no one did. If you've see someone else do what you're doing then they are wrong too.
This isn't complicated. The link gives an appropriate format for everybody. webm is only useful to some. Hence the link is more useful.
The Flash comment was just wrong and irrelevant, as you may be getting webm and I'm getting H.264. Neither of us is getting flash. Although those for whom that is an acceptable format might be. Which again makes the link more useful.
An online backup tool - that they willingly installed - did the transfer.
No they didn't. It's built into the OS. It's asked about when first setting up the phone, but you can't blame people for following the recommended options. Most people are not geeks and don't know the implications of everything they do, and should be able to rely on the recommended options from a reputable company. Indeed, despite this news story backing up *IS* the best thing.
Indeed, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to say the victims failed to take sensible basic steps to protect themselves.
It's a nuanced thing. Doing so at the time of the news of the crime in 99% of cases comes across as blaming the victim, and most of those cases, intentionally so. It's no different from saying a rape victim shouldn't have worn a short skirt. And I would hope you wouldn't do that.
Insurance companies are no different from bookmakers. They accept bets. And via the insurance contract they get to set the rules by which the bets are settled. Their rules and morality are not at all in line.
That particular angle you described is bizarre though. If you'd left the lock at home, or had it in your backpack, you could remove the key and show them. Or you could simply buy another lock to get the keys. It sounds like it's simply a matter of trying to make it more of a pain in the ass to claim.
I suppose you don't mean to imply that the fact he was there because of his job makes any difference? Would you shift the blame in other circumstances?
Certainly not. It was simply a quick way of making the OP see that his point was ridiculous. No victim is ever to blame for the crime done to them.
I was beginning to think I was on my own with the this. Thanks for opening your mouth in the end!
You have a serious problem with logic - try telling your insurance that, yes, even though you left your car in a rough part of town, overnight, with the keys in the ignition and all the windows rolled down, that they have to pay up because "it's 100% the criminals fault".
I'd certainly expect to be paid out if it were parked in a "bad part of town". But the keys part is simply a part of the contract between you. You are still not in any way to blame for the crime you are a victim of.
Furthermore, your example shows how you have to move the goalposts. The celebrities did not leave their passwords somewhere.
But that's not the limits of what you previously said. You previously both said that victims were at fault, and you also sanctioned them for that fault by saying "you do not feel sorry for them", which is an indirect way of saying they deserved it.
You are conflating responsibility, blame and fault into one and single thing.
I'm afraid you're miscomprehending. In computer terms you're confusing the if statement with the contents of the optional block. Saying responsibility implies fault if you do the wrong thing is NOT saying responsibility = fault. I did not say they were a single thing.
Since for ever. If I chose coffee rather than tea, it's not a case of responsibility. I don't have to answer to anyone for it. There is no right or wrong.
For sure some choices do include responsibility. In this case the choice of the criminal to do the crime.
If you think LibreOffice is of higher quality than MS Office, then we certainly don't have the same definition of quality. And I don't even like MS Office that much.
Blame isnt this binary thing where only one person can have done something wrong.
Didn't say it was. I simply said that you can't go greater than 100% on blame. And the criminals already have 100%. There may be multiple criminals n which case multiple people get blame.
I havent done anything illegal or wrong, but Im going to get mugged and a small part of the fault lies with me for making bad choices.
So you're using a mighty strange definition of fault that doesn't include illegal or wrong. This misuse of language goes back to childhood, so can be difficult to shift.
So, you can live in a fantasy world and pretend that anything you do thats legal, you should be able to do.
No, I live in a world where if you don't do something illegal or immoral, then you are not at fault. I'd hate to live in your world if it works differently.
you dont seem to understand that 100% wrong, on the attackers part has nothing at all to do with sharing the blame. He is wrong to attack you 100% he had no right to do so. but that does not mean that you could not have avoided it by doing something slightly different than you chose to do.
