But on the defense side: anyone with enough technology/experience to be able to cross interstellar space with the idea of fetching something (as opposed to colonization, where a desperate enough group could wing it) would have enough technology to wipe us off the face of the planet so quickly that we would have no chance. But the human race being obliterated by orbital bombardment does not make for entertaining cinema.
Anyone with enough technology/experience to be able to cross interstellar space would surely find a water source in their own solar system. It's hard to believe that life exists on all of these other worlds in other star systems, but icy comets don't.
If Canada feels it's important to block public access to the internet because a few commit illegal acts, then why wouldn't they block public access to the highways for the same reason?
If we start/continue to block/disallow everything that can be used for unlawful purposes, pretty soon, everything will be blocked/disallowed.
Yeah, and Bill Clinton didn't have sex with Monica Lewinski but she had it with him. It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is, right? Based on what you are saying, I can run all sorts of media stories denying the holocaust for whatever purpose and it's a completely legitimate use of satire? I don't think the majority of the public would agree with you on that. Attacking a religious group for their beliefs under the guise of a legitimate media story is not satire and in parts of the world would even get you killed. People take religious belief systems seriously, even if some don't. Same things about race, gender and sexual preferences. You might think they are satire, but depending on what you do or say, you might just get charged with a hate crime. SNL is full of satire, your local newspaper and media outlets aren't, or at least they aren't supposed to be.
The author should have asked him/herself "What do I want to do 10 / 20 / 30 years from now?" and then proceed from there.
10 years, maybe, but 20 or 30 is too far out to estimate when related to technology. Who would have imagined the current technology landscape and job opportunities back in 1984 or even 1994?
In 1984, you were most likely programming in COBOL, FORTRAN, or C, and while those languages still exist only C is still widely used. Yes, there are still millions of lines of code being maintained in COBOL and FORTRAN, but nobody would declare either of those a career path to pursuit today.
Even 10 years ago, the mobile space didn't even exist, at least not like it does today. For mobile, you would be looking at Blackberry development. Of course, the internet was alive and kicking, but even then, most sites were not dynamic like they are today and Java ruled the three-tier model.
To answer the original question of what "new" technologies, normally the answer would be to build on what you already know. However, since the questioner's background is in C and embed systems, that's not going to be too helpful. Instead, you need to look at what market you want to get into. Android app development, learn Java. iOS then it would be probably be Apple's development stack. Web, definitely HTML5 and php and javascript. If you want to be doing system's work, then your C background will serve you well. Desktop applications - if for Windows, then you better bone up on.Net.
However, with all of those, it really depends on how quickly you are planning to switch career paths. Most of those should be relatively easy for a C programmer to pick up, but will still take a long time to master. To be employable, you really need to master the language/tools, unless you are willing to take an entry level job. One way to pick up the skills, is to make the choice of what you want to learn and then attach yourself to an open source project or two (after you've learned the basics of the language in question). Not only will you be able to use any work you've done on the project as part of your resume, but you may find out if you really like the choice you've made without leaving your current job. In addition, you will be connected with other programmers and technologies that will further help you refine your skills.
So, after this long post, my suggestion would be not what you want to be doing 10,20,30 years out, but figure out what you want to be doing 3 years out and then make a plan to get there.
IANAL but a quick search at uspto.gov turns up a handful of "candy crush" trademarks, all of which trademark "candy crush" and none of which claim just "candy". I'm guessing king.com is enforcing against "candy" videogames based on arguments of market confusion with "candy crush," and wouldn't dare try to claim market confusion against Candyland.
TIL Forbes.com is just another hysteria-mongering blogger.
Hmmm, maybe Coca-Cola should go after King, because they own the trademark for the Crush brand of soda. And while I am not aware of a computer game related to it, they do sell a lot of Crush merchandise, including clothing.
Actually, that is only partially true. The national anthem melody and words may be in the public domain, but any modern musical arrangement of said anthem, is most likely protected. Hell, you even need to pay royalties if you want to use an english translation of the bible.
the lose is from the wii-u collecting dust in the stores. the 3ds still has strong sales.
Exactly!, except it's not the stores where they are collecting dust causing the problem, but the warehouses and shipping containers. Nintendo needs to have a fire sale to generate cash flow to build something that will sell. Even unloading them at cost would be better than sitting in storage. I wonder if SteamOS can be ported to run on a Wii U?
