I spent over seven years working for one of the majors. I took calls, made call-backs and answered email, although the last was fairly rare. Part of our policy was making sure that callers knew both that it was safe to tell your password to the tech that you called, but not to somebody that calls you. This means that when making a callback we generally couldn't ask for passwords, but that wasn't a problem. Callbacks were made if a tech couldn't solve the member's issues and needed help and if asking for a password would have done the job, there'd be no reason for a callback.
Let's say you call and claim you're having trouble downloading your email and your box is full. You say you want all the email in your box deleted. Now, as the tech you're talking to can't actually see your password, how do you expect them to do this without your password? (Knowing the password can also be considered proof that you have the right to ask for this.) I can guarentee that no ISP is going to give their techs the use of software that could do this without the user's password, because that's too easy to abuse. Also, if somebody wants to cancel their account, there's no easier way to ID them than the password and, if the cancelation takes place right then, no reason not to give it. However, a good tech won't ever ask for the password unless there's a reason to need it and I'll agree that most issues don't need it.
I think that's a really bad policy because it trains the users to give out their password to someone they think is the ISP...
You just don't get it, do you? The customer calls their ISP for tech support. As part of this support, they need to have email removed from their box, their username changed or something like that. How can they not know who they're talking to when they placed the call? And I can assure you with over seven years exerience in this that people calling because they forgot their password and need it reset are not the most common reason for people to ID themselves. People wanting to change their billing method, delete email from the server, change their username or otherwise make changes to the account are far more common. And, without exception, they are the ones that initiate the call. There is no way that some phisher is going to hijack the ISP's (800) number and collect passwords.
Please do everyone a favor and tell us the name of the ISP so we can avoid doing business with this company.
Only if you'll tell me the name of the company you work for so I can avoid doing business with it.
Passwords for ID are fairly standard at ISPs as far as I can tell. Much safer than a mother's maiden name, as your brother or sister can't fake their way into your account. Yes, there are other safe ways such as credit card numbers and we used them too. Alas, there were times, such as when a member paid by check, that there was nothing else we could use. The important distinction is that when I asked for a password the callers knew they were talking to their ISP because they had called us. We never called or emailed and asked for a password.
I tell my users never to give their password to anyone *including* me
At the ISP I worked for, customer's passwords were considered a form of ID. We couln't actually see the passwords, but we had a program that would tell us if what we'd typed in matched or not. When people were concerned, I told them, "Don't worry, I've lots of practice in forgetting passwords." A few let me know they'd change them after the call to be safe but most trusted me. The *only* time I would ask for one is when I was on the phone with a customer and then only if I needed it either as ID, or to help with a password error issue; I never asked for one to be emailed. Not only was it good sense, it was company policy.
set up a fake website at http://123.456.789.0/gf.php[1] that mimics their logon screen.
This IP range is controlled by Freedonia, and President Rufus T. Firefly has let it be known that hijacking their limited IP addresses would be a causus belli. Prepare for war!
I did tech support for an ISP until my call center was closed. We used to tell people that we'd never send them an email asking for login or credit card info, and that any message doing so was bogus. Of course, this lead to the occasional luser that wouldn't tell us their password when we needed to ID them because they couldn't see the difference between somebody sending them an email asking for their password and them calling us and our needing to ID them before changing something on their account. Most of the time, just pointing out that they'd called us, so they know who they're talking to rather than an email that they don't know who sent did the trick, but there's always a few people that refused. I never minded because not doing something is much less work and I could go on to the next call faster.
I'm thinking that all you can tell from this is what particles went into the black hole, and nothing else. That is, you can't tell what atoms they came from or anything about larger structure. Of course, said structure would have been ripped apart by the time the particles were engulfed anyway so that makes sense. Still it's rather interesting that you may be able to find that much out, even though the "information" seems to be useless.
Well, duh, if you'd checked, you'd see it was a collaberation between Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. If you're going to make a reference, at least get it right.
Back in the 1930's, the airship Hindenburg went down to (I think) Buenos Aires and got there in the middle of a revolution. It simply floated over the city for about three days until things calmed down enough to be safe, then landed. Try that with a jumbo jet! If this thing works, it could do the same type of thing, or at least continue on with no worries to a safer location.
I get the impression that by "fuelless" he means something a little different than you're thinking of. His idea seems to be that any fuel used by this is done on the ground and outside the ship. Thus, the ship itself needs no fuel as anything needing it is taken care of elsewhere.
