NO! NO NO! My biggest risk is websites which I don't care about trying to force me to use a very secure password. I use a word like "password" for example to access the Boston Globe online because a) I don't have anything to secure there, b) I don't care if someone learns my password and reads the Boston Globe, and most important c) I don't want an employee in Boston to have access to one of my more secure passwords. Unfortunately, sites like this force me to use "strong password rules" and then when I go back to it, when I have to guess my password, I may enter in an actual secure password which I actually use on an important secure site.
It seems like they can only lose if there is a big spike in claims, such as a natural disaster or possibly war/terrorism. And in those events, when a big spike in claims occurs, doesn't the government insure the insurance company with disaster relief?
The smaller "pinprick" losses are from individual fraud claims. You'd have to sign an insurance contract that gives Google investigation rights (just as you do a conventional insurance company) and what Google could do with those rights during a claim investigation could be a major advantage. And since I am not committing fraud, I would benefit from buying a policy from a company that is not the choice of fraudsters.
1) Chris Doohan is spooky (son of James Doohan, reprising his father as "Scotty")
2) Has a holodeck like ST Next Generation, but says "Where no MAN has gone before" in opening credits
Aside from that, it wasn't horrible, in fact they capture the 60's style so well that it's like a really good Vegas tribute act, an Elvis-Karaoke worth paying a compliment to.
Well, I don't know who to root for. I completely distrust the medical/cosmetic industry when it comes to selling solutions, especially for cosmetic issues (and this may be mostly health now, but don't kid yourself where it will be funded). On the other hand, the trolls who say it's all will power and fat is purely moral don't have much science behind them, and appear more motivated by "just world fallacy" reasoning (if a person is ill, and it isn't me, they more likely somehow deserve it). Both cost us money, over-prescription, and people who try to "believe-away" real health problems with high society costs.
As for the people who smugly think it's justice for affluent societies like USA, look at how obesity rates rise in nations which go from very poor to moderately poor. Africans, Asians, Latinos, and Europeans are not immune to unintended consequences. News Flash: As the threats of starvation subside, threats of overconsumption increase.
In fact this is exactly what should and does happen. All the phone switching gear upgraded in the USA in the 70s and 80s set up Latin America, and Africa used 90s cell phone towers (and used phones). According to Digitimes in 2006, most of the display devices sold worldwide (in units, not in dollars) were "remanufactured" CRTs purchased from EU, Japan and USA and rebuilt with analog-to-digital converter boards. And most American teenagers learn to drive in a used car. Three billion people earning $3,000 per year were the "rapidly emerging markets" of the past two decades, and they make the "secondary market" for used tech worth several billion dollars per year. What's the mystery?
"The problem the press is occupied with today will never be cured if my problem [fair economics] isn't resolved" is the takeaway.
I'm a bit perplexed by the Summary. Certainly the problem (corruption) is indeed really messing with African fair economies, and certainly economic growth supports hospitals and health care, etc. Correlation, check.
But Ebola outbreaks have happened before, it usually subsides, and - not to minimize how horrible an urban outbreak would be - the western press's obsession with 8,483 deaths in 12 months is what it is. Trying to attract the press attention to YOUR cause by "baiting the hook with today's headline" is an old trick. Will Ebola ever be cured if Global Warming / Boka Haram / Pollution / US Agricultural Subsidies / [Insert something} continues? Discuss!
The rest of the article is fine. But I trade with Africa and China and Latin America, and can tell you... recovery from corruption can be amazingly fast when the corruption's stopped. What Deng Tsao Ping demonstrated in Guandong Province is that if Government interference stops, just for a few years, economies erupt like fireworks. Whatever flus or colds or dysentary epidemics were going on in Guangdong were replaced by pollution, and that's part of development.
What I'm more concerned about and don't know the answer to are the Smart Phone apps which may check for their own "updates" while I'm on a sinister wifi hotspot. Will a "Bank of App" program open an auto update query in the background, and disclose any details I don't intend it to? I never "save passwords" and rarely enter them in unknown wireless environments.
The Swedish guy probably did a public service, but the alarms seem aimed at people who don't know the risks. "Never use wifi, and never read CNN online" hyperbole just fatigues people and causes people to treat it as an acceptable risk rather than something they can cope with through caution. The "what if its a fake CNN site" question is a totally separate problem which could occur on a verified hotspot, or wired account... And so what if it's a fake CNN site? They get my lowest concern throwaway password, as I have no money at CNN. I too always am careful which sites I go to on public wifi hotspots.
That's the key question. 3D television and movies does not appear to be more than a gimmick, and if this is based on the same queasy and uncomfortable technology, no thanks.