Dude, eristic [wikipedia.org] argument is the mainstay of civilization. We're always engaged in the internecine struggle to discredit other parties to our own ends. I'm doing it right now.
You see no difference between the Greece case and what you have described? An eristic argument requires both sides to be engaged. That was not the case here. If I don't like some person in town and spread the false rumour that they are HIV positive or cheating on their spouse or any number of falsehoods, that is not an eristic argument.
Effectively, that is what the individual in Greece did. There is a time and place for an eristic argument, but you cannot have a one sided eristic argument.
As for your poop pie analogy, the guy not only snuck the poop pie in, but then claimed the others intentionally served it to discredit them. The religious group might be a fault for not vetting their information as much as they should, but to say that this is okay is like saying young women shouldn't wear short skirts or being attacked is their fault.
Eristic arguments may exist throughout all of history, but at some point, it goes beyond an argument and threatens the very fabric of society.
Your version of fraud (completely uncited by the way) is so broad as to effectively eliminate any satirical speech.
As I stated, I'm not sure of the EU rules, so it was intentionally broad, because in most jurisdictions, the law has been expended quite heavily because of precedent. As for satirical speech, that is a red herring. This case was not about satire. The defendant admitted to intentionally doing this for a stated purpose (which was not satire). BTW, even satirical speech with the intent to harm another group is usually called defamation. This case might not be fraud, but since it targeted a religious group with the intent to harm, it could very well be defamation.
Simply put, if you spread falsehoods with the intent to harm another person or group, chances are, depending on the scope, it's illegal.
I don't know about specific law, but I thought that there needed to be a benefit to the liar for it to be fraud. If I started spouting lies in favor of company XYZ, but I have no stake in the company, know no employees, owners, stake holders, clients, suppliers, etc, etc, then how is it fraud?
Posting falsehoods about investments typically have some financial motive. The typical pump-and-dump scheme, for instance. Now that is fraud.
"Fraud is a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain... A hoax is a distinct concept that involves deception without the intention of gain or of materially damaging or depriving the victim."
In the case in question, he did it to intentionally discredit the religious types. The unlawful gain secured, does not have to be monetary. For instance, committing or saying things falsely against a competitor does not necessarily bring one immediate gain, but it is not a hoax. Fraud can involve altering the status quo by devaluing the other. Also, a false report that denigrates some other organization but bolsters one's value in the eyes of another can also be fraudulent, particularly if the others net value, including goodwill is harmed.
Whether these apply in the EU, I do not know, but it sounds like he perpetrated more than a hoax, since his stated goal was to discredit the religious.
This is the answer. Your identity never was, and still is not a secret. Only your authorization to draw money from your bank account needs to be reserved to you alone.
Chip and PIN does a good job of this. The card will readily give up your identity, but that's not a problem. It requires you to enter your PIN into that exact chip that provides the authorization to access your money, and that authorization is tied to one and only one transaction.
What it does not do is defend against the insider threat. The opposite end of the Chip and PIN cryptography needs to terminate in a Hardware Security Module that can't be tampered with, even by the bank employees.
Chip and pin won't correct what happened with Target. As long as the pin is constant. Most commercial bank customers, at least in our area use a key fob that generates a unique pin and changes every minute. My bank knows me by a certain user name and password. That combination is unique. But even if that were hacked, with out the separate key fob tied to that unique combination, you still cannot authenticate.
But, unless the CC is going to have a screen for the randomly generated pin, all you are doing is substituting a chip for the mag stripe. In the case of Target, it wouldn't have made a difference, because it wasn't the physical reader that was hacked, but the database containing all of the IDs and validation pins. The database doesn't care where these come from (mag strip chip) and neither did the hackers. As long as you have both, they can use it.
While mag strips aren't very secure and could easily be duplicated, chips in cards only protect stealing info from the card reader. Most online purchased don't use a card reader. And, it is unlikely that credit card companies and retailers will maintain two systems, one for instore purchases and one for online purchases. As long as somebody is storing your credentials in their database, things won't be secure, at least not without some way to generate one use only pins that expire.
Wit Target, and evidently Korea, it wasn't that the cards weren't secure. It was the database that held the transactions wasn't secure.
