The tax should be a re-vamp of the corporate tax. Why tax "people" if a corporation can automatedly create infinite goods. The "fix" isn't to tax the robots that work for corporations. The fix is to tax the revenue of corporations. 1% revenue tax on corporations will eliminate the need for all other taxes, and be clear, fair and direct. Though, in practice, I think we should keep a range of taxes, to collect from those most able to pay (and prevent tax holes)
With no apps installed, there'll be open ports. So it's up to you to prove that one more open port will greatly diminish the security of the device. And zero open ports still allows an malicious app to send everything to a central server, so the issue of "malicious apps" indicates they wouldn't need (or want) open ports.
If the app has permission to open a port that means it had permission to have a long-running service sitting on that port.
Nope. That's not how it works. An app installed with permission to open a port can't open that port until you run the app. That alone proves you wrong.
That proves you either cannot read, nor think. The original post is complaining about an OPEN PORT you doofus, which means the app HAS BEEN RUN.
The port can't be open unless the app is running. You said " it had permission to have a long-running service sitting on that port." That statement is wrong.
"What I explicitly said isn't what I meant" Fuck you. I don't have time for liars. You were lying then or you are lying now. An app can't open a port unless it's running.
What you are saying is that that there cannot be an open port without an app behind it which means 100% of the time an open port on Android is a security risk.
You are presuming that all apps are malicious. You say any open port must point to an app (incorrect). I never said you can't have an open port withou an app behind it. I said that if an app opens a port, it can't do so while the app is closed. THe rest is more of your lies.
When you have to lie to make a point, you know, deep down, that you are wrong, but you'll lie about that too.
Innocent question - why would a malicious app care about using more resources and data?
They wouldn't. So a malicious app wouldn't have any inbound ports open. Only innocent apps would bother with open inbound ports. So you've proven yourself wrong again. But you are too emotionally invested in winning every argument on the Internet, that you'll lie about that too. The malicious apps may worry about open ports, so they don't get detected, so they'll not be detected in these scans. So the scan will only find "safe" ports. But you don't understand this, or understand and lie about understanding it. Either way, you are ineducable.
So, if you paid taxes for years, building taxable assets, then transfer them away, then renounce, you can't voluntarily avoid taxes, because you already voluntarily paid tax on them. I don't think you even read what you wrote.
And the exit tax is only used for billionaires. I'm an expat, and I've met a number of ex-citizens. None have ever paid an exit tax.
If Joe Average wants to never pay $1 in US tax, he can move and renounce before his first job, and he'll never pay a penny, and have no assets to tax on an exit tax. That so few do it is proof that the "tax is theft" crowd are whiners who want to complain, not fix it.
If the app has permission to open a port that means it had permission to have a long-running service sitting on that port.
Nope. That's not how it works. An app installed with permission to open a port can't open that port until you run the app. That alone proves you wrong. Also, the app will shut the port when the app is closed.
With mobile data, the "cheapest" bandwidth solution for a chat app is to open a server connection when the app is opened, then, if the phone is reverse-reachable, close all connections. When a message comes in, the server sends it to the phone. The other way is to leave a connection open permanently. This uses more resources and data than an open port. Most don't do this because the NAT used blocks everything. And if that's the case, your complaint about open ports being a security risk seems unfounded.
Why do you pretend P2P doesn't exist? I guess every P2P app should be blocked because you can't think of a good reason for P2P to exist.
How would you have IoT? Every device calling to a paid central server that can lock you out of your house/garage if you give them a bad review? Or a secure P2P communication so your devices can talk to each other without using ransomware, I mean central server?
None. Though that doesn't address the issue that there has to be a vulnerability to exploit. If there's no vulnerability, more open ports don't decrease security.
And you've illogically assumed that N+1 is always worse than N. By that reasoning, as we know windows are less secure than walls, no building should have more than one window. Everyone can share it. Any more than that must be, by nyet's definition, insecure.
There is an expectation that the parent will return.
No. That they are required to take them back doesn't lead to the conclusion that they expect the return. Most maternity-fill I see is by temp-to-hire. They expect to fill the position permanently, but have to be able to clear it out, if the employee returns.
Your premise is that employers are dumb. They know the employees don't return. They plan on the employees returning. That's dumb.
It's a form of "terminal leave". You have leave due you. You take it, then don't come back. That's how organizations like the US military pay out leave owed, rather than the lump-sum most private corporations do. There's nothing "unethical" in taking a leave you've earned. The few places I've seen it offered, you had to have been there a few years to earn that perk. Why hand the employer a handout? Take your leave payout as terminal leave. Then leave.
The only thing "dishonest" is the employers who wouldn't pay it if you told them you weren't coming back. The dishonest employers drive the employees to lie.
Netflix screwed themselves. They built a Tier-1 ISP (that isn't an ISP and isn't Tier-1) and called it a CDN, then tried to peer with everyone for $0 to cut their costs.
Netflix's bad CDN isn't even the question here. There are no "pipes to Netflix" if Netflix bought "real" T1 Internet from multiple providers. Comcast not wanting to peer with a Tier-1 wannabe is again unrelated to Net Neutrality, and I think Netflix made a number of bad decisions trying to cut costs that have hurt them, and their entire industry.
