The only way that I see that you could entirely eliminate the concept of "money" (aka currency) would be for everything that everyone wants to be available to everyone. This is the only way to eliminate the motivation to barter, and I just don't see how you possibly achieve that.
I think the poster's point is that whether there is formal currency or not, humans will always barter. Inevitably, this will result in some goods and services, based upon their supply and demand, becoming more valuable than others. This becomes de facto currency.
I'm not certain what the OP meant, but I believe that Google acquiring Twitter would be a huge step forward for G+. The biggest problem that G+ has is that, while lots of people may have accounts, no one actually uses their account. If I could integrate Twitter and post to my G+, I would do so in a heartbeat. You would suddenly be taking a great deal of content from Twitter and cross-publishing it onto G+ where others could comment on it, share it, etc.
I think that it could make G+ a real player in social media.
Wow, I wish I had mod points - this is an excellent point, and it's a primary reason that I don't use automatic bill pay. Hell, I didn't have direct deposit until my current job where I wasn't given any choice. The less companies with access to my bank account, the better.
This is the real point: if anyone actually believed that GoDaddy did a complete 180 over the course of about 24 hours, then all could be forgiven and forgotten. I don't know anyone that is buying that BS, though.
Obama endorses the claim that God is important to nation
Actually, whether your'e a believer or not, or religious or not, the the concept of a God is CRITICAL to our nation. This nation exists based upon the belief that we have inalienable rights that are endowed by a Creator. This is a long-established legal principle in the United States which recognizes that in a free society there must be an authority greater than government, otherwise anything that government says is legal, automatically becomes just, as well. If our rights come from government, then everything that government says is right - is right, and there is never a just cause for rebellion.
Only when you recognize that there is an authority greater than than government telling government essentially, "you may say that X is legal, but it's still wrong" can society truly be free. The alternative is, "well, that's wrong because I say it's wrong" or "that's wrong because we say it's wrong" - neither of which is a prescription for a free society for what should be obvious reasons.
Note that this model has worked quite well since the founding of the nation, in spite of the fact (or because of the fact) that the U.S. government makes no determinations about any specific religion. 80% of the conductors of the underground railroad were Catholics and Quakers - theologically completely different, but both informed by their religious beliefs that even though government said slavery was legal, it was still wrong and had to be fought. Every major moral victory over government has been won at the behest of believers in a Creator, not a single, solitary one was ever led by atheists or agnostics.
This has nothing to do with Citizens United - it is campaign finance laws that created this. These aren't corporations running these ads, these are shadow PACs created by the campaign to sling the mud that they don't have the guts to.
But, were they being run by his campaign or by a group supporting him? The reason I ask is that there's been tons of money in recent years for various swiftboating outfits to engage in that sort of behavior, they're beyond the control of the politicians campaign and can raise a lot of money independently.
If you believe that, you're a fool. Those groups are just as much a part of the campaign as the candidate. Sure, they jump through some hoops to avoid blatantly violating campaign finance laws forbidding coordination (at least at the federal level), but it is a well-known tactic to use third parties to say things that it would be unseemly for the candidate to say.
"We really need to get it out there that %opponent% beats his wife, but we obviously can't run an ad saying that."
"Well, I could always call %rich_friend% and have him start a PAC. We can't coordinate once it's formed, but he'll do the job and throw the bombs that need thrown."
Welcome to McCain/Feingold - the law that achieves the opposite of its intended purpose.
Right - there is not a security control available that doesn't have limitations. That's why we (should) employ defense in depth. The reality is that this device makes it harder for the bad guys to get your data, and that is the goal.
Agressive action toward another is a different story. We're talking about one person doing something that you deem threatening, not that is intentionally threatening. Guess what? There are people out there that are worse drivers when they're paying attention than I am when I'm talking on the phone - who gets banned then? This is you foisting your subjective ideas about safety on everyone else, not acting in self defense. Let's ban eating while driving, putting makeup on while driving, talking to passengers, having passengers, etc, etc, etc...the list is practically endless of things that a person does while driving that someone else might consider unsafe. I would bet money that you don't follow speed limits - almost no one does. Why not? Isn't willfully ignoring speed limits, by your definition, you swinging your fist at my face? Of course not. Your analogy is as stupid as these nanny state laws are.