The only real solution is to have separate identifiers for separate systems.
NO NO NO!!! This is NOT the solution. The solution is to use identifiers for IDENTIFICATION and to use something completely different for AUTHENTICATION. Identifiers, by their very nature, are public or quasi-public information, and knowledge of them should never be used to authenticate anything.
That is what we currently have. Target was hacked and the identifier and the code for authorization was stolen. My authorization code for Discover Card is totally different than VISA. However, if I used my Discover Card at Target (or evidently in Korea), then it is no longer secure and purchases can be made with it. In addition, since most online sites use your credit card to validate that you are a real person, the theives can validate as me on sites I have nothing to do with. At that point, they can do all sorts of damage.
So, unless I am misreading what your are saying, what you describe is the current situation.
EU law covers freedom of speech/expression. The question is whether he can stay out of jail while appealing this bullshit. The Mediterranean countries are our own domestic third world, but with really good food.
Even in the EU, speech/expression with the intent to commit fraud (which is actually what this case is about) is not protected speech. The religious overtones of this case are irrelevant. He could just as easily posted falsehoods about various investments (and there have been cases along those lines, with much harsher penalties).
We need to get rid of the idiotic idea that quasi-public information like SSNs and CC numbers are "secret".
I'm 38, my father is about twice my age. When I was a child I remember some philosophically strong arguments against the use of SSNs in any venue other than the government program they were created for. My father wasn't religious, though later I discovered myself the whole "number of the beast" thing (i.e. christian prophecy about things like the tattooed ID numbers on jewish prisoners of the nazis. To a lesser extent, the idea of humans viewed as consumer cattle by society. I.e. you can't buy or sell or basically function in society without providing your unique numerical identifier to help you be tracked to that level of detail.
Now it seems we've infected south korea with our Social Security Number system. Que Sera Sera.
It doesn't matter that it is an SSN. An SSN is basically a unique identifier and whatever unique identifier would replace the SSN, it is still just as unsafe for all of the same reasons. If all of your banking, credit card, purchasing info is tied to one unique identifier, then anybody who gets that info could steal your identity.
The only real solution is to have separate identifiers for separate systems. That way if a system is compromised, only that one system is impacted. Of course, it would be as inconvienent as hell for the consumer, but that is the price of having an online presence, where everything about you is public.
let's not defend against it. Many, many IT people forced out of work by temps, contractors, outsourcing. This is come-uppance for the pointy-heads, let them burn.
Unfortunately it is managment that makes the decisions, but the rank and file employees that would lose their jobs. Hardly seems like a just solution.
We need to get rid of the idiotic idea that quasi-public information like SSNs and CC numbers are "secret". Nobody should be able to impersonate you by knowing your SSN, anymore than they can by knowing your name. Likewise, we should get rid of mag-stripe CCs, and switch to a more secure system like much of the rest of the world already has. These data breaches are just a symptom of a deeper problem: No sane system should require that the same information be both secret and widely known.
Mag-stripe CCs, while easy to copy at the point of transaction aren't any less secure than the new CCs for online purchases. Regardless of technology to record information about the card, the moment you enter that information online, and it is stored in a database, it is possible to steal the database. One way around this would be to use a key fob that generates a unique pass code every time you use it, like many banks have for business customers. Of course, that makes the CC much less convenient and much more costly to issue.
Face it, anything online, is hackable, which means any method used to identify you is also hackable. Whether a social security number or something other unique identifier, it will eventually be compromised.
In the old days, to steal your identity, somebody usually had to go through your physical trash to get the proper information and it was much easier to secure (shredding being a primary security). Now, they just need a keyboard.
There is a flaw in your logic. What is probably confusing you is that the ratio used was 50%. However, modifying the example, lets say all 10 guys slept with one only two of the girls.
Now you have 10 boys having average sex with 2 grils each, giving a promiscuity rate of 2 sexual parterners per boy. 2 girls have slept with all 10 boys and 8 girls have had no sex at all, which using your version still gives a rate of 2.
However, 80% of the girls have had no sex and 100% of the boys have had sex. Are you really trying to say in the example that the girls in the control group are as promiscuos as the boys?
