There is no need to clog our jails with non-violent crimes such as this one.
This is a "non violent" crime like Don Marco giving Vito $20k and telling him to kill Bob the Grocer for not paying the protection money on time is a "non violent" crime. Don Marco didn't do anything to anyone. He just set something in motion with a high probability of harm to someone else. Perfectly OK, right?
A false tip isn't a false report. A "report" in a false report, is the written sworn kind. Lying to a cop is legal (not the FBI, that'll get you Martha Stewart time). But swearing to something under oath that's a lie is perjury.
If your SQL server is fed the paswords in plain text, you have larger security problems than injection attacks. That was my point. I don't care if there's some "worry" about SQL injection. Your passwords shouldn't make it to that system in plain text. http://xkcd.com/463/ is the first thing that pops into mind. Sure, it's safer to scrub all inputs for SQL injection, but if you are scrubbing content the SQL can never see for it, you are doing something wrong.
There was another one I'd heard about. I don't remember where. The police stormed a house, wearing body armor. The standard pose is elbow-up, holding a gun. The first person in the door, dropped by a shot in the right arm-pit, bypassing all armor. The second one down too, by then those behind were looking for where the shot was coming from. I think they got him shooting through the wall, but I don't remember the details. It was touted by a armor salesman looking to sell armor with shoulder protecting, that, along with a modified stance, should have saved the lives of the first two that day.
When your infrastructure doesn't take cookies, but re-auths on cached authentication credentials, then you have to have password rules that fit all systems (6-8 chars, first caps, last two numbers, and no dictionary words within the password). So doing 2-factor or improving authentication requires a complete re-design of the entire IT infrastructure. You are assuming a competence that doesn't exist.
Also, the cookie-based ones don't work. More than once, you could log in, get your session cookie, add one, and get admin to the next user's session. Two factor auth doesn't work, if it's two factors to get a single key, and that key has as many or more rights that the two factors combined.
Sure it shouldn't work that way, but when reality proves an AC wrong, I'll trust reality.
You can encrypt a password before storage (which effectively cleanses the characters from being executable), or do input cleansing on the password before storage. Either method will prevent any characters *inside* a password from ever being executable. That someone claims that's a problem indicates (at least to me) that they store the passwords in plain text somewhere. If you can't name your password after little Bobby Tables, then your bank is probably not secure for other reasons.
You can't add a new account fast. Moving money is the usual ACH delay (which depends on transfer size).
If you don't use ACH, you can't move money. Some brokerage accounts won't accept ACH (because of some of the charge-back features), and some of the foreign-accounts (hosted in the US) won't accept ACH either. So do anything "interesting" and ACH isn't available. And wire transfer isn't available at most banks without going there in person every time. I've set up wire-by-phone at my bank, but it hasn't worked once. I have the PIN printed out (the sent in the mail, the most secure way to send a 6-digit number, they won't even give it to you on the phone, you must do it via mail), and it says "invalid PIN", even when I follow the directions perfectly.
My primary bank is online-only anyhow.
Even the online-only I've seen so far won't let me do wire transfers as I require. So having a family member walk into a bank is the only thing I can do.
"International services" at the major banks is for US residents sending money home. It's effectively illegal to be a non-resident citizen. I called the "international services" division of my bank, and they shut down my account when I described my situation, saying that's a violation of the money laundering rules, and they are banned by law from letting me send my money from my account in my name to another account in my same name, in a country with no significant drug trade or money laundering issues. But putting a local relative's name on the account let me re-activate the account.
What's your fee for an international wire transfer, and what do you have to do to make on?
If your banks ATM gets hacked, that's on the bank. If your account gets hacked via online access, or plain-old in-person fraud, most banks these days will take the hit, or most of it.
If your account is hacked by someone who broke PIN security, they will assume that it's because you gave your PIN to bad guys, and put 100% of the loss on you, unless you can prove otherwise (which is impossible, as you don't have access to the evidence the bank uses).
I order to transfer money out of my primary bank to another account, the account must be in my name (easy enough for an attacker), and my email gets spammed for 3 days with warnings before any money movement is allowed.
Yeah, so you can't move money fast, and your kind of rules prevent me from sending money to myself. I have to add a relative to my account and have them walk into the bank to send a transfer. I can't send money outside the bank without going there in person.
Same with me and John Hancock. I think the big, old ones are more likely to still be using systems that max at 8.
Still beats the work password I had once. The stated password requirements were invalid. After others trying (and erring), the unofficial password requirements (that worked) were 6 letters (first caps, the rest lower) followed by two numbers, changes every 30 days and no repeat in the year, so recommend 00-15 (or so) for the last two digits. With that in mind, the entropy was tiny. But with having to change it every 30 days, it has to be secure, right?