Because of the Pareto Principle, and risk of data pollution. More is not always better. If it works on the altercations, you can always expand the recording later, but recording all boring day all the time will not make us safer IMHO
I like the idea of recording use of weapons. They should add a small camera to the barrel of every gun. It eases the overwhelming "cameras on officers at all times" - which has raised both privacy and data pollution questions, and also the concern that cameras NOT on at all times will lead to officers selectively editing their interations. A camera on every taser and every gun barrel would allow us to "ease into" the monitoring business.
Gee, however would a leaderless, anonymous, unorganized chatroom ever "lose its way"? And how would it find its way "back to its roots?" I imagine Anonymous kind of like a Slashdot commentary completely responded to by Anonymous Cowards... How would we possibly keep the bullfrogs all in the wheelbarrow?
"As Willie Sutton once famously stated when asked why he robbed banks..."because that's where the money is"."...AND?
AND the people who listened to famous Willie Sutton put their money under their mattresses? Was the money in the mattress more secure than the bank? Were they robbed by locals and it was never reported in the "study"? Is locally stored data more secure than the Cloud? Willie Sutton is a great spokesperson for PRNewswire.com promotion of their cloud security.. "AND?"
Read the Summary, followed the links, ran the numbers. The firm that posted the PRNewswire.com press release obviously offered the Slashdot summary, and there is no solid data or info except "BE AFRAID! (And by the way, we are in the be-less-afraid-,-security-business). Perhaps there's plenty of discussion to be had on the premise, but the premise arrived via BINSPAM.
Nor is it illegal for a police officer not to read someone their Miranda rights. It simply makes it harder to build and try a successful case.
While I may not like it, arguably if they listen to everyone, but only go after the two caveats (danger to public safety, fugitive), that listening in on everyone else is "no harm no foul".
I think many are missing the distinction between whether something is "admissable in court" (warrantless seach) vs. whether it's illegal to do the search. My understanding is that detectives can, and do, conduct warrantless searches, but know it may not be admissible in court, and could even vacate other evidence (fruit of the poisonous tree). But does any enforcement agency try to stop or arrest agents making illegal searches? I don't think so. That is what makes it a legislative inquiry - a law would have to be passed making the eavesdropping a crime, not just useless to prosecutors.
... to explore in the future, when we have paid our bills. Unless NASA can invent a time machine, Outer Space will still be there when we have the budget under control.
I don't LIKE saying this. But I tell my kids, space was great, their great grandparents invested in space exploration, but they shouldn't expect space travel anytime soon because the bills are too high. We may not like that we have to pay bills for wars and entitlements, and should be concerned about the exponential growth of "end-of-life-care" expenses, and teacher pay and national security etc etc... in a future tense context. But even if an investment pays off in the future, we have to pay our bills today based on the decisions made by people we voted for a decade ago. You can't refuse to pay your water bill because you have a chance to buy stock in an IPO. Protesting that "space exploration" is a good investment makes sense only when we can pay the past due bills.
There are so many different types of lies, and so many different liars, I need some kind of control group to have confidence they don't just catch the ones who wet their pants (the 55% test). The worst ones I encounter are so goddam sure of themselves within minutes that I believe they could pass any garment.
He gives links to other people's cited examples, states that iOS is still better than Windows or Linux. I think his post is quite fair, or at least more fair than "tons of bugs" would suggest he is being. His thesis is that an "annual" new release is unnecessary and follows a marketing logic rather than an internally software-driven update, and suggests that if that is true, that it would explain the increase of complaints he links to.
Of all places,/. should realize how incredible the progress has been. I use a smartphone universal translator, and while I could still make a lot of jokes about it, the progress it has made in 3 years is downright scary. My 3 kids speak 3 languages, and I'm worried they are buggy-whips.
Political (kingdom, state, etc) language always succumbs to Linga Franca - the language of money. I lived 3 years in a country with 250-450 languages (depending on definitions of dialects) but everyone had a second "market language". Arabic, Fulbe, English, French, in my example. The second language determines the next generation's language, and the linga franca - money language - usually dictates the second language.
The fact that technology improves our ability to bitch about working from home and complaining about technology does not negate the fact that the answer is yes, rapid communication increases wealth and productivity. Secretaries taking notes by shorthand and being trained on electric typewriters was less productive. It's as obvious as the phone call replacing telegrams, and radio replacing the Towne Crier. The hope is savings, if labor saves and invests its money (especially in the stocks of companies benfitting from the progress) labor can survive and even come out ahead. If ou dad and mom blew their savings however, we have far more competition than they did to achieve the same asset base. We compete not just with technology, but with billions of other people in wired emerging markets.