Being promiscuous, according to the Free Online Dictionary is " Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners." Promiscuity is the measure of how promiscuous a population is (in the examples the population would be 10 males and 10 females). It doesn't measure how many average partners the population has, it measures the average of how many are promiscuos.
The reality is that promiscuity is not measured the way you are trying to measure. In the example given previously (10 boys with 5 girls), the promiscuity rate among the boys is 100% and among the girls is 50%. In the example I gave, it is still 100% for the boys, but only 20% for the girls.
Historically, in the West, men were encouraged to sow their oats before settling down, but to marry a virgin. As such, culturally women were far less promiscuous then men. Today, studies show that woman are far more promiscuous than they were in the past, but still far behind men (by anywhere from 30% to 50% fewer partners depending on the study).
BTW, this doesn't mean that the woman who are not promiscuous necessarily virgins, it simply means that they do not meet the standard definition of promiscuity (likewise for the males who are not promiscuous).
Shouldn't the opening of the Biology workbook alone be enough to get this squashed?
No, because all that was given in the summary was a statement. We don't know what context that statement was made in. There is a difference between a book saying "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..." and "Many religious groups believe that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
While I doubt that such was language was used, and I suspect that the summary's implication of teaching creationism is the motivation, I also suspect that it is unlikely that the summary is unbiased in it's presentation.
This is a biology book, so the implication is older students will be using it. As such, although some object, it is not necessarily a problem presenting the major competing theories, assuming they are fairly and adequately presented. Any creationistic brainwashing will have already occurred prior to the age a student begins the study of biology.
I do wonder, however, if all sides are presented as stated in the summary, how does the teacher grade the test? By the presentation in the book, there is no one right answer.
The FCC's role in all of this should be is there a safety reason not to allow the phones on planes. The fact that it will be annoying and obnoxious should be left up to the market to decide. If some airlines offer cell free flights, and the public wants that, then those airlines will profit by increased ridership. If not, then their competitors will benefit. Not every problem needs to be solved by the government.
That was true back in the 1960s, but the AMA isn't as influential in the current climate as they were.
In general you're right, but one thing they still have by the balls is medical education.
medical school that turns out high quality doctors is expensive and for somebody to invest in that, there has to be a higher ROI than using those funds elsewhere
With the exception of a few for-profits, universities are endowed, not invested in. Do you think Carnegie, Mellon, Stanford, Rockefellers, et al, were looking for an ROI? How about most of the states of the Union, which have state university systems?
Its not the donor who is looking at the ROI, it is the university. Starting up a med school from scratch is not going to happen because Bill Gates or Warren Buffet is going to write a check. The university will have to raise huge sums of money and they will be looking at the ROI. $500M to build the school plus another $120M to provide initial operating costs and hiring faculty and staff would be compared against that money being applied against other programs. Expanding your engineering or education department won't cost as much to build and operate and has the potential for a much better ROI.
Plus, a good med school is prestigious, a mediocre one, or a fledgling one is not. Major donors keep that in mind, too.
Shouldn't they first determine if tears are an accurate way to measure glucose in the first place? That could be measured now, even if it would not be convenient. It would seem that if you are willing to wear a micro sensor in your eye, why not just inject it under the skin? If you did that, you could make it the size of an rfid tag.
I think the best thing that could be done is to make most people realize that the supposed STEM shortage is BS. Unfortunately the lie that there's a shortage is repeated so often, and so little questioned by people outside the field, that the average person takes it as an "everybody knows".
I agree. The only STEM shortage is STEM jobs in the US. But it makes for good soundbites. Of course every time they say that the US is falling behind the rest of the world in STEM fields, they leave out that it is because we keep shipping the jobs overseas (to the rest of the world), to save a buck.
An artificial restriction on supply. Clearly the AMA is a better union that the IEEE-USA.
That was true back in the 1960s, but the AMA isn't as influential in the current climate as they were. The fact is that to create a new medical school that turns out high quality doctors is expensive and for somebody to invest in that, there has to be a higher ROI than using those funds elsewhere. In business, ROI determines what gets funded and what doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
But on the defense side: anyone with enough technology/experience to be able to cross interstellar space with the idea of fetching something (as opposed to colonization, where a desperate enough group could wing it) would have enough technology to wipe us off the face of the planet so quickly that we would have no chance. But the human race being obliterated by orbital bombardment does not make for entertaining cinema.