And almost everywhere that has a ban on cell phone usage while driving - this would be legal. This goes to show the stupidity of banning cell phone usage while driving. Enact and enforce distracted driving laws and stop pointlessly singling out cell phone users.
The problem is that you have no 'right' to be on the road. You make a decision every time you get in your vehicle about risk. If you find driving to be too risky a proposition because others might be texting while driving - then don't drive. Stop going to the government asking them to force others to comply with your ideas about what it is or is not safe to do while driving just so you can feel better about getting in your car every morning.
I hope that more people identify the similarities between the Tea Party movement and the Occupy Wall Street movement. Both are capturing the frustration of the middle class that there appears to be no way for them to effect change on their government. The OWS crowd is choosing to direct their frustrations at a Wall Street that for far too long has reaped the benefit of politician's greed, and the Tea Party crowd chooses to direct their frustration at the government that is being purchased, but both are right.
While the OWS does tend to be more liberal in their proposed solutions (instituting a 'living wage', supporting public sector unions, opposing Citizens United) and the Tea Party tends to be more conservative (support for term limits, opposition to health care reform, etc), there is real value in the fact that everyone is recognizing that something really big is wrong - and now it's time to talk about how to fix it.
Do the Tea Party and OWS agree on the solutions? Probably not, but these two groups are the heart of America. This is the debate that we should be having. Instead, we have two parties pandering to the highest bidder. Stop letting the career politicians drive these groups apart. Instead, both should be rallying against the political class that rules them, convincing their fellow Americans that the system is broken, and coming together to discuss the solutions. We can be united in our cause and divided on the solution.
I don't think i've ever had to access the bios of a consumer level device remotely before, or even thought i'd be a wildly good idea...
You've obviously never worked in kiosks before - this would be endlessly useful for any company supporting a large number of kiosk computers. That being said, your point about possible vulnerabilities are well put. However, we can't let potential vulnerabilities get in the way of advancing technology. Just like I'm sure there will be some creative way for the bad guys to exploit this, I'm just as sure that there will be some equally creative way for the good guys to protect this.
I was wondering the same thing. It would be nice if there was another version of the video with labels or something that popped up and indicated what location was being flown over at the time.
I realize that asking people posting on Slashdot to RTFA is asking too much, but if half the people posting on this article understood basic English...well, there would be about half as many posts and LulzSec would look like the morons that they are.
The Pentagon does not classify hacking as an act of war. What they are doing is stating that hacking by a foreign power may constitute an act of war. There is a world of difference, and understanding that difference sheds some light on just how dumb LulzSec really is for their behavior. Here's hoping they get the jail time that they deserve for acting like spoiled teenagers.
However, *devices* is where I see the battle going on. But, ironically, iOS and Android have made more inroads into public awareness in a single year than Linux has in all its existence. Linux will have to watch out for Android, in a way. I think the sudden profusion of OS's is going to make Linux look like a non-starter in comparison. Different products I know, but the public don't know that. And so Linux will stay a specialised OS for servers and serious geeks only, with Apple and Google OS's taking over where Windows can't cut it.
Exactly. Disclosure of vulnerabilities can be just as irresponsible as non-disclosure. If a vulnerability is known in the field and the manufacturer refuses to remedy the problem after a prolonged period of time, public disclosure is in many cases the right thing to do. However, it is also the right thing to do to give a manufacturer a reasonable amount of time to remedy the problem prior to disclosure.
Too often, irresponsibility and immaturity are excused in the name of "openness" and "disclosure."
Slashdot Mirror
The only way that I see that you could entirely eliminate the concept of "money" (aka currency) would be for everything that everyone wants to be available to everyone. This is the only way to eliminate the motivation to barter, and I just don't see how you possibly achieve that.
I think the poster's point is that whether there is formal currency or not, humans will always barter. Inevitably, this will result in some goods and services, based upon their supply and demand, becoming more valuable than others. This becomes de facto currency.