My Galaxy S3 will not last an hour playing angry birds (it's a great entertainer for the kids, when we find we are stuck somewhere we have to wait a while). For pure standby, it eats about 10% per hour. Much better when in airplane mode with all apps forcebly closed, but then it's not a phone, but a tiny tablet with no connnection.
For one, you are ignoring the part where he negotiated with terrorists holding US citizens hostages to *lengthen* the term of imprisonment, to make sure they weren't released before the November vote. Additionally, the trade of arms to Iran was actively aiding an enemy of the US, which is the definition of Treason (one of the few crimes defined explicitly in the Constitution).
I hung out at TEEX all the time, when I went to A&M. But that was back in the '90s. I've moved out of the US now, and haven't been to Texas in many years. And when I hung out there, it was mainly for the TTI or other transportation-related things over at Riverside. The cool fire-fighting stuff was at Easterwood, where they'd make huge plumes of smoke every few months.
The parents should see a doctor. Start with a GP to confirm, if negative, see a specialist. But to "treat" a child for an allergy based on a guess isn't very logical or productive.
Yes, when you eat a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, why do you assume the peanut butter is the problem, and not the strawberries? Are you willing to bet your life on that guess. The adults who self-diagnosed with allergies all got tests done. The parents don't. I haven't figured out why.
What we use is a mix of soap and anti-freeze. The soap helps the water penetrate surfaces, and the anti-freeze helps raise the boiling point of water, to increase the amount of heat it can extract from the fire. The foam used by airport fire teams is different, and I don't know what's in it. In general, if you are on a hydrant, and don't have flammable liquids, you'll never use the foam anyway.
No dopey, we are subjecting firefighters to increased risk of BURNING TO DEATH.
Rougly zero firemen burn to death. Burning to death is a very uncommon way of dying for anyone. Almost every person dead in a house fire was dead before the fire reached them. A fireman is much more likely to be killed by a falling structure than the fire.
It might help you to know that firefighters rarely risk their lives to save property and will quite strategically allow structures to burn to the ground.
Unless there exists some extenuating circumstance, firemen around here will *never* risk their lives to save property. If a single house is on fire, and it's known there is nobody inside, the firemen will not enter until the fire is under control. That's not "risk free", but it is a very low risk at that point.
Now, if the property were the Louvre, I'd expect the firemen to risk life for property. Also, the environment is above "property" on the "defend" list.
Of course, being heroic, they often risk their own life to save others.
Those ones get fired (unless the media gets a hold of it). "Hero" is a person who takes undue risk and is lucky. You don't hear so much about the heroes that run into fires and die, along with the two firemen that went in after them. But that happens more than the hero comes back out with the near-dead victim.
that manage to get past their filters and whatnot.
Around here at least, the firemen use no filters of any kind at any time. They are either far enough away to not need anything, or breathing tank air. I guess a fireman could carry some personal dust masks they throw on when they feel like it, but I'd imagine that would get them teased.
How did the selfie result in an accident? What can be done to prevent that *kind of* judgement lapse from causing an accident in the future? Blaming the pilot will not answer these questions.
The issue is that we aren't reading the NTSB report, but a 3rd (or worse) hand report of a report. I've seen someone else say that the passengers taking selfies, not the pilot, could have given night blindness sufficient to cause spacial disorientation. The pilot could have done nothing wrong, other than to not disallow the passenger's flash.
Most motorcyclists crash 6-months to 2 years from their first ride (for ones that ride regularly). Their confidence goes up faster than their skill. That applies to almost any task. That's why Dunning-Krueger exists. He knew better and did it anyway. It's called "human factors".
The number of controlled flight into terrain (not just hitting a mountain, but flying below the horizon until you crash) is quite high. Stability of the aircraft doesn't help when you are telling to to do the wrong things.
It's not the threat to put a ring on you that's the threat. It's the threat to make you "disappear" (in the mob sense) that's a threat of murder. Not a very credible one, but a murder threat none the less.
It's not a threat if it's an action without warning. A threat is making a negative promise "I'm going to hit you". Actually hitting someone is assault, assault and battery, or battery, or such (depending on the jurisdiction), but hitting someone isn't a threat. Neither is suspending someone.
He wasn't suspended for imaginary witchcraft. He was suspended for a real threat made (not a credible one, but a real one).
What's the per-pupil cost of in-room instruction? The amount of administration has increased greatly, as has non-education costs of "school", as busing for local schools wasn't as big before as now, especially since many districts are trying to move as many students around as possible for regulatory reasons.
I've seen that when you compare in-room costs, public school is still a bargain, it's that there are so many other costs now that didn't exist before.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no need to clog our jails with non-violent crimes such as this one.