Anyone with enough technology/experience to be able to cross interstellar space would surely find a water source in their own solar system. It's hard to believe that life exists on all of these other worlds in other star systems, but icy comets don't.
If Canada feels it's important to block public access to the internet because a few commit illegal acts, then why wouldn't they block public access to the highways for the same reason?
If we start/continue to block/disallow everything that can be used for unlawful purposes, pretty soon, everything will be blocked/disallowed.
Yeah, and Bill Clinton didn't have sex with Monica Lewinski but she had it with him. It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is, right? Based on what you are saying, I can run all sorts of media stories denying the holocaust for whatever purpose and it's a completely legitimate use of satire? I don't think the majority of the public would agree with you on that. Attacking a religious group for their beliefs under the guise of a legitimate media story is not satire and in parts of the world would even get you killed. People take religious belief systems seriously, even if some don't. Same things about race, gender and sexual preferences. You might think they are satire, but depending on what you do or say, you might just get charged with a hate crime. SNL is full of satire, your local newspaper and media outlets aren't, or at least they aren't supposed to be.
The author should have asked him/herself "What do I want to do 10 / 20 / 30 years from now?" and then proceed from there.
10 years, maybe, but 20 or 30 is too far out to estimate when related to technology. Who would have imagined the current technology landscape and job opportunities back in 1984 or even 1994?
In 1984, you were most likely programming in COBOL, FORTRAN, or C, and while those languages still exist only C is still widely used. Yes, there are still millions of lines of code being maintained in COBOL and FORTRAN, but nobody would declare either of those a career path to pursuit today.
Even 10 years ago, the mobile space didn't even exist, at least not like it does today. For mobile, you would be looking at Blackberry development. Of course, the internet was alive and kicking, but even then, most sites were not dynamic like they are today and Java ruled the three-tier model.
To answer the original question of what "new" technologies, normally the answer would be to build on what you already know. However, since the questioner's background is in C and embed systems, that's not going to be too helpful. Instead, you need to look at what market you want to get into. Android app development, learn Java. iOS then it would be probably be Apple's development stack. Web, definitely HTML5 and php and javascript. If you want to be doing system's work, then your C background will serve you well. Desktop applications - if for Windows, then you better bone up on .Net.
However, with all of those, it really depends on how quickly you are planning to switch career paths. Most of those should be relatively easy for a C programmer to pick up, but will still take a long time to master. To be employable, you really need to master the language/tools, unless you are willing to take an entry level job. One way to pick up the skills, is to make the choice of what you want to learn and then attach yourself to an open source project or two (after you've learned the basics of the language in question). Not only will you be able to use any work you've done on the project as part of your resume, but you may find out if you really like the choice you've made without leaving your current job. In addition, you will be connected with other programmers and technologies that will further help you refine your skills.
So, after this long post, my suggestion would be not what you want to be doing 10,20,30 years out, but figure out what you want to be doing 3 years out and then make a plan to get there.
IANAL but a quick search at uspto.gov turns up a handful of "candy crush" trademarks, all of which trademark "candy crush" and none of which claim just "candy". I'm guessing king.com is enforcing against "candy" videogames based on arguments of market confusion with "candy crush," and wouldn't dare try to claim market confusion against Candyland.
TIL Forbes.com is just another hysteria-mongering blogger.
Hmmm, maybe Coca-Cola should go after King, because they own the trademark for the Crush brand of soda. And while I am not aware of a computer game related to it, they do sell a lot of Crush merchandise, including clothing.
Dated, but in 2008 the IOC trademarked part of Canada's national anthem.
Never mind "made up words" or such, the national anthem is by its very nature public domain.
http://boingboing.net/2008/09/29/olympics-reach-a-new.html
Actually, that is only partially true. The national anthem melody and words may be in the public domain, but any modern musical arrangement of said anthem, is most likely protected. Hell, you even need to pay royalties if you want to use an english translation of the bible.
So, if I decide to sell candy apples, to I need to pay King and Apple?
the lose is from the wii-u collecting dust in the stores. the 3ds still has strong sales.
Exactly!, except it's not the stores where they are collecting dust causing the problem, but the warehouses and shipping containers. Nintendo needs to have a fire sale to generate cash flow to build something that will sell. Even unloading them at cost would be better than sitting in storage. I wonder if SteamOS can be ported to run on a Wii U?
