If I could find a phone that had true security in mind (where updates come quickly) and a permissions model that would allow me, the user, to actually set the what permissions an app has versus it wanting to access every damn thing on my phone, I would buy it in a heart beat.
No, it is not "suppose" to. I has some granted powers but this goes above and beyond the very vagueness of the statement. Just because they can doesn't mean they should. There is no harm being done here. It is a state negotiating with a business to do business in that state.
And where is the justification other than you feel is it OK to "screw the business" because they are shopping around. Let me guess, when you go to buy something substantial like a car or a house, you just take the first offer as-is and don't compare shop. If you do, then you are a fool and if you don't, then why don't business's have the same right?
But there is nothing illegal about the movement...PERIOD so why do the Feds need to be involved. If a state/local governments want the business, then let them make the deal if it makes sense to them. It doesn't matter if it is a farmer that wants to sell a single bushel or a billion dollar company.....size of the transaction does not matter.
That is to regulate the commerce, that has nothing to do with telling state/local entities how it wishes to tax such item. The Commerce Clause has been so abused through the years it it has become the catch-all for the Federal government to get it's fingers into areas where they should not be involved.
Then I would suggest you only buy your food from stores that get their supply from suppliers that support this mechanism. See, that way, you are coercing the supply to go the direction you want...kinda like voting with your pocket books. That is the nice thing about the blockchain technology: everything is out there.
As a side note, you might be surprised as to just how many actually try to do the right thing.
Well, first, since both the Thales and Futurex manuals I have refer to their own products as "host security modules", I still stand by my first statement. Second, if you actually look at the internal setup, you will notice that any attempt to breach the area where the master key is stored, the electronics are damaged to where the keys are permanently unrecoverable.
Actually, I would bet a true HSM (host security module) would not get hacked for the main reason that it must have physical security surrounding the key storage so if there is a physical breach, the keys are destroyed.
You do realize that Linux is just the kernel right? Windows includes a kernel plus a whole lot more like a GUI and userspace. Sheesh people think about it. The closest there is in the free software world would be the BSDs where they include not only the kernel but the userspace....minus the GUI. So now imagine taking the Linux kernel, all the bintools, X and a single desktop (Gnome or KDE) and placing all of that into a single repo.
How your comment currently sits a a number 3 considering you have very little truthful information in your statement if quite interesting. First, the "speed" has nothing to do with the US regulations. The initial speed has everything to do with the conversation that happens between the card and the terminal (ATM and POS). This is what unlocks the card to allow the transaction selection process to continue. In Europe, the PIN of the card is entered to actually unlock the card, in the US, the card is just "unlocked" automatically. Now, please don't confuse the PIN of the card with the PIN of the transaction: they are two very different security items. Second, this network balance traffic is not true. There is typically a single message that is sent out from the terminal that has all of the needed information. If the transaction is authorized, that is when the account balance (which is NOT a network or EMV requirement) is sent down to the card. Third, there is no bank that I am aware of that actually allows for offline transactions. There could be some arrangements between particular banks and merchants, but it is not a generally accepted practice within the industry. Banks love to avoid risk whenever possible.
So to link against the DLL you need a header file...correct? How do you get the latest header definition from one repo to another? Yes, it is easy enough to build against an older version of the DLL but that is not the goal of the exercise here. Sorry, there is no easy way to accomplish just what I want which is a valid desire to make a single change to a component and expect it to ripple through the whole build system _WITHOUT_ human interaction other than the check-in process of the one single file.
Sometimes it just isn't all that simple. As an example, we have one product that comprises several Windows services as well as an ASP.Net front-end. Each of those services have a multitude of DLL that are run-time configurable. As it is, we make an extended effort to share as much code as possible which would cause issues if we were to breakup the repo into several smaller repos. So, if we had several smaller repos, and there is a fix/enhancement to one of the shared/reused components, then you are prone to human error in making sure the changes span all of the repos where if everything is in one repo then the change is picked up automatically.