I'm not certain what the OP meant, but I believe that Google acquiring Twitter would be a huge step forward for G+. The biggest problem that G+ has is that, while lots of people may have accounts, no one actually uses their account. If I could integrate Twitter and post to my G+, I would do so in a heartbeat. You would suddenly be taking a great deal of content from Twitter and cross-publishing it onto G+ where others could comment on it, share it, etc.
I think that it could make G+ a real player in social media.
I would definitely let Newegg know about this. This is potentially a very serious issue for their customers.
I've been here a long time, and I can't say that I ever remember conversations being rational - although they are occasionally coherent.
Wow, I wish I had mod points - this is an excellent point, and it's a primary reason that I don't use automatic bill pay. Hell, I didn't have direct deposit until my current job where I wasn't given any choice. The less companies with access to my bank account, the better.
This is the real point: if anyone actually believed that GoDaddy did a complete 180 over the course of about 24 hours, then all could be forgiven and forgotten. I don't know anyone that is buying that BS, though.
The only reasons that make it happen is: An IT department will save us money in the following ways: x, y, z.
This.
The reality is that unless you can have a positive effect on the bottom line, you're spinning your wheels.
And to think that I just used the last of my mod points - well played.
Obama endorses the claim that God is important to nation
Actually, whether your'e a believer or not, or religious or not, the the concept of a God is CRITICAL to our nation. This nation exists based upon the belief that we have inalienable rights that are endowed by a Creator. This is a long-established legal principle in the United States which recognizes that in a free society there must be an authority greater than government, otherwise anything that government says is legal, automatically becomes just, as well. If our rights come from government, then everything that government says is right - is right, and there is never a just cause for rebellion.
Only when you recognize that there is an authority greater than than government telling government essentially, "you may say that X is legal, but it's still wrong" can society truly be free. The alternative is, "well, that's wrong because I say it's wrong" or "that's wrong because we say it's wrong" - neither of which is a prescription for a free society for what should be obvious reasons.
Note that this model has worked quite well since the founding of the nation, in spite of the fact (or because of the fact) that the U.S. government makes no determinations about any specific religion. 80% of the conductors of the underground railroad were Catholics and Quakers - theologically completely different, but both informed by their religious beliefs that even though government said slavery was legal, it was still wrong and had to be fought. Every major moral victory over government has been won at the behest of believers in a Creator, not a single, solitary one was ever led by atheists or agnostics.
Wrong on both counts - Citizens United had nothing to do with independent expenditures by PACs.
This has nothing to do with Citizens United - it is campaign finance laws that created this. These aren't corporations running these ads, these are shadow PACs created by the campaign to sling the mud that they don't have the guts to.
But, were they being run by his campaign or by a group supporting him? The reason I ask is that there's been tons of money in recent years for various swiftboating outfits to engage in that sort of behavior, they're beyond the control of the politicians campaign and can raise a lot of money independently.
If you believe that, you're a fool. Those groups are just as much a part of the campaign as the candidate. Sure, they jump through some hoops to avoid blatantly violating campaign finance laws forbidding coordination (at least at the federal level), but it is a well-known tactic to use third parties to say things that it would be unseemly for the candidate to say.
"We really need to get it out there that %opponent% beats his wife, but we obviously can't run an ad saying that."
"Well, I could always call %rich_friend% and have him start a PAC. We can't coordinate once it's formed, but he'll do the job and throw the bombs that need thrown."
Welcome to McCain/Feingold - the law that achieves the opposite of its intended purpose.
Requiring physical access is likely to be the only real solution that cannot be compromised remotely.
And even then you would have some user that some hacker social engineered into giving them physical access.
Right - there is not a security control available that doesn't have limitations. That's why we (should) employ defense in depth. The reality is that this device makes it harder for the bad guys to get your data, and that is the goal.