Then I'm glad you've moved from your previous position of blaming the victim: "If I walk to the bad part of town and that I know is the bad part of town and something bad happens to me yes, I am partially to blame"
Slashdot Mirror
You're making the mistake of thinking this is the same system. It's not. It's far more secure than your Android NFC, and even more so than credit and debit cards.
http://www.apple.com/iphone-6/...
Perhaps you should watch or read before you comment. You make the mistake of thinking that there's only one way to do an NFC payment system. Apple's payment system is indeed new, and does away with all the known security holes of your Android phone.
Apple's system isn't simply an NFC chip as used in payment cards in Europe. It gets a one off payment code from VISA or Mastercard or whoever for each transaction, using the device ID and TouchID. Unlike your device, a hacker can't just sniff this protocol and misuse it.
It's not skepticism, it's denialism. Skeptics stop making an argument when it's shown how they are wrong. Deniers keep on repeating it.
But keep focusing on the Sarah Palins of the world if that suits you. They are easier targets. Selection bias at work.
She never entered my head let along made it into my post. I'm talking about the AGW deniers that post here. The mainstay argument is saying that there hasn't been any warming in (NOW-1998) years, regardless of how many times it's pointed out that cherry picking an outlier and drawing a straight line to the current year does not a trend make, nad no matter how many times El Nino is explained it never sinks in. That's not skepticism, that's denial, ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.
It's not a caricature, it's a fact. I guess you're one of them, huh.
It just seems like people build these things, when they have no real concept or experience with building a piece of technology which is expected to run for decades without problem.
Sadly it'll be a while before they can be expected to run for decades. The last one ran for 76 days. And in these early experimental days it's vital to be collecting data, and to adjust parameters based on experience, so it's either radio or cable attachment. If I were the patient I know which I'd prefer.
As to other forms of radio, you just want something off the shelf. At this stage you don't want to be inventing something custom. That's not where to spend development time and expense.
I certainly wouldn't expect the doctors and engineers to stop improving at the time they inserted the heart. I can certainly imagine that they can improve their responses to changes in the body over the months and years to follow.
But what the fuck anyway? Why is this discussion even taking this path. Here's a fucking breakthrough that could be life saving for millions of people in the future. And we're quibbling about wifi security?!
Who is John Galt?
What he describes is EXACTLY what AGW deniers do. Over and over and over again.
Testing multi-thousand dollar battery pack is a given. As is the factory's need of stored energy. The speculation that these two will go together is well worth making.
I know that everything "green" upsets you, and hurts your world view. But try not to be so grumpy.
I've already answered about 2 dozen responses on this topic. I'll just say here, that with the cop example you've gone further than even other people on your side will support. Reductio ad absurdum.
1) You're making a strawman - parent said no such thing.
Don't you do the barest research before posting? You're wrong again. See here:
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
2) Society has already decided that you're wrong - society has already decided that there is nothing wrong in apportioning blame to the victims in certain circumstances.
And that blind assertion is just as wrong. Ignorant people may be on your side. That doesn't constitute society.
If you do, then you are the stupid one.
Reasons in the other post.
No one is victim blaming - if a girl gets blackout-drunk at a private party with people she doesn't know very well then she isn't guilty of being raped, she's guilty of being stupid.
You blamed the victim right there. You THINK the distinction you make makes it OK, but it doesn't. Even if she were stupid, IQ is not morality. You aren't a better person for being clever and a worse person for being stupid. There is no guilt on the victim here. You are just wrong.
Tell me, in your opinion would she still be guilty of stupidity if she went to a party and wasn't raped? What penalty should she pay for this guilt of stupidity where no one was hurt and everyone had a great time?
You do realize, that not everything in quotation marks has to be a quote, regardless of your attempted "assault on my credibility?" (See what I did there?)
I see what you did there was wrong. There are other uses of quote marks, for example in code, or to indicated invented speech in works of fiction. But in prose, you are claiming someone said something. And in both cases you've done it no one did. If you've see someone else do what you're doing then they are wrong too.
Enough.