Dude, eristic [wikipedia.org] argument is the mainstay of civilization. We're always engaged in the internecine struggle to discredit other parties to our own ends. I'm doing it right now.
You see no difference between the Greece case and what you have described? An eristic argument requires both sides to be engaged. That was not the case here. If I don't like some person in town and spread the false rumour that they are HIV positive or cheating on their spouse or any number of falsehoods, that is not an eristic argument.
Effectively, that is what the individual in Greece did. There is a time and place for an eristic argument, but you cannot have a one sided eristic argument.
As for your poop pie analogy, the guy not only snuck the poop pie in, but then claimed the others intentionally served it to discredit them. The religious group might be a fault for not vetting their information as much as they should, but to say that this is okay is like saying young women shouldn't wear short skirts or being attacked is their fault.
Eristic arguments may exist throughout all of history, but at some point, it goes beyond an argument and threatens the very fabric of society.
Your version of fraud (completely uncited by the way) is so broad as to effectively eliminate any satirical speech.
As I stated, I'm not sure of the EU rules, so it was intentionally broad, because in most jurisdictions, the law has been expended quite heavily because of precedent. As for satirical speech, that is a red herring. This case was not about satire. The defendant admitted to intentionally doing this for a stated purpose (which was not satire). BTW, even satirical speech with the intent to harm another group is usually called defamation. This case might not be fraud, but since it targeted a religious group with the intent to harm, it could very well be defamation.
Simply put, if you spread falsehoods with the intent to harm another person or group, chances are, depending on the scope, it's illegal.
I don't know about specific law, but I thought that there needed to be a benefit to the liar for it to be fraud. If I started spouting lies in favor of company XYZ, but I have no stake in the company, know no employees, owners, stake holders, clients, suppliers, etc, etc, then how is it fraud?
Posting falsehoods about investments typically have some financial motive. The typical pump-and-dump scheme, for instance. Now that is fraud.
"Fraud is a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain... A hoax is a distinct concept that involves deception without the intention of gain or of materially damaging or depriving the victim."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud (Yes, I know, a very weak source. But it shows that I'm not the only one who sees it this way.)
In the case in question, he did it to intentionally discredit the religious types. The unlawful gain secured, does not have to be monetary. For instance, committing or saying things falsely against a competitor does not necessarily bring one immediate gain, but it is not a hoax. Fraud can involve altering the status quo by devaluing the other. Also, a false report that denigrates some other organization but bolsters one's value in the eyes of another can also be fraudulent, particularly if the others net value, including goodwill is harmed.
Whether these apply in the EU, I do not know, but it sounds like he perpetrated more than a hoax, since his stated goal was to discredit the religious.
This is the answer. Your identity never was, and still is not a secret. Only your authorization to draw money from your bank account needs to be reserved to you alone.
Chip and PIN does a good job of this. The card will readily give up your identity, but that's not a problem. It requires you to enter your PIN into that exact chip that provides the authorization to access your money, and that authorization is tied to one and only one transaction.
What it does not do is defend against the insider threat. The opposite end of the Chip and PIN cryptography needs to terminate in a Hardware Security Module that can't be tampered with, even by the bank employees.
Chip and pin won't correct what happened with Target. As long as the pin is constant. Most commercial bank customers, at least in our area use a key fob that generates a unique pin and changes every minute. My bank knows me by a certain user name and password. That combination is unique. But even if that were hacked, with out the separate key fob tied to that unique combination, you still cannot authenticate.
But, unless the CC is going to have a screen for the randomly generated pin, all you are doing is substituting a chip for the mag stripe. In the case of Target, it wouldn't have made a difference, because it wasn't the physical reader that was hacked, but the database containing all of the IDs and validation pins. The database doesn't care where these come from (mag strip chip) and neither did the hackers. As long as you have both, they can use it.
While mag strips aren't very secure and could easily be duplicated, chips in cards only protect stealing info from the card reader. Most online purchased don't use a card reader. And, it is unlikely that credit card companies and retailers will maintain two systems, one for instore purchases and one for online purchases. As long as somebody is storing your credentials in their database, things won't be secure, at least not without some way to generate one use only pins that expire.