Agressive action toward another is a different story. We're talking about one person doing something that you deem threatening, not that is intentionally threatening. Guess what? There are people out there that are worse drivers when they're paying attention than I am when I'm talking on the phone - who gets banned then? This is you foisting your subjective ideas about safety on everyone else, not acting in self defense. Let's ban eating while driving, putting makeup on while driving, talking to passengers, having passengers, etc, etc, etc...the list is practically endless of things that a person does while driving that someone else might consider unsafe. I would bet money that you don't follow speed limits - almost no one does. Why not? Isn't willfully ignoring speed limits, by your definition, you swinging your fist at my face? Of course not. Your analogy is as stupid as these nanny state laws are.
And almost everywhere that has a ban on cell phone usage while driving - this would be legal. This goes to show the stupidity of banning cell phone usage while driving. Enact and enforce distracted driving laws and stop pointlessly singling out cell phone users.
The problem is that you have no 'right' to be on the road. You make a decision every time you get in your vehicle about risk. If you find driving to be too risky a proposition because others might be texting while driving - then don't drive. Stop going to the government asking them to force others to comply with your ideas about what it is or is not safe to do while driving just so you can feel better about getting in your car every morning.
I hope that more people identify the similarities between the Tea Party movement and the Occupy Wall Street movement. Both are capturing the frustration of the middle class that there appears to be no way for them to effect change on their government. The OWS crowd is choosing to direct their frustrations at a Wall Street that for far too long has reaped the benefit of politician's greed, and the Tea Party crowd chooses to direct their frustration at the government that is being purchased, but both are right.
While the OWS does tend to be more liberal in their proposed solutions (instituting a 'living wage', supporting public sector unions, opposing Citizens United) and the Tea Party tends to be more conservative (support for term limits, opposition to health care reform, etc), there is real value in the fact that everyone is recognizing that something really big is wrong - and now it's time to talk about how to fix it.
Do the Tea Party and OWS agree on the solutions? Probably not, but these two groups are the heart of America. This is the debate that we should be having. Instead, we have two parties pandering to the highest bidder. Stop letting the career politicians drive these groups apart. Instead, both should be rallying against the political class that rules them, convincing their fellow Americans that the system is broken, and coming together to discuss the solutions. We can be united in our cause and divided on the solution.
And they probably paid ten times what they were worth, too...
I don't think i've ever had to access the bios of a consumer level device remotely before, or even thought i'd be a wildly good idea...
You've obviously never worked in kiosks before - this would be endlessly useful for any company supporting a large number of kiosk computers. That being said, your point about possible vulnerabilities are well put. However, we can't let potential vulnerabilities get in the way of advancing technology. Just like I'm sure there will be some creative way for the bad guys to exploit this, I'm just as sure that there will be some equally creative way for the good guys to protect this.
I was wondering the same thing. It would be nice if there was another version of the video with labels or something that popped up and indicated what location was being flown over at the time.
I realize that asking people posting on Slashdot to RTFA is asking too much, but if half the people posting on this article understood basic English...well, there would be about half as many posts and LulzSec would look like the morons that they are.
The Pentagon does not classify hacking as an act of war. What they are doing is stating that hacking by a foreign power may constitute an act of war. There is a world of difference, and understanding that difference sheds some light on just how dumb LulzSec really is for their behavior. Here's hoping they get the jail time that they deserve for acting like spoiled teenagers.
However, *devices* is where I see the battle going on. But, ironically, iOS and Android have made more inroads into public awareness in a single year than Linux has in all its existence. Linux will have to watch out for Android, in a way. I think the sudden profusion of OS's is going to make Linux look like a non-starter in comparison. Different products I know, but the public don't know that. And so Linux will stay a specialised OS for servers and serious geeks only, with Apple and Google OS's taking over where Windows can't cut it.
You realize that Android == Linux, right?
http://developer.android.com/guide/basics/what-is-android.html
Exactly. Disclosure of vulnerabilities can be just as irresponsible as non-disclosure. If a vulnerability is known in the field and the manufacturer refuses to remedy the problem after a prolonged period of time, public disclosure is in many cases the right thing to do. However, it is also the right thing to do to give a manufacturer a reasonable amount of time to remedy the problem prior to disclosure.
Too often, irresponsibility and immaturity are excused in the name of "openness" and "disclosure."