What I am getting at is there are many instances where having one large repo makes perfect sense to not only allow easy tracking of fixes across my builds but also allows the maintaining of the history in a single place.
High labor force participation rates indicate a poor society in which people are desperate for income.,
Did you really intend to say that? Seriously. A high labor force participation rate indicates that people are not only active in the economy which is very good thing, and it also means people are actively taking care of themselves and not relying on others.
The thing about labor force participation rate is it includes discouraged workers and workers who otherwise want or would like but can't get jobs. Everyone who isn't in the labor force doesn't want to be there and won't magically take up a job if you hand them one--which means they're also not welfare recipients, since welfare goes to unemployed labor force.
I don't even know where to begin with this statement. Labor force participation should include ALL workers...period. Just because you are "discouraged" doesn't mean you shouldn't work. Sorry, if you can work, you should work...PERIOD. For most of us, sure we would love to stay home and not work, but that doesn't mean I have the right to not and force others to pay for my discouragement.
Then he did a job well done. Think about it: he was paid to develop something that never hit the light day which translates to not having to support customers.
So what resources are the "poor" denied that the "rich" have access to? I sure hope you aren't talking about tax breaks because if the "poor" had money, they sure could make use of them.
So you are talking about not allowing a tax return for people that are actually footing the bill for the government...WOW....that is some interesting logic.
Where do you get this "criminalization" of the poor from exactly? Nobody is being prosecuted and thrown in jail for being poor. People are just saying that if you are getting something for free (money in this case) that it won't be used to encourage illegal behavior.
Slashdot Mirror
If I could find a phone that had true security in mind (where updates come quickly) and a permissions model that would allow me, the user, to actually set the what permissions an app has versus it wanting to access every damn thing on my phone, I would buy it in a heart beat.
No, it is not "suppose" to. I has some granted powers but this goes above and beyond the very vagueness of the statement. Just because they can doesn't mean they should. There is no harm being done here. It is a state negotiating with a business to do business in that state.
And where is the justification other than you feel is it OK to "screw the business" because they are shopping around. Let me guess, when you go to buy something substantial like a car or a house, you just take the first offer as-is and don't compare shop. If you do, then you are a fool and if you don't, then why don't business's have the same right?
But there is nothing illegal about the movement...PERIOD so why do the Feds need to be involved. If a state/local governments want the business, then let them make the deal if it makes sense to them. It doesn't matter if it is a farmer that wants to sell a single bushel or a billion dollar company.....size of the transaction does not matter.
That is to regulate the commerce, that has nothing to do with telling state/local entities how it wishes to tax such item. The Commerce Clause has been so abused through the years it it has become the catch-all for the Federal government to get it's fingers into areas where they should not be involved.
Then I would suggest you only buy your food from stores that get their supply from suppliers that support this mechanism. See, that way, you are coercing the supply to go the direction you want...kinda like voting with your pocket books. That is the nice thing about the blockchain technology: everything is out there.
As a side note, you might be surprised as to just how many actually try to do the right thing.
Well, first, since both the Thales and Futurex manuals I have refer to their own products as "host security modules", I still stand by my first statement. Second, if you actually look at the internal setup, you will notice that any attempt to breach the area where the master key is stored, the electronics are damaged to where the keys are permanently unrecoverable.
Actually, I would bet a true HSM (host security module) would not get hacked for the main reason that it must have physical security surrounding the key storage so if there is a physical breach, the keys are destroyed.
Oh GAWD....the thought of COBOL code coming from India makes me crawl back into bed!
You do realize that Linux is just the kernel right? Windows includes a kernel plus a whole lot more like a GUI and userspace. Sheesh people think about it. The closest there is in the free software world would be the BSDs where they include not only the kernel but the userspace....minus the GUI. So now imagine taking the Linux kernel, all the bintools, X and a single desktop (Gnome or KDE) and placing all of that into a single repo.