- as for persuading, I know that most people can't be persuaded, because they have serious reasoning problems and are generally stupid. Whether this is the case for you, I don't know, but the optimal strategy is to presume it is so at the slightest suspicon
And now you see why I put you on my foe list. Anybody that prefers to think of others as stupid until proven otherwise is a foe to all I stand for.
Please, tell me, what are the chances (realistically) that I can, by being polite and presenting the most strongest arguments, persuade you that your so-called Lord doesn't exist (and never did)...
You can't, because you can't prove a negative and this is a matter of faith. I find it odd, however, that I have faith, and believe that the God I believe in accepts the fact that taking life is sometimes justified, but you who believe (without proof) that He doesn't exist are so opposed to it. Mind you, I respect your belief; I just find the paired juxtiposition interesting.
I avoid ad hominem and insults in my arguments because I have decades of experience in debating positions on Usenet and in various fanzines and genzines. In those fora, you either stay rational or lose respect. I'd rather keep respect, both from my opponents, and myself.
Interesting that you seem compelled to insult me, even though I've been carefull not to treat you with anything other than respect, even though I dislike your opinions. Is it that you're so sure you must be right that anybody that disagrees is either stupid, evil or both? Please try to seperate political opinions from personalities. You;'d be far more able to persuade people if you didn't start off assuming them to be ignorant, moronic devils.
For a little more info, check out this site on her. Yes, there was a "Tokyo Rose," yes, she did broadcast propaganda and yes, she did twist it to help the Allies. Axis Sally was an American model and actress living in Germany that broadcast for the Germans, served time in prison after the war and spent the rest of her life as a music teacher.
As far as your other question, I could ask the same thing about Korea, the Japnese duing the "China Incident" or the British during the Sepoy Muntiny. However, this discussion has gottern out of hand and off topic and I'd be just as happy to let it die.
I don't say that I hate North Vietnam, or the current government of Vietnam. I've put that behind me decades ago. I do dispise certain people for their actions, some of whom claim to be good Americans, but that's personal, not political. As far as America's conduct in war goes, you seem to have a very unusual idea of what it is or should be. I suggest you read a good history of war, read how the Greeks, Assyrians, Mongols, Romans, Crusaders, and other classical people behaved, and ask yourself if they would have done less than we did, the same, or even more if they'd had the equipment. Compared to what the American military could have done they were very restrained.
If you're basing your claims on the Bible, you should know (If you've read it, and not just the Unauthorized Christian Appendix known as "The New Testemant.") that The Lord does not forbid warfare or killing during a war. Second, opposing the war was not treason. Going to the "enemies" country, making speaches supporting them and otherwise giving them aid and comfort would have been if war had been declared and they were, in fact an enemy. However, I'd like to point out that we'll probably never agree on this and going back and forth is getting a tad pointless.
Let's see: in order to prove you weren't using ad hominem attacks, you use another. Right. Oh, and by the way, what made you think I'm a Christian? I'm not.
Yes, there were American troops committing atrocities. Yes, they were found, tried, convicted and punished. There were also NVA members committing similar atrocities, and none of them have ever been called to account. If I have to hate a country, I'd rather hate one that ignores war crimes rather than one that tries to stop them and punishes its own soldiers for committing them.
Yes, other people have mentioned that. Unlike some people, I can and do change my opinions if I learn something new that makes it appropriate. Thanks for your info.
Yes, neither side has clean hands in this type of thing. Personally, although I dislike Clinton, I have no problem with his using his studies to avoid service. That's what the deferrment is for.
I can see that you've clearly run out of facts to argue and have descended to ad hominem. That is, instead of arguing against me, you're trying to insult me and make people think I must be wrong. Candidly, I have no worries about how I will be judged when the time comes, because I know that my heart is lighter than the Feather of Maat and I need not fear the Devourer of Souls.
If you really believe what you say, there's no point in my trying to explain the truth to you. However, I might point out that in late '72, the NVA came across the border with more armor than the Germans sent to the Battle of the Kursk Sallient. (This, counting German and Soviet troops, was the biggest armored battle ever.) They failed and they got nothing back. We (Yes, I was there at the time.) smashed it all with our armor, artillery, air strikes and Naval bombardment. They came to the negotiating table because they couldn't win any other way, and we left only because the protesters persuaded the government that we couldn't win and were losing a war we'd really won. Only after we cut and ran were the communists able to take Saigon.