Netflix used a side-channel to try to cut costs, and it worked poorly. But there are real and documented cases of DNS hijacks, and QoS penalties for competing voice services. If you are a telco that sells voice, you should block Skype and throttle SIP down to unusable levels. That will increase your profits as the people in your area have no other choice, and the other options for voice are unusable over your ISP.
If Netflix buys bandwidth from ATT and Level3, what would Comcast do? Fail to peer with them? Then their customers would get even worse service. That's how it ends up working, and generally worked well until Netflix broke the standard first.
The cities should all lay dark fiber to every house (no not crappy GPON, but dark fiber from the CO to every residence and business). Then rent that fiber to the ISP. They can run 1Mb, or 1 Tb across it, for the same price. A price just high enough to cover the costs of install and maintenance.Your phone company doesn't more to call Dominos vs Pizza Hut, so why should we expect that from our ISP? Net Neutrality shouldn't be necessary. But the companies committing the fraud of unequal access also lie about it. The market can only correct itself with informed consumers.
The most enthusiastic recommendation came from her current employer. Found out later that it was all a lie, hoping someone would hire her away, as she was a violent alcoholic. She got fired when she showed up to a sales meeting with a customer 4 hours late, slightly drunk, and very hungover. I'm the one that got her fired. She played the "I'm 5 minutes away" game for hours.
If you don't know what you are paying for, you shouldn't authorize it. In Google sized companies, it was likely approved by at least 2 people, then seen by at least 2 more before being paid. Does the payment system not flag unusual terms for a standard vendor? Does the authorizing manager not know the services ordered in that time period?
It takes systemic incompetence to fall for these well known and old billing frauds.
I remember hearing about this in the '90s, where (non) toner companies in my area were sending out bills for toner to lots of mid-sized companies, and many bills were paid. This form of fraud has been around a long time. Maybe it didn't make international news because $100k isn't the same as $100M.
COBOL is simple. It is also relatively limited. This makes it easier to track, troubleshoot, and maintain. With Banks, accountability is more important than functionality.
Slashdot Mirror
The tax should be a re-vamp of the corporate tax. Why tax "people" if a corporation can automatedly create infinite goods. The "fix" isn't to tax the robots that work for corporations. The fix is to tax the revenue of corporations. 1% revenue tax on corporations will eliminate the need for all other taxes, and be clear, fair and direct. Though, in practice, I think we should keep a range of taxes, to collect from those most able to pay (and prevent tax holes)
With no apps installed, there'll be open ports. So it's up to you to prove that one more open port will greatly diminish the security of the device. And zero open ports still allows an malicious app to send everything to a central server, so the issue of "malicious apps" indicates they wouldn't need (or want) open ports.
If the app has permission to open a port that means it had permission to have a long-running service sitting on that port.
Nope. That's not how it works. An app installed with permission to open a port can't open that port until you run the app. That alone proves you wrong.
That proves you either cannot read, nor think. The original post is complaining about an OPEN PORT you doofus, which means the app HAS BEEN RUN.
The port can't be open unless the app is running. You said " it had permission to have a long-running service sitting on that port." That statement is wrong.
"What I explicitly said isn't what I meant"
Fuck you. I don't have time for liars. You were lying then or you are lying now. An app can't open a port unless it's running.
What you are saying is that that there cannot be an open port without an app behind it which means 100% of the time an open port on Android is a security risk.
You are presuming that all apps are malicious. You say any open port must point to an app (incorrect). I never said you can't have an open port withou an app behind it. I said that if an app opens a port, it can't do so while the app is closed. THe rest is more of your lies.
When you have to lie to make a point, you know, deep down, that you are wrong, but you'll lie about that too.
Innocent question - why would a malicious app care about using more resources and data?
They wouldn't. So a malicious app wouldn't have any inbound ports open. Only innocent apps would bother with open inbound ports. So you've proven yourself wrong again. But you are too emotionally invested in winning every argument on the Internet, that you'll lie about that too. The malicious apps may worry about open ports, so they don't get detected, so they'll not be detected in these scans. So the scan will only find "safe" ports. But you don't understand this, or understand and lie about understanding it. Either way, you are ineducable.
So there's a quota of 100% white men?
So, if you paid taxes for years, building taxable assets, then transfer them away, then renounce, you can't voluntarily avoid taxes, because you already voluntarily paid tax on them. I don't think you even read what you wrote.
And the exit tax is only used for billionaires. I'm an expat, and I've met a number of ex-citizens. None have ever paid an exit tax.
If Joe Average wants to never pay $1 in US tax, he can move and renounce before his first job, and he'll never pay a penny, and have no assets to tax on an exit tax. That so few do it is proof that the "tax is theft" crowd are whiners who want to complain, not fix it.
Once you land somewhere else, you renounce citizenship. Easy.
If the app has permission to open a port that means it had permission to have a long-running service sitting on that port.
Nope. That's not how it works. An app installed with permission to open a port can't open that port until you run the app. That alone proves you wrong. Also, the app will shut the port when the app is closed.