Slashdot Mirror
NO! NO NO! My biggest risk is websites which I don't care about trying to force me to use a very secure password. I use a word like "password" for example to access the Boston Globe online because a) I don't have anything to secure there, b) I don't care if someone learns my password and reads the Boston Globe, and most important c) I don't want an employee in Boston to have access to one of my more secure passwords. Unfortunately, sites like this force me to use "strong password rules" and then when I go back to it, when I have to guess my password, I may enter in an actual secure password which I actually use on an important secure site.
It seems like they can only lose if there is a big spike in claims, such as a natural disaster or possibly war/terrorism. And in those events, when a big spike in claims occurs, doesn't the government insure the insurance company with disaster relief?
The smaller "pinprick" losses are from individual fraud claims. You'd have to sign an insurance contract that gives Google investigation rights (just as you do a conventional insurance company) and what Google could do with those rights during a claim investigation could be a major advantage. And since I am not committing fraud, I would benefit from buying a policy from a company that is not the choice of fraudsters.
I watched until 5:50. 2 Most important things:
1) Chris Doohan is spooky (son of James Doohan, reprising his father as "Scotty")
2) Has a holodeck like ST Next Generation, but says "Where no MAN has gone before" in opening credits
Aside from that, it wasn't horrible, in fact they capture the 60's style so well that it's like a really good Vegas tribute act, an Elvis-Karaoke worth paying a compliment to.
Well, I don't know who to root for. I completely distrust the medical/cosmetic industry when it comes to selling solutions, especially for cosmetic issues (and this may be mostly health now, but don't kid yourself where it will be funded). On the other hand, the trolls who say it's all will power and fat is purely moral don't have much science behind them, and appear more motivated by "just world fallacy" reasoning (if a person is ill, and it isn't me, they more likely somehow deserve it). Both cost us money, over-prescription, and people who try to "believe-away" real health problems with high society costs.
As for the people who smugly think it's justice for affluent societies like USA, look at how obesity rates rise in nations which go from very poor to moderately poor. Africans, Asians, Latinos, and Europeans are not immune to unintended consequences. News Flash: As the threats of starvation subside, threats of overconsumption increase.
In fact this is exactly what should and does happen. All the phone switching gear upgraded in the USA in the 70s and 80s set up Latin America, and Africa used 90s cell phone towers (and used phones). According to Digitimes in 2006, most of the display devices sold worldwide (in units, not in dollars) were "remanufactured" CRTs purchased from EU, Japan and USA and rebuilt with analog-to-digital converter boards. And most American teenagers learn to drive in a used car. Three billion people earning $3,000 per year were the "rapidly emerging markets" of the past two decades, and they make the "secondary market" for used tech worth several billion dollars per year. What's the mystery?
How big a market is this "defensive" drone problem? Seems more likely the market is bullies chasing down innocent drones
"The problem the press is occupied with today will never be cured if my problem [fair economics] isn't resolved" is the takeaway.
I'm a bit perplexed by the Summary. Certainly the problem (corruption) is indeed really messing with African fair economies, and certainly economic growth supports hospitals and health care, etc. Correlation, check.
But Ebola outbreaks have happened before, it usually subsides, and - not to minimize how horrible an urban outbreak would be - the western press's obsession with 8,483 deaths in 12 months is what it is. Trying to attract the press attention to YOUR cause by "baiting the hook with today's headline" is an old trick. Will Ebola ever be cured if Global Warming / Boka Haram / Pollution / US Agricultural Subsidies / [Insert something} continues? Discuss!
The rest of the article is fine. But I trade with Africa and China and Latin America, and can tell you... recovery from corruption can be amazingly fast when the corruption's stopped. What Deng Tsao Ping demonstrated in Guandong Province is that if Government interference stops, just for a few years, economies erupt like fireworks. Whatever flus or colds or dysentary epidemics were going on in Guangdong were replaced by pollution, and that's part of development.
Agree with this AC.
What I'm more concerned about and don't know the answer to are the Smart Phone apps which may check for their own "updates" while I'm on a sinister wifi hotspot. Will a "Bank of App" program open an auto update query in the background, and disclose any details I don't intend it to? I never "save passwords" and rarely enter them in unknown wireless environments.
The Swedish guy probably did a public service, but the alarms seem aimed at people who don't know the risks. "Never use wifi, and never read CNN online" hyperbole just fatigues people and causes people to treat it as an acceptable risk rather than something they can cope with through caution. The "what if its a fake CNN site" question is a totally separate problem which could occur on a verified hotspot, or wired account... And so what if it's a fake CNN site? They get my lowest concern throwaway password, as I have no money at CNN. I too always am careful which sites I go to on public wifi hotspots.
She never forgets anything I say. ever.
That's the key question. 3D television and movies does not appear to be more than a gimmick, and if this is based on the same queasy and uncomfortable technology, no thanks.