It's one thing to say to people who have never fought in a war that they don't know what they're talking about protesting it (on the other hand, you could say the same about those who support wars when they've never been through it). But once someone's been there and done that, who are you to say that what you learned from it is more valid than what they did?
True. I feel Kerry had more reason to protest than Fonda, because he'd been there. Of course, I'd much rather he'd struck to the truth. I don't say that those who didn't serve had no right to protest, but I do say that if you weren't there, you can't really understand how we feel about the protesters and what they did to us.
Slashdot Mirror
I spent over seven years working for one of the majors. I took calls, made call-backs and answered email, although the last was fairly rare. Part of our policy was making sure that callers knew both that it was safe to tell your password to the tech that you called, but not to somebody that calls you. This means that when making a callback we generally couldn't ask for passwords, but that wasn't a problem. Callbacks were made if a tech couldn't solve the member's issues and needed help and if asking for a password would have done the job, there'd be no reason for a callback.
Let's say you call and claim you're having trouble downloading your email and your box is full. You say you want all the email in your box deleted. Now, as the tech you're talking to can't actually see your password, how do you expect them to do this without your password? (Knowing the password can also be considered proof that you have the right to ask for this.) I can guarentee that no ISP is going to give their techs the use of software that could do this without the user's password, because that's too easy to abuse. Also, if somebody wants to cancel their account, there's no easier way to ID them than the password and, if the cancelation takes place right then, no reason not to give it. However, a good tech won't ever ask for the password unless there's a reason to need it and I'll agree that most issues don't need it.
You just don't get it, do you? The customer calls their ISP for tech support. As part of this support, they need to have email removed from their box, their username changed or something like that. How can they not know who they're talking to when they placed the call? And I can assure you with over seven years exerience in this that people calling because they forgot their password and need it reset are not the most common reason for people to ID themselves. People wanting to change their billing method, delete email from the server, change their username or otherwise make changes to the account are far more common. And, without exception, they are the ones that initiate the call. There is no way that some phisher is going to hijack the ISP's (800) number and collect passwords.
Only if you'll tell me the name of the company you work for so I can avoid doing business with it.
Passwords for ID are fairly standard at ISPs as far as I can tell. Much safer than a mother's maiden name, as your brother or sister can't fake their way into your account. Yes, there are other safe ways such as credit card numbers and we used them too. Alas, there were times, such as when a member paid by check, that there was nothing else we could use. The important distinction is that when I asked for a password the callers knew they were talking to their ISP because they had called us. We never called or emailed and asked for a password.
At the ISP I worked for, customer's passwords were considered a form of ID. We couln't actually see the passwords, but we had a program that would tell us if what we'd typed in matched or not. When people were concerned, I told them, "Don't worry, I've lots of practice in forgetting passwords." A few let me know they'd change them after the call to be safe but most trusted me. The *only* time I would ask for one is when I was on the phone with a customer and then only if I needed it either as ID, or to help with a password error issue; I never asked for one to be emailed. Not only was it good sense, it was company policy.
This IP range is controlled by Freedonia, and President Rufus T. Firefly has let it be known that hijacking their limited IP addresses would be a causus belli. Prepare for war!
I did tech support for an ISP until my call center was closed. We used to tell people that we'd never send them an email asking for login or credit card info, and that any message doing so was bogus. Of course, this lead to the occasional luser that wouldn't tell us their password when we needed to ID them because they couldn't see the difference between somebody sending them an email asking for their password and them calling us and our needing to ID them before changing something on their account. Most of the time, just pointing out that they'd called us, so they know who they're talking to rather than an email that they don't know who sent did the trick, but there's always a few people that refused. I never minded because not doing something is much less work and I could go on to the next call faster.
Give it a frelling break, already.:p" Oops! Wrong cancled show.
I'm thinking that all you can tell from this is what particles went into the black hole, and nothing else. That is, you can't tell what atoms they came from or anything about larger structure. Of course, said structure would have been ripped apart by the time the particles were engulfed anyway so that makes sense. Still it's rather interesting that you may be able to find that much out, even though the "information" seems to be useless.
Well, duh, if you'd checked, you'd see it was a collaberation between Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. If you're going to make a reference, at least get it right.
Back in the 1930's, the airship Hindenburg went down to (I think) Buenos Aires and got there in the middle of a revolution. It simply floated over the city for about three days until things calmed down enough to be safe, then landed. Try that with a jumbo jet! If this thing works, it could do the same type of thing, or at least continue on with no worries to a safer location.