With mobile data, the "cheapest" bandwidth solution for a chat app is to open a server connection when the app is opened, then, if the phone is reverse-reachable, close all connections. When a message comes in, the server sends it to the phone. The other way is to leave a connection open permanently. This uses more resources and data than an open port. Most don't do this because the NAT used blocks everything. And if that's the case, your complaint about open ports being a security risk seems unfounded.
Why do you pretend P2P doesn't exist? I guess every P2P app should be blocked because you can't think of a good reason for P2P to exist.
How would you have IoT? Every device calling to a paid central server that can lock you out of your house/garage if you give them a bad review? Or a secure P2P communication so your devices can talk to each other without using ransomware, I mean central server?
You don't need an open port listening to scrape all your data and send it away. So why do the open ports matter more than the general security?
None. Though that doesn't address the issue that there has to be a vulnerability to exploit. If there's no vulnerability, more open ports don't decrease security.
And you've illogically assumed that N+1 is always worse than N. By that reasoning, as we know windows are less secure than walls, no building should have more than one window. Everyone can share it. Any more than that must be, by nyet's definition, insecure.
Your wording indicates that you have a secure Android phone, and you don't use it. I think you are trolling.
There is an expectation that the parent will return.
No. That they are required to take them back doesn't lead to the conclusion that they expect the return. Most maternity-fill I see is by temp-to-hire. They expect to fill the position permanently, but have to be able to clear it out, if the employee returns.
Your premise is that employers are dumb. They know the employees don't return. They plan on the employees returning. That's dumb.
All taxes in the US are voluntary. If you don't like them, leave. Problem solved.
It's a form of "terminal leave". You have leave due you. You take it, then don't come back. That's how organizations like the US military pay out leave owed, rather than the lump-sum most private corporations do. There's nothing "unethical" in taking a leave you've earned. The few places I've seen it offered, you had to have been there a few years to earn that perk. Why hand the employer a handout? Take your leave payout as terminal leave. Then leave.
The only thing "dishonest" is the employers who wouldn't pay it if you told them you weren't coming back. The dishonest employers drive the employees to lie.
There is no diversity quota, and anyone who claims that is a racist liar.
Or it was all accurate, and you don't want to acknowledge any racism.
Netflix screwed themselves. They built a Tier-1 ISP (that isn't an ISP and isn't Tier-1) and called it a CDN, then tried to peer with everyone for $0 to cut their costs.
Netflix's bad CDN isn't even the question here. There are no "pipes to Netflix" if Netflix bought "real" T1 Internet from multiple providers. Comcast not wanting to peer with a Tier-1 wannabe is again unrelated to Net Neutrality, and I think Netflix made a number of bad decisions trying to cut costs that have hurt them, and their entire industry.
Netflix used a side-channel to try to cut costs, and it worked poorly. But there are real and documented cases of DNS hijacks, and QoS penalties for competing voice services. If you are a telco that sells voice, you should block Skype and throttle SIP down to unusable levels. That will increase your profits as the people in your area have no other choice, and the other options for voice are unusable over your ISP.
If Netflix buys bandwidth from ATT and Level3, what would Comcast do? Fail to peer with them? Then their customers would get even worse service. That's how it ends up working, and generally worked well until Netflix broke the standard first.
The cities should all lay dark fiber to every house (no not crappy GPON, but dark fiber from the CO to every residence and business). Then rent that fiber to the ISP. They can run 1Mb, or 1 Tb across it, for the same price. A price just high enough to cover the costs of install and maintenance.Your phone company doesn't more to call Dominos vs Pizza Hut, so why should we expect that from our ISP? Net Neutrality shouldn't be necessary. But the companies committing the fraud of unequal access also lie about it. The market can only correct itself with informed consumers.
It's big business vs big business. Netflix, Amazon, and Walt Disney are for it, while ATT, Comcast, and Time Warner are against it.
When the "same side" are on opposite sides, then politics/party often does come in.
Charging for transit is unrelated to net neutrality. You don't understand the issue.
And legal extradition would be out, but illegal extradition would be in, as the tiny nation wouldn't care to stop or object.
The most enthusiastic recommendation came from her current employer. Found out later that it was all a lie, hoping someone would hire her away, as she was a violent alcoholic. She got fired when she showed up to a sales meeting with a customer 4 hours late, slightly drunk, and very hungover. I'm the one that got her fired. She played the "I'm 5 minutes away" game for hours.
If you don't know what you are paying for, you shouldn't authorize it. In Google sized companies, it was likely approved by at least 2 people, then seen by at least 2 more before being paid. Does the payment system not flag unusual terms for a standard vendor? Does the authorizing manager not know the services ordered in that time period?
It takes systemic incompetence to fall for these well known and old billing frauds.
I remember hearing about this in the '90s, where (non) toner companies in my area were sending out bills for toner to lots of mid-sized companies, and many bills were paid. This form of fraud has been around a long time. Maybe it didn't make international news because $100k isn't the same as $100M.
COBOL is simple. It is also relatively limited. This makes it easier to track, troubleshoot, and maintain. With Banks, accountability is more important than functionality.