Well of course it is "planet-scale" because they were able to fully future-proof the design.
How your comment currently sits a a number 3 considering you have very little truthful information in your statement if quite interesting.
First, the "speed" has nothing to do with the US regulations. The initial speed has everything to do with the conversation that happens between the card and the terminal (ATM and POS). This is what unlocks the card to allow the transaction selection process to continue. In Europe, the PIN of the card is entered to actually unlock the card, in the US, the card is just "unlocked" automatically. Now, please don't confuse the PIN of the card with the PIN of the transaction: they are two very different security items.
Second, this network balance traffic is not true. There is typically a single message that is sent out from the terminal that has all of the needed information. If the transaction is authorized, that is when the account balance (which is NOT a network or EMV requirement) is sent down to the card.
Third, there is no bank that I am aware of that actually allows for offline transactions. There could be some arrangements between particular banks and merchants, but it is not a generally accepted practice within the industry. Banks love to avoid risk whenever possible.
You can think the IRS for that kind of crap. The company will get taxed on the value of the spare parts in inventory at the end of the year.
I can't believe you have not been modded up as "Freaking Hilarious".
Please tell me you are kidding me on this? I haven't touched PHP so this is all new to me...if it is true.
So to link against the DLL you need a header file...correct? How do you get the latest header definition from one repo to another? Yes, it is easy enough to build against an older version of the DLL but that is not the goal of the exercise here. Sorry, there is no easy way to accomplish just what I want which is a valid desire to make a single change to a component and expect it to ripple through the whole build system _WITHOUT_ human interaction other than the check-in process of the one single file.
Sometimes it just isn't all that simple. As an example, we have one product that comprises several Windows services as well as an ASP.Net front-end. Each of those services have a multitude of DLL that are run-time configurable. As it is, we make an extended effort to share as much code as possible which would cause issues if we were to breakup the repo into several smaller repos. So, if we had several smaller repos, and there is a fix/enhancement to one of the shared/reused components, then you are prone to human error in making sure the changes span all of the repos where if everything is in one repo then the change is picked up automatically.
What I am getting at is there are many instances where having one large repo makes perfect sense to not only allow easy tracking of fixes across my builds but also allows the maintaining of the history in a single place.
Obligatory quote from one of the greatest movies of all time!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
High labor force participation rates indicate a poor society in which people are desperate for income.,
Did you really intend to say that? Seriously. A high labor force participation rate indicates that people are not only active in the economy which is very good thing, and it also means people are actively taking care of themselves and not relying on others.
The thing about labor force participation rate is it includes discouraged workers and workers who otherwise want or would like but can't get jobs. Everyone who isn't in the labor force doesn't want to be there and won't magically take up a job if you hand them one--which means they're also not welfare recipients, since welfare goes to unemployed labor force.
I don't even know where to begin with this statement. Labor force participation should include ALL workers...period. Just because you are "discouraged" doesn't mean you shouldn't work. Sorry, if you can work, you should work...PERIOD. For most of us, sure we would love to stay home and not work, but that doesn't mean I have the right to not and force others to pay for my discouragement.
Then he did a job well done. Think about it: he was paid to develop something that never hit the light day which translates to not having to support customers.
And the other half will be too happy to care that they aren't online.
So what resources are the "poor" denied that the "rich" have access to? I sure hope you aren't talking about tax breaks because if the "poor" had money, they sure could make use of them.
So you are talking about not allowing a tax return for people that are actually footing the bill for the government...WOW....that is some interesting logic.
Where do you get this "criminalization" of the poor from exactly? Nobody is being prosecuted and thrown in jail for being poor. People are just saying that if you are getting something for free (money in this case) that it won't be used to encourage illegal behavior.
So let me get this straight....you want to drug test the people who are actually providing the money?
Seriously, this class envy has to stop.