This is a "non violent" crime like Don Marco giving Vito $20k and telling him to kill Bob the Grocer for not paying the protection money on time is a "non violent" crime. Don Marco didn't do anything to anyone. He just set something in motion with a high probability of harm to someone else. Perfectly OK, right?
A false tip isn't a false report. A "report" in a false report, is the written sworn kind. Lying to a cop is legal (not the FBI, that'll get you Martha Stewart time). But swearing to something under oath that's a lie is perjury.
If your SQL server is fed the paswords in plain text, you have larger security problems than injection attacks. That was my point. I don't care if there's some "worry" about SQL injection. Your passwords shouldn't make it to that system in plain text. http://xkcd.com/463/ is the first thing that pops into mind. Sure, it's safer to scrub all inputs for SQL injection, but if you are scrubbing content the SQL can never see for it, you are doing something wrong.
There was another one I'd heard about. I don't remember where. The police stormed a house, wearing body armor. The standard pose is elbow-up, holding a gun. The first person in the door, dropped by a shot in the right arm-pit, bypassing all armor. The second one down too, by then those behind were looking for where the shot was coming from. I think they got him shooting through the wall, but I don't remember the details. It was touted by a armor salesman looking to sell armor with shoulder protecting, that, along with a modified stance, should have saved the lives of the first two that day.
My bank tracks all my transactions. And Google doesn't (And can't) track everything I do online.
When your infrastructure doesn't take cookies, but re-auths on cached authentication credentials, then you have to have password rules that fit all systems (6-8 chars, first caps, last two numbers, and no dictionary words within the password). So doing 2-factor or improving authentication requires a complete re-design of the entire IT infrastructure. You are assuming a competence that doesn't exist.
Also, the cookie-based ones don't work. More than once, you could log in, get your session cookie, add one, and get admin to the next user's session. Two factor auth doesn't work, if it's two factors to get a single key, and that key has as many or more rights that the two factors combined.
Sure it shouldn't work that way, but when reality proves an AC wrong, I'll trust reality.
You can encrypt a password before storage (which effectively cleanses the characters from being executable), or do input cleansing on the password before storage. Either method will prevent any characters *inside* a password from ever being executable. That someone claims that's a problem indicates (at least to me) that they store the passwords in plain text somewhere. If you can't name your password after little Bobby Tables, then your bank is probably not secure for other reasons.
You can't add a new account fast. Moving money is the usual ACH delay (which depends on transfer size).
If you don't use ACH, you can't move money. Some brokerage accounts won't accept ACH (because of some of the charge-back features), and some of the foreign-accounts (hosted in the US) won't accept ACH either. So do anything "interesting" and ACH isn't available. And wire transfer isn't available at most banks without going there in person every time. I've set up wire-by-phone at my bank, but it hasn't worked once. I have the PIN printed out (the sent in the mail, the most secure way to send a 6-digit number, they won't even give it to you on the phone, you must do it via mail), and it says "invalid PIN", even when I follow the directions perfectly.
My primary bank is online-only anyhow.
Even the online-only I've seen so far won't let me do wire transfers as I require. So having a family member walk into a bank is the only thing I can do.
"International services" at the major banks is for US residents sending money home. It's effectively illegal to be a non-resident citizen. I called the "international services" division of my bank, and they shut down my account when I described my situation, saying that's a violation of the money laundering rules, and they are banned by law from letting me send my money from my account in my name to another account in my same name, in a country with no significant drug trade or money laundering issues. But putting a local relative's name on the account let me re-activate the account.
What's your fee for an international wire transfer, and what do you have to do to make on?
If your banks ATM gets hacked, that's on the bank. If your account gets hacked via online access, or plain-old in-person fraud, most banks these days will take the hit, or most of it.
If your account is hacked by someone who broke PIN security, they will assume that it's because you gave your PIN to bad guys, and put 100% of the loss on you, unless you can prove otherwise (which is impossible, as you don't have access to the evidence the bank uses).
I order to transfer money out of my primary bank to another account, the account must be in my name (easy enough for an attacker), and my email gets spammed for 3 days with warnings before any money movement is allowed.
Yeah, so you can't move money fast, and your kind of rules prevent me from sending money to myself. I have to add a relative to my account and have them walk into the bank to send a transfer. I can't send money outside the bank without going there in person.
Same with me and John Hancock. I think the big, old ones are more likely to still be using systems that max at 8.
Still beats the work password I had once. The stated password requirements were invalid. After others trying (and erring), the unofficial password requirements (that worked) were 6 letters (first caps, the rest lower) followed by two numbers, changes every 30 days and no repeat in the year, so recommend 00-15 (or so) for the last two digits. With that in mind, the entropy was tiny. But with having to change it every 30 days, it has to be secure, right?