I get the impression that by "fuelless" he means something a little different than you're thinking of. His idea seems to be that any fuel used by this is done on the ground and outside the ship. Thus, the ship itself needs no fuel as anything needing it is taken care of elsewhere.
And now you see why I put you on my foe list. Anybody that prefers to think of others as stupid until proven otherwise is a foe to all I stand for.
Please, tell me, what are the chances (realistically) that I can, by being polite and presenting the most strongest arguments, persuade you that your so-called Lord doesn't exist (and never did)...
You can't, because you can't prove a negative and this is a matter of faith. I find it odd, however, that I have faith, and believe that the God I believe in accepts the fact that taking life is sometimes justified, but you who believe (without proof) that He doesn't exist are so opposed to it. Mind you, I respect your belief; I just find the paired juxtiposition interesting.
I avoid ad hominem and insults in my arguments because I have decades of experience in debating positions on Usenet and in various fanzines and genzines. In those fora, you either stay rational or lose respect. I'd rather keep respect, both from my opponents, and myself.
Interesting that you seem compelled to insult me, even though I've been carefull not to treat you with anything other than respect, even though I dislike your opinions. Is it that you're so sure you must be right that anybody that disagrees is either stupid, evil or both? Please try to seperate political opinions from personalities. You;'d be far more able to persuade people if you didn't start off assuming them to be ignorant, moronic devils.
As far as your other question, I could ask the same thing about Korea, the Japnese duing the "China Incident" or the British during the Sepoy Muntiny. However, this discussion has gottern out of hand and off topic and I'd be just as happy to let it die.
I don't say that I hate North Vietnam, or the current government of Vietnam. I've put that behind me decades ago. I do dispise certain people for their actions, some of whom claim to be good Americans, but that's personal, not political. As far as America's conduct in war goes, you seem to have a very unusual idea of what it is or should be. I suggest you read a good history of war, read how the Greeks, Assyrians, Mongols, Romans, Crusaders, and other classical people behaved, and ask yourself if they would have done less than we did, the same, or even more if they'd had the equipment. Compared to what the American military could have done they were very restrained.
If you're basing your claims on the Bible, you should know (If you've read it, and not just the Unauthorized Christian Appendix known as "The New Testemant.") that The Lord does not forbid warfare or killing during a war. Second, opposing the war was not treason. Going to the "enemies" country, making speaches supporting them and otherwise giving them aid and comfort would have been if war had been declared and they were, in fact an enemy. However, I'd like to point out that we'll probably never agree on this and going back and forth is getting a tad pointless.
There's much truth in what you say. I'm not sure if we really caused more suffering than we prevented, but that's something that can't be known.
Let's see: in order to prove you weren't using ad hominem attacks, you use another. Right. Oh, and by the way, what made you think I'm a Christian? I'm not.
Yes, there were American troops committing atrocities. Yes, they were found, tried, convicted and punished. There were also NVA members committing similar atrocities, and none of them have ever been called to account. If I have to hate a country, I'd rather hate one that ignores war crimes rather than one that tries to stop them and punishes its own soldiers for committing them.
Yes, other people have mentioned that. Unlike some people, I can and do change my opinions if I learn something new that makes it appropriate. Thanks for your info.
Yes, neither side has clean hands in this type of thing. Personally, although I dislike Clinton, I have no problem with his using his studies to avoid service. That's what the deferrment is for.
I can see that you've clearly run out of facts to argue and have descended to ad hominem. That is, instead of arguing against me, you're trying to insult me and make people think I must be wrong. Candidly, I have no worries about how I will be judged when the time comes, because I know that my heart is lighter than the Feather of Maat and I need not fear the Devourer of Souls.
If you really believe what you say, there's no point in my trying to explain the truth to you. However, I might point out that in late '72, the NVA came across the border with more armor than the Germans sent to the Battle of the Kursk Sallient. (This, counting German and Soviet troops, was the biggest armored battle ever.) They failed and they got nothing back. We (Yes, I was there at the time.) smashed it all with our armor, artillery, air strikes and Naval bombardment. They came to the negotiating table because they couldn't win any other way, and we left only because the protesters persuaded the government that we couldn't win and were losing a war we'd really won. Only after we cut and ran were the communists able to take Saigon.
True. I feel Kerry had more reason to protest than Fonda, because he'd been there. Of course, I'd much rather he'd struck to the truth. I don't say that those who didn't serve had no right to protest, but I do say that if you weren't there, you can't really understand how we feel about the protesters and what they did to us.