Wit Target, and evidently Korea, it wasn't that the cards weren't secure. It was the database that held the transactions wasn't secure.
The only real solution is to have separate identifiers for separate systems.
NO NO NO!!! This is NOT the solution. The solution is to use identifiers for IDENTIFICATION and to use something completely different for AUTHENTICATION. Identifiers, by their very nature, are public or quasi-public information, and knowledge of them should never be used to authenticate anything.
That is what we currently have. Target was hacked and the identifier and the code for authorization was stolen. My authorization code for Discover Card is totally different than VISA. However, if I used my Discover Card at Target (or evidently in Korea), then it is no longer secure and purchases can be made with it. In addition, since most online sites use your credit card to validate that you are a real person, the theives can validate as me on sites I have nothing to do with. At that point, they can do all sorts of damage.
So, unless I am misreading what your are saying, what you describe is the current situation.
EU law covers freedom of speech/expression. The question is whether he can stay out of jail while appealing this bullshit. The Mediterranean countries are our own domestic third world, but with really good food.
Even in the EU, speech/expression with the intent to commit fraud (which is actually what this case is about) is not protected speech. The religious overtones of this case are irrelevant. He could just as easily posted falsehoods about various investments (and there have been cases along those lines, with much harsher penalties).
We need to get rid of the idiotic idea that quasi-public information like SSNs and CC numbers are "secret".
I'm 38, my father is about twice my age. When I was a child I remember some philosophically strong arguments against the use of SSNs in any venue other than the government program they were created for. My father wasn't religious, though later I discovered myself the whole "number of the beast" thing (i.e. christian prophecy about things like the tattooed ID numbers on jewish prisoners of the nazis. To a lesser extent, the idea of humans viewed as consumer cattle by society. I.e. you can't buy or sell or basically function in society without providing your unique numerical identifier to help you be tracked to that level of detail.
Now it seems we've infected south korea with our Social Security Number system. Que Sera Sera.
It doesn't matter that it is an SSN. An SSN is basically a unique identifier and whatever unique identifier would replace the SSN, it is still just as unsafe for all of the same reasons. If all of your banking, credit card, purchasing info is tied to one unique identifier, then anybody who gets that info could steal your identity.
The only real solution is to have separate identifiers for separate systems. That way if a system is compromised, only that one system is impacted. Of course, it would be as inconvienent as hell for the consumer, but that is the price of having an online presence, where everything about you is public.
let's not defend against it. Many, many IT people forced out of work by temps, contractors, outsourcing. This is come-uppance for the pointy-heads, let them burn.
Unfortunately it is managment that makes the decisions, but the rank and file employees that would lose their jobs. Hardly seems like a just solution.
We need to get rid of the idiotic idea that quasi-public information like SSNs and CC numbers are "secret". Nobody should be able to impersonate you by knowing your SSN, anymore than they can by knowing your name. Likewise, we should get rid of mag-stripe CCs, and switch to a more secure system like much of the rest of the world already has. These data breaches are just a symptom of a deeper problem: No sane system should require that the same information be both secret and widely known.
Mag-stripe CCs, while easy to copy at the point of transaction aren't any less secure than the new CCs for online purchases. Regardless of technology to record information about the card, the moment you enter that information online, and it is stored in a database, it is possible to steal the database. One way around this would be to use a key fob that generates a unique pass code every time you use it, like many banks have for business customers. Of course, that makes the CC much less convenient and much more costly to issue.
Face it, anything online, is hackable, which means any method used to identify you is also hackable. Whether a social security number or something other unique identifier, it will eventually be compromised.
In the old days, to steal your identity, somebody usually had to go through your physical trash to get the proper information and it was much easier to secure (shredding being a primary security). Now, they just need a keyboard.
There is a flaw in your logic. What is probably confusing you is that the ratio used was 50%. However, modifying the example, lets say all 10 guys slept with one only two of the girls.
Now you have 10 boys having average sex with 2 grils each, giving a promiscuity rate of 2 sexual parterners per boy. 2 girls have slept with all 10 boys and 8 girls have had no sex at all, which using your version still gives a rate of 2.
However, 80% of the girls have had no sex and 100% of the boys have had sex. Are you really trying to say in the example that the girls in the control group are as promiscuos as the boys?