Can't read the article
Because of the Pareto Principle, and risk of data pollution. More is not always better. If it works on the altercations, you can always expand the recording later, but recording all boring day all the time will not make us safer IMHO
I like the idea of recording use of weapons. They should add a small camera to the barrel of every gun. It eases the overwhelming "cameras on officers at all times" - which has raised both privacy and data pollution questions, and also the concern that cameras NOT on at all times will lead to officers selectively editing their interations. A camera on every taser and every gun barrel would allow us to "ease into" the monitoring business.
Gee, however would a leaderless, anonymous, unorganized chatroom ever "lose its way"? And how would it find its way "back to its roots?" I imagine Anonymous kind of like a Slashdot commentary completely responded to by Anonymous Cowards... How would we possibly keep the bullfrogs all in the wheelbarrow?
"As Willie Sutton once famously stated when asked why he robbed banks..."because that's where the money is"." ...AND?
AND the people who listened to famous Willie Sutton put their money under their mattresses? Was the money in the mattress more secure than the bank? Were they robbed by locals and it was never reported in the "study"? Is locally stored data more secure than the Cloud? Willie Sutton is a great spokesperson for PRNewswire.com promotion of their cloud security.. "AND?"
Read the Summary, followed the links, ran the numbers. The firm that posted the PRNewswire.com press release obviously offered the Slashdot summary, and there is no solid data or info except "BE AFRAID! (And by the way, we are in the be-less-afraid-,-security-business). Perhaps there's plenty of discussion to be had on the premise, but the premise arrived via BINSPAM.
Nor is it illegal for a police officer not to read someone their Miranda rights. It simply makes it harder to build and try a successful case.
While I may not like it, arguably if they listen to everyone, but only go after the two caveats (danger to public safety, fugitive), that listening in on everyone else is "no harm no foul".
I think many are missing the distinction between whether something is "admissable in court" (warrantless seach) vs. whether it's illegal to do the search. My understanding is that detectives can, and do, conduct warrantless searches, but know it may not be admissible in court, and could even vacate other evidence (fruit of the poisonous tree). But does any enforcement agency try to stop or arrest agents making illegal searches? I don't think so. That is what makes it a legislative inquiry - a law would have to be passed making the eavesdropping a crime, not just useless to prosecutors.
... to explore in the future, when we have paid our bills. Unless NASA can invent a time machine, Outer Space will still be there when we have the budget under control.
I don't LIKE saying this. But I tell my kids, space was great, their great grandparents invested in space exploration, but they shouldn't expect space travel anytime soon because the bills are too high. We may not like that we have to pay bills for wars and entitlements, and should be concerned about the exponential growth of "end-of-life-care" expenses, and teacher pay and national security etc etc... in a future tense context. But even if an investment pays off in the future, we have to pay our bills today based on the decisions made by people we voted for a decade ago. You can't refuse to pay your water bill because you have a chance to buy stock in an IPO. Protesting that "space exploration" is a good investment makes sense only when we can pay the past due bills.
There are so many different types of lies, and so many different liars, I need some kind of control group to have confidence they don't just catch the ones who wet their pants (the 55% test). The worst ones I encounter are so goddam sure of themselves within minutes that I believe they could pass any garment.
He gives links to other people's cited examples, states that iOS is still better than Windows or Linux. I think his post is quite fair, or at least more fair than "tons of bugs" would suggest he is being. His thesis is that an "annual" new release is unnecessary and follows a marketing logic rather than an internally software-driven update, and suggests that if that is true, that it would explain the increase of complaints he links to.
The article is about how the flashing acts as a defense mechanism against predatory shrimp.
Ah. Ah. Ah. Ha. Staying aliiiiiive!
Thanks, since I havea limited numberof free new york times articles,I don't want to waste one on a blog that isn't about news for nerds.
Of all places, /. should realize how incredible the progress has been. I use a smartphone universal translator, and while I could still make a lot of jokes about it, the progress it has made in 3 years is downright scary. My 3 kids speak 3 languages, and I'm worried they are buggy-whips.
Political (kingdom, state, etc) language always succumbs to Linga Franca - the language of money. I lived 3 years in a country with 250-450 languages (depending on definitions of dialects) but everyone had a second "market language". Arabic, Fulbe, English, French, in my example. The second language determines the next generation's language, and the linga franca - money language - usually dictates the second language.
The fact that technology improves our ability to bitch about working from home and complaining about technology does not negate the fact that the answer is yes, rapid communication increases wealth and productivity. Secretaries taking notes by shorthand and being trained on electric typewriters was less productive. It's as obvious as the phone call replacing telegrams, and radio replacing the Towne Crier. The hope is savings, if labor saves and invests its money (especially in the stocks of companies benfitting from the progress) labor can survive and even come out ahead. If ou dad and mom blew their savings however, we have far more competition than they did to achieve the same asset base. We compete not just with technology, but with billions of other people in wired emerging markets.