My Galaxy S3 will not last an hour playing angry birds (it's a great entertainer for the kids, when we find we are stuck somewhere we have to wait a while). For pure standby, it eats about 10% per hour. Much better when in airplane mode with all apps forcebly closed, but then it's not a phone, but a tiny tablet with no connnection.
Especially since so many fam-film remakes are almost the same quality of the original (unless they are deliberately not so, campy-style).
For one, you are ignoring the part where he negotiated with terrorists holding US citizens hostages to *lengthen* the term of imprisonment, to make sure they weren't released before the November vote. Additionally, the trade of arms to Iran was actively aiding an enemy of the US, which is the definition of Treason (one of the few crimes defined explicitly in the Constitution).
I hung out at TEEX all the time, when I went to A&M. But that was back in the '90s. I've moved out of the US now, and haven't been to Texas in many years. And when I hung out there, it was mainly for the TTI or other transportation-related things over at Riverside. The cool fire-fighting stuff was at Easterwood, where they'd make huge plumes of smoke every few months.
The parents should see a doctor. Start with a GP to confirm, if negative, see a specialist. But to "treat" a child for an allergy based on a guess isn't very logical or productive.
Yes, when you eat a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, why do you assume the peanut butter is the problem, and not the strawberries? Are you willing to bet your life on that guess. The adults who self-diagnosed with allergies all got tests done. The parents don't. I haven't figured out why.
What we use is a mix of soap and anti-freeze. The soap helps the water penetrate surfaces, and the anti-freeze helps raise the boiling point of water, to increase the amount of heat it can extract from the fire. The foam used by airport fire teams is different, and I don't know what's in it. In general, if you are on a hydrant, and don't have flammable liquids, you'll never use the foam anyway.
No dopey, we are subjecting firefighters to increased risk of BURNING TO DEATH.
Rougly zero firemen burn to death. Burning to death is a very uncommon way of dying for anyone. Almost every person dead in a house fire was dead before the fire reached them. A fireman is much more likely to be killed by a falling structure than the fire.
It might help you to know that firefighters rarely risk their lives to save property and will quite strategically allow structures to burn to the ground.
Unless there exists some extenuating circumstance, firemen around here will *never* risk their lives to save property. If a single house is on fire, and it's known there is nobody inside, the firemen will not enter until the fire is under control. That's not "risk free", but it is a very low risk at that point.
Now, if the property were the Louvre, I'd expect the firemen to risk life for property. Also, the environment is above "property" on the "defend" list.
Of course, being heroic, they often risk their own life to save others.
Those ones get fired (unless the media gets a hold of it). "Hero" is a person who takes undue risk and is lucky. You don't hear so much about the heroes that run into fires and die, along with the two firemen that went in after them. But that happens more than the hero comes back out with the near-dead victim.
that manage to get past their filters and whatnot.
Around here at least, the firemen use no filters of any kind at any time. They are either far enough away to not need anything, or breathing tank air. I guess a fireman could carry some personal dust masks they throw on when they feel like it, but I'd imagine that would get them teased.
How did the selfie result in an accident? What can be done to prevent that *kind of* judgement lapse from causing an accident in the future? Blaming the pilot will not answer these questions.
The issue is that we aren't reading the NTSB report, but a 3rd (or worse) hand report of a report. I've seen someone else say that the passengers taking selfies, not the pilot, could have given night blindness sufficient to cause spacial disorientation. The pilot could have done nothing wrong, other than to not disallow the passenger's flash.
Most motorcyclists crash 6-months to 2 years from their first ride (for ones that ride regularly). Their confidence goes up faster than their skill. That applies to almost any task. That's why Dunning-Krueger exists. He knew better and did it anyway. It's called "human factors".
The number of controlled flight into terrain (not just hitting a mountain, but flying below the horizon until you crash) is quite high. Stability of the aircraft doesn't help when you are telling to to do the wrong things.
It's not the threat to put a ring on you that's the threat. It's the threat to make you "disappear" (in the mob sense) that's a threat of murder. Not a very credible one, but a murder threat none the less.
It's not a threat if it's an action without warning. A threat is making a negative promise "I'm going to hit you". Actually hitting someone is assault, assault and battery, or battery, or such (depending on the jurisdiction), but hitting someone isn't a threat. Neither is suspending someone.
He wasn't suspended for imaginary witchcraft. He was suspended for a real threat made (not a credible one, but a real one).
What's the per-pupil cost of in-room instruction? The amount of administration has increased greatly, as has non-education costs of "school", as busing for local schools wasn't as big before as now, especially since many districts are trying to move as many students around as possible for regulatory reasons.
I've seen that when you compare in-room costs, public school is still a bargain, it's that there are so many other costs now that didn't exist before.