Being promiscuous, according to the Free Online Dictionary is " Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners." Promiscuity is the measure of how promiscuous a population is (in the examples the population would be 10 males and 10 females). It doesn't measure how many average partners the population has, it measures the average of how many are promiscuos.
The reality is that promiscuity is not measured the way you are trying to measure. In the example given previously (10 boys with 5 girls), the promiscuity rate among the boys is 100% and among the girls is 50%. In the example I gave, it is still 100% for the boys, but only 20% for the girls.
Historically, in the West, men were encouraged to sow their oats before settling down, but to marry a virgin. As such, culturally women were far less promiscuous then men. Today, studies show that woman are far more promiscuous than they were in the past, but still far behind men (by anywhere from 30% to 50% fewer partners depending on the study).
BTW, this doesn't mean that the woman who are not promiscuous necessarily virgins, it simply means that they do not meet the standard definition of promiscuity (likewise for the males who are not promiscuous).
You are funny, American history DOMINATED by belief over facts.
It's not just American history that is dominated by belief over facts and more often than not, those beliefs have nothing to do with religion.
Shouldn't the opening of the Biology workbook alone be enough to get this squashed?
No, because all that was given in the summary was a statement. We don't know what context that statement was made in. There is a difference between a book saying "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..." and "Many religious groups believe that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
While I doubt that such was language was used, and I suspect that the summary's implication of teaching creationism is the motivation, I also suspect that it is unlikely that the summary is unbiased in it's presentation.
This is a biology book, so the implication is older students will be using it. As such, although some object, it is not necessarily a problem presenting the major competing theories, assuming they are fairly and adequately presented. Any creationistic brainwashing will have already occurred prior to the age a student begins the study of biology.
I do wonder, however, if all sides are presented as stated in the summary, how does the teacher grade the test? By the presentation in the book, there is no one right answer.
The FCC's role in all of this should be is there a safety reason not to allow the phones on planes. The fact that it will be annoying and obnoxious should be left up to the market to decide. If some airlines offer cell free flights, and the public wants that, then those airlines will profit by increased ridership. If not, then their competitors will benefit. Not every problem needs to be solved by the government.
That was true back in the 1960s, but the AMA isn't as influential in the current climate as they were.
In general you're right, but one thing they still have by the balls is medical education.
medical school that turns out high quality doctors is expensive and for somebody to invest in that, there has to be a higher ROI than using those funds elsewhere
With the exception of a few for-profits, universities are endowed, not invested in. Do you think Carnegie, Mellon, Stanford, Rockefellers, et al, were looking for an ROI? How about most of the states of the Union, which have state university systems?
Its not the donor who is looking at the ROI, it is the university. Starting up a med school from scratch is not going to happen because Bill Gates or Warren Buffet is going to write a check. The university will have to raise huge sums of money and they will be looking at the ROI. $500M to build the school plus another $120M to provide initial operating costs and hiring faculty and staff would be compared against that money being applied against other programs. Expanding your engineering or education department won't cost as much to build and operate and has the potential for a much better ROI.
Plus, a good med school is prestigious, a mediocre one, or a fledgling one is not. Major donors keep that in mind, too.
Shouldn't they first determine if tears are an accurate way to measure glucose in the first place? That could be measured now, even if it would not be convenient. It would seem that if you are willing to wear a micro sensor in your eye, why not just inject it under the skin? If you did that, you could make it the size of an rfid tag.
I think the best thing that could be done is to make most people realize that the supposed STEM shortage is BS. Unfortunately the lie that there's a shortage is repeated so often, and so little questioned by people outside the field, that the average person takes it as an "everybody knows".
I agree. The only STEM shortage is STEM jobs in the US. But it makes for good soundbites. Of course every time they say that the US is falling behind the rest of the world in STEM fields, they leave out that it is because we keep shipping the jobs overseas (to the rest of the world), to save a buck.
most medical schools are at or near full capacity
An artificial restriction on supply. Clearly the AMA is a better union that the IEEE-USA.
That was true back in the 1960s, but the AMA isn't as influential in the current climate as they were. The fact is that to create a new medical school that turns out high quality doctors is expensive and for somebody to invest in that, there has to be a higher ROI than using those funds elsewhere. In business, ROI determines what gets funded and what doesn't.