This isn't complicated. The link gives an appropriate format for everybody. webm is only useful to some. Hence the link is more useful.
The Flash comment was just wrong and irrelevant, as you may be getting webm and I'm getting H.264. Neither of us is getting flash. Although those for whom that is an acceptable format might be. Which again makes the link more useful.
An online backup tool - that they willingly installed - did the transfer.
No they didn't. It's built into the OS. It's asked about when first setting up the phone, but you can't blame people for following the recommended options. Most people are not geeks and don't know the implications of everything they do, and should be able to rely on the recommended options from a reputable company. Indeed, despite this news story backing up *IS* the best thing.
Indeed, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to say the victims failed to take sensible basic steps to protect themselves.
It's a nuanced thing. Doing so at the time of the news of the crime in 99% of cases comes across as blaming the victim, and most of those cases, intentionally so. It's no different from saying a rape victim shouldn't have worn a short skirt. And I would hope you wouldn't do that.
Insurance companies are no different from bookmakers. They accept bets. And via the insurance contract they get to set the rules by which the bets are settled. Their rules and morality are not at all in line.
That particular angle you described is bizarre though. If you'd left the lock at home, or had it in your backpack, you could remove the key and show them. Or you could simply buy another lock to get the keys. It sounds like it's simply a matter of trying to make it more of a pain in the ass to claim.
I suppose you don't mean to imply that the fact he was there because of his job makes any difference? Would you shift the blame in other circumstances?
Certainly not. It was simply a quick way of making the OP see that his point was ridiculous. No victim is ever to blame for the crime done to them.
I was beginning to think I was on my own with the this. Thanks for opening your mouth in the end!
You have a serious problem with logic - try telling your insurance that, yes, even though you left your car in a rough part of town, overnight, with the keys in the ignition and all the windows rolled down, that they have to pay up because "it's 100% the criminals fault".
I'd certainly expect to be paid out if it were parked in a "bad part of town". But the keys part is simply a part of the contract between you. You are still not in any way to blame for the crime you are a victim of.
Furthermore, your example shows how you have to move the goalposts. The celebrities did not leave their passwords somewhere.
But that's not the limits of what you previously said. You previously both said that victims were at fault, and you also sanctioned them for that fault by saying "you do not feel sorry for them", which is an indirect way of saying they deserved it.
You are conflating responsibility, blame and fault into one and single thing.
I'm afraid you're miscomprehending. In computer terms you're confusing the if statement with the contents of the optional block. Saying responsibility implies fault if you do the wrong thing is NOT saying responsibility = fault. I did not say they were a single thing.
Since for ever. If I chose coffee rather than tea, it's not a case of responsibility. I don't have to answer to anyone for it. There is no right or wrong.
For sure some choices do include responsibility. In this case the choice of the criminal to do the crime.
If you think LibreOffice is of higher quality than MS Office, then we certainly don't have the same definition of quality. And I don't even like MS Office that much.
Blame isnt this binary thing where only one person can have done something wrong.
Didn't say it was. I simply said that you can't go greater than 100% on blame. And the criminals already have 100%. There may be multiple criminals n which case multiple people get blame.
I havent done anything illegal or wrong, but Im going to get mugged and a small part of the fault lies with me for making bad choices.
So you're using a mighty strange definition of fault that doesn't include illegal or wrong. This misuse of language goes back to childhood, so can be difficult to shift.
So, you can live in a fantasy world and pretend that anything you do thats legal, you should be able to do.
No, I live in a world where if you don't do something illegal or immoral, then you are not at fault. I'd hate to live in your world if it works differently.
you dont seem to understand that 100% wrong, on the attackers part has nothing at all to do with sharing the blame. He is wrong to attack you 100% he had no right to do so. but that does not mean that you could not have avoided it by doing something slightly different than you chose to do.
Then I'm glad you've moved from your previous position of blaming the victim:
"If I walk to the bad part of town and that I know is the bad part of town and something bad happens to me yes, I am partially to blame"